Back to the Hobby Protection Act – Please.
1 1

382 posts in this topic

1,314 posts

It does not matter what I, you, Carr or anyone else on this message board believes regarding this matter. The FTC is charged with enforcing the HPA and it is what they think that matters. They could have stopped Carr’s activities a long time ago, without need of a trial, by simply sending him a letter stating that said activities are illegal and he will be prosecuted if he does not comply. They have had more than five years to do so or to outright prosecute him. They have done nothing.

 

The FTC’s failure to act on this matter is the reason you and others pursue it here on this message board, combined with a justifiable fear that the FTC will never act and a misguided belief that if Carr’s pieces are stamped with COPY it will prevent numismatic fraud from occurring in some meaningful way, when in fact it would not prevent fraud from occurring in any way. There are simply far too many options to commit numismatic fraud for the absence of his pieces as one more option to matter. It is like attempting to put out a forest fire with one molecule of water. To believe otherwise is a true fallacy of logic.

 

Your time would be much better spent conceiving of laws and other means that would actually make a difference and then promoting them.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
630 posts
It does not matter what I, you, Carr or anyone else on this message board believes regarding this matter. The FTC is charged with enforcing the HPA and it is what they think that matters. They could have stopped Carr’s activities a long time ago, without need of a trial, by simply sending him a letter stating that said activities are illegal and he will be prosecuted if he does not comply. They have had more than five years to do so or to outright prosecute him. They have done nothing.

 

The FTC’s failure to act on this matter is the reason you and others pursue it here on this message board, combined with a justifiable fear that the FTC will never act and a misguided belief that if Carr’s pieces are stamped with COPY it will prevent numismatic fraud from occurring in some meaningful way, when in fact it would not prevent fraud from occurring in any way. There are simply far too many options to commit numismatic fraud for the absence of his pieces as one more option to matter. It is like attempting to put out a forest fire with one molecule of water. To believe otherwise is a true fallacy of logic.

 

Your time would be much better spent conceiving of laws and other means that would actually make a difference and then promoting them.

 

 

I have never received any type of "cease and desist" letter from the FTC, the US Treasury, or anyone else.

 

Anyway, yes, eBay (for example) is currently full of things like this:

American Eagle- Beautiful-REPILICA / NOVELTY- paper weight .

This particular item is not made of solid silver and it was not over-struck on a legal-tender dollar.

 

Recently enacted changes to the Hobby Protection Act seemingly expands coverage over sellers and venues (like eBay). But eBay has made no apparent efforts to curb the sale of non-compliant items on that venue.

 

Here are some more:

1916/1917 S Walking Liberty Half Dollar Two Face Coin-- NR

1895 Morgan Dollar $1 Coin #921 Two Face Coin

1873s TRADE DOLLAR (SPARKLER #15)IN GREAT SHAPE

 

There are probably many thousands more things like this on eBay right now.

Look what somebody paid for that last one.

 

Afterword is right. The only way to fight scams of all kinds is to educate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
It does not matter what I, you, Carr or anyone else on this message board believes regarding this matter. The FTC is charged with enforcing the HPA and it is what they think that matters. They could have stopped Carr’s activities a long time ago, without need of a trial, by simply sending him a letter stating that said activities are illegal and he will be prosecuted if he does not comply. They have had more than five years to do so or to outright prosecute him. They have done nothing.

 

The FTC’s failure to act on this matter is the reason you and others pursue it here on this message board, combined with a justifiable fear that the FTC will never act and a misguided belief that if Carr’s pieces are stamped with COPY it will prevent numismatic fraud from occurring in some meaningful way, when in fact it would not prevent fraud from occurring in any way. There are simply far too many options to commit numismatic fraud for the absence of his pieces as one more option to matter. It is like attempting to put out a forest fire with one molecule of water. To believe otherwise is a true fallacy of logic.

 

Your time would be much better spent conceiving of laws and other means that would actually make a difference and then promoting them.

 

 

I have never received any type of "cease and desist" letter from the FTC, the US Treasury, or anyone else.

 

Anyway, yes, eBay (for example) is currently full of things like this:

American Eagle- Beautiful-REPILICA / NOVELTY- paper weight .

This particular item is not made of solid silver and it was not over-struck on a legal-tender dollar.

 

Recently enacted changes to the Hobby Protection Act seemingly expands coverage over sellers and venues (like eBay). But eBay has made no apparent efforts to curb the sale of non-compliant items on that venue.

 

Here are some more:

1916/1917 S Walking Liberty Half Dollar Two Face Coin-- NR

1895 Morgan Dollar $1 Coin #921 Two Face Coin

1873s TRADE DOLLAR (SPARKLER #15)IN GREAT SHAPE

 

There are probably many thousands more things like this on eBay right now.

Look what somebody paid for that last one.

 

Afterword is right. The only way to fight scams of all kinds is to educate.

 

I'm sure their argument will parallel yours - everyone else is doing it!

To be honest, I noticed a spike in non-HPA compliant pieces after you first began producing your fantasy coins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
630 posts
It does not matter what I, you, Carr or anyone else on this message board believes regarding this matter. The FTC is charged with enforcing the HPA and it is what they think that matters. They could have stopped Carr’s activities a long time ago, without need of a trial, by simply sending him a letter stating that said activities are illegal and he will be prosecuted if he does not comply. They have had more than five years to do so or to outright prosecute him. They have done nothing.

 

The FTC’s failure to act on this matter is the reason you and others pursue it here on this message board, combined with a justifiable fear that the FTC will never act and a misguided belief that if Carr’s pieces are stamped with COPY it will prevent numismatic fraud from occurring in some meaningful way, when in fact it would not prevent fraud from occurring in any way. There are simply far too many options to commit numismatic fraud for the absence of his pieces as one more option to matter. It is like attempting to put out a forest fire with one molecule of water. To believe otherwise is a true fallacy of logic.

 

Your time would be much better spent conceiving of laws and other means that would actually make a difference and then promoting them.

 

 

I have never received any type of "cease and desist" letter from the FTC, the US Treasury, or anyone else.

 

Anyway, yes, eBay (for example) is currently full of things like this:

American Eagle- Beautiful-REPILICA / NOVELTY- paper weight .

This particular item is not made of solid silver and it was not over-struck on a legal-tender dollar.

 

Recently enacted changes to the Hobby Protection Act seemingly expands coverage over sellers and venues (like eBay). But eBay has made no apparent efforts to curb the sale of non-compliant items on that venue.

 

Here are some more:

1916/1917 S Walking Liberty Half Dollar Two Face Coin-- NR

1895 Morgan Dollar $1 Coin #921 Two Face Coin

1873s TRADE DOLLAR (SPARKLER #15)IN GREAT SHAPE

 

There are probably many thousands more things like this on eBay right now.

Look what somebody paid for that last one.

 

Afterword is right. The only way to fight scams of all kinds is to educate.

 

I'm sure their argument will parallel yours - everyone else is doing it!

To be honest, I noticed a spike in non-HPA compliant pieces after you first began producing your fantasy coins.

 

Nobody else is doing what I do. I'm the only one producing fantasy-date over-strike pieces. None of the court cases or other examples you cited ever involved fantasy-date over-strikes.

 

Also note that some Chinese "1964 Peace Dollars" were already on the market when I first offered mine. Whatever you see today is a continuation of trends that started decades ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
I'm sure their argument will parallel yours - everyone else is doing it! To be honest, I noticed a spike in non-HPA compliant pieces after you first began producing your fantasy coins.

 

Nobody else is doing what I do. I'm the only one producing fantasy-date over-strike pieces.

 

Good. So when the FTC wrote that fantasy coins were required to be marked in compliance with the HPA (the subject of this thread), it was clearly referring to you. I'm glad that is settled; case closed.

 

Next?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15,038 posts
It does not matter what I, you, Carr or anyone else on this message board believes regarding this matter. The FTC is charged with enforcing the HPA and it is what they think that matters. They could have stopped Carr’s activities a long time ago, without need of a trial, by simply sending him a letter stating that said activities are illegal and he will be prosecuted if he does not comply. They have had more than five years to do so or to outright prosecute him. They have done nothing.

 

The FTC’s failure to act on this matter is the reason you and others pursue it here on this message board, combined with a justifiable fear that the FTC will never act and a misguided belief that if Carr’s pieces are stamped with COPY it will prevent numismatic fraud from occurring in some meaningful way, when in fact it would not prevent fraud from occurring in any way. There are simply far too many options to commit numismatic fraud for the absence of his pieces as one more option to matter. It is like attempting to put out a forest fire with one molecule of water. To believe otherwise is a true fallacy of logic.

 

Your time would be much better spent conceiving of laws and other means that would actually make a difference and then promoting them.

 

 

I have never received any type of "cease and desist" letter from the FTC, the US Treasury, or anyone else.

 

Anyway, yes, eBay (for example) is currently full of things like this:

American Eagle- Beautiful-REPILICA / NOVELTY- paper weight .

This particular item is not made of solid silver and it was not over-struck on a legal-tender dollar.

 

Recently enacted changes to the Hobby Protection Act seemingly expands coverage over sellers and venues (like eBay). But eBay has made no apparent efforts to curb the sale of non-compliant items on that venue.

 

Here are some more:

1916/1917 S Walking Liberty Half Dollar Two Face Coin-- NR

1895 Morgan Dollar $1 Coin #921 Two Face Coin

1873s TRADE DOLLAR (SPARKLER #15)IN GREAT SHAPE

 

There are probably many thousands more things like this on eBay right now.

Look what somebody paid for that last one.

 

Afterword is right. The only way to fight scams of all kinds is to educate.

 

So.... everyone else is doing it so it's okay for you to do it, too?

 

I'm sorry officer... everyone else is smoking weed, so I'm not really doing anything wrong, am I?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
It does not matter what I, you, Carr or anyone else on this message board believes regarding this matter. The FTC is charged with enforcing the HPA and it is what they think that matters. They could have stopped Carr’s activities a long time ago, without need of a trial, by simply sending him a letter stating that said activities are illegal and he will be prosecuted if he does not comply. They have had more than five years to do so or to outright prosecute him. They have done nothing.

 

The FTC’s failure to act on this matter is the reason you and others pursue it here on this message board, combined with a justifiable fear that the FTC will never act and a misguided belief that if Carr’s pieces are stamped with COPY it will prevent numismatic fraud from occurring in some meaningful way, when in fact it would not prevent fraud from occurring in any way. There are simply far too many options to commit numismatic fraud for the absence of his pieces as one more option to matter. It is like attempting to put out a forest fire with one molecule of water. To believe otherwise is a true fallacy of logic.

 

Your time would be much better spent conceiving of laws and other means that would actually make a difference and then promoting them.

 

 

I have never received any type of "cease and desist" letter from the FTC, the US Treasury, or anyone else.

 

Anyway, yes, eBay (for example) is currently full of things like this:

American Eagle- Beautiful-REPILICA / NOVELTY- paper weight .

This particular item is not made of solid silver and it was not over-struck on a legal-tender dollar.

 

Recently enacted changes to the Hobby Protection Act seemingly expands coverage over sellers and venues (like eBay). But eBay has made no apparent efforts to curb the sale of non-compliant items on that venue.

 

Here are some more:

1916/1917 S Walking Liberty Half Dollar Two Face Coin-- NR

1895 Morgan Dollar $1 Coin #921 Two Face Coin

1873s TRADE DOLLAR (SPARKLER #15)IN GREAT SHAPE

 

There are probably many thousands more things like this on eBay right now.

Look what somebody paid for that last one.

 

Afterword is right. The only way to fight scams of all kinds is to educate.

 

So.... everyone else is doing it so it's okay for you to do it, too?

 

I'm sorry officer... everyone else is smoking weed, so I'm not really doing anything wrong, am I?

 

That would actually be legal in Colorado (at least based on state law). Apparently, the State of Colorado doesn't think it needs to follow federal law either IMHO. :devil::baiting::kidaround:

 

I couldn't resist; it was just too funny not to post. :roflmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
758 posts

But mom he hit me, aren't you going to do anything???? Waaaaaa!! Waaaaaaa!! But mom....but mom!!! Waaaaaa!!

 

The FTC doesn't see a problem folks, get over it!!! Damn!!

 

Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
But mom he hit me, aren't you going to do anything???? Waaaaaa!! Waaaaaaa!! But mom....but mom!!! Waaaaaa!!

 

The FTC doesn't see a problem folks, get over it!!! Damn!!

 

Nick

 

Which must be the reason that the FTC opined that no additional regulations were necessary since the existing regulations addressed minor date changes, and fantasy coins were already required to be marked in accordance with the HPA.

 

Remember, as Dan just pointed out to us, he is the only one making fantasy overstrike coins. Clearly the comments must have been in reference to his pieces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
758 posts
But mom he hit me, aren't you going to do anything???? Waaaaaa!! Waaaaaaa!! But mom....but mom!!! Waaaaaa!!

 

The FTC doesn't see a problem folks, get over it!!! Damn!!

 

Nick

 

Which must be the reason that the FTC opined that no additional regulations were necessary since the existing regulations addressed minor date changes, and fantasy coins were already required to be marked in accordance with the HPA.

 

Remember, as Dan just pointed out to us, he is the only one making fantasy overstrike coins. Clearly the comments must have been in reference to his pieces.

 

........and yet they have done nothing.......maybe it's not so clear its referencing his pieces......people get pretty irate around here if you assume what the FTC thinks or doesn't think. Let's just stick to.......one of these days!! One of these days!! :preach:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
630 posts
But mom he hit me, aren't you going to do anything???? Waaaaaa!! Waaaaaaa!! But mom....but mom!!! Waaaaaa!!

 

The FTC doesn't see a problem folks, get over it!!! Damn!!

 

Nick

 

Which must be the reason that the FTC opined that no additional regulations were necessary since the existing regulations addressed minor date changes, and fantasy coins were already required to be marked in accordance with the HPA.

 

Remember, as Dan just pointed out to us, he is the only one making fantasy overstrike coins. Clearly the comments must have been in reference to his pieces.

 

The FTC comments about "fantasy" coins were in regards to comments and suggestions that were previously solicited and submitted to the FTC. In those comments, the FTC cited a case that involved fraudulent activity. And that case did not involve fantasy-date over-striking.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
The FTC comments about "fantasy" coins were in regards to comments and suggestions that were previously solicited and submitted to the FTC. In those comments, the FTC cited a case that involved fraudulent activity. And that case did not involve fantasy-date over-striking.

 

The comment had nothing to do with fraudulent activity. Multiple commenters mentioned your fantasy overstrike coins, and it was even suggested that the pieces be banned. The FTC wrote that such pieces are required to be marked in compliance with the HPA, and so as long as marked, the FTC didn't see a reason for banning them. Remember, by your own admission in this thread, you are the only one making these, so I struggle to see how you think this does not apply to you.

 

 

B. Suggested Rules Modifications

 

Some commenters suggested modifications to the Rules. In particular, several commenters suggested modifications to address “fantasy coins,” government-issued coins altered by non-governmental entities to bear historically impossible dates or other features marketed as novelties.[12] Commenters variously suggested that the Commission require manufacturers of fantasy coins to stamp such items with a “FANTASY” mark,[13] expressly permit the sale of such items without an identifying mark,[14] or ban such items altogether.[15]...

 

C. Analysis

 

t is not necessary to modify the Rules to address specific collectible items, such as “fantasy coins,” as some commenters suggested. The Commission can address specific numismatic items as the need arises. Notably, the Commission has already addressed whether coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a “COPY” because otherwise they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item. See id. at 223 (“[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged `copy' are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a `reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an `orginal numismatic item' and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word `Copy'.”).[18]

 

Lastly, the Commission does not propose modifying the Rules to ban the sale of fantasy coins outright. Sales of properly-marked fantasy coins are lawful under the Commission's decision in In re Gold Bullion discussed above, which held that vendors could sell coins with date variations so long as the coins are marked with the word `Copy.' ” 92 F.T.C. at 223.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,108 posts
The FTC comments about "fantasy" coins were in regards to comments and suggestions that were previously solicited and submitted to the FTC. In those comments, the FTC cited a case that involved fraudulent activity. And that case did not involve fantasy-date over-striking.

 

The comment had nothing to do with fraudulent activity. Multiple commenters mentioned your fantasy overstrike coins, and it was even suggested that the pieces be banned. The FTC wrote that such pieces are required to be marked in compliance with the HPA, and so as long as marked, the FTC didn't see a reason for banning them. Remember, by your own admission in this thread, you are the only one making these, so I struggle to see how you think this does not apply to you.

 

 

B. Suggested Rules Modifications

 

Some commenters suggested modifications to the Rules. In particular, several commenters suggested modifications to address “fantasy coins,” government-issued coins altered by non-governmental entities to bear historically impossible dates or other features marketed as novelties.[12] Commenters variously suggested that the Commission require manufacturers of fantasy coins to stamp such items with a “FANTASY” mark,[13] expressly permit the sale of such items without an identifying mark,[14] or ban such items altogether.[15]...

 

C. Analysis

 

t is not necessary to modify the Rules to address specific collectible items, such as “fantasy coins,” as some commenters suggested. The Commission can address specific numismatic items as the need arises. Notably, the Commission has already addressed whether coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a “COPY” because otherwise they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item. See id. at 223 (“[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged `copy' are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a `reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an `orginal numismatic item' and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word `Copy'.”).[18]

 

Lastly, the Commission does not propose modifying the Rules to ban the sale of fantasy coins outright. Sales of properly-marked fantasy coins are lawful under the Commission's decision in In re Gold Bullion discussed above, which held that vendors could sell coins with date variations so long as the coins are marked with the word `Copy.' ” 92 F.T.C. at 223.

 

The above certainly appears to be squarely on point. For anyone who believes otherwise, please point how how or why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,764 posts

 

The FTC’s failure to act on this matter is the reason you and others pursue it here on this message board.

 

Your time would be much better spent conceiving of laws and other means that would actually make a difference and then promoting them.

 

 

Everyone is going to have their own reasons why they discuss this issue on these boards, to make a blanket statement like that is very likely to be incorrect.

 

All of us would probably have our time much better spent doing just about anything than posting on these boards, for example, oh, I dunno, helping out at the homeless soup kitchen, going for a hike up a mountain, or reading a numismatic book. Yet still we post............ hm

 

 

Best, HT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
758 posts
The FTC comments about "fantasy" coins were in regards to comments and suggestions that were previously solicited and submitted to the FTC. In those comments, the FTC cited a case that involved fraudulent activity. And that case did not involve fantasy-date over-striking.

 

The comment had nothing to do with fraudulent activity. Multiple commenters mentioned your fantasy overstrike coins, and it was even suggested that the pieces be banned. The FTC wrote that such pieces are required to be marked in compliance with the HPA, and so as long as marked, the FTC didn't see a reason for banning them. Remember, by your own admission in this thread, you are the only one making these, so I struggle to see how you think this does not apply to you.

 

 

B. Suggested Rules Modifications

 

Some commenters suggested modifications to the Rules. In particular, several commenters suggested modifications to address “fantasy coins,” government-issued coins altered by non-governmental entities to bear historically impossible dates or other features marketed as novelties.[12] Commenters variously suggested that the Commission require manufacturers of fantasy coins to stamp such items with a “FANTASY” mark,[13] expressly permit the sale of such items without an identifying mark,[14] or ban such items altogether.[15]...

 

C. Analysis

 

t is not necessary to modify the Rules to address specific collectible items, such as “fantasy coins,” as some commenters suggested. The Commission can address specific numismatic items as the need arises. Notably, the Commission has already addressed whether coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a “COPY” because otherwise they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item. See id. at 223 (“[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged `copy' are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a `reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an `orginal numismatic item' and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word `Copy'.”).[18]

 

Lastly, the Commission does not propose modifying the Rules to ban the sale of fantasy coins outright. Sales of properly-marked fantasy coins are lawful under the Commission's decision in In re Gold Bullion discussed above, which held that vendors could sell coins with date variations so long as the coins are marked with the word `Copy.' ” 92 F.T.C. at 223.

 

The above certainly appears to be squarely on point. For anyone who believes otherwise, please point how how or why.

 

So why has Carr not been notified, I think that's a more valid discussion. I mean they had time to write an analysis so they obviously aren't SO busy doing other things. You can interpret the analysis anyway you want but my personal opinion is they say they can address specific fantasy coins as the need arises and they don't feel a need to address Dan's pieces.

I love the taste of crow though and who knows maybe I'll be eating plenty of it one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
The FTC comments about "fantasy" coins were in regards to comments and suggestions that were previously solicited and submitted to the FTC. In those comments, the FTC cited a case that involved fraudulent activity. And that case did not involve fantasy-date over-striking.

 

The comment had nothing to do with fraudulent activity. Multiple commenters mentioned your fantasy overstrike coins, and it was even suggested that the pieces be banned. The FTC wrote that such pieces are required to be marked in compliance with the HPA, and so as long as marked, the FTC didn't see a reason for banning them. Remember, by your own admission in this thread, you are the only one making these, so I struggle to see how you think this does not apply to you.

 

 

B. Suggested Rules Modifications

 

Some commenters suggested modifications to the Rules. In particular, several commenters suggested modifications to address “fantasy coins,” government-issued coins altered by non-governmental entities to bear historically impossible dates or other features marketed as novelties.[12] Commenters variously suggested that the Commission require manufacturers of fantasy coins to stamp such items with a “FANTASY” mark,[13] expressly permit the sale of such items without an identifying mark,[14] or ban such items altogether.[15]...

 

C. Analysis

 

t is not necessary to modify the Rules to address specific collectible items, such as “fantasy coins,” as some commenters suggested. The Commission can address specific numismatic items as the need arises. Notably, the Commission has already addressed whether coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a “COPY” because otherwise they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item. See id. at 223 (“[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged `copy' are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a `reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an `orginal numismatic item' and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word `Copy'.”).[18]

 

Lastly, the Commission does not propose modifying the Rules to ban the sale of fantasy coins outright. Sales of properly-marked fantasy coins are lawful under the Commission's decision in In re Gold Bullion discussed above, which held that vendors could sell coins with date variations so long as the coins are marked with the word `Copy.' ” 92 F.T.C. at 223.

 

The above certainly appears to be squarely on point. For anyone who believes otherwise, please point how how or why.

 

So why has Carr not been notified, I think that's a more valid discussion. I mean they had time to write an analysis so they obviously aren't SO busy doing other things. You can interpret the analysis anyway you want but my personal opinion is they say they can address specific fantasy coins as the need arises and they don't feel a need to address Dan's pieces.

I love the taste of crow though and who knows maybe I'll be eating plenty of it one day.

 

Federal regulatory agencies are often inefficient and take time to review things thoroughly. There may very well be something in the pipe line. Who knows? How long did it take the government to "notify" Bernard Von Nothaus?

Edited by coinman_23885

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,108 posts
The FTC comments about "fantasy" coins were in regards to comments and suggestions that were previously solicited and submitted to the FTC. In those comments, the FTC cited a case that involved fraudulent activity. And that case did not involve fantasy-date over-striking.

 

The comment had nothing to do with fraudulent activity. Multiple commenters mentioned your fantasy overstrike coins, and it was even suggested that the pieces be banned. The FTC wrote that such pieces are required to be marked in compliance with the HPA, and so as long as marked, the FTC didn't see a reason for banning them. Remember, by your own admission in this thread, you are the only one making these, so I struggle to see how you think this does not apply to you.

 

 

B. Suggested Rules Modifications

 

Some commenters suggested modifications to the Rules. In particular, several commenters suggested modifications to address “fantasy coins,” government-issued coins altered by non-governmental entities to bear historically impossible dates or other features marketed as novelties.[12] Commenters variously suggested that the Commission require manufacturers of fantasy coins to stamp such items with a “FANTASY” mark,[13] expressly permit the sale of such items without an identifying mark,[14] or ban such items altogether.[15]...

 

C. Analysis

 

t is not necessary to modify the Rules to address specific collectible items, such as “fantasy coins,” as some commenters suggested. The Commission can address specific numismatic items as the need arises. Notably, the Commission has already addressed whether coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a “COPY” because otherwise they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item. See id. at 223 (“[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged `copy' are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a `reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an `orginal numismatic item' and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word `Copy'.”).[18]

 

Lastly, the Commission does not propose modifying the Rules to ban the sale of fantasy coins outright. Sales of properly-marked fantasy coins are lawful under the Commission's decision in In re Gold Bullion discussed above, which held that vendors could sell coins with date variations so long as the coins are marked with the word `Copy.' ” 92 F.T.C. at 223.

 

The above certainly appears to be squarely on point. For anyone who believes otherwise, please point how how or why.

 

 

 

So why has Carr not been notified, I think that's a more valid discussion. I mean they had time to write an analysis so they obviously aren't SO busy doing other things. You can interpret the analysis anyway you want but my personal opinion is they say they can address specific fantasy coins as the need arises and they don't feel a need to address Dan's pieces.

I love the taste of crow though and who knows maybe I'll be eating plenty of it one day.

 

I don't know the answer to your question. And I don't understand why such a discussion would be "more valid". Especially since it seems it would be based on nothing but speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts

Every opinion on the topic of this thread is speculation without a court of law's judgment. Only a court of law can determine what is legal or illegal. So the FTC's failure to act does matter.

 

The FTC's interpretations of the law are speculative as well without a determination from a court of law. Speculation as to why they do not act is just as valid as any other speculation concerning this matter, and very well may be the most telling.

 

Edited by Afterword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15,038 posts
Every opinion on the topic of this thread is speculation without a court of law's judgment. Only a court of law can determine what is legal or illegal.

 

Will somebody please sue somebody already so we can free up the forums and get some resolution?

 

So the FTC's failure to act does matter.

 

Actually, it really doesn't. They have stated their guidelines very clearly. As the regulatory body which owns the HPA, they are the ones that guide the implementation of the law. Their position is quite clear.

 

I agree that "innocent until proven guilty" is baked into the Constitution. Until there is official resolution, there is only speculation.

 

The FTC's failure to act doesn't mean that he's guilty or not guilty - it only means that they haven't acted so we must presume him not-guilty until proven otherwise. If the matter were forced, I am confident that he will be found in violation - but that is only my opinion until validated by a jury of our peers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
Every opinion on the topic of this thread is speculation without a court of law's judgment. Only a court of law can determine what is legal or illegal. So the FTC's failure to act does matter.

 

The FTC's interpretations of the law are speculative as well, without a determination from a court of law. Speculation as to why they do not act is just as valid as any other speculation concerning this matter, and very well may be the most telling.

 

You clearly do not understand how administrative regulations work, so I will do my best to explain it succinctly. When Congress enacts laws, it sometimes delegates power to administrative agencies to pass administrative regulations and to interpret them with the binding force of law. Courts give deference to those decisions unless the interpretations plainly conflict with Congress's express intent or meet other narrow criteria for rejection. This is not my opinion, it is the U.S. Supreme Court's decision and is binding on all courts. It is called Chevron deference.

 

In enacting the Hobby Protection Act ("HPA") Congress charged the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") with enforcing the HPA and enacting regulations and interpretations of law. The FTC has already ruled that changing the date is not enough and that the fantasy coins must be marked. The FTC has also held that imitation numismatic items (those required to be marked) include original numismatic items altered to look like different original numismatic items. That is it - courts are bound by this interpretation. It is not arbitrary nor does it violate the explicit intent or letter of the law. The FTC further clarified in the Federal Register, that in its view, fantasy pieces are already covered and must comply with the HPA marking requirements. There isn't much more to be said, and this thread is bordering on lunacy.

 

I also don't understand this vague notion that laws are only valid if violators are given special invitations in the form of court orders. When special invitations are given, there are usually severe consequences attached with it. If he ever is "notified," it is highly unlikely to be a cordial letter request to comply with the law. Numerous individuals, myself included, have tried to reason with him and explain the law. There are no excuses that he did not know. The harm the items pose to the hobby was explained, and now leading hobby periodicals are reporting the confusion that the pieces are generating. Have we really come to the point where it will take a court order in a legal proceeding to stop him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts

"As the regulatory body which owns the HPA, they are the ones that guide the implementation of the law."

 

 

 

They will not attempt prosecution without a reasonable amount of certainty of an outcome in their favor. To not consider their lengthy failure to act as a possible indicator of a lack of such certainty would be illogical.

Edited by Afterword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,108 posts
Every opinion on the topic of this thread is speculation without a court of law's judgment. Only a court of law can determine what is legal or illegal. So the FTC's failure to act does matter.

 

The FTC's interpretations of the law are speculative as well without a determination from a court of law. Speculation as to why they do not act is just as valid as any other speculation concerning this matter, and very well may be the most telling.

 

I wasn't the one who opined that one type of speculation was more valid than another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts

"Courts give deference to those decisions unless the interpretations plainly conflict with Congress's express intent or meet other narrow criteria for rejection."

 

 

As I said, only a court of law has the final say.

 

 

"The FTC has also held that imitation numismatic items (those required to be marked) include original numismatic items altered to look like different original numismatic items."

 

 

But will a court of law determine a 1964 D an original numismatic item?

 

(f) Original numismatic item means anything which has been a part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person, object, place, or event.

 

18.  See also 92 F.T.C. at 217-18 (providing further guidance on scope of Act, defining Act's reference to “coinage or issue which has been used in exchange” to mean coins that have been “actively traded in the marketplace and used as a means of payment”)

 

And do these conflict with this - 223 (“[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged `copy' are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a `reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an `orginal numismatic item' and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word `Copy'.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts

I always struggled to see how people like Jim Jones were able to acquire such a large following with people completely oblivious to logic and reason... that is until I read this thread. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

 

I think I'm done with this lunacy. My comments in this thread are not directed at all Carr supporters, FYI. (And of course, I am not suggesting Carr's behavior is morally equivalent to Jim Jones.)

 

DlFUKuRVSv6ErPf8VdzT_kool-aid-man-oh-yeah.png

 

Edited by coinman_23885

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,689 posts

 

I think I'm done with this lunacy.

 

 

I think I've heard this before

 

mark

Edited by MJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts
Every opinion on the topic of this thread is speculation without a court of law's judgment. Only a court of law can determine what is legal or illegal. So the FTC's failure to act does matter.

 

The FTC's interpretations of the law are speculative as well without a determination from a court of law. Speculation as to why they do not act is just as valid as any other speculation concerning this matter, and very well may be the most telling.

 

I wasn't the one who opined that one type of speculation was more valid than another.

 

 

 

No, you were not. Others, however, may have interpreted your words to mean that a failure to act on the part of HPA was irrelevant because you stated it was “nothing but speculation”.

 

Of course, this entire thread is fueled by nothing but speculation. However, inaction on the part of the FTC will become more and more relevant the longer this inaction continues.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
630 posts
The FTC comments about "fantasy" coins were in regards to comments and suggestions that were previously solicited and submitted to the FTC. In those comments, the FTC cited a case that involved fraudulent activity. And that case did not involve fantasy-date over-striking.

 

The comment had nothing to do with fraudulent activity. Multiple commenters mentioned your fantasy overstrike coins, and it was even suggested that the pieces be banned. The FTC wrote that such pieces are required to be marked in compliance with the HPA, and so as long as marked, the FTC didn't see a reason for banning them. Remember, by your own admission in this thread, you are the only one making these, so I struggle to see how you think this does not apply to you.

 

The FTC is aware of the practice of fantasy-date over-striking due to these very comments: Request for Comments on the Hobby Protection Act

 

The FTC, in their recent HPA comments (as quoted below), could have easily addressed and/or cited my fantasy-date over-striking. Instead, they chose to cite the Gold Bullion International case which involved fraudulent intent and was not an over-striking activity.

 

"The Commission can address specific numismatic items as the need arises"

The comments referenced above were entered on the FTC web site more than two years ago. As of today, the FTC has apparently not seen any need to address my fantasy-date over-strikes.

 

Reading over those comments again, the FTC seems to have acted on the comments submitted by Lowry and the last suggestion entered by Armen Vartian.

 

 

 

B. Suggested Rules Modifications

 

Some commenters suggested modifications to the Rules. In particular, several commenters suggested modifications to address “fantasy coins,” government-issued coins altered by non-governmental entities to bear historically impossible dates or other features marketed as novelties.[12] Commenters variously suggested that the Commission require manufacturers of fantasy coins to stamp such items with a “FANTASY” mark,[13] expressly permit the sale of such items without an identifying mark,[14] or ban such items altogether.[15]...

 

C. Analysis

 

t is not necessary to modify the Rules to address specific collectible items, such as “fantasy coins,” as some commenters suggested. The Commission can address specific numismatic items as the need arises. Notably, the Commission has already addressed whether coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a “COPY” because otherwise they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item. See id. at 223 (“[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged `copy' are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a `reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an `orginal numismatic item' and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word `Copy'.”).[18]

 

Lastly, the Commission does not propose modifying the Rules to ban the sale of fantasy coins outright. Sales of properly-marked fantasy coins are lawful under the Commission's decision in In re Gold Bullion discussed above, which held that vendors could sell coins with date variations so long as the coins are marked with the word `Copy.' ” 92 F.T.C. at 223.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,764 posts
"As the regulatory body which owns the HPA, they are the ones that guide the implementation of the law."

 

 

 

They will not attempt prosecution without a reasonable amount of certainty of an outcome in their favor. To not consider their lengthy failure to act as a possible indicator of a lack of such certainty would be illogical.

 

And to attempt to prosecute they have to spend alot of time to build the case. Government agencies are heavily under manned, they pick the low hanging fruit that is easy to grasp and that will make the most impact first. And that would be things like paper money counterfeiting. In DC's case with his fantasy pieces, it could be that he is so low on the totem pole for priority and so high in the tree for picking, that they just have not got around to it. I agree with physics, someone with time should file a suit or some kind of formal complaint with the FTC to resolve this issue as clearly alot of numismatists care and have differing opinions, and this is the only way to clear up this issue.

 

Personally, I think it is brazen and arrogant to tempt your fate with the feds - I have personal experience on this, and my opinion is DC is nuts to make the fantasy pieces without a legal ruling from the feds that specifically states with his name and his mint that these are perfectly legal. But it is his life, if he desires to risk his future in this way, well, he can.

 

Best, HT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,297 posts
The Clark Gruber &Co. Moonlight Mint home page has links. The link to items for sale has a listing of the pieces for sale. The bottom of the descriptions have the following words:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Good morning, Mr. Carr.

 

Your latest posts, while interesting, somewhat "again" touched on old roads previously explored, but did not address the above.

 

I am wondering if you have had a chance to digest it yet? It is possible you missed the post.

 

I am glad that you have made some progress in your marketing program, by not implying on your website that the pieces are LEGAL, as you did by using caps for the word "LEGAL".

 

I am just not sure your latest choice of words are clear enough for the public to understand that the pieces have not been declared LEGAL or ILLEGAL by adjudication, and any purchases should be made with an understanding that adjudication has not occurred, yet.

 

 

I don't think the words "....NOT endorsed or approved.....by the U.S. Mint, U.S. Treasury or U.S. Government...." are quite clear. Maybe adding the words "...or by LEGAL adjudication..." would assist the public and be a method of full disclosure of the status of the pieces.

 

So, what do you think?

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