Phff, like I have any morgans... lol, I'm having trouble on whether or not I want to go. The courses looked a little sparse, but if I do go I might sign up for the British Numismatics class.
These threads are becoming childlike. It almost sounds like this: "Any suit you can file, I can file better...I can file any suit better than you...No you can't..."
You're just noticing that now. And your quote is amongst the least of the childlike responses Have you found a case, any case, to back up your previous statement yet??
It would be for the Wheat Cent series. Of course, it would be more obvious than your other fantasy coins which you claim are signed with a date that is significant enough to alert others as to the nature of your pieces.
No. If adjudicated to violate the counterfeiting statute, intent to defraud is irrelevant to the production of the pieces. The pieces simply must not be made.
Probably none. For me, I am sure I have set a Coin Talk record, and it is because of the last month of DCarr threads. I'm not losing any sleep over it.
That's fine; hardly anybody here reads each and every post. We do have a "staff" list by the way: https://www.cointalk.com/members/?type=staff Christian
I'm not doing anymore research on the subject matter. I have done enough and have provided plenty of citations in other threads and will not repeat what I have said at least a dozen times now. Overstriking is not enough to remove the coins from the counterfeiting statute on its own, that is clear. You seem to agree with that and instead rely on intent and novelty purpose which are separate issues. Accordingly, your argument is not that the overstrike process itself is the redeeming quality, only that Carr's intent and the novelty purpose is redeeming.
Good lord. This morning this thread had 4 pages. Am I the only one that didnt have the day off today?
It's distinguishable. Guns are legal to make and sell. Counterfeits or unmarked imitation numismatic items are not.
