Options
While we are debating fantasy coins
Numismanic
Posts: 2,582 ✭✭✭
Just to play devil's advocate here. 
Should the Proof 1801, 1802, 1803, and 1804 type 3 silver dollars
have the word "COPY" stamped on them. After all they are Novodels. And what about those 1913 Liberty
nickels, wouldn't they qualify as fantasy coins?
Should the Proof 1801, 1802, 1803, and 1804 type 3 silver dollarshave the word "COPY" stamped on them. After all they are Novodels. And what about those 1913 Liberty
nickels, wouldn't they qualify as fantasy coins?
Don
U.S. Nickels Complete Set with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes
U.S. Dimes Complete Set with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes
U.S. Nickels Complete Set with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes
U.S. Dimes Complete Set with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes
0
Comments
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
TD
<< <i>I believe that the 1964-D pieces should have been marked "COPY" in accordance with the Hobby Protection Act. That did not exist when the other pieces you mentioned were struck, and you cannot enforce a law ex post facto.
TD >>
I believe the 1964-D pieces do not need COPY under the HPA because there is no original numismatic item to comply with section 304.1.(f) for that coin. Official US government records indicate there is no original numismatic item.
I believe the Hobby Protection Act would apply to pieces that are older than the HPA if they are imported to the US after the HPA. Since the HPA covers import as well as manufacture, if an imitation numismatic item that is older than the HPA is imported into the US after the HPA, it should technically be stamped COPY to comply with the HPA.
and have now been over struck by Dcarr.
Regards, Larry
<< <i>fantasy coins are not U.S coins , rule #6 >>
And 1913 Liberty nickles are? Granted they most likely were struck at the U.S Mint, but there
are no Mint records to support them, just an advertisement years later by a former Mint employee
offering to pay for any examples found, and then 5 of them mysteriously showing up in a famous
collectors hands.
U.S. Nickels Complete Set with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes
U.S. Dimes Complete Set with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes
<< <i>fantasy coins are not U.S coins , rule #6 >>
Neither are paper money, tokens and medals which are frequently discussed on this forum.
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
<< <i>
<< <i>I believe that the 1964-D pieces should have been marked "COPY" in accordance with the Hobby Protection Act. That did not exist when the other pieces you mentioned were struck, and you cannot enforce a law ex post facto.
TD >>
I believe the 1964-D pieces do not need COPY under the HPA because there is no original numismatic item to comply with section 304.1.(f) for that coin. Official US government records indicate there is no original numismatic item. >>
There were more than 300,000 "original numismatic items" minted. Carr's piece is a copy of that mintage. It is not a fantasy.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I believe that the 1964-D pieces should have been marked "COPY" in accordance with the Hobby Protection Act. That did not exist when the other pieces you mentioned were struck, and you cannot enforce a law ex post facto.
TD >>
I believe the 1964-D pieces do not need COPY under the HPA because there is no original numismatic item to comply with section 304.1.(f) for that coin. Official US government records indicate there is no original numismatic item. >>
There were more than 300,000 "original numismatic items" minted. Carr's piece is a copy of that mintage. It is not a fantasy. >>
There in lies the disagreement. According to my read of section 304.1.(f), I don't think the 1964-D Peace dollar qualifies as an original numismatic item.
<< <i>fantasy coins are not U.S coins , rule #6 >>
Sorry, these were stamped on real us peace dollars so the thread is just fine as these are us coins
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I believe that the 1964-D pieces should have been marked "COPY" in accordance with the Hobby Protection Act. That did not exist when the other pieces you mentioned were struck, and you cannot enforce a law ex post facto.
TD >>
I believe the 1964-D pieces do not need COPY under the HPA because there is no original numismatic item to comply with section 304.1.(f) for that coin. Official US government records indicate there is no original numismatic item. >>
There were more than 300,000 "original numismatic items" minted. Carr's piece is a copy of that mintage. It is not a fantasy. >>
There in lies the disagreement. According to my read of section 304.1.(f), I don't think the 1964-D Peace dollar qualifies as an original numismatic item. >>
Why not? The Mint minted 300,000+ of them.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I believe that the 1964-D pieces should have been marked "COPY" in accordance with the Hobby Protection Act. That did not exist when the other pieces you mentioned were struck, and you cannot enforce a law ex post facto.
TD >>
I believe the 1964-D pieces do not need COPY under the HPA because there is no original numismatic item to comply with section 304.1.(f) for that coin. Official US government records indicate there is no original numismatic item. >>
There were more than 300,000 "original numismatic items" minted. Carr's piece is a copy of that mintage. It is not a fantasy. >>
There in lies the disagreement. According to my read of section 304.1.(f), I don't think the 1964-D Peace dollar qualifies as an original numismatic item. >>
Why not? The Mint minted 300,000+ of them. >>
I've mentioned this before, but here it is again:
<< <i>(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. >>
To qualify, it must satisfy either of the following:
(a) has been part of a coinage
(b) has been part of an issue
I do not believe they are part of a coinage because US Mint records say they are all trial strikes. Regardless of conjecture, I believe they are officially classified as trial strikes by the US Mint.
I do not believe they are part of an issue because they were never issued. As trial strikes, they were not intended to be issued.
Further, even if they are (a) or (b), they need to satisfy the following:
(c) has been used in exchange
(d) has been used to commemorate a person, object, place, or event
They were never used in exchange since the ones minted were never issued. Further more, as trial strikes, there was no intention to issue them to be used in exchange.
This is somewhat debatable to me because the original Peace dollar was issued to commemorate the end of WWI so this could be argued here; however, it might be a stretch and it might not matter due to (a) and (b).
So:
(a) no
(b) no
(c) no
(d) maybe
In an earlier post, I mentioned it would be good to have definitions of coinage and issue; however, the HPA does not include definitions for those terms.
I want to stress this post is about the 1964-D US Mint created coin - a ... US .. Coin
<< <i>Just to play devil's advocate here.
have the word "COPY" stamped on them. After all they are Novodels. And what about those 1913 Liberty
nickels, wouldn't they qualify as fantasy coins?
You bring your Proof 1800's coins over and I'll bring the stamps. LOL.
<< <i>If you decide that a coin reproduction doesn't need "COPY" on it because it never existed in real life, half of the chinese counterfeits out there are fine and don't need it either (i.e. 1840 bust dollars and other obvious type/date mismatches). >>
The Chinese coins in question are counterfeit which can violate US anti-counterfeiting laws. Legally, it's possible COPY is used to side-step anti-counterfeiting laws, not the HPA. It may be convenient to use the HPA language because eBay or other vendors may require it for their own policies (as opposed to the HPA).
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I believe that the 1964-D pieces should have been marked "COPY" in accordance with the Hobby Protection Act. That did not exist when the other pieces you mentioned were struck, and you cannot enforce a law ex post facto.
TD >>
I believe the 1964-D pieces do not need COPY under the HPA because there is no original numismatic item to comply with section 304.1.(f) for that coin. Official US government records indicate there is no original numismatic item. >>
There were more than 300,000 "original numismatic items" minted. Carr's piece is a copy of that mintage. It is not a fantasy. >>
There in lies the disagreement. According to my read of section 304.1.(f), I don't think the 1964-D Peace dollar qualifies as an original numismatic item. >>
Why not? The Mint minted 300,000+ of them. >>
And the mint claims they were all melted and they no longer exist so there is no original numistatic item.
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
<< <i>I believe that the 1964-D pieces should have been marked "COPY" in accordance with the Hobby Protection Act. >>
Some of these board members stated that they are even willing to lie to the Feds about losing thier fake 1964-D Peace dollars. They will find it real funny when the secret service knocks one time on their front doors(with a battering ram).
<< <i>
<< <i>I believe that the 1964-D pieces should have been marked "COPY" in accordance with the Hobby Protection Act. >>
Some of these board members stated that they are even willing to lie to the Feds about losing thier fake 1964-D Peace dollars. They will find it real funny when the secret service knocks one time on their front doors(with a battering ram).
The Secret Service has more "pressing" things to worry about.