Some are very gleeful and want the OP to fail. Rather than stop the grey areas of the hobby, they have their own $$$ and desires and prefer to see failure.
OP... I admire that you chose to take a stand against a perceived injustice, and for that you have my respect.
That said...as derryb concisely pointed out, I fear you picked the wrong fight.
It's frustrating, I know. I don't like them personally, in fact I hate near-miss pieces like this... we've had 3 rounds now of replica $50 American Buffalo gold replicas being given away by a local car dealer-these were virtually exact in every detail but for a microscopically marked COPY on both sides. Of course that didn't prevent the reading-and common sense-challenged from bringing the bleeping things in... we briefly considered sending a lawyer letter to the dealership because they were certainly deceptive but in our case though they were dated and virtually identical to the original in all respects (except for being plated) they weren't illegal because of the tiny COPY on them... and in your case they're not illegal because they aren't exact copies of an existing design. Real ASEs have dates; these don't. Real ASEs say ONE DOLLAR on them; these don't. This round looks similar to an ASE but that's where it ends. There is no existing U.S. coin that looks exactly like the silver round in question, and there's definitely no Canadian piece that looks exactly like the wolf round in question...so if the judge/opposing counsel does some simple research this suit should get tossed imo. The guys who make these have usually been around long enough to know how to make the pieces just different enough to skirt the HPA. Plus, as has been pointed out by others, nowhere does this company represent or claim that these are genuine ASE coins.
Hopefully a suit like this will cause them to put COPY on all future production examples if nothing else...
I also hope that this company will not be vengeful and attempt a countersuit for libel/defamation/etc. but that's the risk one takes when attempting litigation of this sort. Good Luck
I commend anyone who's integrity leads them to stand for what is right and correct. With that said, if it were me minting orbs made of precious metals, I would use some simple design that is NOT representative of the dollar. In fact, I'd rather have a pick, axe & shovel on one side, with a beer on the other that said : "This Bud's for you, mate"
I think it's a mistake to assume a copy has to be "exact". See the amendment to the act above which deals with "miniature copies". Despite the fact that you COULD produce a Morgan Dollar in Dime size, the act still requires the proper markings.
Proper marking size is also required.
It seems to me that some just think it's easier to let this go. "It's not that bad of a violation". Well, where do you draw the line? I'm fine with having it drawn here. MAYBE, at the very least, the result will be some better defined rules on what constitutes a copy/replica/forgery.
The FTC and/or US Mint haven't been nearly active enough, to my mind. If it requires some agressive action from the outside, well, so be it.
Bochiman - Seems to me you are criticizing others for the same thing you are doing - you have an opinion or a stance; others don't agree with the OP or your stance - Doesn't mean they want him to fail or they want the hobby to "suffer" ... Maybe they just disagree .. There are many angles and opinions .. And yes - this is an open forum .. why post if it if it wasn't open for discussion or debate .. This is exactly what it is - a debate .. And it is going to court to be decided if it is a violation of the HPA or any other laws governing the topic in question.
And I strongly agree with the poster who said open cases of litigation are probably not the best move discussing it in such a public and open venue like this while the case is ongoing
DCarr - you make some excellent points .. So does derryb, bigjpst, 19Lyds and virtually every other poster - all valid points on both sides of the coin (pun intended)
I would love to see Ian Clay and his gang of thieves get shut down - I had a very bad personal experience my one and only time transacting with them .. that said, I am leaning towards believing they haven't crossed over the proverbial line in the sand based on all the data and info I have read .. I hope I am wrong but that is how I feel
<< <i>Some are very gleeful and want the OP to fail. >>
I didn't see that anywhere in this thread. I see many trying to give the OP a reality check in order to save himself from his folly. Hopefully he'll drop this lawsuit and cut his losses and avoid the considerable cost of the countersuit that may follow.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
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......
No one would like to see these close to minted coins stopped more than me. But in this case with no date and no denomination I think these are not much of a problem to the hobby. All US coins to the best of my knowledge have both. This has been a most interesting thread for sure.
Joseph J. Singleton - First Superintendent of the U.S. Branch Mint in Dahlonega Georgia
1) same as coin in question, just a different seller 2) too big 3) too big >>
First one actually HAS "COPY" on the reverse. It's just blurred in the photo, so you have to look pretty carefully. (Whether they ship with COPY or not, I don't know).
The second two, while being of different size, probably STILL need to adhere to the Hobby Protection Act. See the amendment dealing with "miniature coins" I quoted earlier.
1) same as coin in question, just a different seller 2) too big 3) too big >>
First one actually HAS "COPY" on the reverse. It's just blurred in the photo, so you have to look pretty carefully. (Whether they ship with COPY or not, I don't know).
The second two, while being of different size, probably STILL need to adhere to the Hobby Protection Act. See the amendment dealing with "miniature coins" I quoted earlier. >>
Make your stance and stick to it as there is a CLEAR difference between "It's not that bad of a violation" and "probably STILL need to adhere to......."
If one is a "grey area" then so should the other. If one is in direct violation, no matter how minute, then so is the other.
So what's it going to be? A violation or a possible violation?
Should folks driving at 66 mph in a posted 65 mph speed area be cited for speeding?
Exactly WHERE is the line drawn?
Clearly these silver rounds are not intended to defraud people since they are sold AS Silver Rounds. Which the OP is well aware of since that was what he "intended" on purchasing.
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>Make your stance and stick to it as there is a CLEAR difference between "It's not that bad of a violation" and "probably STILL need to adhere to......."
If one is a "grey area" then so should the other. If one is in direct violation, no matter how minute, then so is the other.
So what's it going to be? A violation or a possible violation?
Should folks driving at 66 mph in a posted 65 mph speed area be cited for speeding?
Exactly WHERE is the line drawn?
Clearly these silver rounds are not intended to defraud people since they are sold AS Silver Rounds. Which the OP is well aware of since that was what he "intended" on purchasing. >>
I already stated, I'm not going to "play lawyer", unlike some. "Possible violation" all depends on the interpretation of the rules....which seem to me to be an open question. A question left to the courts, apparently.
I was only objecting to the use of size as the sole determinant, when there IS apparent clarification given on that by the FTC itself.
Now, if you really think MY opinion matters, it's pretty straight forward: Any use of a US (or world) coin design by an outside source SHOULD require the proper "COPY" marking. No room for cute games for me. I won't buy it...I don't want it....and I see it as a potential area of problems for the hobby in general.
I do, however, accept that the court may not agree...and am waiting to find out!
<< <i> I already stated, I'm not going to "play lawyer", unlike some. "Possible violation" all depends on the interpretation of the rules....which seem to me to be an open question. A question left to the courts, apparently.
I was only objecting to the use of size as the sole determinant, when there IS apparent clarification given on that by the FTC itself.
Now, if you really think MY opinion matters, it's pretty straight forward: Any use of a US (or world) coin design by an outside source SHOULD require the proper "COPY" marking. No room for cute games for me. I won't buy it...I don't want it....and I see it as a potential area of problems for the hobby in general.
I do, however, accept that the court may not agree...and am waiting to find out! >>
This is basically my stance. These patterns are a collectible type of item so enjoy if your interested. Having "COPY" on silver rounds as the FTC intends would not dissuade me from collecting if it was my interest.
<< <i>Make your stance and stick to it as there is a CLEAR difference between "It's not that bad of a violation" and "probably STILL need to adhere to......."
If one is a "grey area" then so should the other. If one is in direct violation, no matter how minute, then so is the other.
So what's it going to be? A violation or a possible violation?
Should folks driving at 66 mph in a posted 65 mph speed area be cited for speeding?
Exactly WHERE is the line drawn?
Clearly these silver rounds are not intended to defraud people since they are sold AS Silver Rounds. Which the OP is well aware of since that was what he "intended" on purchasing. >>
I already stated, I'm not going to "play lawyer", unlike some. "Possible violation" all depends on the interpretation of the rules....which seem to me to be an open question. A question left to the courts, apparently.
I was only objecting to the use of size as the sole determinant, when there IS apparent clarification given on that by the FTC itself.
Now, if you really think MY opinion matters, it's pretty straight forward: Any use of a US (or world) coin design by an outside source SHOULD require the proper "COPY" marking. No room for cute games for me. I won't buy it...I don't want it....and I see it as a potential area of problems for the hobby in general.
I do, however, accept that the court may not agree...and am waiting to find out! >>
I understand your position and you are entitled to it. The HPA, however, does not address the issue of "designs". In fact, the word "design" does not appear anywhere in the "Rules and Regulations Under the Hobby Protection Act". What really matter is, is the item in question an "imitation numismatic item" by reasonably purporting to be an "original numismatic item" ?
Just by chance, on 14 July 2014, the FTC announced that they were soliciting comment on the Hobby Protection Act, as part of their periodic review.
"The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) requests public comment on the overall costs and benefits, and regulatory and economic impact, of its Rules and Regulations Under the Hobby Protection Act (“Rules”), as part of the agency's regular review of all its regulations and guides."
They include 16 specific questions, including invitation to suggest modifications.
Comments will be accepted until 22 September 2014.
Want to have your say? Now is the time, since the LAST time they did this was 2004. Speak now, or hold your piece....for 10 years.
Personally, I'm considering simply asking for clarification of what "Copy, Reproduction, and Forgery" really is. Besides potentially helping consumers, I would imagine that such clarification would help manufacturers as well!
<< <i>I already stated, I'm not going to "play lawyer", unlike some. "Possible violation" all depends on the interpretation of the rules....which seem to me to be an open question. A question left to the courts, apparently.
I was only objecting to the use of size as the sole determinant, when there IS apparent clarification given on that by the FTC itself.
Now, if you really think MY opinion matters, it's pretty straight forward: Any use of a US (or world) coin design by an outside source SHOULD require the proper "COPY" marking. No room for cute games for me. I won't buy it...I don't want it....and I see it as a potential area of problems for the hobby in general.
I do, however, accept that the court may not agree...and am waiting to find out! >>
I understand your position and you are entitled to it. The HPA, however, does not address the issue of "designs". In fact, the word "design" does not appear anywhere in the "Rules and Regulations Under the Hobby Protection Act". What really matter is, is the item in question an "imitation numismatic item" by reasonably purporting to be an "original numismatic item" ? >>
Here is the legal definition of "imitation numismatic item" from the Hobby protection act.
(4) The term “imitation numismatic item” means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item.
<< <i>So for those playing along at home, do you think one of these was a copy of the other, or were they both original works? >>
The issue isn't so much that the design was copied to some extent (again, there is no copyright involved here). The important question is, does the round on the right reasonably purport to be an "original numismatic item" ? In my opinion (for what its worth), no, it does not. And in addition, the manufacturer and marketer of that round never claimed that it was any kind of original numismatic item, nor did they claim that the design was theirs.
All "art" is influenced and inspired by works that came before. Like Andy Warhol doing a painting of a Campbell's soup can label.
Both of these coins/rounds, at some level, are copies or derivations of the 1898 "Sower" French Francs:
<< <i>I already stated, I'm not going to "play lawyer", unlike some. "Possible violation" all depends on the interpretation of the rules....which seem to me to be an open question. A question left to the courts, apparently.
I was only objecting to the use of size as the sole determinant, when there IS apparent clarification given on that by the FTC itself.
Now, if you really think MY opinion matters, it's pretty straight forward: Any use of a US (or world) coin design by an outside source SHOULD require the proper "COPY" marking. No room for cute games for me. I won't buy it...I don't want it....and I see it as a potential area of problems for the hobby in general.
I do, however, accept that the court may not agree...and am waiting to find out! >>
I understand your position and you are entitled to it. The HPA, however, does not address the issue of "designs". In fact, the word "design" does not appear anywhere in the "Rules and Regulations Under the Hobby Protection Act". What really matter is, is the item in question an "imitation numismatic item" by reasonably purporting to be an "original numismatic item" ? >>
Here is the legal definition of "imitation numismatic item" from the Hobby protection act.
(4) The term “imitation numismatic item” means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item.
Here is a reverse of the coin next to the silver round.
[/URL] >>
and "my" position is that the silver rounds in question, in and of themselves ARE original numismatic items which bear a strong similarity to a Silver Eagle but which have "significant" differences from an authentic silver eagle.
"I" may be a collector of Silver Rounds in which case "I" would not want the word "COPY" anywhere on what "I" considered an authentic "Silver Round".
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>Apples and Oranges, dcarr, one clearly rips off the design of the other in an attempt to mislead people (what other reason is there for ripping off the ASE design and making your own silver round?), the other takes it's inspiration from another design.
Just because I write a book inspired by the Harry Potter series doesn't mean I'm in the wrong, but if I had a 12 year old boy with dead parents who lives with an adpotive family that treats him like crap, who gets flown off to a magical wizarding school where he makes a ginger best friend from a poorer family and also befriends a smarty pants girl and has a pet owl... yeah, that might be across the line, no?
I can't see these decisions affecting you or your business since you restrike anything that looks remotely similar to a real mint product and your original creations look nothing like a US mint product. >>
That is quite a stretch to claim that the manufacturer/marketer of the round is intentionally trying to "mislead" people. You can't "rip off" a design that isn't copyrighted (and by law can't be copyrighted).
PS: >>> what other reason is there for ripping off the ASE design and making your own silver round ?
The (only) reason is that people like silver rounds with that public-domain design on them. If a person wants cheap silver rounds with a design they like, I can see why someone would buy these.
<< <i>Apples and Oranges, dcarr, one clearly rips off the design of the other in an attempt to mislead people (what other reason is there for ripping off the ASE design and making your own silver round?), the other takes it's inspiration from another design. >>
Yes, there is another possible reason. It is a popular/well liked general design and there have been many attempts to capitalize on its popularity. As have been pointed out previously there are lots of "imitation rounds" of various sizes, base metals, etc. and it seems the sellers are more trying to capitalize on popularity then trick people into thinking that a 1 oz silver mercury round is a dime. Even the mint tries to capitalize on popular designs: bison nickel to 1 oz gold coin, and of course the WLH to the ASE.
I'm still looking for answers to a couple questions, if you care to provide an answer:
<< <i>I have always been troubled by companies that make silver rounds ... >>
Why ?
<< <i>The organizers of the main trade show I attend, as I imagine most all trade show organizers do, has a strict rule that no one is allowed to sell an imitation numismatic items unless they are marked with the word copy. Had I received the defendants round and it was marked with "copy" I would have no problem reselling the silver round, and I would have been happy to do so. I think the main point of my lawyer is that the round is illegal, so I am entitled to damages per the statute. >>
I'd be interested to hear more about this coin show where selling one of these silver rounds wouldn't be allowed. What show is it ? Can we get those show organizers to comment right here on this forum as to where they stand on silver rounds like these ?
>>> I think the main point of my lawyer is that the round is illegal, so I am entitled to damages per the statute.
In the other thread you indicated that you knew, prior to ordering, that these were silver rounds and not government-issue coins. I'm not sure if that will disqualify you from receiving any "damages".
<< <i>I'm still looking for answers to a couple questions, if you care to provide an answer:
<< <i>I have always been troubled by companies that make silver rounds ... >>
Why ?
<< <i>The organizers of the main trade show I attend, as I imagine most all trade show organizers do, has a strict rule that no one is allowed to sell an imitation numismatic items unless they are marked with the word copy. Had I received the defendants round and it was marked with "copy" I would have no problem reselling the silver round, and I would have been happy to do so. I think the main point of my lawyer is that the round is illegal, so I am entitled to damages per the statute. >>
I'd be interested to hear more about this coin show where selling one of these silver rounds wouldn't be allowed. What show is it ? Can we get those show organizers to comment right here on this forum as to where they stand on silver rounds like these ?
>>> I think the main point of my lawyer is that the round is illegal, so I am entitled to damages per the statute.
In the other thread you indicated that you knew, prior to ordering, that these were silver rounds and not government-issue coins. I'm not sure if that will disqualify you from receiving any "damages". >>
Resounding Yes.
Answers please since the claims are the basis of this legal action.
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.
While it doesn't cover "what is a reproduction?!", there are a couple of interesting paragraphs:
"Even Chinese-made replicas of coins that never existed — such as 1878-O Morgan dollars, which were freely available on eBay until recently, would be covered by the act, based on a June 2005 federal court decision in New York that interprets the act as applying to “any item that ‘purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item.’ ” .... "One important difference between the Hobby Protection Act and the federal anti-counterfeiting laws is that the act does not require any fraudulent intent on the part of the importer or manufacturer, and imposes absolute liability on anyone importing or manufacturing unmarked replicas. In other words, the FTC or a private plaintiff need not prove that a manufacturer or importer of these coins knew about the act and deliberately violated it."
There will be a question as to what is similar and purports to be.
My focus is not only on the missing date on the obverse but the differing circumferential text on the reverse. It doesn't even say "one dollar."
The court could see differently.
Should this be found to need "copy" there could be repercussions in the rounds market. This may see appeals. And if not this case a future case could see appeals.
Would copper rounds also be similar and need copy?
Would provident metals' Zombucks be similar too?
And no doubt dcarr's overstrike pieces would all be sunk.
<< <i>This may see appeals. And if not this case a future case could see appeals. >>
Good point.
This lawsuit is affecting someone's livelihood. They're not likely to take it sitting down. I hope the OP is expecting a fight and a rematch because he'll probably get it.
<< <i>This may see appeals. And if not this case a future case could see appeals. >>
Good point.
This lawsuit is affecting someone's livelihood. They're not likely to take it sitting down. I hope the OP is expecting a fight and a rematch because he'll probably get it. >>
I wouldn't be surprised to see this suit get thrown out fairly quickly followed by a very expensive countersuit.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
As far as the questions of dcarr and others, I think they should be addressed when the judge issues her ruling. Until then we will all need to wait and see.
>>As far as the questions of dcarr and others, I think they should be addressed when the judge issues her ruling. Until then we will all need to wait and see. >>
While it doesn't cover "what is a reproduction?!", there are a couple of interesting paragraphs:
"Even Chinese-made replicas of coins that never existed — such as 1878-O Morgan dollars, which were freely available on eBay until recently, would be covered by the act, based on a June 2005 federal court decision in New York that interprets the act as applying to “any item that ‘purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item.’ ” .... "One important difference between the Hobby Protection Act and the federal anti-counterfeiting laws is that the act does not require any fraudulent intent on the part of the importer or manufacturer, and imposes absolute liability on anyone importing or manufacturing unmarked replicas.
Still haven't found the "holy grail".... >>
Then why the heck isn't the FTC or concerned citizens like Mr. Tom here going after or filing suit against the importers of this Chinese counterfeit trash coming into the country that really threatens the integrity of the entire numismatic hobby and industry, instead of some bullion rounds that really has little to no effect on true numismatics?
HH
Need the following OBW rolls to complete my 46-64 Roosevelt roll set: 1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S. Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
While it doesn't cover "what is a reproduction?!", there are a couple of interesting paragraphs:
"Even Chinese-made replicas of coins that never existed — such as 1878-O Morgan dollars, which were freely available on eBay until recently, would be covered by the act, based on a June 2005 federal court decision in New York that interprets the act as applying to “any item that ‘purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item.’ ” .... "One important difference between the Hobby Protection Act and the federal anti-counterfeiting laws is that the act does not require any fraudulent intent on the part of the importer or manufacturer, and imposes absolute liability on anyone importing or manufacturing unmarked replicas. In other words, the FTC or a private plaintiff need not prove that a manufacturer or importer of these coins knew about the act and deliberately violated it."
Still haven't found the "holy grail".... >>
The article in question also states:
"On the other hand, I have long believed that where a unique design was never made into coins used in exchange or as medals, then contemporary coins using those designs would not be covered by the act. In fact, the Smithsonian Institution regularly raises funds for the National Numismatic Collection from royalties earned through licensing such designs to retailers."
What the author is referring to is these privately-minted recreations of vintage pattern coins, which were authorized and endorsed by the Smithsonian Institution. They say "United States of America" and "One Hundred Dollars" right on them, but they do not have "COPY" on them anywhere, and some people might consider them to purport to be original numismatic items. I do not think that, however, since a little basic research would reveal them to be what they really are:
So how would a person know that, once out of the holder, one of the above coins isn't a genuine vintage original ? Why would that be any different than a "1905" Morgan Dollar, for example ?
<< <i>As far as the questions of dcarr and others, I think they should be addressed when the judge issues her ruling. Until then we will all need to wait and see. >>
Another question:
Did you attempt to achieve any type of resolution with Westminster Mint prior to filing the legal action ?
"(d) Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified. The term shall not include any re-issue or re-strike of any original numismatic item by the United States or any foreign government."
I am a bit late to this thread as I wanted to see what opinions would be given and what arguments would be made. IMO if this case is accepted by the judge as relevant we could see some clarification of terms. The judge may accept the case for this reason alone to help clarify law. I think that this part of section (d) from above is what could hold the most power " Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified.". This part from sec (d) could be used in argument of overstrikes as they are "original numismatic items that have been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified." From experience in dealing with my parents concerning coins and silver rounds I can tell you that not everyone knows how to do the research to find out what is a mint issued coin and what is not. Dan I have great respect for your skills and talents as an artist and designer of tokens and medals, that being said I can in my opinion see this as an argument against some of your works. I see this as an opportunity to provide clarification of an act that in most of it's body contains very vague legal wording. This vague wording to me, could be what has kept more people from pursuing legal action against items they feel would be covered by the HPA. Clarification of key points of this act including the above quoted could and should help stop importers such as Alibaba and others outside the United States along with helping to clarify the laws for the independent mints within the United States.
I am happy that the OP decided to do something about this issue and at the least the OP has caused many to openly talk about this issue. I can understand why the OP may have chose the independent mint in this case as they are easier to go after that all of the chinese government backed minting operations. I will follw this with much interest and thank the OP for letting us know about it as not all of us research all the numismatic cases being argued in court every day, even though the information is public knowledge does not mean we all know.
<< <i>"(d) Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified. The term shall not include any re-issue or re-strike of any original numismatic item by the United States or any foreign government."
I am a bit late to this thread as I wanted to see what opinions would be given and what arguments would be made. IMO if this case is accepted by the judge as relevant we could see some clarification of terms. The judge may accept the case for this reason alone to help clarify law. I think that this part of section (d) from above is what could hold the most power " Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified.". This part from sec (d) could be used in argument of overstrikes as they are "original numismatic items that have been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified." From experience in dealing with my parents concerning coins and silver rounds I can tell you that not everyone knows how to do the research to find out what is a mint issued coin and what is not. Dan I have great respect for your skills and talents as an artist and designer of tokens and medals, that being said I can in my opinion see this as an argument against some of your works. I see this as an opportunity to provide clarification of an act that in most of it's body contains very vague legal wording. This vague wording to me, could be what has kept more people from pursuing legal action against items they feel would be covered by the HPA. Clarification of key points of this act including the above quoted could and should help stop importers such as Alibaba and others outside the United States along with helping to clarify the laws for the independent mints within the United States.
I am happy that the OP decided to do something about this issue and at the least the OP has caused many to openly talk about this issue. I can understand why the OP may have chose the independent mint in this case as they are easier to go after that all of the chinese government backed minting operations. I will follw this with much interest and thank the OP for letting us know about it as not all of us research all the numismatic cases being argued in court every day, even though the information is public knowledge does not mean we all know. >>
This highlights the question: Can a fantasy-date over-strike coin reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than what it was originally ? If that date is not listed in any price guides, how would a potential buyer determine a value for it ? And what type of buyer would pay a large sum for such a coin ?
Regarding the Chinese copies sold on Alibaba and elsewhere, the Hobby Protection Act might not matter that much since the Chinese copies may already be illegal currency counterfeits in violation of other US laws.
<< <i>The organizers of the main trade show I attend, as I imagine most all trade show organizers do, has a strict rule that no one is allowed to sell an imitation numismatic items unless they are marked with the word copy. Had I received the defendants round and it was marked with "copy" I would have no problem reselling the silver round, and I would have been happy to do so. I think the main point of my lawyer is that the round is illegal, so I am entitled to damages per the statute. >>
So because 1 show you attended has this rule, you are due $20 +- for the round. So I guess other online bullion sellers items would not be allowed at this trade show either.
These all have dates, and use the word liberty, and the phrase E. Pluribus Unum. >>
The apples and oranges to this post is that in the OP, the "copy" is a one ounce silver round that copies the design of a different one ounce silver round. All of the designs in the post I've quoted here are for small denomination coins made of a completely different metal at a very different size. There's no chance that these could be mistaken in any way for the original coins they loosely represent.
This argument would have merit if it were a 2014 round made in nickel that was the same size as a buffalo nickel, or a $2.5 or $5 .900 fine gold round made the same size as the original incuse Liberty gold coins.
I too have seen a plethora of classic designs used by round makers to help sell their silver and copper. I don't see where this violates any law (except perhaps artistic copyright if there is one).
While I understand the plight of the OP here, I don't think a court that does its due diligence will find in favor of the Plaintiff in this case because the pieces in question in the OP are fundamentally different from the pieces they loosely copy so as to not cause any harm to the original products and so as not to fool anyone who has even very modest novice self-education in the field - enough so that they should be spending money on the subject.
One of the problems in our society is that we have become too litigious and waste funding and time fighting cases that should not see the light of day in a court room. I honestly believe this is one of those cases. I am all for protecting the hobby and for taking counterfeits off the market and heavily punishing those who create them, but in my opinion (and I believe in the opinion of any sensible court) this case stretches the boundaries too far to be heard.
This debate in some ways is becoming tangential because it seems that some here are conflating two entirely different things:
1. Chinese counterfeits (or counterfeits in general) that are a)identical copies of genuine items and b)are marketed and represented as real coins, and
2. 1 ounce bullion rounds that a) are different from the item they imitate in one or more significant ways and b) are NOT being represented or marketed as the items they resemble.
In this specific instance, the silver round in question RESEMBLES an ASE... but it differs from an ASE in at least two significant ways if not more (no date, no denomination, different fonts).
Do I like these pieces? No, as I stated previously... I'd love to see them gone or marked COPY at a minimum, and maybe OP's suit will cause the latter to happen if nothing else...but the reality is that these simply aren't counterfeits by any current definition, stretch as one might... and a well informed judge should realize that. I'm sure the armchair lawyer brigade out there will continue to argue the point but IMO when all's said and done the makers will prevail.
I can only assume that should the OP's efforts be successful that at least one of the United States Mints "Authorized Purchasers" would then be required to mark the products they sell with the word COPY.
Here's one which is represented as closely replicating a US Silver Eagle. It even comes with a Certificate of Authenticity!
While it is 4 ounces vs the ASE's 1 ounce should not matter given some of the arguments presented here regarding size and similitude and miniatures and what not. (it is also incorrectly labeled as ONE QUARTER OF A POUND since it should be labeled ONE THIRD OF A POUND)
Do you suppose that APMex has a Legal Team?
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>(it is also incorrectly labeled as ONE QUARTER OF A POUND since it should be labeled ONE THIRD OF A POUND) >>
You'd think a company like these guys who make their living selling precious metal would get this correct. Doesn't instill confidence for this company.
I wince every time I hear the narrator on those Discovery Channel Alaska gold shows using Avoirdupois pound designations for gold recovered totals.
I see a major problem for the plaintiff in that the language in the section quoted above is ambiguous. That ambiguity will be held against the plaintiff. That us brilliant forum members can't come to a reasonable agreement on what it means, and what is covered, is telling. "Purports to be," "could reasonably be," ...
Also I hope that the OP is aware of the potential monetary commitment they have. Litigation costs, not attorney fees, can add up and I'd be surprised if the attorneys will eat those if the case goes bad.
I personal think that an item with a fake or "fantasy" date/mm is more deceiving than a bad ASE knockoff with no date.
<< <i>I personal think that an item with a fake or "fantasy" date/mm is more deceiving than a bad ASE knockoff with no date. >>
I tend to agree with that.
And I think, in all of the examples people find, you have to look past how they are being represented and sold NOW. For two reasons:
- The Hobby Protection act only applies to the manufacturing (and import)...not the promotion and sales - Someday, these items will be sold, resold, repackaged, and quite possibly mis-represented either knowingly, or unknowingly.
So, for the "fantasy" pieces, imagine 10, 20, 50 years from now when someone finds a 1975 quarter! It's worth, like, ALOT! Maybe it gets sold a few times behind the scenes before it hits the press, and someone finally points out it was a privately made "fantasy".
To me, the "miniature", or JUMBO, or undated pieces all just feel....wrong. They might be laughable today, but having US designs, and legends, and everything else that makes them look "real", they're just a problem waiting to happen.
They just doesn't smell good, right from the start....
<< <i>I personal think that an item with a fake or "fantasy" date/mm is more deceiving than a bad ASE knockoff with no date. >>
I tend to agree with that.
And I think, in all of the examples people find, you have to look past how they are being represented and sold NOW. For two reasons:
- The Hobby Protection act only applies to the manufacturing (and import)...not the promotion and sales - Someday, these items will be sold, resold, repackaged, and quite possibly mis-represented either knowingly, or unknowingly.
So, for the "fantasy" pieces, imagine 10, 20, 50 years from now when someone finds a 1975 quarter! It's worth, like, ALOT! Maybe it gets sold a few times behind the scenes before it hits the press, and someone finally points out it was a privately made "fantasy".
To me, the "miniature", or JUMBO, or undated pieces all just feel....wrong. They might be laughable today, but having US designs, and legends, and everything else that makes them look "real", they're just a problem waiting to happen.
They just doesn't smell good, right from the start.... >>
But.....but............but..........they ARE Real. REAL "SILVER BULLION ROUNDS".
AND
They are sold as REAL. REAL SILVER BULLION ROUNDS.
Now if Ignorant A wants to resell these to Ignorant B as authentic Silver Eagles because the "look" like real silver eagles (which BTW, ONLY get additional value over and above the spot price of silver by folks that "collect" them either by date or TPG invented Specialty Label) then legislation needs to be passed or the HPA needs .......... wait, this has nothing to do with the "coin Collecting Hobby" yet has everything to do with folks buying precious metals in the form of "Silver Rounds". Whether they are US Mint produced "Silver Rounds" or privately minted "Silver Round" is not really that important.
They are Silver Rounds.
Now where that damned horse that needs one more good kicking??
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 personal think that an item with a fake or "fantasy" date/mm is more deceiving than a bad ASE knockoff with no date. >>
I tend to agree with that.
And I think, in all of the examples people find, you have to look past how they are being represented and sold NOW. For two reasons:
- The Hobby Protection act only applies to the manufacturing (and import)...not the promotion and sales - Someday, these items will be sold, resold, repackaged, and quite possibly mis-represented either knowingly, or unknowingly.
So, for the "fantasy" pieces, imagine 10, 20, 50 years from now when someone finds a 1975 quarter! It's worth, like, ALOT! Maybe it gets sold a few times behind the scenes before it hits the press, and someone finally points out it was a privately made "fantasy".
To me, the "miniature", or JUMBO, or undated pieces all just feel....wrong. They might be laughable today, but having US designs, and legends, and everything else that makes them look "real", they're just a problem waiting to happen.
They just doesn't smell good, right from the start.... >>
But.....but............but..........they ARE Real. REAL "SILVER BULLION ROUNDS".
AND
They are sold as REAL. REAL SILVER BULLION ROUNDS.
Now if Ignorant A wants to resell these to Ignorant B as authentic Silver Eagles because the "look" like real silver eagles (which BTW, ONLY get additional value over and above the spot price of silver by folks that "collect" them either by date or TPG invented Specialty Label) then legislation needs to be passed or the HPA needs .......... wait, this has nothing to do with the "coin Collecting Hobby" yet has everything to do with folks buying precious metals in the form of "Silver Rounds". Whether they are US Mint produced "Silver Rounds" or privately minted "Silver Round" is not really that important.
They are Silver Rounds.
Now where that damned horse that needs one more good kicking?? >>
IMO this case the OP appears to be over zealous and is barking up the wrong tree and is manufacturing a case. However, he may barking at the right time which is important as this case is being tried in Minnesota. Isn't Minnesota the state with the new "coin" law to protect it's citizens against themselves? If so he maybe able to ride that prejudiced coattail.
Anyways, I can't see how HE was damaged in anyway as he knew what he was buying when he bought them. It just seems like a case about nothing.
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......
Comments
The name is LEE!
Rather than stop the grey areas of the hobby, they have their own $$$ and desires and prefer to see failure.
It IS very telling.
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
That said...as derryb concisely pointed out, I fear you picked the wrong fight.
It's frustrating, I know. I don't like them personally, in fact I hate near-miss pieces like this... we've had 3 rounds now of replica $50 American Buffalo gold replicas being given away by a local car dealer-these were virtually exact in every detail but for a microscopically marked COPY on both sides. Of course that didn't prevent the reading-and common sense-challenged from bringing the bleeping things in... we briefly considered sending a lawyer letter to the dealership because they were certainly deceptive but in our case though they were dated and virtually identical to the original in all respects (except for being plated) they weren't illegal because of the tiny COPY on them... and in your case they're not illegal because they aren't exact copies of an existing design. Real ASEs have dates; these don't. Real ASEs say ONE DOLLAR on them; these don't. This round looks similar to an ASE but that's where it ends. There is no existing U.S. coin that looks exactly like the silver round in question, and there's definitely no Canadian piece that looks exactly like the wolf round in question...so if the judge/opposing counsel does some simple research this suit should get tossed imo. The guys who make these have usually been around long enough to know how to make the pieces just different enough to skirt the HPA. Plus, as has been pointed out by others, nowhere does this company represent or claim that these are genuine ASE coins.
Hopefully a suit like this will cause them to put COPY on all future production examples if nothing else...
I also hope that this company will not be vengeful and attempt a countersuit for libel/defamation/etc. but that's the risk one takes when attempting litigation of this sort. Good Luck
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
And see how soon Bud's Wiser.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Proper marking size is also required.
It seems to me that some just think it's easier to let this go. "It's not that bad of a violation". Well, where do you draw the line? I'm fine with having it drawn here. MAYBE, at the very least, the result will be some better defined rules on what constitutes a copy/replica/forgery.
The FTC and/or US Mint haven't been nearly active enough, to my mind. If it requires some agressive action from the outside, well, so be it.
And I strongly agree with the poster who said open cases of litigation are probably not the best move discussing it in such a public and open venue like this while the case is ongoing
DCarr - you make some excellent points .. So does derryb, bigjpst, 19Lyds and virtually every other poster - all valid points on both sides of the coin (pun intended)
I would love to see Ian Clay and his gang of thieves get shut down - I had a very bad personal experience my one and only time transacting with them .. that said, I am leaning towards believing they haven't crossed over the proverbial line in the sand based on all the data and info I have read .. I hope I am wrong but that is how I feel
<< <i>Some are very gleeful and want the OP to fail. >>
I didn't see that anywhere in this thread. I see many trying to give the OP a reality check in order to save himself from his folly. Hopefully he'll drop this lawsuit and cut his losses and avoid the considerable cost of the countersuit that may follow.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>Since it is public record on an open forum, I think that this just about kills any chances the OP ever entertained of having a victory.
Methinks there'll be some editing going on. >>
He can edit all he wants but I doubt that he can edit Daniel's quote of his post.
The name is LEE!
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......
<< <i>
Is this a violation of the Hobby Act?
Or this?
Or how about this?
. >>
Similar is in the eye of the beholder.
1) same as coin in question, just a different seller
2) too big
3) too big
Joseph J. Singleton - First Superintendent of the U.S. Branch Mint in Dahlonega Georgia
Findley Ridge Collection
About Findley Ridge
<< <i>
<< <i>
Is this a violation of the Hobby Act?
Or this?
Or how about this?
. >>
Similar is in the eye of the beholder.
1) same as coin in question, just a different seller
2) too big
3) too big >>
First one actually HAS "COPY" on the reverse. It's just blurred in the photo, so you have to look pretty carefully. (Whether they ship with COPY or not, I don't know).
The second two, while being of different size, probably STILL need to adhere to the Hobby Protection Act. See the amendment dealing with "miniature coins" I quoted earlier.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Is this a violation of the Hobby Act?
Or this?
Or how about this?
. >>
Similar is in the eye of the beholder.
1) same as coin in question, just a different seller
2) too big
3) too big >>
First one actually HAS "COPY" on the reverse. It's just blurred in the photo, so you have to look pretty carefully. (Whether they ship with COPY or not, I don't know).
The second two, while being of different size, probably STILL need to adhere to the Hobby Protection Act. See the amendment dealing with "miniature coins" I quoted earlier. >>
Make your stance and stick to it as there is a CLEAR difference between "It's not that bad of a violation" and "probably STILL need to adhere to......."
If one is a "grey area" then so should the other.
If one is in direct violation, no matter how minute, then so is the other.
So what's it going to be? A violation or a possible violation?
Should folks driving at 66 mph in a posted 65 mph speed area be cited for speeding?
Exactly WHERE is the line drawn?
Clearly these silver rounds are not intended to defraud people since they are sold AS Silver Rounds. Which the OP is well aware of since that was what he "intended" on purchasing.
The name is LEE!
Unfortunately, there is also a depth requirement for it. That one does not qualify.
<< <i>Make your stance and stick to it as there is a CLEAR difference between "It's not that bad of a violation" and "probably STILL need to adhere to......."
If one is a "grey area" then so should the other.
If one is in direct violation, no matter how minute, then so is the other.
So what's it going to be? A violation or a possible violation?
Should folks driving at 66 mph in a posted 65 mph speed area be cited for speeding?
Exactly WHERE is the line drawn?
Clearly these silver rounds are not intended to defraud people since they are sold AS Silver Rounds. Which the OP is well aware of since that was what he "intended" on purchasing. >>
I already stated, I'm not going to "play lawyer", unlike some. "Possible violation" all depends on the interpretation of the rules....which seem to me to be an open question. A question left to the courts, apparently.
I was only objecting to the use of size as the sole determinant, when there IS apparent clarification given on that by the FTC itself.
Now, if you really think MY opinion matters, it's pretty straight forward: Any use of a US (or world) coin design by an outside source SHOULD require the proper "COPY" marking. No room for cute games for me. I won't buy it...I don't want it....and I see it as a potential area of problems for the hobby in general.
I do, however, accept that the court may not agree...and am waiting to find out!
<< <i>
I already stated, I'm not going to "play lawyer", unlike some. "Possible violation" all depends on the interpretation of the rules....which seem to me to be an open question. A question left to the courts, apparently.
I was only objecting to the use of size as the sole determinant, when there IS apparent clarification given on that by the FTC itself.
Now, if you really think MY opinion matters, it's pretty straight forward: Any use of a US (or world) coin design by an outside source SHOULD require the proper "COPY" marking. No room for cute games for me. I won't buy it...I don't want it....and I see it as a potential area of problems for the hobby in general.
I do, however, accept that the court may not agree...and am waiting to find out! >>
This is basically my stance. These patterns are a collectible type of item so enjoy if your interested. Having "COPY" on silver rounds as the FTC intends would not dissuade me from collecting if it was my interest.
<< <i>
<< <i>Make your stance and stick to it as there is a CLEAR difference between "It's not that bad of a violation" and "probably STILL need to adhere to......."
If one is a "grey area" then so should the other.
If one is in direct violation, no matter how minute, then so is the other.
So what's it going to be? A violation or a possible violation?
Should folks driving at 66 mph in a posted 65 mph speed area be cited for speeding?
Exactly WHERE is the line drawn?
Clearly these silver rounds are not intended to defraud people since they are sold AS Silver Rounds. Which the OP is well aware of since that was what he "intended" on purchasing. >>
I already stated, I'm not going to "play lawyer", unlike some. "Possible violation" all depends on the interpretation of the rules....which seem to me to be an open question. A question left to the courts, apparently.
I was only objecting to the use of size as the sole determinant, when there IS apparent clarification given on that by the FTC itself.
Now, if you really think MY opinion matters, it's pretty straight forward: Any use of a US (or world) coin design by an outside source SHOULD require the proper "COPY" marking. No room for cute games for me. I won't buy it...I don't want it....and I see it as a potential area of problems for the hobby in general.
I do, however, accept that the court may not agree...and am waiting to find out! >>
I understand your position and you are entitled to it.
The HPA, however, does not address the issue of "designs". In fact, the word "design" does not appear anywhere in the "Rules and Regulations Under the Hobby Protection Act".
What really matter is, is the item in question an "imitation numismatic item" by reasonably purporting to be an "original numismatic item" ?
If you have read through this many posts on this topic, THIS may be of interest to you:
Federal Register: Hobby Protection Act, Request for Comment
Just by chance, on 14 July 2014, the FTC announced that they were soliciting comment on the Hobby Protection Act, as part of their periodic review.
"The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) requests public comment on the overall costs and benefits, and regulatory and economic impact, of its Rules and Regulations Under the Hobby Protection Act (“Rules”), as part of the agency's regular review of all its regulations and guides."
They include 16 specific questions, including invitation to suggest modifications.
Comments will be accepted until 22 September 2014.
Want to have your say? Now is the time, since the LAST time they did this was 2004. Speak now, or hold your piece....for 10 years.
Personally, I'm considering simply asking for clarification of what "Copy, Reproduction, and Forgery" really is. Besides potentially helping consumers, I would imagine that such clarification would help manufacturers as well!
<< <i>
<< <i>I already stated, I'm not going to "play lawyer", unlike some. "Possible violation" all depends on the interpretation of the rules....which seem to me to be an open question. A question left to the courts, apparently.
I was only objecting to the use of size as the sole determinant, when there IS apparent clarification given on that by the FTC itself.
Now, if you really think MY opinion matters, it's pretty straight forward: Any use of a US (or world) coin design by an outside source SHOULD require the proper "COPY" marking. No room for cute games for me. I won't buy it...I don't want it....and I see it as a potential area of problems for the hobby in general.
I do, however, accept that the court may not agree...and am waiting to find out! >>
I understand your position and you are entitled to it.
The HPA, however, does not address the issue of "designs". In fact, the word "design" does not appear anywhere in the "Rules and Regulations Under the Hobby Protection Act".
What really matter is, is the item in question an "imitation numismatic item" by reasonably purporting to be an "original numismatic item" ? >>
Here is the legal definition of "imitation numismatic item" from the Hobby protection act.
(4) The term “imitation numismatic item” means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2106
So for those playing along at home, do you think one of these was a copy of the other, or were they both original works?
[URL=http://s1270.photobucket.com/user/tomthecoinguy/media/Coinnexttoround-Obverse_zps08e33467.jpg.html]
Here is a reverse of the coin next to the silver round.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
<< <i>So for those playing along at home, do you think one of these was a copy of the other, or were they both original works?
The issue isn't so much that the design was copied to some extent (again, there is no copyright involved here).
The important question is, does the round on the right reasonably purport to be an "original numismatic item" ?
In my opinion (for what its worth), no, it does not. And in addition, the manufacturer and marketer of that round never claimed that it was any kind of original numismatic item, nor did they claim that the design was theirs.
All "art" is influenced and inspired by works that came before. Like Andy Warhol doing a painting of a Campbell's soup can label.
Both of these coins/rounds, at some level, are copies or derivations of the 1898 "Sower" French Francs:
This wil be inerresting.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I already stated, I'm not going to "play lawyer", unlike some. "Possible violation" all depends on the interpretation of the rules....which seem to me to be an open question. A question left to the courts, apparently.
I was only objecting to the use of size as the sole determinant, when there IS apparent clarification given on that by the FTC itself.
Now, if you really think MY opinion matters, it's pretty straight forward: Any use of a US (or world) coin design by an outside source SHOULD require the proper "COPY" marking. No room for cute games for me. I won't buy it...I don't want it....and I see it as a potential area of problems for the hobby in general.
I do, however, accept that the court may not agree...and am waiting to find out! >>
I understand your position and you are entitled to it.
The HPA, however, does not address the issue of "designs". In fact, the word "design" does not appear anywhere in the "Rules and Regulations Under the Hobby Protection Act".
What really matter is, is the item in question an "imitation numismatic item" by reasonably purporting to be an "original numismatic item" ? >>
Here is the legal definition of "imitation numismatic item" from the Hobby protection act.
(4) The term “imitation numismatic item” means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2106
So for those playing along at home, do you think one of these was a copy of the other, or were they both original works?
[URL=http://s1270.photobucket.com/user/tomthecoinguy/media/Coinnexttoround-Obverse_zps08e33467.jpg.html]
Here is a reverse of the coin next to the silver round.
and "my" position is that the silver rounds in question, in and of themselves ARE original numismatic items which bear a strong similarity to a Silver Eagle but which have "significant" differences from an authentic silver eagle.
"I" may be a collector of Silver Rounds in which case "I" would not want the word "COPY" anywhere on what "I" considered an authentic "Silver Round".
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Apples and Oranges, dcarr, one clearly rips off the design of the other in an attempt to mislead people (what other reason is there for ripping off the ASE design and making your own silver round?), the other takes it's inspiration from another design.
Just because I write a book inspired by the Harry Potter series doesn't mean I'm in the wrong, but if I had a 12 year old boy with dead parents who lives with an adpotive family that treats him like crap, who gets flown off to a magical wizarding school where he makes a ginger best friend from a poorer family and also befriends a smarty pants girl and has a pet owl... yeah, that might be across the line, no?
I can't see these decisions affecting you or your business since you restrike anything that looks remotely similar to a real mint product and your original creations look nothing like a US mint product. >>
That is quite a stretch to claim that the manufacturer/marketer of the round is intentionally trying to "mislead" people.
You can't "rip off" a design that isn't copyrighted (and by law can't be copyrighted).
PS:
>>> what other reason is there for ripping off the ASE design and making your own silver round ?
The (only) reason is that people like silver rounds with that public-domain design on them. If a person wants cheap silver rounds with a design they like, I can see why someone would buy these.
<< <i>Apples and Oranges, dcarr, one clearly rips off the design of the other in an attempt to mislead people (what other reason is there for ripping off the ASE design and making your own silver round?), the other takes it's inspiration from another design. >>
Yes, there is another possible reason. It is a popular/well liked general design and there have been many attempts to capitalize on its popularity. As have been pointed out previously there are lots of "imitation rounds" of various sizes, base metals, etc. and it seems the sellers are more trying to capitalize on popularity then trick people into thinking that a 1 oz silver mercury round is a dime. Even the mint tries to capitalize on popular designs: bison nickel to 1 oz gold coin, and of course the WLH to the ASE.
<< <i>I have always been troubled by companies that make silver rounds ... >>
Why ?
<< <i>The organizers of the main trade show I attend, as I imagine most all trade show organizers do, has a strict rule that no one is allowed to sell an imitation numismatic items unless they are marked with the word copy. Had I received the defendants round and it was marked with "copy" I would have no problem reselling the silver round, and I would have been happy to do so. I think the main point of my lawyer is that the round is illegal, so I am entitled to damages per the statute. >>
I'd be interested to hear more about this coin show where selling one of these silver rounds wouldn't be allowed. What show is it ?
Can we get those show organizers to comment right here on this forum as to where they stand on silver rounds like these ?
>>> I think the main point of my lawyer is that the round is illegal, so I am entitled to damages per the statute.
In the other thread you indicated that you knew, prior to ordering, that these were silver rounds and not government-issue coins.
I'm not sure if that will disqualify you from receiving any "damages".
<< <i>I'm still looking for answers to a couple questions, if you care to provide an answer:
<< <i>I have always been troubled by companies that make silver rounds ... >>
Why ?
<< <i>The organizers of the main trade show I attend, as I imagine most all trade show organizers do, has a strict rule that no one is allowed to sell an imitation numismatic items unless they are marked with the word copy. Had I received the defendants round and it was marked with "copy" I would have no problem reselling the silver round, and I would have been happy to do so. I think the main point of my lawyer is that the round is illegal, so I am entitled to damages per the statute. >>
I'd be interested to hear more about this coin show where selling one of these silver rounds wouldn't be allowed. What show is it ?
Can we get those show organizers to comment right here on this forum as to where they stand on silver rounds like these ?
>>> I think the main point of my lawyer is that the round is illegal, so I am entitled to damages per the statute.
In the other thread you indicated that you knew, prior to ordering, that these were silver rounds and not government-issue coins.
I'm not sure if that will disqualify you from receiving any "damages". >>
Resounding Yes.
Answers please since the claims are the basis of this legal action.
The name is LEE!
Best I've found so far comes from Coin World in 2012, by Armen Vartian, who often covers legal issues:
Link
While it doesn't cover "what is a reproduction?!", there are a couple of interesting paragraphs:
"Even Chinese-made replicas of coins that never existed — such as 1878-O Morgan dollars, which were freely available on eBay until recently, would be covered by the act, based on a June 2005 federal court decision in New York that interprets the act as applying to “any item that ‘purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item.’ ”
....
"One important difference between the Hobby Protection Act and the federal anti-counterfeiting laws is that the act does not require any fraudulent intent on the part of the importer or manufacturer, and imposes absolute liability on anyone importing or manufacturing unmarked replicas.
In other words, the FTC or a private plaintiff need not prove that a manufacturer or importer of these coins knew about the act and deliberately violated it."
Still haven't found the "holy grail"....
There will be a question as to what is similar and purports to be.
My focus is not only on the missing date on the obverse but the differing circumferential text on the reverse. It doesn't even say "one dollar."
The court could see differently.
Should this be found to need "copy" there could be repercussions in the rounds market. This may see appeals. And if not this case a future case could see appeals.
Would copper rounds also be similar and need copy?
Would provident metals' Zombucks be similar too?
And no doubt dcarr's overstrike pieces would all be sunk.
<< <i>This may see appeals. And if not this case a future case could see appeals. >>
Good point.
This lawsuit is affecting someone's livelihood. They're not likely to take it sitting down. I hope the OP is expecting a fight and a rematch because he'll probably get it.
<< <i>
<< <i>This may see appeals. And if not this case a future case could see appeals. >>
Good point.
This lawsuit is affecting someone's livelihood. They're not likely to take it sitting down. I hope the OP is expecting a fight and a rematch because he'll probably get it. >>
I wouldn't be surprised to see this suit get thrown out fairly quickly followed by a very expensive countersuit.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
I agree, who started this thread anyway??
www.brunkauctions.com
<< <i>I've been searching in vain for any actual interpretation of the rules set forth in the Hobby Protection Act.
Best I've found so far comes from Coin World in 2012, by Armen Vartian, who often covers legal issues:
Link
While it doesn't cover "what is a reproduction?!", there are a couple of interesting paragraphs:
"Even Chinese-made replicas of coins that never existed — such as 1878-O Morgan dollars, which were freely available on eBay until recently, would be covered by the act, based on a June 2005 federal court decision in New York that interprets the act as applying to “any item that ‘purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item.’ ”
....
"One important difference between the Hobby Protection Act and the federal anti-counterfeiting laws is that the act does not require any fraudulent intent on the part of the importer or manufacturer, and imposes absolute liability on anyone importing or manufacturing unmarked replicas.
Still haven't found the "holy grail".... >>
Then why the heck isn't the FTC or concerned citizens like Mr. Tom here going after or filing suit against the importers
of this Chinese counterfeit trash coming into the country that really threatens the integrity of the entire numismatic hobby and industry,
instead of some bullion rounds that really has little to no effect on true numismatics?
HH
1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S.
Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
It seems many agencies of the various governments don't get motivated until large amounts of money are involved.
<< <i>I've been searching in vain for any actual interpretation of the rules set forth in the Hobby Protection Act.
Best I've found so far comes from Coin World in 2012, by Armen Vartian, who often covers legal issues:
Link
While it doesn't cover "what is a reproduction?!", there are a couple of interesting paragraphs:
"Even Chinese-made replicas of coins that never existed — such as 1878-O Morgan dollars, which were freely available on eBay until recently, would be covered by the act, based on a June 2005 federal court decision in New York that interprets the act as applying to “any item that ‘purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item.’ ”
....
"One important difference between the Hobby Protection Act and the federal anti-counterfeiting laws is that the act does not require any fraudulent intent on the part of the importer or manufacturer, and imposes absolute liability on anyone importing or manufacturing unmarked replicas.
In other words, the FTC or a private plaintiff need not prove that a manufacturer or importer of these coins knew about the act and deliberately violated it."
Still haven't found the "holy grail".... >>
The article in question also states:
"On the other hand, I have long believed that where a unique design was never made into coins used in exchange or as medals, then contemporary coins using those designs would not be covered by the act.
In fact, the Smithsonian Institution regularly raises funds for the National Numismatic Collection from royalties earned through licensing such designs to retailers."
What the author is referring to is these privately-minted recreations of vintage pattern coins, which were authorized and endorsed by the Smithsonian Institution. They say "United States of America" and "One Hundred Dollars" right on them, but they do not have "COPY" on them anywhere, and some people might consider them to purport to be original numismatic items. I do not think that, however, since a little basic research would reveal them to be what they really are:
So how would a person know that, once out of the holder, one of the above coins isn't a genuine vintage original ?
Why would that be any different than a "1905" Morgan Dollar, for example ?
<< <i>As far as the questions of dcarr and others, I think they should be addressed when the judge issues her ruling. Until then we will all need to wait and see. >>
Another question:
Did you attempt to achieve any type of resolution with Westminster Mint prior to filing the legal action ?
I am a bit late to this thread as I wanted to see what opinions would be given and what arguments would be made. IMO if this case is accepted by the judge as relevant we could see some clarification of terms. The judge may accept the case for this reason alone to help clarify law. I think that this part of section (d) from above is what could hold the most power " Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified.". This part from sec (d) could be used in argument of overstrikes as they are "original numismatic items that have been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified." From experience in dealing with my parents concerning coins and silver rounds I can tell you that not everyone knows how to do the research to find out what is a mint issued coin and what is not. Dan I have great respect for your skills and talents as an artist and designer of tokens and medals, that being said I can in my opinion see this as an argument against some of your works. I see this as an opportunity to provide clarification of an act that in most of it's body contains very vague legal wording. This vague wording to me, could be what has kept more people from pursuing legal action against items they feel would be covered by the HPA. Clarification of key points of this act including the above quoted could and should help stop importers such as Alibaba and others outside the United States along with helping to clarify the laws for the independent mints within the United States.
I am happy that the OP decided to do something about this issue and at the least the OP has caused many to openly talk about this issue. I can understand why the OP may have chose the independent mint in this case as they are easier to go after that all of the chinese government backed minting operations. I will follw this with much interest and thank the OP for letting us know about it as not all of us research all the numismatic cases being argued in court every day, even though the information is public knowledge does not mean we all know.
<< <i>"(d) Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified. The term shall not include any re-issue or re-strike of any original numismatic item by the United States or any foreign government."
I am a bit late to this thread as I wanted to see what opinions would be given and what arguments would be made. IMO if this case is accepted by the judge as relevant we could see some clarification of terms. The judge may accept the case for this reason alone to help clarify law. I think that this part of section (d) from above is what could hold the most power " Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified.". This part from sec (d) could be used in argument of overstrikes as they are "original numismatic items that have been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified." From experience in dealing with my parents concerning coins and silver rounds I can tell you that not everyone knows how to do the research to find out what is a mint issued coin and what is not. Dan I have great respect for your skills and talents as an artist and designer of tokens and medals, that being said I can in my opinion see this as an argument against some of your works. I see this as an opportunity to provide clarification of an act that in most of it's body contains very vague legal wording. This vague wording to me, could be what has kept more people from pursuing legal action against items they feel would be covered by the HPA. Clarification of key points of this act including the above quoted could and should help stop importers such as Alibaba and others outside the United States along with helping to clarify the laws for the independent mints within the United States.
I am happy that the OP decided to do something about this issue and at the least the OP has caused many to openly talk about this issue. I can understand why the OP may have chose the independent mint in this case as they are easier to go after that all of the chinese government backed minting operations. I will follw this with much interest and thank the OP for letting us know about it as not all of us research all the numismatic cases being argued in court every day, even though the information is public knowledge does not mean we all know. >>
This highlights the question:
Can a fantasy-date over-strike coin reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than what it was originally ?
If that date is not listed in any price guides, how would a potential buyer determine a value for it ? And what type of buyer would pay a large sum for such a coin ?
Regarding the Chinese copies sold on Alibaba and elsewhere, the Hobby Protection Act might not matter that much since the Chinese copies may already be illegal currency counterfeits in violation of other US laws.
<< <i>The organizers of the main trade show I attend, as I imagine most all trade show organizers do, has a strict rule that no one is allowed to sell an imitation numismatic items unless they are marked with the word copy. Had I received the defendants round and it was marked with "copy" I would have no problem reselling the silver round, and I would have been happy to do so. I think the main point of my lawyer is that the round is illegal, so I am entitled to damages per the statute. >>
So because 1 show you attended has this rule, you are due $20 +- for the round. So I guess other online bullion sellers items would not be allowed at this trade show either.
I don't see a copy stamp
Or here
Or here
These all have dates, and use the word liberty, and the phrase E. Pluribus Unum. >>
The apples and oranges to this post is that in the OP, the "copy" is a one ounce silver round that copies the design of a different one ounce silver round. All of the designs in the post I've quoted here are for small denomination coins made of a completely different metal at a very different size. There's no chance that these could be mistaken in any way for the original coins they loosely represent.
This argument would have merit if it were a 2014 round made in nickel that was the same size as a buffalo nickel, or a $2.5 or $5 .900 fine gold round made the same size as the original incuse Liberty gold coins.
I too have seen a plethora of classic designs used by round makers to help sell their silver and copper. I don't see where this violates any law (except perhaps artistic copyright if there is one).
While I understand the plight of the OP here, I don't think a court that does its due diligence will find in favor of the Plaintiff in this case because the pieces in question in the OP are fundamentally different from the pieces they loosely copy so as to not cause any harm to the original products and so as not to fool anyone who has even very modest novice self-education in the field - enough so that they should be spending money on the subject.
One of the problems in our society is that we have become too litigious and waste funding and time fighting cases that should not see the light of day in a court room. I honestly believe this is one of those cases. I am all for protecting the hobby and for taking counterfeits off the market and heavily punishing those who create them, but in my opinion (and I believe in the opinion of any sensible court) this case stretches the boundaries too far to be heard.
The Lincoln cent store:
http://www.lincolncent.com
My numismatic art work:
http://www.cdaughtrey.com
USAF veteran, 1986-1996 :: support our troops - the American way.
1. Chinese counterfeits (or counterfeits in general) that are a)identical copies of genuine items and b)are marketed and represented as real coins, and
2. 1 ounce bullion rounds that a) are different from the item they imitate in one or more significant ways and b) are NOT being represented or marketed as the items they resemble.
In this specific instance, the silver round in question RESEMBLES an ASE... but it differs from an ASE in at least two significant ways if not more (no date, no denomination, different fonts).
Do I like these pieces? No, as I stated previously... I'd love to see them gone or marked COPY at a minimum, and maybe OP's suit will cause the latter to happen if nothing else...but the reality is that these simply aren't counterfeits by any current definition, stretch as one might... and a well informed judge should realize that. I'm sure the armchair lawyer brigade out there will continue to argue the point but IMO when all's said and done the makers will prevail.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
Here's one which is represented as closely replicating a US Silver Eagle. It even comes with a Certificate of Authenticity!
While it is 4 ounces vs the ASE's 1 ounce should not matter given some of the arguments presented here regarding size and similitude and miniatures and what not. (it is also incorrectly labeled as ONE QUARTER OF A POUND since it should be labeled ONE THIRD OF A POUND)
Do you suppose that APMex has a Legal Team?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>(it is also incorrectly labeled as ONE QUARTER OF A POUND since it should be labeled ONE THIRD OF A POUND) >>
You'd think a company like these guys who make their living selling precious metal would get this correct. Doesn't instill confidence for this company.
I wince every time I hear the narrator on those Discovery Channel Alaska gold shows using Avoirdupois pound designations for gold recovered totals.
Also I hope that the OP is aware of the potential monetary commitment they have. Litigation costs, not attorney fees, can add up and I'd be surprised if the attorneys will eat those if the case goes bad.
I personal think that an item with a fake or "fantasy" date/mm is more deceiving than a bad ASE knockoff with no date.
<< <i>I personal think that an item with a fake or "fantasy" date/mm is more deceiving than a bad ASE knockoff with no date. >>
I tend to agree with that.
And I think, in all of the examples people find, you have to look past how they are being represented and sold NOW. For two reasons:
- The Hobby Protection act only applies to the manufacturing (and import)...not the promotion and sales
- Someday, these items will be sold, resold, repackaged, and quite possibly mis-represented either knowingly, or unknowingly.
So, for the "fantasy" pieces, imagine 10, 20, 50 years from now when someone finds a 1975 quarter! It's worth, like, ALOT! Maybe it gets sold a few times behind the scenes before it hits the press, and someone finally points out it was a privately made "fantasy".
To me, the "miniature", or JUMBO, or undated pieces all just feel....wrong. They might be laughable today, but having US designs, and legends, and everything else that makes them look "real", they're just a problem waiting to happen.
They just doesn't smell good, right from the start....
<< <i>
<< <i>I personal think that an item with a fake or "fantasy" date/mm is more deceiving than a bad ASE knockoff with no date. >>
I tend to agree with that.
And I think, in all of the examples people find, you have to look past how they are being represented and sold NOW. For two reasons:
- The Hobby Protection act only applies to the manufacturing (and import)...not the promotion and sales
- Someday, these items will be sold, resold, repackaged, and quite possibly mis-represented either knowingly, or unknowingly.
So, for the "fantasy" pieces, imagine 10, 20, 50 years from now when someone finds a 1975 quarter! It's worth, like, ALOT! Maybe it gets sold a few times behind the scenes before it hits the press, and someone finally points out it was a privately made "fantasy".
To me, the "miniature", or JUMBO, or undated pieces all just feel....wrong. They might be laughable today, but having US designs, and legends, and everything else that makes them look "real", they're just a problem waiting to happen.
They just doesn't smell good, right from the start.... >>
But.....but............but..........they ARE Real. REAL "SILVER BULLION ROUNDS".
AND
They are sold as REAL. REAL SILVER BULLION ROUNDS.
Now if Ignorant A wants to resell these to Ignorant B as authentic Silver Eagles because the "look" like real silver eagles (which BTW, ONLY get additional value over and above the spot price of silver by folks that "collect" them either by date or TPG invented Specialty Label) then legislation needs to be passed or the HPA needs .......... wait, this has nothing to do with the "coin Collecting Hobby" yet has everything to do with folks buying precious metals in the form of "Silver Rounds". Whether they are US Mint produced "Silver Rounds" or privately minted "Silver Round" is not really that important.
They are Silver Rounds.
Now where that damned horse that needs one more good kicking??
The name is LEE!
Has there been any action taken by the court as of COB today?
The moral of the story: stick with metal…. it's precious
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I personal think that an item with a fake or "fantasy" date/mm is more deceiving than a bad ASE knockoff with no date. >>
I tend to agree with that.
And I think, in all of the examples people find, you have to look past how they are being represented and sold NOW. For two reasons:
- The Hobby Protection act only applies to the manufacturing (and import)...not the promotion and sales
- Someday, these items will be sold, resold, repackaged, and quite possibly mis-represented either knowingly, or unknowingly.
So, for the "fantasy" pieces, imagine 10, 20, 50 years from now when someone finds a 1975 quarter! It's worth, like, ALOT! Maybe it gets sold a few times behind the scenes before it hits the press, and someone finally points out it was a privately made "fantasy".
To me, the "miniature", or JUMBO, or undated pieces all just feel....wrong. They might be laughable today, but having US designs, and legends, and everything else that makes them look "real", they're just a problem waiting to happen.
They just doesn't smell good, right from the start.... >>
But.....but............but..........they ARE Real. REAL "SILVER BULLION ROUNDS".
AND
They are sold as REAL. REAL SILVER BULLION ROUNDS.
Now if Ignorant A wants to resell these to Ignorant B as authentic Silver Eagles because the "look" like real silver eagles (which BTW, ONLY get additional value over and above the spot price of silver by folks that "collect" them either by date or TPG invented Specialty Label) then legislation needs to be passed or the HPA needs .......... wait, this has nothing to do with the "coin Collecting Hobby" yet has everything to do with folks buying precious metals in the form of "Silver Rounds". Whether they are US Mint produced "Silver Rounds" or privately minted "Silver Round" is not really that important.
They are Silver Rounds.
Now where that damned horse that needs one more good kicking?? >>
IMO this case the OP appears to be over zealous and is barking up the wrong tree and is manufacturing a case. However, he may barking at the right time which is important as this case is being tried in Minnesota. Isn't Minnesota the state with the new "coin" law to protect it's citizens against themselves? If so he maybe able to ride that prejudiced coattail.
Anyways, I can't see how HE was damaged in anyway as he knew what he was buying when he bought them. It just seems like a case about nothing.
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......