Anyone else see this auction? I find it interesting that they combined so many factors: 1964 date, Peace Dollar obverse, Morgan reverse, PR 70 DCAM grade, and a SEGS holder! Plus it is labeled a "Copy" although no such item has ever existed. Am I crazy for even considering bidding on this specimen? Only 25 minted!
That thing is a complete waste. With the word "COPY" prominently displayed on the back, how are we going to get a thirty-page discussion going?
Buy what you like. I have never let other's opinions sway my wants. I like the item pictured....It could do without the word "copy" as it cheapens the item and the fact that SEGS graded it.
Worthless? Hardly. It is still silver after all. With only 25 made, I am tempted to bid. Heck, when you factor in the silver, it really doesn't cost much at all.
Guys. This is a 999 silver planchet. If both sides were of the same coin series it would need the copy mark but being a mule I agree that copy is unnecessary. Maybe worth $20ish as a nifty piece of bullion but thays about it. I wouldn't go over $25 tops. In no fan of the ROM though so I would only pay bullion spot personally
I'm impressed. Some imitation coin manufacturer actually knows the law... At least it is HPA compliant and not counterfeit unlike some other creations on the market.
But that is the thing that you all don't understand. Perhaps Congress and the FTC should have chosen a broader adjective than "COPY" but if it significantly borrows from a U.S. design (even on one side), it must be marked. There is a case, Delmarco discussed before, that even found the design of the World Trade Center commemoratives, which looked nothing remotely close to any U.S. issue, were required to be marked. Apparently the FTC and courts have read the HPA so broadly as to apply to any coins with the inscriptions or design elements of a U.S. issue (like "In God We Trust," "Liberty," and a denomination).
The FTC has not read the statutes that way, and only one court judge thought that the Freedom Tower Silver Dollar (FTSD) was a violation solely due to the "One Dollar" and In God We Trust" (IGWT) inscriptions. That judge's conclusions have been criticized as being off the mark by some well-known attorneys. If it was actually the case that "One Dollar" and/or IGWT on a token was a violation, then every "One Dollar" casino token would be a violation. But they aren't, without additional circumstances. Numerous foreign coins also have the inscription "One Dollar". Congress did not intend to outlaw the use of "One Dollar" on tokens. Nor did they intend to outlaw the use of IGWT on private tokens. Image the public outcry if, for example, a bus company was told that they had to remove IGWT from their tokens. The point that you have not brought up concerning the Demarco vs National Collectors Mint (NCM) case is that NCM intentionally engaged in deceptive advertising regarding the FTSD. And that is what they actually got in trouble for.
I didn't bring it up because it was irrelevant to the federal appeals court's ruling that the design of the coin itself was a violation of the HPA. I don't doubt that NCM did sleazy marketing stuff too.
