Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;jolumoga, post: 26810652, member: 41780&quot;]<b>*puts on a helmet and other protective gear and expects to be chewed out*</b></p><p><br /></p><p>I think you may have misinterpreted the Treasury memo (though upon a re-reading it is not all that clear, to be fair - it is self-contradictory in my view). It merely provides guidance on enforcement of a law that has, according to its own wording, not yet been fully clarified by numismatic and legal experts:</p><p><br /></p><p style="text-align: center"><i>Whether a coin is of special value to a collector of rare and unusual coin is a question of fact to be determined, with reference to expert opinion...</i></p><p><br /></p><p>It is thus taking a cautious approach toward coin dealers, who, as I pointed out previously, were not (collectively) a serious threat to the enforcement of the Gold Reserve Act. Moreover, it cites a decision by a district court (mentioned previously in this thread), which while generally would be followed by other districts, is not necessarily binding (nor did it appear to address the specific issue of what constitutes a numismatic coin, I believe). What constitutes a numismatic coin could be established by future court decisions in the case of a gold ban, with perhaps a final decision by the Supreme Court. My hunch - and of course this is hypothetical - is that the idea that any premium above the face or melt value of a coin makes a coin a numismatic coin is absurd. There will almost always be a premium to gold and silver by the very nature of business. In the case of a future gold ban, I don&#039;t think this argument would hold much weight.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in