<< <i>If I buy what is advertised to be a rolex watch for rolex watch prices and it turns out to be a Chinese fake, I would be pissed off. Yes, both watches can tell time but they are not the same thing.
Yes, the silver round may have 1 ounce of silver but it is not a silver eagle or whatever else they are trying to copy and the buyer will find that out when they try to sell it down the road. It is no different than any other type of knock off - coach bags, ugg boots, rolex watches, fake coins, etc........ If no one does anything about it, it will just keep on burning innocent victims.
Just my take on it >>
A Rolex watch design is copyrighted. Making and selling a "copy" (whether it is cheap or expensive) is copyright infringement. And selling a fake Rolex as genuine, when you know that it isn't, is fraud.
The Silver Eagle design in question is NOT copyrighted since the design was paid for with tax dollars. Knowingly selling a fake item as genuine is fraud. This applies whether it is a watch, or a coin, or whatever.
<< <i> So a typical US Mint Silver Eagle is worth about $22. And one of these silver rounds is worth about $20. The people that you have had to break the "bad news" to, how much above (or below) the silver "spot" price did they pay for the thing ? Maybe these people got more silver for their money buying the private-mint rounds than they would have by buying US Mint Silver Eagles ? >>
If you were a coin dealer, would you pay $20 for a coin (round, copy, thing), if you had no idea if it were silver or not? Could be .999 fine, could be .5 fine, could be layered in a thin coat of silver?
I wouldn't. >>
My friend Dave is a coin dealer. Part of his business is refining silver and gold. He has an X-Ray Florescence (XRF) gun which can measure the purity of an elemental sample. He buys all types of silver rounds - doesn't really matter what kind as long as they test as 999 silver.
The companies that make these silver rounds use designs that they know collectors like because it helps them sell. Same thing goes for all the copper rounds. Just like the U.S. mint did when it did the UHR, and the 1oz Buffalo, and the Silver Eagle. You can get them with just about any classic U.S. Coin design on them. So what are the damages if they bought these rounds instead of real eagles? $1 or $2 per round. I applaud your devotion to trying to protect people from themselves, and don't doubt that your lawyers can convince a bunch of non numismatists/collectors how evil this company is. I guess we don't need to hold individuals accountable for their own actions anymore....we should just blame all those evil companies that are forcing us and tricking us to buy these items without letting us do our own due diligence.
<< <i>If I buy what is advertised to be a rolex watch for rolex watch prices and it turns out to be a Chinese fake, I would be pissed off. Yes, both watches can tell time but they are not the same thing.
Yes, the silver round may have 1 ounce of silver but it is not a silver eagle or whatever else they are trying to copy and the buyer will find that out when they try to sell it down the road. It is no different than any other type of knock off - coach bags, ugg boots, rolex watches, fake coins, etc........ If no one does anything about it, it will just keep on burning innocent victims.
Just my take on it >>
A Rolex watch design is copyrighted. Making and selling a "copy" (whether it is cheap or expensive) is copyright infringement. And selling a fake Rolex as genuine, when you know that it isn't, is fraud.
The Silver Eagle design in question is NOT copyrighted since the design was paid for with tax dollars. Knowingly selling a fake item as genuine is fraud. This applies whether it is a watch, or a coin, or whatever. >>
You obviously know way more than I do on the hobby protection act but the following seems pretty clear to me and it looks they did not follow this:
Do mark the obverse of your coin replicas with the word "copy." The Hobby Protection Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 2101–2106), requires manufacturers of imitation numismatic items to mark plainly and permanently such items with the word "copy." Failure to do so may constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Federal Trade Commission administers the Hobby Protection Act. If you need further assistance, you can contact the Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580; (202) 326-3038.
First off I want to thank all the commenters so far, and I like that there is a good healthy discussion on the merits of my case. I did not expect there to be 100% agreement, because frankly if there is 100% agreement there is no need for a lawsuit.
This morning I attended the court hearing, and I am really glad that I did, I found the oral arguments very interesting. It was also great to meet my lawyers in person, since up until this point I had just talked with them over the phone. Since I am the lead plaintiff in the case I have an obvious bias, but in this post I will try to present both sides.
The purpose of today's hearing was to hear the defendants motion to dismiss the case. As pointed out by the judge, in this stage of the proceedings it is not a fact finding mission for her, she needs to make sure we present enough facts in our complaint to make our case plausible if we prove them to be true.
The Defense lawyer had 3 reason the case should be dismissed, he said because no one could possibly think the defendants products were imitation numismatic item, Westminster Mint was not the manufacturer of the round, so they should be excluded from the case, and the 3rd point was that I was not deceived and have no damages.
His first point is that there is no way that any reasonable person could be deceived into thinking that it was an imitation numismatic item. He pointed out that there is no denomination listed on the coin, and no date. In the case of the Canadian Timberwolf coin he also made the point that no actual coin exists with a Timberwolf on one side and a maple leaf on the other. The judge commented that this sounded like arguments that should be made at the next phase of the trial. When my lawyer talked, he pointed out that the Silver eagle copy had a lot of the same features compared to that of a coin, including "In God We Trust" and "United States of America." These were some of elements used previously by the judge in an earlier Hobby Protection Act case, when he ruled the item in that case was considered an imitation numismatic item.
The second point really had to do with just one of the two defendants, the Westminster Mint. The defendant's lawyer argued that there is no evidence that the Westminster Mint manufactured the coin, that they are just the marketers. He argued that the Hobby Protection Act only covers the importers and manufactures, not the sellers. My lawyer countered that Westminster Mint certainly holds itself out to be the manufacture, including calling themselves a "Mint" and having pictures of the manufacturing process on their website. He also said the only evidence the defense presented that they are not, was the word of his lawyer. No affidavit from the company or anything like that. My lawyer also said that if at a future date they did show they were not the manufacture of the rounds, he would agree to drop them from the case.
The third point was that even if all of this was true, I have not shown that I was deceived in anyway and that I did not have any damages since I got an ounce of silver and that was what I was expecting. My lawyer countered that this was not true, and that I was damaged because I got an item that was illegal, and I could not resell this at a trade show, I was just stuck with it. He also pointed out that the hobby protection act does not require me to be deceived in order to have a cause of action.
After both sides presented their cases, the judge said that she would take it under advisement. She also said that in all her years on the bench this was her first Hobby Protection Act case, so she had some studying to do on the law. This is not surprising since this is only the 3rd Hobby protection act case in the courts. I took her comments to mean that we would probably have to wait a while for her ruling.
I was very impressed with the whole procedure and how very professional everyone was. I was also pleased that the judge seemed very engaged and interested in all the arguments. Each side got a half hour each, but neither side took all of their time, I would say it lasted about 45 minutes total.
<< <i>The companies that make these silver rounds use designs that they know collectors like because it helps them sell. Same thing goes for all the copper rounds. Just like the U.S. mint did when it did the UHR, and the 1oz Buffalo, and the Silver Eagle. You can get them with just about any classic U.S. Coin design on them. So what are the damages if they bought these rounds instead of real eagles? $1 or $2 per round. I applaud your devotion to trying to protect people from themselves, and don't doubt that your lawyers can convince a bunch of non numismatists/collectors how evil this company is. I guess we don't need to hold individuals accountable for their own actions anymore....we should just blame all those evil companies that are forcing us and tricking us to buy these items without letting us do our own due diligence. >>
If someone buys 1000 of these from a telephone salesperson it can add up pretty quick. I have met people who have been burned by these types of products and it is quite sad. They should clearly say copy on them if they are misrepresenting a U.S. coin design in my opinion.
(3) The term “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 or event. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals.
Do ASE's fit this definition?
Collector since adolescent days in the early 1960's. Mostly inactive now, but I enjoy coin periodicals and books and coin shows as health permits.
<< <i> So a typical US Mint Silver Eagle is worth about $22. And one of these silver rounds is worth about $20. The people that you have had to break the "bad news" to, how much above (or below) the silver "spot" price did they pay for the thing ? Maybe these people got more silver for their money buying the private-mint rounds than they would have by buying US Mint Silver Eagles ? >>
If you were a coin dealer, would you pay $20 for a coin (round, copy, thing), if you had no idea if it were silver or not? Could be .999 fine, could be .5 fine, could be layered in a thin coat of silver?
I wouldn't. >>
My friend Dave is a coin dealer. Part of his business is refining silver and gold. He has an X-Ray Florescence (XRF) gun which can measure the purity of an elemental sample. He buys all types of silver rounds - doesn't really matter what kind as long as they test as 999 silver. >>
An XRF gun can be fooled by a heavy plating, the only way to know for sure that it is .999 is by melting it or other destructive means. Also, you should ask your friend if he pays more for a silver eagle than he does for something that he has to melt.
<< <i>The companies that make these silver rounds use designs that they know collectors like because it helps them sell. Same thing goes for all the copper rounds. Just like the U.S. mint did when it did the UHR, and the 1oz Buffalo, and the Silver Eagle. You can get them with just about any classic U.S. Coin design on them. So what are the damages if they bought these rounds instead of real eagles? $1 or $2 per round. I applaud your devotion to trying to protect people from themselves, and don't doubt that your lawyers can convince a bunch of non numismatists/collectors how evil this company is. I guess we don't need to hold individuals accountable for their own actions anymore....we should just blame all those evil companies that are forcing us and tricking us to buy these items without letting us do our own due diligence. >>
If someone buys 1000 of these from a telephone salesperson it can add up pretty quick. I have met people who have been burned by these types of products and it is quite sad. They should clearly say copy on them if they are misrepresenting a U.S. coin design in my opinion. >>
I know of at least one person who was ripped off by a telephone sales person selling PCGS certified U.S. Gold as well. Prices that even though gold nearly quadrupled in value they are still buried in the coins. But we aren't talking about suing the telemarketer, we are talking about suing the company that makes them, and likely doesn't try to represent them as anything but .999 silver rounds. If someone called me tomorrow and told me I should buy 1000 of anything, I would think I would have enough sense to check into it a bit before blindly writing a check. Also, the plaintiff's lawyer told the judge he had damages because he couldn't sell the copy coin at a trade show is BS. Take it to any dealer who buys silver and they would buy it. Maybe not for what he paid, but it would sell.
<< <i>(3) The term “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 or event. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals.
Do ASE's fit this definition? >>
If you look at the statute that authorized the minting of the Silver Eagle, the Liberty coin act of 1985, by law it is a coin and as such a numismatic item.
Sec. 202. Minting of Silver Coins. Section 5112 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out subsections (e) and (f) and inserting in lieu thereof the following new subsections:``(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall mint and issue, in quantities sufficient to meet public demand, coins which—``(1) are 40.6 millimeters in diameter and weigh 31.103 grams;``(2) contain .999 fine silver;``(3) have a design—``(A) symbolic of Liberty on the obverse side; and``(B) of an eagle on the reverse side;``(4) have inscriptions of the year of minting or issuance, and the words 'Liberty', 'In God We Trust', 'United States of America', '1 Oz. Fine Silver', 'E Pluribus Unum', and 'One Dollar'; and``(5) have reeded edges.``(f) The Secretary shall sell the coins minted under subsection (e) to the public at a price equal to the market value of the bullion at the time of sale, plus the cost of minting, marketing, and distributing such coins (including labor, materials, dyes [sic], use of machinery, and overhead expenses).``(g) For purposes of section 5132(a)(1) of this title, all coins minted under subsection (e) of this section shall be considered to be numismatic items.``(h) The coins issued under this title shall be legal tender as provided in section 5103 of title 31, United States Code.´´
<< <i>The companies that make these silver rounds use designs that they know collectors like because it helps them sell. Same thing goes for all the copper rounds. Just like the U.S. mint did when it did the UHR, and the 1oz Buffalo, and the Silver Eagle. You can get them with just about any classic U.S. Coin design on them. So what are the damages if they bought these rounds instead of real eagles? $1 or $2 per round. I applaud your devotion to trying to protect people from themselves, and don't doubt that your lawyers can convince a bunch of non numismatists/collectors how evil this company is. I guess we don't need to hold individuals accountable for their own actions anymore....we should just blame all those evil companies that are forcing us and tricking us to buy these items without letting us do our own due diligence. >>
If someone buys 1000 of these from a telephone salesperson it can add up pretty quick. I have met people who have been burned by these types of products and it is quite sad. They should clearly say copy on them if they are misrepresenting a U.S. coin design in my opinion. >>
I know of at least one person who was ripped off by a telephone sales person selling PCGS certified U.S. Gold as well. Prices that even though gold nearly quadrupled in value they are still buried in the coins. But we aren't talking about suing the telemarketer, we are talking about suing the company that makes them, and likely doesn't try to represent them as anything but .999 silver rounds. If someone called me tomorrow and told me I should buy 1000 of anything, I would think I would have enough sense to check into it a bit before blindly writing a check. Also, the plaintiff's lawyer told the judge he had damages because he couldn't sell the copy coin at a trade show is BS. Take it to any dealer who buys silver and they would buy it. Maybe not for what he paid, but it would sell. >>
The organizers of the main trade show I attend, as I imagine most all trade show organizers do, has a strict rule that no one is allowed to sell an imitation numismatic items unless they are marked with the word copy. Had I received the defendants round and it was marked with "copy" I would have no problem reselling the silver round, and I would have been happy to do so. I think the main point of my lawyer is that the round is illegal, so I am entitled to damages per the statute.
I like silver rounds. I like them with variety. I have many that mimic seated, Indian, Lincoln's, and walkers, etc. I always thought they were done that way out if respect if the original artwork and our American history. I probably have 40 images of pres Lincoln alone on various tokens, rounds and medals based on VDBs sculpture, I never thought they were a cent. It's should say 1 oz .999 or it's a pass.
At the shop, people come in every day and ask what's the difference in all the silver. It takes a while to get through all the differences, sure. I'm sure the same plays out all over the country. That shouldn't limit the options. You can bet that if the US mint had a problem with these rounds THEY would have issue with them. Is this about premium differences? I hate to say it but this seems like busy body work and a waste of time and energy.
The organizers of the main trade show I attend, as I imagine most all trade show organizers do, has a strict rule that no one is allowed to sell an imitation numismatic items unless they are marked with the word copy. Had I received the defendants round and it was marked with "copy" I would have no problem reselling the silver round, and I would have been happy to do so. I think the main point of my lawyer is that the round is illegal, so I am entitled to damages per the statute. >>
So because 1 show you attended has this rule, you are due $20 +- for the round. So I guess other online bullion sellers items would not be allowed at this trade show either.
<< <i>The organizers of the main trade show I attend, as I imagine most all trade show organizers do, has a strict rule that no one is allowed to sell an imitation numismatic items unless they are marked with the word copy. Had I received the defendants round and it was marked with "copy" I would have no problem reselling the silver round, and I would have been happy to do so. I think the main point of my lawyer is that the round is illegal, so I am entitled to damages per the statute. >>
So because 1 show you attended has this rule, you are due $20 +- for the round. So I guess other online bullion sellers items would not be allowed at this trade show either.
<< <i>Great job on seeing this through. I havent seen either of those rounds before and knowing that they are coming out of MN is saddening. Living in ND just miles down the road I'm glad none of my customers have been fooled by these yet. >>
Define "fooled" please.
These are silver rounds sold as silver rounds that kinda look like Silver Eagles.
I'm failing to see a real problem here. I also fail to see a connection between collecting "silver rounds" and "collecting coins" such as what the HPA was written for.
Half of me is hoping you lose your case and end up having to pay not only your own attorney's fee's but the fee's of the defendants as well. But that's just me.
If the pieces contain 1 oz of .999 fine silver as they are advertised, then I'm ok with it.
Again, that's just me. I try to educate the stupid, not make it easier for them to be even stupider.
I mean, lets look at the reality of the situation.
In late 1985, the United States Government decided to go into the "silver round" business by selling off the Strategic Silver Stockpile so that the "little guys" could get into precious metal investing without having to invest $500,000 at a time. At that time, they chose a design which was exactly like the Adolph A. Weinman Walking Liberty Half Dollar. They even gave it a legal denomination which, according to some reports, has confused some people into spending them for $1.
Regardless, Silver Eagles are nothing more than government made Silver Rounds and their intrinsic value is based upon the price of silver. >>
If I buy what is advertised to be a rolex watch for rolex watch prices and it turns out to be a Chinese fake, I would be pissed off. Yes, both watches can tell time but they are not the same thing.
Yes, the silver round may have 1 ounce of silver but it is not a silver eagle or whatever else they are trying to copy and the buyer will find that out when they try to sell it down the road. It is no different than any other type of knock off - coach bags, ugg boots, rolex watches, fake coins, etc........ If no one does anything about it, it will just keep on burning innocent victims.
Just my take on it >>
Ahhh. So, watchmakers cannot sell watches because they might look like Rolex's??
If someone buys 1000 of these from a telephone salesperson it can add up pretty quick. I have met people who have been burned by these types of products and it is quite sad. They should clearly say copy on them if they are misrepresenting a U.S. coin design in my opinion. >>
If the telephone salesperson calls the US Silver Eagles, then it would be fraud. If they call them silver rounds (and they are indeed silver rounds), then what difference would the word copy make? Obviously, you cannot see if the word copy exists if you are buying over the phone.
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
If someone buys 1000 of these from a telephone salesperson it can add up pretty quick. I have met people who have been burned by these types of products and it is quite sad. They should clearly say copy on them if they are misrepresenting a U.S. coin design in my opinion. >>
If the telephone salesperson calls the US Silver Eagles, then it would be fraud. If they call them silver rounds (and they are indeed silver rounds), then what difference would the word copy make? Obviously, you cannot see if the word copy exists if you are buying over the phone. >>
And all of this forgets that copy coins require copy
<< <i> So a typical US Mint Silver Eagle is worth about $22. And one of these silver rounds is worth about $20. The people that you have had to break the "bad news" to, how much above (or below) the silver "spot" price did they pay for the thing ? Maybe these people got more silver for their money buying the private-mint rounds than they would have by buying US Mint Silver Eagles ? >>
If you were a coin dealer, would you pay $20 for a coin (round, copy, thing), if you had no idea if it were silver or not? Could be .999 fine, could be .5 fine, could be layered in a thin coat of silver?
I wouldn't. >>
My friend Dave is a coin dealer. Part of his business is refining silver and gold. He has an X-Ray Florescence (XRF) gun which can measure the purity of an elemental sample. He buys all types of silver rounds - doesn't really matter what kind as long as they test as 999 silver. >>
An XRF gun can be fooled by a heavy plating, the only way to know for sure that it is .999 is by melting it or other destructive means. Also, you should ask your friend if he pays more for a silver eagle than he does for something that he has to melt. >>
OR suggest that Daniel ask his friend if he'd ever buy the subject of your lawsuit as an authentic Silver Eagle?
BTW, since it is 1 ounce of .999 fine silver, you can sell it anywhere as long as you don't, like the defendant, sell it as an authentic Silver Eagle.
Your "claim" of being damaged, should be found to have no merit.
Did anybody read this part:
"Silver bullion rounds are the perfect way to buy silver. Now investors and collectors can get one of the most popular coin designs in history “ The American silver eagle” in a silver bullion round format."
I especially like this part:
"These rounds are slightly smaller in diameter than a silver eagle coin measuring 39mm but are also thicker than a silver eagle coin."
How much does your attorney, whom you've just met, charge by the hour?
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>The companies that make these silver rounds use designs that they know collectors like because it helps them sell. Same thing goes for all the copper rounds. Just like the U.S. mint did when it did the UHR, and the 1oz Buffalo, and the Silver Eagle. You can get them with just about any classic U.S. Coin design on them. So what are the damages if they bought these rounds instead of real eagles? $1 or $2 per round. I applaud your devotion to trying to protect people from themselves, and don't doubt that your lawyers can convince a bunch of non numismatists/collectors how evil this company is. I guess we don't need to hold individuals accountable for their own actions anymore....we should just blame all those evil companies that are forcing us and tricking us to buy these items without letting us do our own due diligence. >>
If someone buys 1000 of these from a telephone salesperson it can add up pretty quick. I have met people who have been burned by these types of products and it is quite sad. They should clearly say copy on them if they are misrepresenting a U.S. coin design in my opinion. >>
I know of at least one person who was ripped off by a telephone sales person selling PCGS certified U.S. Gold as well. Prices that even though gold nearly quadrupled in value they are still buried in the coins. But we aren't talking about suing the telemarketer, we are talking about suing the company that makes them, and likely doesn't try to represent them as anything but .999 silver rounds. If someone called me tomorrow and told me I should buy 1000 of anything, I would think I would have enough sense to check into it a bit before blindly writing a check. Also, the plaintiff's lawyer told the judge he had damages because he couldn't sell the copy coin at a trade show is BS. Take it to any dealer who buys silver and they would buy it. Maybe not for what he paid, but it would sell. >>
You need to know the difference between "apples and oranges" as this thread is about apples yet you keep bringing up oranges?
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>The companies that make these silver rounds use designs that they know collectors like because it helps them sell. Same thing goes for all the copper rounds. Just like the U.S. mint did when it did the UHR, and the 1oz Buffalo, and the Silver Eagle. You can get them with just about any classic U.S. Coin design on them. So what are the damages if they bought these rounds instead of real eagles? $1 or $2 per round. I applaud your devotion to trying to protect people from themselves, and don't doubt that your lawyers can convince a bunch of non numismatists/collectors how evil this company is. I guess we don't need to hold individuals accountable for their own actions anymore....we should just blame all those evil companies that are forcing us and tricking us to buy these items without letting us do our own due diligence. >>
If someone buys 1000 of these from a telephone salesperson it can add up pretty quick. I have met people who have been burned by these types of products and it is quite sad. They should clearly say copy on them if they are misrepresenting a U.S. coin design in my opinion. >>
I know of at least one person who was ripped off by a telephone sales person selling PCGS certified U.S. Gold as well. Prices that even though gold nearly quadrupled in value they are still buried in the coins. But we aren't talking about suing the telemarketer, we are talking about suing the company that makes them, and likely doesn't try to represent them as anything but .999 silver rounds. If someone called me tomorrow and told me I should buy 1000 of anything, I would think I would have enough sense to check into it a bit before blindly writing a check. Also, the plaintiff's lawyer told the judge he had damages because he couldn't sell the copy coin at a trade show is BS. Take it to any dealer who buys silver and they would buy it. Maybe not for what he paid, but it would sell. >>
You need to know the difference between "apples and oranges" as this thread is about apples yet you keep bringing up oranges? >>
I am trying to respond to statements made by others about how these are so deceiving, and how people can be taken advantage of. I am merely pointing out that the silver round and the manufacture here aren't the villains.
Ya know, too many complain about "no copy" counterfeits from China and then complain when someone tries to stop deception closer to home. I hope the OP wins his case and I hope any coin design COPY has to be marked COPY or isn't created.
I don't care if the base value is close to the same. It can be difficult for new collectors and it can lead to others getting more murky as well. Stop muddying the waters. It should be or it shouldn't be. Either you support counterfeits or you are against them. Silver rounds, imho, that closely resemble the design of a real "coin", fall into the counterfeit realm as well. To me at least, and it would appear a few others.
Some people just love to argue every little point to hear themselves so they can keep thinking how smart they are.
If someone wants a silver round, there is NO REASON (other than pure profiting from the resemblance) that someone needs to create the round to resemble any real released numismatic item in design/form. I have a silver round, I call "heads and tail" of a woman. No coin and not a picture I could show here. I paid a premium for that round some years back. Bought a few. Gave some out as gifts and they were warmly received (by the guys, if not their wives ). No need for that creator/minter to plagiarize a coin to do these. The ones here fall into that realm....PLAGIARIZATIONS. Nothing more.
<< <i> So a typical US Mint Silver Eagle is worth about $22. And one of these silver rounds is worth about $20. The people that you have had to break the "bad news" to, how much above (or below) the silver "spot" price did they pay for the thing ? Maybe these people got more silver for their money buying the private-mint rounds than they would have by buying US Mint Silver Eagles ? >>
If you were a coin dealer, would you pay $20 for a coin (round, copy, thing), if you had no idea if it were silver or not? Could be .999 fine, could be .5 fine, could be layered in a thin coat of silver?
I wouldn't. >>
My friend Dave is a coin dealer. Part of his business is refining silver and gold. He has an X-Ray Florescence (XRF) gun which can measure the purity of an elemental sample. He buys all types of silver rounds - doesn't really matter what kind as long as they test as 999 silver. >>
An XRF gun can be fooled by a heavy plating, the only way to know for sure that it is .999 is by melting it or other destructive means. Also, you should ask your friend if he pays more for a silver eagle than he does for something that he has to melt. >>
I already indicated that US Silver Eagles are worth about $2 more than "generic" rounds. If you want to buy silver, also keep in mind that "generic" rounds will usually cost you about $2 less per ounce. Some people want that option.
At the moment my friend pays a little over $19 for generic silver rounds and a little under $21 for US Silver Eagles.
The only way to know for sure that any coin (government-issue or not) contains the proper amount of metal is to melt it. Some government-issue coins have been hollowed out and filled with lead or tungsten.
<< <i>The ones here fall into that realm....PLAGIARIZATIONS. Nothing more. >>
The Silver Eagle design in question is not copyrighted. That might mean that such use of the design is not plagiarism. Neither the manufacturer nor the seller claimed that the design was their own work.
<< <i>I know of at least one person who was ripped off by a telephone sales person selling PCGS certified U.S. Gold as well. Prices that even though gold nearly quadrupled in value they are still buried in the coins. But we aren't talking about suing the telemarketer, we are talking about suing the company that makes them, and likely doesn't try to represent them as anything but .999 silver rounds. If someone called me tomorrow and told me I should buy 1000 of anything, I would think I would have enough sense to check into it a bit before blindly writing a check. Also, the plaintiff's lawyer told the judge he had damages because he couldn't sell the copy coin at a trade show is BS. Take it to any dealer who buys silver and they would buy it. Maybe not for what he paid, but it would sell. >>
I agree.
<< <i>The organizers of the main trade show I attend, as I imagine most all trade show organizers do, has a strict rule that no one is allowed to sell an imitation numismatic items unless they are marked with the word copy. Had I received the defendants round and it was marked with "copy" I would have no problem reselling the silver round, and I would have been happy to do so. I think the main point of my lawyer is that the round is illegal, so I am entitled to damages per the statute. >>
I'd be interested to hear more about this coin show where selling one of these silver rounds wouldn't be allowed. What show is it ? Can we get those show organizers to comment right here on this forum as to where they stand on silver rounds like these ?
I don't think it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that the rounds in question constitute "imitation numismatic items". To me, they don't purport to be any kind of numismatic item other than a generic silver round.
I thank the OP for bringing this all up, but, as per usual, he should probably have waited as people are demanding more from him, putting their own personal feelings into this, and trying to say what is/isn't right.
Let the court decide in this particular case. THEN let us all know.
May be that this sets a precedent for others and that is why they are worried. No matter, let's wait until it is finished and then see what happens.
If someone buys 1000 of these from a telephone salesperson it can add up pretty quick. I have met people who have been burned by these types of products and it is quite sad. They should clearly say copy on them if they are misrepresenting a U.S. coin design in my opinion. >>
If the telephone salesperson calls the US Silver Eagles, then it would be fraud. If they call them silver rounds (and they are indeed silver rounds), then what difference would the word copy make? Obviously, you cannot see if the word copy exists if you are buying over the phone. >>
And all of this forgets that copy coins require copy >>
It would be fraudulent to mark these silver rounds with a "COPY" since they changed the design and hence they are not copies of the ASE's. They changed the legends, they removed the date, they removed the denomination, they changed the shield, etc. Someone in an earlier post gave an example of someone casting a Morgan dollar. This coin would require a "COPY" mark since it actually copies the original design.
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 thank the OP for bringing this all up, but, as per usual, he should probably have waited as people are demanding more from him, putting their own personal feelings into this, and trying to say what is/isn't right. >>
This is a public forum. What you are describing is exactly what is supposed to happen here.
A claim was made that the silver rounds are banned at a certain coin show. I'd like to get confirmation from the organizers of that show.
I collect certain vintage counterfeits ("privately-made" Morgan Dollar VAMs, for example). I've also bought and sold all kinds of silver rounds over the years, including some that look a little bit like 1804 Bust Dollars, Indian/Buffalo nickels, etc. I've never been prevented from doing so at any coin show that I've ever attended (nor should I).
<< <i>How much does your attorney, whom you've just met, charge by the hour? >>
I'm guessing it's going to get expensive especially when he has to defend himself from a countersuit.
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
This is a train wreck in motion. Don Quixote tilting at the windmills, a veritable tiger by the tail.
So you can't sell these rounds at ONE particular coin show, big deal. They can certainly be bought and sold at hundreds of other shows without prejudice. There is no way that these could be mistaken as the government issued bullion coins and there is a ready market for items of this nature. The Liberty dollar rounds were indeed illegal as they had the words 'Dollars' as an integral part of the design. Damages? How on earth have you been damaged? You bought an ounce of silver as an ounce of silver at the prevailing retail market price. One show allegedly won't let you sell them, so what? There are coin shows that won't allow the sale of coin jewelry, does that make a seller of these damaged? I think not.
Discussing the issue on an open forum prior to the conclusion of this litigation is one huge mistake and had I been involved and done something of this nature, I assure you that my attorneys would have disemboweled me on the spot.
Silver round in question has no denomination, no date, and violates no copyright laws. Round is not a replica and requires no annotation as such. Really no different, legally, than the popular 10 oz. silver bars that bear the same walking liberty image. If judge does her homework, defendent will walk and plaintiff may owe his lawyers if prior waiving of fee in event of loss was not agreed upon.
Shoulda picked an exact replica/counterfeit item to fight in court and OPs attorneys should have realized this.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
<< <i>Silver round in question has no denomination, no date, and violates no copyright laws. Round is not a replica and requires no annotation as such. Really no different, legally, than the popular 10 oz. silver bars that bear the same walking liberty image. If judge does her homework, defendent will walk and plaintiff may owe his lawyers if prior waiving of fee in event of loss was not agreed upon.
Shoulda picked an exact replica/counterfeit item to fight in court and OPs attorneys should have realized this. >>
Exact replica? Isn't that a contradiction?
Also, after all the chinese fakes cursed on here people are now nit picking these and saying they don't match and don't need copy. They only need to be similar to require copy. Similar is on the eye of the beholder, but the front and back of these are made a certain way and look a certain way, and that is to mimic an ASE.
Just because one can sell a "copy"-less does not mean it is legal to do so.
<< <i>Silver round in question has no denomination, no date, and violates no copyright laws. Round is not a replica and requires no annotation as such. Really no different, legally, than the popular 10 oz. silver bars that bear the same walking liberty image. If judge does her homework, defendent will walk and plaintiff may owe his lawyers if prior waiving of fee in event of loss was not agreed upon.
Shoulda picked an exact replica/counterfeit item to fight in court and OPs attorneys should have realized this. >>
Exact replica? Isn't that a contradiction?
Also, after all the chinese fakes cursed on here people are now nit picking these and saying they don't match and don't need copy. They only need to be similar to require copy. Similar is on the eye of the beholder, but the front and back of these are made a certain way and look a certain way, and that is to mimic an ASE.
Just because one can sell a "copy"-less does not mean it is legal to do so. >>
The chinese (and other) fakes cursed here are replicas that exactly resemble the real McCoy down to the date and denomination. Using a popular, non-copyrighted design on a round does not make it a "fake" coin and does not mean it violates the Hobby Act. A round that needs to be marked copy is just that, an exact copy of the real McCoy.
I applaud the OP for his willingness to fight, he just needs to pick the right fight. If the judge sides with him it will be because she did not do her homework and because the defendent's lawyers did not do their homework.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Congratulations on having the guts to fight fraud, most people just shrug their shoulders as others advise them to do, and turn their anger inward, how could they have been so dumb to fall for a scam, particularly acute in this hobby/business.
<< <i>I applaud the OP and wish him well. His only mistake was letting the folks here know. Tough, unforgiving, grumpy crowd >>
I wish the OP well too. But the crowd isn't grumpy at all. We are rightfully questioning his motive and standing in this highly unusual case.
Most people bring suit to obtain something--monetary damages or even justice. It sounds like the OP wasn't really harmed and is just being "goody two shoes." That, I think, is the cause of the concern. What does the OP gain by all of this? Notoriety?
It occurs to me that the outcome of this case, (and the applicability of the FTC rule in general), depends on definitions. I also think many are running around without background, and interpreting rules they've never actually read. So, I'm hoping these links are of help....
I quote from the regulation itself:
"(d) Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified. The term shall not include any re-issue or re-strike of any original numismatic item by the United States or any foreign government. ... (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."
Yes...it's pretty vague, and open to interpretation. Which is why this is a valid pursuit?? While I'm personally in favor of ANY re-use of US Government designs being properly stamped, I can see where these definitions will be the crux of any case.
To those who think the regulations require that the item be an EXACT replica, I offer this ammendment that was accepted:
"After the rules were promulgated, miniature imitation numismatic items became more popular in the market. Marking some of these miniature imitations has posed a hardship since many are as small as or smaller than the minimum size required for the word "Copy." When an item covered by the rules is of such a small size that it is impossible to conform with the minimum size requirement, the manufacturer must request the Commission to issue a variance. ... The amendment to the rule permits manufacturers of miniature numismatic items to mark the word "Copy" in smaller dimensions than those required under the present rule. For example, a coin having a diameter of only six millimeters could have the word "Copy" in a horizontal dimension of no less than one-half the diameter or three millimeters. The vertical dimension would be required to be no less than one-sixth of the diameter or one millimeter." Link to ammendment
So, they certainly seem to accept that non-exact replicas, at least in size, are still subject to the rule. Consulting a judge on presence or absense of dates, denomination, etc. may be the only way to clarify the requirements for THOSE element?
People who have money to spend will always be screwed if they don't do homework on what they are buying. Look at the whole antique market. Plenty of fraud in all of it but the chance of doing something about it is slim. I wish the OP luck but I don't think it will matter in the end. I could be wrong...
<< <i>Is there a difference between a near/close copy and an almost exact copy? >>
In regard to the Timberwolf ROUND, where it has an entirely different reverse (not to mention, a different silver content) than the actual Timberwolf COIN, I'd guess this coin would be called a 'not even close' copy???
The OP states:
"Instead of the Queen opposite the timber wolf like they have on the real coin, these copies have a maple leaf.
Wouldn't this statement work in the defense's favor? Hasn't the OP given a perfectly valid reason why this is NOT a 'knockoff', as he states it IS in his opening post? I have no legal experience in frivolous lawsuits, but...I'd think that if you said this in front of the judge, the person who you are trying to convince these ARE actual 'copies'(or 'knockoffs', as the OP calls them), made to deceive buyers into thinking they are buying actual monetized coins, well.......I'm no lawyer, but I'd think the defense could use a witness like the OP.
<< <i>I applaud the OP and wish him well. His only mistake was letting the folks here know. Tough, unforgiving, grumpy crowd >>
Huh?
How about a real world practical crowd since the arguments presented are weak at best and will be proven weak.
I doubt that the judge will see it any differently once she understands that the OP paid for and received an ounce of silver which is clearly described as "an ounce of silver".
Especially since the OP knowingly entered this transaction with the intent to follow up with civil litigation and the only damages he'll suffer will be at his own hand.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>I thank the OP for bringing this all up, but, as per usual, he should probably have waited as people are demanding more from him, putting their own personal feelings into this, and trying to say what is/isn't right.
Let the court decide in this particular case. THEN let us all know.
May be that this sets a precedent for others and that is why they are worried. No matter, let's wait until it is finished and then see what happens. >>
I am not "worried" in the least bit. I'm simply commenting on what I feel is a frivolous and very weak court case.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>I applaud the OP and wish him well. His only mistake was letting the folks here know. Tough, unforgiving, grumpy crowd >>
Huh?
How about a real world practical crowd since the arguments presented are weak at best and will be proven weak.
I doubt that the judge will see it any differently once she understands that the OP paid for and received an ounce of silver which is clearly described as "an ounce of silver".
Especially since the OP knowingly entered this transaction with the intent to follow up with civil litigation and the only damages he'll suffer will be at his own hand. >>
I commend the original poster for attempting to improve the coin collecting hobby.
I just don't see any particular problem with making or selling these silver rounds. Compared to this, there are other things in the numismatic world that are far more concerning (actual fraud such as faked PCGS holders, for example).
And outside of numismatics there are things going on that are far worse than that, by several orders of magnitude.
<< <i>I applaud the OP and wish him well. His only mistake was letting the folks here know. Tough, unforgiving, grumpy crowd >>
Huh?
How about a real world practical crowd since the arguments presented are weak at best and will be proven weak.
I doubt that the judge will see it any differently once she understands that the OP paid for and received an ounce of silver which is clearly described as "an ounce of silver".
Especially since the OP knowingly entered this transaction with the intent to follow up with civil litigation and the only damages he'll suffer will be at his own hand. >>
<< <i>I applaud the OP and wish him well. His only mistake was letting the folks here know. Tough, unforgiving, grumpy crowd >>
Huh?
How about a real world practical crowd since the arguments presented are weak at best and will be proven weak.
I doubt that the judge will see it any differently once she understands that the OP paid for and received an ounce of silver which is clearly described as "an ounce of silver".
Especially since the OP knowingly entered this transaction with the intent to follow up with civil litigation and the only damages he'll suffer will be at his own hand. >>
Comments
<< <i>If I buy what is advertised to be a rolex watch for rolex watch prices and it turns out to be a Chinese fake, I would be pissed off. Yes, both watches can tell time but they are not the same thing.
Yes, the silver round may have 1 ounce of silver but it is not a silver eagle or whatever else they are trying to copy and the buyer will find that out when they try to sell it down the road. It is no different than any other type of knock off - coach bags, ugg boots, rolex watches, fake coins, etc........ If no one does anything about it, it will just keep on burning innocent victims.
Just my take on it
A Rolex watch design is copyrighted. Making and selling a "copy" (whether it is cheap or expensive) is copyright infringement.
And selling a fake Rolex as genuine, when you know that it isn't, is fraud.
The Silver Eagle design in question is NOT copyrighted since the design was paid for with tax dollars.
Knowingly selling a fake item as genuine is fraud. This applies whether it is a watch, or a coin, or whatever.
<< <i>
<< <i>
So a typical US Mint Silver Eagle is worth about $22. And one of these silver rounds is worth about $20. The people that you have had to break the "bad news" to, how much above (or below) the silver "spot" price did they pay for the thing ? Maybe these people got more silver for their money buying the private-mint rounds than they would have by buying US Mint Silver Eagles ? >>
If you were a coin dealer, would you pay $20 for a coin (round, copy, thing), if you had no idea if it were silver or not? Could be .999 fine, could be .5 fine, could be layered in a thin coat of silver?
I wouldn't. >>
My friend Dave is a coin dealer. Part of his business is refining silver and gold. He has an X-Ray Florescence (XRF) gun which can measure the purity of an elemental sample. He buys all types of silver rounds - doesn't really matter what kind as long as they test as 999 silver.
So what are the damages if they bought these rounds instead of real eagles? $1 or $2 per round. I applaud your devotion to trying to protect people from themselves, and don't doubt that your lawyers can convince a bunch of non numismatists/collectors how evil this company is. I guess we don't need to hold individuals accountable for their own actions anymore....we should just blame all those evil companies that are forcing us and tricking us to buy these items without letting us do our own due diligence.
My Ebay Store
<< <i>
<< <i>If I buy what is advertised to be a rolex watch for rolex watch prices and it turns out to be a Chinese fake, I would be pissed off. Yes, both watches can tell time but they are not the same thing.
Yes, the silver round may have 1 ounce of silver but it is not a silver eagle or whatever else they are trying to copy and the buyer will find that out when they try to sell it down the road. It is no different than any other type of knock off - coach bags, ugg boots, rolex watches, fake coins, etc........ If no one does anything about it, it will just keep on burning innocent victims.
Just my take on it
A Rolex watch design is copyrighted. Making and selling a "copy" (whether it is cheap or expensive) is copyright infringement.
And selling a fake Rolex as genuine, when you know that it isn't, is fraud.
The Silver Eagle design in question is NOT copyrighted since the design was paid for with tax dollars.
Knowingly selling a fake item as genuine is fraud. This applies whether it is a watch, or a coin, or whatever. >>
You obviously know way more than I do on the hobby protection act but the following seems pretty clear to me and it looks they did not follow this:
Do mark the obverse of your coin replicas with the word "copy." The Hobby Protection Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 2101–2106), requires manufacturers of imitation numismatic items to mark plainly and permanently such items with the word "copy." Failure to do so may constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Federal Trade Commission administers the Hobby Protection Act. If you need further assistance, you can contact the Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580; (202) 326-3038.
U.S. Mint Hobby Protection Act Guidelines
This morning I attended the court hearing, and I am really glad that I did, I found the oral arguments very interesting. It was also great to meet my lawyers in person, since up until this point I had just talked with them over the phone. Since I am the lead plaintiff in the case I have an obvious bias, but in this post I will try to present both sides.
The purpose of today's hearing was to hear the defendants motion to dismiss the case. As pointed out by the judge, in this stage of the proceedings it is not a fact finding mission for her, she needs to make sure we present enough facts in our complaint to make our case plausible if we prove them to be true.
The Defense lawyer had 3 reason the case should be dismissed, he said because no one could possibly think the defendants products were imitation numismatic item, Westminster Mint was not the manufacturer of the round, so they should be excluded from the case, and the 3rd point was that I was not deceived and have no damages.
His first point is that there is no way that any reasonable person could be deceived into thinking that it was an imitation numismatic item. He pointed out that there is no denomination listed on the coin, and no date. In the case of the Canadian Timberwolf coin he also made the point that no actual coin exists with a Timberwolf on one side and a maple leaf on the other. The judge commented that this sounded like arguments that should be made at the next phase of the trial. When my lawyer talked, he pointed out that the Silver eagle copy had a lot of the same features compared to that of a coin, including "In God We Trust" and "United States of America." These were some of elements used previously by the judge in an earlier Hobby Protection Act case, when he ruled the item in that case was considered an imitation numismatic item.
The second point really had to do with just one of the two defendants, the Westminster Mint. The defendant's lawyer argued that there is no evidence that the Westminster Mint manufactured the coin, that they are just the marketers. He argued that the Hobby Protection Act only covers the importers and manufactures, not the sellers. My lawyer countered that Westminster Mint certainly holds itself out to be the manufacture, including calling themselves a "Mint" and having pictures of the manufacturing process on their website. He also said the only evidence the defense presented that they are not, was the word of his lawyer. No affidavit from the company or anything like that. My lawyer also said that if at a future date they did show they were not the manufacture of the rounds, he would agree to drop them from the case.
The third point was that even if all of this was true, I have not shown that I was deceived in anyway and that I did not have any damages since I got an ounce of silver and that was what I was expecting. My lawyer countered that this was not true, and that I was damaged because I got an item that was illegal, and I could not resell this at a trade show, I was just stuck with it. He also pointed out that the hobby protection act does not require me to be deceived in order to have a cause of action.
After both sides presented their cases, the judge said that she would take it under advisement. She also said that in all her years on the bench this was her first Hobby Protection Act case, so she had some studying to do on the law. This is not surprising since this is only the 3rd Hobby protection act case in the courts. I took her comments to mean that we would probably have to wait a while for her ruling.
I was very impressed with the whole procedure and how very professional everyone was. I was also pleased that the judge seemed very engaged and interested in all the arguments. Each side got a half hour each, but neither side took all of their time, I would say it lasted about 45 minutes total.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>The companies that make these silver rounds use designs that they know collectors like because it helps them sell. Same thing goes for all the copper rounds. Just like the U.S. mint did when it did the UHR, and the 1oz Buffalo, and the Silver Eagle. You can get them with just about any classic U.S. Coin design on them.
So what are the damages if they bought these rounds instead of real eagles? $1 or $2 per round. I applaud your devotion to trying to protect people from themselves, and don't doubt that your lawyers can convince a bunch of non numismatists/collectors how evil this company is. I guess we don't need to hold individuals accountable for their own actions anymore....we should just blame all those evil companies that are forcing us and tricking us to buy these items without letting us do our own due diligence. >>
If someone buys 1000 of these from a telephone salesperson it can add up pretty quick. I have met people who have been burned by these types of products and it is quite sad. They should clearly say copy on them if they are misrepresenting a U.S. coin design in my opinion.
Do ASE's fit this definition?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
So a typical US Mint Silver Eagle is worth about $22. And one of these silver rounds is worth about $20. The people that you have had to break the "bad news" to, how much above (or below) the silver "spot" price did they pay for the thing ? Maybe these people got more silver for their money buying the private-mint rounds than they would have by buying US Mint Silver Eagles ? >>
If you were a coin dealer, would you pay $20 for a coin (round, copy, thing), if you had no idea if it were silver or not? Could be .999 fine, could be .5 fine, could be layered in a thin coat of silver?
I wouldn't. >>
My friend Dave is a coin dealer. Part of his business is refining silver and gold. He has an X-Ray Florescence (XRF) gun which can measure the purity of an elemental sample. He buys all types of silver rounds - doesn't really matter what kind as long as they test as 999 silver. >>
An XRF gun can be fooled by a heavy plating, the only way to know for sure that it is .999 is by melting it or other destructive means. Also, you should ask your friend if he pays more for a silver eagle than he does for something that he has to melt.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Tom
<< <i>
<< <i>The companies that make these silver rounds use designs that they know collectors like because it helps them sell. Same thing goes for all the copper rounds. Just like the U.S. mint did when it did the UHR, and the 1oz Buffalo, and the Silver Eagle. You can get them with just about any classic U.S. Coin design on them.
So what are the damages if they bought these rounds instead of real eagles? $1 or $2 per round. I applaud your devotion to trying to protect people from themselves, and don't doubt that your lawyers can convince a bunch of non numismatists/collectors how evil this company is. I guess we don't need to hold individuals accountable for their own actions anymore....we should just blame all those evil companies that are forcing us and tricking us to buy these items without letting us do our own due diligence. >>
If someone buys 1000 of these from a telephone salesperson it can add up pretty quick. I have met people who have been burned by these types of products and it is quite sad. They should clearly say copy on them if they are misrepresenting a U.S. coin design in my opinion. >>
I know of at least one person who was ripped off by a telephone sales person selling PCGS certified U.S. Gold as well. Prices that even though gold nearly quadrupled in value they are still buried in the coins. But we aren't talking about suing the telemarketer, we are talking about suing the company that makes them, and likely doesn't try to represent them as anything but .999 silver rounds.
If someone called me tomorrow and told me I should buy 1000 of anything, I would think I would have enough sense to check into it a bit before blindly writing a check. Also, the plaintiff's lawyer told the judge he had damages because he couldn't sell the copy coin at a trade show is BS. Take it to any dealer who buys silver and they would buy it. Maybe not for what he paid, but it would sell.
My Ebay Store
<< <i>(3) The term “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 or event. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals.
Do ASE's fit this definition? >>
If you look at the statute that authorized the minting of the Silver Eagle, the Liberty coin act of 1985, by law it is a coin and as such a numismatic item.
Sec. 202. Minting of Silver Coins.
Section 5112 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out subsections (e) and (f) and inserting in lieu thereof the following new subsections:``(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall mint and issue, in quantities sufficient to meet public demand, coins which—``(1) are 40.6 millimeters in diameter and weigh 31.103 grams;``(2) contain .999 fine silver;``(3) have a design—``(A) symbolic of Liberty on the obverse side; and``(B) of an eagle on the reverse side;``(4) have inscriptions of the year of minting or issuance, and the words 'Liberty', 'In God We Trust', 'United States of America', '1 Oz. Fine Silver', 'E Pluribus Unum', and 'One Dollar'; and``(5) have reeded edges.``(f) The Secretary shall sell the coins minted under subsection (e) to the public at a price equal to the market value of the bullion at the time of sale, plus the cost of minting, marketing, and distributing such coins (including labor, materials, dyes [sic], use of machinery, and overhead expenses).``(g) For purposes of section 5132(a)(1) of this title, all coins minted under subsection (e) of this section shall be considered to be numismatic items.``(h) The coins issued under this title shall be legal tender as provided in section 5103 of title 31, United States Code.´´
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The companies that make these silver rounds use designs that they know collectors like because it helps them sell. Same thing goes for all the copper rounds. Just like the U.S. mint did when it did the UHR, and the 1oz Buffalo, and the Silver Eagle. You can get them with just about any classic U.S. Coin design on them.
So what are the damages if they bought these rounds instead of real eagles? $1 or $2 per round. I applaud your devotion to trying to protect people from themselves, and don't doubt that your lawyers can convince a bunch of non numismatists/collectors how evil this company is. I guess we don't need to hold individuals accountable for their own actions anymore....we should just blame all those evil companies that are forcing us and tricking us to buy these items without letting us do our own due diligence. >>
If someone buys 1000 of these from a telephone salesperson it can add up pretty quick. I have met people who have been burned by these types of products and it is quite sad. They should clearly say copy on them if they are misrepresenting a U.S. coin design in my opinion. >>
I know of at least one person who was ripped off by a telephone sales person selling PCGS certified U.S. Gold as well. Prices that even though gold nearly quadrupled in value they are still buried in the coins. But we aren't talking about suing the telemarketer, we are talking about suing the company that makes them, and likely doesn't try to represent them as anything but .999 silver rounds.
If someone called me tomorrow and told me I should buy 1000 of anything, I would think I would have enough sense to check into it a bit before blindly writing a check. Also, the plaintiff's lawyer told the judge he had damages because he couldn't sell the copy coin at a trade show is BS. Take it to any dealer who buys silver and they would buy it. Maybe not for what he paid, but it would sell. >>
The organizers of the main trade show I attend, as I imagine most all trade show organizers do, has a strict rule that no one is allowed to sell an imitation numismatic items unless they are marked with the word copy. Had I received the defendants round and it was marked with "copy" I would have no problem reselling the silver round, and I would have been happy to do so. I think the main point of my lawyer is that the round is illegal, so I am entitled to damages per the statute.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
At the shop, people come in every day and ask what's the difference in all the silver. It takes a while to get through all the differences, sure. I'm sure the same plays out all over the country. That shouldn't limit the options. You can bet that if the US mint had a problem with these rounds THEY would have issue with them. Is this about premium differences? I hate to say it but this seems like busy body work and a waste of time and energy.
The organizers of the main trade show I attend, as I imagine most all trade show organizers do, has a strict rule that no one is allowed to sell an imitation numismatic items unless they are marked with the word copy. Had I received the defendants round and it was marked with "copy" I would have no problem reselling the silver round, and I would have been happy to do so. I think the main point of my lawyer is that the round is illegal, so I am entitled to damages per the statute. >>
So because 1 show you attended has this rule, you are due $20 +- for the round. So I guess other online bullion sellers items would not be allowed at this trade show either.
I don't see a copy stamp
Or here
Or here
These all have dates, and use the word liberty, and the phrase E. Pluribus Unum.
My Ebay Store
<< <i>The organizers of the main trade show I attend, as I imagine most all trade show organizers do, has a strict rule that no one is allowed to sell an imitation numismatic items unless they are marked with the word copy. Had I received the defendants round and it was marked with "copy" I would have no problem reselling the silver round, and I would have been happy to do so. I think the main point of my lawyer is that the round is illegal, so I am entitled to damages per the statute. >>
So because 1 show you attended has this rule, you are due $20 +- for the round. So I guess other online bullion sellers items would not be allowed at this trade show either.
I don't see a copy stamp
Or here
Or here
These all have dates, and use the word liberty, and the phrase E. Pluribus Unum. >>
Those are great examples. Very interesting and surprising to me.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Great job on seeing this through. I havent seen either of those rounds before and knowing that they are coming out of MN is saddening. Living in ND just miles down the road I'm glad none of my customers have been fooled by these yet. >>
Define "fooled" please.
These are silver rounds sold as silver rounds that kinda look like Silver Eagles.
I'm failing to see a real problem here. I also fail to see a connection between collecting "silver rounds" and "collecting coins" such as what the HPA was written for.
Half of me is hoping you lose your case and end up having to pay not only your own attorney's fee's but the fee's of the defendants as well. But that's just me.
If the pieces contain 1 oz of .999 fine silver as they are advertised, then I'm ok with it.
Again, that's just me. I try to educate the stupid, not make it easier for them to be even stupider.
I mean, lets look at the reality of the situation.
In late 1985, the United States Government decided to go into the "silver round" business by selling off the Strategic Silver Stockpile so that the "little guys" could get into precious metal investing without having to invest $500,000 at a time. At that time, they chose a design which was exactly like the Adolph A. Weinman Walking Liberty Half Dollar. They even gave it a legal denomination which, according to some reports, has confused some people into spending them for $1.
Regardless, Silver Eagles are nothing more than government made Silver Rounds and their intrinsic value is based upon the price of silver. >>
If I buy what is advertised to be a rolex watch for rolex watch prices and it turns out to be a Chinese fake, I would be pissed off. Yes, both watches can tell time but they are not the same thing.
Yes, the silver round may have 1 ounce of silver but it is not a silver eagle or whatever else they are trying to copy and the buyer will find that out when they try to sell it down the road. It is no different than any other type of knock off - coach bags, ugg boots, rolex watches, fake coins, etc........ If no one does anything about it, it will just keep on burning innocent victims.
Just my take on it
Ahhh. So, watchmakers cannot sell watches because they might look like Rolex's??
Whatever, it looks to me like they are selling Silver Rounds as well as Silver Eagles.
Good luck in your quest but I'm thinking that this is going to go nowhere.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
If someone buys 1000 of these from a telephone salesperson it can add up pretty quick. I have met people who have been burned by these types of products and it is quite sad. They should clearly say copy on them if they are misrepresenting a U.S. coin design in my opinion. >>
If the telephone salesperson calls the US Silver Eagles, then it would be fraud. If they call them silver rounds (and they are indeed silver rounds), then what difference would the word copy make? Obviously, you cannot see if the word copy exists if you are buying over the phone.
<< <i>
<< <i>
If someone buys 1000 of these from a telephone salesperson it can add up pretty quick. I have met people who have been burned by these types of products and it is quite sad. They should clearly say copy on them if they are misrepresenting a U.S. coin design in my opinion. >>
If the telephone salesperson calls the US Silver Eagles, then it would be fraud. If they call them silver rounds (and they are indeed silver rounds), then what difference would the word copy make? Obviously, you cannot see if the word copy exists if you are buying over the phone. >>
And all of this forgets that copy coins require copy
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
So a typical US Mint Silver Eagle is worth about $22. And one of these silver rounds is worth about $20. The people that you have had to break the "bad news" to, how much above (or below) the silver "spot" price did they pay for the thing ? Maybe these people got more silver for their money buying the private-mint rounds than they would have by buying US Mint Silver Eagles ? >>
If you were a coin dealer, would you pay $20 for a coin (round, copy, thing), if you had no idea if it were silver or not? Could be .999 fine, could be .5 fine, could be layered in a thin coat of silver?
I wouldn't. >>
My friend Dave is a coin dealer. Part of his business is refining silver and gold. He has an X-Ray Florescence (XRF) gun which can measure the purity of an elemental sample. He buys all types of silver rounds - doesn't really matter what kind as long as they test as 999 silver. >>
An XRF gun can be fooled by a heavy plating, the only way to know for sure that it is .999 is by melting it or other destructive means. Also, you should ask your friend if he pays more for a silver eagle than he does for something that he has to melt. >>
OR suggest that Daniel ask his friend if he'd ever buy the subject of your lawsuit as an authentic Silver Eagle?
BTW, since it is 1 ounce of .999 fine silver, you can sell it anywhere as long as you don't, like the defendant, sell it as an authentic Silver Eagle.
Your "claim" of being damaged, should be found to have no merit.
Did anybody read this part:
"Silver bullion rounds are the perfect way to buy silver. Now investors and collectors can get one of the most popular coin designs in history “ The American silver eagle” in a silver bullion round format."
I especially like this part:
"These rounds are slightly smaller in diameter than a silver eagle coin measuring 39mm but are also thicker than a silver eagle coin."
How much does your attorney, whom you've just met, charge by the hour?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The companies that make these silver rounds use designs that they know collectors like because it helps them sell. Same thing goes for all the copper rounds. Just like the U.S. mint did when it did the UHR, and the 1oz Buffalo, and the Silver Eagle. You can get them with just about any classic U.S. Coin design on them.
So what are the damages if they bought these rounds instead of real eagles? $1 or $2 per round. I applaud your devotion to trying to protect people from themselves, and don't doubt that your lawyers can convince a bunch of non numismatists/collectors how evil this company is. I guess we don't need to hold individuals accountable for their own actions anymore....we should just blame all those evil companies that are forcing us and tricking us to buy these items without letting us do our own due diligence. >>
If someone buys 1000 of these from a telephone salesperson it can add up pretty quick. I have met people who have been burned by these types of products and it is quite sad. They should clearly say copy on them if they are misrepresenting a U.S. coin design in my opinion. >>
I know of at least one person who was ripped off by a telephone sales person selling PCGS certified U.S. Gold as well. Prices that even though gold nearly quadrupled in value they are still buried in the coins. But we aren't talking about suing the telemarketer, we are talking about suing the company that makes them, and likely doesn't try to represent them as anything but .999 silver rounds.
If someone called me tomorrow and told me I should buy 1000 of anything, I would think I would have enough sense to check into it a bit before blindly writing a check. Also, the plaintiff's lawyer told the judge he had damages because he couldn't sell the copy coin at a trade show is BS. Take it to any dealer who buys silver and they would buy it. Maybe not for what he paid, but it would sell. >>
You need to know the difference between "apples and oranges" as this thread is about apples yet you keep bringing up oranges?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The companies that make these silver rounds use designs that they know collectors like because it helps them sell. Same thing goes for all the copper rounds. Just like the U.S. mint did when it did the UHR, and the 1oz Buffalo, and the Silver Eagle. You can get them with just about any classic U.S. Coin design on them.
So what are the damages if they bought these rounds instead of real eagles? $1 or $2 per round. I applaud your devotion to trying to protect people from themselves, and don't doubt that your lawyers can convince a bunch of non numismatists/collectors how evil this company is. I guess we don't need to hold individuals accountable for their own actions anymore....we should just blame all those evil companies that are forcing us and tricking us to buy these items without letting us do our own due diligence. >>
If someone buys 1000 of these from a telephone salesperson it can add up pretty quick. I have met people who have been burned by these types of products and it is quite sad. They should clearly say copy on them if they are misrepresenting a U.S. coin design in my opinion. >>
I know of at least one person who was ripped off by a telephone sales person selling PCGS certified U.S. Gold as well. Prices that even though gold nearly quadrupled in value they are still buried in the coins. But we aren't talking about suing the telemarketer, we are talking about suing the company that makes them, and likely doesn't try to represent them as anything but .999 silver rounds.
If someone called me tomorrow and told me I should buy 1000 of anything, I would think I would have enough sense to check into it a bit before blindly writing a check. Also, the plaintiff's lawyer told the judge he had damages because he couldn't sell the copy coin at a trade show is BS. Take it to any dealer who buys silver and they would buy it. Maybe not for what he paid, but it would sell. >>
You need to know the difference between "apples and oranges" as this thread is about apples yet you keep bringing up oranges? >>
I am trying to respond to statements made by others about how these are so deceiving, and how people can be taken advantage of. I am merely pointing out that the silver round and the manufacture here aren't the villains.
My Ebay Store
I hope the OP wins his case and I hope any coin design COPY has to be marked COPY or isn't created.
I don't care if the base value is close to the same. It can be difficult for new collectors and it can lead to others getting more murky as well. Stop muddying the waters. It should be or it shouldn't be.
Either you support counterfeits or you are against them. Silver rounds, imho, that closely resemble the design of a real "coin", fall into the counterfeit realm as well. To me at least, and it would appear a few others.
Some people just love to argue every little point to hear themselves so they can keep thinking how smart they are.
If someone wants a silver round, there is NO REASON (other than pure profiting from the resemblance) that someone needs to create the round to resemble any real released numismatic item in design/form.
I have a silver round, I call "heads and tail" of a woman. No coin and not a picture I could show here. I paid a premium for that round some years back. Bought a few. Gave some out as gifts and they were warmly received (by the guys, if not their wives
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
So a typical US Mint Silver Eagle is worth about $22. And one of these silver rounds is worth about $20. The people that you have had to break the "bad news" to, how much above (or below) the silver "spot" price did they pay for the thing ? Maybe these people got more silver for their money buying the private-mint rounds than they would have by buying US Mint Silver Eagles ? >>
If you were a coin dealer, would you pay $20 for a coin (round, copy, thing), if you had no idea if it were silver or not? Could be .999 fine, could be .5 fine, could be layered in a thin coat of silver?
I wouldn't. >>
My friend Dave is a coin dealer. Part of his business is refining silver and gold. He has an X-Ray Florescence (XRF) gun which can measure the purity of an elemental sample. He buys all types of silver rounds - doesn't really matter what kind as long as they test as 999 silver. >>
An XRF gun can be fooled by a heavy plating, the only way to know for sure that it is .999 is by melting it or other destructive means. Also, you should ask your friend if he pays more for a silver eagle than he does for something that he has to melt. >>
I already indicated that US Silver Eagles are worth about $2 more than "generic" rounds. If you want to buy silver, also keep in mind that "generic" rounds will usually cost you about $2 less per ounce. Some people want that option.
At the moment my friend pays a little over $19 for generic silver rounds and a little under $21 for US Silver Eagles.
The only way to know for sure that any coin (government-issue or not) contains the proper amount of metal is to melt it.
Some government-issue coins have been hollowed out and filled with lead or tungsten.
<< <i>The ones here fall into that realm....PLAGIARIZATIONS. Nothing more. >>
The Silver Eagle design in question is not copyrighted.
That might mean that such use of the design is not plagiarism.
Neither the manufacturer nor the seller claimed that the design was their own work.
<< <i>I know of at least one person who was ripped off by a telephone sales person selling PCGS certified U.S. Gold as well. Prices that even though gold nearly quadrupled in value they are still buried in the coins. But we aren't talking about suing the telemarketer, we are talking about suing the company that makes them, and likely doesn't try to represent them as anything but .999 silver rounds.
If someone called me tomorrow and told me I should buy 1000 of anything, I would think I would have enough sense to check into it a bit before blindly writing a check. Also, the plaintiff's lawyer told the judge he had damages because he couldn't sell the copy coin at a trade show is BS. Take it to any dealer who buys silver and they would buy it. Maybe not for what he paid, but it would sell. >>
I agree.
<< <i>The organizers of the main trade show I attend, as I imagine most all trade show organizers do, has a strict rule that no one is allowed to sell an imitation numismatic items unless they are marked with the word copy. Had I received the defendants round and it was marked with "copy" I would have no problem reselling the silver round, and I would have been happy to do so. I think the main point of my lawyer is that the round is illegal, so I am entitled to damages per the statute. >>
I'd be interested to hear more about this coin show where selling one of these silver rounds wouldn't be allowed. What show is it ?
Can we get those show organizers to comment right here on this forum as to where they stand on silver rounds like these ?
I don't think it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that the rounds in question constitute "imitation numismatic items".
To me, they don't purport to be any kind of numismatic item other than a generic silver round.
Let the court decide in this particular case. THEN let us all know.
May be that this sets a precedent for others and that is why they are worried. No matter, let's wait until it is finished and then see what happens.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
If someone buys 1000 of these from a telephone salesperson it can add up pretty quick. I have met people who have been burned by these types of products and it is quite sad. They should clearly say copy on them if they are misrepresenting a U.S. coin design in my opinion. >>
If the telephone salesperson calls the US Silver Eagles, then it would be fraud. If they call them silver rounds (and they are indeed silver rounds), then what difference would the word copy make? Obviously, you cannot see if the word copy exists if you are buying over the phone. >>
And all of this forgets that copy coins require copy >>
It would be fraudulent to mark these silver rounds with a "COPY" since they changed the design and hence they are not copies of the ASE's. They changed the legends, they removed the date, they removed the denomination, they changed the shield, etc. Someone in an earlier post gave an example of someone casting a Morgan dollar. This coin would require a "COPY" mark since it actually copies the original design.
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 thank the OP for bringing this all up, but, as per usual, he should probably have waited as people are demanding more from him, putting their own personal feelings into this, and trying to say what is/isn't right. >>
This is a public forum. What you are describing is exactly what is supposed to happen here.
A claim was made that the silver rounds are banned at a certain coin show.
I'd like to get confirmation from the organizers of that show.
I collect certain vintage counterfeits ("privately-made" Morgan Dollar VAMs, for example).
I've also bought and sold all kinds of silver rounds over the years, including some that look a little bit like 1804 Bust Dollars, Indian/Buffalo nickels, etc.
I've never been prevented from doing so at any coin show that I've ever attended (nor should I).
<< <i>How much does your attorney, whom you've just met, charge by the hour?
I'm guessing it's going to get expensive especially when he has to defend himself from a countersuit.
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
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
So you can't sell these rounds at ONE particular coin show, big deal. They can certainly be bought and sold at hundreds of other shows without prejudice. There is no way that these could be mistaken as the government issued bullion coins and there is a ready market for items of this nature. The Liberty dollar rounds were indeed illegal as they had the words 'Dollars' as an integral part of the design. Damages? How on earth have you been damaged? You bought an ounce of silver as an ounce of silver at the prevailing retail market price. One show allegedly won't let you sell them, so what? There are coin shows that won't allow the sale of coin jewelry, does that make a seller of these damaged? I think not.
Discussing the issue on an open forum prior to the conclusion of this litigation is one huge mistake and had I been involved and done something of this nature, I assure you that my attorneys would have disemboweled me on the spot.
Run Forest, run!
Shoulda picked an exact replica/counterfeit item to fight in court and OPs attorneys should have realized this.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
BHNC #203
<< <i>So, what is the status? >>
Oral arguments on the defense motion to dismiss were yesterday. Waiting for the judge to rule.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>Silver round in question has no denomination, no date, and violates no copyright laws. Round is not a replica and requires no annotation as such. Really no different, legally, than the popular 10 oz. silver bars that bear the same walking liberty image. If judge does her homework, defendent will walk and plaintiff may owe his lawyers if prior waiving of fee in event of loss was not agreed upon.
Shoulda picked an exact replica/counterfeit item to fight in court and OPs attorneys should have realized this. >>
Exact replica? Isn't that a contradiction?
Also, after all the chinese fakes cursed on here people are now nit picking these and saying they don't match and don't need copy. They only need to be similar to require copy. Similar is on the eye of the beholder, but the front and back of these are made a certain way and look a certain way, and that is to mimic an ASE.
Just because one can sell a "copy"-less does not mean it is legal to do so.
<< <i>
<< <i>Silver round in question has no denomination, no date, and violates no copyright laws. Round is not a replica and requires no annotation as such. Really no different, legally, than the popular 10 oz. silver bars that bear the same walking liberty image. If judge does her homework, defendent will walk and plaintiff may owe his lawyers if prior waiving of fee in event of loss was not agreed upon.
Shoulda picked an exact replica/counterfeit item to fight in court and OPs attorneys should have realized this. >>
Exact replica? Isn't that a contradiction?
Also, after all the chinese fakes cursed on here people are now nit picking these and saying they don't match and don't need copy. They only need to be similar to require copy. Similar is on the eye of the beholder, but the front and back of these are made a certain way and look a certain way, and that is to mimic an ASE.
Just because one can sell a "copy"-less does not mean it is legal to do so. >>
The chinese (and other) fakes cursed here are replicas that exactly resemble the real McCoy down to the date and denomination. Using a popular, non-copyrighted design on a round does not make it a "fake" coin and does not mean it violates the Hobby Act. A round that needs to be marked copy is just that, an exact copy of the real McCoy.
Is this a violation of the Hobby Act?
Or this?
Or how about this?
I applaud the OP for his willingness to fight, he just needs to pick the right fight. If the judge sides with him it will be because she did not do her homework and because the defendent's lawyers did not do their homework.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
<< <i> This is a train wreck in motion. Don Quixote tilting at the windmills, a veritable tiger by the tail. >>
The only winners will be the attorneys and I suspect it won't take long for the judge to dismiss the case.
<< <i>I applaud the OP and wish him well. His only mistake was letting the folks here know. Tough, unforgiving, grumpy crowd >>
I wish the OP well too. But the crowd isn't grumpy at all. We are rightfully questioning his motive and standing in this highly unusual case.
Most people bring suit to obtain something--monetary damages or even justice. It sounds like the OP wasn't really harmed and is just being "goody two shoes." That, I think, is the cause of the concern. What does the OP gain by all of this? Notoriety?
I quote from the regulation itself:
"(d) Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified. The term shall not include any re-issue or re-strike of any original numismatic item by the United States or any foreign government.
...
(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."
Source: Link to FTC web page
Yes...it's pretty vague, and open to interpretation. Which is why this is a valid pursuit?? While I'm personally in favor of ANY re-use of US Government designs being properly stamped, I can see where these definitions will be the crux of any case.
To those who think the regulations require that the item be an EXACT replica, I offer this ammendment that was accepted:
"After the rules were promulgated,
miniature imitation numismatic items
became more popular in the market.
Marking some of these miniature
imitations has posed a hardship since
many are as small as or smaller than the
minimum size required for the word
"Copy." When an item covered by the
rules is of such a small size that it is
impossible to conform with the
minimum size requirement, the
manufacturer must request the
Commission to issue a variance.
...
The amendment to the rule permits
manufacturers of miniature numismatic
items to mark the word "Copy" in
smaller dimensions than those required
under the present rule. For example, a
coin having a diameter of only six
millimeters could have the word "Copy"
in a horizontal dimension of no less than
one-half the diameter or three
millimeters. The vertical dimension
would be required to be no less than
one-sixth of the diameter or one
millimeter."
Link to ammendment
So, they certainly seem to accept that non-exact replicas, at least in size, are still subject to the rule. Consulting a judge on presence or absense of dates, denomination, etc. may be the only way to clarify the requirements for THOSE element?
For your own research:
Main FTC page for Hobby Protection Act
It's an interesting topic. I know what MY stance is....but I'm not going to "play lawyer". Instead, I'll follow this case....
<< <i>Is there a difference between a near/close copy and an almost exact copy? >>
In regard to the Timberwolf ROUND, where it has an entirely different reverse (not to mention, a different silver content) than the actual Timberwolf COIN, I'd guess this coin would be called a 'not even close' copy???
The OP states:
"Instead of the Queen opposite the timber wolf like they have on the real coin, these copies have a maple leaf.
Wouldn't this statement work in the defense's favor? Hasn't the OP given a perfectly valid reason why this is NOT a 'knockoff', as he states it IS in his opening post? I have no legal experience in frivolous lawsuits, but...I'd think that if you said this in front of the judge, the person who you are trying to convince these ARE actual 'copies'(or 'knockoffs', as the OP calls them), made to deceive buyers into thinking they are buying actual monetized coins, well.......I'm no lawyer, but I'd think the defense could use a witness like the OP.
<< <i>I applaud the OP and wish him well. His only mistake was letting the folks here know. Tough, unforgiving, grumpy crowd >>
Huh?
How about a real world practical crowd since the arguments presented are weak at best and will be proven weak.
I doubt that the judge will see it any differently once she understands that the OP paid for and received an ounce of silver which is clearly described as "an ounce of silver".
Especially since the OP knowingly entered this transaction with the intent to follow up with civil litigation and the only damages he'll suffer will be at his own hand.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>I thank the OP for bringing this all up, but, as per usual, he should probably have waited as people are demanding more from him, putting their own personal feelings into this, and trying to say what is/isn't right.
Let the court decide in this particular case. THEN let us all know.
May be that this sets a precedent for others and that is why they are worried. No matter, let's wait until it is finished and then see what happens. >>
I am not "worried" in the least bit. I'm simply commenting on what I feel is a frivolous and very weak court case.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>I applaud the OP and wish him well. His only mistake was letting the folks here know. Tough, unforgiving, grumpy crowd >>
Huh?
How about a real world practical crowd since the arguments presented are weak at best and will be proven weak.
I doubt that the judge will see it any differently once she understands that the OP paid for and received an ounce of silver which is clearly described as "an ounce of silver".
Especially since the OP knowingly entered this transaction with the intent to follow up with civil litigation and the only damages he'll suffer will be at his own hand. >>
Here is a short prior thread which has some bearing on the current situation:
Collectors Universe forum thread
.
I just don't see any particular problem with making or selling these silver rounds.
Compared to this, there are other things in the numismatic world that are far more concerning (actual fraud such as faked PCGS holders, for example).
And outside of numismatics there are things going on that are far worse than that, by several orders of magnitude.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I applaud the OP and wish him well. His only mistake was letting the folks here know. Tough, unforgiving, grumpy crowd >>
Huh?
How about a real world practical crowd since the arguments presented are weak at best and will be proven weak.
I doubt that the judge will see it any differently once she understands that the OP paid for and received an ounce of silver which is clearly described as "an ounce of silver".
Especially since the OP knowingly entered this transaction with the intent to follow up with civil litigation and the only damages he'll suffer will be at his own hand. >>
Here is a short prior thread which has some bearing on the current situation:
Collectors Universe forum thread
. >>
So, the OP DID buy silver ROUNDS, and KNEW them to be nothing more than silver ROUNDS, and WASN'T deceived, or suffer some sort of damage???
Shhh....did anyone hear that? I swear I heard the 'fat lady' sing.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I applaud the OP and wish him well. His only mistake was letting the folks here know. Tough, unforgiving, grumpy crowd >>
Huh?
How about a real world practical crowd since the arguments presented are weak at best and will be proven weak.
I doubt that the judge will see it any differently once she understands that the OP paid for and received an ounce of silver which is clearly described as "an ounce of silver".
Especially since the OP knowingly entered this transaction with the intent to follow up with civil litigation and the only damages he'll suffer will be at his own hand. >>
Here is a short prior thread which has some bearing on the current situation:
Collectors Universe forum thread
. >>
Since it is public record on an open forum, I think that this just about kills any chances the OP ever entertained of having a victory.
The name is LEE!
Methinks there'll be some editing going on.