Thank you for the correction post, clarification of the mints definition of fraudulent. It appears that although a statute was generated defining the absolutes of a "law", because of limitations in policing not defined in the law, exceptions have been allowed. If fraud can't be defined, as with sales of Chinese "tokens", this argument may be a precedent. An argument that policing limitations may justify sales in the U.S. of the same which are not exact copies, or stated to be currency. Very Interesting!! Appreciatively, Rich