Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;-jeffB, post: 2157201, member: 27832&quot;]The law should <i>not</i> be &quot;fixed&quot;, because it&#039;s not &quot;broken&quot;.</p><p><br /></p><p>If you disagree, it&#039;s an issue for you to take up with your legislators, although trying to win more converts here certainly remains fair game.</p><p><br /></p><p>From <a href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&amp;sid=6ba90b1f402763bcb0388569596c3f4b&amp;rgn=div5&amp;view=text&amp;node=16%3A1.0.1.3.28&amp;idno=16" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&amp;sid=6ba90b1f402763bcb0388569596c3f4b&amp;rgn=div5&amp;view=text&amp;node=16%3A1.0.1.3.28&amp;idno=16" rel="nofollow">the actual text of the Hobby Protection Act</a>:</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>You feel that these altered coins &quot;could reasonably purport to be&quot; an actual, rare, high-grade Barber half. I feel that a coin dated 1916 cannot &quot;reasonably purport to be&quot; an actual Barber half of any sort.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Has a 1916 Barber half ever been used in exchange or used to commemorate anything? Nope.</p><p><br /></p><p>Have 1894-S dimes, for example? Yep. Making one of them, even as an overstrike, would clearly violate the law unless it displays the COPY mark.</p><p><br /></p><p>What about 1913 Liberty nickels or 1933 double eagles? Good question.[/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