Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;raider34, post: 1107265, member: 16402&quot;]Yes, fair enough, but then your problem should be with the Hobby Protection Act, not Daniel Carr&#039;s coins. </p><p><br /></p><p>To look at the wording of the Hobby Protection Act again, there are two important sections in the terms defined; d and f.</p><p><br /></p><p>Section f then defines an &quot;original numismatic item&quot;:</p><p><br /></p><p>The bold in both quotes is&nbsp; mine. </p><p><br /></p><p>So in the case of the 2009 Proof ASE, were they ever a part of a&nbsp;&nbsp; coinage/issue? No, the mint officially announced that none were made.&nbsp;&nbsp; So, under the definition of the Hobby Protection Act, they are not&nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;original numismatic item(s)&quot;. Therefore a altered ASE that was made to&nbsp;&nbsp; look like a 2009 Proof ASE would not fall under the requirements of the&nbsp;&nbsp; Hobby Protection Act. </p><p><br /></p><p>In the case of the 1964-D Peace Dollars, where they a part of a&nbsp;&nbsp; coinage? Yes, BUT, were they &quot; used in exchange or has been used&nbsp; to&nbsp; commemorate a person, object, place, or event? No, according to the&nbsp;&nbsp; mint the coins were never issued and ALL were destroyed. Therefore,&nbsp;&nbsp; they also do not fall under the requirements of the Hobby Protection&nbsp;&nbsp; Act.[/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