If a seller claims coin is counterfeit but isnt stamped, should it allowed to be sold?
goldrealmoney79
Posts: 417 ✭✭✭
As title states, I came across this listing and my blood is boiling, but maybe I am overreacting? I think the fact that it doesn't have the copy stamp makes it illegal to sell.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/266388594134?
1
Comments
You are correct, and current eBay policy actually states that replica coins are not allowed at all:
https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/prohibited-restricted-items/replica-coins-currency-policy?id=5042
So did you report it?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
No, I did; OP posted on CT as well...
Contemporary counterfeits should be allowed to be sold without any stamping as to their origin.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
eBay treats contemporary counterfeits the same as any other counterfeit.
They are illegal to sell on their website.
Only when reported.
Not true
Henning nickels are sold all the time on eBay to name one: Contemporary counterfeits are allowed to be sold as contemporary counterfeits.
https://ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=henning+nickel&_sacat=0&rt=nc&LH_Sold=1&LH_Complete=1
Only when reported.> @rec78 said:
They are removed if reported.
Since words have meanings, eBay has nothing to do with determining 'legality.' It may be against POLICY, but has nothing to do with 'legality.'
Buying and Selling coins for 54 years, 700+ shows in last 20 years, and boy am I tired.
Purchased and Trademarked the Mohawk Valley Hoard
Originated the Rochester (NY) Area Coin Expo
Yes and no. They aren't "allowed" to be sold, but since they can be accurately described without keywords that send eBay into a tizzy, it's unlikely they'll be removed unless they're reported, and it's unlikely they'll be reported because they're well-known, sought-after collectibles. To accurately sell a counterfeit gold Indian, for example, you would have to call it a "counterfeit" and eBay could flag that. To sell a Henning nickel, you can just call it a Henning nickel. Another similar example is colonial-era copper from Machins Mills. Not genuine products of the "issuing" mint, but highly collectible and they saw tons of use in circulation.
I appreciate eBay's general policy to keep out junky modern counterfeits with no value other than deception, but I personally think the policy has gone overboard as far as preventing the sale of contemporary counterfeits which often hold significant historical value, were used heavily in commerce, and are collected today when described as counterfeits.
It is Ebay. If you want to collect contemporary counterfeits where else are you supposed to go? I buy love tokens. Isn’t defacing US coinage illegal?
No, it is not, unless done for fraudulent purposes.
Which brings us to Carr "restrikes", which are not done to deceive...
Dan Carr produces "fantasy coins" where no real coins actually exist so they aren't counterfeits.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Didn't call them counterfeits; they are overstrikes of genuine coins. More like defacing US coinage which is what I was responding to.
It isn't against the law to sell unmarked counterfeit coins, it's just against eBay policy.
Similarly to the New Haven Fugio “restrikes” they are not restrikes by definition as there was never a real coin struck with the dies. New Haven Fugio dies are fantasy dies, not restrikes from an authorized die. I would put Carr pieces in the same category, fantasy dies for the collector. Defacing US coins is, as mentioned, not illegal unless done for nefarious reasons (changing a denomination, altering to be valued at more than intended value, etc).
I kind of feel that Carr and Gallery Mint (and many others) are making collector strikes similar to others from the past. I’m sure there was controversy in current times back then about those items as well. I’m not sure there can be a consensus on pieces like this. I personally don’t have an issue with it as I’ve not yet seen once a Carr piece sold nefariously, though I will admit it could happen. But they are fairly well documented as are Betts fantasies and Bolen fantasies of the 1800s, which are very sought after and collectable in their own right.
This is very true. The issue becomes that very collectable contemporary counterfeits sell often on eBay, but I’ve also had an item I’m bidding on reported and removed much to my anger as the item was a highly sought after item, but reported as a counterfeit and eBay does not (and probably can’t spend the time) differentiate between them with all the fakes and garbage stuff that shows up.
For example, would someone report a Jefferson Head large cent to ebay as a counterfeit, or a British/Irish halfpenny counterfeit (far more prevalent than regals and highly collectable). It’s a hard road to have a consensus on what is ok as a fantasy or counterfeit, and what is not. I tend to think modern fantasies, counterfeits, fakes, etc will actually be decided 100 years from now on what is collectable and what is not, just like we do today with 100 year old pieces and modern.
I don't fully agree. Whether you call the New Haven Fugios restrikes or fantasy issues, they have the same design of a piece that was actually issued. Especially considering the actual series has numerous varieties (but even if not, the New Haven pieces are not overtly different with a casual glance), the New Haven Fugios certainly function as restrikes. I'd contrast that with Dan Carr's pieces since, as far as I'm aware, he's never made a piece (date/design/mint mark) that was actually issued. That makes it much easier to consider them fantasies, since they aren't competing with any genuine pieces. I suppose you could question the 1964-D Peace dollar in that theoretically a real one may exist, but as of yet, none are known to exist. Since the Gallery Mint marks everything as a copy, whatever they issue is clearly not a genuine piece.
This is not to say that something like the New Haven Fugios is problematic in my eyes, but rather I don't think they're in the same category as what Carr makes.
All absolutely fair points and 100% correct. I guess I was saying that a coin/die can’t be a restrike if it was never used before to strike “something”. The NH “Restrikes” dies were never struck before they were made for a different purpose. They were a fantasy story with how the dies were found, etc. So, it is a bad comparison to Carr or Gallery Mint (both different things as well).
Edited to add, there are plenty of Gallery Mint pieces without copy stamped on them. They tend to be overstruck issues or even a couple other reasons not worth mentioning. But, we have also seen copy removed quite easily on some and tried to be passed as authentic altered coins. I guess I am saying that Carr fantasies have a market share, and as they are sought after and collectable, I would not put them in the group of “fakes” as I would the stuff from China, which only has one purpose.
Maybe it depends on the definition of "restrike." Yes, it can mean "same dies used again" but it can also mean (and I think it does to many) "the same coin is produced/issued once more." Now, what does that mean for the 1921 Morgan, which is the same coin produced again--and issued by the Mint--but with a tweaked design?
I agree, definitions have not been spelled out in a concensus opinion. However, with federal coins, restrike tends to mean using the same dies. Maybe if we kept that definition it would clarify the terminology. For example an 1804 large cent restrike is not the same as a Bolen restrike. One used a mint made for circulation die to make new coins, the other was created differently and with non matching characteristics to the original die used 100 years before. I kind of think that restrike should be used for re-used dies, and not with a “copy/similar” die. But, obviously there is a lot of leeway with definitions.
Edit to add: nobody who studies Fugio or collects them would think that was a 1700s design, as it has technology and advancements in the die that could not have been done in 1787 (hence the story and knowing it wasn’t a new found die). One of the great mysteries is how no one single die exists for any state Copper or colonial coin in the United States. There were literally thousands and thousands of dies produced across many states and series, and not a single American made die exists to my knowledge today.
I would rethink this statement. The law frowns on all counterfeit coins, including contemporary counterfeits.
The Hobby Protection Act of 1973 requires all replica coins to be stamped with "COPY'. Replica coins made before this act do not need to be marked with "COPY".
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Counterfeit coins from any era are illegal.
Wouldn't the altered coins prohibition on eBay cover Dan Carr's overstrikes? I do see them for sale there.
Lastly I > @MarkInDavis said:
It is correct that eBay policy says that all pieces, either Carr or others, cannot be sold based on the very general statement by eBay. Though, eBay policy does not have much to do with the legality of selling or creating them, more just their policy on what they allow to be sold.
With that said, many Carr and other pieces have sold just fine on eBay as they are not reported as fakes that fool a collector in believing they are buying a unique coin. The sales I’ve seen that continue to the end are very properly described. Now, if someone put up a modern replica or fake and offered it as a valuable authorized struck coin, I would suspect it would be removed by the watchdogs very fast!! And that is a good thing that people like @burfle23 are doing to maintain and protect the hobby we all love!!
You can market an unmarked counterfeit coin as long as you don't try to pass it off as genuine. Otherwise, you couldn't sell contemporary fakes, Henning nickels and their ilk.
The law is complex, and not quite as clear-cut as this simple statement. It is this clear-cut in places like Canada, where the laws banning fake and replica coins are much more stringent. But the laws in the US are different.
Making counterfeit coins is illegal. Owning machinery to make counterfeit coins is illegal. Attempting to utter (or spend) counterfeit coins, knowing they are counterfeit, is illegal. This part is all quite obvious and understandable.
Selling counterfeit coins without telling the buyer they are counterfeit, is illegal. Though for foreign coins this is covered by anti-fraud laws, rather than anti-counterfeiting laws.
Selling counterfeit coins (US or foreign) made after 1973 that do not have "COPY" stamped on them is illegal.
Selling counterfeit coins as part of a criminal conspiracy to put those coins into circulation (eg. "I'll sell you these 100 fake Sac dollars for 20 cents each", knowing full well that your "buyer" is going to attempt to utter them) is illegal.
Owning counterfeit coins, of any era, is not illegal.
Selling counterfeit coins that have "COPY" stamped on them is not illegal. It is, however, against eBay policy.
Selling counterfeit coins made before 1973 that do not have "COPY" stamped on them (eg. Henning nickels) is not illegal. It is, however, against eBay policy.
So yes, as far as the coin discussed in the OP is concerned (which I presume was a modern Chinese fake without COPY stamped on it), the coin was both illegal to offer for sale, and against eBay policy. Someone has reported it, and the offending listing has now been removed.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
... here we go again.
absolute it is illegal to sell US counterfeit coins that are not marked.. That is why ebay has it's policy.
Read: The hobby and protection act of 1973. And then Obama's update to it.
bob
vegas baby!
Great comments here, but this debate will rage on forever...
Most definitions of counterfeit include the concept of "intent to deceive", but I can tell you that has NOT been Secret Services' take on it. I was directly told that if I had a display of counterfeits in my home state and local secret service saw it they would confiscate all I had and it would be up to me to prove they shouldn't keep them...
I started a Face Book Group I named "Dark Side counterfeits and fakes" and had some folks chuckle that they are the same thing- they are not! Fakes can include altered dates, added mintmarks, GMMs with copy removed, etc; the line in the sand is intent to defraud and sell them as genuine.
I own one D. Carr "coin", and it is very well done. It is an 1808 draped bust "large cent", which is a fantasy date until someone proves the mint actually made one. The "issues" I have with it are it is marketed as an over-strike of a genuine coin, which to me is defacing it, as it no longer is legal tender. And this example is "worn" to simulate actual circulation, which to me is very hypocritical...
The coolest "coin" I own is an S-85 1796 large cent over-struck on a later date large cent in a genuine TPG holder as genuine; the intent of this one is clear and it is clearly a counterfeit.
PCGS Announced Contemporary Counterfeit Status of 1896-O, 1900-O, and 1902-O ''Micro O'' Morgan Dollars.
These coins- declared now as counterfeits- are still bought and sold on eBay without impunity.
peacockcoins
Report one and see what happens...
That's an interesting challenge.
Let's try it on this auction (I'll report first) and see what happens...
https://www.ebay.com/itm/334544086139
peacockcoins
^
In case this experiment is successful.
peacockcoins
It happened at our coin club years ago when a member gave an advertised talk on counterfeits and the Feds showed up and seized them.
True-- but how do you determine when a counterfeit coin was made? Ok, stuff like Henning nickels, we know they were made pre-1973, but, when was my lead walking liberty half dollar made?
I think it has to do with poor wording on eBay's part. Based on context, I read the policy as saying they prohibit non-genuine examples of real coins, whether they are counterfeit (a reproduction made from scratch) or a genuine coin modified to become something else (adding a S to a 1909-S VDB, changing 1944 to 1914, etc.). Carr's coins, while altered as far as the basic definition of "changed to something else" goes, are modified to become something that never existed. If he overstruck standing liberty quarters with dies for a 1916-dated piece, that would be very different than if he made a 1931 or 1933, both dates for which the design was never struck or issued.
And they are gone...
^
You changed my mind!
I didn't think/know/believe eBay would kill an auction with a known counterfeit inside a PCGS holder.
peacockcoins
I think this would require numismatic research - but as a general rule, I would think the intent of the law was that unless you had some kind of proof that a fake coin was definitely pre-1973, you should assume the HPA applies and it ought to have "COPY" stamped on it prior to sale.
I've always found the Omega Man counterfeits an interesting case in this regard; they first came to light in the numismatic press just after the HPA was passed - they were presumably circulating around the marketplace for some years prior to this so they presumably are pre-1973. But since we don't actually know who Omega Man was or when his fakes were made, we can't be certain - he may have still been making at least some of them after 1973 and if so it would be impossible to tell pre-1973 and post-1973 apart - and that lack of certainty ought to mean Omega Man fakes should have "COPY" stamped on them prior to sale.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
eBay auctions slip through though.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/394831241061
peacockcoins
They "slip through, though", because apart from maybe robo-filtering out words like "counterfeit" and "replica", the system of policy enforcement relies entirely on manual reporting: some random eBay user (eBay doesn't employ people to randomly troll through its listings or eyeball listings before they get approved; that's all done by the bots) has to click on the listing and look at it, decide it's against eBay policy, decide it's worth going to the trouble of filing a report, file the report, then an actual human in eBay has to notice the report and act on it to remove the listing.
Just like selling coins from Cuba is "against eBay policy". Attempting to list any coin (or any other artifact) from "Cuba" will be auto-blocked; someone who tries to get around the bots by listing the coin as being from "Kuba", "South Florida", or "the big island west of Haiti", will avoid the bots and their listing will upload - but if someone reports the listing, they'll find the listing cancelled - and probably with a warning not to use keyword avoidance to deliberately try to circumvent the anti-Cuba policy.
So yes, counterfeit listings "slip through", because either:
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.