Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
US Coins Forum
>
Just got the elusive 1916 Barber Half....
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="dcarr, post: 2173346, member: 4781"]There are two very significant differences between the "Gold Bullion International" (GBI) case and what I do:</p><p><br /></p><p>1)</p><p>GBI marketed their pieces as "restrikes", which is a common term applied to official government re-issues of previous coins. GBI did not sufficiently indicate that their pieces were privately and recently minted. This had the effect of leading some potential buyers to believe the pieces were government minted.</p><p>All of mine are clearly advertised as private over-strikes.</p><p><br /></p><p>2)</p><p>GBI's coins were NOT over-struck on genuine pieces. They were not defaced or altered original coins. They were freshly-struck on virgin blanks. As such, they are not unlike Chinese "1872" US Trade Dollars, for example. (The first year for genuine US Trade Dollars was 1873).</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><i>The Administrative Law Judge ruled that because these coins </i>[the Gold Bullion International's German gold coins]<i> were not copies of any actual “original numismatic items” the HPA did not require them to be marked “COPY”. The Commission reversed on this point. Admitting that the replicas were neither “reproductions” nor “copies” under the HPA’s definition of “imitation numismatic items”, the Commission found that they were “counterfeits”, because “[c]ourts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be ‘sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article.’</i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p><b>Note that the original ruling by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was that the GBI pieces were not copies of any "original numismatic item". The FTC also agreed that they were not copies or reproductions as defined by the HPA. The FTC did contradict the ALJ, not on the basis of the HPA, but rather on the basis of U.S.C. Title 18 <i>criminal counterfeiting </i>statutes. However, U.S.C. Title 18 does not apply to my fantasy-date over-strike coins because they are not <i>counterfeits</i>, but rather altered/defaced genuine coins that are not produced for fraudulent purposes.</b>[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="dcarr, post: 2173346, member: 4781"]There are two very significant differences between the "Gold Bullion International" (GBI) case and what I do: 1) GBI marketed their pieces as "restrikes", which is a common term applied to official government re-issues of previous coins. GBI did not sufficiently indicate that their pieces were privately and recently minted. This had the effect of leading some potential buyers to believe the pieces were government minted. All of mine are clearly advertised as private over-strikes. 2) GBI's coins were NOT over-struck on genuine pieces. They were not defaced or altered original coins. They were freshly-struck on virgin blanks. As such, they are not unlike Chinese "1872" US Trade Dollars, for example. (The first year for genuine US Trade Dollars was 1873). [I]The Administrative Law Judge ruled that because these coins [/I][the Gold Bullion International's German gold coins][I] were not copies of any actual “original numismatic items” the HPA did not require them to be marked “COPY”. The Commission reversed on this point. Admitting that the replicas were neither “reproductions” nor “copies” under the HPA’s definition of “imitation numismatic items”, the Commission found that they were “counterfeits”, because “[c]ourts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be ‘sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article.’ [/I] [B]Note that the original ruling by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was that the GBI pieces were not copies of any "original numismatic item". The FTC also agreed that they were not copies or reproductions as defined by the HPA. The FTC did contradict the ALJ, not on the basis of the HPA, but rather on the basis of U.S.C. Title 18 [I]criminal counterfeiting [/I]statutes. However, U.S.C. Title 18 does not apply to my fantasy-date over-strike coins because they are not [I]counterfeits[/I], but rather altered/defaced genuine coins that are not produced for fraudulent purposes.[/B][/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
>
Just got the elusive 1916 Barber Half....
>
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...