Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;EyeAppealingCoins, post: 3328215, member: 96749&quot;]The FTC, the federal agency charged with interpreting and enforcing the statute, already addressed the issue in a binding legal opinion.&nbsp; It found that changing a single digit of the date was not enough of a distinction to exempt an item from the marking requirements of the HPA even if wasn&#039;t a copy in a strict sense.&nbsp; In that case someone was striking fantasy date foreign coins, using fictitious dates that were usually a year before a series began or a year after it ended.&nbsp; The FTC held that the items with fantasy dates were required to be marked with the word &quot;COPY&quot; and that the intent of the company producing them was irrelevant to the FTC&#039;s inquiry.</p><p><br /></p><p>The use of the word &quot;copy&quot; was a misnomer that was probably introduced by the geniuses at the ANA who helped promote the poorly written statute and should have foreseen the confusion that it would create.&nbsp; These probably are the same geniuses involved in the Carr ANA complaint.&nbsp; That&#039;s why coin people should stick to coins and leave the law to others.</p><p><br /></p><p>As for why the FTC has not done anything about him, it is likely because no one has brought a formal complaint against him (at least there is not one in the public record).&nbsp; The FTC doesn&#039;t go out and actively search for violators.&nbsp; Even if the FTC was aware, it has more important areas to regulate like a plethora of larger impact consumer protection statutes.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Does this clarify things for you?[/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