Back to the Hobby Protection Act – Please.
1 1

382 posts in this topic

1,689 posts
You're a piece of work and need help John. Air ball

City

 

 

Mark

 

Shucks. :blush: I do what I can. That is just the kind of guy I am.

 

 

Totally.

 

mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,689 posts
Well, I can't speak for the thought processes that Roger has (maybe he can explain himself, maybe we can get his wife to).... but, people are allowed to change their minds, aren't they? The thread y'all are arguing about was 6 years ago. I certainly know that I have evolved in my thinking, learned new facts, seen new evidence, and grown/changed as a person in the past 6 years.

 

Of course you can.

 

mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15,038 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.

 

 

Nobody wants take this on (see above) ?

 

This is a complicated set of scenarios with few easy answers - and any answer we provide will be contradicted by you and your supporters. There isn't much point. That is why nobody has taken it on.

 

Keep in mind that I am not a lawyer, and my opinions are just my opinions and not based in the law-speak that coinmain has been bringing:

 

To me, any time tooling, engraving, or surface modifications are used to change the appearance of a coin, the coin is damaged and deserves a details grade. Changing the date by tooling has been widely recognized as forgery - I don't see why it matters if the date was actually produced or not. Once you change the date/mintmark, or add/remove design details, it's a forgery. For example, 1916D Mercury Dimes with added mintmarks, or 1909S Lincolns with added VDB are recognized as forgeries, and nearly-valueless in the market. Some dates of Mercury Dimes that were never made by the US mint were produced by Russian counterfeiters, and these are widely recognized as counterfeits (they would be your so-called "fantasy dates.")

 

Many (especially) early US coins are known with "re-engraved" details, and these are considered damaged coins worth a fraction of the original value.

 

However, once you overstrike the coin with a new set of dies, you completely change the coin. You admit to sandblasting the original planchets to eliminate all (or, almost all) traces of the original coin. I don't see any real different between that and melting it down and re-forming a new planchet. That's what the US mint did with many foreign issues - you don't see them listed as "1794 dollar struck on silver from Spanish Dollar." No, it's listed as the new type.

 

Looking through numismatic history, there are many types which were overstruck on other types - the overstrike is invariably a new, different creation and the old creation is obliterated. It doesn't matter if you strike the same type, or a different type, or a different date - it's not the same coin. A quick search through Krause provides numerous examples - and they are always listed as the new type, not the original type. If the new type is not an official product (such as yours), I don't see how they could claim to be the original type.

 

The significant difference between you and the issues in Krause is that you are not an official mint: you are personally creating your own dies and striking them on your own authority. If you struck them with a produced date, everyone would agree it was criminal - why does changing a single digit (but making a coin that, for all intents and purposes, is *exactly* the same as an official release) make it OK?

 

It doesn't! It is deceptive, and hurts the hobby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts

OK Mr. Carr, I'll bite. Your hypotheticals are fair and deserve a response. I will admit that there are grey areas to the Hobby Protection Act, as noted below with my responses, and I would not be surprised to see further clarification and modifications through future case/decisional law. With that said, my responses are in red below.

 

Caveats are addressed at the very end.

 

 

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.

 

ANSWER: The HPA applies, and the piece should be marked.

 

The FTC administrative regulations found in 16 C.F.R. § 304.1 (d) which defines "imitation numismatic item" and 16 C.F.R. §304.1 (f) which defines "original numismatic item" are instructive. An imitation numismatic item includes "an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified." The Commission has already determined the resemblance/similitude need not be exact, and that date variations (which would include fantasy dates) require that the pieces be marked under the HPA because the pieces could be mistaken for an original numismatic item. See In re Gold Bullion Int'l Ltd, 92 F.T.C. 196, 223 (1978) ("[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged 'copy' are insufficient to deprive the latter of its statute 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.' "). Accordingly it is an imitation numismatic item and must be marked.

 

When interpreting federal administrative regulations, the agency is given deference unless the interpretation is in manifest contravention to statute, arbitrary, capricious, or unless Congress has clearly provided an intent otherwise. Chevron USA, Inc. v. National Resource Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The FTC can even fill in gaps in vague statutes and make policy determinations, which is well within the delegated powers from Congress. Id.

 

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.

 

ANSWER: The HPA is not implicated.

 

This process merely alters the coin, and does not purport to make it look like an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified. Accordingly, it is not an imitation numismatic item under 16 C.F.R. § 304.1 (d), and need not be marked. See caveat in #3, however, if it makes a business strike look like a proof issue.

 

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.

 

ANSWER: The HPA applies, and the piece should be marked.

 

The processes in the first sentence largely do not implicate the HPA for the reasons stated in stimulus #1; however, there is a caveat with the surface modification. If you take a Philadelphia business strike and strengthen the details and alter the surfaces enough such that it looks like a proof, you are arguably altering a business strike (an original numismatic item) to make it look like a different original numismatic item other than the one being altered/modified; thus, it is arguable that this scenario would implicate the HPA. This is a huge grey area and one where future FTC guidance would be necessary, and yes, they would make policy in deciding such a case.

 

Regardless of the first sentence, the marking of a fantasy date does make the coin appear to be an original numismatic item other than the one being altered or modified; thus, it is an imitation numismatic item within the meaning of 16 C.F.R. § 304.1 (d), and must be marked.

 

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.

 

ANSWER: The HPA is implicated, and the piece should be marked.

 

Again, 16 C.F.R. § 304.1 (d) is instructive. It defines an "imitation numismatic item" to include a "reproduction, copy, or counterfeit" of an original numismatic item. The key difference is overstriking of the entire coin (or the vast majority of the coin design and inscriptions). When you overstrike an entire coin, not only are you significantly altering the original coin, you are effectively destroying it in its entirety and overstriking a new design and inscription and is effectively a new coin (i.e. a counterfeit). See United States v. Wilson, 451 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1971) (a genuine coin overstruck with unauthorized/counterfeit dies held to violate the counterfeiting statute); see also United States v. Lissner, 12 F.840 (C.C. Mass. 1882) ("so as long as a genuine silver coin is worn only by natural abrasion, is not appreciably diminished in weight, and retains the appearance of a coin duly issued from the mint, it is legal tender for its original value.") When an entire coin is overstruck, it substantially alters the existing design. Anything left is substantially defaced to the point that the original design no longer "retains the appearance of a coin duly issued from the mint" because the planchet is predominantly covered with the design and inscriptions imparted by the counterfeit dies. Since it is no longer legal tender, it is not distinguishable from any other metal disk that could be used to strike the pieces. And counterfeits need not be exact in every respect to the original.

 

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

 

ANSWER: The HPA applies, and the coin should be marked.

 

Since you are changing the date, for the same reasons as #1, it purports to be an original numismatic item other than the one altered/modified and thus is an "imitation numismatic item" as defined above and should be marked.

 

As for the overstriking in this case, are we talking about overstriking all/most of the design/inscriptions or just a date/mint mark? If the former, it would also implicate the HPA for the reasons set out in #4. If only a date and mint mark punch were used, it wouldn't be a counterfeit, but simply an alteration subject to 18 U.S.C. 331 so the "counterfeit" approach from #4 would be inapplicable. Since the date is changed, it still implicates the HPA though because of the reasons set forth in response to #1 above.

 

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

 

Because #2 does not alter an original numismatic item to look like another original numismatic item (i.e. one other than the one being modified or altered) and is therefore not an "imitation numismatic item" which triggers the HPA's marking requirement. As I read #4 (I read it to require overstriking the entire coin to make major changes to details/surfaces), the coin is a counterfeit.

 

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.

 

I think both examples #4 and #5 violate the HPA as it has been interpreted so far.

 

 

Caveats: Everything is subject to variation depending on degree, so the degree of modification (if I misinterpreted) may change my response. Also, even though the Commission will often use canons of interpretation like those used with statutes, the FTC does have legislative power and can also effectively write its own opinion/interpretation into binding law. Translation: This is an evolving area of law. While there are clear areas, there are many shades of grey at least insofar as the HPA is concerned. You would think that a statute from the 1970s would have lots of case law and guidance, but case law is surprisingly sparse. My thought is either the FTC has been lax in enforcing it in the past, or most violators settle with the FTC to avoid an adjudication/formal lawsuit.

 

P.S. By "answer," I mean "my answer" and not necessarily "the answer". Given that some of these hypotheticals are questions of first impression, I can only base this on current case law and administrative regulations. The FTC can change those on a case by case basis as the FTC indicated in response to the comments submitted to it linked in the other thread.

Edited by coinman_23885

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
630 posts
OK Mr. Carr, I'll bite. Your hypotheticals are fair and deserve a response. I will admit that there are grey areas to the Hobby Protection Act, as noted below with my responses, and I would not be surprised to see further clarification and modifications through future case/decisional law. With that said, my responses are in red below.

 

Caveats are addressed at the very end.

 

 

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.

 

ANSWER: The HPA applies, and the piece should be marked.

 

The FTC administrative regulations found in 16 C.F.R. § 304.1 (d) which defines "imitation numismatic item" and 16 C.F.R. §304.1 (f) which defines "original numismatic item" are instructive. An imitation numismatic item includes "an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified." The Commission has already determined the resemblance/similitude need not be exact, and that date variations (which would include fantasy dates) require that the pieces be marked under the HPA because the pieces could be mistaken for an original numismatic item. See In re Gold Bullion Int'l Ltd, 92 F.T.C. 196, 223 (1978) ("[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged 'copy' are insufficient to deprive the latter of its statute 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.' "). Accordingly it is an imitation numismatic item and must be marked.

 

When interpreting federal administrative regulations, the agency is given deference unless the interpretation is in manifest contravention to statute, arbitrary, capricious, or unless Congress has clearly provided an intent otherwise. Chevron USA, Inc. v. National Resource Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The FTC can even fill in gaps in vague statutes and make policy determinations, which is well within the delegated powers from Congress. Id.

 

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.

 

ANSWER: The HPA is not implicated.

 

This process merely alters the coin, and does not purport to make it look like an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified. Accordingly, it is not an imitation numismatic item under 16 C.F.R. § 304.1 (d), and need not be marked. See caveat in #3, however, if it makes a business strike look like a proof issue.

 

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.

 

ANSWER: The HPA applies, and the piece should be marked.

 

The processes in the first sentence largely do not implicate the HPA for the reasons stated in stimulus #1; however, there is a caveat with the surface modification. If you take a Philadelphia business strike and strengthen the details and alter the surfaces enough such that it looks like a proof, you are arguably altering a business strike (an original numismatic item) to make it look like a different original numismatic item other than the one being altered/modified; thus, it is arguable that this scenario would implicate the HPA. This is a huge grey area and one where future FTC guidance would be necessary, and yes, they would make policy in deciding such a case.

 

Regardless of the first sentence, the marking of a fantasy date does make the coin appear to be an original numismatic item other than the one being altered or modified; thus, it is an imitation numismatic item within the meaning of 16 C.F.R. § 304.1 (d), and must be marked.

 

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.

 

ANSWER: The HPA is implicated, and the piece should be marked.

 

Again, 16 C.F.R. § 304.1 (d) is instructive. It defines an "imitation numismatic item" to include a "reproduction, copy, or counterfeit" of an original numismatic item. The key difference is overstriking of the entire coin (or the vast majority of the coin design and inscriptions). When you overstrike an entire coin, not only are you significantly altering the original coin, you are effectively destroying it in its entirety and overstriking a new design and inscription and is effectively a new coin (i.e. a counterfeit). See United States v. Wilson, 451 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1971) (a genuine coin overstruck with unauthorized/counterfeit dies held to violate the counterfeiting statute); see also United States v. Lissner, 12 F.840 (C.C. Mass. 1882) ("so as long as a genuine silver coin is worn only by natural abrasion, is not appreciably diminished in weight, and retains the appearance of a coin duly issued from the mint, it is legal tender for its original value.") When an entire coin is overstruck, it substantially alters the existing design. Anything left is substantially defaced to the point that the original design no longer "retains the appearance of a coin duly issued from the mint" because the planchet is predominantly covered with the design and inscriptions imparted by the counterfeit dies. Since it is no longer legal tender, it is not distinguishable from any other metal disk that could be used to strike the pieces. And counterfeits need not be exact in every respect to the original.

 

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

 

ANSWER: The HPA applies, and the coin should be marked.

 

Since you are changing the date, for the same reasons as #1, it purports to be an original numismatic item other than the one altered/modified and thus is an "imitation numismatic item" as defined above and should be marked.

 

As for the overstriking in this case, are we talking about overstriking all/most of the design/inscriptions or just a date/mint mark? If the former, it would also implicate the HPA for the reasons set out in #4. If only a date and mint mark punch were used, it wouldn't be a counterfeit, but simply an alteration subject to 18 U.S.C. 331 so the "counterfeit" approach from #4 would be inapplicable. Since the date is changed, it still implicates the HPA though because of the reasons set forth in response to #1 above.

 

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

 

Because #2 does not alter an original numismatic item to look like another original numismatic item (i.e. one other than the one being modified or altered) and is therefore not an "imitation numismatic item" which triggers the HPA's marking requirement. As I read #4 (I read it to require overstriking the entire coin to make major changes to details/surfaces), the coin is a counterfeit.

 

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.

 

I think both examples #4 and #5 violate the HPA as it has been interpreted so far.

 

 

Caveats: Everything is subject to variation depending on degree, so the degree of modification (if I misinterpreted) may change my response. Also, even though the Commission will often use canons of interpretation like those used with statutes, the FTC does have legislative power and can also effectively write its own opinion/interpretation into binding law. Translation: This is an evolving area of law. While there are clear areas, there are many shades of grey at least insofar as the HPA is concerned. You would think that a statute from the 1970s would have lots of case law and guidance, but case law is surprisingly sparse. My thought is either the FTC has been lax in enforcing it in the past, or most violators settle with the FTC to avoid an adjudication/formal lawsuit.

 

P.S. By "answer," I mean "my answer" and not necessarily "the answer". Given that some of these hypotheticals are questions of first impression, I can only base this on current case law and administrative regulations. The FTC can change those on a case by case basis as the FTC indicated in response to the comments submitted to it linked in the other thread.

 

Thank you for the reply.

 

The following is more commentary than actual questions, but anyone is free to answer if they want to:

 

Why would #2 be any different than #4 if the end result is the same ?

 

What if in #2 the engraving is done by a computer-controlled engraving machine ? The end result would not be much different if the coin was directly engraved via computer versus engraving a die via computer and then using that die to stamp on the coin.

 

Hypothetically, if #4 was not required to have "COPY" on it, and #5 was required to have "COPY" on it, that seems backwards since #5 is less deceptive than #4. In this case, #5 at least has a fantasy date marker on it. #2 and #4 just look like a plausible-date coin in higher grade and with more details than it had to start with.

 

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.

 

 

Nobody wants take this on (see above) ?

 

This is a complicated set of scenarios with few easy answers - and any answer we provide will be contradicted by you and your supporters. There isn't much point. That is why nobody has taken it on.

 

Keep in mind that I am not a lawyer, and my opinions are just my opinions and not based in the law-speak that coinmain has been bringing:

 

To me, any time tooling, engraving, or surface modifications are used to change the appearance of a coin, the coin is damaged and deserves a details grade. Changing the date by tooling has been widely recognized as forgery - I don't see why it matters if the date was actually produced or not. Once you change the date/mintmark, or add/remove design details, it's a forgery. For example, 1916D Mercury Dimes with added mintmarks, or 1909S Lincolns with added VDB are recognized as forgeries, and nearly-valueless in the market. Some dates of Mercury Dimes that were never made by the US mint were produced by Russian counterfeiters, and these are widely recognized as counterfeits (they would be your so-called "fantasy dates.")

 

I agree that a coin that was tooled to restore details does not deserve a problem-free grade. But it doesn't deserve a "COPY" stamp on it either. Tooling to change the date can certainly be a problem if that date and type is "part of a coinage" and known in the numismatic market as a rarer premium date.

 

The 1923-D and 1930-D "Soviet" dimes are interesting. They are not altered or over-struck genuine coins but are actually vintage currency counterfeits, made for the purpose of deceptively profiting off the difference between the production cost (less than 5-cents each) versus the apparent face value (10-cents). I do not consider them to be "fantasy dates", however, because original 1923 and 1930 dimes exist (just not with a "D" mint mark). By the way, if anyone has either of these "Soviet" dimes for sale, I am interested. I have collected some well-known vintage counterfeits including 1939 and 1944 no-P "Henning" nickels and some "Micro-o" Morgan Dollars.

 

Many (especially) early US coins are known with "re-engraved" details, and these are considered damaged coins worth a fraction of the original value.

This is true. However, some are re-engraved in an expert fashion so as to be deceptive. These are not required to have "COPY" on them. If they had a fantasy date, they would be LESS deceptive.

 

[However, once you overstrike the coin with a new set of dies, you completely change the coin. You admit to sandblasting the original planchets to eliminate all (or, almost all) traces of the original coin. I don't see any real different between that and melting it down and re-forming a new planchet. That's what the US mint did with many foreign issues - you don't see them listed as "1794 dollar struck on silver from Spanish Dollar." No, it's listed as the new type.

Tooling over the entire surface of a coin also completely resurfaces the coin. And yet, apparently, a "COPY" stamp is not required.

 

I wish to clarify my over-striking process. I don't actually use sand. I use very fine (small) glass bead. The bead-blasting cleans the oils, gunk, residue, tarnish, and any loose flakes of metal off the coin. The process does NOT remove ANY details of the coin. Many early 1900s US Mint coins were issued as "sandblast proofs". Those coins still exhibit the full details as struck. That is the same basic process that I use. The change in weight before and after the bead-blasting is imperceptible on my scientific scale. On the fantasy-date over-strike coins I made in 2010-2011 I also mechanically flattened the coins SOMEWHAT prior to the over-striking. No metal was removed in that process either. But since 2011, my process is: 1) bead-blasting; 2) pounding metal around the perimeter so that the coin will fit in a collar for over-striking (only the outer rim is deformed by this - the original coin details are still fully visible); 3) over-striking. There is no flattening or removal of details in this process prior to the actual over-striking.

 

Even after the over-striking, traces of the original coin are still visible. Since the coins are never heated, the crystalline structure of the original coin remains. You are probably aware that a forensics expert can use acids on a gun to reveal serial numbers that were filed off. This works because the gun metal "records" the stresses ("work-hardening") that it experienced during the serial number stamping. The acids etch the metal differently depending on how much the metal was work-hardened in local areas, thus revealing an image of the original serial number. If the same techniques were applied to one of my over-strikes, it would be possible to reveal the original date on the coin. An example is this "1816" fantasy-date over-strike Bust half dollar which was color-toned AFTER the over-striking. The original "50 C." (for example) can be seen as a tarnish shadow (the over-strike was not aligned very well on the reverse):

image008.jpgimage007.jpg

Also, the work-hardening resulting from the original strike on the coin actually aids in the over-striking process.

 

Looking through numismatic history, there are many types which were overstruck on other types - the overstrike is invariably a new, different creation and the old creation is obliterated. It doesn't matter if you strike the same type, or a different type, or a different date - it's not the same coin. A quick search through Krause provides numerous examples - and they are always listed as the new type, not the original type. If the new type is not an official product (such as yours), I don't see how they could claim to be the original type.

 

The significant difference between you and the issues in Krause is that you are not an official mint: you are personally creating your own dies and striking them on your own authority. If you struck them with a produced date, everyone would agree it was criminal - why does changing a single digit (but making a coin that, for all intents and purposes, is *exactly* the same as an official release) make it OK?

 

It doesn't! It is deceptive, and hurts the hobby.

 

I absolutely disagree that this "hurts" the hobby. I collect coins and it is a hobby that I enjoy. I am not going to "hurt" it. There are definitely people that enjoy what I make and some have told me that the fantasy-date over-strikes make whatever series they collect more interesting.

 

Edited by dcarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,297 posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
630 posts
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,297 posts
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,297 posts
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?

 

Mr. Carr,

 

If I may quote your words for a moment:

 

Nobody wants take this on ( see above)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
Why would #2 be any different than #4 if the end result is the same ?

 

Because #2 does not alter an original numismatic item to look like a different original numismatic item (i.e. one other than the one being modified/altered) and is therefore not an "imitation numismatic item" which triggers the HPA marking requirement.

 

 

Hypothetically, if #4 was not required to have "COPY" on it, and #5 was required to have "COPY" on it, that seems backwards since #5 is less deceptive than #4. In this case, #5 at least has a fantasy date marker on it. #2 and #4 just look like a plausible-date coin in higher grade and with more details than it had to start with.

 

I think both examples #4 and #5 violate the HPA as it has been interpreted so far.

 

What if in #2 the engraving is done by a computer-controlled engraving machine ? The end result would not be much different if the coin was directly engraved via computer versus engraving a die via computer and then using that die to stamp on the coin.

 

It would depend on whether the engraving machine made the item look more like an original numismatic item other than the one being altered/modified. My problem with the dies is that you are completely destroying the original coin so that it is no longer legal tender and then re-coin the piece. If you completely flattened a piece and then re-engraved a new coin, my argument would be the same. As I said, everything comes down to degree.

 

I openly admit that there will be some grey areas, and I welcome additional hypotheticals. This is the type of exercise that is actually beneficial as it could meaningfully be used the next time the FTC asks for comments or contemplates revising the administrative regulations accompanying the HPA. (Most of the nit-picky details are in the CFR).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts

If HPA’s purpose is to protect coin collectors and they believe they have a case against Carr but, for whatever reason, they cannot pursue the matter for an extended period of time, why would they not directly notify Carr concerning his illegal status, potentially putting an end to it right there and then, instead of allowing him to continue to produce items of potential harm to those they are tasked with protecting?

 

Other than the opinions of some on this message board, what reason is there to believe Carr’s fantasy pieces are anything but legal? No legal action or notification of pending legal action against him has been taken or given in better than five years. The information on HPA’s website is far from conclusive on this matter. Even when they address fantasy pieces directly, given the fact they have not taken legal action, it suggests there are other factors involved that exempt Carr’s pieces from liability.

 

If Carr believes his fantasy pieces are legal, given the fact there is no conclusive evidence to the contrary, only opinions, and no action by the HPA has been taken, why should he not state this belief on his website?

 

After all, the proclamation that doing so is misleading is nothing more than another opinion.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,106 posts
If HPA’s purpose is to protect coin collectors and they believe they have a case against Carr but, for whatever reason, they cannot pursue the matter for an extended period of time, why would they not directly notify Carr concerning his illegal status, potentially putting an end to it right there and then, instead of allowing him to continue to produce items of potential harm to those they are tasked with protecting?

 

Other than the opinions of some on this message board, what reason is there to believe Carr’s fantasy pieces are anything but legal? No legal action or notification of pending legal action against him has been taken or given in better than five years. The information on HPA’s website is far from conclusive on this matter. Even when they address fantasy pieces directly, given the fact they have not taken legal action, it suggests there are other factors involved that exempt Carr’s pieces from liability.

 

If Carr believes his fantasy pieces are legal, given the fact there is no conclusive evidence to the contrary, only opinions, and no action by the HPA has been taken, why should he not state this belief on his website?

 

After all, the proclamation that doing so is misleading is nothing more than another opinion.

 

 

Does Mr. Carr state on his website that his creations area"legal" or does he say he believes that they are so? I think there is a big difference between the two and that the latter should be the minimum that he does, in fairness to his customers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts

Absent compelling and credible reason to believe they are illegal, why would he suggest a possibility to the contrary? If he believes they are legal, and suggests otherwise, while not actually believing they are illegal, then he would be purposely misleading his customers.

 

When someone says God exists, are they being misleading? If you do not believe in God you might think so, but only because you believe otherwise.

 

Of course, only Mr. Carr knows what he believes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,106 posts
Absent compelling and credible reason to believe they are illegal, why would he suggest a possibility to the contrary? If he believes they are legal, and suggests otherwise, while not actually believing they are illegal, then he would be purposely misleading his customers.

 

When someone says God exists, are they being misleading? If you do not believe in God you might think so, but only because you believe otherwise.

 

Of course, only Mr. Carr knows what he believes.

 

He would suggest a possibility to the contrary (that the coins are "legal") because he knows enough to know that there is a legitimate question regarding their legal status. And therefore, in my opinion, he owes a duty to his customers and the hobby.

 

 

Edited by MarkFeld

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15,038 posts
As I said, only Mr. Carr knows what he believes.

 

It is fairly obvious, based on these lengthy threads, what Mr. Carr believes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
630 posts
Why would #2 be any different than #4 if the end result is the same ?

 

Because #2 does not alter an original numismatic item to look like a different original numismatic item (i.e. one other than the one being modified/altered) and is therefore not an "imitation numismatic item" which triggers the HPA marking requirement.[/Quote]

 

Neither does #4. The end result with both #2 and #4 is a coin of the same type, date, and mint mark, but with details restored. I don't think there is any difference between re-engraving the entire coin directly, versus engraving a die and stamping the coin with that die, to produce the same effect either way.

 

Hypothetically, if #4 was not required to have "COPY" on it, and #5 was required to have "COPY" on it, that seems backwards since #5 is less deceptive than #4. In this case, #5 at least has a fantasy date marker on it. #2 and #4 just look like a plausible-date coin in higher grade and with more details than it had to start with.

 

I think both examples #4 and #5 violate the HPA as it has been interpreted so far.

 

What if in #2 the engraving is done by a computer-controlled engraving machine ? The end result would not be much different if the coin was directly engraved via computer versus engraving a die via computer and then using that die to stamp on the coin.

 

It would depend on whether the engraving machine made the item look more like an original numismatic item other than the one being altered/modified. My problem with the dies is that you are completely destroying the original coin so that it is no longer legal tender and then re-coin the piece. If you completely flattened a piece and then re-engraved a new coin, my argument would be the same. As I said, everything comes down to degree.

 

I openly admit that there will be some grey areas, and I welcome additional hypotheticals. This is the type of exercise that is actually beneficial as it could meaningfully be used the next time the FTC asks for comments or contemplates revising the administrative regulations accompanying the HPA. (Most of the nit-picky details are in the CFR).

 

In my prior reply to PhysicsFan3.14 I described my over-strike process. The "host" coins are not "completely destroyed" prior to the over-striking. Not even close. They look cleaned and "whizzed" and sometimes the rim is pushed in a little and/or they are sometimes bent some (no metal is removed). That is it. They are not flattened. I strike right over them while they are in that state.

 

When it comes down to "degree" of modification, that is difficult to assess because there is no defined threshold for the amount and nature of the modification (except perhaps the threshold is at "fraud").

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
630 posts
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts
As I said, only Mr. Carr knows what he believes.

 

It is fairly obvious, based on these lengthy threads, what Mr. Carr believes.

 

 

 

Really. You must hold the man in high esteem to believe he could not be misleading you with his statements. Personally, I do not know him well enough to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15,038 posts
As I said, only Mr. Carr knows what he believes.

 

It is fairly obvious, based on these lengthy threads, what Mr. Carr believes.

 

 

 

Really. You must hold the man in high esteem to believe he could not be misleading you with his statements. Personally, I do not know him well enough to say.

 

Why would I assume him to be misleading me? I assume that he is describing his thought process and understanding of the law, and how it applies to his creations. I believe that he honestly believes he is operating within the law, and that what he is doing is both legal and beneficial. His words here are physically manifest in the things he makes - and I see no contradiction between them.

 

It is the conclusions we reach which are different, but I have no reason to believe he is lying about what he thinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts

I referenced what is known or not known. I did not reference assumptions.

 

However, some do assume that his proclamation of "legal" is misleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts

The FTC has indicated that coins with mere date variations are covered under the Hobby Protection Act, and must be marked. That is clear. As for lack of FTC involvement, it could mean anything from a refusal to enforce the HPA, to ignorance/negligence, or perhaps it is waiting for an appropriate FTC complaint to act on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts

However, some do assume that his proclamation of "legal" is misleading.

 

I believe Mr. McKnowitall is saying that by proclaiming his pieces to be "LEGAL" when no such adjudication has been made (and there is a good argument that the pieces are not legal to produce and distribute as is) is misleading.

 

With regards to the word "misleading," you can be unintentionally misleading or may even be stating what you believe to be fact. If it is not true, however, the statement can mislead others into believing that the issue has been resolved. Unless John (MMKIA) used the adjective "intentional" or adverb "intentionally" (and I am too lazy to go back to look), then I think you are becoming caught up in semantics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
Why would #2 be any different than #4 if the end result is the same ?

 

Because #2 does not alter an original numismatic item to look like a different original numismatic item (i.e. one other than the one being modified/altered) and is therefore not an "imitation numismatic item" which triggers the HPA marking requirement.[/Quote]

 

Neither does #4. The end result with both #2 and #4 is a coin of the same type, date, and mint mark, but with details restored. I don't think there is any difference between re-engraving the entire coin directly, versus engraving a die and stamping the coin with that die, to produce the same effect either way.

 

Hypothetically, if #4 was not required to have "COPY" on it, and #5 was required to have "COPY" on it, that seems backwards since #5 is less deceptive than #4. In this case, #5 at least has a fantasy date marker on it. #2 and #4 just look like a plausible-date coin in higher grade and with more details than it had to start with.

 

I think both examples #4 and #5 violate the HPA as it has been interpreted so far.

 

What if in #2 the engraving is done by a computer-controlled engraving machine ? The end result would not be much different if the coin was directly engraved via computer versus engraving a die via computer and then using that die to stamp on the coin.

 

It would depend on whether the engraving machine made the item look more like an original numismatic item other than the one being altered/modified. My problem with the dies is that you are completely destroying the original coin so that it is no longer legal tender and then re-coin the piece. If you completely flattened a piece and then re-engraved a new coin, my argument would be the same. As I said, everything comes down to degree.

 

I openly admit that there will be some grey areas, and I welcome additional hypotheticals. This is the type of exercise that is actually beneficial as it could meaningfully be used the next time the FTC asks for comments or contemplates revising the administrative regulations accompanying the HPA. (Most of the nit-picky details are in the CFR).

 

In my prior reply to PhysicsFan3.14 I described my over-strike process. The "host" coins are not "completely destroyed" prior to the over-striking. Not even close. They look cleaned and "whizzed" and sometimes the rim is pushed in a little and/or they are sometimes bent some (no metal is removed). That is it. They are not flattened. I strike right over them while they are in that state.

 

When it comes down to "degree" of modification, that is difficult to assess because there is no defined threshold for the amount and nature of the modification (except perhaps the threshold is at "fraud").

 

I am going to buy a piece and take a look. Maybe my commentary will be useful when seeing it in hand versus an internet image. You stated re your 1964-D Peace Dollar ATS that the coin is flattened (at least that is my recollection, but I need to look back). When you overstrike the piece with the die, the vast majority of the host coin would seemingly be obliterated except perhaps for small traces visible with magnification. That is a huge problem. Regardless if it is pre or post strike, I think the original coin fails to be distinguishable from any other planchet.

Edited by coinman_23885

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
630 posts
Why would #2 be any different than #4 if the end result is the same ?

 

Because #2 does not alter an original numismatic item to look like a different original numismatic item (i.e. one other than the one being modified/altered) and is therefore not an "imitation numismatic item" which triggers the HPA marking requirement.[/Quote]

 

Neither does #4. The end result with both #2 and #4 is a coin of the same type, date, and mint mark, but with details restored. I don't think there is any difference between re-engraving the entire coin directly, versus engraving a die and stamping the coin with that die, to produce the same effect either way.

 

Hypothetically, if #4 was not required to have "COPY" on it, and #5 was required to have "COPY" on it, that seems backwards since #5 is less deceptive than #4. In this case, #5 at least has a fantasy date marker on it. #2 and #4 just look like a plausible-date coin in higher grade and with more details than it had to start with.

 

I think both examples #4 and #5 violate the HPA as it has been interpreted so far.

 

What if in #2 the engraving is done by a computer-controlled engraving machine ? The end result would not be much different if the coin was directly engraved via computer versus engraving a die via computer and then using that die to stamp on the coin.

 

It would depend on whether the engraving machine made the item look more like an original numismatic item other than the one being altered/modified. My problem with the dies is that you are completely destroying the original coin so that it is no longer legal tender and then re-coin the piece. If you completely flattened a piece and then re-engraved a new coin, my argument would be the same. As I said, everything comes down to degree.

 

I openly admit that there will be some grey areas, and I welcome additional hypotheticals. This is the type of exercise that is actually beneficial as it could meaningfully be used the next time the FTC asks for comments or contemplates revising the administrative regulations accompanying the HPA. (Most of the nit-picky details are in the CFR).

 

In my prior reply to PhysicsFan3.14 I described my over-strike process. The "host" coins are not "completely destroyed" prior to the over-striking. Not even close. They look cleaned and "whizzed" and sometimes the rim is pushed in a little and/or they are sometimes bent some (no metal is removed). That is it. They are not flattened. I strike right over them while they are in that state.

 

When it comes down to "degree" of modification, that is difficult to assess because there is no defined threshold for the amount and nature of the modification (except perhaps the threshold is at "fraud").

 

I am going to buy a piece and take a look. Maybe my commentary will be useful when seeing it in hand versus an internet image. You stated re your 1964-D Peace Dollar ATS that the coin is flattened (at least that is my recollection, but I need to look back). When you overstrike the piece with the die, the vast majority of the host coin would seemingly be obliterated except perhaps for small traces visible with magnification. That is a huge problem. Regardless if it is pre or post strike, I think the original coin fails to be distinguishable from any other planchet.

 

Prior to about 2011, I did mechanically flatten the host coins somewhat prior to over-striking. Once I found out that it wasn't necessary to do that, I eliminated that step from the process.

 

Even after over-striking, the essence of the original coin is still in there.

Note the color-toned example from my previous post # 9561521.

Even though the host coin was completely over-struck, a subsequent color-toning process revealed the ghost of the original coin.

 

Perhaps you have seen an elongated cent where the blank side still shows the elongated essence of the original host coin.

 

Also note that the existing contours of the host coin are aligned (as close as possible) with the over-strike die, and those existing contours actually aid in the over-striking.

 

 

Edited by dcarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts

However, some do assume that his proclamation of "legal" is misleading.

 

I believe Mr. McKnowitall is saying that by proclaiming his pieces to be "LEGAL" when no such adjudication has been made (and there is a good argument that the pieces are not legal to produce and distribute as is) is misleading.

 

With regards to the word "misleading," you can be unintentionally misleading or may even be stating what you believe to be fact. If it is not true, however, the statement can mislead others into believing that the issue has been resolved. Unless John (MMKIA) used the adjective "intentional" or adverb "intentionally" (and I am too lazy to go back to look), then I think you are becoming caught up in semantics.

 

 

So you are saying "John (MMKIA)" is not assuming, but he knows as a fact? Because, if not, you are saying "John (MMKIA)" is guilty of the same thing "John (MMKIA)" is accusing Carr of - making statements that may turn out to be false and, as a consequence of such, are misleading.

 

However, at present, and in the case of Carr, it is not true, and you seem to agree or you would not have said "If it is true..." Mr. Carr (and "John (MMKIA)" as well) should not be held accountable for what has yet to happen or might someday happen. He (they) is (are) justified in dealing with the present reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,297 posts
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,106 posts

However, some do assume that his proclamation of "legal" is misleading.

 

I believe Mr. McKnowitall is saying that by proclaiming his pieces to be "LEGAL" when no such adjudication has been made (and there is a good argument that the pieces are not legal to produce and distribute as is) is misleading.

 

With regards to the word "misleading," you can be unintentionally misleading or may even be stating what you believe to be fact. If it is not true, however, the statement can mislead others into believing that the issue has been resolved. Unless John (MMKIA) used the adjective "intentional" or adverb "intentionally" (and I am too lazy to go back to look), then I think you are becoming caught up in semantics.

 

 

So you are saying "John (MMKIA)" is not assuming, but he knows as a fact? Because, if not, you are saying "John (MMKIA)" is guilty of the same thing "John (MMKIA)" is accusing Carr of - making statements that may turn out to be false and, as a consequence of such, are misleading.

 

However, at present, and in the case of Carr, it is not true, and you seem to agree or you would not have said "If it is true..." Mr. Carr (and "John (MMKIA)" as well) should not be held accountable for what has yet to happen or might someday happen. He (they) is (are) justified in dealing with the present reality.

 

Neither John nor Mr. Carr knows for a fact whether the coins are or will later be legal. But Mr. Carr is selling them, profiting from them and representing that they are legal. Under the circumstances, it seems to me that John's caution is better placed than Mr. Carr's lack thereof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28,022 posts

However, some do assume that his proclamation of "legal" is misleading.

 

I believe Mr. McKnowitall is saying that by proclaiming his pieces to be "LEGAL" when no such adjudication has been made (and there is a good argument that the pieces are not legal to produce and distribute as is) is misleading.

 

With regards to the word "misleading," you can be unintentionally misleading or may even be stating what you believe to be fact. If it is not true, however, the statement can mislead others into believing that the issue has been resolved. Unless John (MMKIA) used the adjective "intentional" or adverb "intentionally" (and I am too lazy to go back to look), then I think you are becoming caught up in semantics.

 

 

So you are saying "John (MMKIA)" is not assuming, but he knows as a fact? Because, if not, you are saying "John (MMKIA)" is guilty of the same thing "John (MMKIA)" is accusing Carr of - making statements that may turn out to be false and, as a consequence of such, are misleading.

 

However, at present, and in the case of Carr, it is not true, and you seem to agree or you would not have said "If it is true..." Mr. Carr (and "John (MMKIA)" as well) should not be held accountable for what has yet to happen or might someday happen. He (they) is (are) justified in dealing with the present reality.

 

Neither John nor Mr. Carr knows for a fact whether the coins are or will later be legal. But Mr. Carr is selling them, profiting from them and representing that they are legal. Under the circumstances, it seems to me that John's caution is better placed than Mr. Carr's lack thereof.

+1 Mr. Carr's opinion can't really be consider unbiased, seems the fantasy coins are a pretty good money pit.

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