Dcarr over strike question.
2 2

309 posts in this topic

1,689 posts
Great info RWB. Unfortunately it doesn't apply to these fantasy pieces since they are in fact legal tender to start with. The host coin is the same denomination and type. Only the dates/ MM are changed to that of dates and mint marks that don't exist.

 

If he was striking these on blank planchets and using dates that exist then that's when the Frd's start knocking on doors.

 

Tunnel vision abound

 

mark

 

 

The information has been presented many times on this subject along with many legal presentations.

 

It is a little silly to state the creations are legal tender to start with. That position I have not seen or heard or read before. Innovative it might be, and wordsmith talent at its finest. However, it is not the righteous position I would use as a first line supportive response of legal justification. It has a little bit of a flim flam feel to it. That is just me, of course.

 

"There are 8 million stories in the Naked City. This is one of them.Only the dates and names have been changed."

 

What is the tunnel vision, other than the producer of the pieces not asking the U.S. Attorney General for, at the least, an opinion? Why is this not a sound business practice, if a person wants to make certain their position is in accordance with U.S. law? It may be tunnel vision not to do so.

 

Every fantasy coin starts out as legal tender. If he makes a fantasy date SLQ it starts out as a SLQ. You can actually see the host coin under the new strike. If he makes a fantasy date Peace dollar it starts out as a genuine Peace dollar.

 

mark

 

I am sure you are aware of the fallacy of the position. You are relying on the term "host coin" as support for and as an interchangeable definition of legal tender and fantasy piece, via modification. Not to make a big deal of it, but no, all fantasy coins do not start out as a host coin. Host coin/fantasy piece/legal tender are not synonymous or interchangeable in the meaning of the law concerning the creations under discussion. I applaud the the effort of presenting a unique theory and certainly realize the talent to be able to do so. It is what a good attorney should do; use every possible presentation that supports the position of client.

 

It would be so much easier to contact the U.S. Attorney General, I think. That is just me, though.

 

All of HIS fantasy pieces indeed start off as an actual US coins of the same EXACT type.

 

You contact the AG. You will not be the first., second or third on these boards to do so.

 

mark

Edited by MJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,689 posts

I'm heading to the pool to relax. Everyone have a great Sunday.

 

mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts

 

All of HIS fantasy pieces indeed start off as an actual uS coins of the same type.

 

Federal courts have already rejected this argument. Overstriking a rare, esoteric, or fantasy issue over a genuine coin does not remove it from the purview of the counterfeiting statutes nor does it merely mean that the creation must be prosecuted under the statute for falsely altering a coin. The federal government may choose either. United States v. Wilson, 451 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1971).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,119 posts

As I have stated earlier, the use of a genuine legal tender host coin does not automatically make something made from it automatically legal.

 

The example I cited was a counterfeit 1909-SVDB cent we saw at ANACS which was struck over a genuine 1960-D Lincoln cent. That coin was made with intent to deceive and defraud, and is a counterfeit by any tortured interpretation of the law.

 

Mr. Carr's overstrikes are NOT made with intent to deceive or defraud. However, the fact that they are struck over genuine, legal tender U.S. coins does not make them exempt from the provisions of the Hobby Protection Act, just as the 1909-SVDB cent cited above is not exempt from the anti-counterfeiting laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
As I have stated earlier, the use of a genuine legal tender host coin does not automatically make something made from it automatically legal.

 

The example I cited was a counterfeit 1909-SVDB cent we saw at ANACS which was struck over a genuine 1960-D Lincoln cent. That coin was made with intent to deceive and defraud, and is a counterfeit by any tortured interpretation of the law.

 

Mr. Carr's overstrikes are NOT made with intent to deceive or defraud. However, the fact that they are struck over genuine, legal tender U.S. coins does not make them exempt from the provisions of the Hobby Protection Act, just as the 1909-SVDB cent cited above is not exempt from the anti-counterfeiting laws.

 

Intent to defraud is not necessary under the current iteration of anti-counterfeiting laws for the production of the pieces. Intent only becomes an issue when uttering, possessing, etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,297 posts
Great info RWB. Unfortunately it doesn't apply to these fantasy pieces since they are in fact legal tender to start with. The host coin is the same denomination and type. Only the dates/ MM are changed to that of dates and mint marks that don't exist.

 

If he was striking these on blank planchets and using dates that exist then that's when the Frd's start knocking on doors.

 

Tunnel vision abound

 

mark

 

 

The information has been presented many times on this subject along with many legal presentations.

 

It is a little silly to state the creations are legal tender to start with. That position I have not seen or heard or read before. Innovative it might be, and wordsmith talent at its finest. However, it is not the righteous position I would use as a first line supportive response of legal justification. It has a little bit of a flim flam feel to it. That is just me, of course.

 

"There are 8 million stories in the Naked City. This is one of them.Only the dates and names have been changed."

 

What is the tunnel vision, other than the producer of the pieces not asking the U.S. Attorney General for, at the least, an opinion? Why is this not a sound business practice, if a person wants to make certain their position is in accordance with U.S. law? It may be tunnel vision not to do so.

 

Every fantasy coin starts out as legal tender. If he makes a fantasy date SLQ it starts out as a SLQ. You can actually see the host coin under the new strike. If he makes a fantasy date Peace dollar it starts out as a genuine Peace dollar.

 

mark

 

I am sure you are aware of the fallacy of the position. You are relying on the term "host coin" as support for and as an interchangeable definition of legal tender and fantasy piece, via modification. Not to make a big deal of it, but no, all fantasy coins do not start out as a host coin. Host coin/fantasy piece/legal tender are not synonymous or interchangeable in the meaning of the law concerning the creations under discussion. I applaud the the effort of presenting a unique theory and certainly realize the talent to be able to do so. It is what a good attorney should do; use every possible presentation that supports the position of client.

 

It would be so much easier to contact the U.S. Attorney General, I think. That is just me, though.

 

All of HIS fantasy pieces indeed start off as an actual US coins of the same EXACT type.

 

You contact the AG. You will not be the first., second or third on these boards to do so.

 

mark

 

I see. The original legal U.S. Tender is altered to create non-legal U.S. Tender. I understand the novel position of justification. I think it may cause a slight pause by the U.S. Attorney General. Nothing wrong with delaying a decision. It is the American way.

 

Those pieces sold are no longer HIS (don't shout-not necessary), once sold. That creates a question of public interest, does it not? While I recognize the reason for the emphasis of HIS, that was a very bad chess move.

 

As to your last sentence, I recognize when a person prefers to abandon the conversation when the questions asked are not comfortable, and no answers that support the position espoused are viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts

"No one is harassing him."

 

 

 

 

So no one has called him a counterfeiter on this public forum based on their interpretation of law? No one has been calling him the "Colorado Counterfeiter" at every given opportunity? Accusing someone of being a criminal based solely on your interpretation of law repeatedly on a public forum does not constitute harassment?

 

It is like your neighbor accusing you of stealing his rake, though he admits to not actually witnessing the act, and he and his buddies standing in your front yard shouting for all to hear that you are a theft. You have no more proof of wrong doing on Carr’s part than your hypothetical neighbor does on your part. All you have is your interpretation of the law and all he has is the fact that your rake looks an awfully lot like his.

 

Educating people is admiral, but doing so at the expense of a man who has not been proven guilty of any crime is not. Would the actions of those hypothetical men in your front yard be justified simply because they were showing their children how to handle a thief?

 

I will say nothing further on the subject. Continue your self-righteous crusade if you must.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,297 posts
"No one is harassing him."

 

 

 

 

So no one has called him a counterfeiter on this public forum based on their interpretation of law? No one has been calling him the "Colorado Counterfeiter" at every given opportunity? Accusing someone of being a criminal based solely on your interpretation of law repeatedly on a public forum does not constitute harassment?

 

It is like your neighbor accusing you of stealing his rake, though he admits to not actually witnessing the act, and he and his buddies standing in your front yard shouting for all to hear that you are a theft. You have no more proof of wrong doing on Carr’s part than your hypothetical neighbor does on your part. All you have is your interpretation of the law and all he has is the fact that your rake looks an awfully lot like his.

 

Educating people is admiral, but doing so at the expense of a man who has not been proven guilty of any crime is not. Would the actions of those hypothetical men in your front yard be justified simply because they were showing their children how to handle a thief?

 

I will say nothing further on the subject. Continue your self-righteous crusade if you must.

 

Just to clarify, I assume you are not addressing me, and your post just follows my post.

 

If not, and you are directing your comments toward me, you are mistaken, as I did not make such a statement.

 

You of course are referring to the eternal banter between Mr. Carr and Mr. RWB.

 

This is well known, and should not be used as an example of all other responses, in my opinion. Each gives as good as they get from each other.

 

As to the rest, I can not comment on any self righteous crusade you may be interpreting from the member that did state what you are commenting on.

 

If, by the off chance you indeed meant to respond to me, and have the belief that I have a crusade, you are incorrect. It is certainly your Right to interpret as you like, though.

 

All of the commentary could have been avoided, in my opinion, if Mr. Carr had contacted the U.S. Attorney General for guidance. I would have done so. If he chooses not to, so be it. But, members questioning the pieces as to their legality, is well within the fair territory lines. Once the pieces are sold to the public, questioning the legal validity of the pieces under the current laws is certainly understandable and is proper for the owners of such pieces, for the hobby and for future purchasers. It may even be very helpful to the future endeavors of the business model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,823 posts
Great info RWB. Unfortunately it doesn't apply to these fantasy pieces since they are in fact legal tender to start with. The host coin is the same denomination and type. Only the dates/ MM are changed to that of dates and mint marks that don't exist.

 

If he was striking these on blank planchets and using dates that exist then that's when the Frd's start knocking on doors.

 

Tunnel vision abound

 

mark

 

 

That is the most ludicrous claim. I know it's what Dcarr keeps spouting, but it is absurd.

 

So if I take Chanel Number 5 and add a few ingredients of my own, it is ok?

If I take a genuine Louis Vuitton bag and cut it up and resow it into my own design, its ok?

If I disassemble a genuine '65 Mustang and make a new car out of the parts, its ok?

 

Do you see how ridiculous this claim sounds?

 

Wouldn't it be OK to do the above, as long as the altered item weren't misrepresented?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,845 posts
Great info RWB. Unfortunately it doesn't apply to these fantasy pieces since they are in fact legal tender to start with. The host coin is the same denomination and type. Only the dates/ MM are changed to that of dates and mint marks that don't exist.

 

If he was striking these on blank planchets and using dates that exist then that's when the Frd's start knocking on doors.

 

Tunnel vision abound

 

mark

 

 

That is the most ludicrous claim. I know it's what Dcarr keeps spouting, but it is absurd.

 

So if I take Chanel Number 5 and add a few ingredients of my own, it is ok?

If I take a genuine Louis Vuitton bag and cut it up and resow it into my own design, its ok?

If I disassemble a genuine '65 Mustang and make a new car out of the parts, its ok?

 

Do you see how ridiculous this claim sounds?

 

Wouldn't it be OK to do the above, as long as the altered item weren't misrepresented?

 

I would think the creators of the original would want to protect their intellectual property and prevent misrepresentation of their goods. Just because it has the same fabric as the original doesn't mean it has any relation to the original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts

"This is well known, and should not be used as an example of all other responses, in my opinion."

 

 

I made no such broad claim.

 

 

"Once the pieces are sold to the public, questioning the legal validity of the pieces under the current laws is certainly understandable and is proper for the owners of such pieces, for the hobby and for future purchasers."

 

 

I did not say otherwise.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,823 posts
Great info RWB. Unfortunately it doesn't apply to these fantasy pieces since they are in fact legal tender to start with. The host coin is the same denomination and type. Only the dates/ MM are changed to that of dates and mint marks that don't exist.

 

If he was striking these on blank planchets and using dates that exist then that's when the Frd's start knocking on doors.

 

Tunnel vision abound

 

mark

 

 

That is the most ludicrous claim. I know it's what Dcarr keeps spouting, but it is absurd.

 

So if I take Chanel Number 5 and add a few ingredients of my own, it is ok?

If I take a genuine Louis Vuitton bag and cut it up and resow it into my own design, its ok?

If I disassemble a genuine '65 Mustang and make a new car out of the parts, its ok?

 

Do you see how ridiculous this claim sounds?

 

Wouldn't it be OK to do the above, as long as the altered item weren't misrepresented?

 

I would think the creators of the original would want to protect their intellectual property and prevent misrepresentation of their goods. Just because it has the same fabric as the original doesn't mean it has any relation to the original.

 

Nowhere in the examples you gave, were representations made that the altered items had any relation to the originals. Or that there was any misrepresentation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,845 posts
Great info RWB. Unfortunately it doesn't apply to these fantasy pieces since they are in fact legal tender to start with. The host coin is the same denomination and type. Only the dates/ MM are changed to that of dates and mint marks that don't exist.

 

If he was striking these on blank planchets and using dates that exist then that's when the Frd's start knocking on doors.

 

Tunnel vision abound

 

mark

 

 

That is the most ludicrous claim. I know it's what Dcarr keeps spouting, but it is absurd.

 

So if I take Chanel Number 5 and add a few ingredients of my own, it is ok?

If I take a genuine Louis Vuitton bag and cut it up and resow it into my own design, its ok?

If I disassemble a genuine '65 Mustang and make a new car out of the parts, its ok?

 

Do you see how ridiculous this claim sounds?

 

Wouldn't it be OK to do the above, as long as the altered item weren't misrepresented?

 

I would think the creators of the original would want to protect their intellectual property and prevent misrepresentation of their goods. Just because it has the same fabric as the original doesn't mean it has any relation to the original.

 

Nowhere in the examples you gave, were representations made that the altered items had any relation to the originals. Or that there was any misrepresentation.

 

I didn't explicitly say it, but it is implied. Vuitton fabrics have their distinctive markings. Ford parts are marked. While the counterfeits are clearly alterations to someone who knows, they still bear the distinctive patterns of the original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,297 posts
"This is well known, and should not be used as an example of all other responses, in my opinion."

 

 

I made no such broad claim.

 

 

"Once the pieces are sold to the public, questioning the legal validity of the pieces under the current laws is certainly understandable and is proper for the owners of such pieces, for the hobby and for future purchasers."

 

 

I did not say otherwise.

 

 

 

Nor were you accused of doing so, in either of your paragraphs above.

 

I take note of your lack of response concerning who you intended to reply to. Again, if you meant the reply to be to me, you misattributed what was stated, concerning the harassment comment. It was not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts

"Nor were you accused of doing so, in either of your paragraphs above."

 

 

Too bad you did not make this clear in your original post. It would have saved us both some unnecessary typing.

 

 

"I take note of your lack of response concerning who you intended to reply to."

 

 

Just as you say yourself, "As to the rest, I cannot comment on any self righteous crusade you may be interpreting from the member that did state what you are commenting on."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,823 posts
Great info RWB. Unfortunately it doesn't apply to these fantasy pieces since they are in fact legal tender to start with. The host coin is the same denomination and type. Only the dates/ MM are changed to that of dates and mint marks that don't exist.

 

If he was striking these on blank planchets and using dates that exist then that's when the Frd's start knocking on doors.

 

Tunnel vision abound

 

mark

 

 

That is the most ludicrous claim. I know it's what Dcarr keeps spouting, but it is absurd.

 

So if I take Chanel Number 5 and add a few ingredients of my own, it is ok?

If I take a genuine Louis Vuitton bag and cut it up and resow it into my own design, its ok?

If I disassemble a genuine '65 Mustang and make a new car out of the parts, its ok?

 

Do you see how ridiculous this claim sounds?

 

Wouldn't it be OK to do the above, as long as the altered item weren't misrepresented?

 

I would think the creators of the original would want to protect their intellectual property and prevent misrepresentation of their goods. Just because it has the same fabric as the original doesn't mean it has any relation to the original.

 

Nowhere in the examples you gave, were representations made that the altered items had any relation to the originals. Or that there was any misrepresentation.

 

I didn't explicitly say it, but it is implied. Vuitton fabrics have their distinctive markings. Ford parts are marked. While the counterfeits are clearly alterations to someone who knows, they still bear the distinctive patterns of the original.

 

If you're implying intentional misrepresentation for the sake of profit in those examples, they sound like poor analogies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,297 posts
"Nor were you accused of doing so, in either of your paragraphs above."

 

 

Too bad you did not make this clear in your original post. It would have saved us both some unnecessary typing.

 

 

"I take note of your lack of response concerning who you intended to reply to."

 

 

Just as you say yourself, "As to the rest, I cannot comment on any self righteous crusade you may be interpreting from the member that did state what you are commenting on."

 

It was very clear, but as long as you feel a little better now. (thumbs u You made a mistake about who you were replying to, and did not have the courtesy to correct your assumption. It is hard to admit and it is easier to be silly on a chat board and discourteous. I understand.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,297 posts
Great info RWB. Unfortunately it doesn't apply to these fantasy pieces since they are in fact legal tender to start with. The host coin is the same denomination and type. Only the dates/ MM are changed to that of dates and mint marks that don't exist.

 

If he was striking these on blank planchets and using dates that exist then that's when the Frd's start knocking on doors.

 

Tunnel vision abound

 

mark

 

 

That is the most ludicrous claim. I know it's what Dcarr keeps spouting, but it is absurd.

 

So if I take Chanel Number 5 and add a few ingredients of my own, it is ok?

If I take a genuine Louis Vuitton bag and cut it up and resow it into my own design, its ok?

If I disassemble a genuine '65 Mustang and make a new car out of the parts, its ok?

 

Do you see how ridiculous this claim sounds?

 

Wouldn't it be OK to do the above, as long as the altered item weren't misrepresented?

 

I would think the creators of the original would want to protect their intellectual property and prevent misrepresentation of their goods. Just because it has the same fabric as the original doesn't mean it has any relation to the original.

 

Nowhere in the examples you gave, were representations made that the altered items had any relation to the originals. Or that there was any misrepresentation.

 

Good afternoon, Mark.

I mentioned in an earlier post a scenario: a similarly talented individual slightly modifying the original pieces of the original producer, and selling these modified pieces. Would this be a legal action, or would it invite legal action from the original producer of the original pieces? I understand the somewhat difficult point you are attempting to convey to Mr. Physics. Maybe contemplating the scenario I am presenting can assist.

 

On a somewhat related scenario, would you buy the pieces under discussion, and would you sell the pieces to another person?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts

"You made a mistake about who you were replying to, and did not have the courtesy to correct your assumption."

 

 

I was obviously replying to the person who made the statement I quoted. I have done so in this fashion many times on this message board, as you are fully aware.

 

A mistake was made but it was not on my part, as evidenced by your obvious attempt to redeem yourself by means of obfuscation and misdirection that is aptly illustrated by the quote presented above.

 

You engaged me in this thread with a contrived excuse, indicating a motive that is less than honorable or honest on your part. I can think of no reason not to discontinue said engagement, which you will no doubt find objectionable and more than just a little aggravating.

 

Edited by Afterword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
629 posts
U.S. Code - Counterfeit Coins

 

"Whoever, within the United States, makes or brings therein from any foreign country, or possesses with intent to sell, give away, or in any other manner uses the same, except under authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer of the United States, any token, disk, or device in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States or of any foreign country issued as money, either under the authority of the United States or under the authority of any foreign government shall be fined under this title.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 709; July 16, 1951, ch. 226, § 3, 65 Stat. 122; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(B), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.)"

 

This applies to everyone including those living in Colorado.

 

So long as it isn't done for fraudulent purposes, a fantasy-date over-struck coin is an altered coin, not a "counterfeit" coin.

 

From the US Mint web site (note the key underlined qualifier):

(Text as of 2/19/02) 18 U.S.C. §331

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
629 posts
All of the commentary could have been avoided, in my opinion, if Mr. Carr had contacted the U.S. Attorney General for guidance.

 

The U.S. Attorney General does not interpret laws for the public.

If you contact them, they will likely just tell you to consult with your own lawyer.

I know this from experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,823 posts
U.S. Code - Counterfeit Coins

 

"Whoever, within the United States, makes or brings therein from any foreign country, or possesses with intent to sell, give away, or in any other manner uses the same, except under authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer of the United States, any token, disk, or device in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States or of any foreign country issued as money, either under the authority of the United States or under the authority of any foreign government shall be fined under this title.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 709; July 16, 1951, ch. 226, § 3, 65 Stat. 122; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(B), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.)"

 

This applies to everyone including those living in Colorado.

 

So long as it isn't done for fraudulent purposes, a fantasy-date over-struck coin is an altered coin, not a "counterfeit" coin.

 

From the US Mint web site (note the key underlined qualifier):

(Text as of 2/19/02) 18 U.S.C. §331

 

You provided a link to U.S.C. 331, but (seemingly conviently) ignored the above language, which does not require "fraudulent purposes".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
629 posts
That is the most ludicrous claim. I know it's what Dcarr keeps spouting, but it is absurd.

and rebranded and sold it as a "Carr edition Channel #5", then that is

So if I take Chanel Number 5 and add a few ingredients of my own, it is ok?

 

If you purchased full bottles of Channel #5 and added some new ingredients and then sold them as a "Carr edition Channel" perfume, that would be acceptable and legal. Why ? Because for every bottle you sold, the Channel company got their money for it (because you paid them for the perfume to start with). Now if you fabricated your own perfume entirely and called it "Channel" something, and sold it without Channel approval, then that would be a trademark/copyright infringement and Channel could sue you. Why ? Because the Channel company did not receive any reimbursement for perfume that was sold using their brand.

 

Note that the Channel brand is trademarked and copyrighted. In contrast, the coin designs in question are public domain.

 

If I take a genuine Louis Vuitton bag and cut it up and resow it into my own design, its ok?

 

Yes. If you fairly purchased such a bag, it is yours to do with as you please. You could reconfigure it and then even sell it as a "Carr edition" Louis Vitton bag.

 

 

If I disassemble a genuine '65 Mustang and make a new car out of the parts, its ok?

 

This is a VERY common occurrence. It is standard practice in the world of "hot rodding" and "custom" cars. The Ford company (for example) is fine with that practice - they even sponsor events where such cars are shown and sold.

 

There are companies that specialize in modifying Ford Mustangs and reselling them as their own version of the Ford Mustang. They even put their own logos and badging on the exterior of the cars. Why does Ford allow this ? Because the company that is modifying and selling the cars buys them from Ford. Here is an example: Saleen Mustang

 

By over-striking over existing coins, for every one produced a like amount of legal tender is "consumed" in the process. Just like all of the other examples above where the original goods are genuine and then modified.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
629 posts
U.S. Code - Counterfeit Coins

 

"Whoever, within the United States, makes or brings therein from any foreign country, or possesses with intent to sell, give away, or in any other manner uses the same, except under authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer of the United States, any token, disk, or device in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States or of any foreign country issued as money, either under the authority of the United States or under the authority of any foreign government shall be fined under this title.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 709; July 16, 1951, ch. 226, § 3, 65 Stat. 122; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(B), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.)"

 

This applies to everyone including those living in Colorado.

 

So long as it isn't done for fraudulent purposes, a fantasy-date over-struck coin is an altered coin, not a "counterfeit" coin.

 

From the US Mint web site (note the key underlined qualifier):

(Text as of 2/19/02) 18 U.S.C. §331

 

You provided a link to U.S.C. 331, but (seemingly conviently) ignored the above language, which does not require "fraudulent purposes".

 

The counterfeiting statute does not apply because there is no counterfeiting involved in fantasy-date over-striking. Similarly, a carved (altered) "hobo" nickel is not a "counterfeit" either, and such activity is not restricted by counterfeiting laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
629 posts

 

All of HIS fantasy pieces indeed start off as an actual uS coins of the same type.

 

Federal courts have already rejected this argument. Overstriking a rare, esoteric, or fantasy issue over a genuine coin does not remove it from the purview of the counterfeiting statutes nor does it merely mean that the creation must be prosecuted under the statute for falsely altering a coin. The federal government may choose either. United States v. Wilson, 451 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1971).

 

For those who haven't seen the prior discussion about that case on these forums (by now that is probably a small number), I want to reiterate that the Wilson case has important and significant differences from the situation in question. The differences are sufficient enough to invalidate it as any sort of precedent here.

 

The defendants in the Wilson case had altered genuine coins with a blatant intent to defraud. They took random-year silver Roosevelt dimes and over-struck them as "1955" dimes. They then sold the dimes representing them as genuine original US Mint 1955-dated dimes. And at the time they did this, genuine original 1955 dimes already existed, and they were selling for a significant premium in the collector market.

 

Other parts of that same case involved the defendants adding fake "D" mint marks to 1932 Washington quarters and selling them as genuine originals.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
U.S. Code - Counterfeit Coins

 

"Whoever, within the United States, makes or brings therein from any foreign country, or possesses with intent to sell, give away, or in any other manner uses the same, except under authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer of the United States, any token, disk, or device in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States or of any foreign country issued as money, either under the authority of the United States or under the authority of any foreign government shall be fined under this title.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 709; July 16, 1951, ch. 226, § 3, 65 Stat. 122; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(B), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.)"

 

This applies to everyone including those living in Colorado.

 

So long as it isn't done for fraudulent purposes, a fantasy-date over-struck coin is an altered coin, not a "counterfeit" coin.

 

From the US Mint web site (note the key underlined qualifier):

(Text as of 2/19/02) 18 U.S.C. §331

 

You provided a link to U.S.C. 331, but (seemingly conviently) ignored the above language, which does not require "fraudulent purposes".

 

He also ignores the federal appeals court decision that puts that issue to bed (and against his position). Apparently, he does not seem to understand that it is the judiciary that interprets the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
U.S. Code - Counterfeit Coins

 

"Whoever, within the United States, makes or brings therein from any foreign country, or possesses with intent to sell, give away, or in any other manner uses the same, except under authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer of the United States, any token, disk, or device in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States or of any foreign country issued as money, either under the authority of the United States or under the authority of any foreign government shall be fined under this title.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 709; July 16, 1951, ch. 226, § 3, 65 Stat. 122; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(B), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.)"

 

This applies to everyone including those living in Colorado.

 

So long as it isn't done for fraudulent purposes, a fantasy-date over-struck coin is an altered coin, not a "counterfeit" coin.

 

From the US Mint web site (note the key underlined qualifier):

(Text as of 2/19/02) 18 U.S.C. §331

 

You provided a link to U.S.C. 331, but (seemingly conviently) ignored the above language, which does not require "fraudulent purposes".

 

The counterfeiting statute does not apply because there is no counterfeiting involved in fantasy-date over-striking. Similarly, a carved (altered) "hobo" nickel is not a "counterfeit" either, and such activity is not restricted by counterfeiting laws.

 

A hobo nickel makes a coin look less like an original numismatic item, and does not purport to make it a rare date or issue. Your coins do. I also don't see them as art as the only thing you are adding is a date and a mint mark. The rest of the design emulates circulating coinage. That is a major distinction.

 

Also as I have said before, as the cited federal appeals courts also acknowledged, the federal government may charge the overstriking of existing genuine coinage with unauthorized dies as counterfeiting under 18 U.S.C. 485, it can charge the practice as a violation of 18 U.S.C. 331, or it can do both. If 18 U.S.C. 331 were the sole controlling statute, I would agree that you should win against charges on that code section (which have an intent element). As for the other statutes, I don't see a work around that has already been rejected by federal appeals courts in one fashion or another over the years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts

 

All of HIS fantasy pieces indeed start off as an actual uS coins of the same type.

 

Federal courts have already rejected this argument. Overstriking a rare, esoteric, or fantasy issue over a genuine coin does not remove it from the purview of the counterfeiting statutes nor does it merely mean that the creation must be prosecuted under the statute for falsely altering a coin. The federal government may choose either. United States v. Wilson, 451 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1971).

 

For those who haven't seen the prior discussion about that case on these forums (by now that is probably a small number), I want to reiterate that the Wilson case has important and significant differences from the situation in question. The differences are sufficient enough to invalidate it as any sort of precedent here.

 

The defendants in the Wilson case had altered genuine coins with a blatant intent to defraud. They took random-year silver Roosevelt dimes and over-struck them as "1955" dimes. They then sold the dimes representing them as genuine original US Mint 1955-dated dimes. And at the time they did this, genuine original 1955 dimes already existed, and they were selling for a significant premium in the collector market.

 

Other parts of that same case involved the defendants adding fake "D" mint marks to 1932 Washington quarters and selling them as genuine originals.

 

Wilson is absolutely on point. The defendants in Wilson claimed that they could not be convicted under 18 U.S.C. 485 because the coins in question (which were produced by overstriking genuine U.S. coins with unauthorized dies) were mere alterations and that the applicable statute was the alteration statute, 18 U.S.C. 331, that you repeatedly cite (and excerpted from the Mint's website). The court rejected that argument and found both statutes applicable. It convicted the defendants of counterfeiting in violation of 18 U.S.C. 485.

 

I also do not see how this would not apply to your 1964-D Peace Dollars, struck over existing Peace Dollars. As for intent, there were other cases cited in the linked thread that show that while intent for possession or uttering under 18 U.S.C. 485 is required, no intent is required for the production of pieces in the likelihood or similitude of U.S. coinage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
773 posts

Questions, please, for anyone who believes the Dan Carr fantasy pieces are counterfeit:

 

1. When do you predict Dan Carr will be indicted, what year, will it for example be 2017, 2020, 2025, 2050, or never?

 

2. If he's convicted, what punishment or penalties do you foresee? What do you think he really deserves?

 

3. Regarding the fantasy pieces already distributed, if declared counterfeit, do you think confiscation will be attempted by the government, and if so, under what terms?

 

 

Share this post


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
2 2