Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;SteveCaruso, post: 2057509, member: 37497&quot;]There is a legal argument to be made against marking some counterfeits, especially contemporary counterfeits, with &quot;COPY&quot; before selling them. The marking requirements read as follows:</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Now I am not a lawyer -- <i>so this is pure conjecture at this point</i> -- but one <i>could</i> make the argument that a contemporary counterfeit of high numismatic value is made of nonincusable material, for to incuse it would materially destroy it. As such, one could then opt for the less-intrusive imprinting, via a decal or potentially be integrated into a certification slab somehow.</p><p><br /></p><p>Further arguments could lie within the definition of a counterfeit, as many contemporary counterfeits have become numismatic items of their own with counterfeits made of <i>them</i> (I&#039;ve seen fake Henning Nickels, for example).</p><p><br /></p><p>This law, as it is presently updated, was made with clear intent -- to stem the flow of fraud -- but has caused some very serious unintended side effects.[/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