Options
"Counterfeits", "Imitation Numismatic Items", the HPA/CCPA, and the collecting/s
ProfHaroldHill
Posts: 1,339 ✭✭✭
This topic had begun to be discussed/debated in the thread Selling counterfeit coins at local coin club meetings which is specifically about that practice. Since this is a topic that generates lively debate and strong feelings, I think it best to give it it's own thread.
First, let me restate the 'rule of thumb' regarding replicas and actual counterfeits:
In a legal sense, an actual counterfeit coin/note is an imitation produced for the purpose of use in commerce. They are made to be spent as if genuine.
An imitation that is made to be sold to a collector at a premium over face value is legally *not* a counterfeit and actual anti-counterfeiting laws have not been used against the makers/sellers of such imitations.
edited to add, for further clarification:
An actual counterfeit coin/note is one for which there exists a *criminal* law forbidding the manufacture or possession thereof, whereby *any* violation of that law can result in the actual **imprisonment** of the violator.
An imitation that is made to be sold to a collector at a premium over face value is legally *not* a counterfeit and the makers/sellers of such imitations are *never* subject to imprisonment for the unlawful production of such pieces. There are no criminal laws directly forbidding their production. They are a violation of the HPA.
Now a bit of history:
Back in the 1960's, the hobby began to face a growing problem with replicas entering the then-young numismatic marketplace. These had been made in large numbers, often to be given away as gifts, premiums, or incentives for salespeople, etc. As the hobby grew and collectible coin/currency values began to rise, some of these old replicas became problematic, and to make matters worse, a 'new' type of replica began to show up in large numbers. These were replicas produced specifically to be sold to the novice and unknowing collector. Some were manufactured outright, others were made by altering genuine numismatic items. Existing law had no good way to deal with them until someone was actually cheated, and thus fraud had occurred, (thereby violating state/local anti-fraud laws.)
While there were laws working against the manufacture of 'fakes' meant to be spent, (that would be the federal anti-counterfeiting laws,) if a person manufactured a replica of an old coin with collector value, for the purpose of selling as a real collectible, they were pretty much safe until they actually committed fraud.
From the collecting chaos that was caused by these 'new' fakes, an idea was born: A new, federal statute was needed. One designed to directly address the problem of these troublesome fakes. Enter the original, "Hobby Protection Act" of 1973, (the 'HPA')
Today, we see the HPA amended by/to the "Collectible Coin Protection Act", and we've witnessed plenty of proud back-slapping by the politicians involved.
Whether the amended version will work any better than the original remains to be seen.
Many collectors of "contemporary counterfeits", (actual counterfeits by legal definition, from a time past, whose designs mimicked the then-current monies in circulation,) ...are concerned how this 'new and improved' HPA, the "CCPA", will impact their hobby.
Not at all, from a legal standpoint.
Until this morning I had not yet read the 'new' version of the HPA, and though I was pretty sure they hadn't attempted to strike enough of the old law in an attempt to go after contemporary counterfeits, one never knows!
There is a single sentence within the existing and amended HPA/CCPA that makes clear the intention of the authors to remain within the framework of the US Constitution:
SEC. 8. This Act shall apply only to imitation political items and imitation numismatic items manufactured after the date of enactment of this Act.
Approved November 29, 1973.
Although in the past "ex post facto" laws have been enacted, none have ever withstood a constitutional challenge.
Article 1. Section 10. United States Constitution
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
(Definition of "ex post facto" from Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute: Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed.)
Conclusions:
As long as your contemporary counterfeits were made before November 29, 1973, you do not have to comply with any of the restrictions imposed by the HPA/CCPA in respect to their being marked with 'COPY' prior to sale.
So you see, we don't even need to discuss/debate the definitions in the CCPA, nor do we have to mount any legal challenges, (unless of course someone tries to use it against one of us, as collectors/sellers,) we can go on enjoying our small corner of this grand hobby.
Nor do we need worry about them being seized as actual counterfeits, ('counterfeit' as in the legal definition,) at least we need not 'overly worry'. In theory, they could seize all counterfeits of US coinage, including the 1913 Liberty Nickels. Thus far, they have not, nor has any inclination to do so been noted (that I'm aware of.)
***
First, let me restate the 'rule of thumb' regarding replicas and actual counterfeits:
In a legal sense, an actual counterfeit coin/note is an imitation produced for the purpose of use in commerce. They are made to be spent as if genuine.
An imitation that is made to be sold to a collector at a premium over face value is legally *not* a counterfeit and actual anti-counterfeiting laws have not been used against the makers/sellers of such imitations.
edited to add, for further clarification:
An actual counterfeit coin/note is one for which there exists a *criminal* law forbidding the manufacture or possession thereof, whereby *any* violation of that law can result in the actual **imprisonment** of the violator.
An imitation that is made to be sold to a collector at a premium over face value is legally *not* a counterfeit and the makers/sellers of such imitations are *never* subject to imprisonment for the unlawful production of such pieces. There are no criminal laws directly forbidding their production. They are a violation of the HPA.
Now a bit of history:
Back in the 1960's, the hobby began to face a growing problem with replicas entering the then-young numismatic marketplace. These had been made in large numbers, often to be given away as gifts, premiums, or incentives for salespeople, etc. As the hobby grew and collectible coin/currency values began to rise, some of these old replicas became problematic, and to make matters worse, a 'new' type of replica began to show up in large numbers. These were replicas produced specifically to be sold to the novice and unknowing collector. Some were manufactured outright, others were made by altering genuine numismatic items. Existing law had no good way to deal with them until someone was actually cheated, and thus fraud had occurred, (thereby violating state/local anti-fraud laws.)
While there were laws working against the manufacture of 'fakes' meant to be spent, (that would be the federal anti-counterfeiting laws,) if a person manufactured a replica of an old coin with collector value, for the purpose of selling as a real collectible, they were pretty much safe until they actually committed fraud.
From the collecting chaos that was caused by these 'new' fakes, an idea was born: A new, federal statute was needed. One designed to directly address the problem of these troublesome fakes. Enter the original, "Hobby Protection Act" of 1973, (the 'HPA')
Today, we see the HPA amended by/to the "Collectible Coin Protection Act", and we've witnessed plenty of proud back-slapping by the politicians involved.
Whether the amended version will work any better than the original remains to be seen.
Many collectors of "contemporary counterfeits", (actual counterfeits by legal definition, from a time past, whose designs mimicked the then-current monies in circulation,) ...are concerned how this 'new and improved' HPA, the "CCPA", will impact their hobby.
Not at all, from a legal standpoint.
Until this morning I had not yet read the 'new' version of the HPA, and though I was pretty sure they hadn't attempted to strike enough of the old law in an attempt to go after contemporary counterfeits, one never knows!
There is a single sentence within the existing and amended HPA/CCPA that makes clear the intention of the authors to remain within the framework of the US Constitution:
SEC. 8. This Act shall apply only to imitation political items and imitation numismatic items manufactured after the date of enactment of this Act.
Approved November 29, 1973.
Although in the past "ex post facto" laws have been enacted, none have ever withstood a constitutional challenge.
Article 1. Section 10. United States Constitution
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
(Definition of "ex post facto" from Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute: Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed.)
Conclusions:
As long as your contemporary counterfeits were made before November 29, 1973, you do not have to comply with any of the restrictions imposed by the HPA/CCPA in respect to their being marked with 'COPY' prior to sale.
So you see, we don't even need to discuss/debate the definitions in the CCPA, nor do we have to mount any legal challenges, (unless of course someone tries to use it against one of us, as collectors/sellers,) we can go on enjoying our small corner of this grand hobby.
Nor do we need worry about them being seized as actual counterfeits, ('counterfeit' as in the legal definition,) at least we need not 'overly worry'. In theory, they could seize all counterfeits of US coinage, including the 1913 Liberty Nickels. Thus far, they have not, nor has any inclination to do so been noted (that I'm aware of.)
***
I remember when!
0
Comments
<< <i>...
In a legal sense, an actual counterfeit coin/note is an imitation produced for the purpose of use in commerce. They are made to be spent as if genuine.
An imitation that is made to be sold to a collector at a premium over face value is legally *not* a counterfeit and actual anti-counterfeiting laws have not been used against the makers/sellers of such imitations. ...
>>
I would disagree with your definition of counterfeit coin. I believe that even if a coin was made to deceive a collector and was not meant to circulate it would still be a violation of counterfeiting laws.
Here is one of the counterfeiting laws. 18 U.S. Code § 485 - Coins or bars
Whoever falsely makes, forges, or counterfeits any coin or bar in resemblance or similitude of any coin of a denomination higher than 5 cents or any gold or silver bar coined or stamped at any mint or assay office of the United States, or in resemblance or similitude of any foreign gold or silver coin current in the United States or in actual use and circulation as money within the United States; or
Whoever passes, utters, publishes, sells, possesses, or brings into the United States any false, forged, or counterfeit coin or bar, knowing the same to be false, forged, or counterfeit, with intent to defraud any body politic or corporate, or any person, or attempts the commission of any offense described in this paragraph—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both.
As you can see in this definition, it is not just the coins that are in actual use, but it is also the coins that are still current money. Now most of the classic coins we collect are still current money in the US.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
as defined and interpreted by the FTC >>
Without any actual conviction, the text of the FTC is but the untested 'letter of the law'.
There is as yet no actual judicial precedent for the use of that FTC language.
If you have one, please link to it. >>
Now please understand that I am not trying to argue but these comments are very entertaining. So if a Law is enacted and has never been prosecuted in court it is not a valid law that can be prosecuted. That I feel would not be a solid defense in court when you are being prosecuted for breaking new laws, JMHO.
If a coin is counterfeit it does not matter what year it was made it is still counterfeit. That is a very simple thing. Now in most things in life there are gray areas and contemporary counterfeits are one of those. I would also suggest that the more contemporary counterfeits are talked about on the forum of the #1 TPG the more attention that will be brought to them. All that has to happen is one person who was taken advantage of in buying one of said coins to place a complaint and all will be done with their enjoyment in this hobby (something to seriously think about).
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
Approved November 29, 1973.
Although in the past "ex post facto" laws have been enacted, none have ever withstood a constitutional challenge.
Article 1. Section 10. United States Constitution
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
(Definition of "ex post facto" from Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute: Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed.)
Conclusions:
As long as your contemporary counterfeits were made before November 29, 1973, you do not have to comply with any of the restrictions imposed by the HPA/CCPA in respect to their being marked with 'COPY' prior to sale.
So you see, we don't even need to discuss/debate the definitions in the CCPA, nor do we have to mount any legal challenges, (unless of course someone tries to use it against one of us, as collectors/sellers,) we can go on enjoying our small corner of this grand hobby.
Nor do we need worry about them being seized as actual counterfeits, ('counterfeit' as in the legal definition,) at least we need not 'overly worry'. In theory, they could seize all counterfeits of US coinage, including the 1913 Liberty Nickels. Thus far, they have not, nor has any inclination to do so been noted (that I'm aware of.)
My question is how do you determine when a counterfeit coin was made. Lets say that I contact a private mint and have a Morgan dollar made that is 90%silver 10%coper (coin silver), have that mint make a 1 to 1 reproduction of that coin, say an 1886-O in MS 67 DMPL (as producing the mirrors is actually easier than the flow lines that create cart wheels). This coin would be a $600,000.00 + coin and it would be near impossible with 100% accuracy to determine the date of production. From the above excerpt it makes it appear that this counterfeit would not be of issue and further the production and sale of the item with out the word copy on it as per the HPA would not be prosicutable. Comments on this as it seems to be a serious issue.
What defines a counterfeit, however, has been tested by case law under the HPA, as mentioned in another thread by Tomthecoinguy. It does not have to actually reproduce the design of a genuine coin, but contain close enough features that could cause confusion (like a denomination; a combination of "In God We Trust," "E Pluribus Unum" and "Liberty", etc.). You'll have to ask him for the case numbers, though, and he's in the middle of such a case (well, settling one).
The Black Cabinet
A database of counterfeit coinage.
http://www.theblackcabinet.org
This re-enforces my resolve to ensure that provenance information is documented on all Black Cabinet entries, and perhaps add in a new field to record the HPA/CCPA's applicability.
The Black Cabinet
A database of counterfeit coinage.
http://www.theblackcabinet.org
The word "utters"is interesting in this legal definition of law. It gives the appearance that should you even talk about counterfeits knowingly you could be prosecuted, yes I know this is not the intent.
<< <i>Whoever passes, utters, publishes, sells, possesses, or brings into the United States any false, forged, or counterfeit coin or bar, knowing the same to be false, forged, or counterfeit, with intent to defraud any body politic or corporate, or any person, or attempts the commission of any offense described in this paragraph—
The word "utters"is interesting in this legal definition of law. It gives the appearance that should you even talk about counterfeits knowingly you could be prosecuted, yes I know this is not the intent. >>
Nah, it just means that if you stand on your head and spit nickels, they better not have been made by Henning.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
<< <i>Whoever passes, utters, publishes, sells, possesses, or brings into the United States any false, forged, or counterfeit coin or bar, knowing the same to be false, forged, or counterfeit, with intent to defraud any body politic or corporate, or any person, or attempts the commission of any offense described in this paragraph—
The word "utters" is interesting in this legal definition of law. It gives the appearance that should you even talk about counterfeits knowingly you could be prosecuted, yes I know this is not the intent. >>
According to Dictionary.com, a definition of "utter" in a legal context is:
"2. (criminal law) to put into circulation (counterfeit coin, forged banknotes, etc)"
So in this context I don't think the intent of the law has anything to do with talking about counterfeit coins.
<< <i>I would like to point out that the vast majority of contemporary counterfeits pose zero threat to the hobby, with very few exceptions, contemporary counterfeits are generally of common date coinage, and as such and are generally "worth" more than the item they are imitating so the likelihood of them being passed off as genuine are nearly non-existent. contemporary counterfeits were never intended to deceive collectors, they were meant to be spent. "modern" counterfeit coins and other numismatic items however are aimed at collectors and do pose a threat to the uninformed members of the hobby. >>
This is a good point and I would add that more modern coins are being counterfeited. By flooding a market with counterfeit coins you can undermine that economy through distrust in it's currency. Think how it would be should all us coinage become suspect outside the United States. Granted most transactions are now completed via electronic means it still can be a concern.
<< <i>Not too far at all. Crazy enough, counterfeit Henning Nickels *do* exist (both altered date/mint mark and struck fabrications). :-)
This re-enforces my resolve to ensure that provenance information is documented on all Black Cabinet entries, and perhaps add in a new field to record the HPA/CCPA's applicability. >>
Many vintage counterfeit coins are collectible and they are actually "original numismatic items" in their own right.
This could certainly affect how a person might interpret the HPA/CCPA.
<< <i>Many vintage counterfeit coins are collectible and they are actually "original numismatic items" in their own right.
This could certainly affect how a person might interpret the HPA/CCPA. >>
With Sec. 8 in mind, Hennings were manufactured in 1955-ish so are exempt from the HPA/CCPA's marking requirements; however, you could still conceivably get in trouble for spending one.
However, a Henning -- as a Henning -- goes for between $40 and $120 today. Hence why counterfeiters wish to counterfeit this particular counterfeit. :-)
The Black Cabinet
A database of counterfeit coinage.
http://www.theblackcabinet.org
<< <i>As you can see in this definition, it is not just the coins that are in actual use, but it is also the coins that are still current money. Now most of the classic coins we collect are still current money in the US. >>
Not according to the US Mint.
The US Mint web site specifically states:
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT
UNCURRENT AND MUTILATED COINS
1) What is the difference between Uncurrent and Mutilated coins?
UNCURRENT: U.S. coins which are merely worn or reduced in weight by natural abrasion yet are readily and clearly recognizable and machine countable, are classified as Uncurrent Coins.
MUTILATED: All coins that are bent, broken, corroded, not whole, melted together and not machine countable, are classified as Mutilated Coins.
2) Where do I redeem Uncurrent coins?
You should contact your bank to redeem uncurrent coins at face value. (This includes silver coins).
3) Where do I redeem Mutilated coins?
Mutilated coins are redeemable at:
United States Mint
ATTN: Mutilated Coin Redemption Section
P.O. Box 400 for Post Office shipments only
151 N. Independence Mall East
Philadelphia, PA 19106
So the US Mint is calling silver coins "uncurrent" which is, of course, the opposite of "current".
The US Mint's statement indicates that "current coins" refers to coin types that are presently circulating
I think a simple rule of thumb is this:
* If a "CoinStar" or similar redemption/counting machine takes it, then it is a "current" coin.
* If the machine rejects the coin, and if the coin is a type that would be accepted by the machine if undamaged, then it is a mutilated current coin.
* Everything else is "uncurrent".
Using this definition, the following coins would be considered "current" (so long as they are struck on correct circulating planchets):
Small cents of 1864 to present (exclusions: 1864 copper-nickel, 1943-1944 zinc coated steel).
Nickels of 1866 to present (exclusions: 1942-1945 silver war time composition).
Dimes of 1965 to present (exclusions: silver proofs).
Quarters of 1965 to present (exclusions: silver proofs and silver commemoratives).
Half Dollars of 1971 to present (exclusions: silver proofs and silver commemoratives).
Small dollars of 1979-1981 and 1999 to present.
Note: Even though a coin may be considered "uncurrent", it may still retain a legal tender status.
The statute in question (18 U.S. Code § 485) does not mention "legal tender" at all.
It only talks about "current coins" which are those typically used in commerce presently.
Silver coins are rarely encountered in circulation, so those do not meet the critera of "current money".
<< <i>
<< <i>As you can see in this definition, it is not just the coins that are in actual use, but it is also the coins that are still current money. Now most of the classic coins we collect are still current money in the US. >>
Not according to the US Mint.
The US Mint web site specifically states:
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT
UNCURRENT AND MUTILATED COINS
1) What is the difference between Uncurrent and Mutilated coins?
UNCURRENT: U.S. coins which are merely worn or reduced in weight by natural abrasion yet are readily and clearly recognizable and machine countable, are classified as Uncurrent Coins.
MUTILATED: All coins that are bent, broken, corroded, not whole, melted together and not machine countable, are classified as Mutilated Coins.
2) Where do I redeem Uncurrent coins?
You should contact your bank to redeem uncurrent coins at face value. (This includes silver coins).
3) Where do I redeem Mutilated coins?
Mutilated coins are redeemable at:
United States Mint
ATTN: Mutilated Coin Redemption Section
P.O. Box 400 for Post Office shipments only
151 N. Independence Mall East
Philadelphia, PA 19106
So the US Mint is calling silver coins "uncurrent" which is, of course, the opposite of "current".
The US Mint's statement indicates that "current coins" refers to coin types that are presently circulating
I think a simple rule of thumb is this:
* If a "CoinStar" or similar redemption/counting machine takes it, then it is a "current" coin.
* If the machine rejects the coin, and if the coin is a type that would be accepted by the machine if undamaged, then it is a mutilated current coin.
* Everything else is "uncurrent".
Using this definition, the following coins would be considered "current" (so long as they are struck on correct circulating planchets):
Small cents of 1864 to present (exclusions: 1864 copper-nickel, 1943-1944 zinc coated steel).
Nickels of 1866 to present (exclusions: 1942-1945 silver war time composition).
Dimes of 1965 to present (exclusions: silver proofs).
Quarters of 1965 to present (exclusions: silver proofs and silver commemoratives).
Half Dollars of 1971 to present (exclusions: silver proofs and silver commemoratives).
Small dollars of 1979-1981 and 1999 to present.
Note: Even though a coin may be considered "uncurrent", it may still retain a legal tender status.
The statute in question (18 U.S. Code § 485) does not mention "legal tender" at all.
It only talks about "current coins" which are those typically used in commerce presently.
Silver coins are rarely encountered in circulation, so those do not meet the critera of "current money". >>
You are playing games with the definition. The mint statement of "uncurrent" has nothing to do with the counterfeiting laws, and using that definition to help you interpret the counterfeiting laws, which were written hundreds of years earlier, is folly. You are trying to tell us that the definition of current coin is something that will fit in a vending or coinstar machine. Yet the first modern vending machines were not invented until the 1880's, while the "current coin" phrase was first written into the constitution in 1787.
A much more reasonable definition of current coin, is the coins and currency that the congress has made legal tender. This is particularly clear when you notice that the reference to "current coin" in the constitution comes right after the constitution gives the power to congress to define what is legal tender. The following is from Article 1 Section 8 of our constitution.
"The Congress shall have power ...
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; ..."
I think the way you pulled up that irrelevant mint definition of "uncurrent" shows how you are desperately trying to bend the counterfeiting laws to say what you want then to say, instead of what they actually say.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>
<< <i>Whoever passes, utters, publishes, sells, possesses, or brings into the United States any false, forged, or counterfeit coin or bar, knowing the same to be false, forged, or counterfeit, with intent to defraud any body politic or corporate, or any person, or attempts the commission of any offense described in this paragraph—
The word "utters" is interesting in this legal definition of law. It gives the appearance that should you even talk about counterfeits knowingly you could be prosecuted, yes I know this is not the intent. >>
According to Dictionary.com, a definition of "utter" in a legal context is:
"2. (criminal law) to put into circulation (counterfeit coin, forged banknotes, etc)"
So in this context I don't think the intent of the law has anything to do with talking about counterfeit coins. >>
dcarr That was a jest but many people do not understand legal terms and would read it the way it is written.
Tom if you were a private minter in the United States such as D. Carr is wouldnt you want to show that everything you are doing is above the board. This is his livelihood after all. Just think if he were to move production outside of the United States.
<< <i>It is interesting that the mint is making coins that as posted by dcar are uncurrent. I aslo find it interesting that coins that have lost weight do to circulation are uncurrent. I wounder how much weight has to be lost to meet that requirement.
Tom if you were a private minter in the United States such as D. Carr is wouldnt you want to show that everything you are doing is above the board. This is his livelihood after all. Just think if he were to move production outside of the United States. >>
If I was a private minter, I would not come anywhere near anything that looked like a US or foreign coin that is currently being produced, or has ever been produced. I would not want to take the risk that the secret service would come in and seize my press and dies. If I did decided to make something that looked like it could be a real coin, I would mark it with the word copy.
If I was a skilled engraver, I would embrace the current cases relating to the HPA. I would take the cases and go to every private mint. I would tell the owners of the mint that they do not want to use those same old designs that may leave them vulnerable to an HPA case, instead they should hire me to make new and original designs for their silver rounds. The HPA law could be a real boon to the business of someone skilled in medal design.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Much of this thread has been very interesting, but agonizing over definitions such as "contemporary counterfeit" and "uncurrent coins" seem a red herring to me, and creating distinctions without a difference helps noone.
I believe that collectors will continue to buy, sell, trade and enjoy counterfeits in exactly the same manner as prior to enactment of the CCPA. Anyone who disagrees is free to acquire all the counterfeits (including any 1913 Liberty Nickels that come to auction) and hammer the word "COPY" into them if it makes them feel better.
<< <i>Having said that, I would quickly defer to any opinion Mr. Carr has on this topic as he likely a resident expert as we could ever hope to have engaging on this topic. >>
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>Having said that, I would quickly defer to any opinion Mr. Carr has on this topic as he likely a resident expert as we could ever hope to have engaging on this topic. >>
That is an interesting belief. I have a question for you, if you had this quarter in your pocket change and were not a collector of coins or a professional numismatist would you think it was any different than any other quarter in your change? Please answer the question honestly (devils advocate here)
Attempting to answer honestly and objectively, I probably wouldn't give it a second glance, especially the date.
I also would not have given this coin a second look, it is a real quarter but the date has been changed to one that was never produced. I could see this very easily getting confused as an error coin.
When I saw your sig line, the first thing that came to my mind was "why didn't I think of that?!"
I automatically assumed that the quarter you posted was a D. Carr work of art too.
This is quite the statement being made. So lets say I contract with a private mint to make me exact 1 to 1 1909-S VDB Lincoln cents to sell to collectors at a premium over face value. Now lets say I sell these exact (weight, copper content, weight, proper mint mark etc) copies in a MS64 Red to collectors I can not be prosecuted for such activity? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
If it is a quote could you please site the quote for us and a link if possible? This would help many of us better determine what you are referring to.
<< <i>
<< <i>So lets say I contract with a private mint to make me exact 1 to 1 1909-S VDB Lincoln cents to sell to collectors at a premium over face value. Now lets say I sell these exact (weight, copper content, weight, proper mint mark etc) copies in a MS64 Red to collectors I can not be prosecuted for such activity? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying? >>
Christos, what I am saying is that you could not be *imprisoned* under US anti-counterfeiting laws for doing that.
You would be in violation of the HPA, and could be civilly sued. As a result of such suit, "...the court may award the costs of the suit, including reasonable attorneys” fees." You might also be subject to an injunction issued by that same court, forbidding you from continuing your activities. (Link below.)
This society sees the two matters in a very different light. Counterfeiting is considered a grave criminal offense, and you can go to prison for a long time for it. Making replicas to sell to collectors as genuine is 'seriously frowned upon', but it is not counterfeiting.
Link to SteveCaruso's HPA page >>
That is a very interesting interpretation of the HPA/CCPA. Basicly from my interpretation of your statements I could counterfeit high quality coins, get them into a TPG holder sell them and not ever be worried about going to jail or prison. If this is truly the case then some serious reworking needs to be made as the HPA?CCPA can be bypassed simply by saying the perfect counterfeit coins are for collectors only. This is a very scary proposition.
<< <i>Christos, you're not understanding the difference between the 'common language' use of the term "counterfeit", and the definition of the legal term "counterfeit" as used in prosecuting counterfeiters.
The terms are *not* interchangeable when discussing law.
Perhaps you should speak with a paralegal, etc, to try and understand the difference, as I don't seem to be able to help you with it. >>
Nope no need as I understand it just fine but I will post this from Blacks Law for you:
What is COUNTERFEIT?
In criminal law. To forge; to copy or imitate, without authority or right, and with a view to deceive or defraud, by passing the copy or tiling forged for that which is original or genuine. Most commonly applied to the fraudulent and criminal imitation of money. State v. 11c- Kenzie, 42 Me. 302; U. S. v. Barrett (D. C.) Ill Fed. 309; State v. Calvin, It. M. Charlt (Ga.) 159; Mattison v. State, 3 Mo. 421.
Law Dictionary: What is COUNTERFEIT? definition of COUNTERFEIT (Black's Law Dictionary)
You stated that I could not get in trouble for doing this as I gave you a very clear example of doing just this. I belive you are confused as to what a counterfeit coin is.
<< <i>I think the way you pulled up that irrelevant mint definition of "uncurrent" shows how you are desperately trying to bend the counterfeiting laws to say what you want then to say, instead of what they actually say. >>
I think the US Mint's own definition of what "uncurrent coins" are is very relevant here.
<< <i>
<< <i>Having said that, I would quickly defer to any opinion Mr. Carr has on this topic as he likely a resident expert as we could ever hope to have engaging on this topic. >>
That is an interesting belief. I have a question for you, if you had this quarter in your pocket change and were not a collector of coins or a professional numismatist would you think it was any different than any other quarter in your change? Please answer the question honestly (devils advocate here)
I'll have to speak hypothetically here.
The Bicentennial reverse is unusual enough for it to be noticed by many people.
Would they actually care is another matter.
The date requires more knowledge to recognize as an unusual aspect.
However, to assign a collector value to it, it is mandatory to note the date on it.
And there is still the "age-old" question. If the coin pictured were to enter circulation, would anyone be harmed by that ?
It was a legal-tender coin to start with and then the date was changed by over-striking. The apparent face value did not change.
As per the US Mint definitions, would it still be considered a "current coin" or would it be a "mutilated coin" ?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Christos, you're not understanding the difference between the 'common language' use of the term "counterfeit", and the definition of the legal term "counterfeit" as used in prosecuting counterfeiters.
The terms are *not* interchangeable when discussing law.
Perhaps you should speak with a paralegal, etc, to try and understand the difference, as I don't seem to be able to help you with it. >>
Nope no need as I understand it just fine but I will post this from Blacks Law for you:
What is COUNTERFEIT?
In criminal law. To forge; to copy or imitate, without authority or right, and with a view to deceive or defraud, by passing the copy or tiling forged for that which is original or genuine. Most commonly applied to the fraudulent and criminal imitation of money. State v. 11c- Kenzie, 42 Me. 302; U. S. v. Barrett (D. C.) Ill Fed. 309; State v. Calvin, It. M. Charlt (Ga.) 159; Mattison v. State, 3 Mo. 421.
Law Dictionary: What is COUNTERFEIT? definition of COUNTERFEIT (Black's Law Dictionary)
You stated that I could not get in trouble for doing this as I gave you a very clear example of doing just this. I belive you are confused as to what a counterfeit coin is. >>
Keep digging your hole if you wish, it's becoming entertaining, if naught else. BTW, try taking your little dictionary into a courtroom and insisting they use it's definitions.
Go back and read what I wrote, and don't interpret it if you wish to refer to it. Quote me, don't 'put words in my mouth' so you can attempt to appear knowledgeable on these matters. You are not. I have years of experience, literally, fighting *real* lawyers in two civil matters, and I prevailed in both. No settlements.
My knowledge was earned the hard way. I have no need to pretend I am something I am not.
Good luck to you.
(And good night. I wake at 5:00 each morning, and usually prefer to be in bed by 12:00, so it's past my bedtime, youngster.)
Not try ing to argue with you just proving a point as to wording and interpitations. Blacks Law is the primary legal Dictionary for lecal terminology.