Question about Daniel Carr offerings

You mean horse trailer?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Ignoring the legal arguments, why is that so significant to you? The host is destroyed by the overstriking process. The fact that you may be able to see trivial portions of an outline with a loupe or forensic analysis seems immaterial. I don't find the obliterated host coin to be substantially different from a blank planchet made by the Chinese unless we are going to the legal tender status of the original coin, which at least one Carr supporter says is immaterial to his pieces.

 

Not so. It takes two dies to make a coin, and HPA only requires one side to carry the stamp, leaving one die unmarked and (by this interpretation) illegal. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, it's allowable to counterstamp COPY on one side after the item is struck with the dies.

 

You're forgetting the collar die as well. So, technically, 2 dies would be counterfeit

 

The host is not destroyed or obliterated, it is altered. I don't know what level or type of collector you are, but each coin has die markers which give it a 'personality'. Each is individual with its own 'fingerprint', every coin I get goes under my stereoscope. The trivial portions of the outline, would be classified as major if you were using error coin standards. You could use the same thought process for a 1955 doubled die cent (and indeed the mint supposedly did, figuring the error was small enough that nobody would notice) and say that is is a minor error. However it is not treated as a minor doubled die.

Other Carr products and rounds like I linked you too earlier, are struck on silver blanks. The Morgan overstrike has more history, the weight and composition are accurate and it seems fitting to have a Morgan fantasy piece that is over an actual Morgan. It is the closest you can get to going back in time and striking your own 'improved' high grade Morgan.

 

The statute itself states only that it must be marked with the word "COPY" without referencing which side or the number of sides it must appear on. The administrative regulations state that it can be on either side but not the edge. You are not alleging a conflict between the statutes, but a conflict with the FTC's administrative regulations. A few things:

1. The FTC does not have the power to repeal federal statutes (only Congress can do that) and doesn't even have any power to administer any of the Title 18 statutes. In the event of a conflict, the statute controls and the regulation is void. No one will afford weight to a FTC regulation over statutory text.

2. In the event that courts try to harmonize the regulations, the resemblance and similitude requirement is the only way to reconcile it without invaliding the regulation. In the absence of the FTC regulation, we have only a broad requirement that the imitation be marked "COPY" and 18 U.S.C. 487 which would seemingly require it to be on all the dies for coins that compare favorably to circulating issues. Insofar as producers that follow the marking requirement for one side/die in good faith, there is a due process defense.

3. Do you have any citations for the latter? The text of the regulations and HPA statutes are silent as to how "COPY" must be imparted. The other statutes seemingly dictate a specific approach. Remember that repeal by implication is not favored, and the HPA announces its intent not repeal or limit existing laws/remedies.

 

Again, I'm not trying to argue that the HPA overrides or invalidates existing law. I'm arguing that its content might hint that those defining it interpreted existing law differently from the way you (or, in the case of DeMarco, a judge having a bad hair day) are interpreting it.

I assume their interpretation of existing law, whatever it was, holds no legal weight. I'm just saying it may indicate that some making rules in the field interpret existing law differently.

 

If I did, they would only be links to previous CoinTalk discussions.

 

Threads within a thread... I like it.

 

It is an interesting question. I need to lookup whether the FTC regulations were issued concurrently with the enactment of the HPA or whether they were added later. The Federal Register should provide some guidance.

 

That's an easy one. These are crimes, not civil actions. The AUSA won't prosecute under 487 because the die was made with "lawful authority," i.e., HPA, which clears the coins, and, necessarily, the dies that made the coins. Does that make sense?

 

Is everybody on vacation or something?

 

It's the time of year for it. I'll log on when I'm on my computer working, it breaks up the work. When I'm on vacation, I'm hardly ever on here.

 

The law says that the coin must be marked with the word 'copy' correct? Does it have to be stamped into the coin, or any other stipulations?

 

It has to be incuse, capital letters, in sans-serif face. It must also have total height at least 2mm or 1/6 the diameter of the coin; width at least 6mm or 1/2 the diameter of the coin; depth at least 0.3mm or 1/2 the thickness of the coin, whichever is lesser in each case.

 

Well that kills a whole bunch of ideas.

 

15 U.S.C. 2101(b)(1) states only that the coins must be marked "COPY." The same statute delegates power to the FTC to proscribe rules. The FTC promulgated 16 C.F.R. 304.6:

 

It does not matter to me what is in the post. It does not matter to me what is said in this thread. Only one thing matters. It comes down to the ONE thing that is FACT and WE ALL MUST AGREE ON:

Whether Mr. Carr's products are counterfeit or not, whether his products break the law or not, and whether wHich side is correct; OUR GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CARE TO PURSUE PROSECUTION if warranted. I think I'd make a great retired attorney.

 

You ain't kidding

 

The law firm of Emoji, Cheatum & Howe?