eBay's new policy - FINALLY!

There is nothing illegal about it if a Chinese seller delivers coins without the visually unappealling word "Copy" stamped on the reproduction to a buyer in the United States. Read the language of the HPA, of course most of you want it to be illegal so you don't care one way or the other if it actually is or not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I thought the language was pretty clear, but apparently you're seeing something I'm not. I understand that mere possession of unmarked replicas is perfectly legal, and obviously it is quite legal for Chinese manufacturers to produce and sell the same; and, when they are sold as replicas (not as genuine), there is no intent to defraud, therefore counterfeit laws don't come in to play... so maybe that's what you're seeing. I just thought the importation of unmarked replica numismatic items was illegal. Help me out here.

 

Please explain which part of this makes it legal.

You can own them, but you cannot sell them.

 

The stuff they're copying, for the most part, is not demonetized. Therefore they're counterfeiting US coinage. Legal tender. That is illegal, any way you slice it.

NOS, what's wrong? Make some nice extra money from time to time buying unmarked replicas and reselling them?

 

rlm's cents said it all right here:

This clarifies everything: "for introduction into or distribution in commerce", this means you can't spend or distribute them without marking them "copy" first. No where does it say you can't have them shipped in from abroad without being stamped "copy" when they are for your own personal use.

I don't know you too well and I've never had a problem with you before but shame on you for what you have insinuated. If there was a mute button here you would be muted for LIFE. I've never sold replica's to ANYONE before either marked or unmarked. My moral compass is stronger than most, a month or so ago I was at a casino and I was using a cash dispenser. This old lady next to me left a $100 bill in the cash dispenser she was using and walked away, I tapped her on the shoulder and pointed to what she left behind. The point is I am disgusted at what you have suggested, I am thoroughly sickened. Some people like replica coins for more than just selling them with the intent to defraud. GET OVER IT, they are here to stay and they aren't going anywhere. I'm through with you and the sad thing is I don't even know you too well to begin with, perhaps that isn't such a bad thing.

 

Any other questions?

 

Sorry, but "commerce" is not limited to money. In fact, commerce does not even have to include money. Both service for service and goods for goods is commerce and paying money for replicas is definitely commerce. Don't believe me, try this;
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8086739
If they were not against the law, why were they seized?

 

You have cited something from the FTCA, I and everyone else to this point have been talking about the HPA of 1973. You guys have your opinion and beliefs and I have mine. For strict personal use replica coins are harmless and an interesting novelty. Once again I am through with another "replica" thread and will no longer post unless I have my integrity questioned (again).

 

I'm not sure how to interpret this; whether or not the sale from the manufacturer is the first step in the distribution cycle. The HPA does state a "numismatic" item, which would not normally be used for general commerce.. I have no idea what the HPA means when referring to "commerce", but I assume selling a coin is considered as such.

 

I guess that means that you have no answer as to why customs seized the "replica" coins?

 

I apologize...I wasn't aware that I had questioned your integrity (not my intention). The FTC is the enforcement agency for the Hobby Protection Act. Their code is no different than the Act itself. If you don't believe me, look it up.

 

There is nothing to apologize for as I was referring to the highly inappropiate and suggestive comment from "Merc Crazy". I am so taken aback by the attitude towards replica's on here, I just don't know what to make of it. To me, replica's are easy to distinguish and I like the concept of them as it makes filling in those otherwise unfillable holes fillable in albums or what not. That's face it, no law is perfect and the HPA was written almost 40 years ago, I feel that it could use some updating to clarify its intended purpose which was to prevent fraud from counterfitters. I feel a balance should be struck that people should have the personal freedom to buy replicas, marked or otherwise for their personal use without impunity.

 

Supply will always meet demand?

 

why cant the secret service or fbi go in and bust these guys. is it because the counterfitters are an oversees operation

 

Yes. They have no jurisdiction in China. Rest assured that if you were creating high-quality replica's and not marking them as copies here in the states, they'd be on you pretty quick.

 

An Explanatory Statement!

I believe if you contact a legal counselor, and present the quoted statute(s), you should be informed that shipping the legal replicas into the country doesn't constitute U.S. commerce. Generally, the replicas would need to be exchanged within the country as "consideration" to be qualified as exchanged in commerce. I have a large collection of these replica coins which are encapsulated in transparent housings clearly marking every coin as a copy, without destroying the replica. This enclosure allows transportation and display for examination while meeting the commerce restriction.

The article clearly states why a large volume of replicas were seized, thus: "According to officials, the recipient of the shipment was intending to sell the fake coins online."

Just my learned opinion, which I'll defend unless receiving additional addendum to that already presented for discussion. :thumb:

 

That's an interesting take on the issue. It's hard for me to imagine that buying an unmarked replica from a Chinese manufacturer using eBay (which takes a cut of the sale price) as a marketplace, making payment via PayPal, and receiving the unmarked replica via the US Postal Service can be construed as "not constituting U.S. commerce".

Then again, perhaps the lesson of cases like Wickard v. Filburn isn't really "everything is interstate commerce"; instead, it's "interstate commerce is whatever you're told it is, citizen."

 

So let me guess. The Chinese were donating these to your collection? In order for them to be sent here, someone sent (or promised to send) something in return. AKA, commerce.

BTW, since when did it become a crime to have future plans to misuse something? Those poor gun manufacturers are in real trouble. And then there are all the auto manufacturers selling cars to the drunks. Real trouble there.

 

I agree that the law could use a review. I've seen quite a number of fakes (good and bad) on eBay (which I report). I've bought (and returned) 4-5 pieces myself. One was an 1825 half cent that was nearly perfect. I would never have detected it had I not been very familiar with that particular issue.

I don't know through how many hands these coins pass before they reach eBay or the intent of the Seller...but they're out there. If we can't protect the integrity of the hobby, it will severely limit new collectors entering the hobby (imho). Misrepresented coins not only cheat the victim, but they affect the value of all coins in the marketplace. Many collectors won't even buy raw coins anymore...not expensive ones, anyway.

Here's a picture of a replica First Spouse coin...if it wasn't marked "COPY" on the Reverse, could you detect that it as a fake?

Why is having that mark on the Reverse so objectionable (when it is, in fact, a copy)?