Back to the Hobby Protection Act – Please.
1 1

382 posts in this topic

I have clearly stated this in my posts. Any interpretation of my posts as declaring finitely that the creations are illegal and have been declared so by adjudication is a fabrication of the mind of the interpreter. I am not misleading any reader by continuously urging adjudication and urging any language on the website that the creations are legal be removed or modified per my suggestions. Mr Carr has not proved in adjudication the legality of his pieces. It is simple logic. To declare one truth is to declare the opposite an untruth. Logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 biased, seems the fantasy coins are a pretty good money pit.

 

I think you meant to write "unbiased" and not "biased".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Both sides of the debate are biased.

 

 

"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."

 

 

Not reasonable. How long should Carr wait to proclaim them legal, another five years, twenty years or fifty years? The HPA has not acted on the matter, and their lack of action speaks more to the legality of Carr's fantasy pieces than anything said on this message board.

 

We will just have to disagree. Nothing new about that, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Both sides of the debate are biased.

 

 

"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."

 

 

Not reasonable. How long should Carr wait to proclaim them legal, another five years, twenty years or fifty years? The HPA has not acted on the matter, and their lack of action speaks more to the legality of Carr's fantasy pieces than anything said on this message board.

 

We will just have to disagree. Nothing new about that, right?

 

Why claim they are "legal", rather than saying nothing or including a disclaimer on the website? I doubt that the vast majority of sellers of legal products proclaim them to be legal. And it's doubtful that his declaration is due to his being certain the coins are legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Both sides of the debate are biased.

 

 

"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."

 

 

Not reasonable. How long should Carr wait to proclaim them legal, another five years, twenty years or fifty years? The HPA has not acted on the matter, and their lack of action speaks more to the legality of Carr's fantasy pieces than anything said on this message board.

 

We will just have to disagree. Nothing new about that, right?

 

Why claim they are "legal", rather than saying nothing or including a disclaimer on the website? I doubt that the vast majority of sellers of legal products proclaim them to be legal. And it's doubtful that his declaration is due to his being certain the coins are legal.

 

You are probably right. He doesn't need to say anything. i never noticed it before this thread.

 

mark

Edited by MJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are probably right. He doesn't need to say anything. i never noticed it before this thread.

 

mark

 

We agree. If he is convinced the pieces are 100% legal to own, then he doesn't need to say anything at all other than the disclosure that the pieces are overstruck genuine items.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are probably right. He doesn't need to say anything. i never noticed it before this thread.

 

mark

 

We agree. If he is convinced the pieces are 100% legal to own, then he doesn't need to say anything at all other than the disclosure that the pieces are overstruck genuine items.

 

And I also agree they are 100% legal to own : )

 

mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Assume? We know for a fact that the pieces are described on the website as legal, which seems to imply that the legal questions surrounding the legitimacy of the pieces has been decided and resolved in favor of his pieces. This has not happened. If there was one in Carr's favor, he would have cited it. If there was an adjudication already specifically naming Carr as a party to the suit, I would have found it by now.

 

And regarding my language, since someone commented using the word "lie," I used qualified language to be sure that my post was not read as accusing Carr of lying. I believe that Carr believes what he says is accurate, but I vehemently disagree with his conclusions of law.

 

I am also not sure what you mean about not being held accountable. If you include misleading language, whether intentional or not, you can absolutely be held accountable for doing so if someone detrimentally relies on it. (This is a general comment)

Edited by coinman_23885
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are probably right. He doesn't need to say anything. i never noticed it before this thread.

 

mark

 

We agree. If he is convinced the pieces are 100% legal to own, then he doesn't need to say anything at all other than the disclosure that the pieces are overstruck genuine items.

 

And I also agree they are 100% legal to own : )

 

mark

 

(thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Both sides of the debate are biased.

 

 

"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."

 

 

Not reasonable. How long should Carr wait to proclaim them legal, another five years, twenty years or fifty years? The HPA has not acted on the matter, and their lack of action speaks more to the legality of Carr's fantasy pieces than anything said on this message board.

 

We will just have to disagree. Nothing new about that, right?

 

Why claim they are "legal", rather than saying nothing or including a disclaimer on the website? I doubt that the vast majority of sellers of legal products proclaim them to be legal. And it's doubtful that his declaration is due to his being certain the coins are legal.

 

A percentage of the population wrongly believes that it is illegal to deface money in any way. In reality, it is only illegal if done with fraudulent intent:

US Mint web site, the key word underlined

 

My web site wording is for the purpose of reducing unnecessary correspondence with this segment of the population regarding the legality of defacing money.

 

 

Edited by dcarr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Both sides of the debate are biased.

 

 

"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."

 

 

Not reasonable. How long should Carr wait to proclaim them legal, another five years, twenty years or fifty years? The HPA has not acted on the matter, and their lack of action speaks more to the legality of Carr's fantasy pieces than anything said on this message board.

 

We will just have to disagree. Nothing new about that, right?

 

Why claim they are "legal", rather than saying nothing or including a disclaimer on the website? I doubt that the vast majority of sellers of legal products proclaim them to be legal. And it's doubtful that his declaration is due to his being certain the coins are legal.

 

A percentage of the population wrongly believes that it is illegal to deface money in any way. In reality, it is only illegal if done with fraudulent intent:

US Mint web site, the key word underlined

 

My web site wording is for the purpose of reducing unnecessary correspondence with this segment of the population regarding the legality of defacing money.

 

 

Not be mean spirited, but if the population is that uniformed about defacing coins, do you think the same population is sophisticated enough to know the die markers of genuine Peace Dollars? That seems like a stretch to me. Your argument is that anyone can Google your pieces in 10 minutes. I would argue anyone could find 18 U.S.C. 331 (and the HPA and 18 USC 485) within 10 minutes using a Google search and lay terminology. I think there are probably many search hits to your threads.

 

Oh look, in 0.37 seconds, Google produced more than 47,000 hits on my first try using "legality defacing coins". Of that, the very first listing is the text of 18 U.S.C. 331 (visible from the search engine) and the second or third hit is your favorite page from the U.S. Mint!

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=legality+defacing+coins

 

Edited: Apparently the order can vary based on your search history. The point remains the same.

Edited by coinman_23885
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Both sides of the debate are biased.

 

 

"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."

 

 

Not reasonable. How long should Carr wait to proclaim them legal, another five years, twenty years or fifty years? The HPA has not acted on the matter, and their lack of action speaks more to the legality of Carr's fantasy pieces than anything said on this message board.

 

We will just have to disagree. Nothing new about that, right?

 

Why claim they are "legal", rather than saying nothing or including a disclaimer on the website? I doubt that the vast majority of sellers of legal products proclaim them to be legal. And it's doubtful that his declaration is due to his being certain the coins are legal.

 

A percentage of the population wrongly believes that it is illegal to deface money in any way. In reality, it is only illegal if done with fraudulent intent:

US Mint web site, the key word underlined

 

My web site wording is for the purpose of reducing unnecessary correspondence with this segment of the population regarding the legality of defacing money.

 

 

Not be mean spirited, but if the population is that uniformed about defacing coins, do you think the same population is sophisticated enough to know the die markers of genuine Peace Dollars? That seems like a stretch to me. Your argument is that anyone can Google your pieces in 10 minutes. I would argue anyone could find 18 U.S.C. 331 (and the HPA and 18 USC 485) within 10 minutes using a Google search and lay terminology. I think there are probably many search hits to your threads.

 

Oh look, in 0.37 seconds, Google produced more than 47,000 hits on my first try using "legality defacing coins". Of that, the very first listing is the text of 18 U.S.C. 331 (visible from the search engine) and the second or third hit is your favorite page from the U.S. Mint!

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=legality+defacing+coins

 

Edited: Apparently the order can vary based on your search history. The point remains the same.

 

The "die marker" is pretty obvious - the fantasy date.

 

If people visit that page and read the text, then they will know all about the fantasy-date over-strike, whether they were previously aware of it or not.

 

The people that have the knowledge to be motivated enough to spend a fair amount of money on a coin are going to be familiar with it. Knowledge creates motivation.

 

Anyway, I think potential buyers reading my product descriptions will come away being accurately informed as to the origins of the coins.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The "die marker" is pretty obvious - the fantasy date.

 

If people visit that page and read the text, then they will know all about the fantasy-date over-strike, whether they were previously aware of it or not.

 

The people that have the knowledge to be motivated enough to spend a fair amount of money on a coin are going to be familiar with it. Knowledge creates motivation.

 

Anyway, I think potential buyers reading my product descriptions will come away being accurately informed as to the origins of the coins.

 

 

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. Grandma's dad collected peace dollars when she was a child but she does not remember the dates they were made and never knew about mintmarks, but this one looks exactly like dad's. So grandma takes her saved up emergency cash (all she has) and lays it down for the quick profit. She takes it to the B and M on Tuesday, where the kind owner apologizes to her and lets her know she was taken. Grandma is out of her extra money, let's hope she does not have an emergency in the near future.

 

This is the kind of thing the HPA strives to alleviate with the word Copy. I have no doubt that if the HPA was revised, if your fantasy pieces are not covered now, they certainly would be in that revision.

 

Not everyone is going to go to your website simply because they come in contact with one of your fantasy pieces and the above is just one of infinite examples - why do you think some contacted the Coin World correspondent? 99.99 (and many more 9's)% of the world out there are not informed numismatists and never will be. Sure, those of us who are, we know what these pieces are, and can make our own assessment, but we are a minority.

 

While you may not be complicit in future transactions between other parties for your fantasy pieces, someone is going to be swindled with them. HPA was in part an effort to try to stop such a swindle IMHO. Me personally, I could not live with folks being swindled because of a product I issued that will be largely misunderstood by a significant amount of buyers in the secondary market, and would have made sure something on the fantasy piece makes it obvious it is not a real US Mint product to anyone. But hey, thaz just me, it seems you decided othewise. Hmm....... hm

 

Best, HT

 

 

Edited by Hard Times
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Both sides of the debate are biased.

 

 

"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."

 

 

Not reasonable. How long should Carr wait to proclaim them legal, another five years, twenty years or fifty years? The HPA has not acted on the matter, and their lack of action speaks more to the legality of Carr's fantasy pieces than anything said on this message board.

 

We will just have to disagree. Nothing new about that, right?

 

Why claim they are "legal", rather than saying nothing or including a disclaimer on the website? I doubt that the vast majority of sellers of legal products proclaim them to be legal. And it's doubtful that his declaration is due to his being certain the coins are legal.

 

A percentage of the population wrongly believes that it is illegal to deface money in any way. In reality, it is only illegal if done with fraudulent intent:

US Mint web site, the key word underlined

 

My web site wording is for the purpose of reducing unnecessary correspondence with this segment of the population regarding the legality of defacing money.

 

 

 

lol

 

Come now, Mr. Carr. You are starting to sound a bit like TV actor Doctors in the mid years of the 20th century appearing in commercials advertising the benefits of cigarettes for the purpose of reducing unnecessary correspondence with the segment of the population questioning the use of cigarettes. The actor doctors didn't have a fraudulent intent, either. They were just getting paid. But, things change. That is not done anymore. The reason is the advertising practice was adjudicated, and poof. :acclaim: The actor doctors changed with the times. (thumbs u

 

I think you could benefit from a consultation with a public relations professional familiar with the 21st century. :gossip:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A similar question addressing the hypo of a con artist re-selling the coin and why it would not be LEGAL to do so was asked of Mr. Carr in the other thread. His answer was interesting. Carr post # 9556630.

 

In conjunction with this hypo, Mr. Carr was also asked why he declares a person should not try to sell the pieces to others as a true coin, and a person that has a piece has to tell anybody it is a fantasy piece, considering Mr. Carr states it is LEGAL to produce the piece, he answers:

 

"Why (both questions)? Because I'm being overly cautious."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Both sides of the debate are biased.

 

 

"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."

 

 

Not reasonable. How long should Carr wait to proclaim them legal, another five years, twenty years or fifty years? The HPA has not acted on the matter, and their lack of action speaks more to the legality of Carr's fantasy pieces than anything said on this message board.

 

We will just have to disagree. Nothing new about that, right?

 

 

Why claim they are "legal", rather than saying nothing or including a disclaimer on the website? I doubt that the vast majority of sellers of legal products proclaim them to be legal. And it's doubtful that his declaration is due to his being certain the coins are legal.

 

A percentage of the population wrongly believes that it is illegal to deface money in any way. In reality, it is only illegal if done with fraudulent intent:

US Mint web site, the key word underlined

 

My web site wording is for the purpose of reducing unnecessary correspondence with this segment of the population regarding the legality of defacing money.

 

 

Your post # 9551271:

 

"I make no claims as to the legal tender status of the fantasy-date-over-strikes, only that I advise people not to use them as legal tender. If the toy store owner wants to to take the over-struck silver dollars as barter in trade for the toy, that would be up to them."

 

Interesting. The pieces may be LEGAL TENDER, they may not be LEGAL TENDER, and Mr. Carr makes no claims they are or are not LEGAL TENDER, but just advises persons not to use as LEGAL TENDER. :ohnoez:???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A similar question addressing the hypo of a con artist re-selling the coin and why it would not be LEGAL to do so was asked of Mr. Carr in the other thread. His answer was interesting. Carr post # 9556630.

 

In conjunction with this hypo, Mr. Carr was also asked why he declares a person should not try to sell the pieces to others as a true coin, and a person that has a piece has to tell anybody it is a fantasy piece, considering Mr. Carr states it is LEGAL to produce the piece, he answers:

 

"Why (both questions)? Because I'm being overly cautious."

 

I missed that, oh well, now we have my example as a future record on this thread as well, and we have your report of Mr. Carr's response so that is good, thanks.

 

Best, HT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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. Grandma's dad collected peace dollars when she was a child but she does not remember the dates they were made and never knew about mintmarks, but this one looks exactly like dad's. So grandma takes her saved up emergency cash (all she has) and lays it down for the quick profit. She takes it to the B and M on Tuesday, where the kind owner apologizes to her and lets her know she was taken. Grandma is out of her extra money, let's hope she does not have an emergency in the near future."

 

 

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if someone does not believe the law applies to what they do, and then five years or more goes by without incident and they have even more reason to believe the law does not apply?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if someone does not believe the law applies to what they do, and then five years or more goes by without incident and they have even more reason to believe the law does not apply?

 

 

Yet somehow I am the one accused of beating a dead horse. :ohnoez:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Edited by Afterword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if someone does not believe the law applies to what they do, and then five years or more goes by without incident and they have even more reason to believe the law does not apply?

 

 

Yet somehow I am the one accused of beating a dead horse. :ohnoez:

 

You do not have a monopoly on horse beating. Don't flatter yourself : )

 

mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if someone does not believe the law applies to what they do, and then five years or more goes by without incident and they have even more reason to believe the law does not apply?

 

 

Yet somehow I am the one accused of beating a dead horse. :ohnoez:

 

I started and am the President of SPBA, I can attest that you are not beating a dead horse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

At least we are finally being more direct; to some (but not all) of his most ardent supporters, Mr. Carr is above the law. There really is nothing more to be said. As long as Mr. Carr has his fun and can flip his wares, then who cares about the law or those that will be affected long term?

 

P.S. Just to make sure there is no confusion, the HPA is not a governing body or organization. It is an acronym for a series of statutes collectively known as the Hobby Protection Act. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the organization charged with enforcing the HPA; thus, it would be the FTC contacting Carr.

Link to comment
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