Question about Daniel Carr offerings

It without a doubt will if people are just allowed to run wild using it to get rid of anything they don't like or have a vendetta against.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Back again to the problem of protecting the ignorant from themselves.

Ignorant people might think a round silver disc with a date, denomination, the words "USA," and the image of a guy "mooning" them is a GENUINE DOLLAR. Same with Mr. Carr's dollar. It looks NOTHING like a genuine Morgan dollar except perhaps to a new collector; an attorney looking for a frivolous law suit; or someone from a foreign country with no "eye-for-detail" and a limited understanding of what a genuine Morgan dollar looks like! I should like to think that none of the posters in this thread fit those categories. Therefore, IMO he does not use counterfeit dies.

 

Then how would you reconcile the text in the Hobby Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 2105) that states the HPA is not meant to supersede or otherwise repeal existing law? That statute provides that "[t]he provisions of this chapter are in addition to, and not in substitution for or limitation of, the provisions of any other law of the United States or of the law of any State."

It seems that your argument is that the HPA repeals by implication (which is disfavored and only happens to the extent absolutely necessary to give force to both statutes) 18 U.S.C. 487. Remember that 15 U.S.C. 2101(b) states only that imitation coins must be marked with the word "COPY." It is the administrative regulations enacted by the FTC that provide that "COPY" must appear on one side as opposed to both. The FTC is not empowered to repeal the title 18 statutes, and insofar as its regulations are inconsistent, the regulations are void. Insofar as a defense based on the HPA regulations, can I buy that a court would grant leniency to someone? Absolutely, but that would be limited to those that would mark at least one side with the word "COPY."

 

Lol mooning! doesn't the HPA protect us against mooning?

 

The Second Circuit did interpret the HPA to apply to a coin that looked nothing like a U.S. coin issue other than the inscriptions for a denomination and the text "In God We Trust" (or was it "Liberty"?). I admit the court took that one a bit far, but it is part of the reason that I find very narrow interpretations of the HPA unconvincing.

Edited: It was "In God We Trust." Here is the coin that the Second Circuit found to violate the HPA:

 

So, I have to ask the question, regardless of the arguments which are ongoing.

The Hobby Protection Act was passed for what reason?

1. Was it to protect the hobby from the onslaught of Chinese counterfeit coins, mainly of key dates and rarities which people can lose significant amounts of money on?

2. Was it to protect people from themselves and their bad choices?

3. Was it to protect from artists producing fantasy overstrikes?

4. Was it to Make lawyers richer? To waste both time and money with lawsuits which do nothing to protect the hobby?

 

That's not what I intended to argue. Instead, I'm arguing that those who wrote and passed the HPA wouldn't have bothered trying to define what makes a reproduction "legal" if there were no legal way to make such a reproduction (if making dies were illegal). So, I think there's a very real possibility that those who wrote and passed the Act interpret 18 U.S.C 487 differently from you.

Who's right? I'm in no position to say. I'm following the debate with amateur interest.

 

Wow. They ruled that a medal with no denomination and no resemblance to any official issue was in violation? That seems like a spectacularly bad ruling.

Edit: after reading a bit, I see that these did display "One Dollar" as a denomination on the other face. It also appears that they were marketed as "legal tender". Whether or not that fact played into the legal decision, it seems significant here.

 

The purpose was to serve as a consumer protection law to protect the uninformed lay person with limited knowledge of numismatics from being fooled by an imitation numismatic item as that term has been defined by statute and federal administrative regulation.

 

I don't disagree, but yes. There are a few that make satires of my reading, but it is quite conservative compared to what exists. To the best of my knowledge, there are only three cases that address the HPA: In Re Gold Bullion International, Delmarco (this coin), and the Westminster case.

This is also why I emphasized that my arguments are not based on my personal preferences. I do think Carr crosses the line, but if I were an appellate judge, I would vote to overrule Delmarco.

 

Quite possibly. The FTC has addressed the date variation concept. Under Delmarco, unless overruled or otherwise disregarded, yes it would be an imitation numismatic item and must be marked "COPY." If the WTC coin was an imitation numismatic item under the HPA, I don't see how that item would not be.

 

So it would be number two then, to protect people from themselves? So it is actually nothing to do with protecting the hobby.

 

Do we not already have consumer protection laws? Why do we need another one? If for example you market 9/11 coins or medals. I have a genuine 9/11 American Silver Eagle dated 2001 which came from the Comex vaults at ground zero. I saw some silver plated coins which were coated with ground zero silver. Their marketing was deceptive and I believe they were sued, so surely existing laws protect against marketing and selling something deceptive, counterfeit or fake?

 

Setting aside the incendiary "protect people from themselves", I'm at a bit of a loss what it means to "protect the hobby" without protecting the people who practice it.

 

Wow, lighten up, this is not a courtroom. Although, C.T. Could stand for courtroom talk. But this is coin talk.

 

Assuming you are correct, many of the silver rounds out there are in violation of the HPA. If this is your argument then why are we not seeing huge lawsuits everywhere? They sell millions or even tens of millions of these bullion rounds.

 

I'm not familiar with the exact suit you reference. The purpose of the HPA was supposedly to facilitate enforcement against individuals that produce imitation numismatic items that could deceive the lay public or novice collectors. The topic up until now was what the HPA and Title 18 statutes mean, not whether the HPA is sound policy wise. Do I believe the HPA is perfect? No. I think everyone here would agree that it is not and that there are issues that need to be addressed.

 

I don't believe any law can protect people from themselves. Suppose I pay $10,000,000 for an extremely rare 1909 silver eagle (Chinese fake) thinking it is an ultra rare coin. Then I lock it away as a family heirloom until my children find it along with my note explaining what it is and how much I paid. When they come to sell it and find out it is not worth anything, will the Hobby Protection Act have protected me from myself? Lol.

 

The FTC has not been very active in enforcing the HPA and appears to respond only to complaints that have been lodged with it. It doesn't go out and look for violations. I doubt most collectors had even heard of the Hobby Protection Act before Dan Carr threads, and I doubt even fewer of them know of the FTC's role in processing complaints. Those that are informed enough to know of the regulations are also the very collectors and individuals least likely to be fooled by an imitation numismatic item and are not the population that the HPA seeks to protect. The design of the statute is flawed.

The same is true of private suits. The costs of filing a private lawsuit are not inconsequential to most. The costs of doing so only justifies actions against the most egregious violators that have obtained large sums of money by taking advantage (either intentionally or not) of the uninformed. Violators with less volume tend to fly under the radar until pursued (if ever).

 

The people's court (not)...