Question about Daniel Carr offerings

Because they were struck from virgin blanks. How is this so hard to comprehend?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Again you demonstrate your fundamental lack of knowledge of the law. First, you label my posts as opinion. Opinion is nice; it is also constitutionally protected. A common defense to a libel/slander suit is that the statements are an honest and sincerely held opinion. A second defense is the truth of the matter asserted. I would be happy to litigate that in court. Third, when it's written in text it is called libel.

I have had my maximum dose of stupidity for the day. I would permanently ignore you and the others, but then I would miss the opportunity to correct all of the errors and mis-statements that have been made.

Edited: Typo and grammar

 

For the collective mothers of America, "that everyone else is doing it" is not a good defense. Of course, the Smithsonian is a government institution. While I still think there are legal issues, I do think the quasi-legitimization by an instrumentality of the federal government distinguishes it from your stuff.

 

Wow. That's cool. I only have 2 of the unc 2005 1oz gold. Well 1 now as I recently sold one. I contemplated trying for all years and all types or at least every type in both metals for 2005 but other interests have always seemed to take priority. That's cool that you have all years. All finishes and weights in both metals as well?

 

Let me make sure I understand your argument. So you are saying that the fact the coin is overstruck over a genuine coin means that it cannot be a counterfeit within the meaning of the counterfeiting statutes or the Hobby Protection Act?

 

Come on guys, let go of the legal stuff already.

 

I want him to articulate his argument in one single post. Is it his contention that the nature of the host coin (i.e. "virgin" v. "non-virgin" planchet) is what distinguishes his pieces so that the HPA and counterfeiting statutes don't apply?

 

Yup. Alteration, not counterfeit. Simple stuff law man.

 

Great. Now we are getting somewhere. Let's forget about Carr's pieces all together and put aside intent, date variations, etc., for the moment (we can revisit those later). The question in this post is simply "can a piece overstruck over a genuine coin be a counterfeit within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 485?"

Forget about comparisons to Carr - he doesn't exist for purposes of the post. In the Wilson case I cited, the defendants were convicted with counterfeiting for overstriking better date coins with numismatic premiums over common date genuine coins. The court rejected the argument that the coins were only altered within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 331 and not counterfeits within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 485.

Now back to my initial question: If the coins in the Wilson case which were overstruck over genuine coins were adjudicated to be counterfeits, then how can the nature of the host coin ("virgin" v. "non-virgin" planchet) matter to the end result? I am not saying that you acquiesce that the other elements are met to label his coins counterfeit; I am asking solely about the use of genuine coins as pre-prepared planchets.

 

That is a nice collection. I only have the 1.5-oz silver.

I know that there are two design types: with denomination (2005-2006) and without denomination (2007-2016). Since there is no date on any of them other than "1876", is there any way to tell the years apart other than the NGC slabs which state "Struck 2005", "Struck 2009", etc ?

As far as I know there is:
0.1-oz gold (no denomination, proof)
1.0-oz gold (with denomination, satin UNC)
1.0-oz gold (with denomination, proof)
1.0-oz gold (no denomination, proof)
1.5-oz silver (with denomination, proof)
1.5-oz silver (no denomination, proof)
1.0-oz silver (no denomination, proof)
5.0-oz silver (no denomination, proof)

Are there any other types not listed here ?

 

I seem to remember seeing a 3oz silver at a show but I can't find a 3oz silver online so my memory may be failing me on that. And I haven't seen the 1/10oz Gold you listed but all others I am aware of

 

Anyone else want to take a stab at my question? If someone can make a convincing argument perhaps I would reconsider my position.

If overstriking a genuine coin were sufficient to remove a coin from the purview of the counterfeiting statutes, then Wilson would have been exonerated of counterfeiting regardless of his intent or the dates struck on the coins (although he would have still been guilty of fraud and other crimes).

 

*crickets*

 

Don't worry. There'll be 3 more pages to read when you wake up tomorrow.

 

You won't get that. Expect insulting remarks. That's the normal.

 

18 USC 485:
The first paragraph states that a violation requires that someone "falsely makes", "forges", or "counterfeits" a coin. All three of these qualifiers indicate deceptive and/or fraudulent intent.

"falsely makes": From dictionary.com, the definition of falsely:
1. not true or correct; erroneous: a false statement.
2. uttering or declaring what is untrue: a false witness.
3. not faithful or loyal; treacherous: a false friend.
4. tending to deceive or mislead; deceptive: a false impression.
5. not genuine; counterfeit.

"forges": From dictionary.com:
verb (used without object) 3. to imitate (handwriting, a signature, etc.) fraudulently; fabricate a forgery.

"counterfeits": From dictionary.com:
verb (used with object) 7. to make a counterfeit of; imitate fraudulently; forge.

However, there is an alternate meaning of the word "forges" and it is actually possible that the statement "falsely makes", forges, or counterfeits" in 18 USC 485 was indicating the method of manufacture of the item, not the intent of the maker.
The alternate definition of "forges": verb (used with object), forged, forging. 1. to form by heating and hammering; beat into shape. Forging requires heat. I do not melt or heat the over-strikes. Without added heat, there can be no "forging".

The second paragraph of 18 USC 485 clearly indicates that a violation requires fraudulent intent.

Wilson falsely made "1955" dimes by first flattening common-date Roosevelt dimes (essentially turning them into planchets), and then striking them as apparent premium-date "1955" coins. This fact was noted in the Wilson trial.

On some of the earlier over-strikes that I produced (such as "1964-D" Peace Dollars) I did flatten them somewhat prior to over-striking, but even so, full outlines of all the details were still visible. So they were far from completely flattened. Those over-struck Peace Dollars clearly show significant remnants of the original outlines. All of the over-strikes that I have done in the last several years were over-struck without any flattening first.

Of course, Wilson did have fraudulent intent and sold quantities of these coins while deceptively representing them as genuine originals. Another aspect of the Wilson case involved other faked coins such as 1950-D nickels and 1932 Washington quarters with false "D" mint marks added to them and sold as genuine original 1932-D quarters.

Also from the Wilson case appellate court:
"All of the genuine issues of the coins counterfeited or altered were of extraordinary value to coin collectors, to whom the sales were made"

 

Thank you for taking the time to respectfully respond. However, my question had only to do with the design itself, which you stated wasn't copied yet most certainly was, and the very methods he uses to produce them testify to this fact. Beyond this, as much as I can appreciate your belief of it being his "interpretation", the only way this can logically hold water is if the same is accepted for other products so often labeled "counterfeits", "fakes", or simply "copies", particularly when one "interpretation" just happens to be much more exacting than the others.

 

You're trying to pivot the question to intent. We will get there soon. For now, I would like someone to answer the question posed in post #509 free from diversion or extraneous argument. Your arguments here will be addressed; don't fret.

 

Is this post haste ?

 

I do not know exactly what his methods are when he produces the dies? How can he copy the design? No 1964 D Morgan's were ever produced, so where did he copy the coin from?