Daniel Carr and the Moonshine Mint

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Pertinent excerpts:

Initial Decision

Findings of Fact:

p. 204: 46. Since the dates imprinted on them are different than the dates on the original coins, the two Gold Bullion 10 Mark gold coins are not copies·of 10 Mark gold coins actually issued by the German government and used in exchange. Furthermore, there is no· reliable evidence in the record that suggests that consumers would confuse the Gold Bullion 10 Mark coins with the originals.

p. 206: 67. The other coins manufactured by B.H. Mayer's Kunstprägeanstalt do not come within the provisions of the Hobby Protection Act either because there was no original coin issued by a government (the Gold Bullion 10 Mark Wilhelm II 1887, 10 Mark Wilhelm II 1888 and 20 Mark Wilhelm II 1887) or because there is no evidence that the original coins were used in exchange (Austrian 1 and 4 Ducat and 100 Corona).

Conclusions of Law:

p. 213: 6. None of the other coins imported by respondents come within the provisions of the Hobby Protection Act.
​

Opinion of the Commission

p. 220: The ALJ [(Administrative Law Judge)] found that no violation had occurred with respect to Gold Bullion's 20 Mark Wilhelm II (1887), 10 Mark Wilhelm I (1887) and 10 Mark Wilhelm II (1888) coins; because coins of those precise descriptions were never circulated by the German government. Therefore, Gold Bullion's coins were presumably not "copies" of an "original numismatic item." (I.D. 46, 51; p. 18n) In reaching this conclusion we believe the ALJ misapplied the language of the Hobby Protection Act, and we reverse his conclusions on this point, and hold that violations have occurred as the result of importation of the coins in question.

p. 223: For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that a coin is an "imitation numismatic item" within the meaning of the Hobby Protection Act if it is not sufficiently different from an original numismatic item as to alert an unsuspecting purchaser to the difference. Applying that principle here, we find that minor variations in dates between an original and its alleged "copy" are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a "reproduction, copy or counterfeit" of an "original numismatic item" and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word "Copy." Accordingly, respondents violated the law by their failure to mark "Copy" upon their 10 Mark Wilhelm I (1887), 10 Mark Wilhelm II (1888), and 20 Mark Wilhelm II (1887).
​

The ALJ had no problems with unmarked coins of dates not used to make the original coins. The FTC did.

​

 

OJ maybe but Corgi's never