@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?
who came up with the idea to have Roger testify as an expert witness?
Roger offered to be an expert witness on these forums so perhaps the original idea was his. I wonder if his offer got people to think and reach out?
Everything went well and I did not have to stay overnight. As a bonus I got a free COVID-19 test out of it which of course turned up negative. No skydiving for 48 hours and I cannot drive a car over 190 mph.
Which case are you talking about Roger Burdette being call in as an expert witness? That certainly wasn't the so-called "German State gold restrikes." I handled those coins when they came into Coin World back in the mid-70's, and was part of the team that declared them counterfeits.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@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:
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.
Armen has two points of relevance in interpreting the case:
that fantasy dates are not imitation numismatic items as defined by the Hobby Protection Act as the dates don't exist.
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.
Of note Vartian (while criticizing other precedents) describes the FTC GBI decision holding fantasy date imitations are imitation numismatic items "reasonable":
Yes, this. Vartian AGREES that an imitation numismatic item with a minor change such as a single date digit being changed to one never used is still subject to the requirements of the Hobby Protection Act. Period. The concept that this only applies to the so-called "German State gold restrikes" of the 1970's is ludicrous.
I don't know why some people automatically assume that any defense of the Hobby Protection Act must be construed as an attack upon Dan Carr's work. Dan's defense that his pieces are merely altered genuine coins, similar in nature to a hobo nickel. is a plausible one, but so far as I know it is untested in a court. I have never tried to instigate such a court case, nor do I intend to.
Nevertheless, I reserve the right to defend the Hobby Protection Act in general. For the good of the hobby, other people should defend it too.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@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:
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.
Armen has two points of relevance in interpreting the case:
that fantasy dates are not imitation numismatic items as defined by the Hobby Protection Act as the dates don't exist.
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.
Of note Vartian (while criticizing other precedents) describes the FTC GBI decision holding fantasy date imitations are imitation numismatic items "reasonable":
Yes, this. Vartian AGREES that an imitation numismatic item with a minor change such as a single date digit being changed to one never used is still subject to the requirements of the Hobby Protection Act. Period. The concept that this only applies to the so-called "German State gold restrikes" of the 1970's is ludicrous.
I'm not aware of anyone saying this only applies to the German state pieces. Can you point to someone that is saying that?
@CaptHenway said:
I don't know why some people automatically assume that any defense of the Hobby Protection Act must be construed as an attack upon Dan Carr's work. Dan's defense that his pieces are merely altered genuine coins, similar in nature to a hobo nickel. is a plausible one, but so far as I know it is untested in a court. I have never tried to instigate such a court case, nor do I intend to.
There are many items discussed under the Hobby Protection Act. Other pieces actually have legal case law, but Moonlight Mint pieces do not yet. Armen mentions the Wilhelm pieces, NCM Freedom Tower Dollars, 1855 Kellogg restrikes, 1876 Morgan Union coins by the Smithsonian and Confederate coins.
I think it's just that Moonlight Mint pieces attract more controversy here since there is a group of members collecting them.
I agree the Moonlight Mint's overstriking of legal tender coins is what separates them from other pieces like the Wilhelm pieces and hasn't been tested yet.
Another difference is that the Moonlight Mint provides a full online catalog since the Gold Bullion case referenced a lack fo published reference material could lead to confusion.
@CaptHenway said:
Nevertheless, I reserve the right to defend the Hobby Protection Act in general. For the good of the hobby, other people should defend it too.
I think it's good for everyone to understand the Hobby Protection Act and the legal cases that refer to it since the US is a case law country. According to Armen, it seems like case law is being used to extend the Hobby Protection Act to things that Congress didn't intend.
Armen said:
Nevertheless, there has been a tendency in the few cases relating to the HPA to extend the HPA to cover any coin that might be marketed in such a way as to deceive consumers, beyond Congress’ mandate.
I thought that that was what you were saying here:
Did I misinterpret what you said?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I thought that that was what you were saying here:
Did I misinterpret what you said?
I think you did misinterpret what I wrote to be overly broad.
In the excerpt you quoted, I wrote the difference between the Gold Bullion case and Dan's pieces is Dan's are overstruck legal tender coins, specifically:
@Zoins said:
The coins in this case were not overstruck legal tender coins but newly fabricated numismatic items.
I didn't make any statement on coins that were not overstruck legal tender coins and believe they would be more appropriately covered by the Gold Bullion ruling. I certainly did not make any claim that came close to what you wrote which is what drove my question:
@CaptHenway said:
The concept that this only applies to the so-called "German State gold restrikes" of the 1970's is ludicrous.
The difference with Dan's overstruck pieces is something you highlighted yourself as being plausible, writing:
@CaptHenway said:
Dan's defense that his pieces are merely altered genuine coins, similar in nature to a hobo nickel. is a plausible one, but so far as I know it is untested in a court.
You said “The part above the footnotes referenced by (me) refers to in re Gold Bullion Int’l Ltd.” Period.
I believe that It refers to any imitation numismatic item, regardless of whether or not it uses a fantasy date, and that if Dan’s pieces were struck on blank planchets they would be REQUIRED BY LAW to be stamped with the word copy.
That said, his use of genuine coins as undertypes may or may not provide a valid legal exemption to the HPA requirement. I would not mind if a court did rule in his favor, but neither of us are legally qualified to make that ruling.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway said:
You said “The part above the footnotes referenced by (me) refers to in re Gold Bullion Int’l Ltd.” Period.
I don't agree with your conclusion because I don't think Gold Bullion decision itself applies only to so-called "German State gold restrikes" of the 1970's. I think it would be ludicrous to think it did.
I believe that It refers to any imitation numismatic item, regardless of whether or not it uses a fantasy date, and that if Dan’s pieces were struck on blank planchets they would be REQUIRED BY LAW to be stamped with the word copy.
I agree with this, but I don't think it's relevant because Dan's pieces (specifically fantasy date overstrikes) are not struck on blank planchets. Adding Dan to the conversation doesn't add value for me because you're suggesting a scenario where he does something that he has consciously avoided by policy for a decade.
That said, his use of genuine coins as undertypes may or may not provide a valid legal exemption to the HPA requirement. I would not mind if a court did rule in his favor, but neither of us are legally qualified to make that ruling.
I agree that Dan's case hasn't been tested in the courts and that we are both just trying to interpret decisions of the government.
At least we agree that the use of a fantasy date alone does not exempt an imitation numismatic item from the marking requirements of the HPA, even though the original issuing authority never issued the fantasy date.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway said:
At least we agree that the use of a fantasy date alone does not exempt an imitation numismatic item from the marking requirements of the HPA, even though the original issuing authority never issued the fantasy date.
that is a MAJOR requirement affecting multiples of dozens of issues being posted on this forum from private manufactureres. wow
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I have a question for @CaptHenway . Some early US coins are overstrikes of other coins, such as some half cents. These are die struck products that become US Mint coins, and the source of the planchet, whether a prepared blank or a previously struck coin, have no bearing on the final product - as in a US Mint half cent that could retain part of the design of the of the overstruck coin.
For the Hobby Protection Act, why would a die struck product be considered an alteration, if the source of the material could either be a rolled blank or a previously struck coin, when the final die struck product is a copied US Mint design?
I realize experts could tell the difference of an overstruck coin from the edge and possible letter ghosting, but in the context of "Hobby Protection" how could a novice tell the difference from online auction images?
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
@burfle23 said:
I assume this one should have "COPY" stamped on it...
.
my understanding (and it is not near perfect) is that only known date/mm combinations are subject to having copy incuse in a visible area. this would be considered a fantasy date and thus in no small part is why so many are permitted to create exact copies/replicaes/overstrike etc w/o running afoul of the hpa update.(and other laws) (although i still understand it that likenesses are subject to the governing laws but many creations still slip through legally)
PMG's ethical rules are good common sense and comprehensive ones that would cover fakes as well as most other concerns centered around protecting the hobby. The problem is enforcement.
@burfle23 said:
I assume this one should have "COPY" stamped on it...
.
my understanding (and it is not near perfect) is that only known date/mm combinations are subject to having copy incuse in a visible area. this would be considered a fantasy date and thus in no small part is why so many are permitted to create exact copies/replicaes/overstrike etc w/o running afoul of the hpa update.(and other laws) (although i still understand it that likenesses are subject to the governing laws but many creations still slip through legally)
Interesting; mine is a Chinese version of a Carr piece...
@burfle23 said:
I assume this one should have "COPY" stamped on it...
.
my understanding (and it is not near perfect) is that only known date/mm combinations are subject to having copy incuse in a visible area. this would be considered a fantasy date and thus in no small part is why so many are permitted to create exact copies/replicaes/overstrike etc w/o running afoul of the hpa update.(and other laws) (although i still understand it that likenesses are subject to the governing laws but many creations still slip through legally)
Why would that be so? The average person does not have the Redbook memorized.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@burfle23 said:
I assume this one should have "COPY" stamped on it...
.
my understanding (and it is not near perfect) is that only known date/mm combinations are subject to having copy incuse in a visible area. this would be considered a fantasy date and thus in no small part is why so many are permitted to create exact copies/replicaes/overstrike etc w/o running afoul of the hpa update.(and other laws) (although i still understand it that likenesses are subject to the governing laws but many creations still slip through legally)
Why would that be so? The average person does not have the Redbook memorized.
.
maybe i mis-worded something. which part triggered the comment. thanks
@Nysoto said:
I have a question for @CaptHenway . Some early US coins are overstrikes of other coins, such as some half cents. These are die struck products that become US Mint coins, and the source of the planchet, whether a prepared blank or a previously struck coin, have no bearing on the final product - as in a US Mint half cent that could retain part of the design of the of the overstruck coin.
For the Hobby Protection Act, why would a die struck product be considered an alteration, if the source of the material could either be a rolled blank or a previously struck coin, when the final die struck product is a copied US Mint design?
I realize experts could tell the difference of an overstruck coin from the edge and possible letter ghosting, but in the context of "Hobby Protection" how could a novice tell the difference from online auction images?
A U.S. Half Cent struck on a rolled out and cut down mis-struck large cent, or a rolled out and cut down Talbot, Alum & Lee token, is not an imitation numismatic item. It is an official United States coin. Same with a Lincoln cent struck on a previously struck Roosevelt dime. The HPA does not apply.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Comments
Roger offered to be an expert witness on these forums so perhaps the original idea was his. I wonder if his offer got people to think and reach out?
Everything went well and I did not have to stay overnight. As a bonus I got a free COVID-19 test out of it which of course turned up negative. No skydiving for 48 hours and I cannot drive a car over 190 mph.
Which case are you talking about Roger Burdette being call in as an expert witness? That certainly wasn't the so-called "German State gold restrikes." I handled those coins when they came into Coin World back in the mid-70's, and was part of the team that declared them counterfeits.
Yes, this. Vartian AGREES that an imitation numismatic item with a minor change such as a single date digit being changed to one never used is still subject to the requirements of the Hobby Protection Act. Period. The concept that this only applies to the so-called "German State gold restrikes" of the 1970's is ludicrous.
I don't know why some people automatically assume that any defense of the Hobby Protection Act must be construed as an attack upon Dan Carr's work. Dan's defense that his pieces are merely altered genuine coins, similar in nature to a hobo nickel. is a plausible one, but so far as I know it is untested in a court. I have never tried to instigate such a court case, nor do I intend to.
Nevertheless, I reserve the right to defend the Hobby Protection Act in general. For the good of the hobby, other people should defend it too.
I'm not aware of anyone saying this only applies to the German state pieces. Can you point to someone that is saying that?
There are many items discussed under the Hobby Protection Act. Other pieces actually have legal case law, but Moonlight Mint pieces do not yet. Armen mentions the Wilhelm pieces, NCM Freedom Tower Dollars, 1855 Kellogg restrikes, 1876 Morgan Union coins by the Smithsonian and Confederate coins.
I think it's just that Moonlight Mint pieces attract more controversy here since there is a group of members collecting them.
I agree the Moonlight Mint's overstriking of legal tender coins is what separates them from other pieces like the Wilhelm pieces and hasn't been tested yet.
Another difference is that the Moonlight Mint provides a full online catalog since the Gold Bullion case referenced a lack fo published reference material could lead to confusion.
I think it's good for everyone to understand the Hobby Protection Act and the legal cases that refer to it since the US is a case law country. According to Armen, it seems like case law is being used to extend the Hobby Protection Act to things that Congress didn't intend.
Rather than copy everything,
I thought that that was what you were saying here:
Did I misinterpret what you said?
I think you did misinterpret what I wrote to be overly broad.
In the excerpt you quoted, I wrote the difference between the Gold Bullion case and Dan's pieces is Dan's are overstruck legal tender coins, specifically:
I didn't make any statement on coins that were not overstruck legal tender coins and believe they would be more appropriately covered by the Gold Bullion ruling. I certainly did not make any claim that came close to what you wrote which is what drove my question:
The difference with Dan's overstruck pieces is something you highlighted yourself as being plausible, writing:
Am I missing something?
You said “The part above the footnotes referenced by (me) refers to in re Gold Bullion Int’l Ltd.” Period.
I believe that It refers to any imitation numismatic item, regardless of whether or not it uses a fantasy date, and that if Dan’s pieces were struck on blank planchets they would be REQUIRED BY LAW to be stamped with the word copy.
That said, his use of genuine coins as undertypes may or may not provide a valid legal exemption to the HPA requirement. I would not mind if a court did rule in his favor, but neither of us are legally qualified to make that ruling.
I don't agree with your conclusion because I don't think Gold Bullion decision itself applies only to so-called "German State gold restrikes" of the 1970's. I think it would be ludicrous to think it did.
I agree with this, but I don't think it's relevant because Dan's pieces (specifically fantasy date overstrikes) are not struck on blank planchets. Adding Dan to the conversation doesn't add value for me because you're suggesting a scenario where he does something that he has consciously avoided by policy for a decade.
I agree that Dan's case hasn't been tested in the courts and that we are both just trying to interpret decisions of the government.
At least we agree that the use of a fantasy date alone does not exempt an imitation numismatic item from the marking requirements of the HPA, even though the original issuing authority never issued the fantasy date.
link from the OP has been updated per that site.
LINK
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/part-304
Thank you.
that is a MAJOR requirement affecting multiples of dozens of issues being posted on this forum from private manufactureres. wow
.
Only comment I have is I like this DC piece!
.
CoinsAreFun Toned Silver Eagle Proof Album
.
Gallery Mint Museum, Ron Landis& Joe Rust, The beginnings of the Golden Dollar
.
More CoinsAreFun Pictorials NGC
Bump
I have a question for @CaptHenway . Some early US coins are overstrikes of other coins, such as some half cents. These are die struck products that become US Mint coins, and the source of the planchet, whether a prepared blank or a previously struck coin, have no bearing on the final product - as in a US Mint half cent that could retain part of the design of the of the overstruck coin.
For the Hobby Protection Act, why would a die struck product be considered an alteration, if the source of the material could either be a rolled blank or a previously struck coin, when the final die struck product is a copied US Mint design?
I realize experts could tell the difference of an overstruck coin from the edge and possible letter ghosting, but in the context of "Hobby Protection" how could a novice tell the difference from online auction images?
I assume this one should have "COPY" stamped on it...
.
my understanding (and it is not near perfect) is that only known date/mm combinations are subject to having copy incuse in a visible area. this would be considered a fantasy date and thus in no small part is why so many are permitted to create exact copies/replicaes/overstrike etc w/o running afoul of the hpa update.(and other laws) (although i still understand it that likenesses are subject to the governing laws but many creations still slip through legally)
PMG's ethical rules are good common sense and comprehensive ones that would cover fakes as well as most other concerns centered around protecting the hobby. The problem is enforcement.
Interesting; mine is a Chinese version of a Carr piece...
Why would that be so? The average person does not have the Redbook memorized.
.
maybe i mis-worded something. which part triggered the comment. thanks
A U.S. Half Cent struck on a rolled out and cut down mis-struck large cent, or a rolled out and cut down Talbot, Alum & Lee token, is not an imitation numismatic item. It is an official United States coin. Same with a Lincoln cent struck on a previously struck Roosevelt dime. The HPA does not apply.