Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by Walter1969, Jun 5, 2018.
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.
I always been rather of the opinion that if it don't look like Monopoly money, then the only other intent is nefarious. I don't really feel that way about the fantasy dated coins though. But again, the problem isn't with the creator or manufacturer of the pieces. I believe they are offering these in the spirit of a fantasy dated coin. The issue occurs when the second hand party gets hold of it and tries to repackage the deal as something it isn't. And just because those of us on the forum know there is no 1969 Peace Dollar, there are far too many out there that don't know.... I suppose I have to stick to my guns. If it don't look like Monopoly money. Don't make it.
This is essential gonna be every Carr thread over rehashed. I’ll just say this, no everyone doesn’t know that off the top of their head but it’s 2018 the Internet is on every device now. It takes 25 seconds to look it up and see that never happened.
Look, stop it!
We have opened this can countless times and have done this also:
No one ever convinces anyone else and everyone has a tightly held view. Suffice it to say that JUDGING BY THE LACK OF ACTION OF THE RELEVANT AUTHORITIES, the answer to your question would be "no".
This has been looked at by statute readers, and street-corner amateur attorneys halfway to the moon and back. Until and unless a prosecutor acts against a well-known and easy-to-find practitioner, it's all academic.
And the reasons for our status quo confuse more people than not, even otherwise VERY bright people. Unbelievably enough, it all seems to come down to what was used as a planchet for the striking of the fantasy piece..., for now.
ummmm.... I withdraw my previous comment.
Why? I thought it both very fair and quite reasonable.
The sad fact is that when it comes to such things, the openly embraced double standard is ridiculous. All too often the folks who will argue endlessly claiming there's nothing wrong with copies made by a certain individual, and that no one could ever be taken advantage of by someone using them for nefarious purposes, are the same who will endlessly berate and belittle the same damned things made by anyone else. Remove this hypocrisy, simply apply the same standards to all, and the can of worms will largely disappear.
Well, mainly because I haven't been here long enough to recognize this was a powder keg issue. I don't want to be seen as one of the guys that likes to stir up trouble. I am way too old and tired for drama in my life!
Hell, Randy; all you had to do was say so! I'll happily do it for you...
A healthy debate, especially when it heads down the path of rank stupidity (and oh it always does) can act as a fountain of youth. Trust me on this one.
Indeed. Let the hate mail begin...........
I feel that if you created a dollar (or cent, or dime, etc.) out of thin-air (or blank metal), then you just created a counterfeit. If you changed something that was already on a coin (like a love token, or DC piece), then it is an overstrike or alteration. If you did it to deceive someone into thinking it was rarer than it really was (like putting an 'S' on a 1909 Indian Head Cent), then that is a forgery.
This thread is rather like asking the folks in Cleveland should they sell James to the Golden State Warriors after this season.
Is it safe to look yet?
"Are fantasy dated coins considered counterfeit?"
Technically no, colloquially yes. Terms like counterfeit, forgery and fantasy all have specific uses and pertain to different things within different specialty groups. The one thing in common is that they all describe something that is not a genuine period item. Some of the confusion comes from these terms being used interchangeably, which is fine in most cases, but becomes an issue when getting into a specific area.
For example, I recently purchased an 1809 Colombia 1 real. The problem is there were no such genuine coins struck in Colombia that year. Specialists in this area call this a contemporary counterfeit because it was made when coins of the type were in circulation. Had it been made after that it would be considered a collector forgery. People who specialize in pieces such as the one you posted may call it a fantasy and many people would just simply call it fake.
This discussion is a "can of worms" not because people disagree, but because they agree by using different terminology.
What other person or entity has over-struck genuine coins to produce fantasy dates that were never issued for that type ?
There can't be a "double standard" if only one person/entity has done it.
You dont get the gist huh?
Do me a favor & make me some superb gem 1921 S peace dollars. Dont forget to use the tiny weak s mintmark . I promise i wont do anything nefarious with them.
Regardless of the mint mark (or lack of one) "1921" is not a "fantasy date" for Peace Dollars.
Neither is 1964..... Now idk all the dates and MM coins youve created, but im guessing one of those in between dates that you like to mint would fool someone just the same.
The point is - someone down the line can get taken to the cleaners .
Counterfeits are ruining the hobby
Here's what the government said via the updated HPA
And here's some of what was decided in that original now precedent FTC case
And although intent seems to get thrown around frequently precedent via Gold Bullion Intl. also set precedent on that
Now all that being said the government including the mint, secret service and FTC all seem to not care at all about pursuing actual enforcement. When the can of worms was opened with 'fantasy date overstrikes', there acceptance and the lack of action being taken against them. It certainly seems to have emboldened many other parties to begin making similar pieces sans required marking as well which is what many of us have argued would happen since the beginning.
No "1964" dollars were ever issued, according to the US Treasury Department.
If somebody refuses to perform a minimal amount of due diligence before laying out their money they will likely be "taken to the cleaners", one way or another, whether it is buying a used car, getting a home loan, buying a "Rolex" watch on the street corner, etc ...
With the internet, due diligence is pretty easy.
Separate names with a comma.