Try to keep the noise down

Yup, and it is the FTC that is tasked with enforcing the HPA. They were informed. They knew. They declined to act. That's enough for me to make a judgment.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

See the letter in section 2, point #2:
http://www.moonlightmint.com/burdette_rebuttal_post.htm
That is one of the main complaints that Burdette made:
"2. Mr. Carr did cause and continues to cause mutilation and defacement of coins of the United States known as "American Silver Eagles" by impressing his personal initials and/or monogram on to such coins in a manner to suggest to any reasonable person that Mr. Carr was responsible for the design of the original coin."

 

Yup. Like I said. The usual suspects are just going through the 5 stages of grief. They're transitioning from denial to anger right now. Soon will come bargaining, which they may skip and go directly to depression, then finallly, hopefully, acceptance

 

No numismatist EVER handles not being the smartest guy in the room very well; it's so rare for us when mixing with the "Muggles", right? But the OLD numismatists are the WORST! Their brains are in serious danger of explosion when one of their most cherished myths gets disproven. And WOW, for some of them, myths are almost all they have left. I attribute it to never being able to emotionally get past 1933, 1965 and 1971. Stunted development.

 

Actually the REAL mutilation was giving it a proof finish. But I personally am glad you signed it. To me that makes it legitimate. Burdette was sort of grasping for anything and everything when he made his case. Not all of your critics are like him, Dan.
Take me... I think dead kittens are abhorrent.

 

Anybody know what happened to the Carr thread on the NGC forum? I just went there and saw a new thread with 10 responses. Clicked on it and got an error. Went back to the main page and refreshed it and it was gone. @Coinchemistry 2012 ??

 

The 2009-DC "proofed" Silver Eagles were the one time where I over-struck coins without using a fantasy date. 2009 Silver Eagles exist. And that is what I over-struck. So without a fantasy date to serve as a "signature", I added a "DC" "mint mark" to serve as a signature.

PS:
Note that I did not remove the original designers' initials.

 

WILL SOMEONE PLEASE JUST SUE SOMEBODY AND GET THIS CRAP OVER WITH??????!!!!????

 

Well with all that I must say I'm looking forward to the proof Morgan

 

Depends on which one you were talking about. The most recent one by "afterword" was clearly trolling and was reported to the moderators for being a troll. The NGC forum moderators don't generally care about trolls and let them survive for months, but that thread appears to be gone.

 

I do not claim "ownership" over the various fantasy dates. If someone else were to make "1964" Peace Dollars of some sort, I would not contemplate litigation on the grounds of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

However, if someone purposely copied my "1964-D" Peace Dollar over-strike (for example) in an attempt to produce something that looked very similar and that they could market as a "Daniel Carr over-strike" then that would be different. The two aspects of my "1964-D" Peace Dollar over-strikes that I do claim IPR on are the exact size, style, and placement of the "64" digits in the date and the exact re-punching of the "D" mint mark. This is because those are the two main areas where I performed my own original sculpting.

 

You can read all his coin forum posts about cats here (see section 3.3):
http://www.moonlightmint.com/burdette_rebuttal_post.htm

 

Well, wasn't that kind of you! Very nice of you to be so thoughtful as to give the actual artist and creator of the work you're copying a teeny tiny bit of credit. Endless kudos to you, sir!

 

In denying the motion, the judge simply stated "The Court disagrees with Defendants' narrow application of the HPA" and as a justification for doing so, cited the Demarco vs National Collectors Mint (Freedom Tower Silver Dollar) case.

The Judge did not state anything about the legality or illegality of the Westminster Mint products, only that they denied the motion to dismiss.

The Judge also wrote:

"When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court assumes all facts in the Complaint to be true and interprets all reasonable inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff."

"Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiff, the allegations in the Complaint concerning "imitation numismatic items" sufficiently support a claim under the HPA."

In other words, if the case was viewed in a way that was most favorable to the Plaintiff, there was a chance that the Plaintiff could prevail at trail. And so the motion to dismiss was denied. If a trial had actually taken place, it is not known how things would actually play out. I don't think the case had reached the Discovery phase.

The Demarco vs NCM case was highly flawed. At least one well-known attorney who was not connected to the case has criticized the conclusions in that trial. If putting "One Dollar" on something is sufficient to be a violation of the HPA, then what about all the foreign countries that have "Dollar" as their named currency, or all the casinos with metal "One Dollar" tokens ? What about putting "In God We Trust" on a token ? Should that be a violation of the HPA ? Was it really the intent of Congress in enacting the laws to prevent the private use of IGWT on tokens ? Imaging the public outcry if, for example, a bus company was told that they had to remove "In God We Trust" from their tokens.

 

I've come to realize that the only way to resolve this is with an Andrew Jackson style pistol duel or something of the sort.

 

Projection is quite a powerful defense mechanism and is on full display in this thread.

 

This has been civil, and I don't think anyone has implied or ever would imply the threat of violence. While passionate in disagreement, it isn't that serious. The allegation is that his pieces violate the HPA and possibly the counterfeiting statutes. It isn't like he murdered somebody.

 

I thought it was interesting that the thread died too. Nothing good would have come from it, and sarcasm would have been at an all time high had it continued. I think NGC made the right choice in pulling it before it became ugly.

 

But I don't think the "facts" of the case were in dispute, only the legal conclusions. It wasn't denied that the U.S. issued certain pieces, and it wasn't disputed (I don't think) that the defendant struck certain pieces with certain inscriptions. You are missing a critical distinction between facts and legal conclusions. There is a big difference. I cited this case because the defendants parroted some arguments that strongly parallel yours and those arguments were rejected.

 

Would you please explain what this post means for a high school dropout? Thanks.