Because to Err is Human. I specialize in Errors, Minting, Counterfeit Detection & Grading. Computer-aided grading, counterfeit detection, recognition and imaging.
I think the latter is one of the biggest problems, since they manage to make so many people think these are real even while telling them they are fake.
<< <i>Apparently there's any number of people here incapable of drawing the distinction between "replica" and "fantasy". The two are not even remotely alike. >>
I think that there are lots of grey areas, and the ebay proclamation does not make it clear enough, IMO. I suspect that the new rules will add to the confusion. >>
Ebay will take down auctions of things they shouldn't. HTTs are a likely target. How about the 1804 cent? I'm sure there are other items that will be taken down. --jerry
For the few people here who don't think replicas can be a big problem -- especially in the secondary market -- turn back the clock to October 2009 when the ANA, ICTA, NGC, PCGS and the PNG issued an unprecedent joint consumer protection advisory.
the replicas arent listed properly now, why would this help ?? and who does this help ?? the only people that will be affected by this are as someone else said, the people who already follow the rules, this isnt going to protect anyone from unknowingly buying a fake. those that believe in santa will still be vulnerable, this will only affect the people that it shouldnt have any effect on. people that know what they are buying because they STUDY the series not pop reports and price spreads and they can spot the fakes. those that are too lazy, ignorant or (insert reason here) to know any better will still end up scratching thier head when thier reeded edge 1804 dollar that they won for $42 comes back as a counterfeit.
regardless of how many posts I have, I don't consider myself an "expert" at anything
<< <i>For the few people here who don't think replicas can be a big problem -- especially in the secondary market -- turn back the clock to October 2009 when the ANA, ICTA, NGC, PCGS and the PNG issued an unprecedent joint consumer protection advisory.
<< <i>the replicas arent listed properly now, why would this help ?? and who does this help ?? the only people that will be affected by this are as someone else said, the people who already follow the rules, this isnt going to protect anyone from unknowingly buying a fake. those that believe in santa will still be vulnerable, this will only affect the people that it shouldnt have any effect on. people that know what they are buying because they STUDY the series not pop reports and price spreads and they can spot the fakes. those that are too lazy, ignorant or (insert reason here) to know any better will still end up scratching thier head when thier reeded edge 1804 dollar that they won for $42 comes back as a counterfeit. >>
You too are confusing replicas and counterfeits. This addresses only replicas. Counterfeits have been against ebay rules for a long time. --Jerry
Replicas and fakes are two different things. Replicas are stamped "copy" so.... could a replica that isnt stamped replica or copy be considered a fake ? with all due respect, im not confusing anything. a modern chinese replica that isnt stamped replica or copy is a fake. a replica that adheres to the hobby protection act is not much of a threat to anyone, its the unmarked fakes (which will still find thier way onto ebay) that people should be aware of, and once you are aware of them you can avoid them, no one has to make any rules, and no ones buying experience has to be censored, the relicas or fakes or whatever you choose to call them are here, in this country, by the boatloads. no rules will make them disappear, no laws will make them disappear, learning to avoid them will severely lessen your chances of inadvertantly owning one, hoping that someone does SOMETHING and wishing for new laws wont help
regardless of how many posts I have, I don't consider myself an "expert" at anything
Copies or replicas that follow the Hobby Protection Act are legal collectibles. eBay just stopped the open, free trade of a legal collectible. Collectors of Ron Landis and Dan Carr material based on US or world coins should be weeping. Of course, eBay has every right to do that. Kudos for them for finally doing something serious about counterfeits and fakes ... too bad legitimate buyers and sellers will suffer for it. Criminals will still be criminals; Chinese, Croatian, or ... gasp ... American.
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
I think I understand why people think this addresses counterfeits and fakes but haven't seen anyone write it down so I'll try.
The counterfeiters, especially Chinese counterfeiters, advertise replicas on ebay with COPY stamped on them to meet the copy protection act. But if you contact them they will sell you coins without COPY stamped on them. These replicas without COPY stamped on them can then be sold as real. Replicas without COPY are "counterfeits". Apparently it is believed this is the, or at least a large, source of counterfeits being marketed as real.
So all they are really doing is making it hard to find the guys who are selling the counterfeits by not allowing them to market them as replicas. Is that how you guys see it? Frankly, I don't see it as having much impact. Crooks who want to buy counterfeits will be able to find the sellers off ebay.
This has nothing to do with gallery mint and other replicas made by honest and legitimate businesses. They are just a victim of friendly fire.
<< <i>Replicas and fakes are two different things. Replicas are stamped "copy" so.... could a replica that isnt stamped replica or copy be considered a fake ? with all due respect, im not confusing anything. a modern chinese replica that isnt stamped replica or copy is a fake. a replica that adheres to the hobby protection act is not much of a threat to anyone, its the unmarked fakes (which will still find thier way onto ebay) that people should be aware of, and once you are aware of them you can avoid them, no one has to make any rules, and no ones buying experience has to be censored, the relicas or fakes or whatever you choose to call them are here, in this country, by the boatloads. no rules will make them disappear, no laws will make them disappear, learning to avoid them will severely lessen your chances of inadvertantly owning one, hoping that someone does SOMETHING and wishing for new laws wont help >>
Still not following you. See my post above on what I think the replica rule is trying to do. Selling replicas wihtout COPY stamped on it has always been against ebay rules. This rule change only addresses coins stamped "COPY". --Jerry
<< <i>Still not following you. See my post above on what I think the replica rule is trying to do. Selling replicas wihtout COPY stamped on it has always been against ebay rules. >>
... and in violation of the Hobby Protection Act* ... which makes it illegal.
*Unless the replicas were made before the act.
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Another sad day - Feb. 20th, 2012. All of the Sellers that try to describe their material openly will be rewarded by not being allowed to sell their properly-described merchandise.
The criminal types will be allowed to merrily roll along until their listings get reported and eventually pulled. These are the Sellers to be stopped. It can't be stopped at the Category level.
This new change stops nothing. A 200 year old Kettle copy of a gold coin is not much of a threat. An ugly lead quarter of 1853 isn't either. That change -eliminating the sale of counterfeits- was a few years ago. Sure didn't stop the Chinese counterfeiters, only the Sellers that describe their stuff. It stopped the collectors of counterfeits, also.
Stop the source. Find a way to plug the dike, don't try to elevate the houses.
Since there are already millions of bust and seated dollars in this country not made in America, maybe eBay could find a way to stop the selling of them. They will not be marked "fake" in any manner when they are advertised on eBay. The ones so marked are not a threat to anyone who can read. Not even to that Buyer who wants to buy a fake at whatever price the Buyer deems fair to pay.
<< <i>IMO that is a silly interpatation of the new rule as it relates to D Carr. I personally draw no distinction between a copy of an America coin or series or a copy of a copy of an America coin or series. D Carr's stuff is not legal tender but it looks like legal tender, that to me is the definition of a fake. If I bleach a piece of currency paper from a 1$ bill and print a rare or unknown 1$ bill on top of it but Photoshop an unused date on to it, I suspect the Secret Service would take the same view as mine on the practice of fantasy reproductions. I suspect he will eventualy get called to task for his opperations. >>
I do not make any claims that the coins I over-strike are still legal tender, and I do not advocate that anyone use them as such.
But you are claiming that they are not legal tender. On what legal grounds ? Are you prepared to argue that in court ?
"Bleaching" a dollar bill to remove all traces of the ink is akin to melting a coin completely. But if you take an ordinary dollar bill and simply stamp a different (unused) series date over it, is that illegal ? What if you stamp "Where's George" on a dollar bill - is that illegal ? What about a carved "hobo" nickel - is it still legal tender ?
<< <i>I don't see how you can not call Carr's coins copies when they ARE copies of U. S. Coins!! >>
A genuine original Morgan dollar, over-struck to give it a "1909" date (without adding or removing any metal and without heating or melting) is NOT a copy. It is a fantasy coin, like a carved hobo nickel.
Ebay and PNG feel this is the right thing to do. I agree. Ebay has been studying the coin business and I expect more decisions will gradually come along that will not only be steps to improve consumer protection but to make eBay an even better place to do coin business. Working with the PNG is very smart, it shows that eBay is not going to make major decisions without consulting experts within the industry for guidance.
John
John Maben
Pegasus Coin and Jewelry (Brick and Mortar)
ANA LM, PNG, APMD, FUN, Etc
800-381-2646
No doubt you have serious talent when it comes to the arts, but based on your description, a "1909" Morgan shares 99.36% of its features with a real Morgan, but it's not a copy? And that figure assumes that all 4 digits in the date are "modified", not just the last one or two.
<< <i>Ebay and PNG feel this is the right thing to do. I agree. Ebay has been studying the coin business and I expect more decisions will gradually come along that will not only be steps to improve consumer protection but to make eBay an even better place to do coin business. Working with the PNG is very smart, it shows that eBay is not going to make major decisions without consulting experts within the industry for guidance.
John >>
John, I hope you're correct. But putting all PCGS MS/PR 70 coins into the "bullion" category is just one example of ebay's superficial, or even incorrect, understanding of the coin business. They also think coin dealers should have 100% markup like jewelry and trinket sellers so we wouldn't mind giving 15% to ebay/paypal. --Jerry
<< <i>Copies or replicas that follow the Hobby Protection Act are legal collectibles. eBay just stopped the open, free trade of a legal collectible. Collectors of Ron Landis and Dan Carr material based on US or world coins should be weeping. Of course, eBay has every right to do that. Kudos for them for finally doing something serious about counterfeits and fakes ... too bad legitimate buyers and sellers will suffer for it. Criminals will still be criminals; Chinese, Croatian, or ... gasp ... American. >>
<< <i>For the few people here who don't think replicas can be a big problem -- especially in the secondary market -- turn back the clock to October 2009 when the ANA, ICTA, NGC, PCGS and the PNG issued an unprecedent joint consumer protection advisory.
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>For the few people here who don't think replicas can be a big problem -- especially in the secondary market -- turn back the clock to October 2009 when the ANA, ICTA, NGC, PCGS and the PNG issued an unprecedent joint consumer protection advisory.
I'm still not following this. The hobby protection act requires copies to be stamped "COPY". Are you saying this isn't adequate? All copies not stamped "copy" have been illegal to sell on ebay or anywhere else for a long time. The linked article is talking about fakes, not copies. So what is this new ebay rule, prohibiting the sale of copies marked "copy", going to accomplish?
Haven't people learned by now that when it comes to implementing policy, eBay always takes the overly broad "kill a fly with a howitzer" approach? It's all or nothing.
That's so the minimum-wage workforce that serves as CSRs can actually understand the policy in order to enforce it. The fewer the variables the better.
As murky as the distinctions are in numismatics, they're even more so in philately, where forgeries are VERY collectible, and in some cases are worth more than the original stamps (e.g., Sperati forgeries).
With the recent policies put in place, eBay can not only order them to be removed, but indelibly marked (a MAJOR no-no), and even destroyed, because in eBay's limited vision they are the same as fake Gucci handbags from China rather than legitimate collectibles unto themselves.
Of course the answer is simple, and the one that eBay wants: if you traffic in anything that could be construed as a fake/forgery/replica, you shouldn't use eBay as your venue.
I can't believe all the potshots taken at Dan Carr fantasy overstrike coins in this thread. 64 Peace dollar, 64 Franklin, 1909 o.
Hard to believe that ebay will not allow sale of Dan Carr fantasy overstrikes after Feb. 20 on their site but the US Secret Service allows Dan to make and sell 'em.
It's not about Dan Carr. See the DavidLawrence post. It's about the word "COPY". "COPY" is shown on a coin for sale and delivered to a buyer without "COPY".
Nothing screams "counterfeit" more than buying a coin with the word "COPY" on the image and receiving your coin without "COPY" on it.
<< <i>Ebay and PNG feel this is the right thing to do. I agree. Ebay has been studying the coin business and I expect more decisions will gradually come along that will not only be steps to improve consumer protection but to make eBay an even better place to do coin business. Working with the PNG is very smart, it shows that eBay is not going to make major decisions without consulting experts within the industry for guidance.
John >>
John, I hope you're correct. But putting all PCGS MS/PR 70 coins into the "bullion" category is just one example of ebay's superficial, or even incorrect, understanding of the coin business. They also think coin dealers should have 100% markup like jewelry and trinket sellers so we wouldn't mind giving 15% to ebay/paypal. --Jerry >>
Jerry, If I were not privy to multiple conversations with top level execs at eBay in recent discussions I would share your concerns. However, I know for a fact that:
A) They understand that 70 coins are not considered straight bullion by most in our hobby/business. They understand that if they wish to grow the coin/bullion segment which they view as having serious potential, the current fee schedule will not allow it.
Advice to all, sit tight and be patient I really believe good things will come. With regard to "A", just because they may put 70 coins into a bullion category, that does not mean they are labeling them as straight bullion such as raw eagles or Krands. Most of the 70 coins we sell (by dollar volume) are at 5 to 15% over cost. I think if they are going to ultimately adjust their fee schedule they need to determine which items are sold at lower margins (and this includes most 70 coins) and would require lower fees in order to increase sales. They could fix the representation of the category by simply changing it to "bullion or bullion related". As examples, a common $20 Saint Gaudens in MS63 would clearly be bullion related as would a 4 coin 2012 NGC or PCGS graded 70 Gold Eagle set.
eBay is a business and ultimately they want to make more money. If the coin and bullion categories currently sells 500 mil per year at an average of say 9% to ebay and paypal combined and they think they can increase it to 1.5 billion at an average of 6.5%, I believe they would do that as a sound business decision (I have no idea what the real numbers are). Not to mention that by working with industry experts they will reduce their incidents of fraud.
I think eBay now gets it. Only time will tell if they implement and how well they execute.
John
John
John Maben
Pegasus Coin and Jewelry (Brick and Mortar)
ANA LM, PNG, APMD, FUN, Etc
800-381-2646
No doubt you have serious talent when it comes to the arts, but based on your description, a "1909" Morgan shares 99.36% of its features with a real Morgan, but it's not a copy? And that figure assumes that all 4 digits in the date are "modified", not just the last one or two. >>
I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. I'm saying my "1909-o" over-strike is a "fantasy" not a "copy", because they are over-struck on genuine original Morgan Silver Dollars. If I struck on something that wasn't a Morgan Silver Dollar, then the result would be a copy of the Morgan Dollar type, but even then it still wouldn't be a copy of an actual issued coin because "1909" Morgan Dollars were never originally minted.
<< <i>. i'm so happy i'm speechless . c'mon US government, lets keep the ball rolling! . >>
i would like to weigh in and quote myself and add an addendum
"i'm so happy i'm speechless"
addendum - i do feel somewhat bad for all the honest, decent people that sold legitimate copies, tokens etc. i do hope they find other areas to make a decent living
just not selling that junk here though - of course i blame the boneheads that buy the stuff more than the sellers, without demand, there usually is no supply .
Here's a comment I made to a fellow board member regarding this topic:
"Take his 09 Morgan, for example. He stresses that since the mint never made them, it’s ok. But what if someone decides to restrike an existing, common date Morgan into a 93-S, but also makes the each of the reeds 10% thicker? Using his argument, the mint never made them, so it’s not a counterfeit, right, it’s a fantasy coin?"
It gets down to "how much of a change really makes it different".
My comment about the percetnage of commonality between the base coin and your overstrike could be looked at another way. If a student needs to submit a 1,000 word essay on a given topic, and she takes her friend's report and changes 6 words and submits it, is that considered a copy?
<< <i>Ebay and PNG feel this is the right thing to do. I agree. Ebay has been studying the coin business and I expect more decisions will gradually come along that will not only be steps to improve consumer protection but to make eBay an even better place to do coin business. Working with the PNG is very smart, it shows that eBay is not going to make major decisions without consulting experts within the industry for guidance. John >>
John, I hope you're correct. But putting all PCGS MS/PR 70 coins into the "bullion" category is just one example of ebay's superficial, or even incorrect, understanding of the coin business. They also think coin dealers should have 100% markup like jewelry and trinket sellers so we wouldn't mind giving 15% to ebay/paypal. --Jerry >>
Jerry, If I were not privy to multiple conversations with top level execs at eBay in recent discussions I would share your concerns. However, I know for a fact that: A) They understand that 70 coins are not considered straight bullion by most in our hobby/business. They understand that if they wish to grow the coin/bullion segment which they view as having serious potential, the current fee schedule will not allow it. Advice to all, sit tight and be patient I really believe good things will come. With regard to "A", just because they may put 70 coins into a bullion category, that does not mean they are labeling them as straight bullion such as raw eagles or Krands. Most of the 70 coins we sell (by dollar volume) are at 5 to 15% over cost. I think if they are going to ultimately adjust their fee schedule they need to determine which items are sold at lower margins (and this includes most 70 coins) and would require lower fees in order to increase sales. They could fix the representation of the category by simply changing it to "bullion or bullion related". As examples, a common $20 Saint Gaudens in MS63 would clearly be bullion related as would a 4 coin 2012 NGC or PCGS graded 70 Gold Eagle set. eBay is a business and ultimately they want to make more money. If the coin and bullion categories currently sells 500 mil per year at an average of say 9% to ebay and paypal combined and they think they can increase it to 1.5 billion at an average of 6.5%, I believe they would do that as a sound business decision (I have no idea what the real numbers are). Not to mention that by working with industry experts they will reduce their incidents of fraud. I think eBay now gets it. Only time will tell if they implement and how well they execute. John John >>
John,
That is great news. i hope they choose the high volume/low cost approach to making ebay viable for coins. --Jerry
Here's a comment I made to a fellow board member regarding this topic:
"Take his 09 Morgan, for example. He stresses that since the mint never made them, it’s ok. But what if someone decides to restrike an existing, common date Morgan into a 93-S, but also makes the each of the reeds 10% thicker? Using his argument, the mint never made them, so it’s not a counterfeit, right, it’s a fantasy coin?"
It gets down to "how much of a change really makes it different".
My comment about the percetnage of commonality between the base coin and your overstrike could be looked at another way. If a student needs to submit a 1,000 word essay on a given topic, and she takes her friend's report and changes 6 words and submits it, is that considered a copy?
I agree with that thinking on the subject. "Altering genuine US coins into more desireable shapes for resale at a profit" is certainly walking pretty close to some "lines", in the opinion of many here
edit: no criticism of the artwork, engineering, appearance of final product, customers, or anyone else is implied. Au contraire, kudos for finding such a lucrative loophole. The market demands it, many addicted! Maybe this is the future of numismatics, as in so much else in modern life (cosmetic surgery, "reality" TV) the fake is deemed better than the real.
Or maybe better stated, "there's not enough Real to go around, so there is a market for new, fun and attractive Fake"
Here's a comment I made to a fellow board member regarding this topic:
"Take his 09 Morgan, for example. He stresses that since the mint never made them, it’s ok. But what if someone decides to restrike an existing, common date Morgan into a 93-S, but also makes the each of the reeds 10% thicker? Using his argument, the mint never made them, so it’s not a counterfeit, right, it’s a fantasy coin?"
It gets down to "how much of a change really makes it different".
My comment about the percetnage of commonality between the base coin and your overstrike could be looked at another way. If a student needs to submit a 1,000 word essay on a given topic, and she takes her friend's report and changes 6 words and submits it, is that considered a copy?
I agree with that thinking on the subject. "Altering genuine US coins into more desireable shapes for resale at a profit" is certainly walking pretty close to some "lines", in the opinion of many here
edit: no criticism of the artwork, engineering, appearance of final product, customers, or anyone else is implied. Au contraire, kudos for finding such a lucrative loophole. The market demands it, many addicted! Maybe this is the future of numismatics, as in so much else in modern life (cosmetic surgery, "reality" TV) the fake is deemed better than the real.
Or maybe better stated, "there's not enough Real to go around, so there is a market for new, fun and attractive Fake" >>
Or to put it another way - There is too much to go around - too many "boring" old Morgan Dollars sitting in showcases, so there is a market for something new and different to go along with the series.
PS: None of them are really "boring" to me, but you get the idea.
Here's a comment I made to a fellow board member regarding this topic:
"Take his 09 Morgan, for example. He stresses that since the mint never made them, it’s ok. But what if someone decides to restrike an existing, common date Morgan into a 93-S, but also makes the each of the reeds 10% thicker? Using his argument, the mint never made them, so it’s not a counterfeit, right, it’s a fantasy coin?"
It gets down to "how much of a change really makes it different".
My comment about the percetnage of commonality between the base coin and your overstrike could be looked at another way. If a student needs to submit a 1,000 word essay on a given topic, and she takes her friend's report and changes 6 words and submits it, is that considered a copy? >>
Ok, now I see what you are saying. It comes down to how obvious the change is. A person looking up the "Red Book" value of an 1893-S dollar might not look at the edge at all. So that type of re-make could be dangerous. But a person can't look up the value of a "1909" dollar, or determine the value at all, without looking at the date (which would clearly indicate the coin is a fantasy of some sort). I'm only over-striking coins to give them obvious dates that didn't previously exist.
>>> My comment about the percetnage of commonality between the >>> base coin and your overstrike could be looked at another way. >>> If a student needs to submit a 1,000 word essay on a given topic, >>> and she takes her friend's report and changes 6 words and submits it, >>> is that considered a copy?
If the student discloses what they have done, and credits the original source of the paper, then there is nothing wrong with that. The teacher would likely frown on that (unless those six words were really good ). But it doesn't break any rules.
If you paint a picture of a Campbell's Soup can label (Andy Warhol) and hang it in a gallery and sell it for big bucks, is it a copy ?
If you go buy a toilet and submit it (without modification) to an art exhibition that claimed to accept everything, is that plagarism ? Duchamp Urinal
Here's a comment I made to a fellow board member regarding this topic:
"Take his 09 Morgan, for example. He stresses that since the mint never made them, it’s ok. But what if someone decides to restrike an existing, common date Morgan into a 93-S, but also makes the each of the reeds 10% thicker? Using his argument, the mint never made them, so it’s not a counterfeit, right, it’s a fantasy coin?"
It gets down to "how much of a change really makes it different".
My comment about the percetnage of commonality between the base coin and your overstrike could be looked at another way. If a student needs to submit a 1,000 word essay on a given topic, and she takes her friend's report and changes 6 words and submits it, is that considered a copy?
I agree with that thinking on the subject. "Altering genuine US coins into more desireable shapes for resale at a profit" is certainly walking pretty close to some "lines", in the opinion of many here
edit: no criticism of the artwork, engineering, appearance of final product, customers, or anyone else is implied. Au contraire, kudos for finding such a lucrative loophole. The market demands it, many addicted! Maybe this is the future of numismatics, as in so much else in modern life (cosmetic surgery, "reality" TV) the fake is deemed better than the real.
Or maybe better stated, "there's not enough Real to go around, so there is a market for new, fun and attractive Fake" >>
Or to put it another way - There is too much to go around - too many "boring" old Morgan Dollars sitting in showcases, so there is a market for something new and different to go along with the series.
PS: None of them are really "boring" to me, but you get the idea. >>
It's certainly not the case of the fake being deemed better than the real, but the fact that the hyperreal is more real than the real. The real has disappeared into the hyperreal.
Here's a comment I made to a fellow board member regarding this topic:
"Take his 09 Morgan, for example. He stresses that since the mint never made them, it’s ok. But what if someone decides to restrike an existing, common date Morgan into a 93-S, but also makes the each of the reeds 10% thicker? Using his argument, the mint never made them, so it’s not a counterfeit, right, it’s a fantasy coin?"
It gets down to "how much of a change really makes it different".
My comment about the percetnage of commonality between the base coin and your overstrike could be looked at another way. If a student needs to submit a 1,000 word essay on a given topic, and she takes her friend's report and changes 6 words and submits it, is that considered a copy? >>
Ok, now I see what you are saying. It comes down to how obvious the change is. A person looking up the "Red Book" value of an 1893-S dollar might not look at the edge at all. So that type of re-make could be dangerous. But a person can't look up the value of a "1909" dollar, or determine the value at all, without looking at the date (which would clearly indicate the coin is a fantasy of some sort). I'm only over-striking coins to give them obvious dates that didn't previously exist.
>>> My comment about the percetnage of commonality between the >>> base coin and your overstrike could be looked at another way. >>> If a student needs to submit a 1,000 word essay on a given topic, >>> and she takes her friend's report and changes 6 words and submits it, >>> is that considered a copy?
If the student discloses what they have done, and credits the original source of the paper, then there is nothing wrong with that. The teacher would likely frown on that (unless those six words were really good ). But it doesn't break any rules.
If you paint a picture of a Campbell's Soup can label (Andy Warhol) and hang it in a gallery and sell it for big bucks, is it a copy ?
If you go buy a toilet and submit it (without modification) to an art exhibition that claimed to accept everything, is that plagarism ? Duchamp Urinal >>
You are only allowed to reproduce up to 500 words in a citation without expressed permission from the author (or estate, as the case may be). In reference to DuChamp, when they held the Armory Show back in 1913, and Duchamp was up to his artistic tomfoolery. at the entrance to the exhibit a tripwire was set up so that unsuspecting patrons fell into a pile of manure just beyond it. The overall message was for people to question what was right in front of their faces, be it a unrinal, a bottle drying rack, or later a soup can.
Or to put it another way - There is too much to go around - too many "boring" old Morgan Dollars sitting in showcases, so there is a market for something new and different to go along with the series.
Sure, same concept. There are not enough Natural Beauties to go around, so there is a thriving market for plain girls who get their teeth capped, their hair bleached, some fat sucked out, some collagen injected in, a pair of implants bolted on, and all finished off with an orange spray tan fake nails and lashes, and a lot of makeup.
<< <i>You are only allowed to reproduce up to 500 words in a citation without expressed permission from the author (or estate, as the case may be). ... >>
That is good to know, thanks (not that I'm planning to cite that many words of anything).
<< <i>Or to put it another way - There is too much to go around - too many "boring" old Morgan Dollars sitting in showcases, so there is a market for something new and different to go along with the series.
Sure, same concept. There are not enough Natural Beauties to go around, so there is a thriving market for plain girls who get their teeth capped, their hair bleached, some fat sucked out, some collagen injected in, a pair of implants bolted on, and all finished off with an orange spray tan fake nails and lashes, and a lot of makeup. >>
It's all relative. If you took all the "dreck" coins and melted them, the lower end of the remaining coins would become the new "dreck".
<< <i>You are only allowed to reproduce up to 500 words in a citation without expressed permission from the author (or estate, as the case may be). ... >>
That is good to know, thanks (not that I'm planning to cite that many words of anything). >>
"... any properly footnoted quotation of up to 500 sequential words may be used without permission, as long as the total number of words does not exceed 2000. For longer quotations or for a greater number of words quoted, permission from the publisher is required."
<< <i>This new policy is designed to draw a clear line in the sand that eBay sellers cannot offer copies of coins (or copies of any coin-related exonumia like tokens, badges, etc) for legitimate sale on the site. We all know that counterfeits are offered for sale on eBay but these have been and always will be illegal, so that's not what at issue here.
What is at issue is that sellers of the so-called copies were often offering counterfeits with the word "COPY" stamped on it, but delivering coins without the stamp. There was no real way to police this on the eBay side and eBay came to the PNG (Bob Brueggeman, the Board and the membership) for advice on the issue. They heard -- in no uncertain terms -- from all of us that copies must be removed from the site as a first step to cleaning up the eBay marketplace. And, to their credit, eBay has responded very quickly and decisively. All of these will no longer be sell-able on the site as of Feb 20.
Does this solve all the problems on eBay of people selling counterfeits? Of course not. But this is just the first step that eBay is taking and they have assured us (to me, personally) that more steps will be taken next. They are looking into ways to increase community policing because it takes a village to keep an eye on all of these listings and stay one step ahead of the counterfeiters.
I, for one, am extremely encouraged by this first step and look forward to seeing more positive actions. It's good for the entire industry that we clean up the online sellers and protect consumers as much as possible. >>
Well, DLRC and JohnMaben and the rest of the PNG, I respectfully request you get in front of this "collectible counterfeit issue" as well as HTT, SCD, etc. and make the policy clear on them before going live with this in February.
We all know there are collectible counterfeits out there, fantasy pieces, etc.
I'm not the type to simply be comfortable with "eBay higher ups know about this issue" when there is already confusion among the populace (us) and there is a drop deadline coming up. the PNG worked with eBay on this policy and needs to get some specific answers before the deadline so the trouble we can all clearly see coming will be avoided.
Comments
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>Ebay's next step should be to ban coin sellers from China. >>
Uh oh, better put your flame suit on..........
I specialize in Errors, Minting, Counterfeit Detection & Grading.
Computer-aided grading, counterfeit detection, recognition and imaging.
Now, what about all these, and the thousands more that are out there???
Replica Coins on Amazon.com
National Collectors Mint
I think the latter is one of the biggest problems, since they manage to make so many people think these are real even while telling them they are fake.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
<< <i>
<< <i>Apparently there's any number of people here incapable of drawing the distinction between "replica" and "fantasy". The two are not even remotely alike. >>
I think that there are lots of grey areas, and the ebay proclamation does not make it clear enough, IMO. I suspect that the new rules will add to the confusion. >>
Ebay will take down auctions of things they shouldn't. HTTs are a likely target. How about the 1804 cent? I'm sure there are other items that will be taken down. --jerry
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
Millions Lost From Coin Fakes, Hobby Leaders Warn
-donn-
<< <i>For the few people here who don't think replicas can be a big problem -- especially in the secondary market -- turn back the clock to October 2009 when the ANA, ICTA, NGC, PCGS and the PNG issued an unprecedent joint consumer protection advisory.
Millions Lost From Coin Fakes, Hobby Leaders Warn
-donn- >>
Replicas and fakes are two different things. Replicas are stamped "copy". I have quite a few of them. they make nice pocket pieces. --Jerry
<< <i>the replicas arent listed properly now, why would this help ?? and who does this help ?? the only people that will be affected by this are as someone else said, the people who already follow the rules, this isnt going to protect anyone from unknowingly buying a fake. those that believe in santa will still be vulnerable, this will only affect the people that it shouldnt have any effect on. people that know what they are buying because they STUDY the series not pop reports and price spreads and they can spot the fakes. those that are too lazy, ignorant or (insert reason here) to know any better will still end up scratching thier head when thier reeded edge 1804 dollar that they won for $42 comes back as a counterfeit. >>
You too are confusing replicas and counterfeits. This addresses only replicas. Counterfeits have been against ebay rules for a long time. --Jerry
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
The counterfeiters, especially Chinese counterfeiters, advertise replicas on ebay with COPY stamped on them to meet the copy protection act. But if you contact them they will sell you coins without COPY stamped on them. These replicas without COPY stamped on them can then be sold as real. Replicas without COPY are "counterfeits". Apparently it is believed this is the, or at least a large, source of counterfeits being marketed as real.
So all they are really doing is making it hard to find the guys who are selling the counterfeits by not allowing them to market them as replicas. Is that how you guys see it? Frankly, I don't see it as having much impact. Crooks who want to buy counterfeits will be able to find the sellers off ebay.
This has nothing to do with gallery mint and other replicas made by honest and legitimate businesses. They are just a victim of friendly fire.
--Jerry
<< <i> Replicas and fakes are two different things. Replicas are stamped "copy" so.... could a replica that isnt stamped replica or copy be considered a fake ? with all due respect, im not confusing anything. a modern chinese replica that isnt stamped replica or copy is a fake. a replica that adheres to the hobby protection act is not much of a threat to anyone, its the unmarked fakes (which will still find thier way onto ebay) that people should be aware of, and once you are aware of them you can avoid them, no one has to make any rules, and no ones buying experience has to be censored, the relicas or fakes or whatever you choose to call them are here, in this country, by the boatloads. no rules will make them disappear, no laws will make them disappear, learning to avoid them will severely lessen your chances of inadvertantly owning one, hoping that someone does SOMETHING and wishing for new laws wont help >>
Still not following you. See my post above on what I think the replica rule is trying to do. Selling replicas wihtout COPY stamped on it has always been against ebay rules. This rule change only addresses coins stamped "COPY". --Jerry
<< <i>Still not following you. See my post above on what I think the replica rule is trying to do. Selling replicas wihtout COPY stamped on it has always been against ebay rules. >>
... and in violation of the Hobby Protection Act* ... which makes it illegal.
*Unless the replicas were made before the act.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Another sad day - Feb. 20th, 2012. All of the Sellers that try to describe their material openly will be rewarded by not being allowed to sell their properly-described merchandise.
The criminal types will be allowed to merrily roll along until their listings get reported and eventually pulled. These are the Sellers to be stopped. It can't be stopped at the Category level.
This new change stops nothing. A 200 year old Kettle copy of a gold coin is not much of a threat. An ugly lead quarter of 1853 isn't either. That change -eliminating the sale of counterfeits- was a few years ago. Sure didn't stop the Chinese counterfeiters, only the Sellers that describe their stuff. It stopped the collectors of counterfeits, also.
Stop the source. Find a way to plug the dike, don't try to elevate the houses.
Since there are already millions of bust and seated dollars in this country not made in America, maybe eBay could find a way to stop the selling of them. They will not be marked "fake" in any manner when they are advertised on eBay. The ones so marked are not a threat to anyone who can read. Not even to that Buyer who wants to buy a fake at whatever price the Buyer deems fair to pay.
IMO, a total waste. Well, maybe only 98%.
<< <i>IMO that is a silly interpatation of the new rule as it relates to D Carr. I personally draw no distinction between a copy of an America coin or series or a copy of a copy of an America coin or series. D Carr's stuff is not legal tender but it looks like legal tender, that to me is the definition of a fake. If I bleach a piece of currency paper from a 1$ bill and print a rare or unknown 1$ bill on top of it but Photoshop an unused date on to it, I suspect the Secret Service would take the same view as mine on the practice of fantasy reproductions. I suspect he will eventualy get called to task for his opperations. >>
I do not make any claims that the coins I over-strike are still legal tender, and I do not advocate that anyone use them as such.
But you are claiming that they are not legal tender. On what legal grounds ? Are you prepared to argue that in court ?
"Bleaching" a dollar bill to remove all traces of the ink is akin to melting a coin completely. But if you take an ordinary dollar bill and simply stamp a different (unused) series date over it, is that illegal ? What if you stamp "Where's George" on a dollar bill - is that illegal ? What about a carved "hobo" nickel - is it still legal tender ?
<< <i>I don't see how you can not call Carr's coins copies when they ARE copies of U. S. Coins!! >>
A genuine original Morgan dollar, over-struck to give it a "1909" date (without adding or removing any metal and without heating or melting) is NOT a copy. It is a fantasy coin, like a carved hobo nickel.
I'm already confused by the meaning of this new eBay rule. I guess we'll see after February.
If they're no good, they won't sell.
John
John Maben
Pegasus Coin and Jewelry (Brick and Mortar)
ANA LM, PNG, APMD, FUN, Etc
800-381-2646
No doubt you have serious talent when it comes to the arts, but based on your description, a "1909" Morgan shares 99.36% of its features with a real Morgan, but it's not a copy? And that figure assumes that all 4 digits in the date are "modified", not just the last one or two.
<< <i>Ebay and PNG feel this is the right thing to do. I agree. Ebay has been studying the coin business and I expect more decisions will gradually come along that will not only be steps to improve consumer protection but to make eBay an even better place to do coin business. Working with the PNG is very smart, it shows that eBay is not going to make major decisions without consulting experts within the industry for guidance.
John >>
John, I hope you're correct. But putting all PCGS MS/PR 70 coins into the "bullion" category is just one example of ebay's superficial, or even incorrect, understanding of the coin business. They also think coin dealers should have 100% markup like jewelry and trinket sellers so we wouldn't mind giving 15% to ebay/paypal. --Jerry
<< <i>Copies or replicas that follow the Hobby Protection Act are legal collectibles. eBay just stopped the open, free trade of a legal collectible. Collectors of Ron Landis and Dan Carr material based on US or world coins should be weeping. Of course, eBay has every right to do that. Kudos for them for finally doing something serious about counterfeits and fakes ... too bad legitimate buyers and sellers will suffer for it. Criminals will still be criminals; Chinese, Croatian, or ... gasp ... American. >>
This is also my reading of the new policy.
<< <i>For the few people here who don't think replicas can be a big problem -- especially in the secondary market -- turn back the clock to October 2009 when the ANA, ICTA, NGC, PCGS and the PNG issued an unprecedent joint consumer protection advisory.
Millions Lost From Coin Fakes, Hobby Leaders Warn
-donn- >>
Amen, Donn. Amen!
<< <i>
<< <i>For the few people here who don't think replicas can be a big problem -- especially in the secondary market -- turn back the clock to October 2009 when the ANA, ICTA, NGC, PCGS and the PNG issued an unprecedent joint consumer protection advisory.
Millions Lost From Coin Fakes, Hobby Leaders Warn
-donn- >>
Amen, Donn. Amen! >>
I'm still not following this. The hobby protection act requires copies to be stamped "COPY". Are you saying this isn't adequate? All copies not stamped "copy" have been illegal to sell on ebay or anywhere else for a long time. The linked article is talking about fakes, not copies. So what is this new ebay rule, prohibiting the sale of copies marked "copy", going to accomplish?
--Jerry
That's so the minimum-wage workforce that serves as CSRs can actually understand the policy in order to enforce it. The fewer the variables the better.
As murky as the distinctions are in numismatics, they're even more so in philately, where forgeries are VERY collectible, and in some cases are worth more than the original stamps (e.g., Sperati forgeries).
With the recent policies put in place, eBay can not only order them to be removed, but indelibly marked (a MAJOR no-no), and even destroyed, because in eBay's limited vision they are the same as fake Gucci handbags from China rather than legitimate collectibles unto themselves.
Of course the answer is simple, and the one that eBay wants: if you traffic in anything that could be construed as a fake/forgery/replica, you shouldn't use eBay as your venue.
1/2 Cents
U.S. Revenue Stamps
Hard to believe that ebay will not allow sale of Dan Carr fantasy overstrikes after Feb. 20 on their site but the US Secret Service allows Dan to make and sell 'em.
It's not about Dan Carr. See the DavidLawrence post. It's about the word "COPY". "COPY" is shown on a coin for sale and delivered to a buyer without "COPY".
Nothing screams "counterfeit" more than buying a coin with the word "COPY" on the image and receiving your coin without "COPY" on it.
<< <i>
<< <i>Ebay and PNG feel this is the right thing to do. I agree. Ebay has been studying the coin business and I expect more decisions will gradually come along that will not only be steps to improve consumer protection but to make eBay an even better place to do coin business. Working with the PNG is very smart, it shows that eBay is not going to make major decisions without consulting experts within the industry for guidance.
John >>
John, I hope you're correct. But putting all PCGS MS/PR 70 coins into the "bullion" category is just one example of ebay's superficial, or even incorrect, understanding of the coin business. They also think coin dealers should have 100% markup like jewelry and trinket sellers so we wouldn't mind giving 15% to ebay/paypal. --Jerry >>
Jerry, If I were not privy to multiple conversations with top level execs at eBay in recent discussions I would share your concerns. However, I know for a fact that:
A) They understand that 70 coins are not considered straight bullion by most in our hobby/business.
Advice to all, sit tight and be patient I really believe good things will come. With regard to "A", just because they may put 70 coins into a bullion category, that does not mean they are labeling them as straight bullion such as raw eagles or Krands. Most of the 70 coins we sell (by dollar volume) are at 5 to 15% over cost. I think if they are going to ultimately adjust their fee schedule they need to determine which items are sold at lower margins (and this includes most 70 coins) and would require lower fees in order to increase sales. They could fix the representation of the category by simply changing it to "bullion or bullion related". As examples, a common $20 Saint Gaudens in MS63 would clearly be bullion related as would a 4 coin 2012 NGC or PCGS graded 70 Gold Eagle set.
eBay is a business and ultimately they want to make more money. If the coin and bullion categories currently sells 500 mil per year at an average of say 9% to ebay and paypal combined and they think they can increase it to 1.5 billion at an average of 6.5%, I believe they would do that as a sound business decision (I have no idea what the real numbers are). Not to mention that by working with industry experts they will reduce their incidents of fraud.
I think eBay now gets it. Only time will tell if they implement and how well they execute.
John
John
John Maben
Pegasus Coin and Jewelry (Brick and Mortar)
ANA LM, PNG, APMD, FUN, Etc
800-381-2646
<< <i>Mr. Carr,
No doubt you have serious talent when it comes to the arts, but based on your description, a "1909" Morgan shares 99.36% of its features with a real Morgan, but it's not a copy? And that figure assumes that all 4 digits in the date are "modified", not just the last one or two. >>
I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. I'm saying my "1909-o" over-strike is a "fantasy" not a "copy", because they are over-struck on genuine original Morgan Silver Dollars. If I struck on something that wasn't a Morgan Silver Dollar, then the result would be a copy of the Morgan Dollar type, but even then it still wouldn't be a copy of an actual issued coin because "1909" Morgan Dollars were never originally minted.
<< <i>.
i'm so happy i'm speechless
.
c'mon US government, lets keep the ball rolling!
. >>
i would like to weigh in and quote myself and add an addendum
"i'm so happy i'm speechless"
addendum - i do feel somewhat bad for all the honest, decent people that sold legitimate copies, tokens etc. i do hope they find other areas to make a decent living
just not selling that junk here though - of course i blame the boneheads that buy the stuff more than the sellers, without demand, there usually is no supply
.
Here's a comment I made to a fellow board member regarding this topic:
"Take his 09 Morgan, for example. He stresses that since the mint never made them, it’s ok. But what if someone decides to restrike an existing, common date Morgan into a 93-S, but also makes the each of the reeds 10% thicker? Using his argument, the mint never made them, so it’s not a counterfeit, right, it’s a fantasy coin?"
It gets down to "how much of a change really makes it different".
My comment about the percetnage of commonality between the base coin and your overstrike could be looked at another way. If a student needs to submit a 1,000 word essay on a given topic, and she takes her friend's report and changes 6 words and submits it, is that considered a copy?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Ebay and PNG feel this is the right thing to do. I agree. Ebay has been studying the coin business and I expect more decisions will gradually come along that will not only be steps to improve consumer protection but to make eBay an even better place to do coin business. Working with the PNG is very smart, it shows that eBay is not going to make major decisions without consulting experts within the industry for guidance. John >>
John, I hope you're correct. But putting all PCGS MS/PR 70 coins into the "bullion" category is just one example of ebay's superficial, or even incorrect, understanding of the coin business. They also think coin dealers should have 100% markup like jewelry and trinket sellers so we wouldn't mind giving 15% to ebay/paypal. --Jerry >>
Jerry, If I were not privy to multiple conversations with top level execs at eBay in recent discussions I would share your concerns. However, I know for a fact that: A) They understand that 70 coins are not considered straight bullion by most in our hobby/business.
John,
That is great news. i hope they choose the high volume/low cost approach to making ebay viable for coins. --Jerry
Here's a comment I made to a fellow board member regarding this topic:
"Take his 09 Morgan, for example. He stresses that since the mint never made them, it’s ok. But what if someone decides to restrike an existing, common date Morgan into a 93-S, but also makes the each of the reeds 10% thicker? Using his argument, the mint never made them, so it’s not a counterfeit, right, it’s a fantasy coin?"
It gets down to "how much of a change really makes it different".
My comment about the percetnage of commonality between the base coin and your overstrike could be looked at another way. If a student needs to submit a 1,000 word essay on a given topic, and she takes her friend's report and changes 6 words and submits it, is that considered a copy?
I agree with that thinking on the subject. "Altering genuine US coins into more desireable shapes for resale at a profit" is certainly walking pretty close to some "lines", in the opinion of many here
edit: no criticism of the artwork, engineering, appearance of final product, customers, or anyone else is implied. Au contraire, kudos for finding such a lucrative loophole.
The market demands it, many addicted! Maybe this is the future of numismatics, as in so much else in modern life (cosmetic surgery, "reality" TV) the fake is deemed better than the real.
Or maybe better stated, "there's not enough Real to go around, so there is a market for new, fun and attractive Fake"
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>Dan,
Here's a comment I made to a fellow board member regarding this topic:
"Take his 09 Morgan, for example. He stresses that since the mint never made them, it’s ok. But what if someone decides to restrike an existing, common date Morgan into a 93-S, but also makes the each of the reeds 10% thicker? Using his argument, the mint never made them, so it’s not a counterfeit, right, it’s a fantasy coin?"
It gets down to "how much of a change really makes it different".
My comment about the percetnage of commonality between the base coin and your overstrike could be looked at another way. If a student needs to submit a 1,000 word essay on a given topic, and she takes her friend's report and changes 6 words and submits it, is that considered a copy?
I agree with that thinking on the subject. "Altering genuine US coins into more desireable shapes for resale at a profit" is certainly walking pretty close to some "lines", in the opinion of many here
edit: no criticism of the artwork, engineering, appearance of final product, customers, or anyone else is implied. Au contraire, kudos for finding such a lucrative loophole.
The market demands it, many addicted! Maybe this is the future of numismatics, as in so much else in modern life (cosmetic surgery, "reality" TV) the fake is deemed better than the real.
Or maybe better stated, "there's not enough Real to go around, so there is a market for new, fun and attractive Fake" >>
Or to put it another way -
There is too much to go around - too many "boring" old Morgan Dollars sitting in showcases, so there is a market for something new and different to go along with the series.
PS:
None of them are really "boring" to me, but you get the idea.
<< <i>Dan,
Here's a comment I made to a fellow board member regarding this topic:
"Take his 09 Morgan, for example. He stresses that since the mint never made them, it’s ok. But what if someone decides to restrike an existing, common date Morgan into a 93-S, but also makes the each of the reeds 10% thicker? Using his argument, the mint never made them, so it’s not a counterfeit, right, it’s a fantasy coin?"
It gets down to "how much of a change really makes it different".
My comment about the percetnage of commonality between the base coin and your overstrike could be looked at another way. If a student needs to submit a 1,000 word essay on a given topic, and she takes her friend's report and changes 6 words and submits it, is that considered a copy? >>
Ok, now I see what you are saying. It comes down to how obvious the change is. A person looking up the "Red Book" value of an 1893-S dollar might not look at the edge at all. So that type of re-make could be dangerous. But a person can't look up the value of a "1909" dollar, or determine the value at all, without looking at the date (which would clearly indicate the coin is a fantasy of some sort). I'm only over-striking coins to give them obvious dates that didn't previously exist.
>>> My comment about the percetnage of commonality between the
>>> base coin and your overstrike could be looked at another way.
>>> If a student needs to submit a 1,000 word essay on a given topic,
>>> and she takes her friend's report and changes 6 words and submits it,
>>> is that considered a copy?
If the student discloses what they have done, and credits the original source of the paper, then there is nothing wrong with that.
The teacher would likely frown on that (unless those six words were really good
If you paint a picture of a Campbell's Soup can label (Andy Warhol) and hang it in a gallery and sell it for big bucks, is it a copy ?
If you go buy a toilet and submit it (without modification) to an art exhibition that claimed to accept everything, is that plagarism ?
Duchamp Urinal
<< <i>
<< <i>Dan,
Here's a comment I made to a fellow board member regarding this topic:
"Take his 09 Morgan, for example. He stresses that since the mint never made them, it’s ok. But what if someone decides to restrike an existing, common date Morgan into a 93-S, but also makes the each of the reeds 10% thicker? Using his argument, the mint never made them, so it’s not a counterfeit, right, it’s a fantasy coin?"
It gets down to "how much of a change really makes it different".
My comment about the percetnage of commonality between the base coin and your overstrike could be looked at another way. If a student needs to submit a 1,000 word essay on a given topic, and she takes her friend's report and changes 6 words and submits it, is that considered a copy?
I agree with that thinking on the subject. "Altering genuine US coins into more desireable shapes for resale at a profit" is certainly walking pretty close to some "lines", in the opinion of many here
edit: no criticism of the artwork, engineering, appearance of final product, customers, or anyone else is implied. Au contraire, kudos for finding such a lucrative loophole.
The market demands it, many addicted! Maybe this is the future of numismatics, as in so much else in modern life (cosmetic surgery, "reality" TV) the fake is deemed better than the real.
Or maybe better stated, "there's not enough Real to go around, so there is a market for new, fun and attractive Fake" >>
Or to put it another way -
There is too much to go around - too many "boring" old Morgan Dollars sitting in showcases, so there is a market for something new and different to go along with the series.
PS:
None of them are really "boring" to me, but you get the idea. >>
It's certainly not the case of the fake being deemed better than the real, but the fact that the hyperreal is more real than the real. The real has disappeared into the hyperreal.
<< <i>
<< <i>Dan,
Here's a comment I made to a fellow board member regarding this topic:
"Take his 09 Morgan, for example. He stresses that since the mint never made them, it’s ok. But what if someone decides to restrike an existing, common date Morgan into a 93-S, but also makes the each of the reeds 10% thicker? Using his argument, the mint never made them, so it’s not a counterfeit, right, it’s a fantasy coin?"
It gets down to "how much of a change really makes it different".
My comment about the percetnage of commonality between the base coin and your overstrike could be looked at another way. If a student needs to submit a 1,000 word essay on a given topic, and she takes her friend's report and changes 6 words and submits it, is that considered a copy? >>
Ok, now I see what you are saying. It comes down to how obvious the change is. A person looking up the "Red Book" value of an 1893-S dollar might not look at the edge at all. So that type of re-make could be dangerous. But a person can't look up the value of a "1909" dollar, or determine the value at all, without looking at the date (which would clearly indicate the coin is a fantasy of some sort). I'm only over-striking coins to give them obvious dates that didn't previously exist.
>>> My comment about the percetnage of commonality between the
>>> base coin and your overstrike could be looked at another way.
>>> If a student needs to submit a 1,000 word essay on a given topic,
>>> and she takes her friend's report and changes 6 words and submits it,
>>> is that considered a copy?
If the student discloses what they have done, and credits the original source of the paper, then there is nothing wrong with that.
The teacher would likely frown on that (unless those six words were really good
If you paint a picture of a Campbell's Soup can label (Andy Warhol) and hang it in a gallery and sell it for big bucks, is it a copy ?
If you go buy a toilet and submit it (without modification) to an art exhibition that claimed to accept everything, is that plagarism ?
Duchamp Urinal >>
You are only allowed to reproduce up to 500 words in a citation without expressed permission from the author (or estate, as the case may be).
In reference to DuChamp, when they held the Armory Show back in 1913, and Duchamp was up to his artistic tomfoolery. at the entrance to the exhibit a tripwire was set up so that unsuspecting patrons fell into a pile of manure just beyond it. The overall message was for people to question what was right in front of their faces, be it a unrinal, a bottle drying rack, or later a soup can.
There is too much to go around - too many "boring" old Morgan Dollars sitting in showcases, so there is a market for something new and different to go along with the series.
Sure, same concept. There are not enough Natural Beauties to go around, so there is a thriving market for plain girls who get their teeth capped, their hair bleached, some fat sucked out, some collagen injected in, a pair of implants bolted on, and all finished off with an orange spray tan fake nails and lashes, and a lot of makeup.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>You are only allowed to reproduce up to 500 words in a citation without expressed permission from the author (or estate, as the case may be).
... >>
That is good to know, thanks (not that I'm planning to cite that many words of anything).
<< <i>Or to put it another way -
There is too much to go around - too many "boring" old Morgan Dollars sitting in showcases, so there is a market for something new and different to go along with the series.
Sure, same concept. There are not enough Natural Beauties to go around, so there is a thriving market for plain girls who get their teeth capped, their hair bleached, some fat sucked out, some collagen injected in, a pair of implants bolted on, and all finished off with an orange spray tan fake nails and lashes, and a lot of makeup. >>
It's all relative. If you took all the "dreck" coins and melted them, the lower end of the remaining coins would become the new "dreck".
<< <i>
<< <i>You are only allowed to reproduce up to 500 words in a citation without expressed permission from the author (or estate, as the case may be).
... >>
That is good to know, thanks (not that I'm planning to cite that many words of anything). >>
"... any properly footnoted quotation of up to 500 sequential words may be used without permission, as long as the total number of words does not exceed 2000. For longer quotations or for a greater number of words quoted, permission from the publisher is required."
<< <i>This new policy is designed to draw a clear line in the sand that eBay sellers cannot offer copies of coins (or copies of any coin-related exonumia like tokens, badges, etc) for legitimate sale on the site. We all know that counterfeits are offered for sale on eBay but these have been and always will be illegal, so that's not what at issue here.
What is at issue is that sellers of the so-called copies were often offering counterfeits with the word "COPY" stamped on it, but delivering coins without the stamp. There was no real way to police this on the eBay side and eBay came to the PNG (Bob Brueggeman, the Board and the membership) for advice on the issue. They heard -- in no uncertain terms -- from all of us that copies must be removed from the site as a first step to cleaning up the eBay marketplace. And, to their credit, eBay has responded very quickly and decisively. All of these will no longer be sell-able on the site as of Feb 20.
Does this solve all the problems on eBay of people selling counterfeits? Of course not. But this is just the first step that eBay is taking and they have assured us (to me, personally) that more steps will be taken next. They are looking into ways to increase community policing because it takes a village to keep an eye on all of these listings and stay one step ahead of the counterfeiters.
I, for one, am extremely encouraged by this first step and look forward to seeing more positive actions. It's good for the entire industry that we clean up the online sellers and protect consumers as much as possible. >>
Well, DLRC and JohnMaben and the rest of the PNG, I respectfully request you get in front of this "collectible counterfeit issue" as well as HTT, SCD, etc. and make the policy clear on them before going live with this in February.
We all know there are collectible counterfeits out there, fantasy pieces, etc.
I'm not the type to simply be comfortable with "eBay higher ups know about this issue" when there is already confusion among the populace (us) and there is a drop deadline coming up. the PNG worked with eBay on this policy and needs to get some specific answers before the deadline so the trouble we can all clearly see coming will be avoided.
Thank you for your support.