Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Coin Chat
>
Daniel Carr ?
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="EyeAppealingCoins, post: 3321054, member: 96749"]Ok. Let's put aside Carr all together and discuss the larger legal question: Can a numismatic item struck over an existing genuine U.S. coin be considered a counterfeit? The answer to that question is yes.</p><p><br /></p><p>Let me preface the discussion by stating upfront that Carr does not have the nefarious intent of the defendants in the case I'm going to cite and the pieces were of actual numismatic dates. <b>I'm NOT citing the case for the position that Carr is guilty of counterfeiting or wrong doing</b>. <b> I'm citing it solely for the position that over striking a genuine coin does not remove a numismatic over strike from the purview of the counterfeiting statutes on the basis of the monetization of the host coin alone.</b></p><p><br /></p><p>In <i><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1734437530048316053&q=451+f.2d+209+(5th+cir.+1971)&hl=en&as_sdt=2006" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1734437530048316053&q=451+f.2d+209+(5th+cir.+1971)&hl=en&as_sdt=2006" rel="nofollow">United States v. Wilson</a></i>, 451 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1971), the defendants were charged with counterfeiting after over striking 1955 Roosevelt Dimes on generic silver dime planchets. At the time, 1955 Roosevelt Dimes were worth a premium. The defendants repeated Carr's claim that coins struck over genuine U.S. coins are not counterfeits under 18 U.S.C. §485 but merely altered coins within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §331. Government expert witnesses testified that the coins in dispute had been struck with blank dies so as to substantially deface the original coins, and were then restruck with counterfeit dies to produce numismatically valuable coins. <i>Id.</i> The court held the original mutilation or defacing was a violation of 18 U.S.C. §331 and that the restriking of the planchet with counterfeit dies was a separate offense under 18 U.S.C. §485 (the counterfeiting statute). "Therefore, the United States could charge the defendants with a violation of either §331 or §485, or both, as it saw fit." <i>Id</i>. at 212 citing <i>United States v. Lissner</i>, 12 F. 840 (C.C. Mass. 1882); <i>Reg. v. Hermann</i>, 4 Q.B.D. 284.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>If over striking was in itself enough to remove a coin from the purview of the counterfeiting statutes then the defendants' convictions could not have been sustained.</b> The overstriking of genuine U.S. coins is a red herring in these threads, and thus, the discussion now becomes one of intent and the use of fantasy dates. Are we on the same page so far? Put another way, Carr's obliteration of the host coin (which he has even posted on the PCGS forums that he took unspecified steps to ensure maximum destruction of the host coin in the early days) is materially no different than the technique used in <i>Wilson</i>. This is not to say that his pieces are unlawful <i>per se, </i>but it is irrelevant whether he uses real coins or bullion rounds - the legal effect is the same. Do you see where I am coming from so far?</p><p><br /></p><p>P.S. The method of destruction was not at issue in the case only that the piece was substantially destroyed. There is no material distinction between one melted, struck over with dies, erased using a metal sander, etc.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="EyeAppealingCoins, post: 3321054, member: 96749"]Ok. Let's put aside Carr all together and discuss the larger legal question: Can a numismatic item struck over an existing genuine U.S. coin be considered a counterfeit? The answer to that question is yes. Let me preface the discussion by stating upfront that Carr does not have the nefarious intent of the defendants in the case I'm going to cite and the pieces were of actual numismatic dates. [B]I'm NOT citing the case for the position that Carr is guilty of counterfeiting or wrong doing[/B]. [B] I'm citing it solely for the position that over striking a genuine coin does not remove a numismatic over strike from the purview of the counterfeiting statutes on the basis of the monetization of the host coin alone.[/B] In [I][URL='https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1734437530048316053&q=451+f.2d+209+(5th+cir.+1971)&hl=en&as_sdt=2006']United States v. Wilson[/URL][/I], 451 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1971), the defendants were charged with counterfeiting after over striking 1955 Roosevelt Dimes on generic silver dime planchets. At the time, 1955 Roosevelt Dimes were worth a premium. The defendants repeated Carr's claim that coins struck over genuine U.S. coins are not counterfeits under 18 U.S.C. §485 but merely altered coins within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §331. Government expert witnesses testified that the coins in dispute had been struck with blank dies so as to substantially deface the original coins, and were then restruck with counterfeit dies to produce numismatically valuable coins. [I]Id.[/I] The court held the original mutilation or defacing was a violation of 18 U.S.C. §331 and that the restriking of the planchet with counterfeit dies was a separate offense under 18 U.S.C. §485 (the counterfeiting statute). "Therefore, the United States could charge the defendants with a violation of either §331 or §485, or both, as it saw fit." [I]Id[/I]. at 212 citing [I]United States v. Lissner[/I], 12 F. 840 (C.C. Mass. 1882); [I]Reg. v. Hermann[/I], 4 Q.B.D. 284. [B]If over striking was in itself enough to remove a coin from the purview of the counterfeiting statutes then the defendants' convictions could not have been sustained.[/B] The overstriking of genuine U.S. coins is a red herring in these threads, and thus, the discussion now becomes one of intent and the use of fantasy dates. Are we on the same page so far? Put another way, Carr's obliteration of the host coin (which he has even posted on the PCGS forums that he took unspecified steps to ensure maximum destruction of the host coin in the early days) is materially no different than the technique used in [I]Wilson[/I]. This is not to say that his pieces are unlawful [I]per se, [/I]but it is irrelevant whether he uses real coins or bullion rounds - the legal effect is the same. Do you see where I am coming from so far? P.S. The method of destruction was not at issue in the case only that the piece was substantially destroyed. There is no material distinction between one melted, struck over with dies, erased using a metal sander, etc.[/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
>
Coin Chat
>
Daniel Carr ?
>
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...