Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Kasia, post: 1417350, member: 31533&quot;]Guess I have to eat my words here. The gubment does care if they say it&#039;s fraudulent. Guess that&#039;s the determining factor. Does the gubment pronounce one thing fraudulent and let other things go, at their discretion, and for no apparent reason?</p><p><br /></p><p>For example. </p><p><br /></p><p>evidently flattened pennies/elongated pennies/encased pennies (with advertising around them) is not fraudulent, since the gubment has never gone after them, and has ignored all past and current ones.</p><p><br /></p><p>evidently counterstamping like Daniel Carr doesn&#039;t qualify as fraudulent either, since the new date is not on a real coin</p><p><br /></p><p>evidently counterstamping kennedy facing lincoln on a penny and selling the same penny for 4.95 is not fraudulent either</p><p><br /></p><p>but somehow putting a sticker on the dollar or quarter is. A sticker that I would suppose could be removed. Guess it&#039;s the gubment&#039;s definition of intent to pass as advertising that defines fraudulent to them.[/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