... would not, in my opinion, be covered by this language (even if we assume that chips are otherwise covered):

>> The term "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 or event.

Emphasis on "anything which HAS BEEN PART of" an issue. Thus, for example, if I make a fake red $100 chip for a casino which has never had a red $100 chip, it would not be a copy of any chip which has ever been part of a real issue of chips by that casino. Hence, not covered by the HPA.

In short, the purpose of the HPA is to protect against COPIES of REAL items which look so much like the original that they cannot be told apart. This is why you can meet the requirements of the act by putting the word "copy" on the fake. In my example, the red $100 chip would not be a "copy" of anything.

Oh, it would sure as hell be deceptive. And fraudulent. And certainly a "counterfeit". And it would be criminal to pass it off as the real thing (either by betting or cashing it in a casino or selling it to someone as if it were real). But, it would NOT violate the HPA.

Call me a strict constructionist! <g> ----- jim o\-S