Back to the Hobby Protection Act – Please.

[Hard Times]

I see you have acquired some bad habits from Mr.Mcknowitall.

 

In my opinion the creation of the HPA was little more than an act of appeasement without real substance, and does next to nothing to reduce fraud in the numismatic community. It does, however, burden numismatic oriented businesses, both large and small, with unnecessary requirements and expense as a consequence of said appeasement.

 

Even if Carr receives notice of pending action from the HPA today, the act would achieve nothing toward the end of protecting numismatists from fraud and would likely end his business.

 

It is not a law worthy of my support.

 

I will leave you with that said.

 

 

Whether a law is worthy of your support is not an issue, if a law is a law, it is the law, if you don't support it, well it is still the law. Whether it is effective or not, it is still the law and the feds have the option to act accordingly when violations of the law occur. That is like saying you don't like the speed limits on the highways because they are not effective in slowing drivers down, so it is not worthy of your support so you will speed as well. Yikes.

 

Not sure how a pending action from the FTC would end Mr. Carr's buisness. I am pretty sure he would have some type of opportunity to settle (if he gets a good lawyer), pay a fine and to agree to change his ways to be consistent with the law if the feds believe he is breaking it. On the other side of the coin, if indeed it is deemed that his fantasy pieces are in violation, and I am not saying that they are, and if considered egregious in violation, when in retrospect he had ample opportunity to hire a lawyer to get a ruling by the feds in some manner as to whether these are not in violation and apparently has not, then perhaps his buisness should end?

 

Best, HT

[Afterword]

"The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the organization charged with enforcing the HPA; thus, it would be the FTC contacting Carr. "

 

 

 

I stand corrected on this point.

 

 

[dcarr]

Sounds to me like any Peace dollar would have fooled someone like this, or any coin type - even one of Carr's fantasy pieces marked COPY. All a less than honest seller would have to say is the COPY mark is what makes it so rare.

 

Even if the buyer would have been fooled by a HPA compliant piece, Congress chose to draw the line at marking "COPY" on the pieces as a baseline for all imitation numismatic items and similar novelty pieces. I do not understand where people get the notion that the laws are discretionary and that people are free to ignore the law when an individual disagrees with policy decisions. If the maker does not like the law, then perhaps he or she should lobby for a change in law rather than ignoring it.

 

Do you think the Smithsonian and NGC lobbied Congress and/or ignored the law regarding these ? They were seemingly not concerned that somebody could scam another person with one:

 

PS:

Friendly reminder, in cases where fraud has occurred, blame the person committing the fraud.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

All this is wonderful, but....if there are so many shades of grey in the existing laws, and your position is that the shades are all clearly in your favor, yet no ajudication ha occurred, the laws as written apply. So, why not proceed to adjudication?

 

More to the point, why would you declare on your website in caps that your creations are LEGAL? Is this not misleading to the public? Why feel the need to state this at all as if you are giving some grandfatherly assurance to the wide eyed children at your knee? Why the emphasis, if you did not have any doubts? You never seem to get to an answer about this, although it has been asked over and over. How can you declare with absolute certainty LEGALITY? Because you say so?

 

I'm certainly not going to put "ILLEGAL" in the description because, if I thought that, I wouldn't make them in the first place.

 

As usual, avoidance avoidance avoidance avoidance and avoidance.

 

So, why mislead the general public informed and uninformed, by posting on your website this word:

 

LEGAL

 

and to make the question without any shade interpretation very clear:

 

SO, WHY MISLEAD THE GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMED AND UNINFORMED, BY POSTING ON YOUR WEBSITE THIS WORD:

 

LEGAL.

 

I appreciate that you had the passing thought that your answer was clever. It may have been and it may have been a little humorous, but in reality, it would be more honorable to post both words on your website thus:

 

THESE CREATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN DETERMINED VIA ADJUDICATION TO BE LEGAL OR ILLEGAL. PURCHASE THE CREATIONS WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE, AND AT YOUR OWN RISK.

 

I would think you would do this for the very simple reason you stated above: you don't want to harm the hobby. What better way to emphasize your commitment to the integrity and honor of the hobby, than eliminating the shady conundrum by not using the word LEGAL in caps on your website?

 

You have the answer that you are going to get.

 

Sore spot I guess. No wiggle room in answering my question. Logic is a wonderful thing.

 

You choose to mislead the persons viewing your website.

 

I choose from time to time to re-post this post, to remind others of your position. I think shady conundrums should be discussed in the hobby. It is Honorable to do so, and it preserves integrity of the hobby. I will probably continue to re-post until such time your position is adjudicated, or in the alternative, any suggestions on your website that your creations are legal, without any caveat that explains it is your opinion only, are removed.

 

I am sorry I hit a nerve. But, it is easy to fix. It is in your hands. You will choose your path and the choice will speak for itself.

 

Good Morning Mr. Carr.

[Hard Times]

Sounds to me like any Peace dollar would have fooled someone like this, or any coin type - even one of Carr's fantasy pieces marked COPY. All a less than honest seller would have to say is the COPY mark is what makes it so rare.

 

Even if the buyer would have been fooled by a HPA compliant piece, Congress chose to draw the line at marking "COPY" on the pieces as a baseline for all imitation numismatic items and similar novelty pieces. I do not understand where people get the notion that the laws are discretionary and that people are free to ignore the law when an individual disagrees with policy decisions. If the maker does not like the law, then perhaps he or she should lobby for a change in law rather than ignoring it.

 

Do you think the Smithsonian and NGC lobbied Congress and/or ignored the law regarding these ? They were seemingly not concerned that somebody could scam another person with one:

 

PS:

Friendly reminder, in cases where fraud has occurred, blame the person committing the fraud.

 

Friendly reminder, in cases where fraud is facilitated by a product that could be considered fraudulent by a particular law, pass the buck, blame the secondary market.

 

I am not sure what the above Morgan 100 has to do with this discussion, it looks nothing like any legal tender coin that has ever been issued by the US Mint.

 

Best, HT

[MarkFeld]

Sounds to me like any Peace dollar would have fooled someone like this, or any coin type - even one of Carr's fantasy pieces marked COPY. All a less than honest seller would have to say is the COPY mark is what makes it so rare.

 

Even if the buyer would have been fooled by a HPA compliant piece, Congress chose to draw the line at marking "COPY" on the pieces as a baseline for all imitation numismatic items and similar novelty pieces. I do not understand where people get the notion that the laws are discretionary and that people are free to ignore the law when an individual disagrees with policy decisions. If the maker does not like the law, then perhaps he or she should lobby for a change in law rather than ignoring it.

 

Do you think the Smithsonian and NGC lobbied Congress and/or ignored the law regarding these ? They were seemingly not concerned that somebody could scam another person with one:

 

PS:

Friendly reminder, in cases where fraud has occurred, blame the person committing the fraud.

 

I don't currently have a picture of one of your Peace Dollars to compare. Do they also note the year they were "created" and bear the words Private issue"?

 

Regardless, even if there were no distinction, as they say "Two wrongs don't make a right".

[comicdonna]

I was always taught that ignorance is no excuse. In other words, if you aren't aware of a certain law, or unsure if it applies, you are not exempt from penalty, if it's determined you have broke the law. I would find out and be sure one way or another soon. It's just a matter time before someone looks into this. Right now, you have to option to find out voluntarily.

[physics-fan3.14]

 

Do you think the Smithsonian and NGC lobbied Congress and/or ignored the law regarding these ? They were seemingly not concerned that somebody could scam another person with one:

 

PS:

Friendly reminder, in cases where fraud has occurred, blame the person committing the fraud.

 

Friendly reminder, in cases where fraud is facilitated by a product that could be considered fraudulent by a particular law, pass the buck, blame the secondary market.

 

I am not sure what the above Morgan 100 has to do with this discussion, it looks nothing like any legal tender coin that has ever been issued by the US Mint.

 

Best, HT

 

For good measure (in addition to Mr. Delorey's linked FTC rules revision comment), a federal appeals court has also indicated that the coins need not be exact copies or replicas to violate the HPA and such items must be marked. See DeMarco v. Nat'l Collector's Mint, Inc., 229 F.R.D. 73 (2d Cir. 2005) (under the HPA "imitation numismatic items" need not be exact reproductions of existing coins). The Demarco court found that a commemorative Freedom Tower Silver Dollar coin depicting the September 11th attacks was an "imitation numismatic item" even though the coin did not resemble any previously minted or presently circulating U.S. coinage. Id. at 78. The coin was inscribed with the phrases "IN GOD WE TRUST" and "One Dollar." The court concluded that although the "characteristics [of the coin] might not fool a sophisticated coin collector... they could lead an unsophisticated purchaser to believe that the [commemorative] was indeed legal tender issued by the Government." Id. The court found that that the commemorative purported to be "coinage used in exchange" and was subject to the regulations of the HPA.

 

And finally regarding intent that the DCarr is so fond of, "[n]either knowledge nor intent to deceive need be shown on the part of the business to prove that the HPA has been violated." See Styczinski v. Westminster Mint, Inc., No. 14-cv-00619 (D. Minn. Nov. 14, 2014) (quoting In re Gold Bullion Int'l Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1977)).

 

 

HT, the "$100 Union" that Dcarr posted actually has a lot to do with the discussion.

 

There is no significant difference between the gold piece (which has not yet been adjudicated) and the other piece that coinman was discussing (which has been adjudicated and found to be illegal). I would say that the gold piece is actually even more in violation - it has many of the trappings of an actual coin. If the WTC commemorative was in violation, I can't see how the gold piece wouldn't be!

 

So yes, I think whoever was involved in the production of those gold pieces was ignoring the law. For the record, I have said since the very first time I saw one that NGC should not have been involved with those.

 

[Hard Times]

Ah I see, thanks Physics for clearing that up.

 

Best, HT

[coinman_23885]

HT, the "$100 Union" that Dcarr posted actually has a lot to do with the discussion.

 

There is no significant difference between the gold piece (which has not yet been adjudicated) and the other piece that coinman was discussing (which has been adjudicated and found to be illegal). I would say that the gold piece is actually even more in violation - it has many of the trappings of an actual coin. If the WTC commemorative was in violation, I can't see how the gold piece wouldn't be!

 

So yes, I think whoever was involved in the production of those gold pieces was ignoring the law. For the record, I have said since the very first time I saw one that NGC should not have been involved with those.

 

I agree with you with a potential caveat that the Smithsonian is a government instrumentality, and I would need to learn more about the striking and authorization of this piece. On another note, I also find it amusing that Mr. Carr actually designed the WTC commemorative. Go figure!

 

Edited: In reading Carr's website, in fairness, he claims some design modifications. Did your original design include the inscriptions "IN GOD WE TRUST" and "ONE DOLLAR"?

[coinman_23885]

Sounds to me like any Peace dollar would have fooled someone like this, or any coin type - even one of Carr's fantasy pieces marked COPY. All a less than honest seller would have to say is the COPY mark is what makes it so rare.

 

Even if the buyer would have been fooled by a HPA compliant piece, Congress chose to draw the line at marking "COPY" on the pieces as a baseline for all imitation numismatic items and similar novelty pieces. I do not understand where people get the notion that the laws are discretionary and that people are free to ignore the law when an individual disagrees with policy decisions. If the maker does not like the law, then perhaps he or she should lobby for a change in law rather than ignoring it.

 

Do you think the Smithsonian and NGC lobbied Congress and/or ignored the law regarding these ? They were seemingly not concerned that somebody could scam another person with one:

 

PS:

Friendly reminder, in cases where fraud has occurred, blame the person committing the fraud.

 

I don't currently have a picture of one of your Peace Dollars to compare. Do they also note the year they were "created" and bear the words Private issue"?

 

Regardless, even if there were no distinction, as they say "Two wrongs don't make a right".

 

I have always been critical of the Morgan $100 too, but I also see a potential distinction insofar as the Smithsonian is an instrumentality of the federal government. The governing body consists of the Chief Justice of the United States, the Vice President, and members of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

[Afterword]

"That is like saying you don't like the speed limits on the highways because they are not effective in slowing drivers down, so it is not worthy of your support so you will speed as well."

 

 

Speed limits are effective at slowing drivers down. Imagine what it would be like without them. And I never said I was going to start a business like Carr's.

 

However, stamping COPY on a coin is not an effective way of reducing numismatic fraud. It is like attempting to stop a flood with a pebble. The water will simply rush around it.

 

Or more accurately, like attempting to stop a flood by wishing it to be so.

 

Dishonest people do not need fantasy pieces to accomplish numismatic fraud. All they need is someone with a lack of knowledge.

 

 

 

[coinman_23885]

However, stamping COPY on a coin is not an effective way of reducing numismatic fraud. It is like attempting to stop a flood with a pebble. The water will simply rush around it.

 

It is your opinion that using the word "COPY" is not an effective way of reducing numismatic fraud, and your opinion may even be a wise one. Perhaps the HPA should go even further and bar novelty and imitation numismatic items in their entirety regardless of markings to avoid having to deal with individuals that try to "lawyer" their way around the rules (which is my personal opinion). Congress's opinion is that the marking requirement is effective, and it is Congress's opinion that matters on this one - not mine or yours. The law is the law.

 

P.S. I do hope you chime in when the FTC asks for public comments on the HPA administrative regulations next time, and you could make suggestions that could actually help the committee stamp out fraud.

[CaptHenway]

Sounds to me like any Peace dollar would have fooled someone like this, or any coin type - even one of Carr's fantasy pieces marked COPY. All a less than honest seller would have to say is the COPY mark is what makes it so rare.

 

Even if the buyer would have been fooled by a HPA compliant piece, Congress chose to draw the line at marking "COPY" on the pieces as a baseline for all imitation numismatic items and similar novelty pieces. I do not understand where people get the notion that the laws are discretionary and that people are free to ignore the law when an individual disagrees with policy decisions. If the maker does not like the law, then perhaps he or she should lobby for a change in law rather than ignoring it.

 

Do you think the Smithsonian and NGC lobbied Congress and/or ignored the law regarding these ? They were seemingly not concerned that somebody could scam another person with one:

 

PS:

Friendly reminder, in cases where fraud has occurred, blame the person committing the fraud.

 

An interesting legal question, namely does this constitute an "imitation numismatic item."

 

If it does, then making a metallic representation of a drawing in James B. Longacre's sketchbook, or any other engraver's drawings, could be illegal. I doubt if that was the intent of the Hobby Protection Act.

 

However, Peace dollars do exist, by the millions. Making a metallic representation of one of them, in a date that was actually struck, is completely different than making a design that never existed in metal.

[Hard Times]

"That is like saying you don't like the speed limits on the highways because they are not effective in slowing drivers down, so it is not worthy of your support so you will speed as well."

 

 

Speed limits are effective at slowing drivers down. Imagine what it would be like without them. And I never said I was going to start a business like Carr's.

 

However, stamping COPY on a coin is not an effective way of reducing numismatic fraud. It is like attempting to stop a flood with a pebble. The water will simply rush around it.

 

Or more accurately, like attempting to stop a flood by wishing it to be so.

 

Dishonest people do not need fantasy pieces to accomplish numismatic fraud. All they need is someone with a lack of knowledge.

 

 

 

You must live somewhere else than I do then, the majority here drive over the speed limit on the highways and many are 20-25 miles over, hence I conclude that the law is ineffective. A perfect analogy to your arguments of ineffectiveness for the HPA, but both laws are in place and cannot be ignored just because one disagrees with it or considers it ineffective.

 

I won't even try to discuss your water/flood analogy but only to say: Really, water, floods, HPA?

 

Dishonest people don't put the word COPY on an item covered by the HPA when required to do so to accomplish numismatic fraud. All they need is someone with a lack of knowledge.

 

Best, HT

[coinman_23885]

An interesting legal question, namely does this constitute an "imitation numismatic item."

 

If it does, then making a metallic representation of a drawing in James B. Longacre's sketchbook, or any other engraver's drawings, could be illegal. I doubt if that was the intent of the Hobby Protection Act.

 

However, Peace dollars do exist, by the millions. Making a metallic representation of one of them, in a date that was actually struck, is completely different than making a design that never existed in metal.

 

I agree with you completely. While I agree with the Demarco court's conclusion that the imitation need not be exact, I disagree with the application as to the WTC coins. There are clear cut areas where a piece violates both the letter and spirit of the HPA, and I believe that Carr's fantasy pieces fall in this category.

[Afterword]

"You must live somewhere else than I do then, the majority here drive over the speed limit on the highways and many are 20-25 miles over, hence I conclude that the law is ineffective."

 

 

Your original post states "effective in slowing drivers down" not effective in preventing them from speeding. Speed limits are effective at slowing drivers down. Do you doubt many would drive even faster without them?

 

 

"A perfect analogy to your arguments of ineffectiveness for the HPA, but both laws are in place and cannot be ignored just because one disagrees with it or considers it ineffective."

 

 

So you never speed?

 

Who is ignoring the law? I do not support the requirement to stamp coins with COPY, but I certainly am not ignoring it. In fact, I am giving it a lot of attention.

 

And my flood analogy is much more to the point.

 

 

 

 

[Afterword]

By the way, HT, misrepresenting what you said in an earlier post is not especially truthful or honest.

[Afterword]

"It is your opinion that using the word "COPY" is not an effective way of reducing numismatic fraud, and your opinion may even be a wise one. Perhaps the HPA should go even further and bar novelty and imitation numismatic items in their entirety regardless of markings to avoid having to deal with individuals that try to "lawyer" their way around the rules (which is my personal opinion)."

 

 

 

You are missing the point entirely.

 

What you propose in the second sentence of the above quote would only serve to make the mistake even more egregious. Novelty and imitation numismatic items, if vanquished, would have no affect on numismatic fraud. It would still go on as usual and at the same rate. It would, however, have a devastating effect on those who produce, sell and collect them.

 

This makes no sense to me at all.

 

I know, you feel differently about it. You believe that those who commit numismatic fraud depend on novelty and imitation numismatic items to make a living, because too few alterative options exist to sustain their livelihood, and the producers, sellers and collectors of such items are acceptable collateral damage.

 

"...stamp out fraud."

 

Not possible.

 

 

[dcarr]

So let's consider an example - 85 year old widowed grandma - is offered one of your fantasy pieces for $2K from a less than honest seller who states this peace dollar of yours is a rare us mint product. Grandma never got into the computer age and does not have a computer to go to your website. The seller is very convincing says he has to sacrifice it because he has a debt to pay due that afternoon so it is now or never, and he is sure grandma can take it to the local B and M (which is closed on Mondays, this day) and turn a large profit. ...

 

I am not sure what the above Morgan [$]100 has to do with this discussion, it looks nothing like any legal tender coin that has ever been issued by the US Mint.

 

How would your "85 year old widowed grandma" know that the $100 Morgan is not like any issued legal-tender coin ? How would she know if it was worth $100,000 or $100 or $1 ? She might remember from her youth that Peace Dollars were worth a dollar or two, but rare gold coins were worth a LOT.

 

Seems like a double standard here. The Smithsonian Morgan $100 is not suitable for fraudulent use but an over-struck Peace Dollar is ?

At least the over-struck Peace Dollar started out as a genuine legal tender Peace Silver Dollar.

 

If someone is intent on attempting a fraud, they can easily find some coin (even a complaint one) to perpetrate with.

 

 

[Hard Times]

So let's consider an example - 85 year old widowed grandma - is offered one of your fantasy pieces for $2K from a less than honest seller who states this peace dollar of yours is a rare us mint product. Grandma never got into the computer age and does not have a computer to go to your website. The seller is very convincing says he has to sacrifice it because he has a debt to pay due that afternoon so it is now or never, and he is sure grandma can take it to the local B and M (which is closed on Mondays, this day) and turn a large profit. ...

 

I am not sure what the above Morgan [$]100 has to do with this discussion, it looks nothing like any legal tender coin that has ever been issued by the US Mint.

 

How would your "85 year old widowed grandma" know that the $100 Morgan is not like any issued legal-tender coin ? How would she know if it was worth $100,000 or $100 or $1 ? She might remember from her youth that Peace Dollars were worth a dollar or two, but rare gold coins were worth a LOT.

 

Seems like a double standard here. The Smithsonian Morgan $100 is not suitable for fraudulent use but an over-struck Peace Dollar is ?

At least the over-struck Peace Dollar started out as a genuine legal tender Peace Silver Dollar.

 

If someone is intent on attempting a fraud, they can easily find some coin (even a complaint one) to perpetrate with.

 

 

Yikes. You miss the point every time sir.

 

Best, HT

[coinman_23885]

So let's consider an example - 85 year old widowed grandma - is offered one of your fantasy pieces for $2K from a less than honest seller who states this peace dollar of yours is a rare us mint product. Grandma never got into the computer age and does not have a computer to go to your website. The seller is very convincing says he has to sacrifice it because he has a debt to pay due that afternoon so it is now or never, and he is sure grandma can take it to the local B and M (which is closed on Mondays, this day) and turn a large profit. ...

 

I am not sure what the above Morgan [$]100 has to do with this discussion, it looks nothing like any legal tender coin that has ever been issued by the US Mint.

 

How would your "85 year old widowed grandma" know that the $100 Morgan is not like any issued legal-tender coin ? How would she know if it was worth $100,000 or $100 or $1 ? She might remember from her youth that Peace Dollars were worth a dollar or two, but rare gold coins were worth a LOT.

 

Seems like a double standard here. The Smithsonian Morgan $100 is not suitable for fraudulent use but an over-struck Peace Dollar is ?

At least the over-struck Peace Dollar started out as a genuine legal tender Peace Silver Dollar.

 

If someone is intent on attempting a fraud, they can easily find some coin (even a complaint one) to perpetrate with.

 

 

Yikes. You miss the point every time sir.

 

Best, HT

 

It is even worse than that HT. It is yet another straw man argument. I didn't see anyone taking up for the piece, did you? The double standard is yet another one of Dcarr's fantasies.

 

Even assuming there was something to his argument, "that everyone else is doing it too" is hardly a good reason or defense.

[Afterword]

Sad.

[dcarr]

So let's consider an example - 85 year old widowed grandma - is offered one of your fantasy pieces for $2K from a less than honest seller who states this peace dollar of yours is a rare us mint product. Grandma never got into the computer age and does not have a computer to go to your website. The seller is very convincing says he has to sacrifice it because he has a debt to pay due that afternoon so it is now or never, and he is sure grandma can take it to the local B and M (which is closed on Mondays, this day) and turn a large profit. ...

 

I am not sure what the above Morgan [$]100 has to do with this discussion, it looks nothing like any legal tender coin that has ever been issued by the US Mint.

 

How would your "85 year old widowed grandma" know that the $100 Morgan is not like any issued legal-tender coin ? How would she know if it was worth $100,000 or $100 or $1 ? She might remember from her youth that Peace Dollars were worth a dollar or two, but rare gold coins were worth a LOT.

 

Seems like a double standard here. The Smithsonian Morgan $100 is not suitable for fraudulent use but an over-struck Peace Dollar is ?

At least the over-struck Peace Dollar started out as a genuine legal tender Peace Silver Dollar.

 

If someone is intent on attempting a fraud, they can easily find some coin (even a complaint one) to perpetrate with.

 

 

Yikes. You miss the point every time sir.

 

Best, HT

 

It is even worse than that HT. It is yet another straw man argument. I didn't see anyone taking up for the piece, did you? The double standard is yet another one of Dcarr's fantasies.

 

Even assuming there was something to his argument, "that everyone else is doing it too" is hardly a good reason or defense.

 

I have always been critical of the Morgan $100 too, but I also see a potential distinction insofar as the Smithsonian is an instrumentality of the federal government.

 

The governing body consists of the Chief Justice of the United States, the Vice President, and members of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

 

The US Mint can not legally produce any legal-tender coins without the direction of Congress, and Congress did not authorize any such coin. So the Smithsonian $100 Morgan was not produced by the US Mint - it was produced at a private mint and is in no way legal tender.

 

And yet, apparently, the Smithsonian and/or their legal counsel came to a different conclusion regarding the laws than you have.

 

That the Smithsonian (an instrumentality of the Federal Government) endorsed these pieces without Congressional authorization sets a precedent that it is ok to engage in this sort of activity.

 

[physics-fan3.14]

The US Mint can not legally produce any legal-tender coins without the direction of Congress, and Congress did not authorize any such coin. So the Smithsonian $100 Morgan was not produced by the US Mint - it was produced at a private mint and is in no way legal tender.

 

And yet, apparently, the Smithsonian and/or their legal counsel came to a different conclusion regarding the laws than you have.

 

That the Smithsonian (an instrumentality of the Federal Government) endorsed these pieces without Congressional authorization sets a precedent that it is ok to engage in this sort of activity.

 

Even if I were to accept that argument in favor of the $100 piece (which I don't), your situation is still different. You have absolutely no connection to any government agency (that I am aware of), and you haven't even the slightest imprimatur.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

So let's consider an example - 85 year old widowed grandma - is offered one of your fantasy pieces for $2K from a less than honest seller who states this peace dollar of yours is a rare us mint product. Grandma never got into the computer age and does not have a computer to go to your website. The seller is very convincing says he has to sacrifice it because he has a debt to pay due that afternoon so it is now or never, and he is sure grandma can take it to the local B and M (which is closed on Mondays, this day) and turn a large profit. ...

 

I am not sure what the above Morgan [$]100 has to do with this discussion, it looks nothing like any legal tender coin that has ever been issued by the US Mint.

 

How would your "85 year old widowed grandma" know that the $100 Morgan is not like any issued legal-tender coin ? How would she know if it was worth $100,000 or $100 or $1 ? She might remember from her youth that Peace Dollars were worth a dollar or two, but rare gold coins were worth a LOT.

 

Seems like a double standard here. The Smithsonian Morgan $100 is not suitable for fraudulent use but an over-struck Peace Dollar is ?

At least the over-struck Peace Dollar started out as a genuine legal tender Peace Silver Dollar.

 

If someone is intent on attempting a fraud, they can easily find some coin (even a complaint one) to perpetrate with.

 

 

Yikes. You miss the point every time sir.

 

Best, HT

 

It is even worse than that HT. It is yet another straw man argument. I didn't see anyone taking up for the piece, did you? The double standard is yet another one of Dcarr's fantasies.

 

Even assuming there was something to his argument, "that everyone else is doing it too" is hardly a good reason or defense.

 

I have always been critical of the Morgan $100 too, but I also see a potential distinction insofar as the Smithsonian is an instrumentality of the federal government.

 

The governing body consists of the Chief Justice of the United States, the Vice President, and members of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

 

The US Mint can not legally produce any legal-tender coins without the direction of Congress, and Congress did not authorize any such coin. So the Smithsonian $100 Morgan was not produced by the US Mint - it was produced at a private mint and is in no way legal tender.

 

And yet, apparently, the Smithsonian and/or their legal counsel came to a different conclusion regarding the laws than you have.

 

That the Smithsonian (an instrumentality of the Federal Government) endorsed these pieces without Congressional authorization sets a precedent that it is ok to engage in this sort of activity.

 

Good morning Mr. Carr.

 

Have you had a chance to remove the word "LEGAL" from you websie yet, or at the minimum, substitute my suggestion of phrasing, using the words "LEGAL" and "ILLEGAL" in the same sentence?

 

If you don't recall my suggestion, I will post it again for you. Just let me know.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

The Clark Gruber &Co. Moonlight Mint home page has links. The link to items for sale has a listing of the pieces for sale. The bottom of the descriptions have the following words:

 

"This product is NOT endorsed or approved by the U.S. Mint, U.S. Treasury or U.S. Government".

 

The DC.Coin.Com website Home page has a a link to the on line store. The same wording appears when the different products are selected from the menu.

 

The word "NOT" is in caps in the statement at both locations.

 

Is this sufficient substitute wording to set aside any use of the word "LEGAL" as previously used?

 

Is it selective avoidance of phrasing, and is is sufficient to alternative wording stating clearly that the pieces have not been adjudicated to be LEGAL or ILLEGAL and a person should purchase at their own risk?

 

Is stating the pieces are not endorsed or approved the same as stating the pieces have not been determined by adjudication to be legal or illegal?

[MJ]

Take a pill.

 

mark

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

The Clark Gruber &Co. Moonlight Mint home page has links. The link to items for sale has a listing of the pieces for sale. The bottom of the descriptions have the following words:

 

"This product is NOT endorsed or approved by the U.S. Mint, U.S. Treasury or U.S. Government".

 

The DC.Coin.Com website Home page has a a link to the on line store. The same wording appears when the different products are selected from the menu.

 

The word "NOT" is in caps in the statement at both locations.

 

Is this sufficient substitute wording to set aside any use of the word "LEGAL" as previously used?

 

Is it selective avoidance of phrasing, and is is sufficient to alternative wording stating clearly that the pieces have not been adjudicated to be LEGAL or ILLEGAL and a person should purchase at their own risk?

 

Is stating the pieces are not endorsed or approved the same as stating the pieces have not been determined by adjudication to be legal or illegal?

[coinman_23885]

The Clark Gruber &Co. Moonlight Mint home page has links. The link to items for sale has a listing of the pieces for sale. The bottom of the descriptions have the following words:

 

"This product is NOT endorsed or approved by the U.S. Mint, U.S. Treasury or U.S. Government".

 

The DC.Coin.Com website Home page has a a link to the on line store. The same wording appears when the different products are selected from the menu.

 

The word "NOT" is in caps in the statement at both locations.

 

Is this sufficient substitute wording to set aside any use of the word "LEGAL" as previously used?

 

Is it selective avoidance of phrasing, and is is sufficient to alternative wording stating clearly that the pieces have not been adjudicated to be LEGAL or ILLEGAL and a person should purchase at their own risk?

 

Is stating the pieces are not endorsed or approved the same as stating the pieces have not been determined by adjudication to be legal or illegal?

 

Going back to the Federal Register, the FTC indicated that fantasy coins must be labeled in compliance with the HPA. It did not limit this finding to any specific manufacturer. As far as I am concerned, that puts the issue to bed at least with respect to the HPA. No amount of double talk and logical fallacies will change it (nor will proclamations that a law is not "worthy" of "support"). Calling them legal in light of the FTC analysis described before is misleading in my humble opinion, and I would argue also violates other regulations.