2011 Smithsonian Confederate Cent Restrike 0

[Robert P T]

I have a set of confederate cent 2nd restrikes and after researching them it appears they are Bashlow restrikes.  Most everything I read says the original dies were disfigured before Bashlow made his copies and that the original dies were given to the Smithsonian after the 1961 Bashlow restrikes were made.  My question is, how were the apparently perfect Smithsonian 2011 restrikes made if they were made from the original dies as claimed?

[VKurtB]

I do not know, but a story may shed some light. I once won a coining die from the guys who do "The Coin Show" podcast. It was for about a quarter-sized token and said "Good For One Beer". The fields, the uppermost part of the die, had started to corrode a little. I treated those surfaces with "Met-All" metal polish, to arrest the corrosion, and "clean it up" a bit. If tokens had been struck from it as I got it, the fields would have been "pebbly" or grainy. Any struck now would be pretty darned good. See my point? The Smithsonian may have "conserved" the die. After all, they are the experts on that kind of work.

[Conder101]

Very simple, they are NOT made from the original dies, they aren't even very good copies and wouldn't fool anyone familiar with the real ones.  And personal opinion, these are illegal under the HPA.

[Bootjack]

Have a six set Bashlow Restrikes just graded by NGC. 1c rated MS69 Bronze, Goldine Top Pop.  My 50c are all MS68.  Most recent 50c 3 piece-set of MS 66 and 67 sold on Heritage auction for $3995 in April 2017.  Anyone seen more recent comps?

[Kirt]

On 10/22/2019 at 4:10 PM, Conder101 said:

Very simple, they are NOT made from the original dies, they aren't even very good copies and wouldn't fool anyone familiar with the real ones.  And personal opinion, these are illegal under the HPA.

I think there's a loophole: as the Federal government never recognized the legitimacy of the Confederate government, the currency and coinage issued were also illegitimate. Logically then, false Confederate currency and coinage are not technically counterfeit in the eyes of the Federal government. There were sure a lot of Union printers smashing out Confederate bills during the war without repercussion...even after the war ended.

[Conder101]

I'm not talking about the counterfeiting laws, I'm talking about the Hobby Protection Act that makes it illegal to produce an "Imitation Numismatic Item" and not mark it with COPY.  Confederate Cents are numismatic item and the Smithsonian "restrikes" are copies of an authentic numismatic item.  They do fall under the acts definition of an imitation numismatic item and so under the law must be marked COPY.  These aren't so they are illegal.

[VKurtB]

2 hours ago, Conder101 said:

I'm talking about the Hobby Protection Act that makes it illegal to produce an "Imitation Numismatic Item" and not mark it with COPY. 

Sorry, Conder, this is a misleading statement. Yes, one section of the HPA does say exactly what you say it does, and it may well apply to Smithsonian restrikes, or it may not. But you repeatedly conveniently ignore the second chapter, dealing with altered coins, which are covered ALMOST under the first section, but not quite. I realize you may disagree, but then that would make you wrong. A key part of statutory construction is that the "specific" takes precedence over, and indeed nullifies, the "general" rule. In fact, many if not all laws are written that way.

"Except as in II, B, (4) below..."

Edited February 6, 2020 by VKurtB

[VKurtB]

Here, dear Conder, is where your analysis collapses:

§304.1   Terms defined.

(a) Act means the Hobby Protection Act (approved November 29, 1973; Pub. L. 93-167, 87 Stat. 686, (15 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.)).

(b) Commerce has the same meanings as such term has under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

(c) Commission means the Federal Trade Commission.

(d) Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified. The term shall not include any re-issue or re-strike of any original numismatic item by the United States or any foreign government.

 

It is the part in green where Daniel Carr lives. No one could "reasonably purport" his pieces are anything but what he says they are. QED. I strongly suspect the same applies to the Smithsonian pieces. Under this law, neither Carr's, nor the Smithsonian's, even fall under the definition of Imitation numismatic item.

Edited February 6, 2020 by VKurtB

[Kirt]

I did a lot of reading on this today as it was something I hadn't heard much about. REALLY bizarre timeline:

1861: Robert Lovett Jr. engraves the dies in Philly; strikes either 12 or 15 coins: Probably illegal as it would have been considered providing aid and comfort so basically high treason (glad to see Philly's carrying on thumbing its collective nose at authority well after hosting the Continental Congress)

~ murky stuff happens ~

1874: Dies re-emerge (variously from Lovett's basement or who knows where but after "delivery" to Confederate authorities) with John Haseltine; he re-strikes 74 copies using the original dies, which he then defaces with a hammer and chisel. Probably legal as HPA isn't law yet and you can't counterfeit something that was never money.

~ more murky stuff happens ~

1961: Robert Bashlow somehow gets hold of the now defaced dies and creates copies; the copied dies are used to strike 30,306 coins. After he makes the copies the original defaced dies are turned over to the Smithsonian. Probably legal for the same reason that Haseltine's restrikes are.

2011: Smithsonian authorizes a "restrike"; the different descriptions used by sellers and auctioneers are all over the place but the one thing they don't claim is that they were made from the original defaced dies. They all state some version of the Smithsonian authorizing or striking the coins followed by a statement that the original dies are held by the Smithsonian. The produced coins bear a vague resemblance to the original. Certified by NGC and sold by apparently everyone in the known universe including Walmart.

So now the question is really only about the Smithsonian "restrikes" violating the HPA. They had to have corporate attorneys look at this every which way, particularly as each entity involved would be violating the HPA if they're considered "imitation numismatic item"s (by the way, just love how the US Gov't gives itself immunity in the definition). I would bet they're focused on the definition of "original numismatic item":

Quote

(f) Original numismatic item means anything which has been a part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person, object, place, or event. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals.

I can easily see the argument: the original is not part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange. The 2011 "restrikes" themselves commemorate the war but the original "version" does not, so they are not therefore purporting to be or reasonably purporting to be an original numismatic item. 

Probably not the original intent of the HPA and I completely see @Conder101's point - I would consider the Confederate Cents an "original numismatic item" using common sense, but the specific definition gives loopholes.

 

Interestingly, if I'm right that loophole is big enough to drive a truck through. Any pattern not "used in exchange"...

[kbbpll]

36 minutes ago, Kirt said:

Any pattern not "used in exchange"...

Or how about 1933 St Gaudens? Never "used in exchange" either, so not an "original numismatic item". Make as many as you want, just don't "purport" anything. Sure, it's a ridiculous stretch of the exact wording of the law, but as VKurtB says, it's where Carr lives, and why I asked on another thread whether someone making cheesy 1885-CC trade dollars is really any different, particularly if Wu Tang or whomever put their little logo somewhere. These Smithsonian "coins" have SI added on the reverse... I don't like any of it, but others apparently draw their own lines.

[VKurtB]

This is the biggest mistake "non-legal" people make - they forget to check the law for definitions. The common everyday understanding of terms in statute is almost never the case. Terms mean what they mean in the law, not common everyday usage. We who work in legislation spend MOST of our time on definitions.

[kbbpll]

It's certainly an interesting topic to ponder. I suppose the law is written well enough to cover most counterfeits. It's the loopholes that bother me. What if my 1885-CC trade dollar example was overstruck on Morgan culls? Same composition and denomination, so - legal? I've seen 1895-O dime fakes that are easy to identify because the reverse design ("thick ribbon") was not implemented until 1901. So because that design was never produced by the mint in 1895 - legal? Both examples seem very close to Carr's 1985 silver eagle to me.

[VKurtB]

53 minutes ago, kbbpll said:

It's certainly an interesting topic to ponder. I suppose the law is written well enough to cover most counterfeits. It's the loopholes that bother me. What if my 1885-CC trade dollar example was overstruck on Morgan culls? Same composition and denomination, so - legal? I've seen 1895-O dime fakes that are easy to identify because the reverse design ("thick ribbon") was not implemented until 1901. So because that design was never produced by the mint in 1895 - legal? Both examples seem very close to Carr's 1985 silver eagle to me.

You miss the key point, though. Real 1885-CC's exist, no? Real 1895-O's exist, no? So, do "real" ones of what Carr produces exist? No!!! That's the difference!

[kbbpll]

There are no real 1885-CC trade dollars. There are no real 1895-O dimes with the thick ribbon reverse. Neither of them is an "original numismatic item" in the strictest parsing of the statute. It's what happens when you take this stuff to the extreme. In Carr's case, they never made any 1985 silver eagles, so he's OK. They never made whatever "fantasy" coin it is that Carr restruck as a proof or whatever. Well, they never made any 1885-CC trade dollars or 1895-O reverse 3 dimes either. That's my point. You could call those two "fantasy" coins as well. I don't like any of it, but others pick and choose. I don't want to argue about it though; everybody has their own logic/justification.

[VKurtB]

Well, Carr did make a 2009 "Proof ASE", which the government did not. Again, by overstriking a different proof ASE. On that one, however, there is an additional DC mark.

On the one hand, some claim "future collectors might be confused" by Carr's pieces. Have you READ the Newbie section???!!! Present collectors are WAAAAAAY confused by a good many things!! Confusion can scarcely be a legal point here.

Edited February 7, 2020 by VKurtB

[Bootjack]

Straight forward question made complex!