<< <i>so what was "Won" and what was the "Victory" from this case?? >>
The main victory is the Westminster mint is started marking the silver rounds that look coins with "copy." I might also add that they are doing this more than just the rounds in our suit, but any of the rounds the sell that look like replicas of coins.
<< <i>so what was "Won" and what was the "Victory" from this case?? >>
Bragging rights? >>
No, I would not say I won any bragging rights. Now if the MN coin bullion law is ever declared unconstitutional, and if I had a hand in it, you will see some serious bragging. I can dream right?
<< <i>Winder why my posts aren't showing up since APMEX and Provident have silver rounds which are not stamped COPY. >>
I have noticed their seems to be a bug in the forum, where the first posts on a new page doesn't seem to show up. You notice their is a post you can not read, you can just increment the number in the URL, to see the last page.
<< <i>Minnesota --"The Land of 10,000 Frivolous Law Suits"
mark >>
I got by a motion to dismiss, so that means the federal courts didn't think it was Frivolous. >>
In the court of common sense this was as frivolous as they come.
Mark >>
We will just have to agree to disagree. >>
Fair enough
Mark >>
People here have ideas on what complies and what doesn't
There is disagreement.
This is why there was disappointment with a settlement instead of a judge ruling. There are those of us who wanted a third party, educated legal opinion on the matter of compliance v violation. >>
If you look at the judges ruling in the motion to dismiss in both the DeMarco case and my case, you will see guidance on what constitutes a violation. I think the main problem is a lot of people are in denial the judges ruling did not go the way they wanted it to.
I would have loved to go to discovery where I get to ask them questions and they get to ask me questions. We didn't really have much choice, when the defendants offers us what the likely result would be if we go to trial and win, we must take it.
<< <i>We certainly agree on the biggest villain, definitely the MN law. I know ITCA has organized some dealers, and have an effort underway to change the law. They seem to be more focused on a legislative fix. I have been around MN politics for a long time and I think seeking a legislative fix is wasted effort with the current Governor and the Democrats (we call them the DFL in MN) in control of the Minnesota Senate. I am currently on the hunt for a lawyer with a good understanding of the constitution, because I think the law is vulnerable to a constitutional challenge. Stay tuned.
What is the most aggravating,most rankling thing about the MN bullion laws? Is not seeking a legislative fix the sensible way to go? After all,the legislature is where the laws are made? I admit to being mostly ignorant about MN laws,the sole exception being the law in Minnesota as it relates to a certain substance that the evidence has shown to have valid medicinal uses.I wish we had an open forum around here.I really do enjoy exchanging ideas on a host of subjects with intelligent people....anyways,is this what is pizzing people off?
"Effective July 1, 2014, in order to sell to buyers in Minnesota professional sellers of any coin with more than 1% content of silver, gold, platinum, or palladium, must register with the State of Minnesota, paying a surety bond of at least 10% of their gross sales. In response, numismatists are embargoing Minnesota. Some refuse to sell even face-to-face outside of Minnesota, with anyone from Minnesota."
Tomthecoinguy,please write a few words for us about the MN law so that us ignorant ones can put your cause into a better perspective.
I'm thinking that all law is vulnerable to constitutional challenge.Unlike perfect coins,there is no such thing as perfect law but it looks to me like MN bullion dealer law is draconian.There is no better word for it. >>
I could go on and on about the problems with the MN coin bullion dealer law. I will try to write a few words about it tomorrow. I am pretty tired now because I setup at an "occasional" coin show today. While you are waiting for me to reply with an answer, here is a previous thread, the initial post contains links to other threads on the subject of the MN coin bullion dealer law.
<< <i>so what was "Won" and what was the "Victory" from this case?? >>
Bragging rights? >>
No, I would not say I won any bragging rights. Now if the MN coin bullion law is ever declared unconstitutional, and if I had a hand in it, you will see some serious bragging. I can dream right? >>
So while your lawsuit may have been inspired by the MN bullion law, I'm failing to see any additional correlation.
And as an actual libertarian, I don't see the need for the government to prevent private individuals via force from selling items that can be determined not to be genuine US coins with the slightest bit of superficial research. But whatever, at least the lawyers got paid.
<< <i>so what was "Won" and what was the "Victory" from this case?? >>
Bragging rights? >>
No, I would not say I won any bragging rights. Now if the MN coin bullion law is ever declared unconstitutional, and if I had a hand in it, you will see some serious bragging. I can dream right? >>
So while your lawsuit may have been inspired by the MN bullion law, I'm failing to see any additional correlation.
And as an actual libertarian, I don't see the need for the government to prevent private individuals via force from selling items that can be determined not to be genuine US coins with the slightest bit of superficial research. But whatever, at least the lawyers got paid. >>
Did you read my post where I explain the connection? If you did and still do not see it, then you will just have to wait until things unfold.
So as a real libertarian does that mean you object to all counterfeiting laws? Sounds like it.
<< <i>so what was "Won" and what was the "Victory" from this case?? >>
Bragging rights? >>
No, I would not say I won any bragging rights. Now if the MN coin bullion law is ever declared unconstitutional, and if I had a hand in it, you will see some serious bragging. I can dream right? >>
So while your lawsuit may have been inspired by the MN bullion law, I'm failing to see any additional correlation.
And as an actual libertarian, I don't see the need for the government to prevent private individuals via force from selling items that can be determined not to be genuine US coins with the slightest bit of superficial research. But whatever, at least the lawyers got paid. >>
Did you read my post where I explain the connection? If you did and still do not see it, then you will just have to wait until things unfold.
So as a real libertarian does that mean you object to all counterfeiting laws? Sounds like it. >>
As something that does not purport to be an authentic item and as I stated, "can be determined not to be genuine US coins with the slightest bit of superficial research" I have a hard time viewing it as a counterfeit item. Feel free to make rash assumptions, but I believe in very strong property rights, including counterfeiting laws. But only for what are counterfeit items.
Assuming you are referring to your post about the seemingly arbitrary distinction between bars and coins, I did read that post and I guess I will have to wait for things to unfold to see how this settlement affects the Minnesota bullion law. I am certainly in agreement that it is a terrible law.
<< <i>So with your vast victory exposed as specious, you drag in another piece of law that wasn't even part of the litigation?
Sun Tze never said "when challenged obfuscate" >>
"So it is that good warriors take their stand on ground where they cannot lose, and do not over look conditions that make an opponent prone to defeat. Therefore a victorious army first wins and then seeks battle; a defeated army first battles and then seeks victory." -Sun Tzu
<< <i>Looks like the OP is taking a law intended to protect people fom fraud and monetary loss and trying to make it apply to "I am offended by this." >>
I would say the law is working as intended, I was able to use the law to get someone to stop selling those silver eagle look-a-likes without being properly marked. I am amazed how people seem to think the HPA is only there to protect people that are experts in coins, they don't realize that it was also written to protect the people with just a casual interest in them, and may lack the knowledge.
<< <i>Looks like the OP is taking a law intended to protect people fom fraud and monetary loss and trying to make it apply to "I am offended by this." >>
I would say the law is working as intended, I was able to use the law to get someone to stop selling those silver eagle look-a-likes without being properly marked. I am amazed how people seem to think the HPA is only there to protect people that are experts in coins, they don't realize that it was also written to protect the people with just a casual interest in them, and may lack the knowledge. >>
I'd be surprised if really anyone thought the HPA is to only protect experts. I just think one thing that many on the forum are having a hard time with is that you are "protecting" people from buying silver at essentially spot.
I am a plaintiffs lawyer in civil matters, like this. I also am a coin collector my whole adult life. I would never take this case. i can't imagine how much time was wasted so the OP could get $1000 or whatever else the Plaintiffs may have got. Attorney's fees (both sides) had to be astronomical. Discovery costs, Depositions, interogatorrys, thousands more. Probably settled by a mediator, which can run thousands. And the waste of the Court's time, personnel, and security. That is not my idea of justice. Let's find some true liability and real compensatory damages. That's a fair fight. That's what the Constitution intended courts for.
This makes my profession look terrible and I apologize to you all.
<< <i>Winder why my posts aren't showing up since APMEX and Provident have silver rounds which are not stamped COPY. >>
I have noticed their seems to be a bug in the forum, where the first posts on a new page doesn't seem to show up. You notice their is a post you can not read, you can just increment the number in the URL, to see the last page. >>
I remember reading about this and wondering what folks were talking about. I guess, now I know.
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>Minnesota --"The Land of 10,000 Frivolous Law Suits"
mark >>
I got by a motion to dismiss, so that means the federal courts didn't think it was Frivolous. >>
In the court of common sense this was as frivolous as they come.
Mark >>
We will just have to agree to disagree. >>
Fair enough
Mark >>
People here have ideas on what complies and what doesn't
There is disagreement.
This is why there was disappointment with a settlement instead of a judge ruling. There are those of us who wanted a third party, educated legal opinion on the matter of compliance v violation. >>
If you look at the judges ruling in the motion to dismiss in both the DeMarco case and my case, you will see guidance on what constitutes a violation. I think the main problem is a lot of people are in denial the judges ruling did not go the way they wanted it to.
I would have loved to go to discovery where I get to ask them questions and they get to ask me questions. We didn't really have much choice, when the defendants offers us what the likely result would be if we go to trial and win, we must take it. >>
Not necessarily because from what I understand, you were going after Silver Round Sellers/Manufacturers. Having the case go to completion would have set a legal precedent that could be used in future litigation.
As it sits right now, nothing which is useable came out of your case.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>Looks like the OP is taking a law intended to protect people fom fraud and monetary loss and trying to make it apply to "I am offended by this." >>
I would say the law is working as intended, I was able to use the law to get someone to stop selling those silver eagle look-a-likes without being properly marked. I am amazed how people seem to think the HPA is only there to protect people that are experts in coins, they don't realize that it was also written to protect the people with just a casual interest in them, and may lack the knowledge. >>
Well........."I think" that the law was never "tested" and what was really working here, is the Civil Court System.
Much like criminal plea bargains, nothing got settled except for Westminster Mint offered a settlement and you and your attorney accepted.
Your attorney, is now free to continue cases such as this, opting for a settlement, only to take another. He/she gets paid with each case. I certainly do not fault that specific firm but an endless cycle of litigation "could" possibly occur without ever actually "testing" the merits of Silver Rounds which look like US coins in respect to the HPA.
When you gonna buy from APMEX? That should prove interesting since I'm sure they have much deeper pockets than the Westminster Mint. What with being a US Mint Authorized purchaser and all.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>I am a plaintiffs lawyer in civil matters, like this. I also am a coin collector my whole adult life. I would never take this case. i can't imagine how much time was wasted so the OP could get $1000 or whatever else the Plaintiffs may have got. Attorney's fees (both sides) had to be astronomical. Discovery costs, Depositions, interogatorrys, thousands more. Probably settled by a mediator, which can run thousands. And the waste of the Court's time, personnel, and security. That is not my idea of justice. Let's find some true liability and real compensatory damages. That's a fair fight. That's what the Constitution intended courts for.
This makes my profession look terrible and I apologize to you all. >>
What really makes the legal profession look bad is when a lawyer goes out to a message board and comments on a case when they have not read all the fillings, and then goes out and provides incorrect information about the case. I think any lawyer that does that should apologize to the board.
BTW - My case was settled before discovery, so there were no discovery costs, depositions, interrogatory's, and no mediator.
<< <i>Minnesota --"The Land of 10,000 Frivolous Law Suits"
mark >>
I got by a motion to dismiss, so that means the federal courts didn't think it was Frivolous. >>
In the court of common sense this was as frivolous as they come.
Mark >>
We will just have to agree to disagree. >>
Fair enough
Mark >>
People here have ideas on what complies and what doesn't
There is disagreement.
This is why there was disappointment with a settlement instead of a judge ruling. There are those of us who wanted a third party, educated legal opinion on the matter of compliance v violation. >>
If you look at the judges ruling in the motion to dismiss in both the DeMarco case and my case, you will see guidance on what constitutes a violation. I think the main problem is a lot of people are in denial the judges ruling did not go the way they wanted it to.
I would have loved to go to discovery where I get to ask them questions and they get to ask me questions. We didn't really have much choice, when the defendants offers us what the likely result would be if we go to trial and win, we must take it. >>
Not necessarily because from what I understand, you were going after Silver Round Sellers/Manufacturers. Having the case go to completion would have set a legal precedent that could be used in future litigation.
As it sits right now, nothing which is useable came out of your case. >>
It does not need to go to completion to be useful. The DeMarco case was settled at the same point as mine, after the plaintiff got by a motion to dismiss. My lawyer used the DeMarco ruling denying the motion to dismiss in our fillings. My case could be used as well, although it really doesn't need to be because DeMarco set the standard.
<< <i>Looks like the OP is taking a law intended to protect people fom fraud and monetary loss and trying to make it apply to "I am offended by this." >>
I would say the law is working as intended, I was able to use the law to get someone to stop selling those silver eagle look-a-likes without being properly marked. I am amazed how people seem to think the HPA is only there to protect people that are experts in coins, they don't realize that it was also written to protect the people with just a casual interest in them, and may lack the knowledge. >>
Well........."I think" that the law was never "tested" and what was really working here, is the Civil Court System.
Much like criminal plea bargains, nothing got settled except for Westminster Mint offered a settlement and you and your attorney accepted.
Your attorney, is now free to continue cases such as this, opting for a settlement, only to take another. He/she gets paid with each case. I certainly do not fault that specific firm but an endless cycle of litigation "could" possibly occur without ever actually "testing" the merits of Silver Rounds which look like US coins in respect to the HPA.
When you gonna buy from APMEX? That should prove interesting since I'm sure they have much deeper pockets than the Westminster Mint. What with being a US Mint Authorized purchaser and all. >>
The ball is rolling, and hopefully the industry will clean up it's act. I do not expect to be a lead plaintiff in another HPA case.
I was able to use the law to get someone to stop selling those silver eagle look-a-likes without being properly marked.
I will say what has maybe been danced around --- anyone who is "fooled" by what you have pictured throughout the thread as "silver eagle look-a-likes" is a fool who probably should have educated themselves. there are enough starkly obvious differences between the items so that there should be no confusion, even with the slickest marketing.
I am a plaintiffs lawyer in civil matters, like this. I also am a coin collector my whole adult life. I would never take this case. i can't imagine how much time was wasted so the OP could get $1000 or whatever else the Plaintiffs may have got. Attorney's fees (both sides) had to be astronomical. Discovery costs, Depositions, interogatorrys, thousands more. Probably settled by a mediator, which can run thousands. And the waste of the Court's time, personnel, and security. That is not my idea of justice. Let's find some true liability and real compensatory damages. That's a fair fight. That's what the Constitution intended courts for.
This makes my profession look terrible and I apologize to you all.
I agree about the waste of court resources and time. Nobody was being harmed here. I'm surprised that the judge let it continue, except that Minnesota has already shown it's proclivity to stick it's nose into places where it doesn't belong as it concerns coins and bullion.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>Looks like the OP is taking a law intended to protect people fom fraud and monetary loss and trying to make it apply to "I am offended by this." >>
I would say the law is working as intended, I was able to use the law to get someone to stop selling those silver eagle look-a-likes without being properly marked. I am amazed how people seem to think the HPA is only there to protect people that are experts in coins, they don't realize that it was also written to protect the people with just a casual interest in them, and may lack the knowledge. >>
I'd be surprised if really anyone thought the HPA is to only protect experts. I just think one thing that many on the forum are having a hard time with is that you are "protecting" people from buying silver at essentially spot. >>
When someone decides they want to invest in physical silver, they then have to decide what form to invest in. They can invest in coins, where they have to pay a little more or they can buy silver rounds and bars where they can buy it closer to spot. The advantages to buying the coins is your silver is guaranteed for weight and purity by the issuing government. In the case of Silver eagles and Silver Maples they are recognized world wide, you can also get added liquidity because there are more people willing to buy bullion coins than bullion bars and rounds. Of course the advantage of bars and rounds, is you are paying closer to spot.
Weighing the proves and cons, either one could be the right decision for the customer, it is just a decision they will need to make. The problem comes in when we have these silver rounds that look like other products. I can tell you first hand that new investors have been deceived into thinking they were buying government issued products when in fact they were buying something from a private mint.
Some of you may be saying, while they are still getting silver. But I am saying they were duped, and who here faced with the opportunity to buy silver eagles or silver rounds at the same price, would pick the silver rounds? Not many.
If you didn't think there are people on this board that think the HPA is only designed to protect knowledgeable collector's, look at the post right above this one. If you don't think anyone is really duped by these silver rounds that look like a coin, then why does the Mint have a webpage dedicated to explaining the difference?
Don't think the HPA is meant to cover silver rounds that look like coins?
Well this is from the Mint website linked above link:
How can I distinguish between a genuine U.S. coin and a replica?
It is often difficult to distinguish between genuine U.S. coins and replicas. The Hobby Protection Act requires that all imitation coins and other numismatic items be permanently marked with the word "COPY". However, some businesses in China are producing unmarked imitations of pre-1950 United States coins and are selling them on-line. Genuine U.S. coins feature the denomination (e.g., One Dollar), while replicas generally omit the denomination and feature a description of the product in its place, such as "giant proof" or "silver proof" or ".999 fine silver."
Clearly with that last line that some of these replicas are marked ".999 fine silver" they are clearing in this the kind of silver round from my lawsuit.
I think it is a bad practice for the industry to be duping new people who are starting to invest. It is a good way to get new people out of the hobby, or stop them from investing.
I say if you want a silver eagle buy a silver eagle, if you want a silver round that looks like a silver eagle buy one that says "copy," and if you don't want your silver round to have "copy" on it, buy a silver round that doesn't look like a coin. Our hobby will be better off for it, and it is the law. Like it or not.
Sorry just for you. If there are other forum members who need a little suport after what I said, well im sorry. I dont need to read filings to understand what went on here. Our Courts were not formed for that kind of lawsuite. Its unfortunate. Do you know what usually makes liberty's scales of justice tip? The answe is bullshat.
<< <i> I was able to use the law to get someone to stop selling those silver eagle look-a-likes without being properly marked.
I will say what has maybe been danced around --- anyone who is "fooled" by what you have pictured throughout the thread as "silver eagle look-a-likes" is a fool who probably should have educated themselves. there are enough starkly obvious differences between the items so that there should be no confusion, even with the slickest marketing. >>
I think we may have boiled down to what our disagreement really comes to. You say that we should not require "copy" on these silver rounds because anyone that doesn't know the difference is a fool. I say we were all ignorant once, and it is an unnecessary detriment to the hobby to have our first introduction to newbs is duping them.
My lawyer is happy with the attorney's fees he is getting from the defendants
Must not needed the money then, because I bet there's no way he was compensated anywhere near what he should have been considering the time he must have put into the case.
I think it is a bad practice for the industry to be duping new people who are starting to invest. It is a good way to get new people out of the hobby, or stop them from investing.
Nobody was duped. Why don't you admit that there was nothing misrepresented? Nobody was charging Silver Eagle prices or calling the rounds Silver Eagles.
If anything, it's bad practice to dupe a judge who is totally ignorant of the industry into thinking that some gray area of the law was somehow breached. The whole lawsuit was a farce.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>My lawyer is happy with the attorney's fees he is getting from the defendants
Must not needed the money then, because I bet there's no way he was compensated anywhere near what he should have been considering the time he must have put into the case. >>
I think it worked out to be a little north of $425 an hour for him. It should all be in the filings with the court. I agree he should have gotten more, he earned it. He took a discount from his normal rate to help settle the case.
<< <i>I think it is a bad practice for the industry to be duping new people who are starting to invest. It is a good way to get new people out of the hobby, or stop them from investing.
Nobody was duped. Why don't you admit that there was nothing misrepresented? Nobody was charging Silver Eagle prices or calling the rounds Silver Eagles.
If anything, it's bad practice to dupe a judge who is totally ignorant of the industry into thinking that some gray area of the law was somehow breached. The whole lawsuit was a farce. >>
That is simply not true. Newbs are ripped off all the time by these, do you not know what kind of money these telemarketers charge? There was no "gray area of the law" involved in this case. There seems to be a lot of denial on these boards, but these look-a-like silver eagles are not a gray area they are a very clear violation. Check out the mint website I posted earlier, http://www.usmint.gov/consumer/?action=replicas
<< <i>I think it is a bad practice for the industry to be duping new people who are starting to invest. It is a good way to get new people out of the hobby, or stop them from investing.
Nobody was duped. Why don't you admit that there was nothing misrepresented? Nobody was charging Silver Eagle prices or calling the rounds Silver Eagles.
If anything, it's bad practice to dupe a judge who is totally ignorant of the industry into thinking that some gray area of the law was somehow breached. The whole lawsuit was a farce. >>
That is simply not true. Newbs are ripped off all the time by these, do you not know what kind of money these telemarketers charge? There was no "gray area of the law" involved in this case. There seems to be a lot of denial on these boards, but these look-a-like silver eagles are not a gray area they are a very clear violation. Check out the mint website I posted earlier, http://www.usmint.gov/consumer/?action=replicas >>
What do telemarketers have to do with your suit?
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
<< <i>Some of you may be saying, while they are still getting silver. But I am saying they were duped, and who here faced with the opportunity to buy silver eagles or silver rounds at the same price, would pick the silver rounds? Not many. >>
What was the price spread between the rounds and authentic ASEs at the time of purchase? (I apologize if it is buried in the thread right now). Currently, Westminster sells ASEs for $19.06 and generic walking liberty rounds are $17.05. That greatly reduces the argument of customers being ripped off as customers are not paying ASE prices for generic rounds. They are paying generic round prices for generic rounds. If you had purchased $20K in generic silver rounds and paid ASE+ pricing, there would be some sympathy.
I'm afraid of being ripped of by buying bruised fruit at the grocery store. It looks from the outside like it is good, but on the inside it is bruised. We need a law requiring stores to mark bruised fruit. I'm afraid I might be charmed by a slick salesman and buy a powerboat I don't need or can't afford. We need a law that the boat store needs to account for my financial situation before selling me a boat. I think there is just a fundamental difference in the amount of government "protection" and hand holding that should happen.
I believe you are on the right side of the war, but picked the wrong battle.
here's the thing with our Hobby, everyone wants the get rich quick scheme so they allow themselves to be duped merely because they don't investigate what they are doing before they do it. working at a coin shop exposes me to all sorts of "newbies" and the ones that ALWAYS end up doing better are the ones who come in and ask questions before they start making purchases. you can twist this around as much as you choose but a little investigation will prevent a new collector from confusing the two items in the OP.
<< <i>I think it is a bad practice for the industry to be duping new people who are starting to invest. It is a good way to get new people out of the hobby, or stop them from investing.
Nobody was duped. Why don't you admit that there was nothing misrepresented? Nobody was charging Silver Eagle prices or calling the rounds Silver Eagles.
If anything, it's bad practice to dupe a judge who is totally ignorant of the industry into thinking that some gray area of the law was somehow breached. The whole lawsuit was a farce. >>
It only takes watching one episode of HSN to figure out that folks are being constantly duped even when buying authentic Mint produced coins.
I opened this thread because just today I received an offer to spend $99 for a silver round that is a replica of a gold round that is based on a design never used and contains $16 of pure silver. But since it says it is a $100 coin, I can't lose, right?
<< <i>Some of you may be saying, while they are still getting silver. But I am saying they were duped, and who here faced with the opportunity to buy silver eagles or silver rounds at the same price, would pick the silver rounds? Not many. >>
What was the price spread between the rounds and authentic ASEs at the time of purchase? (I apologize if it is buried in the thread right now). Currently, Westminster sells ASEs for $19.06 and generic walking liberty rounds are $17.05. That greatly reduces the argument of customers being ripped off as customers are not paying ASE prices for generic rounds. They are paying generic round prices for generic rounds. If you had purchased $20K in generic silver rounds and paid ASE+ pricing, there would be some sympathy.
I'm afraid of being ripped of by buying bruised fruit at the grocery store. It looks from the outside like it is good, but on the inside it is bruised. We need a law requiring stores to mark bruised fruit. I'm afraid I might be charmed by a slick salesman and buy a powerboat I don't need or can't afford. We need a law that the boat store needs to account for my financial situation before selling me a boat. I think there is just a fundamental difference in the amount of government "protection" and hand holding that should happen.
I believe you are on the right side of the war, but picked the wrong battle. >>
Cannot always go by the price a company posts on their website, They added other costs, not only did they charge shipping but they had extra cost for "handling fee / surcharge."
<< Newbs are ripped off all the time by these, do you not know what kind of money these telemarketers charge? >>
Filing a garbage lawsuit against a producer of silver rounds won't change the verbiage or tactics of the telemarketers one iota, but it does stain the bullion industry.
You still haven't provided one example of someone being ripped off because of a buyer thinking that he was buying a Silver Eagle and consequently paying a whopping $2.00 more for the 1 oz. of silver. Surely, you must have at least one example. Surely, the judge needed at least one example. Oh, unless it was Minnesota.
I've said my piece. This thread isn't going anywhere.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
There is some good information on the history of the Highland mint, and Irving Kott in this story from Sharesleuths on February 4, 2014 titled "Trick Play: Memorabilia company peddled Patriots, Seahawks gear with forged player autographs."
<< <i><< Newbs are ripped off all the time by these, do you not know what kind of money these telemarketers charge? >>
Filing a garbage lawsuit against a producer of silver rounds won't change the verbiage or tactics of the telemarketers one iota, but it does stain the bullion industry.
You still haven't provided one example of someone being ripped off because of a buyer thinking that he was buying a Silver Eagle and consequently paying a whopping $2.00 more for the 1 oz. of silver. Surely, you must have at least one example. Surely, the judge needed at least one example. Oh, unless it was Minnesota.
I've said my piece. This thread isn't going anywhere. >>
It happens all the time that people are deceived by these things. If it didn't, why would the mint put out a webpage talking about it. BTW - It was a federal court.
Paying close to silver "spot" for a round was fine, regardless of whether the thing looked somewhat like a US coin or not. No harm done either way.
The biggest pitfall for a newbie was polished VF-XF genuine coins marketed as "BU" (Brilliant Uncirculated). I personally saw a few friends pay too much for polished coins and then become dejected when they tried to sell or trade them months later. Of course, the reason they bought the coins in the first place was that they were much cheaper than true BU coins. But there was some real damage being done to numismatics and some people were leaving the hobby and not coming back. Education and third-party grading is what alleviated the problem to a great extent, not lawsuits and government intervention. The free market (the innovation of third-party certification) took care of the problem.
In a way, I think this lawsuit might have an effect that is opposite of that which was desired. To legislators in Minnesota (for example), this lawsuit might send a message that reinforces their view that coin dealers can not be trusted and need more regulation. In this business (numismatics), government intervention and regulation is bad. Free-market solutions are vastly superior.
Comments
The name is LEE!
The name is LEE!
<< <i>so what was "Won" and what was the "Victory" from this case?? >>
The main victory is the Westminster mint is started marking the silver rounds that look coins with "copy." I might also add that they are doing this more than just the rounds in our suit, but any of the rounds the sell that look like replicas of coins.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>so what was "Won" and what was the "Victory" from this case?? >>
Bragging rights? >>
No, I would not say I won any bragging rights. Now if the MN coin bullion law is ever declared unconstitutional, and if I had a hand in it, you will see some serious bragging. I can dream right?
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>Winder why my posts aren't showing up since APMEX and Provident have silver rounds which are not stamped COPY. >>
I have noticed their seems to be a bug in the forum, where the first posts on a new page doesn't seem to show up. You notice their is a post you can not read, you can just increment the number in the URL, to see the last page.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Minnesota --"The Land of 10,000 Frivolous Law Suits"
mark >>
I got by a motion to dismiss, so that means the federal courts didn't think it was Frivolous. >>
In the court of common sense this was as frivolous as they come.
Mark >>
We will just have to agree to disagree. >>
Fair enough
Mark >>
People here have ideas on what complies and what doesn't
There is disagreement.
This is why there was disappointment with a settlement instead of a judge ruling. There are those of us who wanted a third party, educated legal opinion on the matter of compliance v violation. >>
If you look at the judges ruling in the motion to dismiss in both the DeMarco case and my case, you will see guidance on what constitutes a violation. I think the main problem is a lot of people are in denial the judges ruling did not go the way they wanted it to.
I would have loved to go to discovery where I get to ask them questions and they get to ask me questions. We didn't really have much choice, when the defendants offers us what the likely result would be if we go to trial and win, we must take it.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>We certainly agree on the biggest villain, definitely the MN law. I know ITCA has organized some dealers, and have an effort underway to change the law. They seem to be more focused on a legislative fix. I have been around MN politics for a long time and I think seeking a legislative fix is wasted effort with the current Governor and the Democrats (we call them the DFL in MN) in control of the Minnesota Senate. I am currently on the hunt for a lawyer with a good understanding of the constitution, because I think the law is vulnerable to a constitutional challenge. Stay tuned.
What is the most aggravating,most rankling thing about the MN bullion laws? Is not seeking a legislative fix the sensible way to go? After all,the legislature is where the laws are made? I admit to being mostly ignorant about MN laws,the sole exception being the law in Minnesota as it relates to a certain substance that the evidence has shown to have valid medicinal uses.I wish we had an open forum around here.I really do enjoy exchanging ideas on a host of subjects with intelligent people....anyways,is this what is pizzing people off?
"Effective July 1, 2014, in order to sell to buyers in Minnesota professional sellers of any coin with more than 1% content of silver, gold, platinum, or palladium, must register with the State of Minnesota, paying a surety bond of at least 10% of their gross sales. In response, numismatists are embargoing Minnesota. Some refuse to sell even face-to-face outside of Minnesota, with anyone from Minnesota."
rebirthofreason.com
Tomthecoinguy,please write a few words for us about the MN law so that us ignorant ones can put your cause into a better perspective.
I'm thinking that all law is vulnerable to constitutional challenge.Unlike perfect coins,there is no such thing as perfect law but it looks to me like MN bullion dealer law is draconian.There is no better word for it.
I could go on and on about the problems with the MN coin bullion dealer law. I will try to write a few words about it tomorrow. I am pretty tired now because I setup at an "occasional" coin show today. While you are waiting for me to reply with an answer, here is a previous thread, the initial post contains links to other threads on the subject of the MN coin bullion dealer law.
http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=923227&STARTPAGE=1
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>so what was "Won" and what was the "Victory" from this case?? >>
Bragging rights? >>
No, I would not say I won any bragging rights. Now if the MN coin bullion law is ever declared unconstitutional, and if I had a hand in it, you will see some serious bragging. I can dream right? >>
So while your lawsuit may have been inspired by the MN bullion law, I'm failing to see any additional correlation.
And as an actual libertarian, I don't see the need for the government to prevent private individuals via force from selling items that can be determined not to be genuine US coins with the slightest bit of superficial research. But whatever, at least the lawyers got paid.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>so what was "Won" and what was the "Victory" from this case?? >>
Bragging rights? >>
No, I would not say I won any bragging rights. Now if the MN coin bullion law is ever declared unconstitutional, and if I had a hand in it, you will see some serious bragging. I can dream right? >>
So while your lawsuit may have been inspired by the MN bullion law, I'm failing to see any additional correlation.
And as an actual libertarian, I don't see the need for the government to prevent private individuals via force from selling items that can be determined not to be genuine US coins with the slightest bit of superficial research. But whatever, at least the lawyers got paid. >>
Did you read my post where I explain the connection? If you did and still do not see it, then you will just have to wait until things unfold.
So as a real libertarian does that mean you object to all counterfeiting laws? Sounds like it.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>so what was "Won" and what was the "Victory" from this case?? >>
Bragging rights? >>
No, I would not say I won any bragging rights. Now if the MN coin bullion law is ever declared unconstitutional, and if I had a hand in it, you will see some serious bragging. I can dream right? >>
So while your lawsuit may have been inspired by the MN bullion law, I'm failing to see any additional correlation.
And as an actual libertarian, I don't see the need for the government to prevent private individuals via force from selling items that can be determined not to be genuine US coins with the slightest bit of superficial research. But whatever, at least the lawyers got paid. >>
Did you read my post where I explain the connection? If you did and still do not see it, then you will just have to wait until things unfold.
So as a real libertarian does that mean you object to all counterfeiting laws? Sounds like it. >>
As something that does not purport to be an authentic item and as I stated, "can be determined not to be genuine US coins with the slightest bit of superficial research" I have a hard time viewing it as a counterfeit item. Feel free to make rash assumptions, but I believe in very strong property rights, including counterfeiting laws. But only for what are counterfeit items.
Assuming you are referring to your post about the seemingly arbitrary distinction between bars and coins, I did read that post and I guess I will have to wait for things to unfold to see how this settlement affects the Minnesota bullion law. I am certainly in agreement that it is a terrible law.
<< <i>Every time my lawyer calls me he asks the same thing. "Joe, you got some silver ? ".
Be glad to drop ship some to him.
Sun Tze never said "when challenged obfuscate"
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
<< <i>So with your vast victory exposed as specious, you drag in another piece of law that wasn't even part of the litigation?
Sun Tze never said "when challenged obfuscate" >>
"So it is that good warriors take their stand on ground where they cannot lose, and do not over look conditions that make an opponent prone to defeat. Therefore a victorious army first wins and then seeks battle; a defeated army first battles and then seeks victory." -Sun Tzu
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>Looks like the OP is taking a law intended to protect people fom fraud and monetary loss and trying to make it apply to "I am offended by this." >>
I would say the law is working as intended, I was able to use the law to get someone to stop selling those silver eagle look-a-likes without being properly marked. I am amazed how people seem to think the HPA is only there to protect people that are experts in coins, they don't realize that it was also written to protect the people with just a casual interest in them, and may lack the knowledge.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Of course, it would be fruitless to try to convince a proglib of that.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
<< <i>
<< <i>Looks like the OP is taking a law intended to protect people fom fraud and monetary loss and trying to make it apply to "I am offended by this." >>
I would say the law is working as intended, I was able to use the law to get someone to stop selling those silver eagle look-a-likes without being properly marked. I am amazed how people seem to think the HPA is only there to protect people that are experts in coins, they don't realize that it was also written to protect the people with just a casual interest in them, and may lack the knowledge. >>
I'd be surprised if really anyone thought the HPA is to only protect experts. I just think one thing that many on the forum are having a hard time with is that you are "protecting" people from buying silver at essentially spot.
This makes my profession look terrible and I apologize to you all.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
<< <i>
<< <i>Winder why my posts aren't showing up since APMEX and Provident have silver rounds which are not stamped COPY. >>
I have noticed their seems to be a bug in the forum, where the first posts on a new page doesn't seem to show up. You notice their is a post you can not read, you can just increment the number in the URL, to see the last page. >>
I remember reading about this and wondering what folks were talking about. I guess, now I know.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Minnesota --"The Land of 10,000 Frivolous Law Suits"
mark >>
I got by a motion to dismiss, so that means the federal courts didn't think it was Frivolous. >>
In the court of common sense this was as frivolous as they come.
Mark >>
We will just have to agree to disagree. >>
Fair enough
Mark >>
People here have ideas on what complies and what doesn't
There is disagreement.
This is why there was disappointment with a settlement instead of a judge ruling. There are those of us who wanted a third party, educated legal opinion on the matter of compliance v violation. >>
If you look at the judges ruling in the motion to dismiss in both the DeMarco case and my case, you will see guidance on what constitutes a violation. I think the main problem is a lot of people are in denial the judges ruling did not go the way they wanted it to.
I would have loved to go to discovery where I get to ask them questions and they get to ask me questions. We didn't really have much choice, when the defendants offers us what the likely result would be if we go to trial and win, we must take it. >>
Not necessarily because from what I understand, you were going after Silver Round Sellers/Manufacturers. Having the case go to completion would have set a legal precedent that could be used in future litigation.
As it sits right now, nothing which is useable came out of your case.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>Looks like the OP is taking a law intended to protect people fom fraud and monetary loss and trying to make it apply to "I am offended by this." >>
I would say the law is working as intended, I was able to use the law to get someone to stop selling those silver eagle look-a-likes without being properly marked. I am amazed how people seem to think the HPA is only there to protect people that are experts in coins, they don't realize that it was also written to protect the people with just a casual interest in them, and may lack the knowledge. >>
Well........."I think" that the law was never "tested" and what was really working here, is the Civil Court System.
Much like criminal plea bargains, nothing got settled except for Westminster Mint offered a settlement and you and your attorney accepted.
Your attorney, is now free to continue cases such as this, opting for a settlement, only to take another. He/she gets paid with each case. I certainly do not fault that specific firm but an endless cycle of litigation "could" possibly occur without ever actually "testing" the merits of Silver Rounds which look like US coins in respect to the HPA.
When you gonna buy from APMEX? That should prove interesting since I'm sure they have much deeper pockets than the Westminster Mint. What with being a US Mint Authorized purchaser and all.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>I am a plaintiffs lawyer in civil matters, like this. I also am a coin collector my whole adult life. I would never take this case. i can't imagine how much time was wasted so the OP could get $1000 or whatever else the Plaintiffs may have got. Attorney's fees (both sides) had to be astronomical. Discovery costs, Depositions, interogatorrys, thousands more. Probably settled by a mediator, which can run thousands. And the waste of the Court's time, personnel, and security. That is not my idea of justice. Let's find some true liability and real compensatory damages. That's a fair fight. That's what the Constitution intended courts for.
This makes my profession look terrible and I apologize to you all. >>
What really makes the legal profession look bad is when a lawyer goes out to a message board and comments on a case when they have not read all the fillings, and then goes out and provides incorrect information about the case. I think any lawyer that does that should apologize to the board.
BTW - My case was settled before discovery, so there were no discovery costs, depositions, interrogatory's, and no mediator.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>Maybe OP should spend his effort going after Alibaba. >>
Nothing is stopping you from doing that.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Minnesota --"The Land of 10,000 Frivolous Law Suits"
mark >>
I got by a motion to dismiss, so that means the federal courts didn't think it was Frivolous. >>
In the court of common sense this was as frivolous as they come.
Mark >>
We will just have to agree to disagree. >>
Fair enough
Mark >>
People here have ideas on what complies and what doesn't
There is disagreement.
This is why there was disappointment with a settlement instead of a judge ruling. There are those of us who wanted a third party, educated legal opinion on the matter of compliance v violation. >>
If you look at the judges ruling in the motion to dismiss in both the DeMarco case and my case, you will see guidance on what constitutes a violation. I think the main problem is a lot of people are in denial the judges ruling did not go the way they wanted it to.
I would have loved to go to discovery where I get to ask them questions and they get to ask me questions. We didn't really have much choice, when the defendants offers us what the likely result would be if we go to trial and win, we must take it. >>
Not necessarily because from what I understand, you were going after Silver Round Sellers/Manufacturers. Having the case go to completion would have set a legal precedent that could be used in future litigation.
As it sits right now, nothing which is useable came out of your case. >>
It does not need to go to completion to be useful. The DeMarco case was settled at the same point as mine, after the plaintiff got by a motion to dismiss. My lawyer used the DeMarco ruling denying the motion to dismiss in our fillings. My case could be used as well, although it really doesn't need to be because DeMarco set the standard.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Looks like the OP is taking a law intended to protect people fom fraud and monetary loss and trying to make it apply to "I am offended by this." >>
I would say the law is working as intended, I was able to use the law to get someone to stop selling those silver eagle look-a-likes without being properly marked. I am amazed how people seem to think the HPA is only there to protect people that are experts in coins, they don't realize that it was also written to protect the people with just a casual interest in them, and may lack the knowledge. >>
Well........."I think" that the law was never "tested" and what was really working here, is the Civil Court System.
Much like criminal plea bargains, nothing got settled except for Westminster Mint offered a settlement and you and your attorney accepted.
Your attorney, is now free to continue cases such as this, opting for a settlement, only to take another. He/she gets paid with each case. I certainly do not fault that specific firm but an endless cycle of litigation "could" possibly occur without ever actually "testing" the merits of Silver Rounds which look like US coins in respect to the HPA.
When you gonna buy from APMEX? That should prove interesting since I'm sure they have much deeper pockets than the Westminster Mint. What with being a US Mint Authorized purchaser and all. >>
The ball is rolling, and hopefully the industry will clean up it's act. I do not expect to be a lead plaintiff in another HPA case.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
I will say what has maybe been danced around --- anyone who is "fooled" by what you have pictured throughout the thread as "silver eagle look-a-likes" is a fool who probably should have educated themselves. there are enough starkly obvious differences between the items so that there should be no confusion, even with the slickest marketing.
This makes my profession look terrible and I apologize to you all.
I agree about the waste of court resources and time. Nobody was being harmed here. I'm surprised that the judge let it continue, except that Minnesota has already shown it's proclivity to stick it's nose into places where it doesn't belong as it concerns coins and bullion.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Looks like the OP is taking a law intended to protect people fom fraud and monetary loss and trying to make it apply to "I am offended by this." >>
I would say the law is working as intended, I was able to use the law to get someone to stop selling those silver eagle look-a-likes without being properly marked. I am amazed how people seem to think the HPA is only there to protect people that are experts in coins, they don't realize that it was also written to protect the people with just a casual interest in them, and may lack the knowledge. >>
I'd be surprised if really anyone thought the HPA is to only protect experts. I just think one thing that many on the forum are having a hard time with is that you are "protecting" people from buying silver at essentially spot. >>
When someone decides they want to invest in physical silver, they then have to decide what form to invest in. They can invest in coins, where they have to pay a little more or they can buy silver rounds and bars where they can buy it closer to spot. The advantages to buying the coins is your silver is guaranteed for weight and purity by the issuing government. In the case of Silver eagles and Silver Maples they are recognized world wide, you can also get added liquidity because there are more people willing to buy bullion coins than bullion bars and rounds. Of course the advantage of bars and rounds, is you are paying closer to spot.
Weighing the proves and cons, either one could be the right decision for the customer, it is just a decision they will need to make. The problem comes in when we have these silver rounds that look like other products. I can tell you first hand that new investors have been deceived into thinking they were buying government issued products when in fact they were buying something from a private mint.
Some of you may be saying, while they are still getting silver. But I am saying they were duped, and who here faced with the opportunity to buy silver eagles or silver rounds at the same price, would pick the silver rounds? Not many.
If you didn't think there are people on this board that think the HPA is only designed to protect knowledgeable collector's, look at the post right above this one. If you don't think anyone is really duped by these silver rounds that look like a coin, then why does the Mint have a webpage dedicated to explaining the difference?
http://www.usmint.gov/consumer/?action=replicas
Don't think the HPA is meant to cover silver rounds that look like coins?
Well this is from the Mint website linked above link:
How can I distinguish between a genuine U.S. coin and a replica?
It is often difficult to distinguish between genuine U.S. coins and replicas. The Hobby Protection Act requires that all imitation coins and other numismatic items be permanently marked with the word "COPY". However, some businesses in China are producing unmarked imitations of pre-1950 United States coins and are selling them on-line. Genuine U.S. coins feature the denomination (e.g., One Dollar), while replicas generally omit the denomination and feature a description of the product in its place, such as "giant proof" or "silver proof" or ".999 fine silver."
Clearly with that last line that some of these replicas are marked ".999 fine silver" they are clearing in this the kind of silver round from my lawsuit.
I think it is a bad practice for the industry to be duping new people who are starting to invest. It is a good way to get new people out of the hobby, or stop them from investing.
I say if you want a silver eagle buy a silver eagle, if you want a silver round that looks like a silver eagle buy one that says "copy," and if you don't want your silver round to have "copy" on it, buy a silver round that doesn't look like a coin. Our hobby will be better off for it, and it is the law. Like it or not.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i> I was able to use the law to get someone to stop selling those silver eagle look-a-likes without being properly marked.
I will say what has maybe been danced around --- anyone who is "fooled" by what you have pictured throughout the thread as "silver eagle look-a-likes" is a fool who probably should have educated themselves. there are enough starkly obvious differences between the items so that there should be no confusion, even with the slickest marketing. >>
I think we may have boiled down to what our disagreement really comes to. You say that we should not require "copy" on these silver rounds because anyone that doesn't know the difference is a fool. I say we were all ignorant once, and it is an unnecessary detriment to the hobby to have our first introduction to newbs is duping them.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>Just curious, how much did your lawyer bill you? I hope for his sake it wasn't taken on contingency. >>
I did not have to pay my lawyer anything, it was on contingency. My lawyer is happy with the attorney's fees he is getting from the defendants.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Must not needed the money then, because I bet there's no way he was compensated anywhere near what he should have been considering the time he must have put into the case.
Nobody was duped. Why don't you admit that there was nothing misrepresented? Nobody was charging Silver Eagle prices or calling the rounds Silver Eagles.
If anything, it's bad practice to dupe a judge who is totally ignorant of the industry into thinking that some gray area of the law was somehow breached. The whole lawsuit was a farce.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>My lawyer is happy with the attorney's fees he is getting from the defendants
Must not needed the money then, because I bet there's no way he was compensated anywhere near what he should have been considering the time he must have put into the case. >>
I think it worked out to be a little north of $425 an hour for him. It should all be in the filings with the court. I agree he should have gotten more, he earned it. He took a discount from his normal rate to help settle the case.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>I think it is a bad practice for the industry to be duping new people who are starting to invest. It is a good way to get new people out of the hobby, or stop them from investing.
Nobody was duped. Why don't you admit that there was nothing misrepresented? Nobody was charging Silver Eagle prices or calling the rounds Silver Eagles.
If anything, it's bad practice to dupe a judge who is totally ignorant of the industry into thinking that some gray area of the law was somehow breached. The whole lawsuit was a farce. >>
That is simply not true. Newbs are ripped off all the time by these, do you not know what kind of money these telemarketers charge? There was no "gray area of the law" involved in this case. There seems to be a lot of denial on these boards, but these look-a-like silver eagles are not a gray area they are a very clear violation. Check out the mint website I posted earlier, http://www.usmint.gov/consumer/?action=replicas
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>I think it is a bad practice for the industry to be duping new people who are starting to invest. It is a good way to get new people out of the hobby, or stop them from investing.
Nobody was duped. Why don't you admit that there was nothing misrepresented? Nobody was charging Silver Eagle prices or calling the rounds Silver Eagles.
If anything, it's bad practice to dupe a judge who is totally ignorant of the industry into thinking that some gray area of the law was somehow breached. The whole lawsuit was a farce. >>
That is simply not true. Newbs are ripped off all the time by these, do you not know what kind of money these telemarketers charge? There was no "gray area of the law" involved in this case. There seems to be a lot of denial on these boards, but these look-a-like silver eagles are not a gray area they are a very clear violation. Check out the mint website I posted earlier, http://www.usmint.gov/consumer/?action=replicas >>
What do telemarketers have to do with your suit?
<< <i>Some of you may be saying, while they are still getting silver. But I am saying they were duped, and who here faced with the opportunity to buy silver eagles or silver rounds at the same price, would pick the silver rounds? Not many. >>
What was the price spread between the rounds and authentic ASEs at the time of purchase? (I apologize if it is buried in the thread right now). Currently, Westminster sells ASEs for $19.06 and generic walking liberty rounds are $17.05. That greatly reduces the argument of customers being ripped off as customers are not paying ASE prices for generic rounds. They are paying generic round prices for generic rounds. If you had purchased $20K in generic silver rounds and paid ASE+ pricing, there would be some sympathy.
I'm afraid of being ripped of by buying bruised fruit at the grocery store. It looks from the outside like it is good, but on the inside it is bruised. We need a law requiring stores to mark bruised fruit. I'm afraid I might be charmed by a slick salesman and buy a powerboat I don't need or can't afford. We need a law that the boat store needs to account for my financial situation before selling me a boat. I think there is just a fundamental difference in the amount of government "protection" and hand holding that should happen.
I believe you are on the right side of the war, but picked the wrong battle.
<< <i>Newbs are ripped off all the time by these, do you not know what kind of money these telemarketers charge? >>
So why didn't you go after one of them?
here's the thing with our Hobby, everyone wants the get rich quick scheme so they allow themselves to be duped merely because they don't investigate what they are doing before they do it. working at a coin shop exposes me to all sorts of "newbies" and the ones that ALWAYS end up doing better are the ones who come in and ask questions before they start making purchases. you can twist this around as much as you choose but a little investigation will prevent a new collector from confusing the two items in the OP.
<< <i>I think it is a bad practice for the industry to be duping new people who are starting to invest. It is a good way to get new people out of the hobby, or stop them from investing.
Nobody was duped. Why don't you admit that there was nothing misrepresented? Nobody was charging Silver Eagle prices or calling the rounds Silver Eagles.
If anything, it's bad practice to dupe a judge who is totally ignorant of the industry into thinking that some gray area of the law was somehow breached. The whole lawsuit was a farce. >>
It only takes watching one episode of HSN to figure out that folks are being constantly duped even when buying authentic Mint produced coins.
http://www.govmint.com/us-coins/exclusive-collections/smithsonian-institution/100-dollar-1-oz-silver-union-ngc-proof.html
Joe
<< <i>
<< <i>Some of you may be saying, while they are still getting silver. But I am saying they were duped, and who here faced with the opportunity to buy silver eagles or silver rounds at the same price, would pick the silver rounds? Not many. >>
What was the price spread between the rounds and authentic ASEs at the time of purchase? (I apologize if it is buried in the thread right now). Currently, Westminster sells ASEs for $19.06 and generic walking liberty rounds are $17.05. That greatly reduces the argument of customers being ripped off as customers are not paying ASE prices for generic rounds. They are paying generic round prices for generic rounds. If you had purchased $20K in generic silver rounds and paid ASE+ pricing, there would be some sympathy.
I'm afraid of being ripped of by buying bruised fruit at the grocery store. It looks from the outside like it is good, but on the inside it is bruised. We need a law requiring stores to mark bruised fruit. I'm afraid I might be charmed by a slick salesman and buy a powerboat I don't need or can't afford. We need a law that the boat store needs to account for my financial situation before selling me a boat. I think there is just a fundamental difference in the amount of government "protection" and hand holding that should happen.
I believe you are on the right side of the war, but picked the wrong battle. >>
Cannot always go by the price a company posts on their website, They added other costs, not only did they charge shipping but they had extra cost for "handling fee / surcharge."
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Filing a garbage lawsuit against a producer of silver rounds won't change the verbiage or tactics of the telemarketers one iota, but it does stain the bullion industry.
You still haven't provided one example of someone being ripped off because of a buyer thinking that he was buying a Silver Eagle and consequently paying a whopping $2.00 more for the 1 oz. of silver. Surely, you must have at least one example. Surely, the judge needed at least one example. Oh, unless it was Minnesota.
I've said my piece. This thread isn't going anywhere.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>
<< <i>Newbs are ripped off all the time by these, do you not know what kind of money these telemarketers charge? >>
So why didn't you go after one of them? >>
You do know the defendants in my case were The Westminster Mint, The Highland Mint, Ian Clay, and Michael Kott, Right?
Some background.
Check out this Time Magazine article from June 24, 2001, Titled "The Seceret life of JB Oxford."
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,135156,00.html
There is some good information on the history of the Highland mint, and Irving Kott in this story from Sharesleuths on February 4, 2014 titled "Trick Play: Memorabilia company peddled Patriots, Seahawks gear with forged player autographs."
http://sharesleuth.com/short-takes/2015/02/trick-play-memorabilia-company-peddled-patriots-seahawks-gear-with-forged-player-autographs
If you don't want to read that whole article, check out the sections titled "Highland's Past" and "Michael Kott's Past."
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i><< Newbs are ripped off all the time by these, do you not know what kind of money these telemarketers charge? >>
Filing a garbage lawsuit against a producer of silver rounds won't change the verbiage or tactics of the telemarketers one iota, but it does stain the bullion industry.
You still haven't provided one example of someone being ripped off because of a buyer thinking that he was buying a Silver Eagle and consequently paying a whopping $2.00 more for the 1 oz. of silver. Surely, you must have at least one example. Surely, the judge needed at least one example. Oh, unless it was Minnesota.
I've said my piece. This thread isn't going anywhere. >>
It happens all the time that people are deceived by these things. If it didn't, why would the mint put out a webpage talking about it. BTW - It was a federal court.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Paying close to silver "spot" for a round was fine, regardless of whether the thing looked somewhat like a US coin or not. No harm done either way.
The biggest pitfall for a newbie was polished VF-XF genuine coins marketed as "BU" (Brilliant Uncirculated). I personally saw a few friends pay too much for polished coins and then become dejected when they tried to sell or trade them months later. Of course, the reason they bought the coins in the first place was that they were much cheaper than true BU coins. But there was some real damage being done to numismatics and some people were leaving the hobby and not coming back. Education and third-party grading is what alleviated the problem to a great extent, not lawsuits and government intervention. The free market (the innovation of third-party certification) took care of the problem.
In a way, I think this lawsuit might have an effect that is opposite of that which was desired. To legislators in Minnesota (for example), this lawsuit might send a message that reinforces their view that coin dealers can not be trusted and need more regulation. In this business (numismatics), government intervention and regulation is bad. Free-market solutions are vastly superior.