A fantasy piece that IS compliant with the HPA

[Afterword]

Having my name associated with an inferior product to my own, especially to promote said product by comparison to my own, would be misleading.

 

But the only opinion that matters is Carr’s. It was his name being used to promote the product.

 

I do believe it was a bad strategic move on the sellers part, however, as some would be unfamiliar with Carr and his work and might search his name and discover a much better product and without the disfiguring COPY stamped on the wing.

 

 

[coinman_23885]

Having my name associated with an inferior product to my own, especially to promote said product by comparison to my own, would be misleading.

 

There was never a claim of an association with Carr or the Moonlight Mint.

 

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

 

So this really is about pay back. It sounds like sour grapes and possibly more.

[MarkFeld]

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

 

You appear to have made a number of assumptions, without knowing what was on the mind of the seller.

 

He wasn't necessarily insinuating anything about the Carr over strikes.

And you have no way of knowing to whom he is marketing his offerings.

Or that he even knows about "Carr haters".

 

You also don't know that those whose interpretations of the HPA differ from yours, are interpreting it incorrectly.

[CascadeChris]

It was pretty clear what was on the mind of the seller so while technically an assumption I'd be willing to bet my interpretation is spot on Mark. Did you read the original pre-edited version? The insinuation was quite clear and just shy of overt

[coinman_23885]

It was pretty clear what was on the mind of the seller so while technically an assumption I'd be willing to bet my interpretation is spot on Mark. Did you read the original pre-edited version? The insinuation was quite clear and just shy of overt

 

Only the title was changed to remove the language concerning the piece being similar to Carr.

 

See - no change noted for the description in the body of the listing:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemRevisionDetails&item=252612215260&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2569

[CascadeChris]

It was pretty clear what was on the mind of the seller so while technically an assumption I'd be willing to bet my interpretation is spot on Mark. Did you read the original pre-edited version? The insinuation was quite clear and just shy of overt

 

Only the title was changed to remove the language concerning the piece being similar to Carr.

 

Wrong

[coinman_23885]

It was pretty clear what was on the mind of the seller so while technically an assumption I'd be willing to bet my interpretation is spot on Mark. Did you read the original pre-edited version? The insinuation was quite clear and just shy of overt

 

Only the title was changed to remove the language concerning the piece being similar to Carr.

 

Wrong

 

I will admit error - I saw "title" but not the "description" in the edit list. I will look for the original text.

 

[coinman_23885]

It was pretty clear what was on the mind of the seller so while technically an assumption I'd be willing to bet my interpretation is spot on Mark. Did you read the original pre-edited version? The insinuation was quite clear and just shy of overt

 

I pulled another ended listing for the same item from this seller pre 11-02-16 edits:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1964P-Fantasy-Morgan-Dollar-similar-to-Daniel-Carr-/252604409860?hash=item3ad0656804:g:I7YAAOSwx2dYD5~I

 

Freshly minted just days ago, here is a fantasy piece you'll be excited to add to your collection!

Similar to several of Daniel Carr's issues, 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.

 

I don't see where the text in green substantially changes the discussion or Mark Feld's point.

[MJ]

Coinman sees Carr's work as a cancer and the Moonlight Mints days numbered. I see the exact opposite. I see an energized expanding collecting base and I see a thriving business.

 

Carr's operations and intent is transparent. Nothing nefarious in the least. He is an honest man. His work is recognized by two grading companies and I'm sure one other will crack in time. The ANA failed to take any action against Carr when RWB tried to take him to task . In fact they found Carr had done nothing wrong. Between the grading companies, growing customer base and the ANA's non sanction it only goes to further legitimize Carr.

 

Carr has done more good for this sleepy hobby the past ten years then anyone else I know. He helps stimulate the hobby. His offerings sell out. They go to homes of various levels of collectors. They help make the hobby fun. It's a great way to augment your collection. I know somebody who has one of the best numismatic libraries on the planet and a world class coin collection who has .Carr pieces. I know entry level collectors that have Carr pieces and who now collect a US coin niche. Carr was the gateway. The commonality is that his pieces genuinely make people smile. They actually look forward to his new releases whether they be Hard Times issues, World Trade, Fantasy or other private offerings.

 

As for the Royal Oak mint goes I have little issue with his coin. It appears rather low quality but I'm sure there is a market for that. The confusing part for me is why is he marking a 1964 Morgan a copy? That coin does not exist to copy, That makes no sense and could only lead to confusion. As for EBay once he stops using Carr's name in his listings he should have zero issues. Having lived in Royal Oak I want to see this Mint as its not exactly the kind of place you would expect to find one. If you were looking for Kobe beef sliders and a hot emo girl that I would expect to see in Royal Oak. Anyways I'm going to stop by over the Christmas Holidays and maybe pick up one of his coins to compare. Something doesn't quite add up to me and I can't quite put my finger on it.

 

I'm sleepy. I'm sure I have a lot of typos and grammar to clean up tomorrow.

 

mark

[dcarr]

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.

I challenge you to fine ONE documented case where eBay forced a seller to change an active listing without cancelling it first (and thus, making it inactive).

 

You have no leg to stand on in regards to what you stated. eBay NEVER requests or "forces" a seller to change their listing. eBay cancels it without warning and then sends an explanation to the seller. That is actually a fact.

The ONLY way the situation could have unfolded as it did is if the seller voluntarily edited their own listing. The listing may have been reported to eBay, but the seller would have no indication of that whatsoever unless the listing was actually cancelled by eBay (it wasn't). More likely, the seller was directly contacted by persons expressing concern over the wording of the listings, and then the seller decided to edit them.

 

Also, what "point" were your supporters making?

Keyword spamming is clearly against eBay policy.

 

And two of the three "similar to Daniel Carr" listings that the seller had going were for items that were not similar to any of my designs (they were Gasparro flowing hair small dollars).

 

[Hard Times]

Having my name associated with an inferior product to my own, especially to promote said product by comparison to my own, would be misleading.

 

But the only opinion that matters is Carr’s. It was his name being used to promote the product.

 

I do believe it was a bad strategic move on the sellers part, however, as some would be unfamiliar with Carr and his work and might search his name and discover a much better product and without the disfiguring COPY stamped on the wing.

 

 

So generic meds on a store shelf that have in writing on their packages that their product is 'similar to X' med is misleading? It seems to be legal since there are 100s of these every time I go through the meds at my local store. Seems like ebays policy is likely violating some kind of federal law if indeed one cannot compare your product to another. In addition, how many advertisements do just that - compare directly with the competing product? Well I will answer that for you - 1000s upon 1000s

 

Disfiguring a fantasy piece with the word COPY complies with the HPA act. It is thus required by law whether the producer likes it or not. Life is tough, then you die.

 

Best, HT

[Hard Times]

It was pretty clear what was on the mind of the seller so while technically an assumption I'd be willing to bet my interpretation is spot on Mark. Did you read the original pre-edited version? The insinuation was quite clear and just shy of overt

 

Only the title was changed to remove the language concerning the piece being similar to Carr.

 

Wrong

 

[Hard Times]

Coinman sees Carr's work as a cancer and the Moonlight Mints days numbered. I see the exact opposite. I see an energized expanding collecting base and I see a thriving business.

 

Carr's operations and intent is transparent. Nothing nefarious in the least. He is an honest man. His work is recognized by two grading companies and I'm sure one other will crack in time. The ANA failed to take any action against Carr when RWB tried to take him to task . In fact they found Carr had done nothing wrong. Between the grading companies, growing customer base and the ANA's non sanction it only goes to further legitimize Carr.

 

Carr has done more good for this sleepy hobby the past ten years then anyone else I know. He helps stimulate the hobby. His offerings sell out. They go to homes of various levels of collectors. They help make the hobby fun. It's a great way to augment your collection. I know somebody who has one of the best numismatic libraries on the planet and a world class coin collection who has .Carr pieces. I know entry level collectors that have Carr pieces and who now collect a US coin niche. Carr was the gateway. The commonality is that his pieces genuinely make people smile. They actually look forward to his new releases whether they be Hard Times issues, World Trade, Fantasy or other private offerings.

 

As for the Royal Oak mint goes I have little issue with his coin. It appears rather low quality but I'm sure there is a market for that. The confusing part for me is why is he marking a 1964 Morgan a copy? That coin does not exist to copy, That makes no sense and could only lead to confusion. As for EBay once he stops using Carr's name in his listings he should have zero issues. Having lived in Royal Oak I want to see this Mint as its not exactly the kind of place you would expect to find one. If you were looking for Kobe beef sliders and a hot emo girl that I would expect to see in Royal Oak. Anyways I'm going to stop by over the Christmas Holidays and maybe pick up one of his coins to compare. Something doesn't quite add up to me and I can't quite put my finger on it.

 

I'm sleepy. I'm sure I have a lot of typos and grammar to clean up tomorrow.

 

mark

 

No question about most of what you say here, Mr. Carr is a true artist and produces stunning pieces, I especially love the HTT's. No one has suggested othewise. But that is not what we are discussing here.

 

However, many credible numismatists (and apparently lawyers) raise concerns on the legality of these pieces. My concerns are two fold - one do the fantasy pieces without the word COPY comply with the HPA, and two the risks he takes by copying the likeness of a US coin without such compliance. Feds can be very unfriendly once they decide to take action. I have personal experience with this. I would stay as far away from making these fantasy pieces as I would from a croc in a river in Africa. For both, you get eaten alive if things go wrong. Not worth the risk, it seems Mr. Carr could be just as productive in the hobby without these risks.

 

Best, HT

[MarkFeld]

Having my name associated with an inferior product to my own, especially to promote said product by comparison to my own, would be misleading.

 

But the only opinion that matters is Carr’s. It was his name being used to promote the product.

 

I do believe it was a bad strategic move on the sellers part, however, as some would be unfamiliar with Carr and his work and might search his name and discover a much better product and without the disfiguring COPY stamped on the wing.

 

 

So generic meds on a store shelf that have in writing on their packages that their product is 'similar to X' med is misleading? It seems to be legal since there are 100s of these every time I go through the meds at my local store. Seems like ebays policy is likely violating some kind of federal law if indeed one cannot compare your product to another. In addition, how many advertisements do just that - compare directly with the competing product? Well I will answer that for you - 1000s upon 1000s

 

Disfiguring a fantasy piece with the word COPY complies with the HPA act. It is thus required by law whether the producer likes it or not. Life is tough, then you die.

 

Best, HT

 

Apples to oranges. The drug labeling is apparently legal/permitted. But under EBay policy, keyword spamming is forbidden.

[CascadeChris]

It was pretty clear what was on the mind of the seller so while technically an assumption I'd be willing to bet my interpretation is spot on Mark. Did you read the original pre-edited version? The insinuation was quite clear and just shy of overt

 

I pulled another ended listing for the same item from this seller pre 11-02-16 edits:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1964P-Fantasy-Morgan-Dollar-similar-to-Daniel-Carr-/252604409860?hash=item3ad0656804:g:I7YAAOSwx2dYD5~I

 

Freshly minted just days ago, here is a fantasy piece you'll be excited to add to your collection!

Similar to several of Daniel Carr's issues, 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.

 

I don't see where the text in green substantially changes the discussion or Mark Feld's point.

 

So, you don't think that him saying "they are similar to Daniel Carr issues" yet "just to make sure that his comply with the HPA etc... no counterfeit coin here!" is an not implying that Dan's do not and are counterfeits?

[MarkFeld]

It was pretty clear what was on the mind of the seller so while technically an assumption I'd be willing to bet my interpretation is spot on Mark. Did you read the original pre-edited version? The insinuation was quite clear and just shy of overt

 

I pulled another ended listing for the same item from this seller pre 11-02-16 edits:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1964P-Fantasy-Morgan-Dollar-similar-to-Daniel-Carr-/252604409860?hash=item3ad0656804:g:I7YAAOSwx2dYD5~I

 

Freshly minted just days ago, here is a fantasy piece you'll be excited to add to your collection!

Similar to several of Daniel Carr's issues, 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.

 

I don't see where the text in green substantially changes the discussion or Mark Feld's point.

 

So, you don't think that him saying "they are similar to Daniel Carr issues" yet "just to make sure that his comply with the HPA etc... no counterfeit coin here!" is an not implying that Dan's do not and are counterfeits?

 

You didn't ask me, but I think it's just as likely that he's simply being prudent.

[CascadeChris]

It was pretty clear what was on the mind of the seller so while technically an assumption I'd be willing to bet my interpretation is spot on Mark. Did you read the original pre-edited version? The insinuation was quite clear and just shy of overt

 

I pulled another ended listing for the same item from this seller pre 11-02-16 edits:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1964P-Fantasy-Morgan-Dollar-similar-to-Daniel-Carr-/252604409860?hash=item3ad0656804:g:I7YAAOSwx2dYD5~I

 

Freshly minted just days ago, here is a fantasy piece you'll be excited to add to your collection!

Similar to several of Daniel Carr's issues, 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.

 

I don't see where the text in green substantially changes the discussion or Mark Feld's point.

 

So, you don't think that him saying "they are similar to Daniel Carr issues" yet "just to make sure that his comply with the HPA etc... no counterfeit coin here!" is an not implying that Dan's do not and are counterfeits?

 

You didn't ask me, but I think it's just as likely that he's simply being prudent.

 

I can interpret it as such, the way its written now.

[coinman_23885]

I don't see where the text in green substantially changes the discussion or Mark Feld's point.

 

So, you don't think that him saying "they are similar to Daniel Carr issues" yet "just to make sure that his comply with the HPA etc... no counterfeit coin here!" is an not implying that Dan's do not and are counterfeits?

 

I will admit when I first read the listing, I interpreted it as an implied criticism of Carr; however, I also recognized, as Mark Feld points out, that there is also a chance that he was being cautious. Criticizing Carr; however, is immaterial to the discussion IMHO at least in the way it was done.

[coinman_23885]

Having my name associated with an inferior product to my own, especially to promote said product by comparison to my own, would be misleading.

 

But the only opinion that matters is Carr’s. It was his name being used to promote the product.

 

I do believe it was a bad strategic move on the sellers part, however, as some would be unfamiliar with Carr and his work and might search his name and discover a much better product and without the disfiguring COPY stamped on the wing.

 

 

So generic meds on a store shelf that have in writing on their packages that their product is 'similar to X' med is misleading? It seems to be legal since there are 100s of these every time I go through the meds at my local store. Seems like ebays policy is likely violating some kind of federal law if indeed one cannot compare your product to another. In addition, how many advertisements do just that - compare directly with the competing product? Well I will answer that for you - 1000s upon 1000s

 

Disfiguring a fantasy piece with the word COPY complies with the HPA act. It is thus required by law whether the producer likes it or not. Life is tough, then you die.

 

Best, HT

 

Apples to oranges. The drug labeling is apparently legal/permitted. But under EBay policy, keyword spamming is forbidden.

 

So is the selling of replica coins and counterfeit coins regardless of the legal statutes at play. As such, it seems clear that there is a double standard, which I think is unfair and shows animus towards the Royal Oak Mint IMHO.

 

I also think HT's comments were directed towards the legal aspect - I don't think the comparison itself violates any intellectual property rights just as the drug labeling is legitimate. At worst, it has been suggested that the ROM listing violated eBay policy, but to parrot Carr's argument, who is being harmed by it? Accordingly, why should we enforce the policy, there was no intent to harm anyone, no? And of course, it all begs the question of why ROM pieces should be reported when allegedly violating eBay policy, but Carr's works are sold with impunity notwithstanding the fact that even LEGAL imitation numismatic items would seemingly implicate eBay's policy on replicas, etc.

[Afterword]

"they are similar to Daniel Carr issues" yet "just to make sure that his comply with the HPA etc... no counterfeit coin here!"

 

 

 

The word similar is always misleading when not accompanied by a qualifier, as it is too open to interpretation. The determination of similarity is left to the discretion of the individual reading or hearing the word.

 

Does it require compliance with the HPA because it is a copy of Carr's work or because it is a copy of a phantom coin that does not exist?

 

Does it even require compliance with the HPA?

 

 

 

[coinman_23885]

Does it require compliance with the HPA because it is a copy of Carr's work or because it is a copy of a phantom coin that does not exist?

 

Does it even require compliance with the HPA?

 

Carr has no protection under the HPA; however, the original designs that he is emulating with his fantasy overstrikes do. The HPA has also addressed the fantasy date issue, and held that changing the date to a fictitious date (even one never issued by a government body) does not change its status as a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit within the meaning of the HPA so as to exempt it from the marking requirement. This is unequivocal, and not personal opinion, but the opinion of the Federal Trade Commission.

 

From In Re Gold Bullion Int'l (some formatting may be lost in copying and pasting):

 

D. "Imitation Numismatic Item"

 

The ALJ found that no violation had occured with respect to Gold Bullion's 20 Mark Wilhelm II (1887), 10 Mark Wilhelm I (1887) and 10 Mark Wilhelm II (1888) coins, because coins of those precise descriptions were never circulated by the Gernman government. Therefore, Gold Bullion's coins were presumably not "copies" of an "original numismatic item." (I.D. 46, 51; p. 18n). In reaching this conclusion we believe the ALJ misapplied the language of the Hobby Protection Act, and we reverse his conclusions on this point, and hold that violations have occured as the result of importation of the coins in question. [10]

 

The German government never issued a 20 Mark Wilhelm II coin in 1887, doubtless out of respect for Kaiser Wilhelm I, who occupied the throne throughout that year. (Tr. 245). Germany did, however, issue a 20 Mark Wilhelm II coin dated 1888. Similarly, it issued a 10 Mark Wilhelm I in 1888, (instead of 1887 as marked on Bold Bullion's coins) and a 10 Mark Wilhelm II in 1889 (instead of 1888 as marked on Gold Bullion's coins).

 

The Hobby Protection Act plainly does not require marking only of coins that are exact replicas in every detail, of original government coinage. Rather an "imitation numismatic item" is defined as a "reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an original numismatic item." [15 U.S.C. 2106(4)] While we are left for an elucidation of the meaning of "reproduction" and "copy" to the dictionary, or cases drawn from such relatively remote areas as copy right law we need not write upon a legally barren slate when construing the meaning of "counterfeit." [11]...

 

Courts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be "sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article." United States v. Johnson, 434 F.2d 827, 830 (9th Cir. 1970) emphasis added. The likeness or resemblance must be one such "as is calculated to deceive an honest, sensible and unsuspecting person of ordinary observation and care when dealing with a person supposed to be upright and honest." United States v. Smith, 318 F.2d 94 (4th Cir. 1963). It is not necessary that the similarity be so great as to deceive experts of cautious persons. United States v. Weber, 210 F. 973, 976 (W.D. Wash. 1913); United States v. Sprague, 48 F. 828 (D.C. Wis. 1882). Applying these standards, courts have recognized that a "counterfeit" coin may embody fairly significant deviations from the genuine issue it is designed to copy....

 

Applying these principles here, we think it plain that a deviation of one digit in the date on a coin is not likely to distinguish it sufficiently from the original [12] to alert an "unsuspecting person of ordinary observation and care" whom the criminal counterfeit law protects, let alone the "ignorant, unthinking and credulous" who are not excluded from the protection of civil consumer law. Aronberg v. FTC, 132 F.2d 165 (7th Cir. 1942); Exposition Press, Inc. v. FTC, 295 F.2d 869 (2d Cir. 1962).

 

While those who ordinarily deal in coins may well possess a degree of knowledge as to coins superior to that of an average member of the public, it is nevertheless likely that a purchaser lacking access to a manual (and one which he or she is prepared to trust) listing the precise dates of issue of the coins in question, might be fooled as to the authenticity of a coin identical in all respects but the date of the original issue....

Ignoring their prior representations to consumers, respondents argue that the date of a coin is one "material factor" in its definition citing support excerpts from the Standard Catalog of World Coins (RX 43). But all that catalog points out is that the date borne by a coin is one important factor by which one may identify the coin and verify its authenticity. (RX43f). This does not mean that an alteration of one digit in the date on an imitation of an original renders the copy no longer a "counterfeit" capable of fooling one who does not consult the Standard Catalog of World Coins, just as the use of fake serial numbers or the omission of serial numbers entirely would not suffice to remove an imitation $10 note from the purview of the counterfeit laws. United States v. Chodor, supra, 479 F.2d 664. [14]

 

The position of respondents seems to be that there are certain features of a coin that determine its "identity" or "essence," which are the date, and that a simulation that fails to embody in precise detail that "essence" is neither a "reproduction, copy, or counterfeit," regardless of what a purchaser might believe. This approach, however, lacks foundation in the wording of the statute or its history and intent, and would create insuperable problems of construction. [15]

 

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that a coin is an "imitation numismatic item" within the meaning of the Hobby Protection Act if it is not sufficiently different from an original numismatic item as to alert an unsuspecting purchaser to the difference. Applying that principle here, we find that minor 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 "original numismatic item" and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word "Copy." Accordingly respondents violated the law by their failure to mark "Copy" upon their 10 Mark Wilhelm I (1887), 10 Mark Wilhelm II (1888), and 20 Mark Wilhelm II (1887).

[CaptHenway]

Does it require compliance with the HPA because it is a copy of Carr's work or because it is a copy of a phantom coin that does not exist?

 

Does it even require compliance with the HPA?

 

Carr has no protection under the HPA; however, the original designs that he is emulating with his fantasy overstrikes do. The HPA has also addressed the fantasy date issue, and held that changing the date to a fictitious date (even one never issued by a government body) does not change its status as a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit within the meaning of the HPA so as to exempt it from the marking requirement. This is unequivocal, and not personal opinion, but the opinion of the Federal Trade Commission.

 

From In Re Gold Bullion Int'l (some formatting may be lost in copying and pasting):

 

D. "Imitation Numismatic Item"

 

The ALJ found that no violation had occured with respect to Gold Bullion's 20 Mark Wilhelm II (1887), 10 Mark Wilhelm I (1887) and 10 Mark Wilhelm II (1888) coins, because coins of those precise descriptions were never circulated by the Gernman government. Therefore, Gold Bullion's coins were presumably not "copies" of an "original numismatic item." (I.D. 46, 51; p. 18n). In reaching this conclusion we believe the ALJ misapplied the language of the Hobby Protection Act, and we reverse his conclusions on this point, and hold that violations have occured as the result of importation of the coins in question. [10]

 

The German government never issued a 20 Mark Wilhelm II coin in 1887, doubtless out of respect for Kaiser Wilhelm I, who occupied the throne throughout that year. (Tr. 245). Germany did, however, issue a 20 Mark Wilhelm II coin dated 1888. Similarly, it issued a 10 Mark Wilhelm I in 1888, (instead of 1887 as marked on Bold Bullion's coins) and a 10 Mark Wilhelm II in 1889 (instead of 1888 as marked on Gold Bullion's coins).

 

The Hobby Protection Act plainly does not require marking only of coins that are exact replicas in every detail, of original government coinage. Rather an "imitation numismatic item" is defined as a "reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an original numismatic item." [15 U.S.C. 2106(4)] While we are left for an elucidation of the meaning of "reproduction" and "copy" to the dictionary, or cases drawn from such relatively remote areas as copy right law we need not write upon a legally barren slate when construing the meaning of "counterfeit." [11]...

 

Courts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be "sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article." United States v. Johnson, 434 F.2d 827, 830 (9th Cir. 1970) emphasis added. The likeness or resemblance must be one such "as is calculated to deceive an honest, sensible and unsuspecting person of ordinary observation and care when dealing with a person supposed to be upright and honest." United States v. Smith, 318 F.2d 94 (4th Cir. 1963). It is not necessary that the similarity be so great as to deceive experts of cautious persons. United States v. Weber, 210 F. 973, 976 (W.D. Wash. 1913); United States v. Sprague, 48 F. 828 (D.C. Wis. 1882). Applying these standards, courts have recognized that a "counterfeit" coin may embody fairly significant deviations from the genuine issue it is designed to copy....

 

Applying these principles here, we think it plain that a deviation of one digit in the date on a coin is not likely to distinguish it sufficiently from the original [12] to alert an "unsuspecting person of ordinary observation and care" whom the criminal counterfeit law protects, let alone the "ignorant, unthinking and credulous" who are not excluded from the protection of civil consumer law. Aronberg v. FTC, 132 F.2d 165 (7th Cir. 1942); Exposition Press, Inc. v. FTC, 295 F.2d 869 (2d Cir. 1962).

 

While those who ordinarily deal in coins may well possess a degree of knowledge as to coins superior to that of an average member of the public, it is nevertheless likely that a purchaser lacking access to a manual (and one which he or she is prepared to trust) listing the precise dates of issue of the coins in question, might be fooled as to the authenticity of a coin identical in all respects but the date of the original issue....

Ignoring their prior representations to consumers, respondents argue that the date of a coin is one "material factor" in its definition citing support excerpts from the Standard Catalog of World Coins (RX 43). But all that catalog points out is that the date borne by a coin is one important factor by which one may identify the coin and verify its authenticity. (RX43f). This does not mean that an alteration of one digit in the date on an imitation of an original renders the copy no longer a "counterfeit" capable of fooling one who does not consult the Standard Catalog of World Coins, just as the use of fake serial numbers or the omission of serial numbers entirely would not suffice to remove an imitation $10 note from the purview of the counterfeit laws. United States v. Chodor, supra, 479 F.2d 664. [14]

 

The position of respondents seems to be that there are certain features of a coin that determine its "identity" or "essence," which are the date, and that a simulation that fails to embody in precise detail that "essence" is neither a "reproduction, copy, or counterfeit," regardless of what a purchaser might believe. This approach, however, lacks foundation in the wording of the statute or its history and intent, and would create insuperable problems of construction. [15]

 

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that a coin is an "imitation numismatic item" within the meaning of the Hobby Protection Act if it is not sufficiently different from an original numismatic item as to alert an unsuspecting purchaser to the difference. Applying that principle here, we find that minor 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 "original numismatic item" and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word "Copy." Accordingly respondents violated the law by their failure to mark "Copy" upon their 10 Mark Wilhelm I (1887), 10 Mark Wilhelm II (1888), and 20 Mark Wilhelm II (1887).

 

No matter how many times we print this explanation, that simply changing the date to a non-existent date does not exempt an imitation numismatic item from the Hobby Protection Act, the nay-sayers will continue to ignore us because they want something other than a fact to be true.

[Afterword]

So why has Carr not been prosecuted? The HPA is quite aware of Carr's activities.

 

Perhaps there is a threshold involved that is not being met. Perhaps Carr's work is not seen as a legitimate threat to the numismatic community. Perhaps they are not confident of a successfully prosecute. Perhaps they see no violation of the act at all.

 

Inaction on their part creates uncertainty. This gives Carr a reason to believe his work is legal and it allows you to contend it is not legal. Neither perceptions are based on fact.

 

These discussions accomplish nothing toward resolving this matter. However, they are entertaining.

 

I am inclined to believe that intent is the determining factor, regardless of whether it is required to prosecute or not - that full disclosure matters and passes on the responsibility to the buyer.

 

[dcarr]

Does it require compliance with the HPA because it is a copy of Carr's work or because it is a copy of a phantom coin that does not exist?

 

Does it even require compliance with the HPA?

 

Carr has no protection under the HPA; however, the original designs that he is emulating with his fantasy overstrikes do. The HPA has also addressed the fantasy date issue, and held that changing the date to a fictitious date (even one never issued by a government body) does not change its status as a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit within the meaning of the HPA so as to exempt it from the marking requirement. This is unequivocal, and not personal opinion, but the opinion of the Federal Trade Commission.

 

From In Re Gold Bullion Int'l (some formatting may be lost in copying and pasting):

 

D. "Imitation Numismatic Item"

 

The ALJ found that no violation had occured with respect to Gold Bullion's 20 Mark Wilhelm II (1887), 10 Mark Wilhelm I (1887) and 10 Mark Wilhelm II (1888) coins, because coins of those precise descriptions were never circulated by the Gernman government. Therefore, Gold Bullion's coins were presumably not "copies" of an "original numismatic item." (I.D. 46, 51; p. 18n). In reaching this conclusion we believe the ALJ misapplied the language of the Hobby Protection Act, and we reverse his conclusions on this point, and hold that violations have occured as the result of importation of the coins in question. [10]

 

The German government never issued a 20 Mark Wilhelm II coin in 1887, doubtless out of respect for Kaiser Wilhelm I, who occupied the throne throughout that year. (Tr. 245). Germany did, however, issue a 20 Mark Wilhelm II coin dated 1888. Similarly, it issued a 10 Mark Wilhelm I in 1888, (instead of 1887 as marked on Bold Bullion's coins) and a 10 Mark Wilhelm II in 1889 (instead of 1888 as marked on Gold Bullion's coins).

 

The Hobby Protection Act plainly does not require marking only of coins that are exact replicas in every detail, of original government coinage. Rather an "imitation numismatic item" is defined as a "reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an original numismatic item." [15 U.S.C. 2106(4)] While we are left for an elucidation of the meaning of "reproduction" and "copy" to the dictionary, or cases drawn from such relatively remote areas as copy right law we need not write upon a legally barren slate when construing the meaning of "counterfeit." [11]...

 

Courts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be "sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article." United States v. Johnson, 434 F.2d 827, 830 (9th Cir. 1970) emphasis added. The likeness or resemblance must be one such "as is calculated to deceive an honest, sensible and unsuspecting person of ordinary observation and care when dealing with a person supposed to be upright and honest." United States v. Smith, 318 F.2d 94 (4th Cir. 1963). It is not necessary that the similarity be so great as to deceive experts of cautious persons. United States v. Weber, 210 F. 973, 976 (W.D. Wash. 1913); United States v. Sprague, 48 F. 828 (D.C. Wis. 1882). Applying these standards, courts have recognized that a "counterfeit" coin may embody fairly significant deviations from the genuine issue it is designed to copy....

 

Applying these principles here, we think it plain that a deviation of one digit in the date on a coin is not likely to distinguish it sufficiently from the original [12] to alert an "unsuspecting person of ordinary observation and care" whom the criminal counterfeit law protects, let alone the "ignorant, unthinking and credulous" who are not excluded from the protection of civil consumer law. Aronberg v. FTC, 132 F.2d 165 (7th Cir. 1942); Exposition Press, Inc. v. FTC, 295 F.2d 869 (2d Cir. 1962).

 

While those who ordinarily deal in coins may well possess a degree of knowledge as to coins superior to that of an average member of the public, it is nevertheless likely that a purchaser lacking access to a manual (and one which he or she is prepared to trust) listing the precise dates of issue of the coins in question, might be fooled as to the authenticity of a coin identical in all respects but the date of the original issue....

Ignoring their prior representations to consumers, respondents argue that the date of a coin is one "material factor" in its definition citing support excerpts from the Standard Catalog of World Coins (RX 43). But all that catalog points out is that the date borne by a coin is one important factor by which one may identify the coin and verify its authenticity. (RX43f). This does not mean that an alteration of one digit in the date on an imitation of an original renders the copy no longer a "counterfeit" capable of fooling one who does not consult the Standard Catalog of World Coins, just as the use of fake serial numbers or the omission of serial numbers entirely would not suffice to remove an imitation $10 note from the purview of the counterfeit laws. United States v. Chodor, supra, 479 F.2d 664. [14]

 

The position of respondents seems to be that there are certain features of a coin that determine its "identity" or "essence," which are the date, and that a simulation that fails to embody in precise detail that "essence" is neither a "reproduction, copy, or counterfeit," regardless of what a purchaser might believe. This approach, however, lacks foundation in the wording of the statute or its history and intent, and would create insuperable problems of construction. [15]

 

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that a coin is an "imitation numismatic item" within the meaning of the Hobby Protection Act if it is not sufficiently different from an original numismatic item as to alert an unsuspecting purchaser to the difference. Applying that principle here, we find that minor 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 "original numismatic item" and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word "Copy." Accordingly respondents violated the law by their failure to mark "Copy" upon their 10 Mark Wilhelm I (1887), 10 Mark Wilhelm II (1888), and 20 Mark Wilhelm II (1887).

 

No matter how many times we print this explanation, that simply changing the date to a non-existent date does not exempt an imitation numismatic item from the Hobby Protection Act, the nay-sayers will continue to ignore us because they want something other than a fact to be true.

 

Simple, the Gold Bullion International (GBI) pieces were not over-strikes. Therefore, they can not be in the category of altered/defaced genuine coins.

They were reproductions of the Wilhelm gold coin type.

 

No matter how many times this GBI case is posted, and its applicability disputed, it keeps getting posted again.

 

[dcarr]

Having my name associated with an inferior product to my own, especially to promote said product by comparison to my own, would be misleading.

 

But the only opinion that matters is Carr’s. It was his name being used to promote the product.

 

I do believe it was a bad strategic move on the sellers part, however, as some would be unfamiliar with Carr and his work and might search his name and discover a much better product and without the disfiguring COPY stamped on the wing.

 

 

So generic meds on a store shelf that have in writing on their packages that their product is 'similar to X' med is misleading? It seems to be legal since there are 100s of these every time I go through the meds at my local store. Seems like ebays policy is likely violating some kind of federal law if indeed one cannot compare your product to another. In addition, how many advertisements do just that - compare directly with the competing product? Well I will answer that for you - 1000s upon 1000s

 

Disfiguring a fantasy piece with the word COPY complies with the HPA act. It is thus required by law whether the producer likes it or not. Life is tough, then you die.

 

Best, HT

 

Apples to oranges. The drug labeling is apparently legal/permitted. But under EBay policy, keyword spamming is forbidden.

 

So is the selling of replica coins and counterfeit coins regardless of the legal statutes at play. As such, it seems clear that there is a double standard, which I think is unfair and shows animus towards the Royal Oak Mint IMHO.

 

I also think HT's comments were directed towards the legal aspect - I don't think the comparison itself violates any intellectual property rights just as the drug labeling is legitimate. At worst, it has been suggested that the ROM listing violated eBay policy, but to parrot Carr's argument, who is being harmed by it? Accordingly, why should we enforce the policy, there was no intent to harm anyone, no? And of course, it all begs the question of why ROM pieces should be reported when allegedly violating eBay policy, but Carr's works are sold with impunity notwithstanding the fact that even LEGAL imitation numismatic items would seemingly implicate eBay's policy on replicas, etc.

 

There is no "double standard" here.

It seems people felt that it was unnecessary for Royal Oak Mint (ROM) to use "similar to Daniel Carr" in their auction titles, especially for the Gasparro small dollar concepts which are nothing like any Carr design.

 

I would never have product descriptions or auction listings with "similar to Royal Oak Mint". Suppose I made a coin product that was intentionally of very low quality and then advertised it as "similar to, but better than, Royal Oak Mint" ?

 

As I have stated, ROM can put whatever they want in their auction descriptions, so long as it fits eBay policies and does not violate or impugn intellectual property rights or brand names.

 

And as I also previously indicated, with 100% certainty, I could have easily had all of ROM's "similar to Daniel Carr" auctions cancelled a week ago when I first saw them by reporting them via the eBay VeRO program.

 

[Hard Times]

 

As I have stated, ROM can put whatever they want in their auction descriptions, so long as it fits eBay policies and does not violate or impugn intellectual property rights or brand names.

 

And as I also previously indicated, with 100% certainty, I could have easily had all of ROM's "similar to Daniel Carr" auctions cancelled a week ago when I first saw them by reporting them via the eBay VeRO program.

 

Since the original design in question that you are copying and that the ROM was copying was made by the US Mint, how can that possibly be your intellectual property rights? Mentioning 'similar to Carr' is just an extension of saying 'similar' to the US Morgan Dollar design.

 

Now if they copied your HTT's without your permission, with or without referring to you in the listing, then that likely would be considered your intellectual property rights.

 

Best, HT(T)

[MJ]

Isn't it intellectual property rights OR brand name? In this case it would be the latter. Drop the Carr reference and move on if you are ROM

 

mark

[CaptHenway]

Does it require compliance with the HPA because it is a copy of Carr's work or because it is a copy of a phantom coin that does not exist?

 

Does it even require compliance with the HPA?

 

Carr has no protection under the HPA; however, the original designs that he is emulating with his fantasy overstrikes do. The HPA has also addressed the fantasy date issue, and held that changing the date to a fictitious date (even one never issued by a government body) does not change its status as a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit within the meaning of the HPA so as to exempt it from the marking requirement. This is unequivocal, and not personal opinion, but the opinion of the Federal Trade Commission.

 

From In Re Gold Bullion Int'l (some formatting may be lost in copying and pasting):

 

D. "Imitation Numismatic Item"

 

The ALJ found that no violation had occured with respect to Gold Bullion's 20 Mark Wilhelm II (1887), 10 Mark Wilhelm I (1887) and 10 Mark Wilhelm II (1888) coins, because coins of those precise descriptions were never circulated by the Gernman government. Therefore, Gold Bullion's coins were presumably not "copies" of an "original numismatic item." (I.D. 46, 51; p. 18n). In reaching this conclusion we believe the ALJ misapplied the language of the Hobby Protection Act, and we reverse his conclusions on this point, and hold that violations have occured as the result of importation of the coins in question. [10]

 

The German government never issued a 20 Mark Wilhelm II coin in 1887, doubtless out of respect for Kaiser Wilhelm I, who occupied the throne throughout that year. (Tr. 245). Germany did, however, issue a 20 Mark Wilhelm II coin dated 1888. Similarly, it issued a 10 Mark Wilhelm I in 1888, (instead of 1887 as marked on Bold Bullion's coins) and a 10 Mark Wilhelm II in 1889 (instead of 1888 as marked on Gold Bullion's coins).

 

The Hobby Protection Act plainly does not require marking only of coins that are exact replicas in every detail, of original government coinage. Rather an "imitation numismatic item" is defined as a "reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an original numismatic item." [15 U.S.C. 2106(4)] While we are left for an elucidation of the meaning of "reproduction" and "copy" to the dictionary, or cases drawn from such relatively remote areas as copy right law we need not write upon a legally barren slate when construing the meaning of "counterfeit." [11]...

 

Courts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be "sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article." United States v. Johnson, 434 F.2d 827, 830 (9th Cir. 1970) emphasis added. The likeness or resemblance must be one such "as is calculated to deceive an honest, sensible and unsuspecting person of ordinary observation and care when dealing with a person supposed to be upright and honest." United States v. Smith, 318 F.2d 94 (4th Cir. 1963). It is not necessary that the similarity be so great as to deceive experts of cautious persons. United States v. Weber, 210 F. 973, 976 (W.D. Wash. 1913); United States v. Sprague, 48 F. 828 (D.C. Wis. 1882). Applying these standards, courts have recognized that a "counterfeit" coin may embody fairly significant deviations from the genuine issue it is designed to copy....

 

Applying these principles here, we think it plain that a deviation of one digit in the date on a coin is not likely to distinguish it sufficiently from the original [12] to alert an "unsuspecting person of ordinary observation and care" whom the criminal counterfeit law protects, let alone the "ignorant, unthinking and credulous" who are not excluded from the protection of civil consumer law. Aronberg v. FTC, 132 F.2d 165 (7th Cir. 1942); Exposition Press, Inc. v. FTC, 295 F.2d 869 (2d Cir. 1962).

 

While those who ordinarily deal in coins may well possess a degree of knowledge as to coins superior to that of an average member of the public, it is nevertheless likely that a purchaser lacking access to a manual (and one which he or she is prepared to trust) listing the precise dates of issue of the coins in question, might be fooled as to the authenticity of a coin identical in all respects but the date of the original issue....

Ignoring their prior representations to consumers, respondents argue that the date of a coin is one "material factor" in its definition citing support excerpts from the Standard Catalog of World Coins (RX 43). But all that catalog points out is that the date borne by a coin is one important factor by which one may identify the coin and verify its authenticity. (RX43f). This does not mean that an alteration of one digit in the date on an imitation of an original renders the copy no longer a "counterfeit" capable of fooling one who does not consult the Standard Catalog of World Coins, just as the use of fake serial numbers or the omission of serial numbers entirely would not suffice to remove an imitation $10 note from the purview of the counterfeit laws. United States v. Chodor, supra, 479 F.2d 664. [14]

 

The position of respondents seems to be that there are certain features of a coin that determine its "identity" or "essence," which are the date, and that a simulation that fails to embody in precise detail that "essence" is neither a "reproduction, copy, or counterfeit," regardless of what a purchaser might believe. This approach, however, lacks foundation in the wording of the statute or its history and intent, and would create insuperable problems of construction. [15]

 

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that a coin is an "imitation numismatic item" within the meaning of the Hobby Protection Act if it is not sufficiently different from an original numismatic item as to alert an unsuspecting purchaser to the difference. Applying that principle here, we find that minor 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 "original numismatic item" and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word "Copy." Accordingly respondents violated the law by their failure to mark "Copy" upon their 10 Mark Wilhelm I (1887), 10 Mark Wilhelm II (1888), and 20 Mark Wilhelm II (1887).

 

No matter how many times we print this explanation, that simply changing the date to a non-existent date does not exempt an imitation numismatic item from the Hobby Protection Act, the nay-sayers will continue to ignore us because they want something other than a fact to be true.

 

Simple, the Gold Bullion International (GBI) pieces were not over-strikes. Therefore, they can not be in the category of altered/defaced genuine coins.

They were reproductions of the Wilhelm gold coin type.

 

No matter how many times this GBI case is posted, and its applicability disputed, it keeps getting posted again.

 

Misdirection. The underlined part applies to all imitation numismatic items with dates altered to non-existent dates, not just to GBI gold. A 1933 Washington quarter is an imitation numismatic item subject to the marking requirements of the HPA.

[dcarr]

Does it require compliance with the HPA because it is a copy of Carr's work or because it is a copy of a phantom coin that does not exist?

 

Does it even require compliance with the HPA?

 

Carr has no protection under the HPA; however, the original designs that he is emulating with his fantasy overstrikes do. The HPA has also addressed the fantasy date issue, and held that changing the date to a fictitious date (even one never issued by a government body) does not change its status as a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit within the meaning of the HPA so as to exempt it from the marking requirement. This is unequivocal, and not personal opinion, but the opinion of the Federal Trade Commission.

 

From In Re Gold Bullion Int'l (some formatting may be lost in copying and pasting):

 

D. "Imitation Numismatic Item"

 

The ALJ found that no violation had occured with respect to Gold Bullion's 20 Mark Wilhelm II (1887), 10 Mark Wilhelm I (1887) and 10 Mark Wilhelm II (1888) coins, because coins of those precise descriptions were never circulated by the Gernman government. Therefore, Gold Bullion's coins were presumably not "copies" of an "original numismatic item." (I.D. 46, 51; p. 18n). In reaching this conclusion we believe the ALJ misapplied the language of the Hobby Protection Act, and we reverse his conclusions on this point, and hold that violations have occured as the result of importation of the coins in question. [10]

 

The German government never issued a 20 Mark Wilhelm II coin in 1887, doubtless out of respect for Kaiser Wilhelm I, who occupied the throne throughout that year. (Tr. 245). Germany did, however, issue a 20 Mark Wilhelm II coin dated 1888. Similarly, it issued a 10 Mark Wilhelm I in 1888, (instead of 1887 as marked on Bold Bullion's coins) and a 10 Mark Wilhelm II in 1889 (instead of 1888 as marked on Gold Bullion's coins).

 

The Hobby Protection Act plainly does not require marking only of coins that are exact replicas in every detail, of original government coinage. Rather an "imitation numismatic item" is defined as a "reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an original numismatic item." [15 U.S.C. 2106(4)] While we are left for an elucidation of the meaning of "reproduction" and "copy" to the dictionary, or cases drawn from such relatively remote areas as copy right law we need not write upon a legally barren slate when construing the meaning of "counterfeit." [11]...

 

Courts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be "sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article." United States v. Johnson, 434 F.2d 827, 830 (9th Cir. 1970) emphasis added. The likeness or resemblance must be one such "as is calculated to deceive an honest, sensible and unsuspecting person of ordinary observation and care when dealing with a person supposed to be upright and honest." United States v. Smith, 318 F.2d 94 (4th Cir. 1963). It is not necessary that the similarity be so great as to deceive experts of cautious persons. United States v. Weber, 210 F. 973, 976 (W.D. Wash. 1913); United States v. Sprague, 48 F. 828 (D.C. Wis. 1882). Applying these standards, courts have recognized that a "counterfeit" coin may embody fairly significant deviations from the genuine issue it is designed to copy....

 

Applying these principles here, we think it plain that a deviation of one digit in the date on a coin is not likely to distinguish it sufficiently from the original [12] to alert an "unsuspecting person of ordinary observation and care" whom the criminal counterfeit law protects, let alone the "ignorant, unthinking and credulous" who are not excluded from the protection of civil consumer law. Aronberg v. FTC, 132 F.2d 165 (7th Cir. 1942); Exposition Press, Inc. v. FTC, 295 F.2d 869 (2d Cir. 1962).

 

While those who ordinarily deal in coins may well possess a degree of knowledge as to coins superior to that of an average member of the public, it is nevertheless likely that a purchaser lacking access to a manual (and one which he or she is prepared to trust) listing the precise dates of issue of the coins in question, might be fooled as to the authenticity of a coin identical in all respects but the date of the original issue....

Ignoring their prior representations to consumers, respondents argue that the date of a coin is one "material factor" in its definition citing support excerpts from the Standard Catalog of World Coins (RX 43). But all that catalog points out is that the date borne by a coin is one important factor by which one may identify the coin and verify its authenticity. (RX43f). This does not mean that an alteration of one digit in the date on an imitation of an original renders the copy no longer a "counterfeit" capable of fooling one who does not consult the Standard Catalog of World Coins, just as the use of fake serial numbers or the omission of serial numbers entirely would not suffice to remove an imitation $10 note from the purview of the counterfeit laws. United States v. Chodor, supra, 479 F.2d 664. [14]

 

The position of respondents seems to be that there are certain features of a coin that determine its "identity" or "essence," which are the date, and that a simulation that fails to embody in precise detail that "essence" is neither a "reproduction, copy, or counterfeit," regardless of what a purchaser might believe. This approach, however, lacks foundation in the wording of the statute or its history and intent, and would create insuperable problems of construction. [15]

 

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that a coin is an "imitation numismatic item" within the meaning of the Hobby Protection Act if it is not sufficiently different from an original numismatic item as to alert an unsuspecting purchaser to the difference. Applying that principle here, we find that minor 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 "original numismatic item" and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word "Copy." Accordingly respondents violated the law by their failure to mark "Copy" upon their 10 Mark Wilhelm I (1887), 10 Mark Wilhelm II (1888), and 20 Mark Wilhelm II (1887).

 

No matter how many times we print this explanation, that simply changing the date to a non-existent date does not exempt an imitation numismatic item from the Hobby Protection Act, the nay-sayers will continue to ignore us because they want something other than a fact to be true.

 

Simple, the Gold Bullion International (GBI) pieces were not over-strikes. Therefore, they can not be in the category of altered/defaced genuine coins.

They were reproductions of the Wilhelm gold coin type.

 

No matter how many times this GBI case is posted, and its applicability disputed, it keeps getting posted again.

 

Misdirection. The underlined part applies to all imitation numismatic items with dates altered to non-existent dates, not just to GBI gold. A 1933 Washington quarter is an imitation numismatic item subject to the marking requirements of the HPA.

 

An altered Washington Quarter is not an "imitation numismatic item", so long as it doesn't mimic a different date which was issued.

 

In other words (examples):

 

A carved "hobo" Washington Quarter is not an "imitation numismatic item".

 

A 1952-D Washington Quarter with the date altered to look like an issued "1932-D" Washington quarter is an imitation numismatic item of sorts.

 

A Washington Quarter altered to have a "1933" date is not an imitation of an original numismatic item because, according to the HPA language, an original numismatic item must be something that was actually issued.