Back to the Hobby Protection Act – Please.
1 1

382 posts in this topic

13,395 posts

The good Capt. was trying to open a reasonable discussion of HPA – but it got off track kind of quickly. (I did not help, either…) So let’s try to get back to his original thoughts.

 

The purpose of HPA is to protect consumers from false political and numismatic items. Within the definition of numismatic terms, there is a seldom discussed sentence that adds depth and more meaning to the scope of law.

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[16 CFR Part 304]

 

§ 304.1 Terms defined.

 

(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 item 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.

 

A reasonable interpretation of the highlighted sentence is that if any original coin is altered so that it looks like something other than its original, unaltered self, it is covered by HPA. The outcome is that if a 1909 VDB cent has an “S” added, it must comply with HPA. If a 1909 VDB cent is smoothed and then over-struck with non-US Mint dies, it, too, must comply. So too with sandblasting to use the coin as a substrate, or polishing to look like a proof, or removing a mintmark, but possibly not whizzing or repair of a hole. The key point is altering a real coin to look like something else. This definition seems to cover most deliberate alterations of an original coin…regardless of purpose or intent.

 

HPA requires appropriate marking on any replica or imitation numismatic item, or for any original coin that is altered or modified in any way.

 

Do the lawyers out there have clearer thoughts on this?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
630 posts
HPA requires appropriate marking on any replica or imitation numismatic item, or for any original coin that is altered or modified in any way.

 

I've never seen repaired or tooled genuine coins have "COPY" stamped on them.

 

I've never seen carved "hobo" nickels with "COPY" stamped on them.

 

PS:

I think it unnecessary to start another thread on this. The other thread is sufficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts

I find it difficult to believe that if everyone volunteered to place COPY on applicable coins it would make a difference. It seems much more likely that those who perpetrate numismatic fraud would simply use other means to accomplish the same end.

 

It is not the coin that perpetrates the fraud. The coin is not even the true enabler.

 

Ignorance on the part of the victim is.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,043 posts
I find it difficult to believe that if everyone volunteered to place COPY on applicable coins it would make a difference. It seems much more likely that those who perpetrate numismatic fraud would simply use other means to accomplish the same end.

 

It is not the coin that perpetrates the fraud. The coin is not even the true enabler.

 

Ignorance on the part of the victim is.

 

 

You could say something similar about a number of different laws.

 

In the case of coins, ignorance on the part of the victim is an enabler. But so is the coin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15,021 posts

The thread you reference was clearly started to address an issue already under discussion with an apparent violator of the statute. You cannot separate the one from the other.

 

I don't know what you want us to discuss on this thread except the fact that the law is apparently toothless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts
I find it difficult to believe that if everyone volunteered to place COPY on applicable coins it would make a difference. It seems much more likely that those who perpetrate numismatic fraud would simply use other means to accomplish the same end.

 

It is not the coin that perpetrates the fraud. The coin is not even the true enabler.

 

Ignorance on the part of the victim is.

 

 

You could say something similar about a number of different laws.

 

In the case of coins, ignorance on the part of the victim is an enabler. But so is the coin.

 

 

 

No law addresses the true problem. They just address the symptom.

 

A different coin can always be used, but not against someone with knowledge.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts

The case law interpreting the HPA is very sparse, and I am unaware of any case law or FTC opinion addressing the specific issues you address; however, using the plain language of the administrative regulation, I would interpret the statute to require alteration of a date/mint mark or adding a false mint mark to fall within the purview of the HPA as well. Going back to the other thread, the FTC has already issued a binding opinion interpreting the terms "imitation numismatic item" and "original numismatic item" quite broadly to even include coins that only tangentially mirror legal tender coins, so it would be bizarre to exclude coins that look very close to original numismatic items.

 

There is, however, one huge caveat here. When dealing with federal regulations, courts are highly deferential to administrative agencies. When an administrative agency issues an interpretation/rule, it is has the binding force of law unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or a manifest contravention of the statute. Unless Congress has unequivocally and unambiguously spoke on an issue/intent, the administrative agency interpretation will be given deference (in a doctrine dubbed Chevron deference ).

 

The bottom line is that I believe you are correct, but it is hardly written in stone and subject to future FTC rulings or rule revisions (unlike the statutory provisions which only Congress can amend and that are interpreted using the case law canons of statutory interpretation). Where a rule/statute is vague, the FTC frankly gets to decide the issue once it is presented with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24,958 posts
I find it difficult to believe that if everyone volunteered to place COPY on applicable coins it would make a difference. It seems much more likely that those who perpetrate numismatic fraud would simply use other means to accomplish the same end.

 

It is not the coin that perpetrates the fraud. The coin is not even the true enabler.

 

Ignorance on the part of the victim is.

 

 

But the HPA is designed to protect that ignorance of the general populace from getting taken by any product that was officially issued or a facsimile thereof. It was designed as a 'catch all' to protect the buyer, casual and/or professional.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
I don't know what you want us to discuss on this thread except the fact that the law is apparently toothless.

 

It is only toothless if the Federal Trade Commission refuses to enforce it. As written, and as clarified by the Code of Federal Regulations, I think the statute is clear. It also has multiple enforcement mechanisms. Unfortunately, the FTC doesn't appear to be doing a very good job (i.e. it apparently knows about certain pieces that violate the HPA, yet it has not acted on it yet).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
758 posts
I don't know what you want us to discuss on this thread except the fact that the law is apparently toothless.

 

It is only toothless if the Federal Trade Commission refuses to enforce it. As written, and as clarified by the Code of Federal Regulations, I think the statute is clear. It also has multiple enforcement mechanisms. Unfortunately, the FTC doesn't appear to be doing a very good job (i.e. it apparently knows about certain pieces that violate the HPA, yet it has not acted on it yet).

 

OR!! They don't feel there is anything TO act on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
I don't know what you want us to discuss on this thread except the fact that the law is apparently toothless.

 

It is only toothless if the Federal Trade Commission refuses to enforce it. As written, and as clarified by the Code of Federal Regulations, I think the statute is clear. It also has multiple enforcement mechanisms. Unfortunately, the FTC doesn't appear to be doing a very good job (i.e. it apparently knows about certain pieces that violate the HPA, yet it has not acted on it yet).

 

OR!! They don't feel there is anything TO act on.

 

Then do you care to explain why the FTC expressly indicated that the pieces (it refers to them as "fantasy coins") should be marked as copies? Did you not see the FTC rules comment analysis in the other thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
630 posts
I don't know what you want us to discuss on this thread except the fact that the law is apparently toothless.

 

It is only toothless if the Federal Trade Commission refuses to enforce it. As written, and as clarified by the Code of Federal Regulations, I think the statute is clear. It also has multiple enforcement mechanisms. Unfortunately, the FTC doesn't appear to be doing a very good job (i.e. it apparently knows about certain pieces that violate the HPA, yet it has not acted on it yet).

 

OR!! They don't feel there is anything TO act on.

 

Then do you care to explain why the FTC expressly indicated that the pieces (it refers to them as "fantasy coins") should be marked as copies? Did you not see the FTC rules comment analysis in the other thread?

 

The FTC's conclusion addresses falsely-fabricated "fantasy coins" as in GBI, but doesn't really address genuine coins altered to have fantasy dates.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
630 posts

I think it would be useful to examine these five scenarios and think about the HPA ramifications for each one. Assume that none of these five have "COPY" marked on them, and all are marketed with full disclosure.

 

1) A genuine original coin has one date digit carved to make it look like a fantasy date. No other changes to the rest of the original coin are made.

 

2) A genuine coin is tooled and/or engraved over the whole surface to strengthen missing details and/or to impart a different surface finish to the metal. The apparent date and mint mark is not changed.

 

3) A genuine coin is tooled and/or engraved over the whole surface to strengthen missing details and/or to impart a different surface finish to the metal. As part of this process, the apparent date is changed to a fantasy date.

 

4) A genuine coin is over-struck with dies to strengthen missing details and/or to impart a different surface finish to the metal. The apparent design type, date, and mint mark is not changed.

 

5) A genuine coin is over-struck with dies to impart a fantasy date. The apparent design type is not changed.

 

 

Which of these five, if any, violate the HPA and why ?

 

If #2 is allowed, then why would #4 be any different, considering that the final result is no different ?

 

And if #4 is ok, then #5 should be LESS of a problem than #4 because the fantasy date helps indicate that something has been done to the coin.

 

 

Edited by dcarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
The FTC's conclusion addresses falsely-fabricated "fantasy coins" as in GBI, but doesn't really address genuine coins altered to have fantasy dates.

 

:o:facepalm:

 

Additionally, it is not necessary to modify the Rules to address specific collectible items, such as "fantasy coins," as some commenters suggested.... Notably, the Commission has already addressed whether coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a "COPY" because they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item. See id. at 223 ("[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged 'copy' are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a 'reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an 'original numismatic item' and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word 'Copy'.")...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,043 posts
The FTC's conclusion addresses falsely-fabricated "fantasy coins" as in GBI, but doesn't really address genuine coins altered to have fantasy dates.

 

:o:facepalm:

 

Additionally, it is not necessary to modify the Rules to address specific collectible items, such as "fantasy coins," as some commenters suggested.... Notably, the Commission has already addressed whether coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a "COPY" because they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item. See id. at 223 ("[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged 'copy' are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a 'reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an 'original numismatic item' and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word 'Copy'.")...

 

 

I look forward to Mr. Carr's rebuttal of that which sounds quite clear and on point to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,875 posts
The FTC's conclusion addresses falsely-fabricated "fantasy coins" as in GBI, but doesn't really address genuine coins altered to have fantasy dates.

 

:o:facepalm:

 

Additionally, it is not necessary to modify the Rules to address specific collectible items, such as "fantasy coins," as some commenters suggested.... Notably, the Commission has already addressed whether coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a "COPY" because they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item. See id. at 223 ("[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged 'copy' are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a 'reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an 'original numismatic item' and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word 'Copy'.")...

 

 

I look forward to Mr. Carr's rebuttal of that which sounds quite clear and on point to me.

 

I'm wondering what is meant by the term "Minor variations."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
630 posts
The FTC's conclusion addresses falsely-fabricated "fantasy coins" as in GBI, but doesn't really address genuine coins altered to have fantasy dates.

 

:o:facepalm:

 

Additionally, it is not necessary to modify the Rules to address specific collectible items, such as "fantasy coins," as some commenters suggested.... Notably, the Commission has already addressed whether coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a "COPY" because they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item. See id. at 223 ("[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged 'copy' are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a 'reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an 'original numismatic item' and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word 'Copy'.")...

 

 

I look forward to Mr. Carr's rebuttal of that which sounds quite clear and on point to me.

 

From the other thread:

 

>>>

"Fantasy" pieces like that of Gold Bullion International (GBI) are covered. Those falsely-fabricated pieces were deceptively promoted; they were not over-strikes on genuine coins; and they were privately minted on anonymous blanks in a way to lead people to believe that they were genuine German mint coins.

 

A fantasy-date over-strike does not create a new coin of that design type - it modifies an existing one into a form that did not exist at the time. This is a much different situation than the above, especially considering that no deceptive portrayal or marketing is involved.

<<<

 

But see my post #9559158 in this thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,043 posts
The FTC's conclusion addresses falsely-fabricated "fantasy coins" as in GBI, but doesn't really address genuine coins altered to have fantasy dates.

 

:o:facepalm:

 

Additionally, it is not necessary to modify the Rules to address specific collectible items, such as "fantasy coins," as some commenters suggested.... Notably, the Commission has already addressed whether coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a "COPY" because they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item. See id. at 223 ("[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged 'copy' are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a 'reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an 'original numismatic item' and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word 'Copy'.")...

 

 

I look forward to Mr. Carr's rebuttal of that which sounds quite clear and on point to me.

 

From the other thread:

 

>>>

"Fantasy" pieces like that of Gold Bullion International (GBI) are covered. Those falsely-fabricated pieces were deceptively promoted; they were not over-strikes on genuine coins; and they were privately minted on anonymous blanks in a way to lead people to believe that they were genuine German mint coins.

 

A fantasy-date over-strike does not create a new coin of that design type - it modifies an existing one into a form that did not exist at the time. This is a much different situation than the above, especially considering that no deceptive portrayal or marketing is involved.

<<<

 

But see my post #9559158 in this thread.

 

I will go with the quoted language over your personal assessment. I'm not picking on you - I'd do the same with respect to other assessments vs. the quoted language, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,689 posts

A little Dann Carr trivia

 

What forum member made this statement?

 

"I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

A) Mark Feld

B) RWB

C) Mr Knowitall

D) Coinman_23885

 

mark

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,043 posts
A little Dann Carr trivia

 

What forum member made this statement?

 

"I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

A) Mark Feld

B) RWB

C) Mr Knowitall

D) Coinman_23885

 

mark

 

Not A.

 

And the first two sentences aren't mutually exclusive. "Not making any claim that could be false or misleading" doesn't necessarily lead to the result that there's not "any problem" with the coins. ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,297 posts
A little Dann Carr trivia

 

What forum member made this statement?

 

"I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

A) Mark Feld

B) RWB

C) Mr Knowitall

D) Coinman_23885

 

mark

 

I know. Context....always helpful ;)

 

Why limit the choices of who quoted to only 4 members you have in your mind identified as the antagonists? An Us against Them game that you feel has to be won? It isn't, even if you choose to interpret it as such. Confusion rate has just hit the 97% level. You are definitely failing. :cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,689 posts
A little Dann Carr trivia

 

What forum member made this statement?

 

"I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

A) Mark Feld

B) RWB

C) Mr Knowitall

D) Coinman_23885

 

mark

 

I know. Context....always helpful ;)

 

Why limit the choices of who quoted to only 4 members you have in your mind identified as the antagonists? An Us against Them game that you feel has to be won? It isn't, even if you choose to interpret it as such. Confusion rate has just hit the 97% level. You are definitely failing. :cry:

 

You are the one jumping to conclusions. I just picked four esteemed board members with one of them as the author . If I wanted an antagonist I would have included Physics314.

 

As for context he thread title was “1964-D Peace Dollar Paradox ??”

 

mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,297 posts
A little Dann Carr trivia

 

What forum member made this statement?

 

"I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

A) Mark Feld

B) RWB

C) Mr Knowitall

D) Coinman_23885

 

mark

 

I know. Context....always helpful ;)

 

Why limit the choices of who quoted to only 4 members you have in your mind identified as the antagonists? An Us against Them game that you feel has to be won? It isn't, even if you choose to interpret it as such. Confusion rate has just hit the 97% level. You are definitely failing. :cry:

 

You are the one jumping to conclusions. I just picked four esteemed board members with one of them as the author . If I wanted an antagonist I would have included Physics314.

 

As for context he thread title was “1964-D Peace Dollar Paradox ??”

 

mark

 

Conclusion supported by the fact that you called out individuals at all. You were simply being snarky and trying to make a silly point that one of the individuals that you consider antagonists, which is clear by your various replies at various times on the subject under discussion, has been clear in their choice of words and you are attempting to show the person is reversing their position, yet you quoted completely out of context and deliberately so. You think you are being cute, but you are just flaming. Why bring up the subject with names?

 

Why is Mr. Physics an antagonist? He at least is honest and forthright in his opinions, and has the same privilege you do. He could just as easily label you an antagonist, for the simple reason that he has a disclaimer on his sig, and you don't. Again, why is it necessary? Is it so hard for you to accept that there are valid differences of opinion, and in the opinion of other members, it is quite different from yours, yet they don't attempt to belittle other members with snarky silliness.

 

Yes, I am responding to you with less than absolute courtesy, because of your previous childish commentary and attempts to belittle and discourtesy. I am all for friendly banter, ill timed or not. Your comments are not in that vein. It is a chat board. Relax. It is not an elementary school yard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,043 posts

I find it interesting that in the thread MJ referenced, the following quotes appeared from Mr. Carr:

 

Mr. Carr:

 

"The real paradox (irony, actually) is this:

 

If you had one that was made by the US Mint, it would be illegal to own (and subject to immediate confiscation).

 

But these that I made by using my Denver Mint coin press to over-strike genuine 1922-1926 Peace dollars, are (potentially) legal to own:"

 

Reply to Mr. Carr:

 

 

"Potentially?

 

Since the coin was never released and therefore does not exist, is it still legal to produce these without the word "COPY" Daniel?"

 

 

Reply by Mr. Carr::

 

"That is the question that nobody can (or wants) to answer !"

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,043 posts
I find it interesting that in the thread MJ referenced, the following quotes appeared from Mr. Carr:

 

Mr. Carr:

 

"The real paradox (irony, actually) is this:

 

If you had one that was made by the US Mint, it would be illegal to own (and subject to immediate confiscation).

 

But these that I made by using my Denver Mint coin press to over-strike genuine 1922-1926 Peace dollars, are (potentially) legal to own:"

 

Reply to Mr. Carr:

 

 

"Potentially?

 

Since the coin was never released and therefore does not exist, is it still legal to produce these without the word "COPY" Daniel?"

 

 

Reply by Mr. Carr::

 

"That is the question that nobody can (or wants) to answer !"

 

 

Mr. Carr, based on your above quotes, what has caused you to change your previous stance regarding 1) whether the coins are legal to own and 2) whether they can be produced legally, without the word "COPY"?

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,689 posts
A little Dann Carr trivia

 

What forum member made this statement?

 

"I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

A) Mark Feld

B) RWB

C) Mr Knowitall

D) Coinman_23885

 

mark

 

I know. Context....always helpful ;)

 

Why limit the choices of who quoted to only 4 members you have in your mind identified as the antagonists? An Us against Them game that you feel has to be won? It isn't, even if you choose to interpret it as such. Confusion rate has just hit the 97% level. You are definitely failing. :cry:

 

You are the one jumping to conclusions. I just picked four esteemed board members with one of them as the author . If I wanted an antagonist I would have included Physics314.

 

As for context he thread title was “1964-D Peace Dollar Paradox ??”

 

mark

 

Conclusion supported by the fact that you called out individuals at all. You were simply being snarky and trying to make a silly point that one of the individuals that you consider antagonists, which is clear by your various replies at various times on the subject under discussion, has been clear in their choice of words and you are attempting to show the person is reversing their position, yet you quoted completely out of context and deliberately so. You think you are being cute, but you are just flaming. Why bring up the subject with names?

 

Why is Mr. Physics an antagonist? He at least is honest and forthright in his opinions, and has the same privilege you do. He could just as easily label you an antagonist, for the simple reason that he has a disclaimer on his sig, and you don't. Again, why is it necessary? Is it so hard for you to accept that there are valid differences of opinion, and in the opinion of other members, it is quite different from yours, yet they don't attempt to belittle other members with snarky silliness.

 

Yes, I am responding to you with less than absolute courtesy, because of your previous childish commentary and attempts to belittle and discourtesy. I am all for friendly banter, ill timed or not. Your comments are not in that vein. It is a chat board. Relax. It is not an elementary school yard.

 

Edited in its entirety. I'm taking a different road on this. Those who read it please disregard as instructed by a judge on Law and Order. I reserve the right to change my mind and repost.

 

mark

 

 

Edited by MJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,764 posts
A little Dann Carr trivia

 

What forum member made this statement?

 

"I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

A) Mark Feld

B) RWB

C) Mr Knowitall

D) Coinman_23885

 

mark

 

Okay it was not A), so which of the other 3 was it?

 

Best, HT

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,689 posts
A little Dann Carr trivia

 

What forum member made this statement?

 

"I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

A) Mark Feld

B) RWB

C) Mr Knowitall

D) Coinman_23885

 

mark

 

Okay it was not A), so which of the other 3 was it?

 

Best, HT

 

Hi HT

 

I was hoping the author would chime in after awhile with comment just like Mark Feld wants Dan Carr to do. We certainly weren't getting anywhere rehashing case law and interpretations of the HPA. Bored to tears

 

mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,043 posts
A little Dann Carr trivia

 

What forum member made this statement?

 

"I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

A) Mark Feld

B) RWB

C) Mr Knowitall

D) Coinman_23885

 

mark

 

Okay it was not A), so which of the other 3 was it?

 

Best, HT

 

Hi HT

 

I was hoping the author would chime in after awhile with comment just like Mayrk Feld wants Dan Carr to do. We certainly weren't getting anywhere rehashing case law and interpretations of the HPA. Bored to tears

 

mark

 

Come on, Mark! You really don't think we've made considerable progress on this topic, with all of our new and fresh points of view and comments? Next, you'll claim that a dead horse has been beaten, repeatedly. :D

 

PS - please note that I include myself as a guilty participant in the above activities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,764 posts
A little Dann Carr trivia

 

What forum member made this statement?

 

"I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

A) Mark Feld

B) RWB

C) Mr Knowitall

D) Coinman_23885

 

mark

 

Okay it was not A), so which of the other 3 was it?

 

Best, HT

 

Hi HT

 

I was hoping the author would chime in after awhile with comment just like Mayrk Feld wants Dan Carr to do. We certainly weren't getting anywhere rehashing case law and interpretations of the HPA. Bored to tears

 

mark

 

Come on, Mark! You really don't think we've made considerable progress on this topic, with all of our new and fresh points of view and comments? Next, you'll claim that a dead horse has been beaten, repeatedly. :D

 

PS - please note that I include myself as a guilty participant in the above activities.

 

HST, it never hurts to have this discussion from time to time, there are always fresh faces coming in, so it might be flogging the dead horse to the vets, but not to all.... I may be able to claim vet category for me, and I confess to learning alot in this rehash through the several threads and moved from the fence into one of the paddocks that the fence dissects, at least for now.......

 

Best, HT

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
1 1