Too late ... You've already repeated what you wrote in other threads in this thread. Several times. The case you repeatedly cite in this regard involved fraudulent intent, and it was not a fantasy-date over-strike situation.
If you guys want to smoke cigarettes and collect DC coins/tokens, then I leave you to your own devices. Just put the blame where it squarely belongs..........on yourselves/ourselves.
No, an altered (over-struck) Wheat Cent is not a "fake" of a Wheat Cent if the over-strike date does not match previously-issued Lincoln Cents.
I have said it once and I will say it again. Stupidity shouldnt be catered to like a handicap. How many redundant laws and regulations are out there to protect morons? Actually morons are the only ones who thinks some of those laws and regualtions are meant to protect them.
Lately, it seems, that when you make the laws, you're catering to the criminals. Welcome to NY........
I don't know where you and your followers get the notion that a fake or counterfeit need be an exact replica or copy of something. It certainly isn't from the law. The Chinese have produced counterfeits of dates and/or mint marks never issued by the Mint. An 1894-CC Morgan is a counterfeit, the date notwithstanding. These pieces are almost ubiquitously and uncontroversially referred to as fakes and counterfeits. The overstrike process is a huge red herring; the original coin is destroyed and you imprint new devices, mottos, dates, mint marks, denominations, etc. Without government authorization you are falsely coining new pieces in the resemblance or similitude of U.S. coinage. It isn't that complicated. The alteration/mutilation argument is also a distraction. Nowhere in 18 U.S.C. 331 does the statute that all mutilation or alteration is legal absent an intent to defraud. It says only that fraudulent alteration is illegal without preventing the application of other statutes to include 18 U.S.C. 485-490.
