Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Are you legally-trained enough to know what is considered relevant? It's interesting, because when I read that section, I see no violation. What part of the statute, exactly can you point to as the actual legal violation? This is interesting because it appears that you only read into the statute what you want to get out of it.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>Just read the whole thread and amazingly enough not one new point was made on the subject and probably not one mind changed. Same as it ever was.
Well until the next Fantasy piece is issued please drive safely and be sure to tip your waitresses and waiters. See you at the reunuion.
MJ >>
Yes, very dull for those of us who just enjoy collecting and aren't trying to protect our turf. I'm looking forward to the next one, Daniel!
Are you legally-trained enough to know what is considered relevant? It's interesting, because when I read that section, I see no violation. What part of the statute, exactly can you point to as the actual legal violation? This is interesting because it appears that you only read into the statute what you want to get out of it. >>
Perhaps this is more relevant? From the Mint's FAQ's:
What is the legality of making molds of United States coins?
Answer ID 137
What is the legality of making molds of United States coins?
Section 487 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code prohibits making "any die hub or mold… in likeness or similitude as to the design or inscription thereon, of any die hub or mold designated for the coining or making of any of the genuine gold, silver, nickel, bronze, copper or other coins coined at the mints of the United States." For example, manufacturing reproductions of coins might involve making dies that are "are in similitude" to the design of the original coins, and therefore making these dies may be a criminal act under the statute.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
It appears now that you are citing a proposed statute, Captn. You really do have an axe to grind, don't you? In any event, your proposed law isn't law.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>It appears now that you are citing a proposed statute, Captn. You really do have an axe to grind, don't you? In any event, your proposed law isn't law. >>
I guess I am missing something but I think both sides boil down to the key point is wither or not the fakes should have the word copy on them.
1) The side that says they should deeply believes that they have the potential to be a detriment to the hobby.
2) The side that says they shouldn't be marked as copies seem to interested in potential collectability which translates to a financial motive. Denial clearly knows that he can charge more without the word on them and has put his stake in the ground.
I rather come down on the side of the hobby than personal profit, it appears many of you do not care. I just find it curious why so many get behind him.
<< <i>It appears now that you are citing a proposed statute, Captn. You really do have an axe to grind, don't you? In any event, your proposed law isn't law. >>
You are quite wrong. That IS the current U.S. Code. Click on the second tab to verify that.
The preliminary reference is boilerplate to reflect the fact that laws can be changed by Congress, and that you should check the laws of the current, or in this case the just-ended, 112th Congress to see if that Congress passed any law affecting Title 18, Section 487. If you will follow the link to laws organized according to the Titles and Sections that they affected, you will see that the 112th Congress passed no law affecting Title 18, Section 487. Thus the existing law STANDS!
How's YOUR axe?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Isn't it about time to lock this thread and let it die off ...
Next thing you know people will get upset over Zorkmid restrikes ... although there are some collectors of old computer games who would probably be interested.
You're having delusions of grandeur again. - Susan Ivanova Well, if you're gonna have delusions, may as well go for the really satisfying ones. - Marcus Cole
This thread has a tantalizing aspect to it. In a way, the comments are crazy, but in a way seem to reflect the spectrum of thought by members of the forum.
Crypto has it entirely wrong at least as far as I am concerned. I do NOT want the word "COPY", and not because I might want mine for resale. Mine I keep for my own collection and is more or less a "hobby within a hobby". Quite frankly, these are of trivial value compared to my collection per se...
As I see it, these are not fakes of anything. They are the real thing restruck and NOT faking any specific issue, thus the date differences from real. They are being sold for exactly what they are and has been covered as member MJ has stated.
I really do not see how people don't just vote with their feet and not get these issues if they do not like them or get them if they do.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
As a Kennedy half variety collector I have spent years trying to find an example of every type of Kennedy half produced. I look at these DC creations as fantasy pieces not copies. The word "copy" has no place on these overstrikes as they are not copies but true originals now bearing a fantasy date. If you like them buy them, if you do not, don't buy them. Simply as it can be stated.
<< <i>As a Kennedy half variety collector I have spent years trying to find an example of every type of Kennedy half produced. I look at these DC creations as fantasy pieces not copies. The word "copy" has no place on these overstrikes as they are not copies but true originals now bearing a fantasy date. If you like them buy them, if you do not, don't buy them. Simply as it can be stated.
Regards, Larry >>
That is fine, just acknowledge that everything you said is an opinion.
I have said this before and do so again. I think it would be better to put the creators initials or other mark on the coin. Not only would the artist get credit for it but it would stand as a good faith measure that no attempt at winking at the law is being attempted here. Of course this might ruin the "fantasy" for some and I understand that. Other than that I would like one if it is not made in great quantities.
Gold and silver are valuable but wisdom is priceless.
<< <i>I am reminded of a long-ago ex-boss who, when it was pointed out to them why something they had just said was wrong, would say the exact same wrong thing again, LOUDER, as though that would make it right. >>
Upon re-reading this single point within this thread, I now agree.
<< <i>As a Kennedy half variety collector I have spent years trying to find an example of every type of Kennedy half produced. I look at these DC creations as fantasy pieces not copies. The word "copy" has no place on these overstrikes as they are not copies but true originals now bearing a fantasy date. If you like them buy them, if you do not, don't buy them. Simply as it can be stated.
Regards, Larry >>
That is fine, just acknowledge that everything you said is an opinion. >>
Can you say "Pot, meet kettle"?
Having reviewed previous postings the personal animus towards Dan by some is obvious but some almost have more of a problem that he's *gasp* making money! Do they work for free, I wonder?
Laying that aside...as to the topic at hand, I honestly am on the fence with these overstruck issues personally. I've owned and sold some of Dan's other non-overstruck pieces in the past- and I admire Dan's skill and the quality of his work to be sure, plus I respect him as a businessman- but these overstrike pieces seem to be straddling a really ambiguous gray area IMO.
That being said, frankly he's been openly doing these long enough that one would certainly think that there would have been some intervention by Big Brother long before now if an argument as to their legal status had any legs. They're being accepted by a major TPG, not to mention the marketplace, so I suppose it would be hard to unring the bell at this juncture.
<< <i>As a Kennedy half variety collector I have spent years trying to find an example of every type of Kennedy half produced. I look at these DC creations as fantasy pieces not copies. The word "copy" has no place on these overstrikes as they are not copies but true originals now bearing a fantasy date. If you like them buy them, if you do not, don't buy them. Simply as it can be stated.
Regards, Larry >>
That is fine, just acknowledge that everything you said is an opinion. >>
Can you say "Pot, meet kettle"?
Having reviewed previous postings the personal animus towards Dan by some is obvious but some almost have more of a problem that he's *gasp* making money! Do they work for free, I wonder?
Laying that aside...as to the topic at hand, I honestly am on the fence with these overstruck issues personally. I've owned and sold some of Dan's other non-overstruck pieces in the past- and I admire Dan's skill and the quality of his work to be sure, plus I respect him as a businessman- but these overstrike pieces seem to be straddling a really ambiguous gray area IMO.
That being said, frankly he's been openly doing these long enough that one would certainly think that there would have been some intervention by Big Brother long before now if an argument as to their legal status had any legs. They're being accepted by a major TPG, not to mention the marketplace, so I suppose it would be hard to unring the bell at this juncture. >>
The Norfed liberty dollars come to mind. They were available for quite some time and i know the paper norfed currency made its way into top tier grading holders. I asked previously if the paper currency was outlawed when the silver and gold coins were but i dont recall an answer. Bottem line is they were ok for a long time , then not. Saying these fantasy overstrikes must be ok cos theres been no knock at the door is optimistic perhaps.
<< <i>these overstrikes as they are not copies but true originals now bearing a fantasy date. >>
The date maybe fantasy, but everything else is/was EXACT copy of the original. To think these private overstrikes as original and as legitimate as any products of the United States Mint is completely naive and illogical.
<< <i>As a Kennedy half variety collector I have spent years trying to find an example of every type of Kennedy half produced. I look at these DC creations as fantasy pieces not copies. The word "copy" has no place on these overstrikes as they are not copies but true originals now bearing a fantasy date. If you like them buy them, if you do not, don't buy them. Simply as it can be stated.
Regards, Larry >>
That is fine, just acknowledge that everything you said is an opinion. >>
Can you say "Pot, meet kettle"?
Having reviewed previous postings the personal animus towards Dan by some is obvious but some almost have more of a problem that he's *gasp* making money! Do they work for free, I wonder?
Laying that aside...as to the topic at hand, I honestly am on the fence with these overstruck issues personally. I've owned and sold some of Dan's other non-overstruck pieces in the past- and I admire Dan's skill and the quality of his work to be sure, plus I respect him as a businessman- but these overstrike pieces seem to be straddling a really ambiguous gray area IMO.
That being said, frankly he's been openly doing these long enough that one would certainly think that there would have been some intervention by Big Brother long before now if an argument as to their legal status had any legs. They're being accepted by a major TPG, not to mention the marketplace, so I suppose it would be hard to unring the bell at this juncture. >>
The Norfed liberty dollars come to mind. They were available for quite some time and i know the paper norfed currency made its way into top tier grading holders. I asked previously if the paper currency was outlawed when the silver and gold coins were but i dont recall an answer. Bottem line is they were ok for a long time , then not. Saying these fantasy overstrikes must be ok cos theres been no knock at the door is optimistic perhaps. >>
I was waiting for someone to bring up the Norfed pieces. There's a big difference. With those the maker was attempting to actually use them asa form of money, as a substitute tender for lawful currency in violation of Federal law. Dan on the other hand is making "coins" that either never existed to begin with, or in the case of his 64-D pieces, is overstriking legally issued genuine coinage. He is not nor has he ever been representing his creations as legal tender nor has he ever attempted to use them as such.
<< <i>As a Kennedy half variety collector I have spent years trying to find an example of every type of Kennedy half produced. I look at these DC creations as fantasy pieces not copies. The word "copy" has no place on these overstrikes as they are not copies but true originals now bearing a fantasy date. If you like them buy them, if you do not, don't buy them. Simply as it can be stated.
Regards, Larry >>
That is fine, just acknowledge that everything you said is an opinion. >>
Can you say "Pot, meet kettle"?
Having reviewed previous postings the personal animus towards Dan by some is obvious but some almost have more of a problem that he's *gasp* making money! Do they work for free, I wonder?
Laying that aside...as to the topic at hand, I honestly am on the fence with these overstruck issues personally. I've owned and sold some of Dan's other non-overstruck pieces in the past- and I admire Dan's skill and the quality of his work to be sure, plus I respect him as a businessman- but these overstrike pieces seem to be straddling a really ambiguous gray area IMO.
That being said, frankly he's been openly doing these long enough that one would certainly think that there would have been some intervention by Big Brother long before now if an argument as to their legal status had any legs. They're being accepted by a major TPG, not to mention the marketplace, so I suppose it would be hard to unring the bell at this juncture. >>
The Norfed liberty dollars come to mind. They were available for quite some time and i know the paper norfed currency made its way into top tier grading holders. I asked previously if the paper currency was outlawed when the silver and gold coins were but i dont recall an answer. Bottem line is they were ok for a long time , then not. Saying these fantasy overstrikes must be ok cos theres been no knock at the door is optimistic perhaps. >>
I was waiting for someone to bring up the Norfed pieces. There's a big difference. With those the maker was attempting to actually use them asa form of money, as a substitute tender for lawful currency in violation of Federal law. Dan on the other hand is making "coins" that either never existed to begin with, or in the case of his 64-D pieces, is overstriking legally issued genuine coinage. He is not nor has he ever been representing his creations as legal tender nor has he ever attempted to use them as such. >>
What the maker intends wil have no bearing on what the feds may or may not care about. The fact remains they could easily be confused for legal tender.That's all that would matter i would think.Then again im no fed and dont think like one , my point was the norfed dollars were fine for a while , then like a switch..boom..not fine.
<< <i>As a Kennedy half variety collector I have spent years trying to find an example of every type of Kennedy half produced. I look at these DC creations as fantasy pieces not copies. The word "copy" has no place on these overstrikes as they are not copies but true originals now bearing a fantasy date. If you like them buy them, if you do not, don't buy them. Simply as it can be stated.
Regards, Larry >>
That is fine, just acknowledge that everything you said is an opinion. >>
Can you say "Pot, meet kettle"?
Having reviewed previous postings the personal animus towards Dan by some is obvious but some almost have more of a problem that he's *gasp* making money! Do they work for free, I wonder?
Laying that aside...as to the topic at hand, I honestly am on the fence with these overstruck issues personally. I've owned and sold some of Dan's other non-overstruck pieces in the past- and I admire Dan's skill and the quality of his work to be sure, plus I respect him as a businessman- but these overstrike pieces seem to be straddling a really ambiguous gray area IMO.
That being said, frankly he's been openly doing these long enough that one would certainly think that there would have been some intervention by Big Brother long before now if an argument as to their legal status had any legs. They're being accepted by a major TPG, not to mention the marketplace, so I suppose it would be hard to unring the bell at this juncture. >>
The Norfed liberty dollars come to mind. They were available for quite some time and i know the paper norfed currency made its way into top tier grading holders. I asked previously if the paper currency was outlawed when the silver and gold coins were but i dont recall an answer. Bottem line is they were ok for a long time , then not. Saying these fantasy overstrikes must be ok cos theres been no knock at the door is optimistic perhaps. >>
I was waiting for someone to bring up the Norfed pieces. There's a big difference. With those the maker was attempting to actually use them asa form of money, as a substitute tender for lawful currency in violation of Federal law. Dan on the other hand is making "coins" that either never existed to begin with, or in the case of his 64-D pieces, is overstriking legally issued genuine coinage. He is not nor has he ever been representing his creations as legal tender nor has he ever attempted to use them as such. >>
What the maker intends wil have no bearing on what the feds may or may not care about. The fact remains they could easily be confused for legal tender.That's all that would matter i would think.Then again im no fed and dont think like one , my point was the norfed dollars were fine for a while , then like a switch..boom..not fine. >>
I must agree with James Murray here. These 50 cent items would be accepted at a convenience store. That seems a problem.
I know the argument is these would not be spent at face value.I don't think that would matter much if the powers that be decided against them if it even ever came up. Just as worthy an argument , and im not conceding it is a valid argument but consider how many times we've seen posts and remarks about somebodies collection must have been raided when rare or scarce coins are found in the wild at unlkely sources.To the vast majority thats just a half dollar.
These original designs that get recycled, such as this 50 cent item...as works produced for Government (the originals) these designs are thus rendered Public Domain, yes?
He is not nor has he ever been representing his creations as legal tender nor has he ever attempted to use them as such. >>
I disagree. In fact, I think the entire basis for not having to put copy on the coins is that they ARE legal tender. By overstriking a different date onto a legal tender coin, that thorny issue of counterfeit or copy is sidestepped.
<< <i>He is not nor has he ever been representing his creations as legal tender nor has he ever attempted to use them as such. >>
I disagree. In fact, I think the entire basis for not having to put copy on the coins is that they ARE legal tender. By overstriking a different date onto a legal tender coin, that thorny issue of counterfeit or copy is sidestepped. >>
Excellent point. I hadn't even looked at it from that angle.
Kind of like carving a hobo nickel out of a genuine one and passing it as legal tender.
<< <i>He is not nor has he ever been representing his creations as legal tender nor has he ever attempted to use them as such. >>
I disagree. In fact, I think the entire basis for not having to put copy on the coins is that they ARE legal tender. By overstriking a different date onto a legal tender coin, that thorny issue of counterfeit or copy is sidestepped. >>
<< <i>He is not nor has he ever been representing his creations as legal tender nor has he ever attempted to use them as such. >>
I disagree. In fact, I think the entire basis for not having to put copy on the coins is that they ARE legal tender. By overstriking a different date onto a legal tender coin, that thorny issue of counterfeit or copy is sidestepped. >>
Are the Kennedy half strikes the only ones showing a current, circulating design, as opposed to an obsolete or commemorative design?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>As a Kennedy half variety collector I have spent years trying to find an example of every type of Kennedy half produced. I look at these DC creations as fantasy pieces not copies. The word "copy" has no place on these overstrikes as they are not copies but true originals now bearing a fantasy date. If you like them buy them, if you do not, don't buy them. Simply as it can be stated.
Regards, Larry >>
That is fine, just acknowledge that everything you said is an opinion. >>
Can you say "Pot, meet kettle"?
Having reviewed previous postings the personal animus towards Dan by some is obvious but some almost have more of a problem that he's *gasp* making money! Do they work for free, I wonder?
Laying that aside...as to the topic at hand, I honestly am on the fence with these overstruck issues personally. I've owned and sold some of Dan's other non-overstruck pieces in the past- and I admire Dan's skill and the quality of his work to be sure, plus I respect him as a businessman- but these overstrike pieces seem to be straddling a really ambiguous gray area IMO.
That being said, frankly he's been openly doing these long enough that one would certainly think that there would have been some intervention by Big Brother long before now if an argument as to their legal status had any legs. They're being accepted by a major TPG, not to mention the marketplace, so I suppose it would be hard to unring the bell at this juncture. >>
The Norfed liberty dollars come to mind. They were available for quite some time and i know the paper norfed currency made its way into top tier grading holders. I asked previously if the paper currency was outlawed when the silver and gold coins were but i dont recall an answer. Bottem line is they were ok for a long time , then not. Saying these fantasy overstrikes must be ok cos theres been no knock at the door is optimistic perhaps. >>
I was waiting for someone to bring up the Norfed pieces. There's a big difference. With those the maker was attempting to actually use them asa form of money, as a substitute tender for lawful currency in violation of Federal law. Dan on the other hand is making "coins" that either never existed to begin with, or in the case of his 64-D pieces, is overstriking legally issued genuine coinage. He is not nor has he ever been representing his creations as legal tender nor has he ever attempted to use them as such. >>
What the maker intends wil have no bearing on what the feds may or may not care about. The fact remains they could easily be confused for legal tender.That's all that would matter i would think.Then again im no fed and dont think like one , my point was the norfed dollars were fine for a while , then like a switch..boom..not fine. >>
Let them be confused then.
Hey wait a minute here. These ARE legal tender coins since the base was monetized by the Treasury Department.
Just like a Hobo Nickel which is legal tender.
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 wonder if the secret service would weigh in if approached with an official inquiry? Put speculation to bed one way or another. >>
I would be shocked if they haven't been. MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
So, if the law repealing Trade Dollars was repealed in 1887, they are no longer legal tender and they should all be seized by the Secret Service to prevent unsuspecting collectors from being taken advantage of in thinking that they are US coinage and to prevent someone from passing one off as real.
Shouldn't they all be confiscated and their owners arrested because they have "United States of America" and the word "Dollar" right on them? It's simply terrible to allow these in the collecting community.
Let's apply these important principles equally across the board.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>Are the Kennedy half strikes the only ones showing a current, circulating design, as opposed to an obsolete or commemorative design? >>
Oh God! Please don;t tell me that IKE's are obsolete! >>
I spend them and give them out as tips, but they have been replaced with a couple dozen other dollar coins.
Kennedy halves are still being produced. I get them at the bank at face value and spend them.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>So, those who trust (and used to work for) ANACS have no response as to why that professional and highly regarded/trusted has graded and will continue to grade these creations yet refuse to grade counterfeit coins?
Is ANACS along with the seasoned numismatists who work and support this decades old organization all simply wrong and you are right? >>
Sorry, Pat. Not sure why you are insistent on this point. First off, the person(s) you are wanting to hear from worked for the old Anacs and not the current administration, from what I have seen. True? Also, since he is not part of that company and it has changed, why should he attempt to answer for why they do what they do?
Now, a question to those that think Carr , using different dates, is different from what they also call Chinese counterfeiters and that makes it ok.....or that people won't be confused because of that difference......
A friend of mine went to China. He is not a numismatist but he is educated and a reasonable person. He knows I collect coins. He found a great deal on 4 US silver dollars. He spent real cash. 3 of them were poor Morgan replicas or seated liberty. One of them was a 1906 walking liberty ONE DOLLAR 'coin'. Looked like an ASE.
So, for those defending Carr and saying he is different than the Chinese counterfeits because of the fantasy dates....do you find that Chinese coin my friend bought to be a Chinese counterfeit or not? If so, why? It does have a fantasy date just like carr's.
I won't rehash things, but I am still in the camp with those against these....things. Of course, I am not interests in buying and flipping these things, so that may well be why I am not for them and some others are. It's always cool, though, to flaunt the law and be a bad boy 😉
<< <i>Now, a question to those that think Carr , using different dates, is different from what they also call Chinese counterfeiters and that makes it ok.....or that people won't be confused because of that difference...... >>
I'm not defending anybody, but I believe the point is that Mr. Carr is restriking actual coins as opposed to fabricating new planchets.
Not that there would be anywhere near the support for a Chinese manufacturer who did the same, of course.
<<He is not nor has he ever been representing his creations as legal tender nor has he ever attempted to use them as such. >>
<<I disagree. In fact, I think the entire basis for not having to put copy on the coins is that they ARE legal tender. By overstriking a different date onto a legal tender coin, that thorny issue of counterfeit or copy is sidestepped.>>
The reason that it's not necessary to stamp COPY on them isn't because anyone's calling them legal tender-they aren't; it's not necessary to stamp COPY on them because you can't copy something that never existed in the first place. The only pieces where you could even get minor traction with a contrarian argument would be the 64-D pieces, and since they were never officially issued or monetized, that argument would also fail.
Edit to add- before someone brings up the replica 1933 Saints with "COPY" on them.... at least one of the original 1933 pieces has been monetized- so the HPA would apply there. Not so with the 64-D Peace Dollars.
<<He is not nor has he ever been representing his creations as legal tender nor has he ever attempted to use them as such. >>
<<I disagree. In fact, I think the entire basis for not having to put copy on the coins is that they ARE legal tender. By overstriking a different date onto a legal tender coin, that thorny issue of counterfeit or copy is sidestepped.>>
The reason that it's not necessary to stamp COPY on them isn't because anyone's calling them legal tender-they aren't; it's not necessary to stamp COPY on them because you can't copy something that never existed in the first place. The only pieces where you could even get minor traction with a contrarian argument would be the 64-D pieces, and since they were never officially issued or monetized, that argument would also fail.
Edit to add- before someone brings up the replica 1933 Saints with "COPY" on them.... at least one of the original 1933 pieces has been monetized- so the HPA would apply there. Not so with the 64-D Peace Dollars. >>
In my somewhat learned opinion, they are indeed legal tender. If you expertly engraved a new date onto an existing American coin, it would not change the fact that coin is legal tender. Nor, IMO, does stamping a different date on a coin with a die.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<<He is not nor has he ever been representing his creations as legal tender nor has he ever attempted to use them as such. >>
<<I disagree. In fact, I think the entire basis for not having to put copy on the coins is that they ARE legal tender. By overstriking a different date onto a legal tender coin, that thorny issue of counterfeit or copy is sidestepped.>>
The reason that it's not necessary to stamp COPY on them isn't because anyone's calling them legal tender-they aren't; it's not necessary to stamp COPY on them because you can't copy something that never existed in the first place. The only pieces where you could even get minor traction with a contrarian argument would be the 64-D pieces, and since they were never officially issued or monetized, that argument would also fail.
Edit to add- before someone brings up the replica 1933 Saints with "COPY" on them.... at least one of the original 1933 pieces has been monetized- so the HPA would apply there. Not so with the 64-D Peace Dollars. >>
In my somewhat learned opinion, they are indeed legal tender. If you expertly engraved a new date onto an existing American coin, it would not change the fact that coin is legal tender. Nor, IMO, does stamping a different date on a coin with a die. >>
Id agree , ive lost count of the counterstamped coins ive gotten in change , usually lincoln cents but altered all the same and no less legal. Im amazed at the comment that somehow the public should be aware of facts concerning a specialist hobby. That's a mind boggler.
Comments
linky
Are you legally-trained enough to know what is considered relevant? It's interesting, because when I read that section, I see no violation. What part of the statute, exactly can you point to as the actual legal violation? This is interesting because it appears that you only read into the statute what you want to get out of it.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>Just read the whole thread and amazingly enough not one new point was made on the subject and probably not one mind changed. Same as it ever was.
Well until the next Fantasy piece is issued please drive safely and be sure to tip your waitresses and waiters. See you at the reunuion.
MJ >>
Yes, very dull for those of us who just enjoy collecting and aren't trying to protect our turf. I'm looking forward to the next one, Daniel!
<< <i>The complete text of the relevant section:
Are you legally-trained enough to know what is considered relevant? It's interesting, because when I read that section, I see no violation. What part of the statute, exactly can you point to as the actual legal violation? This is interesting because it appears that you only read into the statute what you want to get out of it. >>
Perhaps this is more relevant? From the Mint's FAQ's:
What is the legality of making molds of United States coins?
Answer ID
137
What is the legality of making molds of United States coins?
Section 487 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code prohibits making "any die hub or mold… in likeness or similitude as to the design or inscription thereon, of any die hub or mold designated for the coining or making of any of the genuine gold, silver, nickel, bronze, copper or other coins coined at the mints of the United States." For example, manufacturing reproductions of coins might involve making dies that are "are in similitude" to the design of the original coins, and therefore making these dies may be a criminal act under the statute.
Linky
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>It appears now that you are citing a proposed statute, Captn. You really do have an axe to grind, don't you? In any event, your proposed law isn't law. >>
I guess I am missing something but I think both sides boil down to the key point is wither or not the fakes should have the word copy on them.
1) The side that says they should deeply believes that they have the potential to be a detriment to the hobby.
2) The side that says they shouldn't be marked as copies seem to interested in potential collectability which translates to a financial motive. Denial clearly knows that he can charge more without the word on them and has put his stake in the ground.
I rather come down on the side of the hobby than personal profit, it appears many of you do not care. I just find it curious why so many get behind him.
<< <i>It appears now that you are citing a proposed statute, Captn. You really do have an axe to grind, don't you? In any event, your proposed law isn't law. >>
You are quite wrong. That IS the current U.S. Code. Click on the second tab to verify that.
The preliminary reference is boilerplate to reflect the fact that laws can be changed by Congress, and that you should check the laws of the current, or in this case the just-ended, 112th Congress to see if that Congress passed any law affecting Title 18, Section 487. If you will follow the link to laws organized according to the Titles and Sections that they affected, you will see that the 112th Congress passed no law affecting Title 18, Section 487. Thus the existing law STANDS!
How's YOUR axe?
Next thing you know people will get upset over Zorkmid restrikes ... although there are some collectors of old computer games who would probably be interested.
Happy Rock Wrens
You're having delusions of grandeur again. - Susan Ivanova
Well, if you're gonna have delusions, may as well go for the really satisfying ones. - Marcus Cole
Legal interpretation is everything. That's why they invented courts.
I knew it would happen.
Crypto has it entirely wrong at least as far as I am concerned. I do NOT want the word "COPY", and not because I might want mine for resale. Mine I keep for my own collection and is more or less a "hobby within a hobby". Quite frankly, these are of trivial value compared to my collection per se...
As I see it, these are not fakes of anything. They are the real thing restruck and NOT faking any specific issue, thus the date differences from real. They are being sold for exactly what they are and has been covered as member MJ has stated.
I really do not see how people don't just vote with their feet and not get these issues if they do not like them or get them if they do.
Well, just Love coins, period.
I look at these DC creations as fantasy pieces not copies.
The word "copy" has no place on these overstrikes as they are not copies but true originals now bearing a fantasy date.
If you like them buy them, if you do not, don't buy them.
Simply as it can be stated.
Regards, Larry
<< <i>As a Kennedy half variety collector I have spent years trying to find an example of every type of Kennedy half produced.
I look at these DC creations as fantasy pieces not copies.
The word "copy" has no place on these overstrikes as they are not copies but true originals now bearing a fantasy date.
If you like them buy them, if you do not, don't buy them.
Simply as it can be stated.
Regards, Larry
That is fine, just acknowledge that everything you said is an opinion.
<< <i>I am reminded of a long-ago ex-boss who, when it was pointed out to them why something they had just said was wrong, would say the exact same wrong thing again, LOUDER, as though that would make it right. >>
Upon re-reading this single point within this thread, I now agree.
peacockcoins
<< <i>
<< <i>As a Kennedy half variety collector I have spent years trying to find an example of every type of Kennedy half produced.
I look at these DC creations as fantasy pieces not copies.
The word "copy" has no place on these overstrikes as they are not copies but true originals now bearing a fantasy date.
If you like them buy them, if you do not, don't buy them.
Simply as it can be stated.
Regards, Larry
That is fine, just acknowledge that everything you said is an opinion. >>
Having reviewed previous postings the personal animus towards Dan by some is obvious but some almost have more of a problem that he's *gasp* making money! Do they work for free, I wonder?
Laying that aside...as to the topic at hand, I honestly am on the fence with these overstruck issues personally. I've owned and sold some of Dan's other non-overstruck pieces in the past- and I admire Dan's skill and the quality of his work to be sure, plus I respect him as a businessman- but these overstrike pieces seem to be straddling a really ambiguous gray area IMO.
That being said, frankly he's been openly doing these long enough that one would certainly think that there would have been some intervention by Big Brother long before now if an argument as to their legal status had any legs. They're being accepted by a major TPG, not to mention the marketplace, so I suppose it would be hard to unring the bell at this juncture.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>As a Kennedy half variety collector I have spent years trying to find an example of every type of Kennedy half produced.
I look at these DC creations as fantasy pieces not copies.
The word "copy" has no place on these overstrikes as they are not copies but true originals now bearing a fantasy date.
If you like them buy them, if you do not, don't buy them.
Simply as it can be stated.
Regards, Larry
That is fine, just acknowledge that everything you said is an opinion. >>
Having reviewed previous postings the personal animus towards Dan by some is obvious but some almost have more of a problem that he's *gasp* making money! Do they work for free, I wonder?
Laying that aside...as to the topic at hand, I honestly am on the fence with these overstruck issues personally. I've owned and sold some of Dan's other non-overstruck pieces in the past- and I admire Dan's skill and the quality of his work to be sure, plus I respect him as a businessman- but these overstrike pieces seem to be straddling a really ambiguous gray area IMO.
That being said, frankly he's been openly doing these long enough that one would certainly think that there would have been some intervention by Big Brother long before now if an argument as to their legal status had any legs. They're being accepted by a major TPG, not to mention the marketplace, so I suppose it would be hard to unring the bell at this juncture. >>
The Norfed liberty dollars come to mind. They were available for quite some time and i know the paper norfed currency made its way into top tier grading holders. I asked previously if the paper currency was outlawed when the silver and gold coins were but i dont recall an answer. Bottem line is they were ok for a long time , then not. Saying these fantasy overstrikes must be ok cos theres been no knock at the door is optimistic perhaps.
<< <i>these overstrikes as they are not copies but true originals now bearing a fantasy date. >>
The date maybe fantasy, but everything else is/was EXACT copy of the original. To think these private overstrikes as original and as legitimate as any products of the United States Mint is completely naive and illogical.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>As a Kennedy half variety collector I have spent years trying to find an example of every type of Kennedy half produced.
I look at these DC creations as fantasy pieces not copies.
The word "copy" has no place on these overstrikes as they are not copies but true originals now bearing a fantasy date.
If you like them buy them, if you do not, don't buy them.
Simply as it can be stated.
Regards, Larry
That is fine, just acknowledge that everything you said is an opinion. >>
Having reviewed previous postings the personal animus towards Dan by some is obvious but some almost have more of a problem that he's *gasp* making money! Do they work for free, I wonder?
Laying that aside...as to the topic at hand, I honestly am on the fence with these overstruck issues personally. I've owned and sold some of Dan's other non-overstruck pieces in the past- and I admire Dan's skill and the quality of his work to be sure, plus I respect him as a businessman- but these overstrike pieces seem to be straddling a really ambiguous gray area IMO.
That being said, frankly he's been openly doing these long enough that one would certainly think that there would have been some intervention by Big Brother long before now if an argument as to their legal status had any legs. They're being accepted by a major TPG, not to mention the marketplace, so I suppose it would be hard to unring the bell at this juncture. >>
The Norfed liberty dollars come to mind. They were available for quite some time and i know the paper norfed currency made its way into top tier grading holders. I asked previously if the paper currency was outlawed when the silver and gold coins were but i dont recall an answer. Bottem line is they were ok for a long time , then not. Saying these fantasy overstrikes must be ok cos theres been no knock at the door is optimistic perhaps. >>
I was waiting for someone to bring up the Norfed pieces. There's a big difference. With those the maker was attempting to actually use them asa form of money, as a substitute tender for lawful currency in violation of Federal law. Dan on the other hand is making "coins" that either never existed to begin with, or in the case of his 64-D pieces, is overstriking legally issued genuine coinage. He is not nor has he ever been representing his creations as legal tender nor has he ever attempted to use them as such.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>As a Kennedy half variety collector I have spent years trying to find an example of every type of Kennedy half produced.
I look at these DC creations as fantasy pieces not copies.
The word "copy" has no place on these overstrikes as they are not copies but true originals now bearing a fantasy date.
If you like them buy them, if you do not, don't buy them.
Simply as it can be stated.
Regards, Larry
That is fine, just acknowledge that everything you said is an opinion. >>
Having reviewed previous postings the personal animus towards Dan by some is obvious but some almost have more of a problem that he's *gasp* making money! Do they work for free, I wonder?
Laying that aside...as to the topic at hand, I honestly am on the fence with these overstruck issues personally. I've owned and sold some of Dan's other non-overstruck pieces in the past- and I admire Dan's skill and the quality of his work to be sure, plus I respect him as a businessman- but these overstrike pieces seem to be straddling a really ambiguous gray area IMO.
That being said, frankly he's been openly doing these long enough that one would certainly think that there would have been some intervention by Big Brother long before now if an argument as to their legal status had any legs. They're being accepted by a major TPG, not to mention the marketplace, so I suppose it would be hard to unring the bell at this juncture. >>
The Norfed liberty dollars come to mind. They were available for quite some time and i know the paper norfed currency made its way into top tier grading holders. I asked previously if the paper currency was outlawed when the silver and gold coins were but i dont recall an answer. Bottem line is they were ok for a long time , then not. Saying these fantasy overstrikes must be ok cos theres been no knock at the door is optimistic perhaps. >>
I was waiting for someone to bring up the Norfed pieces. There's a big difference. With those the maker was attempting to actually use them asa form of money, as a substitute tender for lawful currency in violation of Federal law. Dan on the other hand is making "coins" that either never existed to begin with, or in the case of his 64-D pieces, is overstriking legally issued genuine coinage. He is not nor has he ever been representing his creations as legal tender nor has he ever attempted to use them as such. >>
What the maker intends wil have no bearing on what the feds may or may not care about. The fact remains they could easily be confused for legal tender.That's all that would matter i would think.Then again im no fed and dont think like one , my point was the norfed dollars were fine for a while , then like a switch..boom..not fine.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>As a Kennedy half variety collector I have spent years trying to find an example of every type of Kennedy half produced.
I look at these DC creations as fantasy pieces not copies.
The word "copy" has no place on these overstrikes as they are not copies but true originals now bearing a fantasy date.
If you like them buy them, if you do not, don't buy them.
Simply as it can be stated.
Regards, Larry
That is fine, just acknowledge that everything you said is an opinion. >>
Having reviewed previous postings the personal animus towards Dan by some is obvious but some almost have more of a problem that he's *gasp* making money! Do they work for free, I wonder?
Laying that aside...as to the topic at hand, I honestly am on the fence with these overstruck issues personally. I've owned and sold some of Dan's other non-overstruck pieces in the past- and I admire Dan's skill and the quality of his work to be sure, plus I respect him as a businessman- but these overstrike pieces seem to be straddling a really ambiguous gray area IMO.
That being said, frankly he's been openly doing these long enough that one would certainly think that there would have been some intervention by Big Brother long before now if an argument as to their legal status had any legs. They're being accepted by a major TPG, not to mention the marketplace, so I suppose it would be hard to unring the bell at this juncture. >>
The Norfed liberty dollars come to mind. They were available for quite some time and i know the paper norfed currency made its way into top tier grading holders. I asked previously if the paper currency was outlawed when the silver and gold coins were but i dont recall an answer. Bottem line is they were ok for a long time , then not. Saying these fantasy overstrikes must be ok cos theres been no knock at the door is optimistic perhaps. >>
I was waiting for someone to bring up the Norfed pieces. There's a big difference. With those the maker was attempting to actually use them asa form of money, as a substitute tender for lawful currency in violation of Federal law. Dan on the other hand is making "coins" that either never existed to begin with, or in the case of his 64-D pieces, is overstriking legally issued genuine coinage. He is not nor has he ever been representing his creations as legal tender nor has he ever attempted to use them as such. >>
What the maker intends wil have no bearing on what the feds may or may not care about. The fact remains they could easily be confused for legal tender.That's all that would matter i would think.Then again im no fed and dont think like one , my point was the norfed dollars were fine for a while , then like a switch..boom..not fine. >>
I must agree with James Murray here. These 50 cent items would be accepted at a convenience store. That seems a problem.
Eric
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Eric
<< <i>Yeah but he sells them for $40, so it's ok
If anyone wants to sell them for 50¢ I'm a buyer.
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
I disagree. In fact, I think the entire basis for not having to put copy on the coins is that they ARE legal tender. By overstriking a different date onto a legal tender coin, that thorny issue of counterfeit or copy is sidestepped.
<< <i>He is not nor has he ever been representing his creations as legal tender nor has he ever attempted to use them as such. >>
I disagree. In fact, I think the entire basis for not having to put copy on the coins is that they ARE legal tender. By overstriking a different date onto a legal tender coin, that thorny issue of counterfeit or copy is sidestepped. >>
Excellent point.
I hadn't even looked at it from that angle.
Kind of like carving a hobo nickel out of a genuine one and passing it as legal tender.
peacockcoins
COINS FOR SALE AT LINK BELOW (READ CAREFULLY)
https://photos.app.goo.gl/oqym2YtcS7ZAZ73D6
<< <i>He is not nor has he ever been representing his creations as legal tender nor has he ever attempted to use them as such. >>
I disagree. In fact, I think the entire basis for not having to put copy on the coins is that they ARE legal tender. By overstriking a different date onto a legal tender coin, that thorny issue of counterfeit or copy is sidestepped. >>
That really is a very good, insightful point.
<< <i>
<< <i>He is not nor has he ever been representing his creations as legal tender nor has he ever attempted to use them as such. >>
I disagree. In fact, I think the entire basis for not having to put copy on the coins is that they ARE legal tender. By overstriking a different date onto a legal tender coin, that thorny issue of counterfeit or copy is sidestepped. >>
That really is a very good, insightful point. >>
It is!
Eric
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>As a Kennedy half variety collector I have spent years trying to find an example of every type of Kennedy half produced.
I look at these DC creations as fantasy pieces not copies.
The word "copy" has no place on these overstrikes as they are not copies but true originals now bearing a fantasy date.
If you like them buy them, if you do not, don't buy them.
Simply as it can be stated.
Regards, Larry
That is fine, just acknowledge that everything you said is an opinion. >>
Having reviewed previous postings the personal animus towards Dan by some is obvious but some almost have more of a problem that he's *gasp* making money! Do they work for free, I wonder?
Laying that aside...as to the topic at hand, I honestly am on the fence with these overstruck issues personally. I've owned and sold some of Dan's other non-overstruck pieces in the past- and I admire Dan's skill and the quality of his work to be sure, plus I respect him as a businessman- but these overstrike pieces seem to be straddling a really ambiguous gray area IMO.
That being said, frankly he's been openly doing these long enough that one would certainly think that there would have been some intervention by Big Brother long before now if an argument as to their legal status had any legs. They're being accepted by a major TPG, not to mention the marketplace, so I suppose it would be hard to unring the bell at this juncture. >>
The Norfed liberty dollars come to mind. They were available for quite some time and i know the paper norfed currency made its way into top tier grading holders. I asked previously if the paper currency was outlawed when the silver and gold coins were but i dont recall an answer. Bottem line is they were ok for a long time , then not. Saying these fantasy overstrikes must be ok cos theres been no knock at the door is optimistic perhaps. >>
I was waiting for someone to bring up the Norfed pieces. There's a big difference. With those the maker was attempting to actually use them asa form of money, as a substitute tender for lawful currency in violation of Federal law. Dan on the other hand is making "coins" that either never existed to begin with, or in the case of his 64-D pieces, is overstriking legally issued genuine coinage. He is not nor has he ever been representing his creations as legal tender nor has he ever attempted to use them as such. >>
What the maker intends wil have no bearing on what the feds may or may not care about. The fact remains they could easily be confused for legal tender.That's all that would matter i would think.Then again im no fed and dont think like one , my point was the norfed dollars were fine for a while , then like a switch..boom..not fine. >>
Let them be confused then.
Hey wait a minute here. These ARE legal tender coins since the base was monetized by the Treasury Department.
Just like a Hobo Nickel which is legal tender.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>From the Dan Carr website -
I mean, why?
<< <i>All I can think is "Why?" >>
Good question!
<< <i>Are the Kennedy half strikes the only ones showing a current, circulating design, as opposed to an obsolete or commemorative design? >>
Oh God! Please don;t tell me that IKE's are obsolete!
The name is LEE!
<< <i>I wonder if the secret service would weigh in if approached with an official inquiry? Put speculation to bed one way or another. >>
I would be shocked if they haven't been. MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Shouldn't they all be confiscated and their owners arrested because they have "United States of America" and the word "Dollar" right on them? It's simply terrible to allow these in the collecting community.
Let's apply these important principles equally across the board.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>
<< <i>Are the Kennedy half strikes the only ones showing a current, circulating design, as opposed to an obsolete or commemorative design? >>
Oh God! Please don;t tell me that IKE's are obsolete! >>
I spend them and give them out as tips, but they have been replaced with a couple dozen other dollar coins.
Kennedy halves are still being produced. I get them at the bank at face value and spend them.
<< <i>So, those who trust (and used to work for) ANACS have no response as to why that professional and highly regarded/trusted has graded and will continue to grade these creations yet refuse to grade
counterfeit coins?
Is ANACS along with the seasoned numismatists who work and support this decades old organization all simply wrong and you are right? >>
Sorry, Pat.
Not sure why you are insistent on this point. First off, the person(s) you are wanting to hear from worked for the old Anacs and not the current administration, from what I have seen. True?
Also, since he is not part of that company and it has changed, why should he attempt to answer for why they do what they do?
Now, a question to those that think Carr , using different dates, is different from what they also call Chinese counterfeiters and that makes it ok.....or that people won't be confused because of that difference......
A friend of mine went to China. He is not a numismatist but he is educated and a reasonable person. He knows I collect coins. He found a great deal on 4 US silver dollars. He spent real cash. 3 of them were poor Morgan replicas or seated liberty. One of them was a 1906 walking liberty ONE DOLLAR 'coin'. Looked like an ASE.
So, for those defending Carr and saying he is different than the Chinese counterfeits because of the fantasy dates....do you find that Chinese coin my friend bought to be a Chinese counterfeit or not? If so, why? It does have a fantasy date just like carr's.
I won't rehash things, but I am still in the camp with those against these....things. Of course, I am not interests in buying and flipping these things, so that may well be why I am not for them and some others are. It's always cool, though, to flaunt the law and be a bad boy 😉
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>Now, a question to those that think Carr , using different dates, is different from what they also call Chinese counterfeiters and that makes it ok.....or that people won't be confused because of that difference...... >>
I'm not defending anybody, but I believe the point is that Mr. Carr is restriking actual coins as opposed to fabricating new planchets.
Not that there would be anywhere near the support for a Chinese manufacturer who did the same, of course.
Lance.
<< <i>
I must agree with James Murray here. These 50 cent items would be accepted at a convenience store. That seems a problem.
Eric >>
So it's Dan's fault that some people are ignorant of the fact that no 1963 Kennedys were ever made?
----------------------------------------------------
<<He is not nor has he ever been representing his creations as legal tender nor has he ever attempted to use them as such. >>
<<I disagree. In fact, I think the entire basis for not having to put copy on the coins is that they ARE legal tender. By overstriking a different date onto a legal tender coin, that thorny issue of counterfeit or copy is sidestepped.>>
The reason that it's not necessary to stamp COPY on them isn't because anyone's calling them legal tender-they aren't; it's not necessary to stamp COPY on them because you can't copy something that never existed in the first place. The only pieces where you could even get minor traction with a contrarian argument would be the 64-D pieces, and since they were never officially issued or monetized, that argument would also fail.
Edit to add- before someone brings up the replica 1933 Saints with "COPY" on them.... at least one of the original 1933 pieces has been monetized- so the HPA would apply there. Not so with the 64-D Peace Dollars.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>
<< <i>
I must agree with James Murray here. These 50 cent items would be accepted at a convenience store. That seems a problem.
Eric >>
So it's Dan's fault that some people are ignorant of the fact that no 1963 Kennedys were ever made?
----------------------------------------------------
<<He is not nor has he ever been representing his creations as legal tender nor has he ever attempted to use them as such. >>
<<I disagree. In fact, I think the entire basis for not having to put copy on the coins is that they ARE legal tender. By overstriking a different date onto a legal tender coin, that thorny issue of counterfeit or copy is sidestepped.>>
The reason that it's not necessary to stamp COPY on them isn't because anyone's calling them legal tender-they aren't; it's not necessary to stamp COPY on them because you can't copy something that never existed in the first place. The only pieces where you could even get minor traction with a contrarian argument would be the 64-D pieces, and since they were never officially issued or monetized, that argument would also fail.
Edit to add- before someone brings up the replica 1933 Saints with "COPY" on them.... at least one of the original 1933 pieces has been monetized- so the HPA would apply there. Not so with the 64-D Peace Dollars. >>
In my somewhat learned opinion, they are indeed legal tender. If you expertly engraved a new date onto an existing American coin, it would not change the fact that coin is legal tender. Nor, IMO, does stamping a different date on a coin with a die.
I knew it would happen.
link
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
I must agree with James Murray here. These 50 cent items would be accepted at a convenience store. That seems a problem.
Eric >>
So it's Dan's fault that some people are ignorant of the fact that no 1963 Kennedys were ever made?
----------------------------------------------------
<<He is not nor has he ever been representing his creations as legal tender nor has he ever attempted to use them as such. >>
<<I disagree. In fact, I think the entire basis for not having to put copy on the coins is that they ARE legal tender. By overstriking a different date onto a legal tender coin, that thorny issue of counterfeit or copy is sidestepped.>>
The reason that it's not necessary to stamp COPY on them isn't because anyone's calling them legal tender-they aren't; it's not necessary to stamp COPY on them because you can't copy something that never existed in the first place. The only pieces where you could even get minor traction with a contrarian argument would be the 64-D pieces, and since they were never officially issued or monetized, that argument would also fail.
Edit to add- before someone brings up the replica 1933 Saints with "COPY" on them.... at least one of the original 1933 pieces has been monetized- so the HPA would apply there. Not so with the 64-D Peace Dollars. >>
In my somewhat learned opinion, they are indeed legal tender. If you expertly engraved a new date onto an existing American coin, it would not change the fact that coin is legal tender. Nor, IMO, does stamping a different date on a coin with a die. >>
Id agree , ive lost count of the counterstamped coins ive gotten in change , usually lincoln cents but altered all the same and no less legal. Im amazed at the comment that somehow the public should be aware of facts concerning a specialist hobby. That's a mind boggler.