Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by dwhiz, Sep 29, 2010.
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.
I understand they say that, but you know rumors persist. Why choose the 64d as the fantasy coin? It is simply because they DID exist, which is why I think the recreation slips over to alteration that is covered by the Hobby Act. It is not as if a 65d or 63d was struck, it is specifically a coin that WAS MADE, regardless whether any currently exist. This is exactly like other coins listed above, they were KNOWN to have been made, so any reproduction of them by definition falls under the hobby act. To do otherwise shreds the act and if US collectors stand by and let this happen then they have no right whatsoever to ask the US to stop the Chinese counterfeits. We forfeit that right if some forgeries are ok but others are not.
P.S. I have nothing against your coins Mr. Carr, and believe your restoration of the mint press was interesting and admirable. If you simply emboss COPY on this coin, and any others that are imitating known items, that God's speed and I hope you make a fortune.
But above all, I'm still thinking "questionable" in regard to Mr. Carr's issue. The argument that his issue legitamitizes Chinese issues (fakes) stands....Where does one draw the line?
The Chinese fakes are not made out of legally-monetized coins - so those unmarked fakes are illegal currency counterfeits on that alone. Also, the Chinese fakes purport to be coins (type, date, & mint mark) that actually exist in the numismatic market place.
The Chinese fakes that are not marked "COPY" violate currency counterfeiting laws as well as the HPA.
So the question of where should the line be drawn is moot. The line is already drawn (between legal and illegal items).
Like I've said, altering a genuine legal-tender coin to put a date on it that the Government says doesn't exist, is on the legal side of the line (so long as the item is not mis-represented, as in fraud).
If the law is vague and/or inadequate, then perhaps the law needs to be changed.
It may NO LONGER exist, but it did at one time, thousands of them. The mint produced them ( no matter how fleetingly) with the intention to circulate, and then changed their mind. This does not mean they never existed.
Correct, that is why I said "doesn't" instead of "never". The Government's position, as of 1973 and beyond, is that NONE exist.
I think many have a problem with these possibilities.
I have stated that if you can see the understrike, then I have no problems, as it makes the coin readily discernable. If it is no longer visible, then you are skirting the law for one of two reasons: in order to evoke change in that law, or you are skirting the law trying to make money by exploiting the line that the law has given you to walk on for profit.
If I thought that your intent was legal change, I would respect and likely salute it.
Sadly, I believe that your intention is none other than profit and in that regard, I can't but hope that the law somehow gets changed anyway, and your "special coins" become contraband, confiscated and you are made to refund everyone's money and take them all back and melt them.
If that ends up the case, I sincerely doubt that you'd be able to re-buy them all and then we will have a numismatic conundrum on our hands as the US Govt. will be actively searching for the real coins as well as yours.
I envision the ATF breaking down doors, looking for "contraband" coins...
Does the government's position matter? You hang your hat on the definition of "original numismatic item", well plain reading of that is a coin that was struck for circulation. Clearly the 64d WAS STRUCK, there is no denying that. Mint records are incomplete, everyone knows that. There are many coins they say were struck and do not exist, (1804 silver dollar originals), and others exist where no record is made, (1873s half dime). We KNOW the coin was struck, and that alone makes it an "original numismatic item", making the restrikes alterations at a minimum, just like a 1944d cent changed to a 1914d.
As for your contention that it was OK for you to do this because the mint's position is that none of these coins exist any longer - I believe that's going to be your undoing. The mint has taken that exact same postion many times in the past, only to be proven wrong when those so called non existant coins surfaced and came into the public eye. The '33 double eagle is a case in point. The mint had to change their postion on that coin and they did so with no qualms whatsoever.
Also, that particular coin sets the precedent for this exact situation that you have created by minting these coins. For years the mint's position was that none of the coins existed. However, examples did exist in the Smithsonian. Because of that, any and all replicas of the '33 double eagle made in recent years had to adhere to the Hobby Protection Act. They still do.
And examples of the '64 Peace dollar exist in the Smithsonian as well. So any replicas you make now are also covered by the act. And the '33 double eagle sets the legal precedent for that.
I think you're going to be very, very lucky if this does not get very expensive for you quite soon. You really should re-think your postion.
as an aside, I was unaware that the Smithsonian (National Numismatic Collection) has any of the 1964-D Peace Dollars. I knew that they had examples of the 1933 Saints, but are you certain that they have 1964-D Peace Dollars as well?
The difference is (and it is a big difference), the 1914-D cent is a known and legal item in the numismatic market place. But the original 1964 dollars are unknown and illegal in the numismatic marketplace. There are very few coins where the US Government has explicity come out and stated NONE exist, but the 1964 dollars are one of those.
In terms of any litigation (in the unlikely event things ever went that far), the Governmen't last stated position on the 1964 dollars would be very important.
Like it or not, it is perfectly legal to alter a 1944-D cent into a "1914-D" cent. You can even legally sell it for a profit, so long as it isn't fraudulently claimed to be an original 1914-D.
The only thing that matters, legally, is what was the Government's position on the 1964 dollars at the time when I produced my over-strikes. If the Government subsequently revises their position and produces an original 1964 dollar (which would, of course, be very interesting !), it still wouldn't matter because my actions would be judged solely on the basis of the Government's last official statement at the time (the 1973 Treasury News).
You are not considering two important facts:
1) The recent replica "1933" Double Eagles were made AFTER the Farouk 1933 Double Eagle was legally monetized and sold into the numismatic market place.
2) Specific date aside, the replica Double Eagles are copies of the Double Eagle TYPE, and they are not made out of legally-monetized $20 instruments. My over-strikes, however, are not "copies" of the Peace Dollar TYPE - they are (over-struck on) genuine legal-tender Peace Dollars.
I do not believe that the Smithsonian has a 1964 dollar. But, I'd actually like to see the Government pull one out of hiding
That's news to me. Do you have any authoritative referereces that state this (I am really interested, not trying to be a smart-edited).
Yet a coin collector who might be interested in this coin and more importantly might pay a lot of money for it, has the responsibility to check up on the history of the coin they are attempting to purchase. It shouldn't take more than a few webclicks to discover this coin does not exist real life so at best the collector shouldn't pay more than nominal amount for the coin. If the collector doesn't do this, and think they are getting something that is too good to be true, well..., this will end up as one of life's lessons for Mr. collector. We are not yet a complete nanny state.
In any case, such a scenario is very unlikely to happen and thus I don't see where Mr. Carr, if the law allows for it, is doing anything wrong. What I like about it is that if the coin gets people talking about what the government has done to the money in this country, then more power to him. The creation of the 1964 Peace Dollar and the subsequent withdrawal by the government is one of the things that people should study instead of it being being buried in obscure history. We need more of this, not less. Thanks Mr. Carr for your work.
We are getting into lawyer arguments here, semantics and trying to twist the wording of the Hobby Act. You can do that as much as you wish sir, to me the plain reading of the Hobby Act is to prohibit any replica, reproduction, alteration, etc to resemble a coin that was struck. Anything under that unbrella needs to be marked COPY, permanently, in the specified way. This covers the 1944d to 1914d, that also would be illegal to make unless stamped COPY. Your coin as well, since it is replicating a KNOWN coin, regardless of whether they are still available. Strike a 1963 silver dollar and do whatever you want, I don't care. Just because a coin isn't available on the marketplace does not mean its legal to forge them, the 1873s half dime is not for sale, does that mean I can import thousands of them from China legally? How about the 1849 Double Eagle? You even trying to say its legal to alter a 1944d to 1914d without marking it as a copy shows how fallacious your argument is. If that is true, then NO forgeries need to be marked as COPY ever. End of Hobby Act and most likely end to US coin collecting, as the flood of fakes cannot be stopped, since they are "legal".
I know I would not change Mr. Carr's mind, but think about it people. His arguments basically repeal the Hobby Act. How do you think this will affect coin collecting? How about the value of your coins now? If we allow this to openly be done in the US, then we have no standing to protest Chinese fakes, since they will point out we are faking US coins right here.
Mr. Carr's argument that none of these coins exist is a canard. The whole reason for this coin with this date (in Mr. Carr's own words) is exactly the opposite. The fact that it was officially minted and is currently illegal to own makes any other non-existent date less desirable or salable. Any other argument is merely a "red herring" as Mr. Carr has posted here on this forum that it is the appeal of "forbidden fruit" that drives people's desire to own them and as such drives his desire to make these available.
I would also point out that the 2009 "proofed" ASE is being distributed exclusively through the Home Shopping Network. Anyone familiar with their pricing structure on coins is aware that they are generally at least double what a dealer will sell them for. This is not to disparage the network. TV time is not cheap and the profit margin necessary to pay for TV time is substantial and will always be paid for by the shoppers and clients of the network.
This fact (IMHO) demonstrates at least a willingness to take advantage of the less-knowledgeable and uninformed collector. He is not offering them through any other retail means.
Separate names with a comma.