Text of revised Hobby Protection Act published in Federal Register

[CaptHenway]

For the Record:

 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/federal_register_notices/2016/10/frn_hobby_final_rule_10-14-16.pdf

[brg5658]

I don't know how it could be more clear to Mr. Carr now...

 

It doesn't matter that the coin underneath was a real coin -- what matters is what is left after the striking of the "fantasy" date, etc. Intent can not be substantively determined, and thus is not a part of the legality component. Otherwise, any producer of these pieces could always claim (unverifiably so) that their intent was not to deceive.

 

Now we wait to see who will bring the Carr pieces to the FTC's attention formally...

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

...the Commission found that it was unnecessary to amend the Rules to address specific collectible items (such as ‘‘fantasy coins,’’ as some commenters suggested) because it can address specific items as the need arises. Notably, the Commission has addressed whether coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int’l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a ‘‘COPY’’ because otherwise they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item.

 

92 F.T.C. at 223 states: ‘‘[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged ‘copy’ are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a ‘reproduction, copy or counterfeit’ of an ‘orginal numismatic item’ and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word ‘Copy.’

 

 

[MarkFeld]

I don't know how it could be more clear to Mr. Carr now...

 

It doesn't matter that the coin underneath was a real coin -- what matters is what is left after the striking of the "fantasy" date, etc. Intent can not be substantively determined, and thus is not a part of the legality component. Otherwise, any producer of these pieces could always claim (unverifiably so) that their intent was not to deceive.

 

Now we wait to see who will bring the Carr pieces to the FTC's attention formally...

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

...the Commission found that it was unnecessary to amend the Rules to address specific collectible items (such as ‘‘fantasy coins,’’ as some commenters suggested) because it can address specific items as the need arises. Notably, the Commission has addressed whether coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int’l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a ‘‘COPY’’ because otherwise they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item.

 

92 F.T.C. at 223 states: ‘‘[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged ‘copy’ are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a ‘reproduction, copy or counterfeit’ of an ‘orginal numismatic item’ and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word ‘Copy.’

 

 

Sometimes, what is crystal-clear to an objective/disinterested party, is anything-but to someone else, who has a vested interest.

[jerseycat10]

"Additionally, the Commission found that it was unnecessary to amend the Rules to address specific collectible items (such as ‘‘fantasy coins,’’ as some commenters suggested) because it can address specific items as the need arises."

[RWB]

Hmmmm...Sounds like fun and profitable project for a civil law student. I think HPA allows anyone to file an action against an alleged perpetrator, and if successful the perpetrator must forfeit all revenue derived from violation of HPA to the claimant. All false dies and tooling is also forfeit and equipment can be sold to satisfy any deficiency. Further, the perpetrator has to recover all non-compliant pieces destroy them and issue refunds and publish a written warning about the legality of any pieces not recovered.

 

Of course, a real lawyer ought to look at this -- but sounds like a great way to fund the next year at Harvard Law School.

[dcarr]

I don't know how it could be more clear to Mr. Carr now...

 

It doesn't matter that the coin underneath was a real coin -- what matters is what is left after the striking of the "fantasy" date, etc. Intent can not be substantively determined, and thus is not a part of the legality component. Otherwise, any producer of these pieces could always claim (unverifiably so) that their intent was not to deceive.

 

Now we wait to see who will bring the Carr pieces to the FTC's attention formally...

 

...the Commission found that it was unnecessary to amend the Rules to address specific collectible items (such as ‘‘fantasy coins,’’ as some commenters suggested) because it can address specific items as the need arises. Notably, the Commission has addressed whether coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int’l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a ‘‘COPY’’ because otherwise they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item.

 

92 F.T.C. at 223 states: ‘‘[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged ‘copy’ are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a ‘reproduction, copy or counterfeit’ of an ‘orginal numismatic item’ and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word ‘Copy.’

 

"Additionally, the Commission found that it was unnecessary to amend the Rules to address specific collectible items (such as ‘‘fantasy coins,’’ as some commenters suggested) because it can address specific items as the need arises."

 

The Gold Bullion International (GBI) case cited in the FTC's comments has been discussed at length. But, in summary, the GBI case involved the production of German Wilhelm gold coins with dates that were not originally issued for that type. However, these were NOT over-strikes. They were struck on virgin privately-made blanks. So, date aside, they were counterfeits of the Wilhelm type, not genuine coins that were altered. And, they were intentionally and deceptively marketed as actual German Mint restrikes. The FTC concluded that "such coins should be marked 'COPY'". That statement immediately followed the GBI reference, indicating the FTC's "such coins" comment directly meant GBI-type pieces which are, date aside, counterfeits of a coin type.

 

The FTC is well aware of the practice of fantasy-date alterations to existing coins for novelty purposes. They cited my comments regarding that (footnote 17). And this comment concerning "1945" over-strike Roosevelt dimes is also posted on their web site:

Federal Trade Commission; 16 CFR Part 304; Rules and Regulations Under the Hobby Protection Act #00008

The FTC chose NOT to specifically address novelty fantasy-date altered (over-struck) coins in their comments, only that they can "address specific items as the need arises". And they have apparently not seen any need to act regarding fantasy-date alterations to existing coins.

 

Some commenters suggested modifications to the Rules. In particular, several commenters suggested modifications to address ‘‘fantasy coins,’’ government-issued coins altered by non-governmental entities to bear historically impossible dates or other features marketed as novelties.15

 

15

See Comment of Luke Burgess, supra (offering

example of Roosevelt dime altered to read ‘‘1945,’’

noting that Roosevelt dime was not introduced until

1946, and noting that such coins are not intended

to be used as currency).

 

Again, the FTC is aware of the practice of novelty (fantasy-date) alterations to existing coins. They have apparently not seen any need to act regarding fantasy-date alterations to existing coins.

 

[MarkFeld]

I don't know how it could be more clear to Mr. Carr now...

 

It doesn't matter that the coin underneath was a real coin -- what matters is what is left after the striking of the "fantasy" date, etc. Intent can not be substantively determined, and thus is not a part of the legality component. Otherwise, any producer of these pieces could always claim (unverifiably so) that their intent was not to deceive.

 

Now we wait to see who will bring the Carr pieces to the FTC's attention formally...

 

...the Commission found that it was unnecessary to amend the Rules to address specific collectible items (such as ‘‘fantasy coins,’’ as some commenters suggested) because it can address specific items as the need arises. Notably, the Commission has addressed whether coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int’l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a ‘‘COPY’’ because otherwise they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item.

 

92 F.T.C. at 223 states: ‘‘[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged ‘copy’ are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a ‘reproduction, copy or counterfeit’ of an ‘orginal numismatic item’ and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word ‘Copy.’

 

"Additionally, the Commission found that it was unnecessary to amend the Rules to address specific collectible items (such as ‘‘fantasy coins,’’ as some commenters suggested) because it can address specific items as the need arises."

 

The Gold Bullion International (GBI) case cited in the FTC's comments has been discussed at length. But, in summary, the GBI case involved the production of German Wilhelm gold coins with dates that were not originally issued for that type. However, these were NOT over-strikes. They were struck on virgin privately-made blanks. So, date aside, they were counterfeits of the Wilhelm type, not genuine coins that were altered. And, they were intentionally and deceptively marketed as actual German Mint restrikes. The FTC concluded that "such coins should be marked 'COPY'". That statement immediately followed the GBI reference, indicating the FTC's "such coins" comment directly meant GBI-type pieces which are, date aside, counterfeits of a coin type.

 

The FTC is well aware of the practice of fantasy-date alterations to existing coins for novelty purposes. They cited my comments regarding that (footnote 17). And this comment concerning "1945" over-strike Roosevelt dimes is also posted on their web site:

Federal Trade Commission; 16 CFR Part 304; Rules and Regulations Under the Hobby Protection Act #00008

The FTC chose NOT to specifically address novelty fantasy-date altered (over-struck) coins in their comments, only that they can "address specific items as the need arises". And they have apparently not seen any need to act regarding fantasy-date alterations to existing coins.

 

Some commenters suggested modifications to the Rules. In particular, several commenters suggested modifications to address ‘‘fantasy coins,’’ government-issued coins altered by non-governmental entities to bear historically impossible dates or other features marketed as novelties.15

 

15

See Comment of Luke Burgess, supra (offering

example of Roosevelt dime altered to read ‘‘1945,’’

noting that Roosevelt dime was not introduced until

1946, and noting that such coins are not intended

to be used as currency).

 

Again, the FTC is aware of the practice of novelty (fantasy-date) alterations to existing coins. They have apparently not seen any need to act regarding fantasy-date alterations to existing coins.

 

Yes, "they have apparently not seen any need to act regarding fantasy-date alterations to existing coins." But that doesn't mean such pieces are exempt from the requirement that they be marked "COPY".

 

Perhaps the FTC will see a need, if or when one or more of your coins sell for thousands of dollars to an knowledgeable buyer. Only time will tell.

[coinman_23885]

I don't know how it could be more clear to Mr. Carr now...

 

It doesn't matter that the coin underneath was a real coin -- what matters is what is left after the striking of the "fantasy" date, etc. Intent can not be substantively determined, and thus is not a part of the legality component. Otherwise, any producer of these pieces could always claim (unverifiably so) that their intent was not to deceive.

 

Now we wait to see who will bring the Carr pieces to the FTC's attention formally...

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

...the Commission found that it was unnecessary to amend the Rules to address specific collectible items (such as ‘‘fantasy coins,’’ as some commenters suggested) because it can address specific items as the need arises. Notably, the Commission has addressed whether coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int’l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a ‘‘COPY’’ because otherwise they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item.

 

92 F.T.C. at 223 states: ‘‘[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged ‘copy’ are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a ‘reproduction, copy or counterfeit’ of an ‘orginal numismatic item’ and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word ‘Copy.’

 

 

This exact text was included in a 2014 Federal Register entry and was discussed in all of the other threads. I was still accused of grasping at straws. There is no convincing a group that has an inherent interest in the outcome. The only substantial changes involved knock-off slabs and a prohibition to those who sell HPA non-compliant pieces in the statutory text.

[Afterword]

Round and round we go. Where it stops - nobody knows.

[MJ]

I don't know how it could be more clear to Mr. Carr now...

 

It doesn't matter that the coin underneath was a real coin -- what matters is what is left after the striking of the "fantasy" date, etc. Intent can not be substantively determined, and thus is not a part of the legality component. Otherwise, any producer of these pieces could always claim (unverifiably so) that their intent was not to deceive.

 

Now we wait to see who will bring the Carr pieces to the FTC's attention formally...

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

...the Commission found that it was unnecessary to amend the Rules to address specific collectible items (such as ‘‘fantasy coins,’’ as some commenters suggested) because it can address specific items as the need arises. Notably, the Commission has addressed whether coins resembling government-issued coins with date variations are subject to the Rules. In re Gold Bullion Int’l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978). It concluded that such coins should be marked as a ‘‘COPY’’ because otherwise they could be mistaken for an original numismatic item.

 

92 F.T.C. at 223 states: ‘‘[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged ‘copy’ are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a ‘reproduction, copy or counterfeit’ of an ‘orginal numismatic item’ and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word ‘Copy.’

 

 

This exact text was included in a 2014 Federal Registrar entry and was discussed in all of the other threads. I was still accused of grasping at straws. There is no convincing a group that has an inherent interest in the outcome. The only substantial changes involved knock-off slabs and a prohibition to those who sell HPA non-compliant pieces in the statutory text.

 

There is only one person that has an inherent interest in this. There is a "group" that supports him.

 

mark

[MJ]

Round and round we go. Where it stops - nobody knows.

 

The correct answer is bobsled ride to hell

 

mark

[RWB]

"The correct answer is bobsled ride to hell," or that nice Federal prison in Loveland, CO.

[comicdonna]

There is only one person that has an inherent interest in this. There is a "group" that supports him.

 

mark

It seems to me that all opposed board members have individual concerns. If all except myself were in favor of these coins not marked copy, I would still be opposed.

[coinman_23885]

 

This exact text was included in a 2014 Federal Registrar entry and was discussed in all of the other threads. I was still accused of grasping at straws. There is no convincing a group that has an inherent interest in the outcome. The only substantial changes involved knock-off slabs and a prohibition to those who sell HPA non-compliant pieces in the statutory text.

 

There is only one person that has an inherent interest in this. There is a "group" that supports him.

 

mark

 

Really? It seems like it affects several people. EBay should be concerned as well.

 

15 U.S.C. 2101

 

(b)Coins and other numismatic items

 

The manufacture in the United States... or the sale in commerce of any imitation numismatic item which is not plainly and permanently marked “copy”, is unlawful and is an unfair or deceptive act or practice in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act [15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.].

 

(d)Provision of assistance or support

It shall be a violation of subsection (a) or (b) for a person to provide substantial assistance or support to any manufacturer, importer, or seller if that person knows or should have known that the manufacturer, importer, or seller is engaged in any act or practice that violates subsection (a) or (b).

 

[MJ]

yes really.

 

mark

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

There is only one person that has an inherent interest in this. There is a "group" that supports him.

 

mark

It seems to me that all opposed board members have individual concerns. If all except myself were in favor of these coins not marked copy, I would still be opposed.

 

The PEOPLE have an inherent interest in this, with or without any "support" group. The Law is the PEOPLE.

 

I think inherent doesn't mean what it is assumed to mean.

[comicdonna]

There is only one person that has an inherent interest in this. There is a "group" that supports him.

 

mark

It seems to me that all opposed board members have individual concerns. If all except myself were in favor of these coins not marked copy, I would still be opposed.

 

The PEOPLE have an inherent interest in this, with or without any "support" group. The Law is the PEOPLE.

 

I think inherent doesn't mean what it is assumed to mean.

I think that is what I meant to say. Although, words aren't my strong point.

[MJ]

This is what Coinman stated. "There is no convincing a group that has an inherent interest in the outcome". Let's not get all Plato over it

 

m

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

This is what Coinman stated. "There is no convincing a group that has an inherent interest in the outcome". Let's not get all Plato over it

 

m

 

And? Is your reply meant to declare a position of logic?

 

He is referring to a "group" whose interest is monetary based, and not like legality based.

 

Don't get all South Park over it....."he said poop, he said poop....."

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

There is only one person that has an inherent interest in this. There is a "group" that supports him.

 

mark

It seems to me that all opposed board members have individual concerns. If all except myself were in favor of these coins not marked copy, I would still be opposed.

 

The PEOPLE have an inherent interest in this, with or without any "support" group. The Law is the PEOPLE.

 

I think inherent doesn't mean what it is assumed to mean.

I think that is what I meant to say. Although, words aren't my strong point.

 

You were doing fine. You stated the very position the PEOPLE would take. I agree that is the only LEGAL position that legitimately can be taken.

[MJ]

This is what Coinman stated. "There is no convincing a group that has an inherent interest in the outcome". Let's not get all Plato over it

 

m

 

And? Is your reply meant to declare a position of logic?

 

He is referring to a "group" whose interest is monetary based, and not like legality based.

 

Don't get all South Park over it....."he said poop, he said poop....."

 

Good one. I love South Park. You all should watch more of it.

 

The whole " law thing" is quite obviously over rated. Just look at the two candidates in the race for our highest office.

 

mark

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

This is what Coinman stated. "There is no convincing a group that has an inherent interest in the outcome". Let's not get all Plato over it

 

m

 

And? Is your reply meant to declare a position of logic?

 

He is referring to a "group" whose interest is monetary based, and not like legality based.

 

Don't get all South Park over it....."he said poop, he said poop....."

 

Good one. I love South Park. You all should watch more of it.

 

The whole " law thing" is quite obviously over rated. Just look at the two candidates in the race for our highest office.

 

mark

 

Politics is frowned upon on the boards. However, referencing your commentary with the goal of staying on point, the highest office exists at the pleasure of the PEOPLE, not the other way around. THAT is the "law thing", at its finest display of Legal transfer of the highest office. Legality is a good thing, even when some among us don't like a law, or seek to defy LEGAL solutions. THAT is of inherent interest to all the PEOPLE.

[MJ]

This is what Coinman stated. "There is no convincing a group that has an inherent interest in the outcome". Let's not get all Plato over it

 

m

 

And? Is your reply meant to declare a position of logic?

 

He is referring to a "group" whose interest is monetary based, and not like legality based.

 

Don't get all South Park over it....."he said poop, he said poop....."

 

Good one. I love South Park. You all should watch more of it.

 

The whole " law thing" is quite obviously over rated. Just look at the two candidates in the race for our highest office.

 

mark

 

Politics is frowned upon on the boards. However, referencing your commentary with the goal of staying on point, the highest office exists at the pleasure of the PEOPLE, not the other way around. THAT is the "law thing", at its finest display of Legal transfer of the highest office. Legality is a good thing, even when some among us don't like a law, or seek to defy LEGAL solutions. THAT is of inherent interest to all the PEOPLE.

 

I'm more about doing the right thing. I'm a really good person. There are bad laws on the books.

 

mark

[Hard Times]

 

I'm more about doing the right thing. I'm a really good person. There are bad laws on the books.

 

mark

 

But what is a good law, what is a bad law, is subject to personal opinion........

[MJ]

 

I'm more about doing the right thing. I'm a really good person. There are bad laws on the books.

 

mark

 

But what is a good law, what is a bad law, is subject to personal opinion........

 

True. Very true.

 

mark

[dcarr]

"The correct answer is bobsled ride to hell," or that nice Federal prison in Loveland, CO.

 

So, you're familiar with the Federal Prison System are you ?

 

[dcarr]

Good one. I love South Park. You all should watch more of it.

 

I watch "South Park" sometimes. The funny thing is, I'm familiar with all of the places they portray on the show. I grew up in the mountains near there. My brother still lives just over the hill from South Park. And as kids we did a lot of the same stuff. And my Dad was a Geologist. And we had one "token" in my High School. There are a lot of other uncanny similarities.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

"The correct answer is bobsled ride to hell," or that nice Federal prison in Loveland, CO.

 

So, you're familiar with the Federal Prison System are you ?

 

Are you familiar with LEGAL adjudication procedures? It is my understanding that other members have explained it and were willing to assist you. You may want to consider the courtesy. I think one of the first steps that should be taken by you is removal of the word "LEGAL" from your websites. That would show good faith toward those purchasing your pieces. I am sure you would not want to mislead the PEOPLE. That would not be very nice.

 

Just my opinion.