<< <i>Interesting. The "Freedom Tower Silver Dollar" (FTSD) did not say "USA" or United States of America" on it. The design was not similar enough to any legal tender US coin or any existing numismatic item to cause confusion. The original issue was advertised by National Collectors Mint (NCM) as being a "Government-Issue Silver Dollar", issued by the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). The "coin" itself was in no way deceptive. The advertising for it, however, was another matter. The CNMI is a protectorate of the USA and even though a high-ranking CNMI official granted permission to NCM to declare CNMI legal-tender status for the FTSD, the CNMI has no authority to issue its own currency. So that is the real reason NCM got into trouble (and also because the advertising misled some people into believing that it was solid WTC recovery silver even though most of the "coins" were only plated).
If this FTSD was deemed to be a violation of the HPA, why then was NCM allowed to continue marketing the same-design coin from 2005 to 2010 (as a legal tender Cook Islands issue) ?
PS: Here is some info on the FTSD (scroll down on this page about 25% of the way): Freedom Tower "Dollars" >>
<< <i>I might know where the confusion is coming from. There were actually two different cases against the National Collector's Mint. The whole thing started with DeMarco v. National Collector’s Mint, 229 F.R.D. 73 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) this was a HPA class action lawsuit. Then Eliot Spitzer got ahold of the issue and started his own lawsuit. It seems most of the information on your website is about the Eliot Spitzer lawsuit. In DeMarco the judge ruled the FTSD an "imitation numismatic item" and thus a violation of the HPA. There was then a settlement. I think the published amount of the settlement was $9 million, or something like that.
I think I learned from your website that they continued to make it, but as a cook Islands issued coin. My guess is they were able to do this because the Cook Islands were legally allowed to issue legal tender coins, so at that point it became a real (although a foreign) coin, and no longer an imitation numismatic item. >>
So, according to the Demarco case, Bernard von NotHaus was actually pedaling "imitation numismatic items" and the counterfeiting charges should be dismissed?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
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 wonder what this means with regard to the suit? >>
Sure sounds like validation of the suit, at least to a degree. A tacit admission of guilt.
It seems to me that the HPA's primary purpose is to protect the general public who are essentially without knowledge regarding the hobby, say a kid just starting out or somebody who decides to pick up a coin as a unique present but has no little or no experience regarding coins and precious metals. Someone who perhaps saw a ASE in the past and then saw this and thought they were the same. Someone who is not knowledgeable will not know what is missing or what should be there.
WM knew what they were doing by approaching the edge of what is and what isn't. An ethical company would have put "copy" on from day one to be honest and up front. WM knew exactly what they were doing in trying to grab a few more sales.
I've heard our favorite coin guy on the tube discussing Morgans, saying they were 100% silver. He just chose to leave out "coin" between 100% and silver. That is gray area deception. Especially when it comes to an audience lacking in depth knowledge of the subject. After I sent a complaint in to the XXX Network concerning his description he used the phrase "solid coin silver".
When is an ounce of silver not an ounce of silver. Seems to be this is the time. Those that "copy" is supposed to protect are to stupid to even matter. This suit is an example of everything that is wrong in this country.
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
<< <i>When is an ounce of silver not an ounce of silver. Seems to be this is the time. Those that "copy" is supposed to protect are to stupid to even matter. This suit is an example of everything that is wrong in this country. >>
So you are saying that people who do not know about what is a real numismatic item and what is not are to (too) stupid to matter? If that is the case I do not like that comment as most people who are not involved in numismatics have very little knowledge of US currency. I have had people ask me if buffalo nickels are real, I have had people as me if mercury dimes are real, I have had people stare in disbelief that my 1922 peace dollar is real and many more items. Does every person on this board know what every coin minted by the United States looks like? Does everyone know what coins/tokens were used for currency for the entire history of the United States? People are being deceived all the time by people who make counterfeits and or copies and place them into our market, I can say that at some time most people even on this sight have had a question as to the authenticity of a numismatic item, this is evidenced by the continual questions regarding this issue. I can also say that my 68yo mother and my 11yo son do not know much if anything about American silver eagles, just look at all the stories we see about some older person being taken advantage of because they do not know what their coins are worth.
I see the possibility that this suit could help clear up some confusion for those that don't know about numismatics and may even bring the issues we are facing regarding counterfeit coins coming from foreign countries and our own boarders to light. This could lead to the right people looking into these issues and we need that as I see on a daily basis well over 100 counterfeit/fake or unmarked copies of US coinage on line for sale at a large number of different sites. Rant over have a nice night and my your up coming new year be a great one and 10X better than the last.
I realize from your first post in this thread that you've been "troubled" by silver rounds that utilize design themes found on government-issue coins (designs which are not copyrighted and are public domain, by the way).
But why go after these two inconsequential rounds when there are much bigger sharks in the waters. I don't see anything wrong with the two silver rounds - people who buy them are getting their money's worth, or close to it. We've all seen fake coins sold on eBay and I think those are far more troubling. So why not instead go after the Chinese (or whoever) that make them and/or eBay for enabling the transfer of such "coins" ?
I realize from your first post in this thread that you've been "troubled" by silver rounds that utilize design themes found on government-issue coins (designs which are not copyrighted and are public domain, by the way). >>
Daniel,
If what you say is actually true, and I would be fairly shocked if it is, you just opened the door to saying that there is no such thing as 'counterfeiting' money? Counterfeiters use the same 'design themes' as, say, on Federally issued coinage, to make their counterfeits. Rarely do the counterfeiters get every detail perfectly accurate, and therefore their work could be considered a slight variation on a 'design theme'.
I realize from your first post in this thread that you've been "troubled" by silver rounds that utilize design themes found on government-issue coins (designs which are not copyrighted and are public domain, by the way).
But why go after these two inconsequential rounds when there are much bigger sharks in the waters. I don't see anything wrong with the two silver rounds - people who buy them are getting their money's worth, or close to it. We've all seen fake coins sold on eBay and I think those are far more troubling. So why not instead go after the Chinese (or whoever) that make them and/or eBay for enabling the transfer of such "coins" ? >>
I think this falls into the category of things I should not answer right now. I will be happy to answer this after the case is resolved.
I realize from your first post in this thread that you've been "troubled" by silver rounds that utilize design themes found on government-issue coins (designs which are not copyrighted and are public domain, by the way). >>
Daniel,
If what you say is actually true, and I would be fairly shocked if it is, you just opened the door to saying that there is no such thing as 'counterfeiting' money? Counterfeiters use the same 'design themes' as, say, on Federally issued coinage, to make their counterfeits. Rarely do the counterfeiters get every detail perfectly accurate, and therefore their work could be considered a slight variation on a 'design theme'. >>
Counterfeiters break laws beyond just potential copyright issues. They are committing fraud.
I realize from your first post in this thread that you've been "troubled" by silver rounds that utilize design themes found on government-issue coins (designs which are not copyrighted and are public domain, by the way). >>
Daniel,
If what you say is actually true, and I would be fairly shocked if it is, you just opened the door to saying that there is no such thing as 'counterfeiting' money? Counterfeiters use the same 'design themes' as, say, on Federally issued coinage, to make their counterfeits. Rarely do the counterfeiters get every detail perfectly accurate, and therefore their work could be considered a slight variation on a 'design theme'. >>
Counterfeiters break laws beyond just potential copyright issues. They are committing fraud. >>
Sounds pretty cut-and-dry then (which it isn't). The OP should win his court case without issue since you, davideo, agree that the people/company making those silver rounds are committing fraud/counterfeiting Federally issued coins.
I might know where the confusion is coming from. There were actually two different cases against the National Collector's Mint. The whole thing started with DeMarco v. National Collector’s Mint, 229 F.R.D. 73 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) this was a HPA class action lawsuit. Then Eliot Spitzer got ahold of the issue and started his own lawsuit. It seems most of the information on your website is about the Eliot Spitzer lawsuit. In DeMarco the judge ruled the FTSD an "imitation numismatic item" and thus a violation of the HPA. There was then a settlement. I think the published amount of the settlement was $9 million, or something like that.
I think I learned from your website that they continued to make it, but as a cook Islands issued coin. My guess is they were able to do this because the Cook Islands were legally allowed to issue legal tender coins, so at that point it became a real (although a foreign) coin, and no longer an imitation numismatic item. >>
Then Daniel Carr said...
>>
So the judge declares that the original (first) issue of the FTSD is an "imitation numismatic item". But the same basic design, reissued via a different surrogate country and advertised in a less deceptive manner, is ok. The first issue was not actually legal tender, although a CNMI official indicated that it was, and the "coin" was advertised as a legal tender "government-issue silver dollar". The second issue is Cook islands legal tender (although I bet you'd have a very hard time using it in that manner). So the judge apparently is putting a lot of weight on the legal tender status and on how the item was marketed. The emphasis on that criteria would seem favorable to my situation because my marketing/advertising of the fantasy-date over-strike coins was always very clear and accurate. I never made any legal tender status claims about my fantasy-date over-strikes (their legal tender status is unknown since there are no statutes which specify how much mutilation a coin can have while still retaining legal tender status). >>
Now I say...
In the Demarco case the judge ruled the FTSD was an "imitation numismatic item." However, there was no ruling on the same coin issued under the Cook Islands, because no one brought suit against the manufacture of that coin. I was just speculating as to why they might not have trouble with the cook Island version. So I am not sure it was fair to conclude the judge was putting weight on the legal tender status. I don't think that came into play at all in the Demarco case. Also, I don't think the judge in the Demarco case really put much stock into how the coin was marketed. There was even a line in his ruling indicating he would have come to the same conclusion even without looking at the advertising.
In addition to looking at the DeMarco case for guidance on determining if you need to put "copy" on your over strikes, You may want to look at the actual Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidance. The HPA gives the FTC authority to define the requirements under the HPA. Here is how the regulations define an Imitation Numismatic item. The emphasis added is mine.
§ 304.1 Terms defined.
(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.
you did somewhat good for the hobby not impressive when you go after fake coin makers in china and other nations and stop them let me know and when you clean up E-bay and other sites
of fake coin sellers then you have done well
till then you are a very minor person who seems to have his sights in the wrong place
I realize from your first post in this thread that you've been "troubled" by silver rounds that utilize design themes found on government-issue coins (designs which are not copyrighted and are public domain, by the way). >>
Daniel,
If what you say is actually true, and I would be fairly shocked if it is, you just opened the door to saying that there is no such thing as 'counterfeiting' money? Counterfeiters use the same 'design themes' as, say, on Federally issued coinage, to make their counterfeits. Rarely do the counterfeiters get every detail perfectly accurate, and therefore their work could be considered a slight variation on a 'design theme'. >>
Of course it is illegal to make a false coin and try to pass it off as legal tender - regardless of the copyright status of the design itself. But if you make and sell t-shirts with an image of a US Silver Eagle on them, that is ok because the Silver Eagle design was paid for with tax dollars and so by law it is public domain and can not be copyrighted. If you were to make and sell t-shirts with an image of a Sacagawea Dollar on them, that could be a problem because the Sacagawea Dollar obverse is one of the few US coin designs that actually is copyrighted.
I might know where the confusion is coming from. There were actually two different cases against the National Collector's Mint. The whole thing started with DeMarco v. National Collector’s Mint, 229 F.R.D. 73 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) this was a HPA class action lawsuit. Then Eliot Spitzer got ahold of the issue and started his own lawsuit. It seems most of the information on your website is about the Eliot Spitzer lawsuit. In DeMarco the judge ruled the FTSD an "imitation numismatic item" and thus a violation of the HPA. There was then a settlement. I think the published amount of the settlement was $9 million, or something like that.
I think I learned from your website that they continued to make it, but as a cook Islands issued coin. My guess is they were able to do this because the Cook Islands were legally allowed to issue legal tender coins, so at that point it became a real (although a foreign) coin, and no longer an imitation numismatic item. >>
Then Daniel Carr said...
>>
So the judge declares that the original (first) issue of the FTSD is an "imitation numismatic item". But the same basic design, reissued via a different surrogate country and advertised in a less deceptive manner, is ok. The first issue was not actually legal tender, although a CNMI official indicated that it was, and the "coin" was advertised as a legal tender "government-issue silver dollar". The second issue is Cook islands legal tender (although I bet you'd have a very hard time using it in that manner). So the judge apparently is putting a lot of weight on the legal tender status and on how the item was marketed. The emphasis on that criteria would seem favorable to my situation because my marketing/advertising of the fantasy-date over-strike coins was always very clear and accurate. I never made any legal tender status claims about my fantasy-date over-strikes (their legal tender status is unknown since there are no statutes which specify how much mutilation a coin can have while still retaining legal tender status). >>
Now I say...
In the Demarco case the judge ruled the FTSD was an "imitation numismatic item." However, there was no ruling on the same coin issued under the Cook Islands, because no one brought suit against the manufacture of that coin. I was just speculating as to why they might not have trouble with the cook Island version. So I am not sure it was fair to conclude the judge was putting weight on the legal tender status. I don't think that came into play at all in the Demarco case. Also, I don't think the judge in the Demarco case really put much stock into how the coin was marketed. There was even a line in his ruling indicating he would have come to the same conclusion even without looking at the advertising.
<< <i>
I'm surprised that NCM didn't appeal that ruling. If the FTSD was ruled by this judge to be an "imitation numismatic item", what did the judge say it was an imitation of ???
<< <i> In addition to looking at the DeMarco case for guidance on determining if you need to put "copy" on your over strikes, You may want to look at the actual Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidance. The HPA gives the FTC authority to define the requirements under the HPA. Here is how the regulations define an Imitation Numismatic item. The emphasis added is mine.
§ 304.1 Terms defined.
(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. >>
>>
Clearly, if you take a "1944-D" cent and grind off part of the "4" to make it look like a "1914-D" cent, then you have altered an original numismatic item. It still appears to be a Lincoln cent, so that part has not changed. What has changed is the apparent date. "1914-D" Lincoln cents were actually issued. Is a "1944-D" Lincoln cent a different "numismatic item" than a "1914-D" Lincoln cent ? Assuming the answer is yes, then the only reason that they are different is due to the date alone. So the date determines what an original numismatic item is. Would a "1900" Lincoln cent be an "original numismatic item" ? I say no because none were originally issued. So if you take a "1909" Lincoln cent and carve off part of the "9" to make it look like a "1900", have you made the coin appear to be a different original numismatic item ?
I realize from your first post in this thread that you've been "troubled" by silver rounds that utilize design themes found on government-issue coins (designs which are not copyrighted and are public domain, by the way).
But why go after these two inconsequential rounds when there are much bigger sharks in the waters. I don't see anything wrong with the two silver rounds - people who buy them are getting their money's worth, or close to it. We've all seen fake coins sold on eBay and I think those are far more troubling. So why not instead go after the Chinese (or whoever) that make them and/or eBay for enabling the transfer of such "coins" ? >>
I think this falls into the category of things I should not answer right now. I will be happy to answer this after the case is resolved. >>
Do you plan to pursue other makers/sellers in the future ?
Like the ANA for offering this:
Or the Glendale Coin Club for offering this:
Or the Colorado Springs Coin Club for offering this:
Or the Sarasota Coin Club for offering this:
Or the Liberty Seated Collectors Club for offering this:
Or the Original Hobo Nickel Society for offering this:
Or the Royal Canadian Numismatic Association for offering this:
Or NGC and the Smithsonian Institution for licensing and offering this:
Or PCGS and the California Gold Group for offering this:
So where will it end ? Are you going to disrupt all these reputable activities which have an accepted place in numismatics ?
Hey Dan I think you are taking this a bit personal and your reply's are showing your concern. I understand that this is because of some of the items you produce and the flack you get here and other places. My suggestion is that instead of debating law with Tom that you may want to debate these issues with a very qualified attorney . I would also suggest that you could start a a coalition/group that gets together with attorneys and government representatives regarding clearing up the way this law is written from the perspective of a medal/token/coin maker. This would be the most helpful to the numismatic community and would go a long way to clarifying what is considered a copy, a counterfeit or a numismatic medal or token that is acceptable to the people (those with experience and those with no knowledge) of the United States. This would be a large undertaking but would be well worth it. You may even be able to find some grant money to get started with along with continued donations by those that truly care about our hobby and business. This is just my opinion.
<< <i>Hey Dan I think you are taking this a bit personal and your reply's are showing your concern. I understand that this is because of some of the items you produce and the flack you get here and other places. My suggestion is that instead of debating law with Tom that you may want to debate these issues with a very qualified attorney . I would also suggest that you could start a a coalition/group that gets together with attorneys and government representatives regarding clearing up the way this law is written from the perspective of a medal/token/coin maker. This would be the most helpful to the numismatic community and would go a long way to clarifying what is considered a copy, a counterfeit or a numismatic medal or token that is acceptable to the people (those with experience and those with no knowledge) of the United States. This would be a large undertaking but would be well worth it. You may even be able to find some grant money to get started with along with continued donations by those that truly care about our hobby and business. This is just my opinion. >>
It isn't just me. Every private mint in the country at some point or another has issued something that looks a little like a previously-minted coin. And in addition to the examples I showed, many coin clubs and other entities have issued look-alike products.
What you suggest is indeed a huge undertaking - not something a one-person shop like me could probably put together successfully. The FTC needs to do a better job defining what is allowable. The FTC recently invited public comments concerning the HPA. I don't think anything from that has been announced yet. But a letter to the FTC may be warranted.
<< <i>When is an ounce of silver not an ounce of silver. Seems to be this is the time. Those that "copy" is supposed to protect are to stupid to even matter. This suit is an example of everything that is wrong in this country. >>
I could not agree more.
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>When is an ounce of silver not an ounce of silver. Seems to be this is the time. Those that "copy" is supposed to protect are to stupid to even matter. This suit is an example of everything that is wrong in this country. >>
So you are saying that people who do not know about what is a real numismatic item and what is not are to (too) stupid to matter? If that is the case I do not like that comment as most people who are not involved in numismatics have very little knowledge of US currency. I have had people ask me if buffalo nickels are real, I have had people as me if mercury dimes are real, I have had people stare in disbelief that my 1922 peace dollar is real and many more items. Does every person on this board know what every coin minted by the United States looks like? Does everyone know what coins/tokens were used for currency for the entire history of the United States? People are being deceived all the time by people who make counterfeits and or copies and place them into our market, I can say that at some time most people even on this sight have had a question as to the authenticity of a numismatic item, this is evidenced by the continual questions regarding this issue. I can also say that my 68yo mother and my 11yo son do not know much if anything about American silver eagles, just look at all the stories we see about some older person being taken advantage of because they do not know what their coins are worth.
I see the possibility that this suit could help clear up some confusion for those that don't know about numismatics and may even bring the issues we are facing regarding counterfeit coins coming from foreign countries and our own boarders to light. This could lead to the right people looking into these issues and we need that as I see on a daily basis well over 100 counterfeit/fake or unmarked copies of US coinage on line for sale at a large number of different sites. Rant over have a nice night and my your up coming new year be a great one and 10X better than the last. >>
What he is saying is that in no way would someone "actually" confuse the Silver Round with a Silver Eagle AND the very action of bringing an HPA action against the seller was an exercise in the stupidity that the law appears to allow.
The "protective envelope" of current laws only serves to take away "personal responsibility" toward one's own actions. With know "personal responsibility" the "stupid" are allowed to control things via more dumb laws.
In reality, the HPA was not written to address cases such as this as much as it was written to address the counterfeiting of actual rarities. Not common bullion. And really, exactly what numismatic VALUE is there with a silver eagle "over and above" it residing in a TPG slab?
None.
It's entire purpose was to enable common folks to have the opportunity to invest in the bullion markets on a small scale. Nothing more and nothing less.
This particular action "should" be tossed out once it is determined that there was no harm done for the purchaser who purchased these coins with the sole intent of filing this frivolous lawsuit.
And the judge? Not the brightest bulb in the room but totally within her limited legal responsibility.
Hopefully, someone in the area will bring this thread to the attention of the defense team.
Now, since this is a "class action", exactly "who" is in the class and do they even "know" that they are in the class?
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 realize from your first post in this thread that you've been "troubled" by silver rounds that utilize design themes found on government-issue coins (designs which are not copyrighted and are public domain, by the way). >>
Daniel,
If what you say is actually true, and I would be fairly shocked if it is, you just opened the door to saying that there is no such thing as 'counterfeiting' money? Counterfeiters use the same 'design themes' as, say, on Federally issued coinage, to make their counterfeits. Rarely do the counterfeiters get every detail perfectly accurate, and therefore their work could be considered a slight variation on a 'design theme'. >>
Silver Bullion (aka silver eagles) is NOT money. It's bullion which is a commodity.
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.
Bringing this type of victimless suit in Minnesota is going to further damage the coin & precious metals industries in Minnesota, since they've already decided to run all of the coin shows out of the state, and that anyone who sells bullion in Minnesota should jump through paperwork hoops for the privilege of paying higher taxes on bullion sales.
Marketers of 1 oz. silver rounds are providing the low cost alternative in the marketplace, which is a good service for buyers who want more silver for the dollar, especially if they want to avoid paying a numismatic premium that may not be recoverable when they eventually sell the coin. Westminster wasn't selling their rounds as Silver Eagles or charging as if they were.
There's no injury and no fraud here. The main claimant is the law firm.
tomthecoinguy doesn't appear to have enough conviction in his beliefs to pay for the action himself. I really question the motives in bringing this frivolous action.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
I still stand by my comments on the first three pages of this thread. No different than selling a fake Rolex watch. It still tells time, but is it the same thing?
Yes, these rounds have one ounce of silver, but the law says they need to say copy in my opinion and the seller should have followed the law. It does not matter if the design is copyrighted or not in my opinion it is quite clear that the examples posted on page 1 crossed the line by not saying copy. Go and read the actual law, it is quite clear to me as it is written below:
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.
If you don't like the law, get it changed. Until it changes, people expect sellers to follow the law. Maybe I am just too stupid and don't matter
As far as Dan's numerous examples of others doing the same or close to the same thing, just because someone else is doing it does not make it legal. It's no different than if everyone is speeding and I am the one who gets caught. I was still breaking the law even if I was only going 5 over.
I'm sure I am going to get flamed for my opinion but I still think the OP is taking a beating when all he is trying to do is get the seller to follow the law.
If the seller did not need to put the word copy on the coin, why did they change the design to include it after the lawsuit? Mea Culpa!
You state "What he is saying is that in no way would someone "actually" confuse the Silver Round with a Silver Eagle AND the very action of bringing an HPA action against the seller was an exercise in the stupidity that the law appears to allow." and this is not true as many people who have no knowledge of numismatics could confuse these items as coins. Again my mother who is extremely intelligent and worked in management of the trucking industry for 30+ years would have no idea about this or silver eagles. She thought that some rounds that had trade dollar on them were real dollars when they were just copies of trade dollars. Just because you know something does not mean others will. It is like saying that that those that do not know how to tell a cream based sauce from a tofu based sauce are to stupid to eat sauce. I do not know many people who can tell me the differences between a very well don 1972 Chevy Chevelle SS and a clone so everyone who can not tell must be stupid. That is very limited thinking.
Dan as to the creation of a group, you would not be doing it alone as I suggested a group be started and that denotes more than one! What were your recommendations during the time that people could write in about the HPA? Just by you commenting you have shown your concern so why not organize a group of people to give their opinions, would it be to hard considering the lack of available ways to communicate today? I hear/see alot of people complaining but I only see one guy on this post doing something about the issues plaguing our hobby and to some of us our lively hood.
How about some positive replies that could help fix some of the real problems. This proceeding by the OP is in it's own way is helping to clarify the legal wording in the HPA and other legalese what have any of the rest of those commenting on this thread done. Yes I would like to hear as it may encourage others to take positive action even if you have a large amount of negative nay sayers. At least the OP had the courage to share this with us full well knowing that he would encounter mostly the negative here, that seems to be an issue in and of it's self.
When someone states that someone is to stupid or would not make a mistake etc, they are making decisions for people they don't know and have no information on, I have never understood how that is even possible and have it be an intelligible statement. People don't like steak in India because cows are sacred, people could never confuse a Ducatti, a BMW, Aprilia, or a Buel that are all painted silver with no name badges on them, they are all silver so?
This is an amazing thread and the comments are equally amazing to me.
<< <i>As far as Dan's numerous examples of others doing the same or close to the same thing, just because someone else is doing it does not make it legal. It's no different than if everyone is speeding and I am the one who gets caught. I was still breaking the law even if I was only going 5 over. >>
What if a government entity (the Smithsonian) is the one doing it ? Perhaps the government interprets the laws differently ?
<< <i>I'm sure I am going to get flamed for my opinion but I still think the OP is taking a beating when all he is trying to do is get the seller to follow the law. If the seller did not need to put the word copy on the coin, why did they change the design to include it after the lawsuit? Mea Culpa! >>
The OP's case cited the FTSD. Why did the makers and sellers of the FTSD NOT put "COPY" on them after losing the lawsuits ? And how is it that they were able to continue minting and selling the FTSD without "COPY" for six more years without any interference ?
But why is the OP bothering to go after these particular inconsequential silver rounds when there are a bunch of non-silver counterfeit Morgan dollars from China being sold on eBay at any given time ?
Dan you have asked the same question about theFTSD many times when the answer has been given. please read the last part of this excerpt: (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. >>
<< <i>You state "What he is saying is that in no way would someone "actually" confuse the Silver Round with a Silver Eagle AND the very action of bringing an HPA action against the seller was an exercise in the stupidity that the law appears to allow." and this is not true as many people who have no knowledge of numismatics could confuse these items as coins. Again my mother who is extremely intelligent and worked in management of the trucking industry for 30+ years would have no idea about this or silver eagles. She thought that some rounds that had trade dollar on them were real dollars when they were just copies of trade dollars. Just because you know something does not mean others will. It is like saying that that those that do not know how to tell a cream based sauce from a tofu based sauce are to stupid to eat sauce. I do not know many people who can tell me the differences between a very well don 1972 Chevy Chevelle SS and a clone so everyone who can not tell must be stupid. That is very limited thinking. >>
Did your mother ever actually spend money on any of these "rounds" ? Eating is a necessity. Coins and bullion are not. But if you think of coins and bullion as a form of "investment", every investor knows that you have to do your own due diligence, or find someone who can do it for you (like a 3rd-party coin certification company or a good stock broker).
>>> I do not know many people who can tell me the differences between a very well don 1972 Chevy Chevelle SS and a clone
If I was going to invest my hard-earned discretionary funds in such a purchase, I would make sure that I did know (and I do ).
<< <i>Dan as to the creation of a group, you would not be doing it alone as I suggested a group be started and that denotes more than one! What were your recommendations during the time that people could write in about the HPA? Just by you commenting you have shown your concern so why not organize a group of people to give their opinions, would it be to hard considering the lack of available ways to communicate today? I hear/see alot of people complaining but I only see one guy on this post doing something about the issues plaguing our hobby and to some of us our lively hood. >>
First off, as I stated earlier in this thread, I commend the OP for wanting to do something to improve the hobby. I just think there are things that are far more destructive going on than these two silver rounds. But perhaps the OP has other motives that we don't know about ? Still a lot of work to put together a group - like being the president, secretary, and treasurer of a coin club. I think getting the ANA to inquire to the FTC would be the way to go.
<< <i>How about some positive replies that could help fix some of the real problems. This proceeding by the OP is in it's own way is helping to clarify the legal wording in the HPA and other legalese what have any of the rest of those commenting on this thread done. Yes I would like to hear as it may encourage others to take positive action even if you have a large amount of negative nay sayers. At least the OP had the courage to share this with us full well knowing that he would encounter mostly the negative here, that seems to be an issue in and of it's self. >>
Ok, here is one. The recently-enacted changes to the HPA now mean that anyone who facilitates the sale of counterfeit coins can also be held accountable. Previously, it was only the manufacturer and importer that could be liable. More than anything else, this revision opens up the door to possible litigation against eBay and the like (and this may have been the main objective of the revised statutes).
<< <i>When someone states that someone is to stupid or would not make a mistake etc, they are making decisions for people they don't know and have no information on, I have never understood how that is even possible and have it be an intelligible statement. People don't like steak in India because cows are sacred, people could never confuse a Ducatti, a BMW, Aprilia, or a Buel that are all painted silver with no name badges on them, they are all silver so? >>
I think it is entirely reasonable to expect at least a minimum amount of due diligence be done by people when buying non-essential discretionary items.
<< <i>Dan you have asked the same question about theFTSD many times when the answer has been given. please read the last part of this excerpt: (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. >> >>
I'm saying that the "imitation numismatic item" status of the FTSD is in doubt (to me, anyway). What supposedly is it an "imitation" of, exactly ? That is the question.
That Dan is exactly what someone with your experience and knowledge should be working on to clear up instead of complaining about it here where you can not get the answer according to law! I have also said this to you many times as you are the most qualified on the board to help determine these issues as you see things from both sides. I don't know why you are not quite getting what I am saying but you just are not. I do respect you Dan even when you get all in your heart about your business instead of looking at it through different eyes. When determining legal issues that could apply to yourself it is best to always look at that issue from a different set of eyes as they willsee more than your emotional eyes can see. The law and legalese is very confusing to the layman and that is why we the uninformed use attorneys as that is their job. If I wanted to know about coin presses and the process to make a token for something I want to commemorate I would not talk to my dentist, I would contact you. Do you see what I am saying?
Dan you ask"Did your mother ever actually spend money on any of these "rounds" ? Eating is a necessity. Coins and bullion are not. But if you think of coins and bullion as a form of "investment", every investor knows that you have to do your own due diligence, or find someone who can do it for you (like a 3rd-party coin certification company or a good stock broker)."
Dan to this question the answer is yes, some were given as gifts and some were inherited from my grandmother.
Now that the OP has made his claim legally more people could have a better understanding especially if the case ends up getting published. If it does not get published at least those of us that know about it will be able to see where the law was interpreted and changed if changes do occur.
To this Dan : "Ok, here is one. The recently-enacted changes to the HPA now mean that anyone who facilitates the sale of counterfeit coins can also be held accountable. Previously, it was only the manufacturer and importer that could be liable. More than anything else, this revision opens up the door to possible litigation against eBay and the like (and this may have been the main objective" of the revised statutes).
I agree and I will have to actually read the revisions to get the full breadth of there meaning.
Thank you for pointing that out and for the positive thought.
<< <i>That Dan is exactly what someone with your experience and knowledge should be working on to clear up instead of complaining about it here where you can not get the answer according to law! I have also said this to you many times as you are the most qualified on the board to help determine these issues as you see things from both sides. I don't know why you are not quite getting what I am saying but you just are not. I do respect you Dan even when you get all in your heart about your business instead of looking at it through different eyes. When determining legal issues that could apply to yourself it is best to always look at that issue from a different set of eyes as they willsee more than your emotional eyes can see. The law and legalese is very confusing to the layman and that is why we the uninformed use attorneys as that is their job. If I wanted to know about coin presses and the process to make a token for something I want to commemorate I would not talk to my dentist, I would contact you. Do you see what I am saying? >>
I don't presently have the financial means to retain counsel for the purpose of investigating this issue. Nor do I have the time to organize a group. But I can write to the ANA and the FTC (again).
1) Hound the OP about what HE's going to do next, and how HE thinks the HPA applies to random objects, (as if he's the only person involved)
2) And at the same time, complain that the FTC hasn't properly defined many of their terms.
At the very least, this legal action WILL better define the HPA!
Don't like, or are nervous about the litigation? Fine. Personally, I think that "win or lose", things will be clearer....by at least a small margin....after the rulings are made.
<< <i>Dan you ask"Did your mother ever actually spend money on any of these "rounds" ? Eating is a necessity. Coins and bullion are not. But if you think of coins and bullion as a form of "investment", every investor knows that you have to do your own due diligence, or find someone who can do it for you (like a 3rd-party coin certification company or a good stock broker)."
Dan to this question the answer is yes, some were given as gifts and some were inherited from my grandmother. >>
Do you happen to know what she paid for them, and what were they actually worth on the open market at the time of purchase ?
Dan on this I disagree:"I think it is entirely reasonable to expect at least a minimum amount of due diligence be done by people when buying non-essential discretionary items."
When I go to Quicktrip and buy a cup of coffee I do not send it out for testing to make sure it is as represented or looks. When I go to the State fair I do not investigate every purchase made from all sellers, when I go to the outlet mall I do not investigate every product I buy there either. For my Dad who just goes to a coin shop and buyes what he thinks is nice looking without a complete investigation of that purchase before spending $30.00 for my mom who takes the silver and puts it in a saftey deposit box and tells him " OH Gene it's nice thank you" and does not really care the above statement does not work. Can you with all honesty say that you investigate every purchase you make that is not paying a bill, say that candy at the five and dime?
<< <i>Dan on this I disagree:"I think it is entirely reasonable to expect at least a minimum amount of due diligence be done by people when buying non-essential discretionary items."
When I go to Quicktrip and buy a cup of coffee I do not send it out for testing to make sure it is as represented or looks. When I go to the State fair I do not investigate every purchase made from all sellers, when I go to the outlet mall I do not investigate every product I buy there either. For my Dad who just goes to a coin shop and buyes what he thinks is nice looking without a complete investigation of that purchase before spending $30.00 for my mom who takes the silver and puts it in a saftey deposit box and tells him " OH Gene it's nice thank you" and does not really care the above statement does not work. Can you with all honesty say that you investigate every purchase you make that is not paying a bill, say that candy at the five and dime? >>
Good reason to do business with those that you trust. Whether for a cup of coffee or an ounce of Silver or even more so a thousand dollar Morgan dollar. Those that expect a higher authority to protect them will always be disappointed.
<< <i>Dan on this I disagree:"I think it is entirely reasonable to expect at least a minimum amount of due diligence be done by people when buying non-essential discretionary items."
When I go to Quicktrip and buy a cup of coffee I do not send it out for testing to make sure it is as represented or looks. When I go to the State fair I do not investigate every purchase made from all sellers, when I go to the outlet mall I do not investigate every product I buy there either. For my Dad who just goes to a coin shop and buyes what he thinks is nice looking without a complete investigation of that purchase before spending $30.00 for my mom who takes the silver and puts it in a saftey deposit box and tells him " OH Gene it's nice thank you" and does not really care the above statement does not work. Can you with all honesty say that you investigate every purchase you make that is not paying a bill, say that candy at the five and dime? >>
True, but your actions indicate that you DID do some due diligence in choosing where you bought the coffee. You bought it from a name-brand quick-mart that you are familiar with and trust. Your due diligence includes scoping out the store to make sure it is sanitary, etc. AND, before drinking this coffee you know what it is supposed to look like, smell like, and taste like, and you compare that knowledge to the coffee you just bought. That IS due diligence.
Sir I am disappointed in you Mr Glicker as you have changed your icon to one way more boring. We are talking the price for silver rounds and the point I have been trying to make is that at $20.00-$30.00 many people do not think about a purchase at that amount very much even with the drop our economy took. My parents are on a limited income as am I but many purchases under that amount go unresearched by many every day. How may people buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks and get a snack with it, you are at $20.00 almost right there. If you go to a movie out by me the movie is $16.00 and 2 sodas and a popcorn are $16.00, so $32.00 and I did not investigate that popcorn or soda at all I just trusted that I was getting what I thought it was but who knows I might have been drinking carbonated urine. We trust that the sour cream is what it is supposed to be at Taco bell but some one thought to check out that inexpensive product and found out it contains other ingredients. Many assumptions are made daily on many threads here that don't hold truth in the world out side of the reclusive coin community and many do not want to see that as it destroys their view of their world.
At times people need help because they can not help themselves, that is just how it is. I along with many other members have asked questions on this board but some of the responses on this thread make it appear that everyone should already know the answer to the question they are asking. No one person is completely all knowing.
I got some pics from my sister of the snow you got and then we here in Wisconsin got blasted. Snow here is ugly I dislike it very much.
<< <i> We are talking the price for silver rounds and the point I have been trying to make is that at $20.00-$30.00 many people do not think about a purchase at that amount very much even with the drop our economy took. >>
I am late to this debate. As I understand it the casual buyers are allegedly buying silver rounds that they believe are silver eagles. If that is true and the dealer declines to explain the difference, they are paying say $25 for a piece that at the least contains $16.50 worth of silver.
John let me know if that is correct. If so, the potential harm is minimal and in my view, not worthy of legal action, especially as the rounds are undated.
<< <i>Sir I am disappointed in you Mr Glicker as you have changed your icon to one way more boring. We are talking the price for silver rounds and the point I have been trying to make is that at $20.00-$30.00 many people do not think about a purchase at that amount very much even with the drop our economy took. My parents are on a limited income as am I but many purchases under that amount go unresearched by many every day. How may people buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks and get a snack with it, you are at $20.00 almost right there.
If you go to a movie out by me the movie is $16.00 and 2 sodas and a popcorn are $16.00, so $32.00 and I did not investigate that popcorn or soda at all I just trusted that I was getting what I thought it was but who knows I might have been drinking carbonated urine.
We trust that the sour cream is what it is supposed to be at Taco bell but some one thought to check out that inexpensive product and found out it contains other ingredients. Many assumptions are made daily on many threads here that don't hold truth in the world out side of the reclusive coin community and many do not want to see that as it destroys their view of their world.
At times people need help because they can not help themselves, that is just how it is. I along with many other members have asked questions on this board but some of the responses on this thread make it appear that everyone should already know the answer to the question they are asking. No one person is completely all knowing.
I got some pics from my sister of the snow you got and then we here in Wisconsin got blasted. Snow here is ugly I dislike it very much. >>
If you can't tell the difference between soda and carbonated urine you shouldn't being buying silver as you will need to save your money to have your stomach pumped
The answer to this question is that everyone needs to be protected from themselves as the people are incapable of making the most basic decisions concerning every aspect of their daily lives by themselves.
<< <i>That is correct but the action by the OP is more than the damages but many do not see it. >>
That is why I said earlier that the OP may have motives that we don't know about. But the OP did say they were "bothered" by silver rounds that resemble coins, so that is a motive other than "damages".
Girlfriend received a mailing from a huckster "mint" last week. They offered 13 of each state quarter every six weeks at $20 a pop plus $4 or $5 shipping. At the end of 300 weeks, one would have sent them $1250 for a pail worth of pocket change with a face of $162.50.
Those fellas disturb me far more that the $16.50 round being sold for $25. Now if some shylock was pushing them as rare Eagles for $100 each, that is another matter. As noted though, anyone putting real money into anything needs to wise up first of find a trusted advisor.
Sounds like some one may have bought when silver was on the up swing and now it is a bit lower and wants out, How ever they can get out with out loseing any $$$ you play you pay, I don't think this would be a issue if silver was still going up it's not like they are not silver like the Chinese speical's with no Silver at all... But that is just me Dumb Type2 thinking.
<< <i>You state "What he is saying is that in no way would someone "actually" confuse the Silver Round with a Silver Eagle AND the very action of bringing an HPA action against the seller was an exercise in the stupidity that the law appears to allow." and this is not true as many people who have no knowledge of numismatics could confuse these items as coins. Again my mother who is extremely intelligent and worked in management of the trucking industry for 30+ years would have no idea about this or silver eagles. She thought that some rounds that had trade dollar on them were real dollars when they were just copies of trade dollars. Just because you know something does not mean others will. It is like saying that that those that do not know how to tell a cream based sauce from a tofu based sauce are to stupid to eat sauce. I do not know many people who can tell me the differences between a very well don 1972 Chevy Chevelle SS and a clone so everyone who can not tell must be stupid. That is very limited thinking. >>
Au contraire, the limited thinking is not on my part because, you see, these silver rounds are sold at a cheaper rate than US Mint made silver eagles. The people doing the buying are buying "silver", not taco sauce.
It is the "collecting community" which has put a "value" on US Mint Silver Eagles via TPG slabs. Otherwise, silver eagles are purchased at "current spot" plus $2.00 then sold to the public at purchase price plus a specific markup usually dictated by volume.
Silver Rounds, on the other hand and in the case of the Westminster Mint, are sold at a flat $1.10 over spot. Cheaper but still 1 oz of silver.
Most folks that are buying "silver", be it rounds of eagles, are buying it as an investment hedge. Certainly not as a collectible coin.
Of course, there is always the marketing faction out there that take advantage of the coin collecting "market" by having these US Mint Manufactured "Silver Rounds", slabbed by TPG as First Strike or Early Realease or worse yet, as products of the San Francisco Mint. These need to be actual Silver Eagles yet not a singe TPG is going to slab a Silver Round as a "Silver Eagle" to afford a "collectors premium". This is not to say that there aren't folks out there that still carry their "Hot" coffee between their legs while driving but it is a clear distinction between Silver Rounds and US Silver Eagles whose collectability is totally dependent upon date and mintmark combination of which the Silver round in question simply does not have. Neither does it state that it is "ONE DOLLAR".
So, lacking those specific identifying features which actually give a Silver Eagle "Numismatic" status, exactly what are these a "COPY" of other than what someone would like to believe that they are a COPY of? I'd like to believe that my Ford Focus is actually a Ferrari (and sometimes it is -- to me) but calling it a Ferrari would simply be dumb.
I guess the real question here is can you actually "teach" people common sense via mandating vague laws which can be argued (Uncirculated yet still found in a Cash Drawer??) or is this something that some folks have while others, try as they might, simply cannot grasp the concept?
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>As far as Dan's numerous examples of others doing the same or close to the same thing, just because someone else is doing it does not make it legal. It's no different than if everyone is speeding and I am the one who gets caught. I was still breaking the law even if I was only going 5 over. >>
What if a government entity (the Smithsonian) is the one doing it ? Perhaps the government interprets the laws differently ?
<< <i>I'm sure I am going to get flamed for my opinion but I still think the OP is taking a beating when all he is trying to do is get the seller to follow the law. If the seller did not need to put the word copy on the coin, why did they change the design to include it after the lawsuit? Mea Culpa! >>
The OP's case cited the FTSD. Why did the makers and sellers of the FTSD NOT put "COPY" on them after losing the lawsuits ? And how is it that they were able to continue minting and selling the FTSD without "COPY" for six more years without any interference ?
But why is the OP bothering to go after these particular inconsequential silver rounds when there are a bunch of non-silver counterfeit Morgan dollars from China being sold on eBay at any given time ? >>
He is attempting to set a legal precedent which, as it appears, is based upon a "flawed" legal precedent. We will end up with a really screwed up interpretation of the Law to which "IN GOD WE TRUST", LIBERTY, an Annual Date, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA can only be used on authentic US Mint Products or Products of some other National Mint unless the word COPY is used whether or not its an actual and comparable copy.
Maybe I should notify Providence Metals to start adding the word COPY to their Zombucks.
Someone might actually sue them because they thought it was a Morgan Dollar when they bought it and I was the stupid one for selling it so cheap??
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.
Comments
<< <i>Interesting.
The "Freedom Tower Silver Dollar" (FTSD) did not say "USA" or United States of America" on it. The design was not similar enough to any legal tender US coin or any existing numismatic item to cause confusion. The original issue was advertised by National Collectors Mint (NCM) as being a "Government-Issue Silver Dollar", issued by the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). The "coin" itself was in no way deceptive. The advertising for it, however, was another matter. The CNMI is a protectorate of the USA and even though a high-ranking CNMI official granted permission to NCM to declare CNMI legal-tender status for the FTSD, the CNMI has no authority to issue its own currency. So that is the real reason NCM got into trouble (and also because the advertising misled some people into believing that it was solid WTC recovery silver even though most of the "coins" were only plated).
If this FTSD was deemed to be a violation of the HPA, why then was NCM allowed to continue marketing the same-design coin from 2005 to 2010 (as a legal tender Cook Islands issue) ?
PS:
Here is some info on the FTSD (scroll down on this page about 25% of the way):
Freedom Tower "Dollars" >>
<< <i>I might know where the confusion is coming from. There were actually two different cases against the National Collector's Mint. The whole thing started with DeMarco v. National Collector’s Mint, 229 F.R.D. 73 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) this was a HPA class action lawsuit. Then Eliot Spitzer got ahold of the issue and started his own lawsuit. It seems most of the information on your website is about the Eliot Spitzer lawsuit. In DeMarco the judge ruled the FTSD an "imitation numismatic item" and thus a violation of the HPA. There was then a settlement. I think the published amount of the settlement was $9 million, or something like that.
I think I learned from your website that they continued to make it, but as a cook Islands issued coin. My guess is they were able to do this because the Cook Islands were legally allowed to issue legal tender coins, so at that point it became a real (although a foreign) coin, and no longer an imitation numismatic item. >>
So, according to the Demarco case, Bernard von NotHaus was actually pedaling "imitation numismatic items" and the counterfeiting charges should be dismissed?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
The name is LEE!
BUT........they didn't address the 1/2 ounce coin.
I wonder what this means with regard to the suit?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Looks like the Westminster Mint has addressed this lawsuit by adding "COPY" into the shield on the reverse.
BUT........they didn't address the 1/2 ounce coin.
I wonder what this means with regard to the suit? >>
Sure sounds like validation of the suit, at least to a degree. A tacit admission of guilt.
It seems to me that the HPA's primary purpose is to protect the general public who are essentially without knowledge regarding the hobby, say a kid just starting out or somebody who decides to pick up a coin as a unique present but has no little or no experience regarding coins and precious metals. Someone who perhaps saw a ASE in the past and then saw this and thought they were the same. Someone who is not knowledgeable will not know what is missing or what should be there.
WM knew what they were doing by approaching the edge of what is and what isn't. An ethical company would have put "copy" on from day one to be honest and up front. WM knew exactly what they were doing in trying to grab a few more sales.
I've heard our favorite coin guy on the tube discussing Morgans, saying they were 100% silver. He just chose to leave out "coin" between 100% and silver. That is gray area deception. Especially when it comes to an audience lacking in depth knowledge of the subject. After I sent a complaint in to the XXX Network concerning his description he used the phrase "solid coin silver".
<< <i>When is an ounce of silver not an ounce of silver. Seems to be this is the time. Those that "copy" is supposed to protect are to stupid to even matter. This suit is an example of everything that is wrong in this country. >>
So you are saying that people who do not know about what is a real numismatic item and what is not are to (too) stupid to matter? If that is the case I do not like that comment as most people who are not involved in numismatics have very little knowledge of US currency. I have had people ask me if buffalo nickels are real, I have had people as me if mercury dimes are real, I have had people stare in disbelief that my 1922 peace dollar is real and many more items. Does every person on this board know what every coin minted by the United States looks like? Does everyone know what coins/tokens were used for currency for the entire history of the United States? People are being deceived all the time by people who make counterfeits and or copies and place them into our market, I can say that at some time most people even on this sight have had a question as to the authenticity of a numismatic item, this is evidenced by the continual questions regarding this issue. I can also say that my 68yo mother and my 11yo son do not know much if anything about American silver eagles, just look at all the stories we see about some older person being taken advantage of because they do not know what their coins are worth.
I see the possibility that this suit could help clear up some confusion for those that don't know about numismatics and may even bring the issues we are facing regarding counterfeit coins coming from foreign countries and our own boarders to light. This could lead to the right people looking into these issues and we need that as I see on a daily basis well over 100 counterfeit/fake or unmarked copies of US coinage on line for sale at a large number of different sites.
Rant over have a nice night and my your up coming new year be a great one and 10X better than the last.
I realize from your first post in this thread that you've been "troubled" by silver rounds that utilize design themes found on government-issue coins (designs which are not copyrighted and are public domain, by the way).
But why go after these two inconsequential rounds when there are much bigger sharks in the waters.
I don't see anything wrong with the two silver rounds - people who buy them are getting their money's worth, or close to it.
We've all seen fake coins sold on eBay and I think those are far more troubling.
So why not instead go after the Chinese (or whoever) that make them and/or eBay for enabling the transfer of such "coins" ?
Why Lawyers Drink--Part MMMMCCLXIX
… because they can afford to.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>Tomthecoinguy,
I realize from your first post in this thread that you've been "troubled" by silver rounds that utilize design themes found on government-issue coins (designs which are not copyrighted and are public domain, by the way). >>
Daniel,
If what you say is actually true, and I would be fairly shocked if it is, you just opened the door to saying that there is no such thing as 'counterfeiting' money? Counterfeiters use the same 'design themes' as, say, on Federally issued coinage, to make their counterfeits. Rarely do the counterfeiters get every detail perfectly accurate, and therefore their work could be considered a slight variation on a 'design theme'.
<< <i>Tomthecoinguy,
I realize from your first post in this thread that you've been "troubled" by silver rounds that utilize design themes found on government-issue coins (designs which are not copyrighted and are public domain, by the way).
But why go after these two inconsequential rounds when there are much bigger sharks in the waters.
I don't see anything wrong with the two silver rounds - people who buy them are getting their money's worth, or close to it.
We've all seen fake coins sold on eBay and I think those are far more troubling.
So why not instead go after the Chinese (or whoever) that make them and/or eBay for enabling the transfer of such "coins" ? >>
I think this falls into the category of things I should not answer right now. I will be happy to answer this after the case is resolved.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>Tomthecoinguy,
I realize from your first post in this thread that you've been "troubled" by silver rounds that utilize design themes found on government-issue coins (designs which are not copyrighted and are public domain, by the way). >>
Daniel,
If what you say is actually true, and I would be fairly shocked if it is, you just opened the door to saying that there is no such thing as 'counterfeiting' money? Counterfeiters use the same 'design themes' as, say, on Federally issued coinage, to make their counterfeits. Rarely do the counterfeiters get every detail perfectly accurate, and therefore their work could be considered a slight variation on a 'design theme'. >>
Counterfeiters break laws beyond just potential copyright issues. They are committing fraud.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Tomthecoinguy,
I realize from your first post in this thread that you've been "troubled" by silver rounds that utilize design themes found on government-issue coins (designs which are not copyrighted and are public domain, by the way). >>
Daniel,
If what you say is actually true, and I would be fairly shocked if it is, you just opened the door to saying that there is no such thing as 'counterfeiting' money? Counterfeiters use the same 'design themes' as, say, on Federally issued coinage, to make their counterfeits. Rarely do the counterfeiters get every detail perfectly accurate, and therefore their work could be considered a slight variation on a 'design theme'. >>
Counterfeiters break laws beyond just potential copyright issues. They are committing fraud. >>
Sounds pretty cut-and-dry then (which it isn't). The OP should win his court case without issue since you, davideo, agree that the people/company making those silver rounds are committing fraud/counterfeiting Federally issued coins.
>>
I might know where the confusion is coming from. There were actually two different cases against the National Collector's Mint. The whole thing started with DeMarco v. National Collector’s Mint, 229 F.R.D. 73 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) this was a HPA class action lawsuit. Then Eliot Spitzer got ahold of the issue and started his own lawsuit. It seems most of the information on your website is about the Eliot Spitzer lawsuit. In DeMarco the judge ruled the FTSD an "imitation numismatic item" and thus a violation of the HPA. There was then a settlement. I think the published amount of the settlement was $9 million, or something like that.
I think I learned from your website that they continued to make it, but as a cook Islands issued coin. My guess is they were able to do this because the Cook Islands were legally allowed to issue legal tender coins, so at that point it became a real (although a foreign) coin, and no longer an imitation numismatic item. >>
Then Daniel Carr said...
>>
So the judge declares that the original (first) issue of the FTSD is an "imitation numismatic item". But the same basic design, reissued via a different surrogate country and advertised in a less deceptive manner, is ok.
The first issue was not actually legal tender, although a CNMI official indicated that it was, and the "coin" was advertised as a legal tender "government-issue silver dollar". The second issue is Cook islands legal tender (although I bet you'd have a very hard time using it in that manner).
So the judge apparently is putting a lot of weight on the legal tender status and on how the item was marketed. The emphasis on that criteria would seem favorable to my situation because my marketing/advertising of the fantasy-date over-strike coins was always very clear and accurate. I never made any legal tender status claims about my fantasy-date over-strikes (their legal tender status is unknown since there are no statutes which specify how much mutilation a coin can have while still retaining legal tender status). >>
Now I say...
In the Demarco case the judge ruled the FTSD was an "imitation numismatic item." However, there was no ruling on the same coin issued under the Cook Islands, because no one brought suit against the manufacture of that coin. I was just speculating as to why they might not have trouble with the cook Island version. So I am not sure it was fair to conclude the judge was putting weight on the legal tender status. I don't think that came into play at all in the Demarco case. Also, I don't think the judge in the Demarco case really put much stock into how the coin was marketed. There was even a line in his ruling indicating he would have come to the same conclusion even without looking at the advertising.
In addition to looking at the DeMarco case for guidance on determining if you need to put "copy" on your over strikes, You may want to look at the actual Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidance. The HPA gives the FTC authority to define the requirements under the HPA. Here is how the regulations define an Imitation Numismatic item. The emphasis added is mine.
§ 304.1 Terms defined.
(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.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
of fake coin sellers then you have done well
till then you are a very minor person who seems to have his sights in the wrong place
offline for **serious **family issues
<< <i>
<< <i>Tomthecoinguy,
I realize from your first post in this thread that you've been "troubled" by silver rounds that utilize design themes found on government-issue coins (designs which are not copyrighted and are public domain, by the way). >>
Daniel,
If what you say is actually true, and I would be fairly shocked if it is, you just opened the door to saying that there is no such thing as 'counterfeiting' money? Counterfeiters use the same 'design themes' as, say, on Federally issued coinage, to make their counterfeits. Rarely do the counterfeiters get every detail perfectly accurate, and therefore their work could be considered a slight variation on a 'design theme'. >>
Of course it is illegal to make a false coin and try to pass it off as legal tender - regardless of the copyright status of the design itself.
But if you make and sell t-shirts with an image of a US Silver Eagle on them, that is ok because the Silver Eagle design was paid for with tax dollars and so by law it is public domain and can not be copyrighted.
If you were to make and sell t-shirts with an image of a Sacagawea Dollar on them, that could be a problem because the Sacagawea Dollar obverse is one of the few US coin designs that actually is copyrighted.
<< <i>I said ...
>>
I might know where the confusion is coming from. There were actually two different cases against the National Collector's Mint. The whole thing started with DeMarco v. National Collector’s Mint, 229 F.R.D. 73 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) this was a HPA class action lawsuit. Then Eliot Spitzer got ahold of the issue and started his own lawsuit. It seems most of the information on your website is about the Eliot Spitzer lawsuit. In DeMarco the judge ruled the FTSD an "imitation numismatic item" and thus a violation of the HPA. There was then a settlement. I think the published amount of the settlement was $9 million, or something like that.
I think I learned from your website that they continued to make it, but as a cook Islands issued coin. My guess is they were able to do this because the Cook Islands were legally allowed to issue legal tender coins, so at that point it became a real (although a foreign) coin, and no longer an imitation numismatic item. >>
Then Daniel Carr said...
>>
So the judge declares that the original (first) issue of the FTSD is an "imitation numismatic item". But the same basic design, reissued via a different surrogate country and advertised in a less deceptive manner, is ok.
The first issue was not actually legal tender, although a CNMI official indicated that it was, and the "coin" was advertised as a legal tender "government-issue silver dollar". The second issue is Cook islands legal tender (although I bet you'd have a very hard time using it in that manner).
So the judge apparently is putting a lot of weight on the legal tender status and on how the item was marketed. The emphasis on that criteria would seem favorable to my situation because my marketing/advertising of the fantasy-date over-strike coins was always very clear and accurate. I never made any legal tender status claims about my fantasy-date over-strikes (their legal tender status is unknown since there are no statutes which specify how much mutilation a coin can have while still retaining legal tender status). >>
Now I say...
In the Demarco case the judge ruled the FTSD was an "imitation numismatic item." However, there was no ruling on the same coin issued under the Cook Islands, because no one brought suit against the manufacture of that coin. I was just speculating as to why they might not have trouble with the cook Island version. So I am not sure it was fair to conclude the judge was putting weight on the legal tender status. I don't think that came into play at all in the Demarco case. Also, I don't think the judge in the Demarco case really put much stock into how the coin was marketed. There was even a line in his ruling indicating he would have come to the same conclusion even without looking at the advertising.
<< <i>
I'm surprised that NCM didn't appeal that ruling.
If the FTSD was ruled by this judge to be an "imitation numismatic item", what did the judge say it was an imitation of ???
<< <i>
In addition to looking at the DeMarco case for guidance on determining if you need to put "copy" on your over strikes, You may want to look at the actual Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidance. The HPA gives the FTC authority to define the requirements under the HPA. Here is how the regulations define an Imitation Numismatic item. The emphasis added is mine.
§ 304.1 Terms defined.
(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. >>
>>
Clearly, if you take a "1944-D" cent and grind off part of the "4" to make it look like a "1914-D" cent, then you have altered an original numismatic item. It still appears to be a Lincoln cent, so that part has not changed. What has changed is the apparent date. "1914-D" Lincoln cents were actually issued. Is a "1944-D" Lincoln cent a different "numismatic item" than a "1914-D" Lincoln cent ? Assuming the answer is yes, then the only reason that they are different is due to the date alone. So the date determines what an original numismatic item is. Would a "1900" Lincoln cent be an "original numismatic item" ? I say no because none were originally issued. So if you take a "1909" Lincoln cent and carve off part of the "9" to make it look like a "1900", have you made the coin appear to be a different original numismatic item ?
<< <i>
<< <i>Tomthecoinguy,
I realize from your first post in this thread that you've been "troubled" by silver rounds that utilize design themes found on government-issue coins (designs which are not copyrighted and are public domain, by the way).
But why go after these two inconsequential rounds when there are much bigger sharks in the waters.
I don't see anything wrong with the two silver rounds - people who buy them are getting their money's worth, or close to it.
We've all seen fake coins sold on eBay and I think those are far more troubling.
So why not instead go after the Chinese (or whoever) that make them and/or eBay for enabling the transfer of such "coins" ? >>
I think this falls into the category of things I should not answer right now. I will be happy to answer this after the case is resolved. >>
Do you plan to pursue other makers/sellers in the future ?
Like the ANA for offering this:
Or the Glendale Coin Club for offering this:
Or the Colorado Springs Coin Club for offering this:
Or the Sarasota Coin Club for offering this:
Or the Liberty Seated Collectors Club for offering this:
Or the Original Hobo Nickel Society for offering this:
Or the Royal Canadian Numismatic Association for offering this:
Or NGC and the Smithsonian Institution for licensing and offering this:
Or PCGS and the California Gold Group for offering this:
So where will it end ?
Are you going to disrupt all these reputable activities which have an accepted place in numismatics ?
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>Do you plan to pursue other makers/sellers in the future ?
Like the ANA for offering this:
Or the Glendale Coin Club for offering this:
Or the Colorado Springs Coin Club for offering this:
Or the Original Hobo Nickel Society for offering this:
Or the Royal Canadian Numismatic Association for offering this: >>
If these sorts of things were affected, I'd likely not pursue collecting them.
<< <i>Hey Dan I think you are taking this a bit personal and your reply's are showing your concern. I understand that this is because of some of the items you produce and the flack you get here and other places. My suggestion is that instead of debating law with Tom that you may want to debate these issues with a very qualified attorney . I would also suggest that you could start a a coalition/group that gets together with attorneys and government representatives regarding clearing up the way this law is written from the perspective of a medal/token/coin maker. This would be the most helpful to the numismatic community and would go a long way to clarifying what is considered a copy, a counterfeit or a numismatic medal or token that is acceptable to the people (those with experience and those with no knowledge) of the United States. This would be a large undertaking but would be well worth it. You may even be able to find some grant money to get started with along with continued donations by those that truly care about our hobby and business. This is just my opinion. >>
It isn't just me. Every private mint in the country at some point or another has issued something that looks a little like a previously-minted coin.
And in addition to the examples I showed, many coin clubs and other entities have issued look-alike products.
What you suggest is indeed a huge undertaking - not something a one-person shop like me could probably put together successfully.
The FTC needs to do a better job defining what is allowable. The FTC recently invited public comments concerning the HPA. I don't think anything from that has been announced yet. But a letter to the FTC may be warranted.
every treasure on Earth
to be young at heart?
And as rich as you are,
it's much better by far,
to be young at heart!
<< <i>When is an ounce of silver not an ounce of silver. Seems to be this is the time. Those that "copy" is supposed to protect are to stupid to even matter. This suit is an example of everything that is wrong in this country. >>
I could not agree more.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>When is an ounce of silver not an ounce of silver. Seems to be this is the time. Those that "copy" is supposed to protect are to stupid to even matter. This suit is an example of everything that is wrong in this country. >>
So you are saying that people who do not know about what is a real numismatic item and what is not are to (too) stupid to matter? If that is the case I do not like that comment as most people who are not involved in numismatics have very little knowledge of US currency. I have had people ask me if buffalo nickels are real, I have had people as me if mercury dimes are real, I have had people stare in disbelief that my 1922 peace dollar is real and many more items. Does every person on this board know what every coin minted by the United States looks like? Does everyone know what coins/tokens were used for currency for the entire history of the United States? People are being deceived all the time by people who make counterfeits and or copies and place them into our market, I can say that at some time most people even on this sight have had a question as to the authenticity of a numismatic item, this is evidenced by the continual questions regarding this issue. I can also say that my 68yo mother and my 11yo son do not know much if anything about American silver eagles, just look at all the stories we see about some older person being taken advantage of because they do not know what their coins are worth.
I see the possibility that this suit could help clear up some confusion for those that don't know about numismatics and may even bring the issues we are facing regarding counterfeit coins coming from foreign countries and our own boarders to light. This could lead to the right people looking into these issues and we need that as I see on a daily basis well over 100 counterfeit/fake or unmarked copies of US coinage on line for sale at a large number of different sites.
Rant over have a nice night and my your up coming new year be a great one and 10X better than the last. >>
What he is saying is that in no way would someone "actually" confuse the Silver Round with a Silver Eagle AND the very action of bringing an HPA action against the seller was an exercise in the stupidity that the law appears to allow.
The "protective envelope" of current laws only serves to take away "personal responsibility" toward one's own actions. With know "personal responsibility" the "stupid" are allowed to control things via more dumb laws.
In reality, the HPA was not written to address cases such as this as much as it was written to address the counterfeiting of actual rarities. Not common bullion.
And really, exactly what numismatic VALUE is there with a silver eagle "over and above" it residing in a TPG slab?
None.
It's entire purpose was to enable common folks to have the opportunity to invest in the bullion markets on a small scale. Nothing more and nothing less.
This particular action "should" be tossed out once it is determined that there was no harm done for the purchaser who purchased these coins with the sole intent of filing this frivolous lawsuit.
And the judge? Not the brightest bulb in the room but totally within her limited legal responsibility.
Hopefully, someone in the area will bring this thread to the attention of the defense team.
Now, since this is a "class action", exactly "who" is in the class and do they even "know" that they are in the class?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>Tomthecoinguy,
I realize from your first post in this thread that you've been "troubled" by silver rounds that utilize design themes found on government-issue coins (designs which are not copyrighted and are public domain, by the way). >>
Daniel,
If what you say is actually true, and I would be fairly shocked if it is, you just opened the door to saying that there is no such thing as 'counterfeiting' money? Counterfeiters use the same 'design themes' as, say, on Federally issued coinage, to make their counterfeits. Rarely do the counterfeiters get every detail perfectly accurate, and therefore their work could be considered a slight variation on a 'design theme'. >>
Silver Bullion (aka silver eagles) is NOT money. It's bullion which is a commodity.
The name is LEE!
Marketers of 1 oz. silver rounds are providing the low cost alternative in the marketplace, which is a good service for buyers who want more silver for the dollar, especially if they want to avoid paying a numismatic premium that may not be recoverable when they eventually sell the coin. Westminster wasn't selling their rounds as Silver Eagles or charging as if they were.
There's no injury and no fraud here. The main claimant is the law firm.
tomthecoinguy doesn't appear to have enough conviction in his beliefs to pay for the action himself. I really question the motives in bringing this frivolous action.
I knew it would happen.
Yes, these rounds have one ounce of silver, but the law says they need to say copy in my opinion and the seller should have followed the law. It does not matter if the design is copyrighted or not in my opinion it is quite clear that the examples posted on page 1 crossed the line by not saying copy. Go and read the actual law, it is quite clear to me as it is written below:
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.
If you don't like the law, get it changed. Until it changes, people expect sellers to follow the law. Maybe I am just too stupid and don't matter
As far as Dan's numerous examples of others doing the same or close to the same thing, just because someone else is doing it does not make it legal. It's no different than if everyone is speeding and I am the one who gets caught. I was still breaking the law even if I was only going 5 over.
I'm sure I am going to get flamed for my opinion but I still think the OP is taking a beating when all he is trying to do is get the seller to follow the law.
If the seller did not need to put the word copy on the coin, why did they change the design to include it after the lawsuit? Mea Culpa!
Dan as to the creation of a group, you would not be doing it alone as I suggested a group be started and that denotes more than one! What were your recommendations during the time that people could write in about the HPA? Just by you commenting you have shown your concern so why not organize a group of people to give their opinions, would it be to hard considering the lack of available ways to communicate today? I hear/see alot of people complaining but I only see one guy on this post doing something about the issues plaguing our hobby and to some of us our lively hood.
How about some positive replies that could help fix some of the real problems. This proceeding by the OP is in it's own way is helping to clarify the legal wording in the HPA and other legalese what have any of the rest of those commenting on this thread done. Yes I would like to hear as it may encourage others to take positive action even if you have a large amount of negative nay sayers. At least the OP had the courage to share this with us full well knowing that he would encounter mostly the negative here, that seems to be an issue in and of it's self.
When someone states that someone is to stupid or would not make a mistake etc, they are making decisions for people they don't know and have no information on, I have never understood how that is even possible and have it be an intelligible statement. People don't like steak in India because cows are sacred, people could never confuse a Ducatti, a BMW, Aprilia, or a Buel that are all painted silver with no name badges on them, they are all silver so?
This is an amazing thread and the comments are equally amazing to me.
<< <i>As far as Dan's numerous examples of others doing the same or close to the same thing, just because someone else is doing it does not make it legal. It's no different than if everyone is speeding and I am the one who gets caught. I was still breaking the law even if I was only going 5 over. >>
What if a government entity (the Smithsonian) is the one doing it ?
Perhaps the government interprets the laws differently ?
<< <i>I'm sure I am going to get flamed for my opinion but I still think the OP is taking a beating when all he is trying to do is get the seller to follow the law.
If the seller did not need to put the word copy on the coin, why did they change the design to include it after the lawsuit? Mea Culpa! >>
The OP's case cited the FTSD. Why did the makers and sellers of the FTSD NOT put "COPY" on them after losing the lawsuits ?
And how is it that they were able to continue minting and selling the FTSD without "COPY" for six more years without any interference ?
But why is the OP bothering to go after these particular inconsequential silver rounds when there are a bunch of non-silver counterfeit Morgan dollars from China being sold on eBay at any given time ?
<< <i>You state "What he is saying is that in no way would someone "actually" confuse the Silver Round with a Silver Eagle AND the very action of bringing an HPA action against the seller was an exercise in the stupidity that the law appears to allow." and this is not true as many people who have no knowledge of numismatics could confuse these items as coins. Again my mother who is extremely intelligent and worked in management of the trucking industry for 30+ years would have no idea about this or silver eagles. She thought that some rounds that had trade dollar on them were real dollars when they were just copies of trade dollars. Just because you know something does not mean others will. It is like saying that that those that do not know how to tell a cream based sauce from a tofu based sauce are to stupid to eat sauce. I do not know many people who can tell me the differences between a very well don 1972 Chevy Chevelle SS and a clone so everyone who can not tell must be stupid. That is very limited thinking. >>
Did your mother ever actually spend money on any of these "rounds" ?
Eating is a necessity. Coins and bullion are not. But if you think of coins and bullion as a form of "investment", every investor knows that you have to do your own due diligence, or find someone who can do it for you (like a 3rd-party coin certification company or a good stock broker).
>>> I do not know many people who can tell me the differences between a very well don 1972 Chevy Chevelle SS and a clone
If I was going to invest my hard-earned discretionary funds in such a purchase, I would make sure that I did know (and I do
<< <i>Dan as to the creation of a group, you would not be doing it alone as I suggested a group be started and that denotes more than one! What were your recommendations during the time that people could write in about the HPA? Just by you commenting you have shown your concern so why not organize a group of people to give their opinions, would it be to hard considering the lack of available ways to communicate today? I hear/see alot of people complaining but I only see one guy on this post doing something about the issues plaguing our hobby and to some of us our lively hood. >>
First off, as I stated earlier in this thread, I commend the OP for wanting to do something to improve the hobby. I just think there are things that are far more destructive going on than these two silver rounds. But perhaps the OP has other motives that we don't know about ?
Still a lot of work to put together a group - like being the president, secretary, and treasurer of a coin club. I think getting the ANA to inquire to the FTC would be the way to go.
<< <i>How about some positive replies that could help fix some of the real problems. This proceeding by the OP is in it's own way is helping to clarify the legal wording in the HPA and other legalese what have any of the rest of those commenting on this thread done. Yes I would like to hear as it may encourage others to take positive action even if you have a large amount of negative nay sayers. At least the OP had the courage to share this with us full well knowing that he would encounter mostly the negative here, that seems to be an issue in and of it's self. >>
Ok, here is one.
The recently-enacted changes to the HPA now mean that anyone who facilitates the sale of counterfeit coins can also be held accountable. Previously, it was only the manufacturer and importer that could be liable. More than anything else, this revision opens up the door to possible litigation against eBay and the like (and this may have been the main objective of the revised statutes).
<< <i>When someone states that someone is to stupid or would not make a mistake etc, they are making decisions for people they don't know and have no information on, I have never understood how that is even possible and have it be an intelligible statement. People don't like steak in India because cows are sacred, people could never confuse a Ducatti, a BMW, Aprilia, or a Buel that are all painted silver with no name badges on them, they are all silver so? >>
I think it is entirely reasonable to expect at least a minimum amount of due diligence be done by people when buying non-essential discretionary items.
<< <i>Dan you have asked the same question about theFTSD many times when the answer has been given. please read the last part of this excerpt: (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. >> >>
I'm saying that the "imitation numismatic item" status of the FTSD is in doubt (to me, anyway).
What supposedly is it an "imitation" of, exactly ?
That is the question.
Eating is a necessity. Coins and bullion are not. But if you think of coins and bullion as a form of "investment", every investor knows that you have to do your own due diligence, or find someone who can do it for you (like a 3rd-party coin certification company or a good stock broker)."
Dan to this question the answer is yes, some were given as gifts and some were inherited from my grandmother.
Now that the OP has made his claim legally more people could have a better understanding especially if the case ends up getting published. If it does not get published at least those of us that know about it will be able to see where the law was interpreted and changed if changes do occur.
The recently-enacted changes to the HPA now mean that anyone who facilitates the sale of counterfeit coins can also be held accountable. Previously, it was only the manufacturer and importer that could be liable. More than anything else, this revision opens up the door to possible litigation against eBay and the like (and this may have been the main objective" of the revised statutes).
I agree and I will have to actually read the revisions to get the full breadth of there meaning.
Thank you for pointing that out and for the positive thought.
<< <i>That Dan is exactly what someone with your experience and knowledge should be working on to clear up instead of complaining about it here where you can not get the answer according to law! I have also said this to you many times as you are the most qualified on the board to help determine these issues as you see things from both sides. I don't know why you are not quite getting what I am saying but you just are not. I do respect you Dan even when you get all in your heart about your business instead of looking at it through different eyes. When determining legal issues that could apply to yourself it is best to always look at that issue from a different set of eyes as they willsee more than your emotional eyes can see. The law and legalese is very confusing to the layman and that is why we the uninformed use attorneys as that is their job. If I wanted to know about coin presses and the process to make a token for something I want to commemorate I would not talk to my dentist, I would contact you. Do you see what I am saying? >>
I don't presently have the financial means to retain counsel for the purpose of investigating this issue. Nor do I have the time to organize a group. But I can write to the ANA and the FTC (again).
1) Hound the OP about what HE's going to do next, and how HE thinks the HPA applies to random objects, (as if he's the only person involved)
2) And at the same time, complain that the FTC hasn't properly defined many of their terms.
At the very least, this legal action WILL better define the HPA!
Don't like, or are nervous about the litigation? Fine. Personally, I think that "win or lose", things will be clearer....by at least a small margin....after the rulings are made.
<< <i>Dan you ask"Did your mother ever actually spend money on any of these "rounds" ?
Eating is a necessity. Coins and bullion are not. But if you think of coins and bullion as a form of "investment", every investor knows that you have to do your own due diligence, or find someone who can do it for you (like a 3rd-party coin certification company or a good stock broker)."
Dan to this question the answer is yes, some were given as gifts and some were inherited from my grandmother. >>
Do you happen to know what she paid for them, and what were they actually worth on the open market at the time of purchase ?
When I go to Quicktrip and buy a cup of coffee I do not send it out for testing to make sure it is as represented or looks. When I go to the State fair I do not investigate every purchase made from all sellers, when I go to the outlet mall I do not investigate every product I buy there either. For my Dad who just goes to a coin shop and buyes what he thinks is nice looking without a complete investigation of that purchase before spending $30.00 for my mom who takes the silver and puts it in a saftey deposit box and tells him " OH Gene it's nice thank you" and does not really care the above statement does not work. Can you with all honesty say that you investigate every purchase you make that is not paying a bill, say that candy at the five and dime?
<< <i>Dan on this I disagree:"I think it is entirely reasonable to expect at least a minimum amount of due diligence be done by people when buying non-essential discretionary items."
When I go to Quicktrip and buy a cup of coffee I do not send it out for testing to make sure it is as represented or looks. When I go to the State fair I do not investigate every purchase made from all sellers, when I go to the outlet mall I do not investigate every product I buy there either. For my Dad who just goes to a coin shop and buyes what he thinks is nice looking without a complete investigation of that purchase before spending $30.00 for my mom who takes the silver and puts it in a saftey deposit box and tells him " OH Gene it's nice thank you" and does not really care the above statement does not work. Can you with all honesty say that you investigate every purchase you make that is not paying a bill, say that candy at the five and dime? >>
Good reason to do business with those that you trust. Whether for a cup of coffee or an ounce of Silver or even more so a thousand dollar Morgan dollar. Those that expect a higher authority to protect them will always be disappointed.
<< <i>Dan on this I disagree:"I think it is entirely reasonable to expect at least a minimum amount of due diligence be done by people when buying non-essential discretionary items."
When I go to Quicktrip and buy a cup of coffee I do not send it out for testing to make sure it is as represented or looks. When I go to the State fair I do not investigate every purchase made from all sellers, when I go to the outlet mall I do not investigate every product I buy there either. For my Dad who just goes to a coin shop and buyes what he thinks is nice looking without a complete investigation of that purchase before spending $30.00 for my mom who takes the silver and puts it in a saftey deposit box and tells him " OH Gene it's nice thank you" and does not really care the above statement does not work. Can you with all honesty say that you investigate every purchase you make that is not paying a bill, say that candy at the five and dime? >>
True, but your actions indicate that you DID do some due diligence in choosing where you bought the coffee.
You bought it from a name-brand quick-mart that you are familiar with and trust. Your due diligence includes scoping out the store to make sure it is sanitary, etc.
AND, before drinking this coffee you know what it is supposed to look like, smell like, and taste like, and you compare that knowledge to the coffee you just bought.
That IS due diligence.
<< <i>I think it's totally unreasonable to:
1) Hound the OP about what HE's going to do next, and how HE thinks the HPA applies to random objects, (as if he's the only person involved). >>
The OPs lawsuit cites a previous ruling on the FTSD in regards to the HPA. That is why I brought it up.
And the other items I brought up were intended as a general question for anyone, not the OP exclusively.
At times people need help because they can not help themselves, that is just how it is. I along with many other members have asked questions on this board but some of the responses on this thread make it appear that everyone should already know the answer to the question they are asking. No one person is completely all knowing.
I got some pics from my sister of the snow you got and then we here in Wisconsin got blasted. Snow here is ugly I dislike it very much.
<< <i> We are talking the price for silver rounds and the point I have been trying to make is that at $20.00-$30.00 many people do not think about a purchase at that amount very much even with the drop our economy took. >>
I am late to this debate. As I understand it the casual buyers are allegedly buying silver rounds that they believe are silver eagles. If that is true and the dealer declines to explain the difference, they are paying say $25 for a piece that at the least contains $16.50 worth of silver.
John let me know if that is correct. If so, the potential harm is minimal and in my view, not worthy of legal action, especially as the rounds are undated.
<< <i>Sir I am disappointed in you Mr Glicker as you have changed your icon to one way more boring. We are talking the price for silver rounds and the point I have been trying to make is that at $20.00-$30.00 many people do not think about a purchase at that amount very much even with the drop our economy took. My parents are on a limited income as am I but many purchases under that amount go unresearched by many every day. How may people buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks and get a snack with it, you are at $20.00 almost right there.
If you go to a movie out by me the movie is $16.00 and 2 sodas and a popcorn are $16.00, so $32.00 and I did not investigate that popcorn or soda at all I just trusted that I was getting what I thought it was but who knows I might have been drinking carbonated urine.
We trust that the sour cream is what it is supposed to be at Taco bell but some one thought to check out that inexpensive product and found out it contains other ingredients. Many assumptions are made daily on many threads here that don't hold truth in the world out side of the reclusive coin community and many do not want to see that as it destroys their view of their world.
At times people need help because they can not help themselves, that is just how it is. I along with many other members have asked questions on this board but some of the responses on this thread make it appear that everyone should already know the answer to the question they are asking. No one person is completely all knowing.
I got some pics from my sister of the snow you got and then we here in Wisconsin got blasted. Snow here is ugly I dislike it very much. >>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you can't tell the difference between soda and carbonated urine you shouldn't being buying silver as you will need to save your money to have your stomach pumped
The answer to this question is that everyone needs to be protected from themselves as the people are incapable of making the most basic decisions concerning every aspect of their daily lives by themselves.
GrandAm
<< <i>That is correct but the action by the OP is more than the damages but many do not see it. >>
That is why I said earlier that the OP may have motives that we don't know about.
But the OP did say they were "bothered" by silver rounds that resemble coins, so that is a motive other than "damages".
Those fellas disturb me far more that the $16.50 round being sold for $25. Now if some shylock was pushing them as rare Eagles for $100 each, that is another matter. As noted though, anyone putting real money into anything needs to wise up first of find a trusted advisor.
Hoard the keys.
<< <i>You state "What he is saying is that in no way would someone "actually" confuse the Silver Round with a Silver Eagle AND the very action of bringing an HPA action against the seller was an exercise in the stupidity that the law appears to allow." and this is not true as many people who have no knowledge of numismatics could confuse these items as coins. Again my mother who is extremely intelligent and worked in management of the trucking industry for 30+ years would have no idea about this or silver eagles. She thought that some rounds that had trade dollar on them were real dollars when they were just copies of trade dollars. Just because you know something does not mean others will. It is like saying that that those that do not know how to tell a cream based sauce from a tofu based sauce are to stupid to eat sauce. I do not know many people who can tell me the differences between a very well don 1972 Chevy Chevelle SS and a clone so everyone who can not tell must be stupid. That is very limited thinking. >>
Au contraire, the limited thinking is not on my part because, you see, these silver rounds are sold at a cheaper rate than US Mint made silver eagles. The people doing the buying are buying "silver", not taco sauce.
It is the "collecting community" which has put a "value" on US Mint Silver Eagles via TPG slabs. Otherwise, silver eagles are purchased at "current spot" plus $2.00 then sold to the public at purchase price plus a specific markup usually dictated by volume.
Silver Rounds, on the other hand and in the case of the Westminster Mint, are sold at a flat $1.10 over spot. Cheaper but still 1 oz of silver.
Most folks that are buying "silver", be it rounds of eagles, are buying it as an investment hedge. Certainly not as a collectible coin.
Of course, there is always the marketing faction out there that take advantage of the coin collecting "market" by having these US Mint Manufactured "Silver Rounds", slabbed by TPG as First Strike or Early Realease or worse yet, as products of the San Francisco Mint. These need to be actual Silver Eagles yet not a singe TPG is going to slab a Silver Round as a "Silver Eagle" to afford a "collectors premium". This is not to say that there aren't folks out there that still carry their "Hot" coffee between their legs while driving but it is a clear distinction between Silver Rounds and US Silver Eagles whose collectability is totally dependent upon date and mintmark combination of which the Silver round in question simply does not have. Neither does it state that it is "ONE DOLLAR".
So, lacking those specific identifying features which actually give a Silver Eagle "Numismatic" status, exactly what are these a "COPY" of other than what someone would like to believe that they are a COPY of? I'd like to believe that my Ford Focus is actually a Ferrari (and sometimes it is -- to me) but calling it a Ferrari would simply be dumb.
I guess the real question here is can you actually "teach" people common sense via mandating vague laws which can be argued (Uncirculated yet still found in a Cash Drawer??) or is this something that some folks have while others, try as they might, simply cannot grasp the concept?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>As far as Dan's numerous examples of others doing the same or close to the same thing, just because someone else is doing it does not make it legal. It's no different than if everyone is speeding and I am the one who gets caught. I was still breaking the law even if I was only going 5 over. >>
What if a government entity (the Smithsonian) is the one doing it ?
Perhaps the government interprets the laws differently ?
<< <i>I'm sure I am going to get flamed for my opinion but I still think the OP is taking a beating when all he is trying to do is get the seller to follow the law.
If the seller did not need to put the word copy on the coin, why did they change the design to include it after the lawsuit? Mea Culpa! >>
The OP's case cited the FTSD. Why did the makers and sellers of the FTSD NOT put "COPY" on them after losing the lawsuits ?
And how is it that they were able to continue minting and selling the FTSD without "COPY" for six more years without any interference ?
But why is the OP bothering to go after these particular inconsequential silver rounds when there are a bunch of non-silver counterfeit Morgan dollars from China being sold on eBay at any given time ? >>
He is attempting to set a legal precedent which, as it appears, is based upon a "flawed" legal precedent. We will end up with a really screwed up interpretation of the Law to which "IN GOD WE TRUST", LIBERTY, an Annual Date, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA can only be used on authentic US Mint Products or Products of some other National Mint unless the word COPY is used whether or not its an actual and comparable copy.
Maybe I should notify Providence Metals to start adding the word COPY to their Zombucks.
Someone might actually sue them because they thought it was a Morgan Dollar when they bought it and I was the stupid one for selling it so cheap??
The name is LEE!