1964-D Peace Dollar

[MarkFeld]

"... that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified."

 

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

I think the threshold for "other than the one which was altered or modified" has been met. But I'm not so sure about the "that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item" part. Personally, I think that threshold has been met, as well, but that will be for others to decide.

[adm-migration]

Why is the HPA's definition of IMITATION numismatic item frequently posted, but never the HPA's definition of ORIGINAL numismatic item with which it is so intimately linked? Posting one without the other seems an attempt to mislead the reader, where the reader's personal concept/idea of an original numismatic item would be considered rather than that of the HPA.

 

(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.

 

(f) Original numismatic item means anything which has been a part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person, object, place, or event. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals.

 

The 64-D dollars were not used in exchange or as a commemorative, so how does HPA apply here?

[bsshog40]

Well this thread is bringing in the new members. Hopefully this will be a good thing and not bad.

[MarkFeld]

Why is the HPA's definition of IMITATION numismatic item frequently posted, but never the HPA's definition of ORIGINAL numismatic item with which it is so intimately linked? Posting one without the other seems an attempt to mislead the reader, where the reader's personal concept/idea of an original numismatic item would be considered rather than that of the HPA.

 

(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.

 

(f) Original numismatic item means anything which has been a part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person, object, place, or event. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals.

 

The 64-D dollars were not used in exchange or as a commemorative, so how does HPA apply here?

 

Welcome to the forum. What user-name, if any, do you post under on other coin forums?

 

In answer to your question, I have quoted the language pertaining to "imitation numismatic item", because the coins in question do not appear to be "original numismatic items" - you just made the argument for me above.

 

And the HPA applies to "imitation numismatic items" and requires that they include the word "copy", as follows:

 

"Sec. 304.6 Marking requirements for imitation numismatic items.

 

(a) An imitation numismatic item which is manufactured in the United States, or imported into the United States for introduction into or distribution in commerce, shall be plainly and permanently marked “COPY”.

(b) The word “COPY” shall be marked upon the item legibly, conspicuously, and nondeceptively, and in accordance with the further requirements of these regulations.

(1) The word “COPY” shall appear in capital letters, in the English language.

(2) The word “COPY” shall be marked on either the obverse or the reverse surface of the item. It shall not be marked on the edge of the item.

(3) An imitation numismatic item of incusable material shall be incused with the word “COPY” in sans-serif letters having a vertical dimension of not less than two millimeters (2.0 mm) or not less than one-sixth of the diameter of the reproduction, and a minimum depth of three-tenths of one millimeter (0.3 mm) or to one-half (\1/2\) the thickness of the reproduction, whichever is the lesser. The minimum total horizontal dimension of the word “COPY” shall be six millimeters (6.0 mm) or not less than one-half of the diameter of the reproduction.

(4) An imitation numismatic item composed of nonincusable material shall be imprinted with the word “COPY” in sans-serif letters having a vertical dimension of not less than two millimeters (2.0 mm) or not less than one-sixth of the diameter of the reproduction. The minimum total horizontal dimension of the word “COPY” shall be six millimeters (6.0 mm) or not less than one-half of the diameter of the reproduction."

 

[Zoins]

Why is the HPA's definition of IMITATION numismatic item frequently posted, but never the HPA's definition of ORIGINAL numismatic item with which it is so intimately linked? Posting one without the other seems an attempt to mislead the reader, where the reader's personal concept/idea of an original numismatic item would be considered rather than that of the HPA.

 

(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.

 

(f) Original numismatic item means anything which has been a part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person, object, place, or event. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals.

 

The 64-D dollars were not used in exchange or as a commemorative, so how does HPA apply here?

I agree that the definition of imitation numismatic item requires an original numismatic item to exist. I've stated elsewhere that it is very questionable to me whether an original 1964-D Peace dollar would qualify as an original numismatic item.

 

A reading of the law states that to be considered an imitation numismatic item (INI) which requires the COPY mark, an item must purport to be an original numismatic item (ONI). Both INI and ONI are defined in the terminology section of the HPA as quoted. The first part of the INI definition states:

 

Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item

 

So it would seem that an original numismatic item is required before any piece can be considered an imitation numismatic item. So let's take a look at the definition for original numismatic item. To qualify as a ONI, it needs to satisfy two things:

 

First, it needs to be either:

 

(1.a) has been part of a coinage: I don't think this has been met because they were not monetized nor intended as coinage as all of them were classified as trial strikes.

 

(1.b) has been part of an issue: I don't think these qualify as being part of an issue since they were never issued.

 

Beyond needing to satisfy either of the above, they also need to satisfy one of the following:

 

(2.a) has been used in exchange: I don't think these were ever used in exchange as they were not released, nor were they intended to be released.

 

(2.b) has been used to commemorate a person, object, place, or event: The original Peace dollar was used to commemorate the end of WWI so an argument could be made here; however, the items were never released so they were not used to commemorate an event, even if that may have been an intention. Additionally, the problem there is that since they were all classified as trial strikes, in can be argued that there was no intention to use them as a commemorative either.

 

For better or worse, I think a strict reading of the Hobby Protection Act shows that the 1964-D Peace Dollar does not qualify as an original numismatic item and thus the Hobby Protection Act is not enforceable. Without a qualifying original numismatic item, I don't think an item can be classified as an imitation numismatic item under the law.

[CaptHenway]

Peace dollars exist as original numismatic items.

The Carr copies are replicas of them.

I see nothing in the Hobby Protection Act that is date-specific.

TD

[Zoins]

Peace dollars exist as original numismatic items.

The Carr copies are replicas of them.

This is not true.

 

The Carr coins are Peace dollars, albeit ones that have been altered.

I see nothing in the Hobby Protection Act that is date-specific.

If you remove the date from consideration, the HPA is also not applicable because the pieces would be Peace dollars purporting to be Peace dollars.

[adm-migration]

I post as amiller ATS, a name already taken here.

 

This topic is quite intriguing to me and I found it unfortunate that the 900+ post thread was locked, along with the others. I promise to be good, or at least try to by choosing words appropriately since the lack of inflection and body language eliminates 90% of the communication. Yes, I made that number up

 

 

The way I interpret the HPA, the definition of an original matters because it is used to define an imitation. Here's how I reason it out:

 

The US Mint struck 64-D dollars were never used in exchange or as commemoratives, therefore they are not original numismatic items according to (f).

 

The Carr fantasy issue can not be an imitation as defined in (d) because it does not purport to be an original numismatic item as defined in (f), nor is it a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item as defined in (f).

 

The way (f) is worded, I would not see a problem under the HPA with Daniel making these even if there was a US Mint struck specimen in the Smithsonian, because as it is defined in (f), said example would not be an original numismatic item.

 

I would expect that to the great majority of collectors, myself included, a US Mint struck example WOULD be an original numismatic item, even though not used in exchange or as commemoratives. This is what I'm trying to point out, the difference between our various personal definitions and the definitions in the HPA. From a legal standpoint, Carr needs only worry about the HPA's definition, not mine or yours (I'm not pointing out any specific individual), and it does not appear to cover the 64-D Peace as written.

 

 

[Zoins]

The way (f) is worded, I would not see a problem under the HPA with Daniel making these even if there was a US Mint struck specimen in the Smithsonian, because as it is defined in (f), said example would not be an original numismatic item.

 

I would expect that to the great majority of collectors, myself included, a US Mint struck example WOULD be an original numismatic item, even though not used in exchange or as commemoratives. This is what I'm trying to point out, the difference between our various personal definitions and the definitions in the HPA. From a legal standpoint, Carr needs only worry about the HPA's definition, not mine or yours (I'm not pointing out any specific individual), and it does not appear to cover the 64-D Peace as written.

This is the extension that I have not mentioned, yet it may be the real cause of concern for some people. I purposely avoided discussing this because of the potential magnitude of the issue. As it is written, many patterns would not qualify as original numismatic items and be out of the reach of the HPA. I think this is understandable given that traditionally people have collected coins and not patterns. When the HPA was written, it was probably thought the definition of original numismatic item was broad enough; however, it does not seem to cover some areas of numismatics as written. To extend it, I think the law would need to be amended; however, items issued before then would be grandfathered in.

[DC Dawg]

Wow! Go to work... get busy... and come home to watch the hobby almost implode!

 

It's an immoral, unethical and blatantly illegal activity.

For the record, I don't know if I agree of disagree with Roger, Daniel Carr, or anyone else. Do find the discussion fascinating!

 

The apparent acceptance of Mr. Carr's activities by so many collectors makes me question the ethical base of the so-called hobby. The same people who complain bitterly about Chinese counterfeits, or added mintmarks or polished fields, or whizzed coins or any number of perverted practices, happily support these very same practices by Mr. Carr.

While I hate to disagree with you, Roger, I think the difference is that Carr is not representing his piece as genuine trying to deceive the buyer. Carr clearly states that it is a fantasy piece made from dies he prepared and over punching real Peace Dollars. If you forget the pattern on the piece for a moment, it is not really different than any other alteration like Love Tokens, cut-outs, or elongateds. Whereas the other coins in your statement are purposely made to deceive the public in some way.

 

Greed is, indeed, a mighty master.

"Greed... is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind." (yes, I am a fan of Wall Street and can't wait to see the sequel).

 

Scott

[DC Dawg]

The U.S Mint does not hold a copyright on any coin design image that has, and still, appears on the coinage they produce.

 

Not exactly true. According to this page on the U.S. Mint web site it says:

 

"The United States Mint may own copyright by assignment, as permitted by 17 U.S.C. § 105. In fact, the United States Mint owns copyright in several commemorative and circulating coin designs. Although the copyright symbol does not appear on the coin itself, the United States Mint generally includes the symbol on marketing materials. Copyrighted coin designs include several designs used in the 1995-1996 Olympic Commemorative Coin Program, the 1995 Civil War Battlefield Commemorative Coin Program, and the Golden Dollar (Sacagawea) coin obverse." (emphasis added)

 

Scott

[DC Dawg]

You also seem to claim that Carr's fantasy overstrike is both against the HPA and counterfeiting laws. These are two very different applications of law. How are they in violation of both of them, or either?

 

Interesting question. According to 18 U.S.C. § 487, Making or possessing counterfeit dies for coins says:

 

"Whoever, without lawful authority, makes any die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, either of steel or plaster, or any other substance, in likeness or similitude, as to the design or the inscription thereon, of any die, hub, or mold designated for the coining or making of any of the genuine gold, silver, nickel, bronze, copper, or other coins coined at the mints of the United States; or

 

"Whoever, without lawful authority, possesses any such die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, or permits the same to be used for or in aid of the counterfeiting of any such coins of the United States—

 

"Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both."

 

 

One thing I find interesting is the question of whether it was a coin based on the implied definition in the first paragraph. But I can see a lawyer argue that it was a coin that was struck at the Denver Branch of the US Mint. The coin's original existence is documented regardless of whether the coin was placed into circulation or not. Thus creating the dies to make what looks like genuine coins could be illegal under this law.

 

This is a fascinating discussion. I think I'll drop a note to David Ganz and see what he has to say!

 

Scott

 

[PerryHall]

Peace dollars exist as original numismatic items.

The Carr copies are replicas of them.

I see nothing in the Hobby Protection Act that is date-specific.

TD

 

The 1964-D Peace dollars do not exist as original numismatic items.

The 1964-D Carr coins are not replicas since there are no originals.

I see nothing in the HPA that says it applies to coins by type.

[MarkFeld]

I post as amiller ATS, a name already taken here.

 

This topic is quite intriguing to me and I found it unfortunate that the 900+ post thread was locked, along with the others. I promise to be good, or at least try to by choosing words appropriately since the lack of inflection and body language eliminates 90% of the communication. Yes, I made that number up

 

 

The way I interpret the HPA, the definition of an original matters because it is used to define an imitation. Here's how I reason it out:

 

The US Mint struck 64-D dollars were never used in exchange or as commemoratives, therefore they are not original numismatic items according to (f).

 

The Carr fantasy issue can not be an imitation as defined in (d) because it does not purport to be an original numismatic item as defined in (f), nor is it a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item as defined in (f).

 

The way (f) is worded, I would not see a problem under the HPA with Daniel making these even if there was a US Mint struck specimen in the Smithsonian, because as it is defined in (f), said example would not be an original numismatic item.

 

I would expect that to the great majority of collectors, myself included, a US Mint struck example WOULD be an original numismatic item, even though not used in exchange or as commemoratives. This is what I'm trying to point out, the difference between our various personal definitions and the definitions in the HPA. From a legal standpoint, Carr needs only worry about the HPA's definition, not mine or yours (I'm not pointing out any specific individual), and it does not appear to cover the 64-D Peace as written.

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

Your interpretation might very well prove to be correct. What is unclear to me from the HPA's langauage, however, is whether there is a requirement that the "imitation" must be of the same date as an "original" which did or does exist.

 

 

[Coinsman63]

, since Carr, as a designer, was a finalist for the reverse design of the golden dollar, successfully designed two state quarters and was in the running for several other state quarter designs.

 

So does that give Mr. Carr leave to alter genuine Mint coinage and to profit from the alteration?

 

Mr Carr is at liberty to use any 90% silver piece to produce anything he wants as long as it's not a real coin.

 

He could use that planchet stock for the production of Amero's for example.

 

He could NOT use that planchet stock to make 1934-S Peace Dollars though since they are real coins.

 

The 1964-D Peace Dollar does not exist which is the basis for Mr. Carr's production.

 

However, altering the date of a Peace dollar to an non-existant date in the manner he has, and selling it is akin to chinese fake trade dollars flooding the numismatic market.

 

 

[Coinsman63]

The U.S Mint does not hold a copyright on any coin design image that has, and still, appears on the coinage they produce.

 

Not exactly true. According to this page on the U.S. Mint web site it says:

 

"The United States Mint may own copyright by assignment, as permitted by 17 U.S.C. § 105. In fact, the United States Mint owns copyright in several commemorative and circulating coin designs. Although the copyright symbol does not appear on the coin itself, the United States Mint generally includes the symbol on marketing materials. Copyrighted coin designs include several designs used in the 1995-1996 Olympic Commemorative Coin Program, the 1995 Civil War Battlefield Commemorative Coin Program, and the Golden Dollar (Sacagawea) coin obverse." (emphasis added)

 

Scott

 

However, the key word in the cut and paste your provided is "may".

 

They do not hold copyright to the images. If that were the case, the company selling the fake gold buffalos could have been nailed for copyright infringement.

 

[Zoins]

What is unclear to me from the HPA's langauage, however, is whether there is a requirement that the "imitation" must be of the same date as an "original" which did or does exist.

My thinking on this is that, if you take the date change off the table, the HPA does not apply because the pieces in question are actual Peace dollars struck by the US Mint

[Conder101]

The way I see the application of the definition of Original Numismatic Item to the 1964-D peace dollars is that the 64-D was part of a COINAGE (Peace dollars as a series) that was issued for exchange.

 

If you require a specific coin to actually be issued for exchange before it is an Original Numismatic Item, then none of the coins in your Mint sets or proof sets (Possibly all proof coins), or your proof bullion coins are ONI. It has been stated that they can't be ONI because they were trial strikes and not actual production coins so they weren't monitized. OK that eliminates every 18th, 19th, and 20th century pattern or die trial or trial strike from being an ONI. The 1804 dollars or 1913 V nickels were not issued for exchange so I guess they are not ONI either.

[MarkFeld]

What is unclear to me from the HPA's langauage, however, is whether there is a requirement that the "imitation" must be of the same date as an "original" which did or does exist.

My thinking on this is that, if you take the date change off the table, the HPA does not apply because the pieces in question are actual Peace dollars struck by the US Mint, with an altered date / MM.

But altered to a date which was produced and which could still exist, in which case it would be worth a fortune. That seems like the very type of thing that the act would seek to protect.

[Zoins]

However, altering the date of a Peace dollar to an non-existant date in the manner he has, and selling it is akin to chinese fake trade dollars flooding the numismatic market.

There are a number of differences:

• Made from real US Peace dollars
  
• Made from real silver
  
• Well documented and not intended to purport to be an existing original numismatic item
  
• Higher quality (though that is in the eye of the beholder)
  
• Struck in Colorado near Denver
  
• Struck on ex-Denver Mint press
  
• Struck by US coin designer
  

[disme]

Some general points:

 

1) I do not know if any 1964–D silver dollars exist but they were definitely struck.

 

2) That they were not delivered as coins is irrelevant.

 

3) Pattern coins of the 19th century were never delivered as coins yet they are clearly numismatic items struck by a United States mint.

 

4) Even if they were all destroyed, which is doubtful, the 1964–D dollar is still a numismatic item because it was struck in a mint.

 

5) The Carr piece, therefore, ought to carry the word COPY according to law.

 

Disme

[Zoins]

What is unclear to me from the HPA's langauage, however, is whether there is a requirement that the "imitation" must be of the same date as an "original" which did or does exist.

My thinking on this is that, if you take the date change off the table, the HPA does not apply because the pieces in question are actual Peace dollars struck by the US Mint, with an altered date / MM.

But altered to a date which was produced and which could still exist, in which case it would be worth a fortune. That seems like the very type of thing that the act would seek to protect.

Many things may exist; however, this piece is very unlikely to exist. Not only are there official documentation and testimony that all have been destroyed, there is no verifiable story that any exist and any that do exist would only be a fortune on the illegal black market.

 

There was an order to have all of these melted. If that order is still in effect, the piece would only be worth a fortune on the black market, outside of US government jurisdiction or if the order was rescinded. Given that a foreign public owner of such a coin may travel restrictions applied, it is uncertain how much of a decrease in value that would be.

 

It seems somewhat unlikely the HPA was designed to protect pieces that don't exist according to all official records and testimony, government or otherwise.

 

Having the holder of an original come forward, would certainly change the discussion and I would encourage that.

[Zoins]

The way I see the application of the definition of Original Numismatic Item to the 1964-D peace dollars is that the 64-D was part of a COINAGE (Peace dollars as a series) that was issued for exchange.

 

If you require a specific coin to actually be issued for exchange before it is an Original Numismatic Item, then none of the coins in your Mint sets or proof sets (Possibly all proof coins), or your proof bullion coins are ONI. It has been stated that they can't be ONI because they were trial strikes and not actual production coins so they weren't monitized. OK that eliminates every 18th, 19th, and 20th century pattern or die trial or trial strike from being an ONI. The 1804 dollars or 1913 V nickels were not issued for exchange so I guess they are not ONI either.

Some items of numismatic interest may very well not be protected. There was very little value assigned to patterns, die trials and trial strikes for a long time. Today, the US Mint does not assign a value to waffled coins and yet collectors pay a premium for and collect them. Does the HPA protect trash? It might, but I'm unclear on that.

 

One problem with the HPA is that the terms coinage and issue are used but not defined. I think the law would be more useful if those terms were defined in the terminology section.

 

I think there is enough gray area here, it would be appropriate for a case to be brought in US court to establish some precedent and case law. This is, after all, how laws are clarified in the US and there is nothing to prevent us from exercising that part of the American legal system. If anything, it would settle this discussion

[James_OldeTowne]

But altered to a date which was produced and which could still exist, in which case it would be worth a fortune.

Not to nitpick, but wouldn't a genuine 1964-D be worth nothing if it did exist, since it is not legal to own it, and therefore cannot be marketed?

[Conder101]

There has also been some question about whether you can have a COPY if no original exists. Back in 1995 when I wrote my Index of English Conder Token Legends there was just the original manuscript. A dealer who saw it liked it so much I ran him off a copy of the manuscript. In 1997 my apartment burned and the original manuscript was destroyed. When that happened did the dealers photocopy become an original? Or was it still a copy of an original that no longer exists?

[DC Dawg]

But altered to a date which was produced and which could still exist, in which case it would be worth a fortune.

Not to nitpick, but wouldn't a genuine 1964-D be worth nothing if it did exist, since it is not legal to own it, and therefore cannot be marketed?

Like the 1933 Double Eagles?

 

I have a feeling that if the current Langboard v. US Mint suit is won by the Langboard/Switt family, it may give a potential holder of a 1964-D Peace Dollar an incentive to come out of the shadows.

 

Scott

[MarkFeld]

But altered to a date which was produced and which could still exist, in which case it would be worth a fortune.

Not to nitpick, but wouldn't a genuine 1964-D be worth nothing if it did exist, since it is not legal to own it, and therefore cannot be marketed?

It would still be worth a fortune. Look at what the 1933 Saint was about to be sold for privately, before it was intercepted by the sting operation.

[Zoins]

But altered to a date which was produced and which could still exist, in which case it would be worth a fortune.

Not to nitpick, but wouldn't a genuine 1964-D be worth nothing if it did exist, since it is not legal to own it, and therefore cannot be marketed?

It would still be worth a fortune. Look at what the 1933 Saint was about to be sold for privately, before it was intercepted by the sting operation.

Until it becomes generally legal, it is only worth a fortune to those comfortable trafficking what the US feels is illegally-possessed US property. I'm not sure the writers of the HPA intended to protect illegally-possessed government property, especially one under a destruction order.

 

I do think the SS may be much more interested to hear of real ones than fantasy ones

 

It also seems that some people that wish the HPA to apply to the fantasy piece are ethically and morally okay with possessing what the government feels is illegal to possess. If it is ethically and morally okay to hold and sell property that one deems illegal enough to only traffic on the black market, why would it not also be ethically and morally okay to make a fantasy piece that can be and is sold in the open? This seems inconsistent and it almost seems like one reason people want the HPA to apply to the fantasy piece is to protect the black market value for any original piece.

 

I don't think black market holders of an original piece, if any exist, need to have their interests protected because they understand what they are doing and can reveal one of their items at any time but are choosing not to. ATS has even said they would authenticate it for free.

[messydesk]

""(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..."

"Reasonably purport" implies there's a judgment call to be made. If someone is presented with the following facts:

• The mint struck 64-D Peace dollars
  
• The mint exchanged them to employees at face value
  
• The mint recalled them and claims to have destroyed them all, but cannot prove it
  
• The mint once claimed to have destroyed all the 1933 Saints before any were allowed to leave the mint.
  
• A 1933 Saint is now considered a numismatic item, with more tied up in court having their fates determined.
  
• Dan Carr's 64-D was made so that he could have a seemingly unattainable coin made by the US Mint for his collection.
  

What is to be reasonably purported?

[MarkFeld]

""(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..."

"Reasonably purport" implies there's a judgment call to be made. If someone is presented with the following facts:

• The mint struck 64-D Peace dollars
  
• The mint exchanged them to employees at face value
  
• The mint recalled them and claims to have destroyed them all, but cannot prove it
  
• The mint once claimed to have destroyed all the 1933 Saints before any were allowed to leave the mint.
  
• A 1933 Saint is now considered a numismatic item, with more tied up in court having their fates determined.
  
• Dan Carr's 64-D was made so that he could have a seemingly unattainable coin made by the US Mint for his collection.
  

What is to be reasonably purported?

That's pretty much how I see it. But no matter what any of us think, it does/will come down to interpretation of that HPA language.