From the Top, Down; Combatting the 'Market acceptability' of Counterfeit US Coins and HPA-noncompliant Numismatic Replicas
2 2

62 posts in this topic

3 minutes ago, ProfHaroldHill said:

 I think you're not grasping the full purport of my words when I delineate definitions, dude.

Or perhaps it was when I defined delineations, I'm not sure. (shrug)  Either way, after a time we weren't on the same page anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, ProfHaroldHill said:

In the past 27 years I have initiated multiple civil causes, filed thousands of documents and pleadings and have not once "settled" or lost.

Above I was simply trying to help those who didn't understand that the civil and criminal courts are different, even tho they're often conducted in the same rooms.

You haven't refuted what I have clarified to you, only disagreed with it. I think you're not grasping the full purport of my words when I delineate definitions, dude.

If we are talking civil I did 13 years in civil cases and issued Show causes ,subpoenas, Civil forfeitures and even helped to jail a lawyer and have him disbarred..

 Civil is NOTHING like criminal and for you to say that shows your ignorance on the matter..lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MAULEMALL said:

 

 Civil is NOTHING like criminal and for you to say that shows your ignorance on the matter..lol

I'm guessing pretty much everyone else reading the thread, but you, realizes that that was the very point I was making up above. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ProfHaroldHill said:

The authorization to issue is very specific to the coin being issued; composition, quantity, weight, design(s) etc. Also, the coins can only be issued from the mint by an authorized agent; the mint official(s). Once the Sacageweas were altered by being overstruck with the cent dies, they no longer met the specs required to be issued. Every other coin in the bin (or ballistic nylon bag,) still 'fit the billing', and as they were released they all became lawful US money, but the altered coins immediately became counterfeits. If the counterfeiters had pulled 500 $1 coins out of a bag, and then only used 200 of them, tossing the others back, those 300 tossed back would still be legally issued coins once they were shipped out of the mint. It would make no difference that someone had handled them for bit while the coins were sitting, waiting to be release.

If you and I broke into the mint, (or if we were employees in there legally,)  and we struck up a bunch of coins, using all the proper equipment, and we managed to have them slip through the usual release channels, so that they left the custody of the mint, we'd still be charged with counterfeiting when we were caught.  In this case the coins would even "met the design specs" for authorized release, but we were not authorized as agents of the issuing authority to manufacture and release into circulation, the 'extra' coins that we struck. (Counterfeiting would be the charge even if we never got our hands on the extra coins after they left the mint.)

 

 

I don't think this is correct.  First off, if you've ever seen the mint in operation, I don't know how these errors could be created, as the diameter of a dollar is larger than a cent, so it wouldn't be possible for the larger coin to fit in the collar and be struck.  I could see a cent struck by a larger press, but not this the other way around.  In actual operation these coins are all fed into enormous bags (these aren't the typical $1,000 face bags of quarters or dimes, these are pallet sized industrial bags) and there is no one standing there authorizing the release of each coin, it's an industrial process.  Errors happen frequently (though they might only be one in a million coins, that's thousands of errors per year, are all of those counterfeits?  A coin struck twice, is that a counterfeit?  The answer is no.  If they got released, they were released, they are legal tender by their very definition, these were not produced to be illicit $1.01 coins so they could get the extra penny, they were released as dollar coins with bad quality.  If the employee stole them and sold them as "errors" then it's a stolen property issue, not a counterfeiting issue.  By process such errors should be identified before release and destroyed, but that process is not 100%, so some eventually make it out.  I have a 1974 cent that weighs 2.5 grams and was likely struck on a foreign planchet, is that a counterfeit?  I got it in circulation and am pretty sure it was produced at the mint, but it's not to mint specifications for that year.  

And the argument about you and me breaking into the mint is ludicrous on its face, but to play along, if we arranged for them to leave the mint, we would likely be in violation of mint procedures, and would be fired.  If we absconded with the coins and sold them, it would be a simple case of stolen property, not counterfeiting.  The Mint is not in the business of producing error coins, as such the production of error coins cannot be counterfeiting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2020 at 6:42 PM, MAULEMALL said:

I won my case that I brought before the court. Not the government. Me, Mr private citizen.

Respectfully, yes, you Mr. private citizen, won before a "state" court.  The matter Prof. Hill has the admirable audacity to address has the potential to trigger the full weight, power, prestige and infinite time and resources of the United States Government.  I was going to suggest sending a policy-before-politics-type like VKurtB down for a fireside chat after the change in Administration,  but this is no time for levity.  Sorry, but errors and me just don't mix. I don't understand all the minimization and resistance engaged in by spectators. I stand behind Prof. Hill 100%. We have enough garbage in circulation out there as it is.  If what Prof. Hill has brought to light is true, it needs to be nipped in the bud.  And where does the ANA stand on this???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jtryka said:

I don't think this is correct.  First off, if you've ever seen the mint in operation, I don't know how these errors could be created,....  ...these aren't the typical $1,000 face bags of quarters or dimes, these are pallet sized industrial bags) and there is no one standing there authorizing the release of each coin....  ....that's thousands of errors per year, are all of those counterfeits?  A coin struck twice, is that a counterfeit? ...... The Mint is not in the business of producing error coins, as such the production of error coins cannot be counterfeiting.

These are not errors. They are unauthorized utterances of renditions of US circulating money that were made intentionally. That is legally the description of a counterfeit. Up above I clearly explain why they can not be errors. Fred Weinberg, PCGS expert, has said that these were intentionally made.

Yes, the bags are big, and are made of a substance nearly identical to Kevlar, a ballistic nylon used in body armor, as I noted in my post.

Each coin does not require individual release, but every single one must match the technical specifications stipulated by the authorization. These do not.

As I clearly stated near the top of this thread, ALL genuine error coins that were accidentally released are legal to own and sell. 

Your coin is an error, so of course it's not a counterfeit.

These items are not error coins, they are technically counterfeit coins.

If the Feds ever caught up with the person(s) responsible, they would have good cause for counterfeiting charges. Even though they could choose to charge them with the lesser charges you bring up, they will file the most serious charge that has reasonable chance of success.

 

Edited by ProfHaroldHill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2020 at 4:02 PM, MAULEMALL said:

Again.. 

molon labe

If you or an associate actually own one of these, certified by a third party grading company as an error, rather than posting your resistance to seizure why not surrender it to the Feds and ask if you can have it back?

That way, if they return it to you, you can smile a VERY big smile, because the value of your piece will have skyrocketed to multiples of your purchase price! Lots of people decided to not bid on the one at top of this thread, back when it was sold by Heritage Auctions. Unlike the 2000 Sacagewea 'mules', which could have been accidentally made and released, these suffered at auction from the fact lots of people knew they were a risk to possess. New sales, post Govt approval, would undoubtedly bring very high prices, due to the nature of these items.

If, on the other hand, they kept the piece, you can unwind the entire deal wherein you bought it, being made whole again, with full compensation, surely exceeding the purchase price of the counterfeit.  And you wouldn't even have to sue. They'd be all over you to end it with a hefty settlement.

As I've said before, each one of these that was certified is a unique and serious liability to any TPG that slabbed them as errors. They're not errors and the TPG's would all have known that upon examination and authentication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ProfHaroldHill said:

Or perhaps it was when I defined delineations, I'm not sure. (shrug)  Either way, after a time we weren't on the same page anymore.

@MAULEMALL, I see where we parted paths... I used the wrong phrase to characterize the scenario posited by @Moxie15

Moxie15 had me in the trial, prosecuting the alleged counterfeiter, but I used the phrase, "seeking charges", which of course an individual can do.

It was the idea that an individual could compel the trial, and then be there opposing the accused, like in a civil trial, that I was countering, not the ability to ask that charges be filed by way of affidavit/sworn statement.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, jtryka said:

If these coins went out through normal channels of commerce from the mint, wouldn't they by definition be authorized?  I am not familiar with these specific coins but if they went out in mint bags to the Fed, they would be authorized, but if they went out the back door with an employee then it would seem they were stolen property (in this case what should have been scrap) but not necessarily counterfeits.

If they went out the back door, then they should have been seized as per the bogus arguments surrounding the 1933 Saints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good case study might be the Sac mules and the case brought against the mint employees that smuggled them out. (This is going from memory now)  They did allow a couple of pieces to go out through regular channels and be found in circulation to establish their "legitimacy", and then sold the others through dealers for a profit.  The court found that the coins found in circulation were legally released and legal to own.  The coins the employees sold were declared not legally issued and to be still  government property.  The employees were convicted of theft and conversion.  Oddly the government has never made any attempt to recover the stolen property and currently all, or almost all. of them are sitting in a single collection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

Respectfully, yes, you Mr. private citizen, won before a "state" court.  The matter Prof. Hill has the admirable audacity to address has the potential to trigger the full weight, power, prestige and infinite time and resources of the United States Government.  I was going to suggest sending a policy-before-politics-type like VKurtB down for a fireside chat after the change in Administration,  but this is no time for levity.  Sorry, but errors and me just don't mix. I don't understand all the minimization and resistance engaged in by spectators. I stand behind Prof. Hill 100%. We have enough garbage in circulation out there as it is.  If what Prof. Hill has brought to light is true, it needs to be nipped in the bud.  And where does the ANA stand on this???

you still think people read what you post.. Thats cute:golfclap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Quintus Arrius said:

You do, and that has to count for something. 😉

ACTUALLY, I don't..(tsk)

Unless I can't sleep.. If you post over one sentence and haven't got my interest, I'm gone:fear:

And anything pertaining to a rooster is saved for nappy time...zzz

Seriously, When you were boasting of your trolling prowess, I had high hopes but man what a letdown...:boo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, MAULEMALL said:

ACTUALLY, I don't..(tsk)

Unless I can't sleep.. If you post over one sentence and haven't got my interest, I'm gone:fear:

And anything pertaining to a rooster is saved for nappy time...zzz

Seriously, When you were boasting of your trolling prowess, I had high hopes but man what a letdown...:boo:

Once bitten, twice shy.  The only people following me are those who are ignoring me.  Go figure. Great hearing from you, as always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

Once bitten, twice shy.  The only people following me are those who are ignoring me.  Go figure. Great hearing from you, as always.

Got to once bitten ,THEN WHAM.....nappy time...zzz

 You should bottle it...:golfclap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/14/2020 at 9:39 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Respectfully, yes, you Mr. private citizen, won before a "state" court.  The matter Prof. Hill has the admirable audacity to address has the potential to trigger the full weight, power, prestige and infinite time and resources of the United States Government.  I was going to suggest sending a policy-before-politics-type like VKurtB down for a fireside chat after the change in Administration,  but this is no time for levity.  Sorry, but errors and me just don't mix. I don't understand all the minimization and resistance engaged in by spectators. I stand behind Prof. Hill 100%. We have enough garbage in circulation out there as it is.  If what Prof. Hill has brought to light is true, it needs to be nipped in the bud.  And where does the ANA stand on this???

The ANA does not have, and will not take, a position on a legal matter such as this. They will respond to what the courts rule, but they will not, because they believe they MAY NOT, advocate on such matters. If they were to advocate, they are certain that the aggrieved party would litigate against THEM. Experience seems to bear this out. The ANA always gets sued. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/15/2020 at 1:26 AM, Conder101 said:

A good case study might be the Sac mules and the case brought against the mint employees that smuggled them out. (This is going from memory now)  They did allow a couple of pieces to go out through regular channels and be found in circulation to establish their "legitimacy", and then sold the others through dealers for a profit.  The court found that the coins found in circulation were legally released and legal to own.  The coins the employees sold were declared not legally issued and to be still  government property.  The employees were convicted of theft and conversion.  Oddly the government has never made any attempt to recover the stolen property and currently all, or almost all. of them are sitting in a single collection.

The Sacagawea mules were supposedly accidentally made, I recall reading. It's certainly possible they were accidental, unlike the Sacagawea-Lincoln overstrikes which cannot be errors.

If the court segregated the mules into two groups as you mentioned, then I don't see how they could be kept, if seized. How could anyone tell which ones were smuggled out and which were legally released?

As long as that decision stands, all the mules out there are probably going to be ignored by the govt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, ProfHaroldHill said:

If the court segregated the mules into two groups as you mentioned, then I don't see how they could be kept, if seized. How could anyone tell which ones were smuggled out and which were legally released?

Provanance.  The ones that turned up in circulation were slabbed early and it is known which ones those are.

 

21 hours ago, ProfHaroldHill said:

The Sacagawea mules were supposedly accidentally made, I recall reading. It's certainly possible they were accidental,

they were originally thought to be an accident, but traciones not found in circulation all wound up tracing back to the same mint employees.  If they had been an accident and released through normal channels they would have traced back to different sources.  There are other problems with the accident model.  The coins were from three different die pairs.  The Sac dollars were struck on a quad (4 die) press.  There should be four die pairs (If you shut down the press to change dies you will most likely change all four)  and there should be roughly the same number of coins from each pair, there aren't

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Pardon me, Professor, but unless I was inattentive and missed it, I should like hear the results of that teleconference w/USSS as referenced in your opening lines...]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's gonna be interesting to see how PCGS will handle this if they are deemed counterfeit and confiscated. They cannot buy them back. What kind of financial settlement would be fair ? PCGS guarantee ? Who is responsible for trafficking this stuff ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Conder101 said:

Provanance.  The ones that turned up in circulation were slabbed early and it is known which ones those are.

 

they were originally thought to be an accident, but traciones not found in circulation all wound up tracing back to the same mint employees.  If they had been an accident and released through normal channels they would have traced back to different sources.  There are other problems with the accident model.  The coins were from three different die pairs.  The Sac dollars were struck on a quad (4 die) press.  There should be four die pairs (If you shut down the press to change dies you will most likely change all four)  and there should be roughly the same number of coins from each pair, there aren't

We have no way of knowing how many were released and how many are still out there, unslabbed.

Undiscovered examples are quite possibly out there, hiding in BU rolls.

It's not possible to know, so it wouldn't make sense to attempt seizure if someone sent a raw example in for authentication.

 (I never believed the 'accidentally manufactured' story, Btw.) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, numisport said:

It's gonna be interesting to see how PCGS will handle this if they are deemed counterfeit and confiscated. They cannot buy them back. What kind of financial settlement would be fair ? PCGS guarantee ? Who is responsible for trafficking this stuff ?

Even if they're not seized, they were knowingly misrepresented as error coins by PCGS (Their error expert publicly stated that they were made intentionally, not by mistake.)

That's a serious "material misrepresentation". I imagine the buyers of these items would be quite upset to learn the truth about them.

On the trafficking question... I don't know who brought them to market, or who discovered any of them. There's much about these things that remains a mystery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2020 at 2:08 AM, ProfHaroldHill said:

The Sacagawea mules were supposedly accidentally made, I recall reading. It's certainly possible they were accidental, unlike the Sacagawea-Lincoln overstrikes which cannot be errors.

If the court segregated the mules into two groups as you mentioned, then I don't see how they could be kept, if seized. How could anyone tell which ones were smuggled out and which were legally released?

As long as that decision stands, all the mules out there are probably going to be ignored by the govt.

I believe it is abundantly clear that ALL the State Quarter/Sac mules were intentionally made by enterprising Mint staffers, not one iota less or more than the subject matter of this thread.

Edited by VKurtB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/18/2020 at 3:22 PM, ProfHaroldHill said:

Even if they're not seized, they were knowingly misrepresented as error coins by PCGS (Their error expert publicly stated that they were made intentionally, not by mistake.)

That's a serious "material misrepresentation". I imagine the buyers of these items would be quite upset to learn the truth about them.

On the trafficking question... I don't know who brought them to market, or who discovered any of them. There's much about these things that remains a mystery.

“Brought to market”. If you bother to read or watch the Legacy Series interview of Fred Weinberg by Barbara Gregory, then-executive editor of The Numismatist at the 2015 National Money Show in Portland, Oregon, it will become clear that the guy who brings to the market a good percentage of major errors of questionable origin is Mr. Weinberg himself. He admitted/bragged about his sources at coin rolling firms during that very interview. The workers at the firms that do the rolling (String and Sons as well as others) all have Fred in their cell phone contacts lists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next step in this ongoing process will be the simultaneous filing of public complaint with the offices of the US Attorneys General and the CA State Attorneys General.

My complaint is in regard to what I believe is an unfair and deceptive business practice.

Specifically, the explicit labelling of these items as error coins and the implicit representation, by that false labelling, of the coins being items lawful to own, when in fact the coins were known to the company to be intentionally made, and were not legally released by the US Mint.

Any claim to such legal status without official document to back it, is a material misrepresentation of a potential buyers right to hold legal title to the item.

The US Mint will also get copies of all of the hardcopy follow up letters to everyone else.

Patience is virtuous in these sorts of matters. Be virtuous!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2021 at 10:01 PM, ProfHaroldHill said:

The next step in this ongoing process will be the simultaneous filing of public complaint with the offices of the US Attorneys General and the CA State Attorneys General.

My complaint is in regard to what I believe is an unfair and deceptive business practice.

Specifically, the explicit labelling of these items as error coins and the implicit representation, by that false labelling, of the coins being items lawful to own, when in fact the coins were known to the company to be intentionally made, and were not legally released by the US Mint.

Any claim to such legal status without official document to back it, is a material misrepresentation of a potential buyers right to hold legal title to the item.

The US Mint will also get copies of all of the hardcopy follow up letters to everyone else.

Patience is virtuous in these sorts of matters. Be virtuous!

This has been done numerous times through even recent history: the Sac mules, the Homestead quarters varieties, the Wisconsin State Quarter extra leaf varieties, Minnesota trees, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
2 2