The first one especially so, because it calls the piece a "coin."
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.
Another imitation numismatic item subject to the Hobby Protection Act, but nobody cares.
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 don't think so as the "Private Mint" notation is enough for me. However, I can see where confusion might arise and can support @KSorbo 's idea of using something like "Modern Private Mint Fantasy" (would be better if we knew a date so it could be "2004 Private Mint Fantasy" since "modern" can be a bit vague).
Perplexing until you look at the piece and say, "Blech," then it doesn't matter.
It probably would be best had the label said it was a reproduction, even if not a very good one, rather than "Private Mint," and maybe also put the date in quotes or included the actual date of manufacture. At least it has a COPY stamp. There were "Morgan-Barber" designs, and this one seems to approximate J-1615.
@CaptHenway said:
Another imitation numismatic item subject to the Hobby Protection Act, but nobody cares.
Is labeling of a holder by a third part subject to the HPA? The item is stamped with COPY, which seems to meet the HPA requirement.
Sorry, I missed that. That makes it fully compliant.
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.
braddick
Posts: 22,516 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
Another example:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1879-2004-IGC-PR67-Morgan-Barber-Pattern-Dollar-Private-Mint-Golden-Aly-Ltd-Ed/333867189432?hash=item4dbc0904b8:g:uJoAAOSwN2pgDKnR
peacockcoins
wow
The first one especially so, because it calls the piece a "coin."
Another imitation numismatic item subject to the Hobby Protection Act, but nobody cares.
A term like “modern fantasy strike” would go a long ways.
I don’t know, it says private mint.
to the OP's question, no.
I don't think so as the "Private Mint" notation is enough for me. However, I can see where confusion might arise and can support @KSorbo 's idea of using something like "Modern Private Mint Fantasy" (would be better if we knew a date so it could be "2004 Private Mint Fantasy" since "modern" can be a bit vague).
Perplexing until you look at the piece and say, "Blech," then it doesn't matter.
It probably would be best had the label said it was a reproduction, even if not a very good one, rather than "Private Mint," and maybe also put the date in quotes or included the actual date of manufacture. At least it has a COPY stamp. There were "Morgan-Barber" designs, and this one seems to approximate J-1615.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
Is labeling of a holder by a third part subject to the HPA? The item is stamped with COPY, which seems to meet the HPA requirement.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Does not look deceptive to me...... Cheers, RickO
I don't think the label states it's a coin. The seller calls it a coin, but not the TPG label.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
All his descriptions are basically the same, regardless of whether they're coins or medals. Besides, it's listed in the "Exonumia>Medals" category.
I vote "Nothing to see here."
Not deceptive but clarity would be better if the TPG put the date in parentheses and/or added some additional information.
Sorry, I missed that. That makes it fully compliant.