Text of the Hobby Protection Act

CaptHenway

For future reference.

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=6ba90b1f402763bcb0388569596c3f4b&rgn=div5&view=text&node=16:1.0.1.3.28&idno=16

Zoins

Did you post the wrong link? That's a link to the rules and regulations. I didn't see any information on a test.

Gluggo

Tooo long can you Summarize in one paragraph? I have a short attention span. Plus I don’t like authorities like the Democrats telling me what to do! But I do like Bernie!

What guns I can own one day and what gun I cant own the next! How many bullets I can have one week and the authorities telling I can’t have more than 7 bullets in a magazine. You know those type authorities sort of like in Virginia.

Coinstartled

I believe Text was the intended title word.

CoinJunkie

@Gluggo said:
Tooo long can you Summarize in one paragraph? I have a short attention span. Plus I don’t like authorities like the Democrats telling me what to do! But I do like Bernie!

I believe the main takeaway is that imitation numismatic items are supposed to be stamped with the word "COPY".

Zoins

@Coinstartled said:
I believe Text was the intended title word.

That could be but we've had links to the text of the Hobby Protection Act before.

A test of the Hobby Protection Act via a legal case would be more interesting.

CaptHenway

@Coinstartled said:
I believe Text was the intended title word.

Correct. Fixed.

jmlanzaf

@Gluggo said:
Tooo long can you Summarize in one paragraph? I have a short attention span. Plus I don’t like authorities like the Democrats telling me what to do! But I do like Bernie!

What guns I can own one day and what gun I cant own the next! How many bullets I can have one week and the authorities telling I can’t have more than 7 bullets in a magazine. You know those type authorities sort of like in Virginia.

You don't like Democrats telling you what to do but a Socialist is okay?

cameonut2011

@CaptHenway said:
For future reference.

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=6ba90b1f402763bcb0388569596c3f4b&rgn=div5&view=text&node=16:1.0.1.3.28&idno=16

Thanks for the links; however, it is unlikely to do any good. Everyone thumbs their nose at the HPA now, even the ANA that was supposedly instrumental in getting the legislation passed. The ANA even has field trips to the one of the most flagrant violator's coinage mill.

ricko

Thanks for the link....I have intended to look that up to read, so that I could understand the scope and details. Cheers, RickO

scubafuel

I think that ship has sailed. Dan’s stuff is not the dangerous stuff and we all know it. It’s like complaining about weed laws while fentanyl is coming from China. Refocus!

BStrauss3

The text of the LAW is here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-48 (15 U.S. Code CHAPTER 48—HOBBY PROTECTION):

(a) is political items

(b)Coins and other numismatic items
The manufacture in the United States, or the importation into the United States, for introduction into or distribution in commerce, or the sale in commerce of any imitation numismatic item which is not plainly and permanently marked “copy”, is unlawful and is an unfair or deceptive act or practice in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act [15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.].

(c)Rules and regulations
The Federal Trade Commission shall prescribe rules for determining the manner and form in which items described in subsection (a) or (b) shall be permanently marked.

The eCFR posting in the first link is to these rules

(d)Provision of assistance or support
It shall be a violation of subsection (a) or (b) for a person to provide substantial assistance or support to any manufacturer, importer, or seller if that person knows or should have known that the manufacturer, importer, or seller is engaged in any act or practice that violates subsection (a) or (b).

(e)Exemption
Subsections (a) [1] (b), and (d), and regulations under subsection (c), shall not apply to any common carrier or contract carrier or freight forwarder with respect to an imitation political item or imitation numismatic item received, shipped, delivered, or handled by it for shipment in the ordinary course of its business.

The get-out-of-jail-free card for UPS, FedEx, USPS et al

The bills that made up this law:

(Pub. L. 93–167, § 2, Nov. 29, 1973, 87 Stat. 686; Pub. L. 113–288, § 2(1), Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3281.)

BStrauss3

So... the law says it must be marked, the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) defines what that means...

Important items include:

§304.1 Terms defined.
(f) Original numismatic item means 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.

§304.6 Marking requirements for imitation numismatic items.
(b) The word “COPY” shall be marked upon the item legibly, conspicuously, and nondeceptively, and in accordance with the further requirements of these regulations.
(1) The word “COPY” shall appear in capital letters, in the English language.
(2) The word “COPY” shall be marked on either the obverse or the reverse surface of the item. It shall not be marked on the edge of the item.
(3) An imitation numismatic item of incusable material shall be incused with the word “COPY” in sans-serif letters having a vertical dimension of not less than two millimeters (2.0 mm) or not less than one-sixth of the diameter of the reproduction, and a minimum depth of three-tenths of one millimeter (0.3 mm) or to one-half ( 1⁄2 ) the thickness of the reproduction, whichever is the lesser. The minimum total horizontal dimension of the word “COPY” shall be six millimeters (6.0 mm) or not less than one-half of the diameter of the reproduction.
(4) An imitation numismatic item composed of nonincusable material shall be imprinted with the word “COPY” in sans-serif letters having a vertical dimension of not less than two millimeters (2.0 mm) or not less than one-sixth of the diameter of the reproduction. The minimum total horizontal dimension of the word “COPY” shall be six millimeters (6.0 mm) or not less than one-half of the diameter of the reproduction.

CaptHenway

See P. 70936, Column 3, just above the footnotes.

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/federal_register_notices/2016/10/frn_hobby_final_rule_10-14-16.pdf

Zoins

@CaptHenway said:
See P. 70936, Column 3, just above the footnotes.

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/federal_register_notices/2016/10/frn_hobby_final_rule_10-14-16.pdf

Interesting. To me, that basically concludes Dan's pieces are legal and not covered under the Hobby Protection Act. @dcarr should check this out.

Federal Register

The part above the footnotes referenced by Tom refers to In re Gold Bullion Int’l, Ltd. The coins in this case were not overstruck legal tender coins but newly fabricated numismatic items. I can see how the conclusion in the Register can be confusing but it references the Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd. case so to get full context, we need to go to the ruling in that case.

Additionally, the Commission found that it was unnecessary to amend the Rules to address specific collectible items (such as ‘‘fantasy coins,’’ as some commenters suggested) because it can address specific items as the need arises.21 Notably, the Commission has addressed whether coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int’l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a ‘‘COPY’’ because otherwise they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item.22

In re Gold Bullion Int’l, Ltd is interpreted by Armen Vartian in the excerpt and link below. Armen's auto-biography is excerpted below and he seems to be much more qualified to make a legal opinion than anyone posting on. these forums.

https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/09/19/comment-00011

Armen Vartian (PCGS outside counsel attorney) auto-biography

Armen Vartian, an attorney specialized in matters involving rare coins and other collectibles. I received my J.D. in 1981 from Harvard Law School, and am admitted to practice in California, Illinois and New York, in addition to numerous federal circuits and district courts nationwide. My clients include many of the most important stakeholders in the rare coin and collectibles businesses, including Heritage Auctions (VP-General Counsel 1986-90), Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS)(outside counsel since 1990) and the Professional Numismatists Guild (Legal Counsel since 1992), as well as collectors and investors in rare coins and other collectibles. I have written the “Collectibles and Law” column in the numismatic trade publication Coin World since 1996, and am the author of the book “Legal Guide to Buying and Selling Art and Collectibles” (Bonus Press 1997).

Armen Vartian's FTC.gov public policy comment

Gold Bullion International The first – and possibly only – published FTC decision under the HPA was Gold Bullion International. Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978), where the Commission was presented with coins that were designed to mimic actual coins that were used in exchange, but in fact never existed. The coins in question included bullion replicas of German 1887 20 Mark Wilhelm II, 1887 10 Mark Wilhelm I and 1888 10 Mark Wilhelm II coins. While there were no actual coins such as those, there was an 1888 10 Mark Wilhelm I, an 1888 20 Mark Wilhelm II, and an 1889 10 Mark Wilhelm II coin. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that because these coins were not copies of any actual “original numismatic items” the HPA did not require them to be marked “COPY”. The Commission reversed on this point. Admitting that the replicas were neither “reproductions” nor “copies” under the HPA’s definition of “imitation numismatic items”, the Commission found that they were “counterfeits”, because “[c]ourts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be ‘sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article.’” 92 F.T.C. at 221.

My interpretation

• Fantasy date coins are not original numismatic items under the Hobby Protection Act
• The Gold Bullion International pieces were ruled illegal under counterfeiting laws, not the Hobby Protection Act
• Dan's pieces are not counterfeits because they are overstruck US coins and thus they are not outlawed by the Gold. Bullion International ruling. In fact, according to Armen Vartian, that ruling says fantasy date coins are not covered by the Hobby Protection Act.

kiyote

I’m sure if China started over-striking a bunch of Morgans into 1922 Morgans without the word COPY on them no one would complain. 😁

Zoins

@kiyote said:
I’m sure if China started over-striking a bunch of Morgans into 1922 Morgans without the word COPY on them no one would complain. 😁

At least according to Armen Vartian's interpretation of the FTC ruling above, it seems like such pieces would not be covered by the Hobby Protection Act unless the FTC reversed their decision in the Gold Bullion International case.

cameonut2011

@Zoins said:
Interesting. To me, that basically concludes Dan's pieces are legal and not covered under the Hobby Protection Act. @dcarr should check this out.

Federal Register

The part above the footnotes referenced by Tom refers to In re Gold Bullion Int’l, Ltd. The coins in this case were not overstruck legal tender coins but newly fabricated numismatic items. I can see how the conclusion in the Register can be confusing but it references the Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd. case so to get full context, we need to go to the ruling in that case.

Additionally, the Commission found that it was unnecessary to amend the Rules to address specific collectible items (such as ‘‘fantasy coins,’’ as some commenters suggested) because it can address specific items as the need arises.21 Notably, the Commission has addressed whether coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int’l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a ‘‘COPY’’ because otherwise they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item.22

In re Gold Bullion Int’l, Ltd is interpreted by Armen Vartian in the excerpt and link below. Armen's auto-biography is excerpted below and he seems to be much more qualified to make a legal opinion than anyone posting on. these forums.

https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/09/19/comment-00011

Armen Vartian (PCGS outside counsel attorney) auto-biography

Armen Vartian, an attorney specialized in matters involving rare coins and other collectibles. I received my J.D. in 1981 from Harvard Law School, and am admitted to practice in California, Illinois and New York, in addition to numerous federal circuits and district courts nationwide. My clients include many of the most important stakeholders in the rare coin and collectibles businesses, including Heritage Auctions (VP-General Counsel 1986-90), Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS)(outside counsel since 1990) and the Professional Numismatists Guild (Legal Counsel since 1992), as well as collectors and investors in rare coins and other collectibles. I have written the “Collectibles and Law” column in the numismatic trade publication Coin World since 1996, and am the author of the book “Legal Guide to Buying and Selling Art and Collectibles” (Bonus Press 1997).

Armen Vartian's FTC.gov public policy comment

Gold Bullion International The first – and possibly only – published FTC decision under the HPA was Gold Bullion International. Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978), where the Commission was presented with coins that were designed to mimic actual coins that were used in exchange, but in fact never existed. The coins in question included bullion replicas of German 1887 20 Mark Wilhelm II, 1887 10 Mark Wilhelm I and 1888 10 Mark Wilhelm II coins. While there were no actual coins such as those, there was an 1888 10 Mark Wilhelm I, an 1888 20 Mark Wilhelm II, and an 1889 10 Mark Wilhelm II coin. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that because these coins were not copies of any actual “original numismatic items” the HPA did not require them to be marked “COPY”. The Commission reversed on this point. Admitting that the replicas were neither “reproductions” nor “copies” under the HPA’s definition of “imitation numismatic items”, the Commission found that they were “counterfeits”, because “[c]ourts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be ‘sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article.’” 92 F.T.C. at 221.

My interpretation

• Fantasy date coins are not original numismatic items under the Hobby Protection Act
• The Gold Bullion International pieces were ruled illegal under counterfeiting laws, not the Hobby Protection Act
• Dan's pieces are not counterfeits because they are overstruck US coins and thus they are not outlawed by the Gold. Bullion International ruling. In fact, according to Armen Vartian, that ruling says fantasy date coins are not covered by the Hobby Protection Act.

I suggest you reread the notice and comments. Most importantly, I suggest you read the case itself.

1. Grab the GBI case from the FTC reporter. There is a PDF archive floating around on the FTC website if you do not have access to a bound or other electronic version. It discusses counterfeiting statutes in the context of interpreting the HPA statutes, but its holding is clearly based on the HPA. It is saying that if a counterfeit need not be an exact copy to fall within the scope of criminal counterfeiting statutes then imitation numismatic items need not be exact copies either. After all the HPA includes counterfeits as well as less odious imitations.
2. Carr pieces are imitation numismatic items and should be marked. They are not original numismatic items, we all agree.
3. If over striking over a genuine coin is enough to remove a false piece from the ambit of counterfeiting laws, then how do you explain appellate court cases affirming counterfeiting convictions for false pieces struck over genuine coins of the same series? If your argument is the fictitious date, then again see GBI as it is irrelevant as changing a digit or two does not remove the marking requirement under GBI. If you argument is intent, again see GBI as the FTC expressly stated that GBI did not intend to defraud anyone. It still found violations of law.

cameonut2011

"The Commission receive no substantive comments in response." "The Commission received six comments that were non-germane..."

Zoins

@cameonut2011 said:
Grab the GBI case from the FTC reporter. There is a PDF archive floating around on the FTC website if you do not have access to a bound or other electronic version.

Can someone post the PDF here? It would be useful in addition to texts that reference it.

However, even with it, none of us can probably do as good a job of interpreting it as PCGS attorney Armen Vartian. Are you an attorney, and one that practices in the area of numismatics like Armen?

cameonut2011

@kiyote said:
I’m sure if China started over-striking a bunch of Morgans into 1922 Morgans without the word COPY on them no one would complain. 😁

Why stop there? Take one of Carr's original pieces and add a different digit to it or an extra feather to the eagle's feather. If they are consistent in their logic, they'll acknowledge that those are not imitation pieces or copies either.

cameonut2011

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Grab the GBI case from the FTC reporter. There is a PDF archive floating around on the FTC website if you do not have access to a bound or other electronic version.

Can someone post the PDF here?

However, even with it, none of us can probably do as good a job of interpreting it as PCGS attorney Armen Vartian. Are you an attorney, and one that practices in the area of numismatics like Armen?

He said nothing that vindicates or condemns Carr. His point seems to be that there isn't much guidance.

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/commission-decision-volumes

Zoins

@cameonut2011 said:
I suggest you reread the notice and comments.

It would be useful for me if you use excerpts like I do, in addition to paraphrasing. I'm pointing to specific areas I'm relying on but I'm not sure what text you're relying on.

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Grab the GBI case from the FTC reporter. There is a PDF archive floating around on the FTC website if you do not have access to a bound or other electronic version.

Can someone post the PDF here?

However, even with it, none of us can probably do as good a job of interpreting it as PCGS attorney Armen Vartian. Are you an attorney, and one that practices in the area of numismatics like Armen?

He said nothing that vindicates or condemns Carr. His point seems to be that there isn't much guidance.

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/commission-decision-volumes

Armen has two points of relevance in interpreting the case:

1. that fantasy dates are not imitation numismatic items as defined by the Hobby Protection Act as the dates don't exist.
2. the Gold Bullion pieces were outlawed because they are counterfeits, not imitation numismatic items.

Armen Vartian said:
Admitting that the replicas were neither “reproductions” nor “copies” under the HPA’s definition of “imitation numismatic items”, the Commission found that they were “counterfeits”, because “[c]ourts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be ‘sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article.’

If Dan's pieces are not imitation numismatic items because they are fantasy dates, and they are not counterfeits because they are genuine articles, then the Gold Bullion case does not apply to Dan's pieces while also indicating Dan's items may be legal under the ruling applied to Gold Bullion. Dan's pieces don't just resemble the genuine article, they are genuine articles, albeit defaced, which is also legal.

Gluggo

Yawn

Zoins

@Gluggo said:
Yawn

Easily solved by buying more of Dan's pieces

I just bought a couple more of Dan's medals tonight to be overstruck next year!

cameonut2011

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
I suggest you reread the notice and comments.

It would be good if you use excerpts like I do, in addition to paraphrasing. I'm pointing to specific areas I'm relying on but I'm not sure what text you're relying on.

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Grab the GBI case from the FTC reporter. There is a PDF archive floating around on the FTC website if you do not have access to a bound or other electronic version.

Can someone post the PDF here?

However, even with it, none of us can probably do as good a job of interpreting it as PCGS attorney Armen Vartian. Are you an attorney, and one that practices in the area of numismatics like Armen?

He said nothing that vindicates or condemns Carr. His point seems to be that there isn't much guidance.

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/commission-decision-volumes

Armen has two points of relevance in interpreting the case:

1. that fantasy dates are not imitation numismatic items as defined by the Hobby Protection Act as the dates don't exist.
2. the Gold Bullion pieces were outlawed because they are counterfeits, not imitation numismatic items.

Armen Vartian said:
Admitting that the replicas were neither “reproductions” nor “copies” under the HPA’s definition of “imitation numismatic items”, the Commission found that they were “counterfeits”, because “[c]ourts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be ‘sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article.’

If Dan's pieces are not imitation numismatic items because they are fantasy dates, and they are not counterfeits because they are genuine articles, then the Gold Bullion case does not apply to Dan's pieces while also indicating Dan's items may be legal under the ruling applied to Gold Bullion. Dan's pieces don't just resemble the genuine article, they are genuine articles, albeit defaced, which is also legal.

Here are his full comments: https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/09/19/comment-00011

Of note Vartian (while criticizing other precedents) describes the FTC GBI decision holding fantasy date imitations are imitation numismatic items "reasonable":

Zoins

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
I suggest you reread the notice and comments.

It would be good if you use excerpts like I do, in addition to paraphrasing. I'm pointing to specific areas I'm relying on but I'm not sure what text you're relying on.

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Grab the GBI case from the FTC reporter. There is a PDF archive floating around on the FTC website if you do not have access to a bound or other electronic version.

Can someone post the PDF here?

However, even with it, none of us can probably do as good a job of interpreting it as PCGS attorney Armen Vartian. Are you an attorney, and one that practices in the area of numismatics like Armen?

He said nothing that vindicates or condemns Carr. His point seems to be that there isn't much guidance.

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/commission-decision-volumes

Armen has two points of relevance in interpreting the case:

1. that fantasy dates are not imitation numismatic items as defined by the Hobby Protection Act as the dates don't exist.
2. the Gold Bullion pieces were outlawed because they are counterfeits, not imitation numismatic items.

Armen Vartian said:
Admitting that the replicas were neither “reproductions” nor “copies” under the HPA’s definition of “imitation numismatic items”, the Commission found that they were “counterfeits”, because “[c]ourts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be ‘sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article.’

If Dan's pieces are not imitation numismatic items because they are fantasy dates, and they are not counterfeits because they are genuine articles, then the Gold Bullion case does not apply to Dan's pieces while also indicating Dan's items may be legal under the ruling applied to Gold Bullion. Dan's pieces don't just resemble the genuine article, they are genuine articles, albeit defaced, which is also legal.

Here are his full comments: https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/09/19/comment-00011

Of note Vartian (while criticizing other precedents) describes the FTC GBI decision holding fantasy date imitations are imitation numismatic items "reasonable."

I don't believe this applies to Dan's pieces because Dan's fantasy date pieces are struck on original numismatic items from a counterfeiting perspective. The area I quoted has much more detail on the delineation of a fantasy date and counterfeit.

Specifically here, the issue is if one piece can purport to be "[a different] original numismatic item". I would say adding a fantasy date does not meet this threshold. The way to think about this is that if you take a Peace Dollar and change it to a fantasy date, it's still a Peace Dollar. It's not a different numismatic item.

Of course, if you take a Peace Dollar. and make it a Gobrecht Dollar, that's a different story.

cameonut2011

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
I suggest you reread the notice and comments.

It would be good if you use excerpts like I do, in addition to paraphrasing. I'm pointing to specific areas I'm relying on but I'm not sure what text you're relying on.

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Grab the GBI case from the FTC reporter. There is a PDF archive floating around on the FTC website if you do not have access to a bound or other electronic version.

Can someone post the PDF here?

However, even with it, none of us can probably do as good a job of interpreting it as PCGS attorney Armen Vartian. Are you an attorney, and one that practices in the area of numismatics like Armen?

He said nothing that vindicates or condemns Carr. His point seems to be that there isn't much guidance.

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/commission-decision-volumes

Armen has two points of relevance in interpreting the case:

1. that fantasy dates are not imitation numismatic items as defined by the Hobby Protection Act as the dates don't exist.
2. the Gold Bullion pieces were outlawed because they are counterfeits, not imitation numismatic items.

Armen Vartian said:
Admitting that the replicas were neither “reproductions” nor “copies” under the HPA’s definition of “imitation numismatic items”, the Commission found that they were “counterfeits”, because “[c]ourts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be ‘sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article.’

If Dan's pieces are not imitation numismatic items because they are fantasy dates, and they are not counterfeits because they are genuine articles, then the Gold Bullion case does not apply to Dan's pieces while also indicating Dan's items may be legal under the ruling applied to Gold Bullion. Dan's pieces don't just resemble the genuine article, they are genuine articles, albeit defaced, which is also legal.

Here are his full comments: https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/09/19/comment-00011

Of note Vartian (while criticizing other precedents) describes the FTC GBI decision holding fantasy date imitations are imitation numismatic items "reasonable."

I don't believe this applies to Dan's pieces because Dan's fantasy date pieces are struck on original numismatic items from a counterfeiting perspective. The area I quoted has much more detail on the delineation of a fantasy date and counterfeit.

With respect to the quoted text here, I would interpret Dan's pieces to be original numismatic items since they are struck on them. Changing a digit wouldn't change that. The way to think about this is that if you take a Peace Dollar and change it to a fantasy date, it's still a Peace Dollar. It's not a different numismatic item.

16 CFR 304.1(d):

See second sentence above.

Zoins

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
I suggest you reread the notice and comments.

It would be good if you use excerpts like I do, in addition to paraphrasing. I'm pointing to specific areas I'm relying on but I'm not sure what text you're relying on.

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Grab the GBI case from the FTC reporter. There is a PDF archive floating around on the FTC website if you do not have access to a bound or other electronic version.

Can someone post the PDF here?

However, even with it, none of us can probably do as good a job of interpreting it as PCGS attorney Armen Vartian. Are you an attorney, and one that practices in the area of numismatics like Armen?

He said nothing that vindicates or condemns Carr. His point seems to be that there isn't much guidance.

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/commission-decision-volumes

Armen has two points of relevance in interpreting the case:

1. that fantasy dates are not imitation numismatic items as defined by the Hobby Protection Act as the dates don't exist.
2. the Gold Bullion pieces were outlawed because they are counterfeits, not imitation numismatic items.

Armen Vartian said:
Admitting that the replicas were neither “reproductions” nor “copies” under the HPA’s definition of “imitation numismatic items”, the Commission found that they were “counterfeits”, because “[c]ourts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be ‘sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article.’

If Dan's pieces are not imitation numismatic items because they are fantasy dates, and they are not counterfeits because they are genuine articles, then the Gold Bullion case does not apply to Dan's pieces while also indicating Dan's items may be legal under the ruling applied to Gold Bullion. Dan's pieces don't just resemble the genuine article, they are genuine articles, albeit defaced, which is also legal.

Here are his full comments: https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/09/19/comment-00011

Of note Vartian (while criticizing other precedents) describes the FTC GBI decision holding fantasy date imitations are imitation numismatic items "reasonable."

I don't believe this applies to Dan's pieces because Dan's fantasy date pieces are struck on original numismatic items from a counterfeiting perspective. The area I quoted has much more detail on the delineation of a fantasy date and counterfeit.

With respect to the quoted text here, I would interpret Dan's pieces to be original numismatic items since they are struck on them. Changing a digit wouldn't change that. The way to think about this is that if you take a Peace Dollar and change it to a fantasy date, it's still a Peace Dollar. It's not a different numismatic item.

16 CFR 304.1(d):

In my mind, Dan's pieces do not purport to be original numismatic items. An altered or modified Peace Dollar is still a Peace Dollar. In the Gold Bullion case, the coins were counterfeits.

In your previously quoted text, they also do not purport to be "[different] original numismatic items" since (a) the over type and undertype are the same, (b) the date is a non-existent one.

See second sentence above.

This says:

Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified.

I don't think this applies since Dan is using fantasy dates and the same type.

Regarding fantasy dates, Armen's says they don't qualify under the Hobby Protection Act as reproductions or copies:

Admitting that the replicas were neither “reproductions” nor “copies” under the HPA’s definition of “imitation numismatic items”,

He further writes, that they were only covered because they were counterfeits\s which have a lower threshold for likeness.

the Commission found that they were “counterfeits”, because “[c]ourts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be ‘sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article.’

This would not apply to Dan's pieces because they are not counterfeits since they are struck on legal-tender coinage.

cameonut2011

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
I suggest you reread the notice and comments.

It would be good if you use excerpts like I do, in addition to paraphrasing. I'm pointing to specific areas I'm relying on but I'm not sure what text you're relying on.

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Grab the GBI case from the FTC reporter. There is a PDF archive floating around on the FTC website if you do not have access to a bound or other electronic version.

Can someone post the PDF here?

However, even with it, none of us can probably do as good a job of interpreting it as PCGS attorney Armen Vartian. Are you an attorney, and one that practices in the area of numismatics like Armen?

He said nothing that vindicates or condemns Carr. His point seems to be that there isn't much guidance.

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/commission-decision-volumes

Armen has two points of relevance in interpreting the case:

1. that fantasy dates are not imitation numismatic items as defined by the Hobby Protection Act as the dates don't exist.
2. the Gold Bullion pieces were outlawed because they are counterfeits, not imitation numismatic items.

Armen Vartian said:
Admitting that the replicas were neither “reproductions” nor “copies” under the HPA’s definition of “imitation numismatic items”, the Commission found that they were “counterfeits”, because “[c]ourts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be ‘sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article.’

If Dan's pieces are not imitation numismatic items because they are fantasy dates, and they are not counterfeits because they are genuine articles, then the Gold Bullion case does not apply to Dan's pieces while also indicating Dan's items may be legal under the ruling applied to Gold Bullion. Dan's pieces don't just resemble the genuine article, they are genuine articles, albeit defaced, which is also legal.

Here are his full comments: https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/09/19/comment-00011

Of note Vartian (while criticizing other precedents) describes the FTC GBI decision holding fantasy date imitations are imitation numismatic items "reasonable."

I don't believe this applies to Dan's pieces because Dan's fantasy date pieces are struck on original numismatic items from a counterfeiting perspective. The area I quoted has much more detail on the delineation of a fantasy date and counterfeit.

With respect to the quoted text here, I would interpret Dan's pieces to be original numismatic items since they are struck on them. Changing a digit wouldn't change that. The way to think about this is that if you take a Peace Dollar and change it to a fantasy date, it's still a Peace Dollar. It's not a different numismatic item.

16 CFR 304.1(d):

In my mind, Dan's pieces do not purport to be original numismatic items.

In your previously quoted text, they also do not purport to be "[different] original numismatic items".

A 1964-D Peace Dollar struck over a 1922 Peace Dollar is a 1922 Peace Dollar (original numismatic item) that purports to be a 1964-D Peace Dollar (a different date Peace Dollar other than the 1922 it was struck as). A 1964 dated Franklin struckover a 1964 Kennedy Half Dollar is altering a Kennedy Half Dollar (an original numismatic item) to look like a Franklin Half Dollar (another original numismatic item). Changing a digit in the date to a fictitious or "fantasy" date is irrelevant per GBI. Your interpretation would render the language in the statute and administrative regulations as inoperative and void of meaning.

Zoins

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
I suggest you reread the notice and comments.

It would be good if you use excerpts like I do, in addition to paraphrasing. I'm pointing to specific areas I'm relying on but I'm not sure what text you're relying on.

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Grab the GBI case from the FTC reporter. There is a PDF archive floating around on the FTC website if you do not have access to a bound or other electronic version.

Can someone post the PDF here?

However, even with it, none of us can probably do as good a job of interpreting it as PCGS attorney Armen Vartian. Are you an attorney, and one that practices in the area of numismatics like Armen?

He said nothing that vindicates or condemns Carr. His point seems to be that there isn't much guidance.

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/commission-decision-volumes

Armen has two points of relevance in interpreting the case:

1. that fantasy dates are not imitation numismatic items as defined by the Hobby Protection Act as the dates don't exist.
2. the Gold Bullion pieces were outlawed because they are counterfeits, not imitation numismatic items.

Armen Vartian said:
Admitting that the replicas were neither “reproductions” nor “copies” under the HPA’s definition of “imitation numismatic items”, the Commission found that they were “counterfeits”, because “[c]ourts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be ‘sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article.’

If Dan's pieces are not imitation numismatic items because they are fantasy dates, and they are not counterfeits because they are genuine articles, then the Gold Bullion case does not apply to Dan's pieces while also indicating Dan's items may be legal under the ruling applied to Gold Bullion. Dan's pieces don't just resemble the genuine article, they are genuine articles, albeit defaced, which is also legal.

Here are his full comments: https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/09/19/comment-00011

Of note Vartian (while criticizing other precedents) describes the FTC GBI decision holding fantasy date imitations are imitation numismatic items "reasonable."

I don't believe this applies to Dan's pieces because Dan's fantasy date pieces are struck on original numismatic items from a counterfeiting perspective. The area I quoted has much more detail on the delineation of a fantasy date and counterfeit.

With respect to the quoted text here, I would interpret Dan's pieces to be original numismatic items since they are struck on them. Changing a digit wouldn't change that. The way to think about this is that if you take a Peace Dollar and change it to a fantasy date, it's still a Peace Dollar. It's not a different numismatic item.

16 CFR 304.1(d):

In my mind, Dan's pieces do not purport to be original numismatic items.

In your previously quoted text, they also do not purport to be "[different] original numismatic items".

A 1964-D Peace Dollar struck over a 1922 Peace Dollar is a 1922 Peace Dollar (original numismatic item) that purports to be a 1964-D Peace Dollar (a different date Peace Dollar other than the 1922 it was struck as). A 1964 dated Franklin struckover a 1964 Kennedy Half Dollar is altering a Kennedy Half Dollar (an original numismatic item) to look like a Franklin Half Dollar (another original numismatic item). Changing a digit in the date is irrelevant per GBI. Your interpretation would render the language in the statute and administrative regulations as inoperative.

The issue with this reasoning is that the 1964-D Peace Dollar is not an original numismatic item so it cannot purport to be one. And because it was struck on a Peace Dollar, it is not a counterfeit Peace Dollar.

Changing a digit in the date is relevant in this discussion as it's a major issue with the only case law we have and referred to by Tom's post. And the fantasy date made it not meet the definition of reproduction or copy under the HPA.

I don't agree my / Armen's reasoning would make the statue inoperative because it was clearly operative in the Gold Bullion International case and I don't have an issue with the determination.

cameonut2011

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
I suggest you reread the notice and comments.

It would be good if you use excerpts like I do, in addition to paraphrasing. I'm pointing to specific areas I'm relying on but I'm not sure what text you're relying on.

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Grab the GBI case from the FTC reporter. There is a PDF archive floating around on the FTC website if you do not have access to a bound or other electronic version.

Can someone post the PDF here?

However, even with it, none of us can probably do as good a job of interpreting it as PCGS attorney Armen Vartian. Are you an attorney, and one that practices in the area of numismatics like Armen?

He said nothing that vindicates or condemns Carr. His point seems to be that there isn't much guidance.

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/commission-decision-volumes

Armen has two points of relevance in interpreting the case:

1. that fantasy dates are not imitation numismatic items as defined by the Hobby Protection Act as the dates don't exist.
2. the Gold Bullion pieces were outlawed because they are counterfeits, not imitation numismatic items.

Armen Vartian said:
Admitting that the replicas were neither “reproductions” nor “copies” under the HPA’s definition of “imitation numismatic items”, the Commission found that they were “counterfeits”, because “[c]ourts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be ‘sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article.’

If Dan's pieces are not imitation numismatic items because they are fantasy dates, and they are not counterfeits because they are genuine articles, then the Gold Bullion case does not apply to Dan's pieces while also indicating Dan's items may be legal under the ruling applied to Gold Bullion. Dan's pieces don't just resemble the genuine article, they are genuine articles, albeit defaced, which is also legal.

Here are his full comments: https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/09/19/comment-00011

Of note Vartian (while criticizing other precedents) describes the FTC GBI decision holding fantasy date imitations are imitation numismatic items "reasonable."

I don't believe this applies to Dan's pieces because Dan's fantasy date pieces are struck on original numismatic items from a counterfeiting perspective. The area I quoted has much more detail on the delineation of a fantasy date and counterfeit.

With respect to the quoted text here, I would interpret Dan's pieces to be original numismatic items since they are struck on them. Changing a digit wouldn't change that. The way to think about this is that if you take a Peace Dollar and change it to a fantasy date, it's still a Peace Dollar. It's not a different numismatic item.

16 CFR 304.1(d):

In my mind, Dan's pieces do not purport to be original numismatic items.

In your previously quoted text, they also do not purport to be "[different] original numismatic items".

A 1964-D Peace Dollar struck over a 1922 Peace Dollar is a 1922 Peace Dollar (original numismatic item) that purports to be a 1964-D Peace Dollar (a different date Peace Dollar other than the 1922 it was struck as). A 1964 dated Franklin struckover a 1964 Kennedy Half Dollar is altering a Kennedy Half Dollar (an original numismatic item) to look like a Franklin Half Dollar (another original numismatic item). Changing a digit in the date is irrelevant per GBI. Your interpretation would render the language in the statute and administrative regulations as inoperative.

The issue with this reasoning is that the 1964-D Peace Dollar is not an original numismatic item so it cannot purport to be one. And because it was struck on a Peace Dollar, it is not a counterfeit Peace Dollar.

Changing a digit in the date is relevant in this discussion as it's a major issue with the only case law we have and referred to by Tom's post. And the fantasy date made it not meet the definition of reproduction or copy under the HPA.

I don't agree my / Armen's reasoning would make the statue inoperative because it was clearly operative in the Gold Bullion International case and I don't have an issue with the determination.

I'm not going to waste more time arguing, but your position has already been rejected by courts and the FTC. I leave you with this:

1 - The central holding of GBI is that using a fictitious date but otherwise substantially emulating
a coin design does not remove a coin from the scope of counterfeiting statutes or the HPA. Fantasy date issues are imitation numismatic items subject to the marking requirement. That's the FTC's precedent with the binding force of law.

2 - In response to comments regarding so called fantasy coins, the FTC said in the notice linked by Tom earlier in the thread that it need not amend the HPA to address so called fantasy date coins as it already viewed the GBI decision as settled law resolving the issue.

3 - Federal courts have affirmed counterfeiting convictions for over striking Roosevelt Dimes over Roosevelt Dimes and Washington Quarters over Washington Quarters. There is no reason it wouldn't apply to Peace Dollars. The over strike issue is a red herring. It comes down to whether the resemblance is sufficient (GBI says it does) and whether using a fake date removes it from the scope of the statutes (GBI says date changes alone are not enough).

4 - You seem to be a fan of Armen. You should write him and ask if you were to do what Carr does, would you potentially run afoul of the HPA and counterfeiting statutes. Tell us what he says. Don't tell him it is a Carr question incognito.

Zoins

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
I suggest you reread the notice and comments.

It would be good if you use excerpts like I do, in addition to paraphrasing. I'm pointing to specific areas I'm relying on but I'm not sure what text you're relying on.

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Grab the GBI case from the FTC reporter. There is a PDF archive floating around on the FTC website if you do not have access to a bound or other electronic version.

Can someone post the PDF here?

However, even with it, none of us can probably do as good a job of interpreting it as PCGS attorney Armen Vartian. Are you an attorney, and one that practices in the area of numismatics like Armen?

He said nothing that vindicates or condemns Carr. His point seems to be that there isn't much guidance.

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/commission-decision-volumes

Armen has two points of relevance in interpreting the case:

1. that fantasy dates are not imitation numismatic items as defined by the Hobby Protection Act as the dates don't exist.
2. the Gold Bullion pieces were outlawed because they are counterfeits, not imitation numismatic items.

Armen Vartian said:
Admitting that the replicas were neither “reproductions” nor “copies” under the HPA’s definition of “imitation numismatic items”, the Commission found that they were “counterfeits”, because “[c]ourts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be ‘sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article.’

If Dan's pieces are not imitation numismatic items because they are fantasy dates, and they are not counterfeits because they are genuine articles, then the Gold Bullion case does not apply to Dan's pieces while also indicating Dan's items may be legal under the ruling applied to Gold Bullion. Dan's pieces don't just resemble the genuine article, they are genuine articles, albeit defaced, which is also legal.

Here are his full comments: https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/09/19/comment-00011

Of note Vartian (while criticizing other precedents) describes the FTC GBI decision holding fantasy date imitations are imitation numismatic items "reasonable."

I don't believe this applies to Dan's pieces because Dan's fantasy date pieces are struck on original numismatic items from a counterfeiting perspective. The area I quoted has much more detail on the delineation of a fantasy date and counterfeit.

With respect to the quoted text here, I would interpret Dan's pieces to be original numismatic items since they are struck on them. Changing a digit wouldn't change that. The way to think about this is that if you take a Peace Dollar and change it to a fantasy date, it's still a Peace Dollar. It's not a different numismatic item.

16 CFR 304.1(d):

In my mind, Dan's pieces do not purport to be original numismatic items.

In your previously quoted text, they also do not purport to be "[different] original numismatic items".

A 1964-D Peace Dollar struck over a 1922 Peace Dollar is a 1922 Peace Dollar (original numismatic item) that purports to be a 1964-D Peace Dollar (a different date Peace Dollar other than the 1922 it was struck as). A 1964 dated Franklin struckover a 1964 Kennedy Half Dollar is altering a Kennedy Half Dollar (an original numismatic item) to look like a Franklin Half Dollar (another original numismatic item). Changing a digit in the date is irrelevant per GBI. Your interpretation would render the language in the statute and administrative regulations as inoperative.

The issue with this reasoning is that the 1964-D Peace Dollar is not an original numismatic item so it cannot purport to be one. And because it was struck on a Peace Dollar, it is not a counterfeit Peace Dollar.

Changing a digit in the date is relevant in this discussion as it's a major issue with the only case law we have and referred to by Tom's post. And the fantasy date made it not meet the definition of reproduction or copy under the HPA.

I don't agree my / Armen's reasoning would make the statue inoperative because it was clearly operative in the Gold Bullion International case and I don't have an issue with the determination.

I'm not going to waste more time arguing, but your position has already been rejected by courts and the FTC. I leave you with this:

1 - The central holding of GBI is that using a fictitious date but otherwise substantially emulating
a coin design does not remove a coin from the scope of counterfeiting statutes or the HPA. Fantasy date issues are imitation numismatic items subject to the marking requirement. That's the FTC's precedent with the binding force of law.

I agree a fantasy date doesn't remove the item from being a counterfeit, but Dan's pieces are overstruck real coins so they are not counterfeits. This may be tied to your 3rd point which hasn't been discussed in detail yet, so I'm looking forward to the information you referenced.

2 - In response to comments regarding so called fantasy coins, the FTC said in the notice linked by Tom earlier in the thread that it need not amend the HPA to address so called fantasy date coins as it already viewed the GBI decision as settled law resolving the issue.

Yes, the FTC said amendments were not needed but referenced the Gold Bullion International case which I don't believe applies to Dan's scenario as explained.

3 - Federal courts have affirmed counterfeiting convictions for over striking Roosevelt Dimes over Roosevelt Dimes and Washington Quarters over Washington Quarters. There is no reason it wouldn't apply to Peace Dollars. The over strike issue is a red herring. It comes down to whether the resemblance is sufficient (GBI says it does).

I'm not aware of this yet. Please provided references for this.

cameonut2011

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
I suggest you reread the notice and comments.

It would be good if you use excerpts like I do, in addition to paraphrasing. I'm pointing to specific areas I'm relying on but I'm not sure what text you're relying on.

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Grab the GBI case from the FTC reporter. There is a PDF archive floating around on the FTC website if you do not have access to a bound or other electronic version.

Can someone post the PDF here?

However, even with it, none of us can probably do as good a job of interpreting it as PCGS attorney Armen Vartian. Are you an attorney, and one that practices in the area of numismatics like Armen?

He said nothing that vindicates or condemns Carr. His point seems to be that there isn't much guidance.

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/commission-decision-volumes

Armen has two points of relevance in interpreting the case:

1. that fantasy dates are not imitation numismatic items as defined by the Hobby Protection Act as the dates don't exist.
2. the Gold Bullion pieces were outlawed because they are counterfeits, not imitation numismatic items.

Armen Vartian said:
Admitting that the replicas were neither “reproductions” nor “copies” under the HPA’s definition of “imitation numismatic items”, the Commission found that they were “counterfeits”, because “[c]ourts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be ‘sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article.’

If Dan's pieces are not imitation numismatic items because they are fantasy dates, and they are not counterfeits because they are genuine articles, then the Gold Bullion case does not apply to Dan's pieces while also indicating Dan's items may be legal under the ruling applied to Gold Bullion. Dan's pieces don't just resemble the genuine article, they are genuine articles, albeit defaced, which is also legal.

Here are his full comments: https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/09/19/comment-00011

Of note Vartian (while criticizing other precedents) describes the FTC GBI decision holding fantasy date imitations are imitation numismatic items "reasonable."

I don't believe this applies to Dan's pieces because Dan's fantasy date pieces are struck on original numismatic items from a counterfeiting perspective. The area I quoted has much more detail on the delineation of a fantasy date and counterfeit.

With respect to the quoted text here, I would interpret Dan's pieces to be original numismatic items since they are struck on them. Changing a digit wouldn't change that. The way to think about this is that if you take a Peace Dollar and change it to a fantasy date, it's still a Peace Dollar. It's not a different numismatic item.

16 CFR 304.1(d):

In my mind, Dan's pieces do not purport to be original numismatic items.

In your previously quoted text, they also do not purport to be "[different] original numismatic items".

A 1964-D Peace Dollar struck over a 1922 Peace Dollar is a 1922 Peace Dollar (original numismatic item) that purports to be a 1964-D Peace Dollar (a different date Peace Dollar other than the 1922 it was struck as). A 1964 dated Franklin struckover a 1964 Kennedy Half Dollar is altering a Kennedy Half Dollar (an original numismatic item) to look like a Franklin Half Dollar (another original numismatic item). Changing a digit in the date is irrelevant per GBI. Your interpretation would render the language in the statute and administrative regulations as inoperative.

The issue with this reasoning is that the 1964-D Peace Dollar is not an original numismatic item so it cannot purport to be one. And because it was struck on a Peace Dollar, it is not a counterfeit Peace Dollar.

Changing a digit in the date is relevant in this discussion as it's a major issue with the only case law we have and referred to by Tom's post. And the fantasy date made it not meet the definition of reproduction or copy under the HPA.

I don't agree my / Armen's reasoning would make the statue inoperative because it was clearly operative in the Gold Bullion International case and I don't have an issue with the determination.

I'm not going to waste more time arguing, but your position has already been rejected by courts and the FTC. I leave you with this:

1 - The central holding of GBI is that using a fictitious date but otherwise substantially emulating
a coin design does not remove a coin from the scope of counterfeiting statutes or the HPA. Fantasy date issues are imitation numismatic items subject to the marking requirement. That's the FTC's precedent with the binding force of law.

I agree a fantasy date doesn't remove the item from being a counterfeit, but Dan's pieces are overstruck real coins so they are not counterfeits. This may be tied to your 3rd point which hasn't been discussed in detail yet, so I'm looking forward to the information you referenced.

2 - In response to comments regarding so called fantasy coins, the FTC said in the notice linked by Tom earlier in the thread that it need not amend the HPA to address so called fantasy date coins as it already viewed the GBI decision as settled law resolving the issue.

Yes, it didn't need to be amended but it referenced a case so please consider the details of the case.

3 - Federal courts have affirmed counterfeiting convictions for over striking Roosevelt Dimes over Roosevelt Dimes and Washington Quarters over Washington Quarters. There is no reason it wouldn't apply to Peace Dollars. The over strike issue is a red herring. It comes down to whether the resemblance is sufficient (GBI says it does).

I'm not. aware of this yet. Please provided references for this.

The referenced cases, additional HPA case law, and counterfeiting case law have all been discussed at length in the multiple Carr threads. I'm not reinventing the wheel or wasting time to look it back up. You're not going to read it just as you haven't read GBI from start to finish or you would see for purposes of the HPA it puts to rest the fantasy date issue, intent, and degree of similarity required to trigger the marking requirement.

Zoins

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
I suggest you reread the notice and comments.

It would be good if you use excerpts like I do, in addition to paraphrasing. I'm pointing to specific areas I'm relying on but I'm not sure what text you're relying on.

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Grab the GBI case from the FTC reporter. There is a PDF archive floating around on the FTC website if you do not have access to a bound or other electronic version.

Can someone post the PDF here?

However, even with it, none of us can probably do as good a job of interpreting it as PCGS attorney Armen Vartian. Are you an attorney, and one that practices in the area of numismatics like Armen?

He said nothing that vindicates or condemns Carr. His point seems to be that there isn't much guidance.

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/commission-decision-volumes

Armen has two points of relevance in interpreting the case:

1. that fantasy dates are not imitation numismatic items as defined by the Hobby Protection Act as the dates don't exist.
2. the Gold Bullion pieces were outlawed because they are counterfeits, not imitation numismatic items.

Armen Vartian said:
Admitting that the replicas were neither “reproductions” nor “copies” under the HPA’s definition of “imitation numismatic items”, the Commission found that they were “counterfeits”, because “[c]ourts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be ‘sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article.’

If Dan's pieces are not imitation numismatic items because they are fantasy dates, and they are not counterfeits because they are genuine articles, then the Gold Bullion case does not apply to Dan's pieces while also indicating Dan's items may be legal under the ruling applied to Gold Bullion. Dan's pieces don't just resemble the genuine article, they are genuine articles, albeit defaced, which is also legal.

Here are his full comments: https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/09/19/comment-00011

Of note Vartian (while criticizing other precedents) describes the FTC GBI decision holding fantasy date imitations are imitation numismatic items "reasonable."

I don't believe this applies to Dan's pieces because Dan's fantasy date pieces are struck on original numismatic items from a counterfeiting perspective. The area I quoted has much more detail on the delineation of a fantasy date and counterfeit.

With respect to the quoted text here, I would interpret Dan's pieces to be original numismatic items since they are struck on them. Changing a digit wouldn't change that. The way to think about this is that if you take a Peace Dollar and change it to a fantasy date, it's still a Peace Dollar. It's not a different numismatic item.

16 CFR 304.1(d):

In my mind, Dan's pieces do not purport to be original numismatic items.

In your previously quoted text, they also do not purport to be "[different] original numismatic items".

A 1964-D Peace Dollar struck over a 1922 Peace Dollar is a 1922 Peace Dollar (original numismatic item) that purports to be a 1964-D Peace Dollar (a different date Peace Dollar other than the 1922 it was struck as). A 1964 dated Franklin struckover a 1964 Kennedy Half Dollar is altering a Kennedy Half Dollar (an original numismatic item) to look like a Franklin Half Dollar (another original numismatic item). Changing a digit in the date is irrelevant per GBI. Your interpretation would render the language in the statute and administrative regulations as inoperative.

The issue with this reasoning is that the 1964-D Peace Dollar is not an original numismatic item so it cannot purport to be one. And because it was struck on a Peace Dollar, it is not a counterfeit Peace Dollar.

Changing a digit in the date is relevant in this discussion as it's a major issue with the only case law we have and referred to by Tom's post. And the fantasy date made it not meet the definition of reproduction or copy under the HPA.

I don't agree my / Armen's reasoning would make the statue inoperative because it was clearly operative in the Gold Bullion International case and I don't have an issue with the determination.

I'm not going to waste more time arguing, but your position has already been rejected by courts and the FTC. I leave you with this:

1 - The central holding of GBI is that using a fictitious date but otherwise substantially emulating
a coin design does not remove a coin from the scope of counterfeiting statutes or the HPA. Fantasy date issues are imitation numismatic items subject to the marking requirement. That's the FTC's precedent with the binding force of law.

I agree a fantasy date doesn't remove the item from being a counterfeit, but Dan's pieces are overstruck real coins so they are not counterfeits. This may be tied to your 3rd point which hasn't been discussed in detail yet, so I'm looking forward to the information you referenced.

2 - In response to comments regarding so called fantasy coins, the FTC said in the notice linked by Tom earlier in the thread that it need not amend the HPA to address so called fantasy date coins as it already viewed the GBI decision as settled law resolving the issue.

Yes, it didn't need to be amended but it referenced a case so please consider the details of the case.

3 - Federal courts have affirmed counterfeiting convictions for over striking Roosevelt Dimes over Roosevelt Dimes and Washington Quarters over Washington Quarters. There is no reason it wouldn't apply to Peace Dollars. The over strike issue is a red herring. It comes down to whether the resemblance is sufficient (GBI says it does).

I'm not. aware of this yet. Please provided references for this.

The referenced cases, additional HPA case law, and counterfeiting case law have all been discussed at length in the multiple Carr threads. I'm not reinventing the wheel or wasting time to look it back up. You're not going to read it just as you haven't read GBI from start to finish or you would see for purposes of the HPA it puts to rest the fantasy date issue, intent, and degree of similarity required to trigger the marking requirement.

No worries. I agree there's been a lot of threads on this. I've read multiple threads on this and haven't seen your item #3 yet. You were able to find other items you referenced, so I thought it would be easy for you to locate, but no worries if you have no desire to. I'm guessing it will eventually be posted again at which time I'll look into it. I am curious now that I've run across this.

jmlanzaf

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
I suggest you reread the notice and comments.

It would be good if you use excerpts like I do, in addition to paraphrasing. I'm pointing to specific areas I'm relying on but I'm not sure what text you're relying on.

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Grab the GBI case from the FTC reporter. There is a PDF archive floating around on the FTC website if you do not have access to a bound or other electronic version.

Can someone post the PDF here?

However, even with it, none of us can probably do as good a job of interpreting it as PCGS attorney Armen Vartian. Are you an attorney, and one that practices in the area of numismatics like Armen?

He said nothing that vindicates or condemns Carr. His point seems to be that there isn't much guidance.

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/commission-decision-volumes

Armen has two points of relevance in interpreting the case:

1. that fantasy dates are not imitation numismatic items as defined by the Hobby Protection Act as the dates don't exist.
2. the Gold Bullion pieces were outlawed because they are counterfeits, not imitation numismatic items.

Armen Vartian said:
Admitting that the replicas were neither “reproductions” nor “copies” under the HPA’s definition of “imitation numismatic items”, the Commission found that they were “counterfeits”, because “[c]ourts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be ‘sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article.’

If Dan's pieces are not imitation numismatic items because they are fantasy dates, and they are not counterfeits because they are genuine articles, then the Gold Bullion case does not apply to Dan's pieces while also indicating Dan's items may be legal under the ruling applied to Gold Bullion. Dan's pieces don't just resemble the genuine article, they are genuine articles, albeit defaced, which is also legal.

Here are his full comments: https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/09/19/comment-00011

Of note Vartian (while criticizing other precedents) describes the FTC GBI decision holding fantasy date imitations are imitation numismatic items "reasonable."

I don't believe this applies to Dan's pieces because Dan's fantasy date pieces are struck on original numismatic items from a counterfeiting perspective. The area I quoted has much more detail on the delineation of a fantasy date and counterfeit.

Specifically here, the issue is if one piece can purport to be "[a different] original numismatic item". I would say adding a fantasy date does not meet this threshold. The way to think about this is that if you take a Peace Dollar and change it to a fantasy date, it's still a Peace Dollar. It's not a different numismatic item.

Of course, if you take a Peace Dollar. and make it a Gobrecht Dollar, that's a different story.

So if he struck a 1916-D mercury dime over a 1944 mercury dime, there's no problem? It's still a mercury dime.

Or if he struck a 1916-O? We'd then have the only known New Orleans mercury dime. I can't see a problem there. It's definitely not a counterfeit [sarcasm]

Zoins

@jmlanzaf said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
I suggest you reread the notice and comments.

It would be good if you use excerpts like I do, in addition to paraphrasing. I'm pointing to specific areas I'm relying on but I'm not sure what text you're relying on.

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Grab the GBI case from the FTC reporter. There is a PDF archive floating around on the FTC website if you do not have access to a bound or other electronic version.

Can someone post the PDF here?

However, even with it, none of us can probably do as good a job of interpreting it as PCGS attorney Armen Vartian. Are you an attorney, and one that practices in the area of numismatics like Armen?

He said nothing that vindicates or condemns Carr. His point seems to be that there isn't much guidance.

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/commission-decision-volumes

Armen has two points of relevance in interpreting the case:

1. that fantasy dates are not imitation numismatic items as defined by the Hobby Protection Act as the dates don't exist.
2. the Gold Bullion pieces were outlawed because they are counterfeits, not imitation numismatic items.

Armen Vartian said:
Admitting that the replicas were neither “reproductions” nor “copies” under the HPA’s definition of “imitation numismatic items”, the Commission found that they were “counterfeits”, because “[c]ourts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be ‘sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article.’

If Dan's pieces are not imitation numismatic items because they are fantasy dates, and they are not counterfeits because they are genuine articles, then the Gold Bullion case does not apply to Dan's pieces while also indicating Dan's items may be legal under the ruling applied to Gold Bullion. Dan's pieces don't just resemble the genuine article, they are genuine articles, albeit defaced, which is also legal.

Here are his full comments: https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/09/19/comment-00011

Of note Vartian (while criticizing other precedents) describes the FTC GBI decision holding fantasy date imitations are imitation numismatic items "reasonable."

I don't believe this applies to Dan's pieces because Dan's fantasy date pieces are struck on original numismatic items from a counterfeiting perspective. The area I quoted has much more detail on the delineation of a fantasy date and counterfeit.

Specifically here, the issue is if one piece can purport to be "[a different] original numismatic item". I would say adding a fantasy date does not meet this threshold. The way to think about this is that if you take a Peace Dollar and change it to a fantasy date, it's still a Peace Dollar. It's not a different numismatic item.

Of course, if you take a Peace Dollar. and make it a Gobrecht Dollar, that's a different story.

So if he struck a 1916-D mercury dime over a 1944 mercury dime, there's no problem? It's still a mercury dime.

The 1916-D is a problem because there exists an original numismatic item as defined under the Hobby Protection Act. Dan is not doing this. Hopefully, that's well understood after all this time.

Or if he struck a 1916-O? We'd then have the only known New Orleans mercury dime. I can't see a problem there. It's definitely not a counterfeit [sarcasm]

The Gold Bullion International case is focused on dates, not mintmarks. If dates and mintmarks are treated the same, it wouldn't be a reproduction or copy under the Hobby Protection Act. If you believe it's a counterfeit, what is it a counterfeit of?

cameonut2011

@Zoins said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
I suggest you reread the notice and comments.

It would be good if you use excerpts like I do, in addition to paraphrasing. I'm pointing to specific areas I'm relying on but I'm not sure what text you're relying on.

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Grab the GBI case from the FTC reporter. There is a PDF archive floating around on the FTC website if you do not have access to a bound or other electronic version.

Can someone post the PDF here?

However, even with it, none of us can probably do as good a job of interpreting it as PCGS attorney Armen Vartian. Are you an attorney, and one that practices in the area of numismatics like Armen?

He said nothing that vindicates or condemns Carr. His point seems to be that there isn't much guidance.

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/commission-decision-volumes

Armen has two points of relevance in interpreting the case:

1. that fantasy dates are not imitation numismatic items as defined by the Hobby Protection Act as the dates don't exist.
2. the Gold Bullion pieces were outlawed because they are counterfeits, not imitation numismatic items.

Armen Vartian said:
Admitting that the replicas were neither “reproductions” nor “copies” under the HPA’s definition of “imitation numismatic items”, the Commission found that they were “counterfeits”, because “[c]ourts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be ‘sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article.’

If Dan's pieces are not imitation numismatic items because they are fantasy dates, and they are not counterfeits because they are genuine articles, then the Gold Bullion case does not apply to Dan's pieces while also indicating Dan's items may be legal under the ruling applied to Gold Bullion. Dan's pieces don't just resemble the genuine article, they are genuine articles, albeit defaced, which is also legal.

Here are his full comments: https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/09/19/comment-00011

Of note Vartian (while criticizing other precedents) describes the FTC GBI decision holding fantasy date imitations are imitation numismatic items "reasonable."

I don't believe this applies to Dan's pieces because Dan's fantasy date pieces are struck on original numismatic items from a counterfeiting perspective. The area I quoted has much more detail on the delineation of a fantasy date and counterfeit.

Specifically here, the issue is if one piece can purport to be "[a different] original numismatic item". I would say adding a fantasy date does not meet this threshold. The way to think about this is that if you take a Peace Dollar and change it to a fantasy date, it's still a Peace Dollar. It's not a different numismatic item.

Of course, if you take a Peace Dollar. and make it a Gobrecht Dollar, that's a different story.

So if he struck a 1916-D mercury dime over a 1944 mercury dime, there's no problem? It's still a mercury dime.

The 1916-D is a problem because there exists an original numismatic item as defined under the Hobby Protection Act. Dan is not doing this. Hopefully, that's well understood after all this time.

Or if he struck a 1916-O? We'd then have the only known New Orleans mercury dime. I can't see a problem there. It's definitely not a counterfeit [sarcasm]

The Gold Bullion International case is focused on dates, not mintmarks. If dates and mintmarks are treated the same, it wouldn't be a reproduction or copy under the Hobby Protection Act. If you believe it's a counterfeit, what is it a counterfeit of?

The Hobby Protection Act covers counterfeits. That's blackletter law and in the statutory text. The NORFED coins, which look nothing like any original numismatic item I am aware of, were adjudicated to be counterfeits. As such, they violate the HPA. Doesn't that undermine your claim that imitation numismatic items must emulate an existing coin in every respect? That's the point of GBI and the counterfeiting case law. It doesn't need to be an exact emulation.

jmlanzaf

@Zoins said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
I suggest you reread the notice and comments.

It would be good if you use excerpts like I do, in addition to paraphrasing. I'm pointing to specific areas I'm relying on but I'm not sure what text you're relying on.

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Grab the GBI case from the FTC reporter. There is a PDF archive floating around on the FTC website if you do not have access to a bound or other electronic version.

Can someone post the PDF here?

However, even with it, none of us can probably do as good a job of interpreting it as PCGS attorney Armen Vartian. Are you an attorney, and one that practices in the area of numismatics like Armen?

He said nothing that vindicates or condemns Carr. His point seems to be that there isn't much guidance.

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/commission-decision-volumes

Armen has two points of relevance in interpreting the case:

1. that fantasy dates are not imitation numismatic items as defined by the Hobby Protection Act as the dates don't exist.
2. the Gold Bullion pieces were outlawed because they are counterfeits, not imitation numismatic items.

Armen Vartian said:
Admitting that the replicas were neither “reproductions” nor “copies” under the HPA’s definition of “imitation numismatic items”, the Commission found that they were “counterfeits”, because “[c]ourts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be ‘sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article.’

If Dan's pieces are not imitation numismatic items because they are fantasy dates, and they are not counterfeits because they are genuine articles, then the Gold Bullion case does not apply to Dan's pieces while also indicating Dan's items may be legal under the ruling applied to Gold Bullion. Dan's pieces don't just resemble the genuine article, they are genuine articles, albeit defaced, which is also legal.

Here are his full comments: https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/09/19/comment-00011

Of note Vartian (while criticizing other precedents) describes the FTC GBI decision holding fantasy date imitations are imitation numismatic items "reasonable."

I don't believe this applies to Dan's pieces because Dan's fantasy date pieces are struck on original numismatic items from a counterfeiting perspective. The area I quoted has much more detail on the delineation of a fantasy date and counterfeit.

Specifically here, the issue is if one piece can purport to be "[a different] original numismatic item". I would say adding a fantasy date does not meet this threshold. The way to think about this is that if you take a Peace Dollar and change it to a fantasy date, it's still a Peace Dollar. It's not a different numismatic item.

Of course, if you take a Peace Dollar. and make it a Gobrecht Dollar, that's a different story.

So if he struck a 1916-D mercury dime over a 1944 mercury dime, there's no problem? It's still a mercury dime.

The 1916-D is a problem because there exists an original numismatic item as defined under the Hobby Protection Act. Dan is not doing this. Hopefully, that's well understood after all this time.

Or if he struck a 1916-O? We'd then have the only known New Orleans mercury dime. I can't see a problem there. It's definitely not a counterfeit [sarcasm]

The Gold Bullion International case is focused on dates, not mintmarks. If dates and mintmarks are treated the same, it wouldn't be a reproduction or copy under the Hobby Protection Act. If you believe it's a counterfeit, what is it a counterfeit of?

You are arguing that it is not a "counterfeit" because it was struck over an original piece. That was the point of the 1916-D.

You seem to be arguing two things that should make all counterfeiters happy. You have argued that it is not a counterfeit if struck over an original. You have also argued it is not a counterfeit if there is no similar original piece. That means, it is pretty much never a counterfeit.

I can't see how altering an original makes it not a counterfeit. If I strike a 1933 double eagle over a 1924 double eagle, how is it not a counterfeit?

The 1916-O would be a counterfeit of a 1916-O...the only one struck.

Can I strike a 1913 Liberty nickel over a 1912 liberty nickel and have it not be a counterfeit? After all, there are no records of 1913 Liberty nickels ever being struck.

keets

simple is better --- Must be stamped "COPY" in plain sight.

jmlanzaf

@keets said:
simple is better --- Must be stamped "COPY" in plain sight.

At the very least, put it on the edge. [I'm thinking Dan Carr here.]

Zoins

@jmlanzaf said:

@Zoins said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
I suggest you reread the notice and comments.

It would be good if you use excerpts like I do, in addition to paraphrasing. I'm pointing to specific areas I'm relying on but I'm not sure what text you're relying on.

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Grab the GBI case from the FTC reporter. There is a PDF archive floating around on the FTC website if you do not have access to a bound or other electronic version.

Can someone post the PDF here?

However, even with it, none of us can probably do as good a job of interpreting it as PCGS attorney Armen Vartian. Are you an attorney, and one that practices in the area of numismatics like Armen?

He said nothing that vindicates or condemns Carr. His point seems to be that there isn't much guidance.

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/commission-decision-volumes

Armen has two points of relevance in interpreting the case:

1. that fantasy dates are not imitation numismatic items as defined by the Hobby Protection Act as the dates don't exist.
2. the Gold Bullion pieces were outlawed because they are counterfeits, not imitation numismatic items.

Armen Vartian said:
Admitting that the replicas were neither “reproductions” nor “copies” under the HPA’s definition of “imitation numismatic items”, the Commission found that they were “counterfeits”, because “[c]ourts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be ‘sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article.’

If Dan's pieces are not imitation numismatic items because they are fantasy dates, and they are not counterfeits because they are genuine articles, then the Gold Bullion case does not apply to Dan's pieces while also indicating Dan's items may be legal under the ruling applied to Gold Bullion. Dan's pieces don't just resemble the genuine article, they are genuine articles, albeit defaced, which is also legal.

Here are his full comments: https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/09/19/comment-00011

Of note Vartian (while criticizing other precedents) describes the FTC GBI decision holding fantasy date imitations are imitation numismatic items "reasonable."

I don't believe this applies to Dan's pieces because Dan's fantasy date pieces are struck on original numismatic items from a counterfeiting perspective. The area I quoted has much more detail on the delineation of a fantasy date and counterfeit.

Specifically here, the issue is if one piece can purport to be "[a different] original numismatic item". I would say adding a fantasy date does not meet this threshold. The way to think about this is that if you take a Peace Dollar and change it to a fantasy date, it's still a Peace Dollar. It's not a different numismatic item.

Of course, if you take a Peace Dollar. and make it a Gobrecht Dollar, that's a different story.

So if he struck a 1916-D mercury dime over a 1944 mercury dime, there's no problem? It's still a mercury dime.

The 1916-D is a problem because there exists an original numismatic item as defined under the Hobby Protection Act. Dan is not doing this. Hopefully, that's well understood after all this time.

Or if he struck a 1916-O? We'd then have the only known New Orleans mercury dime. I can't see a problem there. It's definitely not a counterfeit [sarcasm]

The Gold Bullion International case is focused on dates, not mintmarks. If dates and mintmarks are treated the same, it wouldn't be a reproduction or copy under the Hobby Protection Act. If you believe it's a counterfeit, what is it a counterfeit of?

You are arguing that it is not a "counterfeit" because it was struck over an original piece. That was the point of the 1916-D.

I agree that is the point of the 1916-D, but I'm making a distinction with fantasy dates, which you're not. You're using real date/mintmarks to make an argument that carries over to fantasy dates which I don't think applies.

You seem to be arguing two things that should make all counterfeiters happy. You have argued that it is not a counterfeit if struck over an original. You have also argued it is not a counterfeit if there is no similar original piece. That means, it is pretty much never a counterfeit.

It's been said this approach would make counterfeiters happy but I haven't seen counterfeiters make fantasy date overstrikes. Can you point to one?

I don't think counterfeiters would prefer fantasy date overstrikes because fantasy dates would sell for much less than real dates and overstrikes would not only cost more but the undertype would be visible. The counterfeits I've seen are generally struck on blank planchets. See here.

I can't see how altering an original makes it not a counterfeit. If I strike a 1933 double eagle over a 1924 double eagle, how is it not a counterfeit?

This is the same as the 1916-D example which is a replica or copy under the Hobby Protection Act.

The 1916-O would be a counterfeit of a 1916-O...the only one struck.

I think there's just a disagreement in fantasy dates.

Can I strike a 1913 Liberty nickel over a 1912 liberty nickel and have it not be a counterfeit? After all, there are no records of 1913 Liberty nickels ever being struck.

Well, they are known to exist. The Hobby Protection Act doesn't indicate records of mintage are needed, just that original numismatic items need to exist.

You're providing numerous examples of coins/dates that do exist and I don't think people will disagree with you there. It's the fantasy date overstrikes where people have a different opinion.

Zoins

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
I suggest you reread the notice and comments.

It would be good if you use excerpts like I do, in addition to paraphrasing. I'm pointing to specific areas I'm relying on but I'm not sure what text you're relying on.

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Grab the GBI case from the FTC reporter. There is a PDF archive floating around on the FTC website if you do not have access to a bound or other electronic version.

Can someone post the PDF here?

However, even with it, none of us can probably do as good a job of interpreting it as PCGS attorney Armen Vartian. Are you an attorney, and one that practices in the area of numismatics like Armen?

He said nothing that vindicates or condemns Carr. His point seems to be that there isn't much guidance.

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/commission-decision-volumes

Armen has two points of relevance in interpreting the case:

1. that fantasy dates are not imitation numismatic items as defined by the Hobby Protection Act as the dates don't exist.
2. the Gold Bullion pieces were outlawed because they are counterfeits, not imitation numismatic items.

Armen Vartian said:
Admitting that the replicas were neither “reproductions” nor “copies” under the HPA’s definition of “imitation numismatic items”, the Commission found that they were “counterfeits”, because “[c]ourts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be ‘sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article.’

If Dan's pieces are not imitation numismatic items because they are fantasy dates, and they are not counterfeits because they are genuine articles, then the Gold Bullion case does not apply to Dan's pieces while also indicating Dan's items may be legal under the ruling applied to Gold Bullion. Dan's pieces don't just resemble the genuine article, they are genuine articles, albeit defaced, which is also legal.

Here are his full comments: https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/09/19/comment-00011

Of note Vartian (while criticizing other precedents) describes the FTC GBI decision holding fantasy date imitations are imitation numismatic items "reasonable."

I don't believe this applies to Dan's pieces because Dan's fantasy date pieces are struck on original numismatic items from a counterfeiting perspective. The area I quoted has much more detail on the delineation of a fantasy date and counterfeit.

Specifically here, the issue is if one piece can purport to be "[a different] original numismatic item". I would say adding a fantasy date does not meet this threshold. The way to think about this is that if you take a Peace Dollar and change it to a fantasy date, it's still a Peace Dollar. It's not a different numismatic item.

Of course, if you take a Peace Dollar. and make it a Gobrecht Dollar, that's a different story.

So if he struck a 1916-D mercury dime over a 1944 mercury dime, there's no problem? It's still a mercury dime.

The 1916-D is a problem because there exists an original numismatic item as defined under the Hobby Protection Act. Dan is not doing this. Hopefully, that's well understood after all this time.

Or if he struck a 1916-O? We'd then have the only known New Orleans mercury dime. I can't see a problem there. It's definitely not a counterfeit [sarcasm]

The Gold Bullion International case is focused on dates, not mintmarks. If dates and mintmarks are treated the same, it wouldn't be a reproduction or copy under the Hobby Protection Act. If you believe it's a counterfeit, what is it a counterfeit of?

The Hobby Protection Act covers counterfeits. That's blackletter law and in the statutory text. The NORFED coins, which look nothing like any original numismatic item I am aware of, were adjudicated to be counterfeits. As such, they violate the HPA. Doesn't that undermine your claim that imitation numismatic items must emulate an existing coin in every respect? That's the point of GBI and the counterfeiting case law. It doesn't need to be an exact emulation.

I don't think the Hobby Protection Act was used for NORFED. The Hobby Protection Act is focused on protecting collectors, or hobbyists, while the NORFED case was focused on protecting the issuance of US circulating currency. Can you reference a government article or decision that indicates the Hobby Protection Act was involved in the decision?

This FBI article on NORFED focuses on violation of Article I, section 8, clause 5 of the US Constitution (and not the Hobby Protection Act).

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/charlotte/press-releases/2011/defendant-convicted-of-minting-his-own-currency

Article I, section 8, clause 5 of the United States Constitution delegates to Congress the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof. This power was delegated to Congress in order to establish and preserve a uniform standard of value and to insure a singular monetary system for all purchases and debts in the United States, public and private. Along with the power to coin money, Congress has the concurrent power to restrain the circulation of money which is not issued under its own authority in order to protect and preserve the constitutional currency for the benefit of all citizens of the nation. It is a violation of federal law for individuals, such as von NotHaus, or organizations, such as NORFED, to create private coin or currency systems to compete with the official coinage and currency of the United States.

chesterb

This thread is still going on? The world and US has bigger issues than Dan Carr's mint! Too bad he can't expand operations and get some jobs back for the 23M+ unemployed Americans right now.

Gluggo

@chesterb said:
This thread is still going on? The world and US has bigger issues than Dan Carr's mint! Too bad he can't expand operations and get some jobs back for the 23M+ unemployed Americans right now.

I am sorry but with all their HATE in their veins they would rather the 23M+ starve to DEATH😷

thefinn

@kiyote said:
I’m sure if China started over-striking a bunch of Morgans into 1922 Morgans without the word COPY on them no one would complain. 😁

The Chinese government won't allow non-governmental entities to sell precious (gold/platinum) or semi-precious (silver) outside of China. So it is a non-possumus.

jmlanzaf

@chesterb said:
This thread is still going on? The world and US has bigger issues than Dan Carr's mint! Too bad he can't expand operations and get some jobs back for the 23M+ unemployed Americans right now.

This thread is not about Dan Carr, although it's trending that way. The thread is about the HPA.

CaptHenway

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
I suggest you reread the notice and comments.

It would be good if you use excerpts like I do, in addition to paraphrasing. I'm pointing to specific areas I'm relying on but I'm not sure what text you're relying on.

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Grab the GBI case from the FTC reporter. There is a PDF archive floating around on the FTC website if you do not have access to a bound or other electronic version.

Can someone post the PDF here?

However, even with it, none of us can probably do as good a job of interpreting it as PCGS attorney Armen Vartian. Are you an attorney, and one that practices in the area of numismatics like Armen?

He said nothing that vindicates or condemns Carr. His point seems to be that there isn't much guidance.

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/commission-decision-volumes

Armen has two points of relevance in interpreting the case:

1. that fantasy dates are not imitation numismatic items as defined by the Hobby Protection Act as the dates don't exist.
2. the Gold Bullion pieces were outlawed because they are counterfeits, not imitation numismatic items.

Armen Vartian said:
Admitting that the replicas were neither “reproductions” nor “copies” under the HPA’s definition of “imitation numismatic items”, the Commission found that they were “counterfeits”, because “[c]ourts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be ‘sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article.’

If Dan's pieces are not imitation numismatic items because they are fantasy dates, and they are not counterfeits because they are genuine articles, then the Gold Bullion case does not apply to Dan's pieces while also indicating Dan's items may be legal under the ruling applied to Gold Bullion. Dan's pieces don't just resemble the genuine article, they are genuine articles, albeit defaced, which is also legal.

Here are his full comments: https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/09/19/comment-00011

Of note Vartian (while criticizing other precedents) describes the FTC GBI decision holding fantasy date imitations are imitation numismatic items "reasonable."

I don't believe this applies to Dan's pieces because Dan's fantasy date pieces are struck on original numismatic items from a counterfeiting perspective. The area I quoted has much more detail on the delineation of a fantasy date and counterfeit.

With respect to the quoted text here, I would interpret Dan's pieces to be original numismatic items since they are struck on them. Changing a digit wouldn't change that. The way to think about this is that if you take a Peace Dollar and change it to a fantasy date, it's still a Peace Dollar. It's not a different numismatic item.

16 CFR 304.1(d):

In my mind, Dan's pieces do not purport to be original numismatic items.

In your previously quoted text, they also do not purport to be "[different] original numismatic items".

A 1964-D Peace Dollar struck over a 1922 Peace Dollar is a 1922 Peace Dollar (original numismatic item) that purports to be a 1964-D Peace Dollar (a different date Peace Dollar other than the 1922 it was struck as). A 1964 dated Franklin struckover a 1964 Kennedy Half Dollar is altering a Kennedy Half Dollar (an original numismatic item) to look like a Franklin Half Dollar (another original numismatic item). Changing a digit in the date is irrelevant per GBI. Your interpretation would render the language in the statute and administrative regulations as inoperative.

The issue with this reasoning is that the 1964-D Peace Dollar is not an original numismatic item so it cannot purport to be one. And because it was struck on a Peace Dollar, it is not a counterfeit Peace Dollar.

Changing a digit in the date is relevant in this discussion as it's a major issue with the only case law we have and referred to by Tom's post. And the fantasy date made it not meet the definition of reproduction or copy under the HPA.

I don't agree my / Armen's reasoning would make the statue inoperative because it was clearly operative in the Gold Bullion International case and I don't have an issue with the determination.

I'm not going to waste more time arguing, but your position has already been rejected by courts and the FTC. I leave you with this:

1 - The central holding of GBI is that using a fictitious date but otherwise substantially emulating
a coin design does not remove a coin from the scope of counterfeiting statutes or the HPA. Fantasy date issues are imitation numismatic items subject to the marking requirement. That's the FTC's precedent with the binding force of law.

2 - In response to comments regarding so called fantasy coins, the FTC said in the notice linked by Tom earlier in the thread that it need not amend the HPA to address so called fantasy date coins as it already viewed the GBI decision as settled law resolving the issue.

3 - Federal courts have affirmed counterfeiting convictions for over striking Roosevelt Dimes over Roosevelt Dimes and Washington Quarters over Washington Quarters. There is no reason it wouldn't apply to Peace Dollars. The over strike issue is a red herring. It comes down to whether the resemblance is sufficient (GBI says it does) and whether using a fake date removes it from the scope of the statutes (GBI says date changes alone are not enough).

4 - You seem to be a fan of Armen. You should write him and ask if you were to do what Carr does, would you potentially run afoul of the HPA and counterfeiting statutes. Tell us what he says. Don't tell him it is a Carr question incognito.

I have been too sick all day to follow the forums. Basically Cameonut's comments agree with my thoughts. If I make it home from the hospital tomorrow I may expand upon them.

This thread was resurrected because I said in an unrelated thread that an imitation of the 1851 California $20 struck from copy dies would be subject to the requirements of the Hobby Protection Act. Tell me how it would not be without bringing Dan Carr's pieces into the discussion. If you can.

jmlanzaf

@CaptHenway said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
I suggest you reread the notice and comments.

It would be good if you use excerpts like I do, in addition to paraphrasing. I'm pointing to specific areas I'm relying on but I'm not sure what text you're relying on.

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:
Grab the GBI case from the FTC reporter. There is a PDF archive floating around on the FTC website if you do not have access to a bound or other electronic version.

Can someone post the PDF here?

However, even with it, none of us can probably do as good a job of interpreting it as PCGS attorney Armen Vartian. Are you an attorney, and one that practices in the area of numismatics like Armen?

He said nothing that vindicates or condemns Carr. His point seems to be that there isn't much guidance.

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/commission-decision-volumes

Armen has two points of relevance in interpreting the case:

1. that fantasy dates are not imitation numismatic items as defined by the Hobby Protection Act as the dates don't exist.
2. the Gold Bullion pieces were outlawed because they are counterfeits, not imitation numismatic items.

Armen Vartian said:
Admitting that the replicas were neither “reproductions” nor “copies” under the HPA’s definition of “imitation numismatic items”, the Commission found that they were “counterfeits”, because “[c]ourts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be ‘sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article.’

If Dan's pieces are not imitation numismatic items because they are fantasy dates, and they are not counterfeits because they are genuine articles, then the Gold Bullion case does not apply to Dan's pieces while also indicating Dan's items may be legal under the ruling applied to Gold Bullion. Dan's pieces don't just resemble the genuine article, they are genuine articles, albeit defaced, which is also legal.

Here are his full comments: https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2014/09/19/comment-00011

Of note Vartian (while criticizing other precedents) describes the FTC GBI decision holding fantasy date imitations are imitation numismatic items "reasonable."

I don't believe this applies to Dan's pieces because Dan's fantasy date pieces are struck on original numismatic items from a counterfeiting perspective. The area I quoted has much more detail on the delineation of a fantasy date and counterfeit.

With respect to the quoted text here, I would interpret Dan's pieces to be original numismatic items since they are struck on them. Changing a digit wouldn't change that. The way to think about this is that if you take a Peace Dollar and change it to a fantasy date, it's still a Peace Dollar. It's not a different numismatic item.

16 CFR 304.1(d):

In my mind, Dan's pieces do not purport to be original numismatic items.

In your previously quoted text, they also do not purport to be "[different] original numismatic items".

A 1964-D Peace Dollar struck over a 1922 Peace Dollar is a 1922 Peace Dollar (original numismatic item) that purports to be a 1964-D Peace Dollar (a different date Peace Dollar other than the 1922 it was struck as). A 1964 dated Franklin struckover a 1964 Kennedy Half Dollar is altering a Kennedy Half Dollar (an original numismatic item) to look like a Franklin Half Dollar (another original numismatic item). Changing a digit in the date is irrelevant per GBI. Your interpretation would render the language in the statute and administrative regulations as inoperative.

The issue with this reasoning is that the 1964-D Peace Dollar is not an original numismatic item so it cannot purport to be one. And because it was struck on a Peace Dollar, it is not a counterfeit Peace Dollar.

Changing a digit in the date is relevant in this discussion as it's a major issue with the only case law we have and referred to by Tom's post. And the fantasy date made it not meet the definition of reproduction or copy under the HPA.

I don't agree my / Armen's reasoning would make the statue inoperative because it was clearly operative in the Gold Bullion International case and I don't have an issue with the determination.

I'm not going to waste more time arguing, but your position has already been rejected by courts and the FTC. I leave you with this:

1 - The central holding of GBI is that using a fictitious date but otherwise substantially emulating
a coin design does not remove a coin from the scope of counterfeiting statutes or the HPA. Fantasy date issues are imitation numismatic items subject to the marking requirement. That's the FTC's precedent with the binding force of law.

2 - In response to comments regarding so called fantasy coins, the FTC said in the notice linked by Tom earlier in the thread that it need not amend the HPA to address so called fantasy date coins as it already viewed the GBI decision as settled law resolving the issue.

3 - Federal courts have affirmed counterfeiting convictions for over striking Roosevelt Dimes over Roosevelt Dimes and Washington Quarters over Washington Quarters. There is no reason it wouldn't apply to Peace Dollars. The over strike issue is a red herring. It comes down to whether the resemblance is sufficient (GBI says it does) and whether using a fake date removes it from the scope of the statutes (GBI says date changes alone are not enough).

4 - You seem to be a fan of Armen. You should write him and ask if you were to do what Carr does, would you potentially run afoul of the HPA and counterfeiting statutes. Tell us what he says. Don't tell him it is a Carr question incognito.

I have been too sick all day to follow the forums. Basically Cameonut's comments agree with my thoughts. If I make it home from the hospital tomorrow I may expand upon them.

This thread was resurrected because I said in an unrelated thread that an imitation of the 1851 California $20 struck from copy dies would be subject to the requirements of the Hobby Protection Act. Tell me how it would not be without bringing Dan Carr's pieces into the discussion. If you can.

Hope you are feeling better.

Zoins

Good luck getting home from the hospital soon @CaptHenway ! I hope you have a full and speedy recovery.

I'm glad we moved the conversation here. While this is an interesting topic and I think a couple of posts in other threads are fine, it was starting to grow there and it would be sad to derail threads with a topic like this.

Unknown

This content has been removed.