Question about Daniel Carr offerings

So going back to the point here, a 1964 D Morgan was never struck. I consider myself a novice on Morgan dollars, yet the Carr fantasy token is obviously not a genuine 1964 D Morgan to me.
Anyone considering buying one would only have to google it to find out that none were struck.

Also we seem to be going back to the root of the argument, deception and intent to deceive.
Carrs tokens are not meant to deceive, they are 'what if' pieces or fantasy pieces.
He makes information readily available on his website. So the argument seems to be only valid with the hypothetical idea that someone further down the road, could deceive someone that the token is a genuine coin.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

At the time the HPA was enacted, ANACS was the only authentication service and had only been in business for a short period. Important members of the ANA were behind the establishment of ANACS and either came up with the idea of a HPA or lobbied/testified/backed it heavily. I WAS VERY ACTIVE IN THE BUSINESS AT THE TIME and knew all the ANA players who testified and worked at ANACS.

The law was designed to protect the ignorant from themselves BECAUSE AT THE TIME IT WAS PASSED, 99% of the coins the ignorant were in possession of were cast copies of Continental dollars, colonials, and fantasy colonials. ALL THESE PIECES were extremely crude and were not fooling any actual coin collector. Additionally, I'll guarantee from the stories that I heard that very few people (if any) lost money with this junk that they found or were handed down in families.

IMO, the HPA was a really stupid idea. It was a typical government attempt to do something that was not needed, typically had no effect on the problem but just added more laws to the books. This goes on today. I can say this because when the "T," "COPY," and "R" was placed on these pieces NOTHING CHANGED! The ignorant still thought the IDENTICAL crudely cast pieces and replicas were "special." The HPA had no effect on numismatics except to allow some "do-gooders," congressmen, and "ex-pert" (in their own mind) numismatic authenticators to toot their horn! Remember, I was there.

The "useless" HPA had NO EFFECT on the altered or counterfeit coins in the marketplace THAT COULD fool collectors, dealers, and non-collectors.

 

I posted evidence of this in a prior thread and I will surely go back and find it and repost just as soon as you respond to the question I posed to you in post #270 quoted above again.

 

That was the argument that was rejected in the GBI case. The respondents argued that their Wilhelm fantasy coins would be easily recognizable to anyone who bothered to read the Standard Catalog of World Coins. The FTC rejected that argument. It included text (I don't have the exact quote with me right now), but the criminal statutes protect the naïve, but the civil statutes were more or less meant to protect the completely oblivious and non-thinking.

 

If that is your position and you are arguing that the HPA wasn't meant to apply to novelty items, then the HPA would have no effect and would merely be redundant of the counterfeiting statutes. All counterfeits violate the HPA, but not all non-HPA compliant pieces are counterfeits. Courts presume that legislatures did not intend to do a vain and elusive thing and are loathe to interpret statutes in a way that renders them devoid of any real effect.

Put another way, the legislature wrote the counterfeiting statutes very broadly so that it could encompass a wide range of applications involving the unauthorized imitation of money. Congress sought to ameliorate the strictness of these statutes to allow for some fun and the production of novelty items. It did so by enacting the Hobby Protection Act, which specifically authorizes novelty items (counterfeits, reproductions, copies, imitations, etc.) so as long as they are marked according to the HPA.

 

He won't read whatever you wrote and will argue that you are wrong.

 

I agree that the marketing was sketchy. The portion of the opinion I am referencing referred specifically to the design of the coin. The denomination is absolutely a critical aspect of the court's opinion. The inscriptions mentioned, to include the denomination were dispositive. It would seem under the very broad reasoning, that any coin with the mottos of U.S. coins and the denomination are suspect. I apologize for not posting the other side of the coin.

I still think the court's opinion was too broad when it applied to a coin that does not look like a legal tender issue. I cannot conclude that the piece is a reproduction or copy. I also don't think I would go as far as to call it counterfeit but would reserve judgment until I review back over the relevant authorities. I would think the relevant statute there would be 18 U.S.C. 489:

Whoever, within the United States, makes or brings therein from any foreign country, or possesses with intent to sell, give away, or in any other manner uses the same, except under authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer of the United States, any token, disk, or device in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States or of any foreign country issued as money, either under the authority of the United States or under the authority of any foreign government shall be fined under this title.
​

Under the plain meaning of this statute, copying the inscriptions like denomination and mottos would be sufficient. Here is how this section has been interpreted by the Justice Department as follows:

1460. Counterfeiting -- 18 U.S.C. 489
Section 489 of Title 18 prohibits the making of any token, disc, or device in the likeness or similitude of coins in the United States, except under the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury. Title 18 U.S.C. § 475 prohibits the making, distribution, or use of any business card, notice, placard, handbill, or advertisement in the likeness or similitude of an obligation or security of the United States. Neither statute should be confused with currency counterfeiting statutes; the counterfeiting of coins is proscribed by 18 U.S.C. 485, while the counterfeiting of currency is proscribed by 18 U.S.C. § 471. Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 475 and 489 relate to reproductions which are made in the general design of coins or currency but which vary sufficiently in detail that they have no serious potential for use in place of genuine money (emphasis added).

[cited in USAM 9-64.111]
​

The quoted text is from the criminal resource manual for federal prosecutors. There isn't a separate entry for 18 U.S.C. 485.

​

 

What you fail to understand is AT THE TIME (1970's) there were virtually no novelty pieces! I cannot think of a one. Yes, there were replicas which caused no problems in the coin market. So: Yes , "the HPA would have no effect (that's the way it was - NO EFFECT) and would merely be redundant of the counterfeiting statutes."

Times have changed. Now the HPA may be a good thing as there are beautiful PL die cut replicas of 18th Century coins an many trinkets that would possibly fool a collector when worn down if they were not "ruined" by the large "copy" stamping required.

 

There are two crimes in 487, one for making, one for possessing. He fits under the one for making.

 

Do you mind if I say something, while you, um, catch your breath? Read the first paragraph in 487. Then explain to us why you can't understand why he fits in it while I'll bet I can pick anybody off the street who can add two and two together and they can understand why he fits in it.

 

Why label something that clearly didn't exist as being a "fake" when you defend the same damn thing made by others as being perfectly acceptable "fantasy tokens"?

An 1909 ASE is obviously not genuine and were "never struck" just like Carr's Morgan copy, and in fact, the former is much more obvious than the latter, yet you seem to have no problem defending one while condemning the other. Does this really make sense to you?

And do you honestly think every single Chinese piece is the result of some evil rice hat wearing Chinaman (since "Chinese" is always used as an insult) with no goal other than to directly rip the poor innocent collector, or is it more likely that they're simply doing as most manufacturing businesses do and are catering to and/or attempting to fill a demand?

Can someone not simply Google your example of an 1909 ASE to learn they didn't exist? Of course they can, and just like Carr's, can then very easily identify it as not being the real thing, yet this little reality is often, and conveniently, ignored.

If you like Carr's copies, that's great... You've every right to buy, collect, and share them to your heart's content, but it is illogical to argue that one is a "fake" and one a "fantasy" when neither existed simply because you like one over the other. If Carr's copies are okay, then all others displaying unused dates should rightfully be treated the same, and is as simple as that.

 

387?

 

This thread needs a 187

 

Wouldn't the term "novelty" as it relates to numismatics include copies and reproductions? If so and the HPA wasn't speaking to those coins, it would have left the noun as "counterfeit." Since we already have statutes that can be used to send people to federal prison that counterfeit, I find it implausible that Congress intended the HPA to apply only to counterfeit coins.

 

HPA squares with 487, as follows. HPA says, when "COPY" is on the die, the die fails the 487 likeness or similitude element. It's simple as that.

 

Yeah. Just corrected it. You caught it just in time.

 

Because the Chinese fake is struck on a blank, it is not an overstrike.

"Chinese fake" means it is a Chinese fake. I don't know where you read the rest from, but it was not in my post. Chinese to me, means low quality, they have become synonymous.

The difference is in both quality, and that Carrs work is overstruck on a genuine Morgan.

 

Are we going to hit page 187? Is that what you want?

 

187 is calif. penal code for 'murder, killing' and I am sure he is expressing it for the thread and not a member.

 

They're getting like that, I'm off this bus.