Why wasn't this artist arrested for making multiple counterfeit U.S. cents?

It's everything. He's not creating a coin, ie government backed money and adding it to the existing pool. He's simply altering an already existing coin, and without intent to decieve. Just because the original devices of the host coin are almost completely gone (and most still show clear signs of the host coin, ie "ghosting") doesn't mean anything. A hobo nickel that was so intricately worked on that it obliterated all of the original design still is and was a nickel..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I don’t believe this argument alone would be enough if the government decided what he is doing is illegal.

Again I don’t believe it’s illegal and clearly the government hasn’t choose to prosecute (which is all that really matters).

I personally don’t believe that if he was making these out of fresh virgin dies AND it was determined to be illegal that this differnce would make it legal. I’m not a lawyer and this is just my own personal belief. But I don’t believe it alone would make the difference. You can believe whatever you want.

 

We've all heard your excuses a million times, you are by the governments definition creating 'imitation numismatic items' regardless of what you are striking them on and you are not marking them as required by law. You even admitted in the past to altering the peace dollars you used before striking them in another thread once. Not to mention the disregard of law regarding die production
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/pdf/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap25-sec487.pdf

I really don't know how much clearer it can get when they referenced your work brought up by others as fantasy dates and your own comments when they updated the H.P.A. and stated again they must be marked. Good luck when the slow wheels of government decide to start moving though.

 

That’s exactly what it is. It doesn’t matter what any of our opinions are no legal action is the only opinion that matters. The rest is just chest thumping or thinking they’re saving the hobby.

 

It’s true. I don’t know if the courts would say it’s legal or not. I have my own belief but that doesn’t mean anything. This is a public thing. It’s not secret and I’m sure someone (here or elsewhere) has reports it. Clearly the authorities don’t think it’s worth persuing.

 

Exactly. I have my thoughts too but ultimately mine really don’t matter. I do know it definitely has been reported especially since someone took the time to write a big ANA cocmplaint about it. Someone somewhere has definitely sent in reports if not multiple.

 

And ah yes it does please read the updated H.P.A. specifically the part highlighted in red and than again at the very end where they once again reiterate that fantasy coins must be marked such as those government issued coins altered by non governmental entities such as yourself. The footnote is literally referencing one of your overstrikes before they go on to state no change is necessary because precedent that they must be marked has been set per Gold Bullion Intl.

'2. Suggested Rules Modifications
Some commenters suggested modifications to the Rules.
In particular,
several commenters suggested modifications to address ‘‘fantasy coins,’’ government-issued coins altered by non-governmental entities to bear historically impossible dates or other features marketed as novelties. 15
.................................
21
Notably, the Commission has addressed whether coins resembling government issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int’l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a ‘‘COPY’’ because otherwise they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item.

 

Where in that answer does it cover fantasy dates over struck on government issue coins. It doesn't. They obfuscated that part of the question entierly. They obviously didn't want to address that issue head on so they went all vague then cited a case where they were using virgin blanks. Dan is all good. Face it, love it, want more of it!

 

Keep believing whatever you want to believe and totally ignore whats written in the actual Gold Bullion Intl case which is precedent. Just like certain forum individuals have stated for years now and then the most recent update of the H.P.A. once again reiterated. Really makes it truly impressive the mental gymnastics some of you display while ignoring what's codified in law.

 

You didn't answer my question

 

Try reading the updated HPA. They literally reference whether or not they should address government coinage altered by non government entitites specifically in reference to a Carr piece if you read the footnote, with new laws or regulations before reiterating that precedent has been set and 'fantasy' coins must be marked per the existing laws. If you can't comprehend or understand what's written there I don't know how to break it down for you. And ignorance of law including wrong interpretation is never a defensible position.

 

Is that actually part of the act or is it a Suggestion mentione in a footnote? The way I read it is it is a suggestion. Am I mistaken?

 

It’s their report. It’s meaningless in terms of the law. It was basically them saying we don’t feel the need to change the law

 

Carr Derangement Syndrome is rearing it's ugly head again

 

Ok. That’s sorta what I thought.

 

It was among the suggestions but if you read until the end of the actual act they address why they don't have to address 'fantasy' coins despite multiple parties requesting it. Some of those parties i.e. Carr himself state the opinion that they shouldn't have to be marked. Before going on to state that they must be marked because it's already been addressed and the precedent was set with Gold Bullion Intl. What's termed a 'imitation numismatic items' must be marked and the language clearly indicates they feel that 'fantasy' coins meet the criteria.

 

You do understand you keep referring to a completely meaningless report that holds zero legal weight right?

The only thing that report does is fe is whether or not they feel the need to think about changing the law which the answer is no.

 

Again no defense of merit, except to try and shame those with a different opinion. It's a good thing I don't care what you allude to me being as my position is backed with the actual legal precedent that applies whether or not you feel it should and whether or not the government has taken any actions yet in regards to the matter.

Oh so the hobby protection act and the prior judgement in gold bullion intl isn't law then?

 

You aren’t referencing the act or anything about it. You’re referencing the equivalent of a memo. Everything in that is completely meaningless, it doesn’t become law because the committee feels that way

 

Ah no I'm referencing the actual act what's published in the federal register becomes effective usually 30 days after it's been posted. But please try reading the actual law sometime before making asinine statements.

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/do...ces/2016/10/frn_hobby_final_rule_10-14-16.pdf

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title15/pdf/USCODE-2011-title15-chap48.pdf