Question about Daniel Carr offerings

I don't by it. Looks like "checkmate" to me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

"Counterfeit" Gucci handbags, for example, aren't made from altered genuine Gucci handbags.

If you repaint a Ford Mustang, the result is not a copy of a Ford Mustang.

Consider these scenarios:

A.
Take an 1800 Bust Dollar and use a small tool to push metal around while removing bag marks and enhancing detail. Sort of like engraving the details but without actually removing any metal. Every square millimeter is tooled but no details are changed other than being enhanced. No original surface remains. Is the coin, as a whole, counterfeit ? No. It is an altered coin.

B.
Take an 1800 Bust Dollar and make a mold of it. Harden the mold and press it back into that same coin. Is the coin, as a whole, counterfeit ? No. It is an altered coin. This is really no different than (A).

C.
Take an 1800 Bust Dollar that has full details and make a die from it. Use the die to over-strike a worn but genuine Bust Dollar to produce a coin which appears to be higher grade. None of the original details are changed other than being enhanced. Is the coin, as a whole, counterfeit ? No. It is an altered coin. This is really no different than (A). The only difference is the technique that was employed to reach the same result.

D.
Same as (C), except change the date on the die to "1805". 1805 Bust Dollars were never originally issued. The "1805" date makes for an obvious marker, unlike (A) and (C) which could be dangerous because there might not be any obvious marker.

 

From your post, a counterfeiter made fake dies (as close as possible to 100% duplication so they would not be detected) and used common genuine coins as the planchets.

Totally bogus comparison to what Mr. Carr does. Try again, and get it right or I'll throw you and this nonsense example out of my courtroom!

 

"Generally Accepted Practices" are just that.

Wilson did not engage in GAP.

 

When you start using what talent you may or may not have in your own hands to produce your copies, this will be a fair statement. Until then you're, as usual, placing yourself in a class with which you do not belong.

 

Maybe that is the 5-oz silver you are thinking of ?
The 1/10-oz gold just came out recently, I think.
I also note that the two of these that were listed on eBay recently were both in NGC slabs with Smithsonian logos on the labels.

 

Hey, I'm not rich. I should have said I have every 1.5 oz. silver $100 Union struck from 2005 to 2016, and yes the dates are on the NGC label. They make a gold and 5 ounce version, that I do not own.

 

But I never said this is exactly what Carr does, and those saying this are NOT carefully reading what I have written. You are adding intent and the date variation. This is immaterial to the question of whether a piece overstruck over a genuine coin can be a counterfeit in violation of 18 U.S.C. 485. If the overstrike argument has merit, then Wilson is not guilty of counterfeiting regardless of the date on the new piece and regardless of his intent to defraud. That is the whole point of my discussion of this case - nothing more. It never was suggested that this was intended as a direct comparison to Carr.

Intent and the date variation concept are important discussion points. We will get there.

Anyone else have an answer to post #509?

 

Then stick to the topic and rebuttal rather than making up examples that have no relation to anything. As long as you quote the law and real cases your posts are helpful!

 

From the Wilson appeal:

Note the use of the word "probably", which indicates that they don't really know for certain. A competent defense attorney could probably use that to their advantage. They also talk about re-striking a "blank". I am striking over coins that show the original details, not "blanks".

They also mention "counterfeit dies". This case was prior to the enactment of the Hobby Protection act, which allows molds and dies in the likeness of US coins to be made and used.

18 USC 331 requires fraudulent intent. So the act of simply flattening and/or defacing a coin is not a violation of 18 USC 331 unless there is fraudulent intent.

Which was Wilson and associates originally convicted of violating, 18 USC 331 or 18 USC 485 ? Charging a defendant with a violation is not the same as obtaining a conviction of that violation.

 

We've already been there. Multiple times. So don't bother unless you want to see the same basic reply again.

 

I've already posted this: Wilson does not apply because the coins were flattened before being overstruck, and because the resulting coins bore dates and mint marks of coins actually issued.

From the appellate opinion:

See http://openjurist.org/451/f2d/209/united-states-v-wilson

 

L

Yes, and that is why I told him he is trolling the thread.

 

Isn't your head hurting yet from constantly banging it on the wall and expecting your interpretations and conclusions to make sense

 

And now we are on page 27 of what was the original thread question, "Question about Daniel Carr offerings". I quit, if I want to hear attorney rantings, I'll have a seat at my local court house. I'll be back when we start to talk about coins and currency again. There must be a law forum out there somewhere for those of you who want to show off your legal training and argue the law.

 

Well I'm sure Peter has a LegalLines.com site too. Check it out

 

No one can claim they are proven correct ( on either side ) if no one responds to them. THIS is not the only thread on CT. If one can only complain that posters do not post what they themselves wishes, they should invoke the ignore and let it die into the night. Sooner or later, someone will say the wrong thing if this continues, so either read, post constructively, or IGNORE. No one is big enough to not get a long 'time-out'. Thanks.

 

What brought this on? Is someone even coming close to breaking the rules? I don't see anything approaching rule breaking?

 

I'm not making up examples. I am showing that the argument that the pieces do not violate the HPA or counterfeiting statutes because he overstrikes genuine coinage is incorrect. The real argument being promoted by you and others is that he doesn't have an intent to defraud and that the date variation concept is significant. If intent to defraud is required or the counterfeiting laws require an exact emulation of an official issue, then Wilson is not dispositive. Intent and the date issue will be addressed later. One argument at a time...

 

It's been posted several times where they said once the coin was made into a blank it was no longer a coin. Therefore it wasn't an overstrike