Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
US Coins Forum
>
Daniel Carr Question
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="EyeAppealingCoins, post: 3328215, member: 96749"]The FTC, the federal agency charged with interpreting and enforcing the statute, already addressed the issue in a binding legal opinion. 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't a copy in a strict sense. 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. The FTC held that the items with fantasy dates were required to be marked with the word "COPY" and that the intent of the company producing them was irrelevant to the FTC's inquiry.</p><p><br /></p><p>The use of the word "copy" 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. These probably are the same geniuses involved in the Carr ANA complaint. That'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). The FTC doesn't go out and actively search for violators. Even if the FTC was aware, it has more important areas to regulate like a plethora of larger impact consumer protection statutes. </p><p><br /></p><p>Does this clarify things for you?[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="EyeAppealingCoins, post: 3328215, member: 96749"]The FTC, the federal agency charged with interpreting and enforcing the statute, already addressed the issue in a binding legal opinion. 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't a copy in a strict sense. 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. The FTC held that the items with fantasy dates were required to be marked with the word "COPY" and that the intent of the company producing them was irrelevant to the FTC's inquiry. The use of the word "copy" 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. These probably are the same geniuses involved in the Carr ANA complaint. That's why coin people should stick to coins and leave the law to others. 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). The FTC doesn't go out and actively search for violators. Even if the FTC was aware, it has more important areas to regulate like a plethora of larger impact consumer protection statutes. Does this clarify things for you?[/QUOTE]
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
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
US Coins Forum
>
Daniel Carr Question
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...