Options
LIMITED MINTAGE IS OFFERING A 2-OZ. MORGAN OBVERSE/1804 REVERSE MULE ONLY 15 MADE - $99
PipestonePete
Posts: 1,925 ✭✭✭✭✭
1
PipestonePete
Posts: 1,925 ✭✭✭✭✭
PipestonePete
Posts: 1,925 ✭✭✭✭✭
PipestonePete
Posts: 1,925 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
I saw that! I bought a couple of the clashed die Indians that were limit to 10.. not sure I will buy this one or not, as morgans aren't my favorite design, lol. Still pretty cool!
I don't see a "copy" stamp so looks to be a violation of the hobby protection act.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
On the reverse it says 2 ounce silver round, and there is no denomination, so its good.
A novelty item... though it is 2 oz. of silver...but expensive. Cheers, RickO
Actually, that is not the law.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Expensive bullion.......
GACK!!!
What is the law? Obviously those in charge do not mind, since things like this and Carr pieces are allowed.
This might help you with the law:
https://federalregister.gov/documents/2016/04/20/2016-09103/rules-and-regulations-under-the-hobby-protection-act
The law is, if you make an imitation numismatic item you have to mark it with the word "copy", there is no exception if you have the weight and purity printed on it. I had a successful class action lawsuit where, the imitation items had the weight and purity put on it.
The reason Carr gets away with it is because no one is challenging him in court. If someone were to sue him to get him to stop, they would almost certainly win. Actually, one of the first Hobby protection act cases was against a Carr design.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Uhhhhh OHHHHH!
Shifty S####f
But these are not imitating any numismatic item. There are no 2 ounce 1878 morgan dollar with a large eagle reverses out there. That is how Carr and anyone else using similar designs can get away with it. If it was an imitation, it would be correct size, date, design, etc.
Straight-out pass.
Making this kind of 'gift suggestion' with the name of the seller has not been a thing here in the past (with one frequent exception), and I hope it doesn't become fashionable.
"Gift suggestion"?? Actually, it was more of a follow-up to this earlier posting. I merely posted it as a "heads up" for anyone who might have purchased the other limited run they had offered several weeks ago. I thought of it more as a "courtesy" than a "gift suggestion".
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1015606/ever-hear-of-intaglio-mint#latest
Sold out already. I probably should have snatched one up to go with my two clashed Indians.
Thank you Pipe I have bought some in the past and I think there great. Not so much the limited ones but some of them are tempting. I have their site on my radar.
I was a bit turned off when they did the switch glad they now allow the public buy directly. I guess that move did NOT FARE WELL FOR THEM. But I knew that.
Dan has said that he's ready and willing to defend himself in court. After almost 10 years since the 1964 Peace Dollar, I don't recall a legal incident, much less one where Dan lost.
What happened to the Hobby Protection Act case against a Carr design mentioned above? Do you have a link to it?
Here are a few examples of some of their antiqued medals. The color balance is pretty close....the background is not white.
I don't think anyone is going to be deceived with one of these "coins". I am not concerned about it not being marked as a COPY.
Agree. This isn’t much different than the many silver rounds that have been produced for a long time.
This is the item in question (see below). In 2004 I was commissioned to make the graphic design for it. I did not sculpt, engrave, strike, or market them. National Collectors Mint (NCM) took my graphic illustration and had Sunshine Minting make them.
What got NCM into trouble was not the design. It was NCM's marketing (newspaper ads) which called it a "Government Issue Silver Dollar". Most were not solid silver nor were they "government issue". NCM had made a deal with an official from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) for the coin to bear a small logo of CNMI and a "One Dollar" face value. The problem was, CNMI is a protectorate of the United States and is not allowed to issue their own currency. The CNMI official was basically corrupt and took the money from the NCM deal and ran, knowing the deal was a sham.
People also felt that NCM was taking advantage of a tragic situation (9/11) in profiting from this coin. In reality, the coin was supposed to commemorate the new Freedom Tower ground breaking, but that was overshadowed by the other controversies.
After the debacle with the 2004 issue, NCM made a new deal with the Cook Islands (CI) and made CI dollars using the same design from 2005-2010. There were no legal problems in any regard for this action. The 2005 Cook Islands Freedom Tower Dollar is listed in Krause World Coins Catalog as KM# 470.
.
So one might ask, why was there a violation of the Hobby Protection Act (HPA) for the CNMI issue and not for the CI issues ?
There really was no violation of the HPA in either case, but for the CNMI issues, there was a problem in marketing it as a legal tender coin (and also implying that the coins were made from solid World Trade Center recovery silver when, in fact, most only have a small amount of WTC silver mixed in with the silver plating).
That is not what the law or the courts have said. If you read the cases and judges rulings you will see that the fact it is different size would not give it a pass. You can search for my thread about my lawsuit a few years back.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
There were two different cases, one was the NY Attorney General's case, the other was a Class Action lawsuit brought by someone that would later become my lawyer. The class action suit came first, and then when Eliot Spiter heard about it he thought it was a great opportunity to get some press.
Here is a link to the demarco v national collectors Mint, the class action case":
https://casetext.com/case/demarco-v-national-collectors-mint
Here is an interesting part from the judges denial of the plaintiffs motion to dismiss:
Defendants claim that the FTSD does not qualify as an "imitation numismatic item" within the ambit of the HPA because it does not purport to be a reproduction or counterfeit of a real coin. They note — correctly — that the FTSD is not an exact replica of any existing or prior products or coins. According to Defendants, there has never been a real United States silver dollar that depicts the Twin Towers on one side and the proposed Freedom Tower. Defendants thus claim that the FTSD "looksnothing like U.S. legal tender," Defendants' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss the Complaint at p. 4 (March 11, 2005) ("Defendants' Reply Memorandum") and cannot be subject to the HPA as an imitation numismatic item. Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (February 3, 2005) ("Defendants' Memorandum to Dismiss").
But defendants construe the HPA too narrowly. They ignore the fact that the term "imitation numismatic item" includes not only reproductions or counterfeits of existing coins, but also any item that "purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item." 16 C.F.R. § 304.1(d). The FTSD falls within the ambit of the statute because it "purports to be, but is not, an original numismatic item." Id. The FTSD purports to be a legally authorized, government-issued silver dollar. However, the Complaint alleges that the FTSD is neither legally authorized nor government-issued, and is certainly not a "silver dollar," which is U.S. legal tender. See Cplt. ¶ 9. The Complaint further alleges that Defendants have shored up the FTSD's claim to be "legally authorized" and "government-issued," by stamping on the coin the phrases "In God We Trust" and "One Dollar" (Cplt ¶¶ 12-13). These phrases that are required by law to appear on all United States legal tender. See Attached Exhibit C in Plaintiff's Declaration in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint as to all Defendants and in Support of Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Class Certification (February 19, 2005). These characteristics of the FTSD might not fool a sophisticated coin collector, who would know that only the United States Government can mint a coin, but they could lead an unsophisticated purchaser to believe the FTSD was indeed legal tender issued by the Government. Therefore, the Complaint alleges that the FTSD purports to be an original numismatic item but is not. That makes it an imitation numismatic device. Defendants' argument that the coin is not a reproduction of a real Government-minted coin reads half the definition of that term out of the statute.
DeMarco v. National Collector's Mint, Inc., 229 F.R.D. 73, 78 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
The only reason Carr has not been sued himself, is because he is a small fish. When a larger company made one of his designs they were sued and lost.
I don't think any one will be suing Carr, because he is so small. However, I don't think Carr should be wishing for a suit. If he is sued and wins he has to pay his legal fees, and if he loses he has to pay the fees of both him and the defendant, that is how the HPA is written.
But I don't think we need to get into a discussion of the HPA now. Carr and I have both made our positions know, if you want to know more about where we stand you can always look for our old threads on the topic.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Your choice of words are insulting and rude! Its almost like your constantly attacking one of our members here. Maybe I am reading this wrong but maybe not.
You are reading it wrong, as no insult is intended. My comment was in response to why no one has sued D Carr for making un-marked imitation numismatic items. I am not the one that brought up D Carr. Its a matter of economics, his sales are just not big enough to make it worth a lawyers time. It is faulty logic to say that no one has sued him, so he must not be violating the HPA.
I have nothing personal against D. Carr, I think he is incredibly talented. We just have a disagreement on the law, and what is good for the hobby.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Thank you sorry I lost my cool and read your post wrong. My Appologies.
No worries.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.