U.S.A. "Hobby Act" openly violated

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by bella.luzit, Jan 16, 2021.

  1. bella.luzit

    bella.luzit New Member

  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest

    to hide this ad.
  3. potty dollar 1878

    potty dollar 1878 Florida girls have to love walking there sharks.

    The price seems to be right not overcharged they say there copys its not like ebay where dozens of counterfeit cc morgan dollars sell for hundreds of thousands daily.
  4. Matthew Kruse

    Matthew Kruse Young Numismatist

    "The Hobby Protection Act, passed by Congress in 1973, covers imitation political items (e.g., buttons, posters, stickers, etc.), as well as imitation numismatic items (e.g., various coins, tokens, paper money, commemorative medals) that are required to be marked with certain identifying information in an effort to flag them as imitations. The FTC’s Rule establishes the size of the required disclosures, their location, and the manner in which items may be marked."

    Basically, if you're going to sell replica coins, they need to be marked "COPY" or its illegal. Its a shame those won't do anything about it. Hopefully these fakes are easy to identify. You think they would pass the magnet test?
    Tater and markr like this.
  5. Kentucky

    Kentucky Supporter! Supporter

    • We have 870's of coins in stock and ready to be shipped ----This product is a copy coin, not a real trading coin, please purchase when it is acceptable
    • Dear, this old Coin is made of copper; the old Coin is plated with 925 sterling silver. This product is handmade crafts. It is not a tradable silver coin, but it is worth your permanent collection.
  6. JeffC

    JeffC Hogwarts Numismatist Apprentice Supporter

    I wonder what the legal recourse is if the "replica" is of an "original" that doesn't exist. The second example from the OP shows a 1918 $1 Silver Eagle. But that doesn't exist. The real ones only started in '86.
    John Burgess likes this.
  7. Kentucky

    Kentucky Supporter! Supporter

    ...kind of like Daniel Carr fantasies @dcarr
    John Burgess, Beefer518 and JeffC like this.
  8. JeffC

    JeffC Hogwarts Numismatist Apprentice Supporter

    That's what happens when they cut and paste a little bit from here and a little bit from there, and the grammar ends up being funnier than the replica, dear.
    Tater, Matthew Kruse, GeorgeM and 3 others like this.
  9. GeorgeM

    GeorgeM Well-Known Member

    There is no violation of the Hobby Act in that situation. It's like producing a platinum copy of the Morgan Dollar with a 2020 date. There's no attempt to defraud.
    John Burgess and JeffC like this.
  10. Conder101

    Conder101 Numismatist

    From my reading and interpretation of the HPA they would or at least should be in violation.

    Would you say these items "purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item"?

    I would. Even with a non-existent date, the coin still purports (pretends) to be a numismatic item. (It has a date, states UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and carries a denomination. To me that means it is pretended to be a coin, a numismatic item.) Under the definitions in the HPA that makes it an imitation numismatic item, and it IS required to be marked COPY.
    Beefer518, JeffC, markr and 2 others like this.
  11. John Burgess

    John Burgess Well-Known Member

    I dunno, isn't that the wrong reverse of the seated liberty dollar coin? also how about the 1888 CC morgan? I must have missed that one.

    the 1890 S yes, this looks fake as hell, but it was a date and mintmark that existed.

    the 2nd link is an impossibility.

    not sure of the 1890 S morgan, but the rest would be fantasy pieces and not required to carry "copy" on them. the 1890 S might fool someone I suppose..... I don't see anything "really wrong" about it to give it away like the others. I mean it's clearly fake, but it might fools some people I suppose.

    There's been this discussion ad nauseum. Daniel Car of MoonLight Mint makes fantasy coins of U.S. coinage a lot, They are not copies or replicas, they are dates that weren't made. So they don't have to be labeled "copy" if someone buys it to sucker someone with it, that's on them, not him for making it as it's not meant to fool anyone because the mint never made it in the first place. He's doing it from the United States, He owns a surplus press from the denver mint also, nobody is shutting him down either.

    Now I'll agree on the 1890 S morgan. the other 3 coins I see no problem with at all.
  12. Tater

    Tater Coin Collector

    Boy don't get me started about big tech right now. It should have copy on it imo.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page