The Canadian Law And Buying/Selling/Recieving Of Counterfeit

@nickelsguy,
Have you had any response from the RCNA yet?

Thank you! It's a big step in the right direction.I'm sure this will also impact the CAND as most are RCNA members.We'll see how dealers like CA respond if they can no longer sell coins marked "COPY"

If the RCMP informed CA they were selling 'copy' coins ..why were they still permitted to sell them.

I do not object to the concept of a replica. But, in my opinion, to be considered:

* The original die should have "copy" or "replica" or some special mark (e.g. indicating composition) as part of the original design elements.
* Any minting from an alternative die without the design element, or misrepresentation of composition, would make all mintings from the maker ineligible for sale

The replicas are going to be made. The sensible thing to do is provide some legal path that encourages and rewards proper behaviour on the part of makers and sellers.

@john100... The guy who had the patent on sawing a women in half should have retired a wealthy man however he spent his fortunes tracking down and suing people for illegally copying his trick and eventually ended up broke.

I think the mint should flex its muscle occasionally however lets think about the cost of legal process and we can see why the Mint stays far away from the issue.
Just my humble opinion :)

nickelsguy; I doubt anyone knows half the work you do in your efforts to educate us lowly masses and to aid our law-enforcement officers in your crusade against the counterfeiters (well, maybe your wife has an inkling!), and I for one applaud your efforts long and heartily. I used to feel the same as some others on this thread that it was okay to allow the manufacture of coins with the word "copy", "replica", etc, but I have seen first hand the damage that that type of thinking can do. I used to be the manager of a fairly large antique mall a number of years back, and I remember when the ROM put out a line of replica goblets in a fairly scarce pattern, which they were selling in their gift shop for $25 each. Each goblet had the ROM marking molded in glass on the base, but aside from that they were exact replicas. The real 1880 goblets were selling for $1200 or so, so those who liked the pattern but couldn't afford the real deal bought up the copies in sets of 4, 6, etc. The next thing you know, over the next year or two these copies starting showing up in the antique stores at huge prices, each with their respective ROM marks carefully ground off the base. No matter how I tried to explain to new buyers and vendors alike when I saw one of these copies that it WAS a copy, I was often seen as a troublemaker. The name-calling didn't bother me, but it would break your heart to see a new collector just starting out getting stung by one of these fakes, and when they finally found out it was often enough to through them off collecting altogether, which was a true shame. A possible lifetime hobby squashed by some self-serving rat. I'm now totally against any of these so-called "legitimate" copies, and now IMHO any coin that can be altered by such a simple means as wearing, gouging, filing, filling, etc should not be allowed.

Sorry for being so long-winded but it is how I feel. I mean no offense to anyone on this forum, I respect you all, but fakery is hurtful to everyone. I've seen too many people stung and turned off a good thing by it.

Chris

I am curious - wouldn't the actual filing the 'copy/replica/duplicate' mark off of a coin make that coin pretty much uncollectable anyway?

And as for expecting the Chinese government to care, remember that the people who are most being taken advantage of by such fraudulent practices are the citizens of China. If their government doesn't care about their own people being ripped off - and they clearly don't - why would they care about us?