Try to keep the noise down

No, and no one said it is. It's not the same situation. Carr is altering a coin to become a "coin that never existed". It is not only A key difference, it's THE key difference.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

No Jim, the fact sets are STILL not the same, not that I'd EVER expect you to get that. What would make it the same is if one took 1922-D cents and restruck them as 1922-S cents.

 

The key question is WHY they were determined to be illegal, not that they were.

 

Oh but it DOES make all the difference in the world, Jim and Doug. It's what prevents passing love tokens in commerce not a problem, as far as government is concerned. Look Jim and Doug, just TODAY, THIS VERY DATE, we have a brand spanking new Hobby Protection Act with all its regulatory accouterments intact and in place. And that makes the entire world of this issue begin all over today. Even court precedent doesn't control once a new law is passed. Last action wins. We have an utterly clean blank legal slate in place as of November 16, 2016.

Why is this so?

Because laws which are in pari materia, or on the same subject or matter, must be construed together, and language may not be cherry-picked for accomplishing a particular outcome. This is a basic tenet of statutory construction, and a frequent reason why trial courts get reversed.

"I cain't he'p it. I readz Supreme Court decisions, jus' fer fun."

 

I smell a lot of sour grapes now that Dan's position has become stronger

 

Dan Carr's work does put some people at potential legal liability, but it's not Dan. The buyers of his fantasy pieces, including me, assume a not insubstantial potential liability to ensure that his pieces are not misrepresented in whatever downstream market exists at any time in which we may choose to participate.

 

You taste sour grapes, not smell them.

 

Here is a direct quote from the findings of the regulators:

... the federal statute prohibiting the alteration of U.S. coins requires fraudulent intent. 18 U.S.C. 331. Accordingly, the Commission finds no grounds to adopt a rule banning fantasy coins.

 

Touche.

 

Sanity rules. Oh shucks, guess this thread is over. Looks like another "criminal" is off the hook.

 

Your statement above is patently false.

The Westminster Mint case was settled by the parties involved. There was no ruling by a judge or Jury. Nothing about it was found to be legal or illegal by the court.

As a moderator here, you should not be injecting your personal opinions or falsehoods into discussions. If you want discuss your personal opinions, fine. But resign from your post as a moderator first.

 

That is the most stupid thing you have ever said. Everyone here is a member and has the right to voice an opinion. If you don't understand that you are the one that needs to resign.

 

DC, I love what you do and think you are a true artist. The things you create are awesome.

That said, this statement you made is completely wrong. I feel that I am possibly the only member of the forum who can make a truly unbiased comment on it. I am formerly a member of the staff here...but I currently have no connect to the staff nor do I represent them in any way (and I don't wish to). That said, I have been on both sides of this type of comment. The truth is, the staff maintains a view that every member (staff or not) is a normal member. The staff at times must take off their "member hat" and put on their "staff hat" to deal with rules violations. But, outside of those times...staff members are no different than regular members. They have the exact same rights to express their opinions and are held to the same rules. It might not always seem this way...but Doug has always been consistent with this (and trust me, him and I have had our differences...I feel no need to support him if I thought he was wrong).

I may personally disagree with what he is saying...and you might too. But he is allowed to say it...just like anyone else is.

 

I think your post here goes a bit too far in asking a moderator to be ultra-neutral. I don't object to mods having "a dog in the fight", as long as that viewpoint doesn't affect their moderating. Alas, I feel it has and occasionally does. They're human. (Or are they really well done bots?)

 

No other coin forum that I visit has moderators that express personal opinions in discussions. They only express and enforce the rules of the forum.

 

Hey, you are correct. That's probably for the best too.

Nevertheless, it appears this forum is different. They seem to be experienced numismatists and most of the time add good thoughts. At CT we get to love/ hate the mods. You made your point and corrected the record. Besides, correcting a mod (and anyone else) is/has to be a really good feeling.

Now, any plans for a 1922 Plain cent?

 

Now someone is tasting sour grapes for sure. So @dcarr , how about laying all this to rest and put a signature on all your work?

 

A plain 1922 cent MIGHT, I repeat, MIGHT pass legal muster if it was extraordinarily crisply struck and not mushy in the least.

 

Well, that's how it is here. I can tell you this...all the members of the staff were originally normal members. I personally was an active member for several years before one day Peter approached me and asked me to join his team (obviously I have since returned to the realm of the normal member). What I said earlier is how it was explained to me and I think it is better that way. We are all just members of the community...a few of which have been asked to help out. Yes, at times tempers flare and maybe a mod does something that is biased...they have probably all done it a time or two (and I probably did too), but for the most part they just strive to help out. 99% of the time they are normal members.

All the mods joined CT originally as normal members like you or I. The only one I don't know about for sure is Doug. I think he was moderating CT back when were were still using stone tablets and chisels.

 

How exactly do you wire those for networking? CAT-negative eight?