Try to keep the noise down

That was purposely done.....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

If anything, the "64 Morgan" copies may be the best example yet of "monkey see, monkey do", but is to the point that it, along with insulting the work of others, is to be expected of such a "talented artist".

 

Be still my heart....

 

Oh please. Today is the day you have been dreading and you know it. Maybe things will change in the future but his pieces are now overtly in compliance in the wording of the HPA. @V. Kurt Bellman, wanna take it from here

 

We wouldn't do that for anyone unhappy or not that doesn't break the rules. Believe me we often have a lot of unhappy people here, and most are still here,and still unhappy

 

Happy? I'm Happy. Must be the scotch (had to swear off the bourbon. Wife said I was a bit (lot) unruly.

 

Actually, we'll be eating steaks (not crow) if that happens as the current prices for his out of stock and never to be produced again little treasures of numismatic artistry are going
UP IN PRICE and are traded on the "underground." You may even wish to get one. It's human nature.

 

I like steak.......

 

Crow leaves a bad taste in my mouth.......happens all too often.

 

So it's legal to produce dies, strike and resell what is essentially United States coinage without any copy stamp or identifying features that these are copies except for usage of dates or mint marks the mint never utilized. Doesn't he create the coin dies himself and strike the coinage and then sells it via his website. He utilizes actual U.S. coinage as the planchet's sure but there is no copy stamp on the coinage he produces or dies so for all intents and purposes besides the date used it is identical to real U.S. coinage. But somehow this doesn't run afoul of

18 U.S.C. 487
Whoever, without lawful authority, makes any die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, either of steel or plaster, or any other substance, in likeness or similitude, as to the design or the inscription thereon, of any die, hub, or mold designated for the coining or making of any of the genuine gold, silver, nickel, bronze, copper, or other coins coined at the mints of the United States; or
Whoever, without lawful authority, possesses any such die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, or permits the same to be used for or in aid of the counterfeiting of any such coins of the United States—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both.
18 U.S.C. 485
Whoever falsely makes, forges, or counterfeits any coin or bar in resemblance or similitude of any coin of a denomination higher than 5 cents or any gold or silver bar coined or stamped at any mint or assay office of the United States, or in resemblance or similitude of any foreign gold or silver coin current in the United States or in actual use and circulation as money within the United States....

The closest we come on precedence is this old FTC decision regarding foreign bullion coins where it they found that simply altering the date to produce 'fantasy' coins wasn't enough to alleviate the need to mark 'fantasy' dates as a copy.

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/f...july_-_december_1978pages_171-273.pdf#page=26

 

Hi Ho.... a bit of dinner and then a much welcomed repose.......'nite fellows. On the 'morrow.

 

"Essentially" is what makes your post moot. BTW, I believe the dates he uses on this products do not exist on the genuine coin types.

 

And clearly you didn't read through the old FTC case which would set the legal precedent for a matter such as this.

 

Apparently, YES.

Case & precedent? Moot! That's my new word for the night. Moot, moot.

 

You're not getting it. He's merely altering existing coinage with a fantasy date not creating coinage

 

Yes because that makes all the difference. I'm done in this thread as I said long ago I wouldn't argue further in them. But by Dan's own argument in the public comment period on the HPA he knows that he's operating in an extremely 'grey' area of the law and you fan boys can believe whatever you want. If push came to shove and the government decided to make an example or crack down he'd be very sorry he's doing what he does.

 

I missed much of the conversation earlier due to blocked posters. There are several people spreading misinformation concerning a putative "new HPA" and new rules that somehow purportedly vindicate Carr. This is false, and the claims fall apart upon closer inspection.

The marking requirement and the definitions of "imitation numismatic item" and "original numismatic item" remain unchanged, and none of the case law concerning those provisions has been superseded. Rather, in 2014, Congress enacted the Collectible Coin Protection Act, which amended the HPA by adding additional provisions aimed at sellers of HPA non-compliant pieces and those who provide material assistance/support. On October 14, 2016, the FTC added new rules to the Hobby Protection Act (effective November 16, 2016) with respect to the sellers of non-compliant pieces and those that provide support. None of the previous rules concerning the definitions or marking requirements were altered:
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...nd-regulations-under-the-hobby-protection-act

The language cited by another poster concerning 18 U.S.C. 331 is taken out of context. It appears to be a truncated quote from the Federal Register in April of 2016 in response to previous public comments that suggest that "fantasy coins" be marked or banned outright. The FTC rejected these suggestions:

At least 2-3 posters are cherry picking language (using partial quotes no less), that clearly divorce the last two sentences from the context in which the words appear. The paragraph is clearly addressing "properly-marked fantasy coins," which bear the word "COPY." Coins that comply with the HPA and have "COPY" on them are not counterfeits and the counterfeiting statutes, 18 U.S.C. 485-489, have no logical application to HPA compliant pieces. (See my discussion in other threads of the legal threshold/standard for a "counterfeit.") This language says nothing about HPA non-compliant pieces like Carr's works that are not marked with the word "COPY."

The argument that is being made here is that the alteration of a genuine coin is legal and the resulting piece cannot be called a counterfeit or otherwise violate the law. This is also false. The HPA defines an "imitation numismatic item" to include any items that are a "reproduction, copy, or counterfeit or an original numismatic item" or "an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified." 16 C.F.R. 304.1 (d). Changing a date to a fictitious date is not sufficient and such items are imitation numismatic items that must be marked with the word "COPY" in compliance with the HPA. In re Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196, 223 (1978).

The argument was also rejected in the context of the criminal counterfeiting statute 18 U.S.C. 485. See United States v. Wilson, 451 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1971). In Wilson, the defendants overstruck genuine U.S. coins with better date coinage worth numismatic premiums. Id. On appeal, the defendants argued that the coins could not be considered counterfeits because the coins were merely altered coins, and thus the applicable statute was the alteration statute 18 U.S.C. 331 and not 18 U.S.C. 485 (the "counterfeiting" statute). Id. The court rejected this and held that the government could prosecute under either 18 U.S.C. 485 or 18 U.S.C. 331, or both. The intent or date of the coins was irrelevant to the court's adjudication of the federal question concerning whether an altered/overstruck coin over genuine coinage could be considered counterfeits. Attempts to distinguish based on date and intent would also be misguided in light of the other decisions cited before (such as intent to defraud not required for violation of 18 U.S.C. 485 for the production of coins, date variations not being exact copies, etc.).

Bottom Line: If this was PolitiFact, the claim in this thread would be rated "pants on fire." While the HPA was amended in 2014 and corresponding amendments to the Code of Federal Regulations were made in 2016, the changes concerned the sellers of the coins and did not affect the portions of the statute at play (the definitions of "imitation numismatic item" and the marking requirement). Moreover, there was no legitimization of Carr's work or other HPA non-compliant pieces. The quote merely stated the obvious: HPA marked pieces are legal (duh!).

Edited: Typos.

 

I go away on vacation for a week and this thread is still pumping....

 

Thank You for taking the time to post. I'm looking forward to a long debate.

 

I thought I would throw my two cents in. In order for this Token/fantasy piece to become illegal. Silver would have to be a 1$/ounce. Just think how ridiculous that sounds. You can play that on both hands. Either the US is doing so wonderful that, we have dealt with inflation, or, in complete depravity! I am not a pessimist so I will go with the right hand.
If I have to ever go spend an illegal (at that point) silver dollar to buy a loaf of bread, I'm gonna be pissed!