Try to keep the noise down

Why? What statute, case, or administrative regulation are you relying on?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

We are all collector's here, I am aware of the Fantasy behind this wished apon silver dollar. I also like a good piece of exonomia. Whats the point?

 

For someone that hates lawyers and describes the entire profession as full of "creeps," you certainly enjoy playing "lawyer" on Coin Talk.

P.S. You should look back at the case law regarding statutes in pari materia being construed together. New statutes or regulations superseding older statutes/regulations has nothing to do with this doctrine as you claim. The in pari materia principle merely states that a body of law should be read cohesively and laws of the same subject matter should be read/construed together. For instance, when the Hobby Protection Act uses the word "counterfeit," it would seemingly implicate the legal definition for counterfeit as espoused in 18 U.S.C. 485 and other counterfeiting statutes (which lack an intent to defraud element for the production of counterfeits).

 

Wow.

 

I didn't know if there was a new argument in this thread that I missed. I try to understand the view points of others even when I disagree.

 

I wouldn't do a 1922 no-D or 1922-D or 1922-S over-strike Lincoln Cent for the simple reason that, mint mark aside, "1922" is not a fantasy date in the Lincoln Cent series.

 

I understand your point. This forum is structured differently than others, apparently. It is, of course, up to the owners as to how that is structured.

But who is moderating the moderators ?
If I walked into a brick and mortar business with one of my customers, and the owner of that business made factually incorrect statements in a deliberate attempt to discredit me in front of my customer, I most certainly would have a valid complaint against that business.

If it was just an isolated incident I would not have brought it up. But the moderator has a history of bias.

Here are just a few of many inflammatory examples:

I designed two state quarters and the moderator goes out of his way to trivialize that.

Contradictory.

Should a moderator here be expressing this type of sentiment ? The market sets prices, not a moderator's claim of "ridiculous prices".

Should a moderator here be indicating that a member is breaking the law when there has never been any such court ruling ?

I have made it clear on numerous occasions that the Westminster Mint case resulted in no decision by the court. But it continues to be cited incorrectly.

 

The HPA's definition of "original numismatic item":
"anything which has been a part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person, object, place, or event. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals.".

"1964-D" Morgan Silver Dollars (for example) were never part of a coinage, were never issued, and were never used in exchange.

The FTC comments regarding "fantasy coins" specifically cited the Gold Bullion International (GBI) case, and ONLY that case. GBI minted German Wilhelm gold coins with dates that were not originally minted for that type. However, they were NOT over-strikes on genuine coins. They were struck on newly-fabricated virgin blanks, and they were intentionally and deceptively marketed as official German Mint re-strikes.

The Wilson case involved deceptive alterations to existing coins for fraudulent purposes. These were not fantasy-date pieces. They were alterations to Roosevelt Dimes to give them an apparent date of "1955" which, at the time, commanded a premium in the numismatic market. These "1955" dimes were then deceptively marketed with fraudulent intent by Wilson. Part of that case also involved Wilson's adding of false "D" mint marks to 1932 [Philadelphia] Washington Quarters and the like (also with fraudulent intent).

So none of the citations involved non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins.

 

A denial of motion to dismiss the case does not establish that the Westminster Mint's products are illegal.

And for some reason, Westminster Mint did not include in their motion the fact that the plaintiff posted on an internet forum that they knew before purchasing the items that they were not government-issue coins.

 

Hey @dcarr , why not just sign your work? Then you don't have to waste your time being defensive/getting offended.

 

The fantasy date is my signature.

I did, however, put a "DC" on one of my over-strike issues (the 2009 "proofed" Silver Eagle over-strikes). When I did that, I was accused of claiming the Weinman/Mercanti design was my own because I had put my DC "designer's initials" on them. A complaint was filed with the ANA about that:
http://www.moonlightmint.com/burdette_rebuttal_post.htm

 

1964-D is not a fantasy date. We all know the person that filed the complaint against you with the ANA had another agenda. The signature was not the real complaint he had, and you're sadly using that here as if that's the main reason he filed the complaint.
You won in terms of being able to mint these tokens, though. And now you have the chance to close ALL the loopholes by signing your work. So will you?

 

Thankfully you aren't a mod

agreed

 

Not true. Carr is on solid legal ground and the Chinese are not. Read the law.

 

All precedents have been invalidated as of yesterday. A new HPA has taken full effect as of 11/16/16. Plus look up in pari materia in a law reference. All previous arguments are moot - there's a new law, baby.

 

Here it is - this is the key distinction that makes Carr's work fully legal and every other case cited here not apply.

But here are the "what if's":

a) Dan does the same thing but uses virgin blanks - PROBLEM! These would be counterfeits, unless they have the COPY stamp.
b) Dan does what he does, using same series coins, but strikes rarer dates from more common ones - PROBLEM! This is a clear attempt, or at least a reckless abetting of fraud.
c) Dan overstrikes the SAME date, producing what appears to be a higher grade - PROBLEM! Again enabling fraud.


Dan is doing none of these. He is altering actual legal tender coinage to create a piece that a "normally prudent individual" would immediately recognize as not a US Mint coin. (The term "normally prudent individual" may exclude numerous noob posters on the CoinTalk Errors forum. I can't fix that, sorry.)

As long as Dan uses real coins as blanks AND avoids fraudulent intent (notice: the conjunction is AND, not OR) he's good to go. [See: Conjunction Junction from Schoolhouse Rock.]

 

Late to the party as usual...Sniff the air first and then post.

Actually, IMO I (and several other level-headed members here) should make great mods. Unfortunately, even if offered that honor I'd have no time to serve.

 

Really? But you're here all day everyday!

 

and posting takes little time. Mods need to check reports, and make decisions. Besides, I work from 9 - 8 PM and CT is a break.

 

Although I appreciate and respect your constructive input which presented some germane facts, I also greatly appreciate any CONSTRUCTIVE/OBJECTIVE statements that learned moderators post.

I hope that the reason you visit this venue is partially in appreciation for the input of Doug and others of experience. I believe input if erred can be constructively challenged. Some other sites, with which you may have familiarity, inhibit same.

Thanks for your enlightening post(s).

JMHO