jlueke Posted May 10, 2008 Report Share Posted May 10, 2008 I think the primary purpose of the law was to allow numismatic publications to refuse advertisements for unmarked replicas. In today's world this could easily be expanded to venues of public sale like Ebay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okrecer03 Posted May 11, 2008 Report Share Posted May 11, 2008 I consider buying copies.... .....for instance, I have the Dansco Large Cent book. But my best coins (ie, 1793 chain cent,1793 wreath, 1793 liberty cap, 1799, 1804) are in slabs. Do I leave those holes empty, or do I fill them with copies so the book looks nice, knowing the real things are safely tucked away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bustchaser Posted May 13, 2008 Report Share Posted May 13, 2008 Sec. 304.3 Applicability. Any person engaged in the manufacturing, or importation into the United States for introduction into or distribution in commerce, of imitation political or imitation numismatic items shall be subject to the requirements of the Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder. It appears they should be marked, I'll have to take a closer look next time I go to a museum. I am somewhat curious of the meaning of the above section. I am not well-versed in legalese, so I may be wrong in my thinking. But if you knowingly buy counterfeits/imitations/replicas/copies/whathaveyou, that you are not required to have them stamped copy or whatever as long as they are never intended to go into commerce. It's either the muddy wording, or an huge loophole in the HPA. Any replicas manufactured either manufactured in the US or imported from elseware AFTER 1975 must be labled under the HPA. However, the HPA is not retroactive. Nowhere does it say anything about stamping COPY onto anything which extisted prior to its passage. Thus, no, you are not required to mark a contemporary counterfeit bust half dollar from 1832. It is not a loophole; it is merely common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satootoko Posted May 13, 2008 Report Share Posted May 13, 2008 by replica I mean: 1. a copy or reproduction. 2. any close or exact copy or reproduction. So you believe that the Austrian Mint has been producing Maria Therese "replicas" for centuries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drusus Posted May 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 15, 2008 Well, I dont think I said anything concerning Maria Theresa coins nor do I understand how the dictionary definition of 'replica' would lead you to any ideas concerning how I view Maria Theresa Talers. If you are asking me what I DO think about them I would say they are more commemorative coins and not reproductions when they are official issues of the Austrian Mint...any other mint is a replica. What you quote is simply how the dictionary defines a replica. There is no need to get that picky about the term replica which makes perfect sense in most cases. I think, in gerneral, we know what a replica is in most cases. If not, here are some average examples of replicas: http://jas-townsend.com/index.php?cPath=12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.