I fail to understand how any of the Daniel Carr issues can be considered as "in compliance" with the Hobby Protection Act of 1973. It's all garbage, meant to deceive on some level. The FTC has specifically included fantasy date restrikes as requiring the word COPY in order to be in compliance with the 1973 law. Their conclusion occurred in a case they heard in 1978. Carr can claim it's art, but it isn't art. Art is original and doesn't copy other artist's work, what he is producing are called COUNTERFEITS -- and any nefarious argument suggesting otherwise is an accomplice in the scam. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Gold-Bullion-International.pdf
Yes, there are plenty of strong feelings on both sides of the inevitable debate. Let's try to keep it civil.
Let's see what AI says.... While they occupy a highly controversial niche within the numismatic community, they comply with federal laws due to the specific ways they are manufactured and marketed: No Fraudulent Intent: Under U.S. law (18 U.S.C. § 331), defacing or altering U.S. currency is only illegal if it is done with "fraudulent intent"—such as trying to pass an altered coin off as genuine legal tender. Daniel Carr’s Moonlight Mint explicitly sells these pieces as private mint novelty items and collectible tokens, not as legal tender. The "Fantasy Date" Exception: Many of Carr's most famous pieces utilize genuine, circulated U.S. coins as blanks (planchets) but overstrike them with combinations that never legally existed—such as a 1964-D Peace Silver Dollar or a 1915 Standing Liberty Quarter. Because the U.S. government never officially released these coin and date combinations to the public, the items technically do not replicate an official, existing government issue. The Hobby Protection Act: Critics often argue that his coins violate the Hobby Protection Act because they lack an incused "COPY" stamp. However, Carr argues that since he is altering already-genuine government coins rather than manufacturing complete counterfeits from scratch, the requirement does not apply to his overstrikes. To date, neither the U.S. Mint nor federal law enforcement has taken legal action against him.
