Something that has been bothering me

Why does that have to mean by spending them? I read that as being sold, "introduced into commerce". Why would wording like that be in the Hobby Protection Act? The entire PURPOSE of the law to protect numismatically valuable coins from being counterfeited.

Spending counterfeit coins are already well covered in counterfeiting laws.

Maybe I am just dense or something.

Edit: Definition of numismatic item in the act:

"d) Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified. The term shall not include any re-issue or re-strike of any original numismatic item by the United States or any foreign government.
"

It also covers political buttons and memorabilia, so I seriously doubt the intent of the act is to simply stop counterfeiters of spending money. I would strongly argue "introducing into commerce" means selling them regardless of any disclosure. The intent of the act is to protect the hobby, and selling imitations unmarked will potentially destroy the hobby. The only protection is forcing all fakes to be indelibly marked as fakes.

Remember the reproduction mint in Arkansas? You could request which side had COPY stamped on it, but they would not ever sell one without the stamp, because in their literature they declared it illegal to manufacture an imitation, even one sold as an imitation, unless stamped COPY. They were in the business, and had a legal opinion rendered, and it affected their business, so I would tend to believe their view.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Besides collecting coins, I also collect high-quality replicas. Personally, I would have thanked the dealer for offering them for sale.

Everything is in order.

 

Cheap fakes are just as bad as expensive fakes. The reason?


BECAUSE THEY ARE FAKE!!!


Sorry everybody.

 

He admitted it AFTER I questioned their authenticity. Before I questioned them, there was no notice whatsoever that they were fakes. Not on his case, not on the flips, not on the coins, nowhere. One has to wonder if any got sold as authentic coins.

Pretty sweet gig if all you have to do is admit AFTER you have been caught, and still not be in trouble, huh?

Btw, I am not so sure you would be thanking him if you bought one of these in the future as an authentic coin. Like I said, many were excellent forgeries.

 

I guess I must have been out of the room when you were giving all that money away!
Just my luck!

 

You are right I very well could be wrong. If you are right and this is the interpretation of the law, there might as well not be any law since its useless. The real danger is not just direct from the dealer, but also what happens when the collector dies and his stuff is sold? I thought this was the very REASON for the law, and you are saying its not even PART of the law.

I have spent way too much time telling family members their cheap fakes are valueless, (*cough* continental currency *cough*). Imagine what it will be like in 30 years when these better fakes all come onto the market.

If your interpretation is correct, we seriously need a new law. I am not saying you are wrong Doug, but it just makes me sad to think if you are right.

 

It doesn't really matter how you or I interpret the law. What matters is that the secret service has little or no interest in counterfeit numismatic items. If they are not being sold as genuine (regardless if they are marked "copy" or not), and there is no intent to defraud, well, the "powers to be" just don't care. The HPA is very weak, and most law enforcement agencies have never even heard of it. The thought is that the numismatic community must be self-policing, with the burden of counterfeit detection resting on the shoulders of the collector. Don't think for one minute the law will be there for your protection. I believe the OP has approached this situation logically and realistically.

 

I think you are missing the point here.

#1) you are calling the dealer a greedy lowlife for selling something fake at a price more than you claim it can be gotten for from a different source, yet you are willing to A) purchase items (indian head cents) and auction them in the hope that you can make 1.30 or whatever for each of them (nearly 200% of your purchase price -- bet you'd be crowing if they went for 10.00 each, and you wouldn't give that money back to the buyer and say, sorry, that coin just wasn't worth that amount), and B) clean coins and resell them for a 25c to a buck each without notifying the 'newbies' you want to buy them that they aren't worth that amount. How in tarnation is this dealer's actions any different from what you have told us you are willing to do. In fact, in scenario A), you actually are doing this because of greed - after seeing some indian head cents you claim are worth diddly go for 2.00 a piece. The problem doesn't really lie with what the guy is asking for the coin (in fact there's someone here routinely putting up a certain coin on eBay and asking more than 8 million for something that might conceivably be valued at 1,000 to 3,500 on a good day). A seller has the right to ask whatever they want to, and a buyer has the right to buy at a price they are willing to put out their money for, as long as it's not coerced (like what happens when in a disaster area where water is scarce, selling water for like 400.00 a gallon, and you're the only supplier). It's not the amount the guy is asking that is the problem. The problem comes in the REPRESENTATION of said coin for sale without disclosing what it actually is, whether it's cleaned or fake. I don't care if he's selling these for a cent or giving them away. They have the potential to fool others who weren't in on the original purchase (if the original purchaser knows they are fakes), and they have the potential to be fraudulent from the start, being able to be sold by the dealer to someone unable to spot it as a fake, and who believes it to be real.



#2) With the points above, I find it humorous, to be generous, and decidedly dastardly at my most ungenerous for someone who is willing to fleece newbies the way I've observed what you are willing to do, all for profit, and none for being forthright or honestly promoting the hobby to others to take the tack you take, and make this comment.

Oh well, I suppose you won't be back on this thread to read it, but if someone else in the hobby does read this, and decides to be an upstanding dealer because of what I wrote, then it's all worth it.

 

Something different will not necessarily occur.

Indeed, it is an adequate interpretation of the law; furthermore, the law isn't useless.

A new law that would attempt to massively suppress the replicas and/or the producers? It would be dismembered, because of its unconstitutional condition.

 

To enforce this law SS would greatly need to expand its jurisdiction and it's force i don't see that happening. With budget cuts looming in horizon don't be surprised even customs starts letting counterfeits items thru to focus more on other pressing threats.

 

first complain in writing to the show host. next if you get another chance send in a plant to play dumb andask the price of the coins and see if he admits they are fakes if he doesn't get local law down on him. that kind of deceptive action is illegal in most places on a local level.