A fantasy piece that IS compliant with the HPA

[dcarr]

You wrote on another forum a year or so ago that you reported some 1964 Peace Dollar fantasy coins. You have no intellectual property rights to any of the design elements at all, and all are in the public domain.

 

Yes, I reported some eBay auctions of "1964-D" Peace Dollars because they were of Chinese origin (not over-stuck, not silver), and the seller was stating in their auction description that they were made by "Daniel Carr".

 

At the time, the Carr over-strikes were selling for about $250 and the Chinese ones less than $20. The seller was intentionally attempting to portray their Chinese pieces as the more valuable "Carr" over-strike.

 

A fake of a fake...this just makes me laugh...sorry, I can't help it...

 

 

Yes, it is kind of funny.

But they weren't a "copy" of the Carr version. They had crude "64" digits and so the die for them was made using a transfer from a common-date Peace Dollar and then the "64" was added to the die by hand.

Also, there were already some of these Chinese "1964-D" Peace Dollars out there at the time I first released some of my over-strikes in 2010.

[MJ]

You wrote on another forum a year or so ago that you reported some 1964 Peace Dollar fantasy coins. You have no intellectual property rights to any of the design elements at all, and all are in the public domain.

 

Yes, I reported some eBay auctions of "1964-D" Peace Dollars because they were of Chinese origin (not over-stuck, not silver), and the seller was stating in their auction description that they were made by "Daniel Carr".

 

At the time, the Carr over-strikes were selling for about $250 and the Chinese ones less than $20. The seller was intentionally attempting to portray their Chinese pieces as the more valuable "Carr" over-strike.

 

A fake of a fake...this just makes me laugh...sorry, I can't help it...

 

 

There is some irony. But it's ok to own Carr Fantasy pieces in your opinion correct?

 

mark

[MJ]

It doesn't take much to stir up and rally Sleepy Hollow does it? Also par for the course. It's rather predictable at this point.

 

Oh...but we can always count on those from ATS who almost never post here to come over to this side of the street in droves to tell us how we're all being ridiculous. I'm expecting Bochiman along anytime now.

 

 

Actually it's kind of what you do ATS ; )

 

mark

[MJ]

. Your two for one Carr and PCGS barb is duly noted.

 

mark

 

Also, how did you arrive at the conclusion that I was attacking PCGS? I wasn't. Carr has rabid supporters everywhere. Also note that the comment is targeted at a select cohort of Carr supporters and not all of them. The thread I'm criticizing is ATS, and some of the commentators I think are deserving of that label; ergo, the "rabid supporters [ATS]" language.

 

How did you arrive at the conclusion that I said you were "attacking" PCGS? I didn't. You literally substituted "barb" for "attack". I said "barb" you said "attack". One is a jab and the other is an assault from where I'm from. Which "rabid" supporters are you eluding to? How many was it exactly? I think I your goal in my opinion was just of a person stirring the pot. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

All in my humble opinion.

 

You can have the last retort as I smell rabbit hole on this one. I do reserve

the right to respond to the questions I asked in this post.

 

mark

[Afterword]

The fact that someone misrepresented a Chinese ’64 D as the work of Carr and ROM evoked Carr’s name as a selling point says a lot about the notoriety, quality and desirability of his product. It also demonstrates how accepted his work is within the numismatic community (with a few notable exceptions, of course).

 

Like it or not, Carr’s pieces are an established and well-received numismatic collectable. If it were otherwise, they would only be worth their weight in silver.

 

They will only grow more popular and valuable with the passage of time.

 

Perhaps even the HPA recognizes Carr’s positive contribution to the numismatic community.

 

[coinman_23885]

. Your two for one Carr and PCGS barb is duly noted.

 

mark

 

Also, how did you arrive at the conclusion that I was attacking PCGS? I wasn't. Carr has rabid supporters everywhere. Also note that the comment is targeted at a select cohort of Carr supporters and not all of them. The thread I'm criticizing is ATS, and some of the commentators I think are deserving of that label; ergo, the "rabid supporters [ATS]" language.

 

How did you arrive at the conclusion that I said you were "attacking" PCGS? I didn't. You literally substituted "barb" for "attack". I said "barb" you said "attack". One is a jab and the other is an assault from where I'm from. Which "rabid" supporters are you eluding to? How many was it exactly? I think I your goal in my opinion was just of a person stirring the pot. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

All in my humble opinion.

 

You can have the last retort as I smell rabbit hole on this one. I do reserve

the right to respond to the questions I asked in this post.

 

mark

 

With regards to the PCGS thread in question, it is absolutely distasteful and worthy of criticism. It takes a perfectly reasonable and legal listing (the piece actually complies with the HPA) and states that it is a "knock-off." How could you interpret this as anything other than animus towards the competition? If the denotation of the words wasn't clear enough, the connotation is blatantly obvious. Moroever, there were posters advocating that the listing be reported to eBay. I know for a fact that it was and that eBay forced a change because I contacted the seller after the language was changed.

 

Stating that the piece was similar to Carr's process of overstriking a coin does not infringe on any of Carr's intellectual property rights and there were no legal infractions to demand it be justly removed or changed. Ironically, the piece in question is unquestionably legal while Carr's pieces are questionable at best. I also do not think it was keyword spamming as alleged in violation of eBay policy, which would also be hypocritical in any event since eBay policy also bans the sale of replica, imitation, and counterfeit coins which would seemingly include all of them (to include Carr's pieces). Nevertheless, eBay does nothing when Carr's listings are reported and his supporters seem fine with posters who violate eBay policy by offering his works for sale, which brings me to my next point.

 

Carr is venerated and revered as sacrosanct. Not only is he above the law: Some of his supporters now believe that they are free to interfere with the business relationship of others selling imitation numismatic items and ones that already have hurdles because they actually comply with the marking requirements of the Hobby Protection Act. It is unfair. I am also tired of the misinformation that is circulated about his pieces from declarations (by another poster) in another thread that the pieces were all legal and that everything was already resolved. That is blatantly false. To suggest otherwise is a great disservice to people who deserve to know the circumstances and law before they make a purchase. Some of his pieces sell for hundreds of dollars, and consumers deserve to know that the legality is still in question before making such a commitment without the flood of misinformation. Moreover, his erroneous legal arguments are now being parroted by the Chinese and other counterfeiters who are striking Carr style pieces using unknown metal alloys that I think even Carr could see were counterfeit. The Moonlight Mint is like a cancer that is beginning to metastasize throughout this hobby based on fundamental misunderstandings of the law and junk written on coin message boards written by people with no knowledge of the subject matter at hand. This is blatantly dangerous and is setting the stage for this hobby to flooded by HPA non-compliant counterfeits that will only do great damage to this hobby.

 

 

Finally, the words "barb" and "attack" are synonymous. According Merriam-Webster's a barb is "a biting or pointedly critical remark or comment" and an attack is "to criticize (something or something) in a very harsh and severe way." "Attack" can also be used as an adjective with substantially the same meaning. I do not see a meaningful difference. I also do not understand the point of your PCGS two for one comment unless you are implying that I have an axe to grind with PCGS or the PCGS Forums generally. I do not. There are a great number of posters (the majority in fact) that I respect tremendously. Nevertheless, I am criticial of posters there just as I am here or anywhere else when I believe it is warranted. I am sure there are posters equally criticial of my vocal opposition to Carr (and there have been comments made in passing to that fact without specifically naming me) - it is a two way street. I cannot remember if it was merely MrMcKnowItAll or whether I was included, but Carr's opposition has been refered to "insufferable" individuals or language to that effect. Where is your criticism or disdain for them? Was that not stirring the pot?

 

[coinman_23885]

The fact that someone misrepresented a Chinese ’64 D as the work of Carr and ROM evoked Carr’s name as a selling point says a lot about the notoriety, quality and desirability of his product. It also demonstrates how accepted his work is within the numismatic community (with a few notable exceptions, of course).

 

Like it or not, Carr’s pieces are an established and well-received numismatic collectable. If it were otherwise, they would only be worth their weight in silver.

 

They will only grow more popular and valuable with the passage of time.

 

Perhaps even the HPA recognizes Carr’s positive contribution to the numismatic community.

 

This shows that my metastatic cancer analogy is accurate. It is time for collectors to cut-off the oxygen supply. It is hoped that this will be resolved sooner rather than later.

[CascadeChris]

The fact that someone misrepresented a Chinese ’64 D as the work of Carr and ROM evoked Carr’s name as a selling point says a lot about the notoriety, quality and desirability of his product. It also demonstrates how accepted his work is within the numismatic community (with a few notable exceptions, of course).

 

Like it or not, Carr’s pieces are an established and well-received numismatic collectable. If it were otherwise, they would only be worth their weight in silver.

 

They will only grow more popular and valuable with the passage of time.

 

Perhaps even the HPA recognizes Carr’s positive contribution to the numismatic community.

 

Yup. And you know what I find quite pleasing, the fact that people are buying his 64d Morgan's for $225-300 currently in the bay while they are still available at issue price. This tells me that there are fans of his work out there that don't even know he has a website and sells direct to the public at a lower issue price

[coinman_23885]

The fact that someone misrepresented a Chinese ’64 D as the work of Carr and ROM evoked Carr’s name as a selling point says a lot about the notoriety, quality and desirability of his product. It also demonstrates how accepted his work is within the numismatic community (with a few notable exceptions, of course).

 

Like it or not, Carr’s pieces are an established and well-received numismatic collectable. If it were otherwise, they would only be worth their weight in silver.

 

They will only grow more popular and valuable with the passage of time.

 

Perhaps even the HPA recognizes Carr’s positive contribution to the numismatic community.

 

Yup. And you know what I find quite pleasing, the fact that people are buying his 64d Morgan's for $225-300 currently in the bay while they are still available at issue price. This tells me that there are fans of his work out there that don't even know he has a website and sells direct to the public at a lower issue price

 

Doesn't that also undermine Carr's argument that anyone with internet access could find his coins listed on the internet? Apparently not.

[CascadeChris]

The fact that someone misrepresented a Chinese ’64 D as the work of Carr and ROM evoked Carr’s name as a selling point says a lot about the notoriety, quality and desirability of his product. It also demonstrates how accepted his work is within the numismatic community (with a few notable exceptions, of course).

 

Like it or not, Carr’s pieces are an established and well-received numismatic collectable. If it were otherwise, they would only be worth their weight in silver.

 

They will only grow more popular and valuable with the passage of time.

 

Perhaps even the HPA recognizes Carr’s positive contribution to the numismatic community.

 

Yup. And you know what I find quite pleasing, the fact that people are buying his 64d Morgan's for $225-300 currently in the bay while they are still available at issue price. This tells me that there are fans of his work out there that don't even know he has a website and sells direct to the public at a lower issue price

 

Doesn't that also undermine Carr's argument that anyone with internet access could find his coins listed on the internet? Apparently not.

 

So eBay isn't on the internet? Alert the presses!... Boy, you like grasping at straws don't you.

[coinman_23885]

Yup. And you know what I find quite pleasing, the fact that people are buying his 64d Morgan's for $225-300 currently in the bay while they are still available at issue price. This tells me that there are fans of his work out there that don't even know he has a website and sells direct to the public at a lower issue price

 

Doesn't that also undermine Carr's argument that anyone with internet access could find his coins listed on the internet? Apparently not.

 

So eBay isn't on the internet? Alert the presses!... Boy, you like grasping at straws don't you.

 

No. Carr has stated that anyone wanting knowledge about his pieces and diagnostics could visit his website. Apparently there are many people that are unaware of his website or why would they pay almost 2x or 3x for his works on eBay? That makes no sense.

[CascadeChris]

The fact that someone misrepresented a Chinese ’64 D as the work of Carr and ROM evoked Carr’s name as a selling point says a lot about the notoriety, quality and desirability of his product. It also demonstrates how accepted his work is within the numismatic community (with a few notable exceptions, of course).

 

Like it or not, Carr’s pieces are an established and well-received numismatic collectable. If it were otherwise, they would only be worth their weight in silver.

 

They will only grow more popular and valuable with the passage of time.

 

Perhaps even the HPA recognizes Carr’s positive contribution to the numismatic community.

 

Yup. And you know what I find quite pleasing, the fact that people are buying his 64d Morgan's for $225-300 currently in the bay while they are still available at issue price. This tells me that there are fans of his work out there that don't even know he has a website and sells direct to the public at a lower issue price

 

Doesn't that also undermine Carr's argument that anyone with internet access could find his coins listed on the internet? Apparently not.

 

So eBay isn't on the internet? Alert the presses!... Boy, you like grasping at straws don't you.

 

No. Carr has stated that anyone wanting knowledge about his pieces and diagnostics could visit his website. Apparently there are many people that are unaware of his website or why would they pay almost 2x or 3x for his works on eBay? That makes no sense.

 

They are fully aware of his website before they hit the buy button whether they bother to visit it or not is up to them. Its right there on the flip insert in the photos. Next straw?

[coinman_23885]

Yup. And you know what I find quite pleasing, the fact that people are buying his 64d Morgan's for $225-300 currently in the bay while they are still available at issue price. This tells me that there are fans of his work out there that don't even know he has a website and sells direct to the public at a lower issue price

 

Doesn't that also undermine Carr's argument that anyone with internet access could find his coins listed on the internet? Apparently not.

 

So eBay isn't on the internet? Alert the presses!... Boy, you like grasping at straws don't you.

 

No. Carr has stated that anyone wanting knowledge about his pieces and diagnostics could visit his website. Apparently there are many people that are unaware of his website or why would they pay almost 2x or 3x for his works on eBay? That makes no sense.

 

They are fully aware of his website before they hit the buy button whether they bother to visit it or not is up to them. Its right there on the flip insert in the photos. Next straw?

 

So the argument is not so much Dan's site being of value, we are down to the flip itself. Now what do you suppose will happen when the coin is separated from that mylar flip/insert and the eBay listing?

[dcarr]

With regards to the PCGS thread in question, it is absolutely distasteful and worthy of criticism. It takes a perfectly reasonable and legal listing (the piece actually complies with the HPA) and states that it is a "knock-off." How could you interpret this as anything other than animus towards the competition? If the denotation of the words wasn't clear enough, the connotation is blatantly obvious. ...

 

Stating that the piece was similar to Carr's process of overstriking a coin does not infringe on any of Carr's intellectual property rights and there were no legal infractions to demand it be justly removed or changed. Ironically, the piece in question is unquestionably legal while Carr's pieces are questionable at best. I also do not think it was keyword spamming as alleged in violation of eBay policy, which would also be hypocritical in any event since eBay policy also bans the sale of replica, imitation, and counterfeit coins which would seemingly include all of them (to include Carr's pieces). Nevertheless, eBay does nothing when Carr's listings are reported and his supporters seem fine with posters who violate eBay policy by offering his works for sale, which brings me to my next point.

 

Carr is venerated and revered as sacrosanct. Not only is he above the law: Some of his supporters now believe that they are free to interfere with the business relationship of others selling imitation numismatic items and ones that already have hurdles because they actually comply with the marking requirements of the Hobby Protection Act. It is unfair. I am also tired of the misinformation that is circulated about his pieces from declarations (by another poster) in another thread that the pieces were all legal and that everything was already resolved. That is blatantly false. To suggest otherwise is a great disservice to people who deserve to know the circumstances and law before they make a purchase. Some of his pieces sell for hundreds of dollars, and consumers deserve to know that the legality is still in question before making such a commitment without the flood of misinformation. Moreover, his erroneous legal arguments are now being parroted by the Chinese and other counterfeiters who are striking Carr style pieces using unknown metal alloys that I think even Carr could see were counterfeit. The Moonlight Mint is like a cancer that is beginning to metastasize throughout this hobby based on fundamental misunderstandings of the law and junk written on coin message boards written by people with no knowledge of the subject matter at hand. This is blatantly dangerous and is setting the stage for this hobby to flooded by HPA non-compliant counterfeits that will only do great damage to this hobby.

That eBay seller (Royal Oak Mint) is free to describe their wares however they want, so long as they don't violate Intellectual Property Rights (which include brand names). Like it or not, eBay policy is that an Intellectual Property owner can report just about any auction in relation to that property and get it cancelled quickly. I could have easily reported that listing's use of the "Daniel Carr" name and the auction would have been cancelled within a few hours. But I chose not to.

 

 

Moroever, there were posters advocating that the listing be reported to eBay. I know for a fact that it was and that eBay forced a change because I contacted the seller after the language was changed.

I'm calling BS on this !

You have repeatedly done your best to sensationalize and exaggerate the issues by spreading falsehoods. And now you have been caught in the act.

 

You apparently do not know how eBay works.

eBay does not ever force someone to change an active listing.

What eBay does is, if they don't like a listing, they unilaterally CANCEL the listing first, and then they tell the seller via email not to list it again or make changes before listing it again. The original listing is still up and was never cancelled. This can be verified by the eBay item number that is unchanged after the edit to remove "similar to Daniel Carr". It was voluntarily changed by the seller (to their credit, they apparently concluded it was best to omit the "Daniel Carr" reference).

 

 

[Hard Times]

That eBay seller (Royal Oak Mint) is free to describe their wares however they want, so long as they don't violate Intellectual Property Rights (which include brand names). Like it or not, eBay policy is that an Intellectual Property owner can report just about any auction in relation to that property and get it cancelled quickly. I could have easily reported that listing's use of the "Daniel Carr" name and the auction would have been cancelled within a few hours. But I chose not to.

 

 

All the listing said was something like 'compare to Carr'. That is like when you buy generic medicine on the grocery store shelf - the package of the generic meds will say 'compare to XXX', which must be legal since 100s to 1000s of generic meds with such wording are out there in the marketplace. So I think it is extreme to suggest that is violating Intellectual Property Rights. In fact it is advertisement for your pieces. The folks ATS that hammered on the Royal Mint to change the title of the listing seem to want you to succeed against the more compliant pieces. Good for them. I can't help wonder if this is more about sticking in the face of the feds by you continuing to defy the HPA than it is about the Royal Mint also having similar pieces that are compliant with the HPA? After all, clearly your pieces are superior in quality even if non-compliant......

 

This kind of attitude of 'it is us against the gubermint' is fairly prevalent in the US right now, alot of angst as we are seeing the elections is just one example. The anti-gov numismatic types have embraced the defiant Carr and his pieces the violate the HPA as part of their rhetoric.

 

Best, HT

[Conder101]

Which is more important, in your opinion, the lower perceived quality( and price),recognizing that the quality may improve with time and experience, and assured legality and compliance with HPA, vs. higher perceived quality and price, with questionable legality and questionable compliance with HPA?

Compliance with the HPA is more important, I just don't see why people would be interested in a poor quality compliant copy.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Which is more important, in your opinion, the lower perceived quality( and price),recognizing that the quality may improve with time and experience, and assured legality and compliance with HPA, vs. higher perceived quality and price, with questionable legality and questionable compliance with HPA?

Compliance with the HPA is more important, I just don't see why people would be interested in a poor quality compliant copy.

 

Very logical.

[CaptHenway]

Which is more important, in your opinion, the lower perceived quality( and price),recognizing that the quality may improve with time and experience, and assured legality and compliance with HPA, vs. higher perceived quality and price, with questionable legality and questionable compliance with HPA?

Compliance with the HPA is more important, I just don't see why people would be interested in a poor quality compliant copy.

 

Because it is legal?

[coinman_23885]

That eBay seller (Royal Oak Mint) is free to describe their wares however they want, so long as they don't violate Intellectual Property Rights (which include brand names). Like it or not, eBay policy is that an Intellectual Property owner can report just about any auction in relation to that property and get it cancelled quickly. I could have easily reported that listing's use of the "Daniel Carr" name and the auction would have been cancelled within a few hours. But I chose not to.

 

 

All the listing said was something like 'compare to Carr'. That is like when you buy generic medicine on the grocery store shelf - the package of the generic meds will say 'compare to XXX', which must be legal since 100s to 1000s of generic meds with such wording are out there in the marketplace. So I think it is extreme to suggest that is violating Intellectual Property Rights. In fact it is advertisement for your pieces. The folks ATS that hammered on the Royal Mint to change the title of the listing seem to want you to succeed against the more compliant pieces. Good for them. I can't help wonder if this is more about sticking in the face of the feds by you continuing to defy the HPA than it is about the Royal Mint also having similar pieces that are compliant with the HPA? After all, clearly your pieces are superior in quality even if non-compliant......

 

 

 

Best, HT

 

Exactly. No infringement merely more delusions.

[coinman_23885]

 

Moroever, there were posters advocating that the listing be reported to eBay. I know for a fact that it was and that eBay forced a change because I contacted the seller after the language was changed.

I'm calling BS on this !

You have repeatedly done your best to sensationalize and exaggerate the issues by spreading falsehoods. And now you have been caught in the act.

 

 

I have made no false statements. I stated that I contacted the seller and was informed that eBay forced him to change the language. That is what I was indeed told, and I have no reason to question the veracity of what I was told. What motivation would there be for making that up? There were also people ATS reporting the listing. The seller would have nothing to gain by lying.

 

As usual, you are like a deer in the head lights.

 

"Thanks for writing. Ebay required the changes to my listing that exclude mention of Mr. Carr or his issues. "

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Which is more important, in your opinion, the lower perceived quality( and price),recognizing that the quality may improve with time and experience, and assured legality and compliance with HPA, vs. higher perceived quality and price, with questionable legality and questionable compliance with HPA?

Compliance with the HPA is more important, I just don't see why people would be interested in a poor quality compliant copy.

 

Because it is legal?

 

Implicit, asked and answered via the presented question. Yes, because the HPA compliant piece is LEGAL, not in need of adjudication because it has the requisite identifiers required by law. It may be ugly, but so was the Edsel, and look what an original one is worth now.

[coinman_23885]

Implicit, asked and answered via the presented question. Yes, because the HPA compliant piece is LEGAL, not in need of adjudication because it has the requisite identifiers required by law. It may be ugly, but so was the Edsel, and look what an original one is worth now.

 

Considerations of that nature do not matter when you believe that you are above the law and require a special invitation in the form of a court order to comply with the HPA.

[dcarr]

All the listing said was something like 'compare to Carr'.

 

It doesn't matter. eBay policy is such that an intellectual property owner can report any auction they want to and get it rapidly cancelled if it references that property or brand name:

 

"Sellers aren't allowed to list an item that has an image (such as a photo), likeness (such as a drawing), name, or signature of another person on it unless the product was made or authorized by that person."

 

eBay faces, names, and signatures policy

 

[coinman_23885]

All the listing said was something like 'compare to Carr'.

 

It doesn't matter. eBay policy is such that an intellectual property owner can report any auction they want to and get it rapidly cancelled if it references that property or brand name:

 

"Sellers aren't allowed to list an item that has an image (such as a photo), likeness (such as a drawing), name, or signature of another person on it unless the product was made or authorized by that person."

 

eBay faces, names, and signatures policy

 

EBay policy also doesn't allow replica or counterfeit coins. No mention is made by your supporters that the sale of your works (of which there are several) also violates eBay policy. Pot meet kettle.

 

Also the policy you cite reads:

 

"Sellers aren't allowed to list an item that has an image (such as a photo), likeness (such as a drawing), name, or signature of another person on it unless the product was made or authorized by that person.

Make sure your listing follows these guidelines. If it doesn't, it may be removed, and you may be subject to a range of other actions, including limits of your buying and selling privileges and suspension of your account."

 

Your name was mentioned on the listing, but your name is not on the item (i.e. the coin). No violations occurred.

[dcarr]

 

Moroever, there were posters advocating that the listing be reported to eBay. I know for a fact that it was and that eBay forced a change because I contacted the seller after the language was changed.

I'm calling BS on this !

You have repeatedly done your best to sensationalize and exaggerate the issues by spreading falsehoods. And now you have been caught in the act.

 

 

I have made no false statements. I stated that I contacted the seller and was informed that eBay forced him to change the language. That is what I was indeed told, and I have no reason to question the veracity of what I was told. What motivation would there be for making that up? There were also people ATS reporting the listing. The seller would have nothing to gain by lying.

 

As usual, you are like a deer in the head lights.

 

"Thanks for writing. Ebay required the changes to my listing that exclude mention of Mr. Carr or his issues. "

 

You said that you "know for a fact that it was and that eBay forced a change".

That was a lie. You did not know this as "fact". Hearsay or misinterpretation of someone's statement does not constitute "fact". You conveniently assumed it was fact because it fit your position. You did no fact checking on it at all, and then regurgitated it as if it were a fact.

 

On the other hand, when one of my supporters makes a valid point, you reject it and call them "rabid".

 

The sparks from your axe grinding are blinding you from the reality.

 

[dcarr]

All the listing said was something like 'compare to Carr'.

 

It doesn't matter. eBay policy is such that an intellectual property owner can report any auction they want to and get it rapidly cancelled if it references that property or brand name:

 

"Sellers aren't allowed to list an item that has an image (such as a photo), likeness (such as a drawing), name, or signature of another person on it unless the product was made or authorized by that person."

 

eBay faces, names, and signatures policy

 

EBay policy also doesn't allow replica or counterfeit coins. No mention is made by your supporters that the sale of your works (of which there are several) also violates eBay policy. Pot meet kettle.

 

Also the policy you cite reads:

 

"Sellers aren't allowed to list an item that has an image (such as a photo), likeness (such as a drawing), name, or signature of another person on it unless the product was made or authorized by that person.

Make sure your listing follows these guidelines. If it doesn't, it may be removed, and you may be subject to a range of other actions, including limits of your buying and selling privileges and suspension of your account."

 

Your name was mentioned on the listing, but your name is not on the item (i.e. the coin). No violations occurred.

 

This page may explain it better:

 

What is VeRO and why was my listing removed because of it?

[coinman_23885]

 

Moroever, there were posters advocating that the listing be reported to eBay. I know for a fact that it was and that eBay forced a change because I contacted the seller after the language was changed.

I'm calling BS on this !

You have repeatedly done your best to sensationalize and exaggerate the issues by spreading falsehoods. And now you have been caught in the act.

 

 

I have made no false statements. I stated that I contacted the seller and was informed that eBay forced him to change the language. That is what I was indeed told, and I have no reason to question the veracity of what I was told. What motivation would there be for making that up? There were also people ATS reporting the listing. The seller would have nothing to gain by lying.

 

As usual, you are like a deer in the head lights.

 

"Thanks for writing. Ebay required the changes to my listing that exclude mention of Mr. Carr or his issues. "

 

You said that you "know for a fact that it was and that eBay forced a change".

That was a lie. You did not know this as "fact". Hearsay or misinterpretation of someone's statement does not constitute "fact". You conveniently assumed it was fact because it fit your position. You did no fact checking on it at all, and then regurgitated it as if it were a fact.

 

On the other hand, when one of my supporters makes a valid point, you reject it and call them "rabid".

 

The sparks from your axe grinding are blinding you from the reality.

 

I indicated the information and my source and that is clear if you provide the full text of what I said (I said I knew because I contacted the seller). The seller is actually a party to the transaction/dispute and his/her "testimony" (for lack of a better word) is not hearsay. Assuming that it was actually hearsay, there are exceptions even in courts of law for good reason and the information finds itself in court room records as fact. Your supporters commented on the piece on the PCGS forums and advocated that the piece be reported to eBay. Within hours, the language was removed. I contacted the seller and provided an exact quote. The reason provided was that eBay forced the change. I have no reason to doubt that, and I stand by my statements.

 

Also, what "point" were your supporters making?

[coinman_23885]

For those who may not have seen the listing before the amendment, the title originally included language to the effect of "similar to Daniel Carr." The description did not mention Carr and stated that the pieces were struck by the Royal Oak Mint and the owner of ROM included his name.

 

I think the listing is harmless, and I want to know what exactly Carr and his supporters find problematic about it other than putative eBay policies.

 

Freshly minted just days ago, here is a fantasy piece you'll be excited to add to your collection! This is a 1964 Morgan dollar from Royal Oak Mint

dies struck over a genuine 1921 Morgan Dollar.  If you look closely you can see traces of the

original coin's design.  No question as to the weight and purity of this .900 silver piece as it is

guaranteed by the U.S. Mint!  Earlier this year at the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia a hub prepared

for creating 1964 Morgan Dollars was discovered which shocked the numismatic collectors world.

We've only made a few of these so be the first kid on your block to have one...a great collectors piece for sure.  Just to make sure this fantasy piece complies with the Hobby Protection Act, and after consultation with leading numismatic authorities, the word copy appears on the eagle's left wing...no counterfeit coin here!  Thanks and God Bless,  Mike Bozynski, Owner, Royal Oak Mint, Royal Oak, Michigan.

[comicdonna]

For those who may not have seen the listing before the amendment, the title originally included language to the effect of "similar to Daniel Carr." The description did not mention Carr and stated that the pieces were struck by the Royal Oak Mint and the owner of ROM included his name.

 

I think the listing is harmless, and I want to know what exactly Carr and his supporters find problematic about it other than putative eBay policies.

 

  Just to make sure this fantasy piece complies with the Hobby Protection Act, and after consultation with leading numismatic authorities, the word copy appears on the eagle's left wing...no counterfeit coin here! 

I'm guessing it's this part. It makes Mr. Carr look bad for NOT complying with HPA

[CascadeChris]

For those who may not have seen the listing before the amendment, the title originally included language to the effect of "similar to Daniel Carr." The description did not mention Carr and stated that the pieces were struck by the Royal Oak Mint and the owner of ROM included his name.

 

I think the listing is harmless, and I want to know what exactly Carr and his supporters find problematic about it other than putative eBay policies.

 

  Just to make sure this fantasy piece complies with the Hobby Protection Act, and after consultation with leading numismatic authorities, the word copy appears on the eagle's left wing...no counterfeit coin here! 

I'm guessing it's this part. It makes Mr. Carr look bad for NOT complying with HPA

 

Exactly. Aside from infringing on ebays intellectual property right rules. It falsely insinuated that Carr overstrikes do not comply with the HPA. All he's doing is trying to market to the few Carr haters that interpret the HPA incorrectly in relation to Carr's work. Going by no sales or very few at best I'm guessing he's kicking himself over his poor business decision. Hope his project costs weren't too high