Talk to me like I'm a small child...
0

23 posts in this topic

Pat, these are just tribute coins. NGC encapsulated these because these were coins that the proceeds went to the smithsonium Institute. This is a tribute to george T Morgan as a proposed design for this type coin, but was never minted. I think some of the reasons were that they didn't want to make coin denominations that high in value. I don't remember all the Jargon that went on with theses. I do know that they also make a 1oz gold coin which sold for about $1,000. These silver issues sold for $99. I have one of these silver ones myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. I picked it up today at a jewelry store where my wife was having her watch cleaned.

 

They don't really sell coins, but this one caught my eye as I thought it was pretty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
wow - how can they do that? that reverse seems positively illegal!

It is. From what I see it would qualify as an imitation numismatic item as defined by the hobby protection act and should be marked COPY in compliance to the law. That piece is not legal as I see it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
wow - how can they do that? that reverse seems positively illegal!

It is. From what I see it would qualify as an imitation numismatic item as defined by the hobby protection act and should be marked COPY in compliance to the law. That piece is not legal as I see it.

 

Ok, explain for those of us a little less knowledgeable. What is it a copy of? And doesn't the fact that it is paired with a completely unrelated (I'm assuming) reverse make it legal? Or is it just the fact that it purports to be a $100 coin?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hobby Protection Act covers imitation numismatic items which is defined as the following:

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.
Since this is not a reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an original numismatic item, the question is whether this is purporting to be an original numismatic item. Perhaps it's not seen as not purporting to be an original numismatic item because how they were issued and the slab they come in.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure why ngc encapsulated that modern medal, makes no sense to me.
Because someone paid to have it encapsulated!

 

Actually, the New York Mint paid NGC for the encapsulation. After the discovery of the long lost sketch, the Smithsonian Institute commissioned the New York Mint to produce and sell silver and gold tribute pieces based on the sketch of the largest denomination coin ever proposed. The 1.5 ounce silver tribute piece is still available for $99 from the New York Mint. The medal is encapsulated in an NGC slab and sold in a pouch. The one-ounce gold union is sold out. That medal was slabbed by NGC and came with a framed copy of Morgan's artwork.

 

I found a good image of the coin and artwork on this David Lawrence auction.

 

Scott :hi:

Link to post
Share on other sites
wow - how can they do that? that reverse seems positively illegal!

It is. From what I see it would qualify as an imitation numismatic item as defined by the hobby protection act and should be marked COPY in compliance to the law. That piece is not legal as I see it.

 

It is not legal tender of course, but is a tribute coin. I don't see how this differs much from the Reagan Dimes that are running around. Also, I think that these were slabbed by NGC to keep some sort of records of sales due to, (what I think), that some proceeds from sales of these coins get donated to the Smithsonium Institute. I may be wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Hobby Protection Act covers imitation numismatic items which is defined as the following:
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.
Since this is not a reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an original numismatic item, the question is whether this is purporting to be an original numismatic item. Perhaps it's not seen as not purporting to be an original numismatic item because how they were issued and the slab they come in.

 

I'm not thinking of the Hobby Protection act when I said I thought it was illegal - I'm thinking that you can't put United States of America and One Hundred Dollars on a hunk of metal and sell it unless you're the US Mint!

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Hobby Protection Act covers imitation numismatic items which is defined as the following:
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.
Since this is not a reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an original numismatic item, the question is whether this is purporting to be an original numismatic item. Perhaps it's not seen as not purporting to be an original numismatic item because how they were issued and the slab they come in.

 

I'm not thinking of the Hobby Protection act when I said I thought it was illegal - I'm thinking that you can't put United States of America and One Hundred Dollars on a hunk of metal and sell it unless you're the US Mint!

Since the New York Mint had every coin they produced encapsulated by NGC, the label indicates that the piece is a "Private Issue," and is not being sold as legal tender, there are no laws being broken.

 

IFF, someone cracks the slab and tries to use the piece as legal tender, then that person would be breaking the law. Sort of like that guy trying to pass a million-dollar bill!

 

Scott :hi:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
IFF, someone cracks the slab and tries to use the piece as legal tender, then that person would be breaking the law. Sort of like that guy trying to pass a million-dollar bill!

And in this case, he'd be guilty of theft by deception, not counterfeiting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm thinking that you can't put United States of America and One Hundred Dollars on a hunk of metal and sell it unless you're the US Mint!

Unless you mark it as copy, because if you don't then it is purporting to be an"original numismatic item" which once again brings it back under the HPA where it is an illegal item.

 

Oh and also since it isn't marked it violates Title 18 Sec 486, the same section that got the Liberty dollar people in trouble. So it is illegal under two different laws.

 

Since the New York Mint had every coin they produced encapsulated by NGC, the label indicates that the piece is a "Private Issue," and is not being sold as legal tender, there are no laws being broken.

It doesn't have to be sold as legal tender to be illegal (under title 18 Sec 486), and having it marked on a seperate label does not satify the HPA, because if I crack it out the label is gone. The HPA requires the object itself to be marked "COPY"

 

I MADE AN ERROR. I wrote the above while I was at work and didn't have access to my references. I double checked Sec 486 and it does only apply to pieces that are to be attempted to be used as oney.

 

Edited by Conder101
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0