Is Anyone Here interested in a Palladium Mercury Dime?????

If you've read this thread, particularly the last few posts, number 35 in particular, no they won't. Nothing to wonder about.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I simply disagree Krispy. I will leave it at that due to my respect for you and not post further.

Chris

 

No point posting that if you can't follow up on why. I don't take things personally on forums so I can respect your reasons for disagreeing.

 

If a US State mints a gold or silver coin and sticks a $ amount on it, is it counterfeiting? If not, then why not? If the US Constitution is used as the legal justification, then one can't pick and choose the which rights apply or not. Carr's coins are protected by the 4th Amendment.

 

My only comment Krispy would be Mr. Carr says he tells people that these are not legal tender, and tells them they should not be used that way. That is fine for the purchaser, but what about a subsequent buyer? That is why have a medal that for all intents and purposes look like a US coin and have a denomination on it is dangerous. I understand this will be a short run, but a precedent is a precedent.

Let me lay this scenario out for you then. Say a chinese minter strikes base metal medals that looks just like a US coin like this, (Liberty, United States of America, E Pluribus Unum, etc.), and lists its denomination as one dollar. The minter tells the buyers they are not legal tender, and sell them for $.15 a piece. Do you have a problem with that?

Already they chinese minters are using the excuse of "well we sold it to the buyer as not authentic" when selling their counterfeits. I understand this is not a reproduction of an existing coin, but by making it look so much like a US coin, with all the correct phrases, and THEN listing a dollar denomination on the coin, I believe is too close. Listen, if it had "moonlight mint" instead of United States of America, or no denomination, I have no problem whatsoever. I just think telling the original buyer is not enough, because these someday will be inherited or sold, and THAT owner will not have been told anything.

Just my opinion.

Chris

 

Chris, Subsequent buyers cannot claim ignorance of the law. Carr has simply reminded the initial buyer of what they are buying and this disclaims any malicious attempt from falling back on him. He has covered his backside (CYA) just as much as any advertisement disclaims certain statements they make from liabilities that may arise later.

I'm not answering here about the posed scenario of the Chinese example you gave because it's off topic per the piece created by Mr. Carr that we have been discussing the legality of. To discuss another example to compare or justify how the law should or could apply to this one only confuses the issues and intents, as well the recourse each case might take under review by US authorities in the matter.

Mr. Carr was also employed/contracted by the US Mint for his past work on circulating coinage designs. It's not likely he's going to be breaking laws in regard to his fantasy tokens which might damage that relationship with the US Mint and justice system.

 

But it does matter sir, that is my major objection in the first place. Am I worried many $1000 coins will try to be used? Not particularly. However, if THESE are not acted upon, from a US manufacturer, then morally what right would we have to objecting to millions of $1 medals being brought in from another country? Their defense would be, "well, we are doing EXACTLY what a US firm did, yet you are trying to stop us and you did nothing to the US firm". This is a very powerful argument in international law sir. If it can be shown a domestic firm did a certain thing without reprimand, then the country has given up its right to object to a foriegn firm doing the exact same thing. WTO courts have ruled this way consistently. Its the precendent I am concerned about.

Again just my opinion.

Chris

 

OK...you lost me. I thought the 4th Amendment just said that a judge had to issue a warrant and only permissible items could be seized. If no law has been broken, what does the 4th Amendment have to do with anything?

 

Sir, you have found me completely embarrassed and humbled today as I got that totally wrong. I was referring to the 1st Amendment. I'm on my knees thanking you for pointing out my foolish error.

It's the 1st Amendment protecting free speech that I was referring to. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled in favor of people by protecting them from notions and charges that certain language, statements, art, etc are reserved and forbidden from use. I would say that producing a medal that include the words United States of America and Dollars are completely protected by this fundamental right AS LONG AS the coin isn't used for fraud. The court, IMO, would rule that Carr's coins are completed protected even though there is a potential for someone else to break the law in the future. I've noticed they take a dim view of such arguments.

The Supreme Court, thankfully and for the most part, has held up this right no matter how much it might make certain people uncomfortable.

(I will note that the Supreme Court has not weighed in on the Liberty Dollar situation. Right now the matter has only been decided by 12 jurors picked from the local population of Statesville, NC. - a town at the cross roads of I-40 & I-77 if you are wondering where this spec. is located. I only add this statement, as the situation with the Liberty $ has nothing to do with Carr, only to point out that laws can be declared unconstitutional when they violate these fundamental rights.)

 

Very true sir. I agree that freedom of speech must be protected as one of our most cherished rights. However, much like yelling fire in a theater, the courts have ruled its not absolute. They have ruled, also, definitively, that the US Constitution gives the US government the exclusive right to produce coinage in this country. What else do you call minting an object listing, "United States of America", and a denomination on it? If those two things are not creating coinage, then what would the definition be? Yes, you need a law authorizing the coinage to circulate, but the general public never sees such things.

 

I am sure DC has all the permits needed to craft fantasy coinage copper silver gold and now platinum.
DC has done this his whole life& knows the counterfeiting laws by #pg & fed book#, I am sure.
Feds would have shut DC down by now if anything was wrong.
:thumb: D Carr is true American craftsman!!! keep up the great coins DC.

 

Lol...certainly not my intention! :cheers:

I'm with you 100% and I really like Mr. Carr's work. My concern is what the folks do with the pieces after they buy them. Take the 1964 Peace dollars, for instance. 10-20 years from now I wouldn't be surprised is someone (either knowingly or unknowingly) tries to sell one as "genuine". Sure, there are built-in diagnostics for the trained eye to easily identify...but what about the average Joe?

My other concern is with the bullion coins. By inscribing "United States of America" on the piece, there is an "implied warranty" that the United States of America backs the assayed content of the piece. If the planchets were purchased from the US government...fine. But if there's an implied warranty that's not there...then that's not so fine...imho.

 

Your yelling fire example proves exactly why Mr. Carr's coin is protected by the 1st Amendment. The court has been very careful not to make such sweeping statements that might abridge one's rights. For example what happens if there is a real fire in the theatre? In that case it's perfectly reasonable for someone to yell fire. Instead of banning the use of "fire" in a theatre, the Court has simply said that speech is not protected if it results in a "imminent lawless action". Clearly the intent is to make the action illegal, not the words themselves.

As stated above, the minting of this coin is not illegal simply because it has the words "United States of America" and Dollar stamped on them. These words are not reserved to only be used by the Federal Government. It's only a crime when people take these words and use them in an act of fraud against the people. It's the same exact analogy to yelling "fire".

IMO, if at some point in the future, someone purchasing one of these coins, and let's remember it's made out of a relatively expensive precious metal, mistakes it for a coin produced by the US Mint, then the fault is theirs. Laws should not be written to protect the stupid or ignorant from themselves. Government often likes to take on the role of social engineer, but no where in the Constitution does it state the stupid are entitled to special rights.

 

Nancy Pelosi crossing you off her Christmas List...

 

This particular argument has been brought up before. My contention is that there is no such thing as an "average joe" that would spend a lot of money on a coin they know little about. Sure they might buy one if they saw one, but they aren't going to pay a lot of money for one. Anybody that is going to pay a lot of money for a "1964-D" Peace Dollar is going to know the story regarding them. They will have to realize one of two things - either the piece is a modern re-creation of some sort, or it is a genuine original subject to confiscation. Either way the buyer would knowingly be taking a risk.

In this particular case, "United States of America" is country of origin (manufacturing location) of the item.