Proposed MSNS Code of Ethics

Click on
http://www.michigancoinclub.org/ethics_2006.htm

Any comments, criticisms or suggestions?

Thanks!

Mike M.

Mike Marotta wrote:
Click on
http://www.michigancoinclub.org/ethics_2006.htm

Any comments, criticisms or suggestions?

Thanks!

Mike M.

Looks like it could be workable if enforced. There are quite of
numismatic societies and organizations who could use some ethics right
now.

On 13 Feb 2006 20:29:01 -0800, "Mike Marotta"
wrote:

Click on
http://www.michigancoinclub.org/ethics_2006.htm

Any comments, criticisms or suggestions?

Thanks!

Mike M.

Even though item 7v is pretty clear cut, the language of items 7iii and
7iv may seem to some to contain loopholes.

Item 7iii seems to have been copied from the ANA's Member Code of
Ethics and contains the same confusing language. Some may think "with
the exception of items generally accepted by numismatists and not in
any way misrepresented as genuine" would include counterfeits despite
the clear language in 7v.

Others may claim a similar loophole with 7iv.

Dim bulbs in this very newsgroup have made these claims regarding the
ANA Code.

Phil DeMayo wrote:
On 13 Feb 2006 20:29:01 -0800, "Mike Marotta"
wrote:

Click on
http://www.michigancoinclub.org/ethics_2006.htm

Any comments, criticisms or suggestions?

Thanks!

Mike M.

Even though item 7v is pretty clear cut, the language of items 7iii
and 7iv may seem to some to contain loopholes.

Item 7iii seems to have been copied from the ANA's Member Code of
Ethics and contains the same confusing language. Some may think "with
the exception of items generally accepted by numismatists and not in
any way misrepresented as genuine" would include counterfeits despite
the clear language in 7v.

Others may claim a similar loophole with 7iv.

Dim bulbs in this very newsgroup have made these claims regarding the
ANA Code.


What is the thinking on ancient counterfeits? i.e. Celtic/barbaric
counterfeits of Roman coins in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD and the
Bulgarian counterfeits of Byzantine coins in the early 13th century to name
just a couple. These seem to be very collectible. Would they be banned
under 7v or would they fall under the exception in 7iii and 7iv?
And if they are considered an exception, why is one kind of counterfeit more
acceptable than another? I'm just trying to get my mind around what makes
this such a "hot" issue.

And as far as modern counterfeits are concerned, those people who are
dishonest enough to deliberately pass these things off as authentic are
going to do it whether or not it is prohibited by law or rules of ethics.
They should be prosecuted like any other criminal.

--
©¿©¬
~
Ed Hendricks

Ed Hendricks wrote:
And as far as modern counterfeits are concerned, those people who are
dishonest enough to deliberately pass these things off as authentic are
going to do it whether or not it is prohibited by law or rules of ethics.
They should be prosecuted like any other criminal.

Basically, I want to get them off the bourse floor. There are a couple
of dealers who come to MSNS shows and put those Chinese fakes out in a
"bargain box" as "Silver Crowns" or whatever else they write on a 3x5
card and tape to the cup or bin.

Counterfeits -- what they are or are not -- have been a sticking point
with the Board. Some dealers want to sell them and as Board members
they trot out the usual arguments. I cannot help that.

However, there is more to the Code of Ethics than that. Simply paying
on time is one example of a point that should have no discussion.

"Mike Marotta" wrote in message
oups.com...
Click on
http://www.michigancoinclub.org/ethics_2006.htm

Any comments, criticisms or suggestions?

I wouldn't show this to an English major. He'd probably laugh you out of
the room. It seems that someone had a limited vocabulary and decided to use
every word in this. I took the liberty of rewriting the first part of this
to remove some obvious problems and to clarify some issues. The result is
given below. Feel free to use any part of this or to modify it or to throw
it out. There are reasons for everything I did. The second part should be
rewritten also. There are many problems with it too. Below in item 8 ii,
iii, and iv seem redundant. In 8 v, the assumptioon is that a grading
standard exists for MSNS. Otherwise everyone could use their own grading
system.

We, the members of the Michigan State Numismatic Society, pledge ourselves
to the highest standards of service to our hobby. Our desire is to use the
arts and sciences that support numismatics to discover and promote the
essential facts and information about numismatic objects and processes and
to make these facts and information known to other MSNS members and to the
general public where applicable. As members of the MSNS, we agree to the
following:



1) To base all of commercial dealings on the best available numismatic
information.

2) To the best of our ability, to furnish our clientele with the numismatic
information necessary to make an informed decision.

3) To fulfill all contracts, whether oral or written.

4) When purchasing numismatic items, to make prompt payments upon receipt of
the items and to return immediately any item that is not satisfactory.

5) To take immediate steps to correct any error made in any transaction.

6) To conform to accepted standards of advertising.

7) To refuse to buy or sell any item of which the ownership is questionable.

8) To neither buy nor sell counterfeit, forged or modified numismatic items.

i) To represent a numismatic item to be genuine only when, to the best
available knowledge and belief, it is genuine.

ii) Not to sell, exhibit, produce or advertise a counterfeit, copy, restrike
or reproduction of any numismatic item if its nature is not clearly
indicated by the word "counterfeit," "copy," "restrike," or "reproduction,"
incused in the metal or printed on the paper thereof, with the exception of
items generally accepted by numismatists and not in any way misrepresented
as genuine.

iii) To not knowingly handle for resale forgeries, counterfeits, unmarked
copies, altered coins or other spurious numismatic merchandise that is not
clearly labeled as such.

iv) Not to buy or sell any counterfeit item or any item with an altered date
or mintmark.

v) Not to intentionally misrepresent the grade, condition, provenance or
other material fact of object.

9) To allow our customers a designated period of time in which to return
numismatic material for a refund and to provide a refund or replacement for
any item that is misrepresented whether or not the misrepresentation was
intentional.

10) To abide by all local, state and federal laws relating to numismatic
matters and, when applicable, to assist in the prosecution of violators of
those laws.

Richard L. Hall wrote:
I wouldn't show this to an English major. He'd probably laugh you out of
the room. It seems that someone had a limited vocabulary and decided to use
every word in this. I took the liberty of rewriting the first part of this

Thank you for your effort. You are correct. It is overblown, as most
such documents are. I think that these people want to emulate the
Declaration of Independence and Preamble to the Constitution.

My thought was that just cutting and pasting the ANA Code of Ethics
(and similar from other national and regional coin clubs) would create
a document that is familiar enough to be accepted without argument.
Otherwise, I have to say, "I wrote this code of ethics that I want you
all to adhere to." That would be OK with me, of course. (:-)

So, I will take your rewrite to the Board -- and credit you with the
effort, of course.

Thanks, again, Dr. Hall.

Mike

Some "altered" coins are genuine numismatic items that outvalue the
origional unaltered items. The New South Wales "holey dollar" (A
spanish 8 reale coin holed and restruck around the centre in 1813),
English currency - Spanish 8 Reales, counterstruck with george III. I
doubt that the Spanish authorised having their money stolen by the
English in transit and then altered.
Over printed banknotes are also "altered" numismatic items.


Some forged / counterfeit items are als very collectable like :
Operation "Bernhard" English 5, 10, 20 and 50 pound notes forged by
Jewish POW's in Nazi Germany these even get a mention in Krause.

Or English forgeries of occupied Poland Nazi issued notes.

Yes - it is difficult to state explicitly what differentiates a
"genuine numismaitc item" from a fake. Todays fakes are tomorrows
contemporary counterfeits. Counterfeits become an issue only when the
genuine article commands a higher value. With common items the
counterfeit item may be considered more interesting and command a
higher value. Historicity is also a difficult test to define. A note
passed as genuine that fooled a checkout operator and made the
newspaper a few years ago. Common fake or historical item?