House Bill:Marking Requirements for Reproduction Civil War Items

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: House Bill:Marking Requirements for Reproduction Civil War Items

Hallo!

" Why would we care if "repro" is stamped in the sleeve lining of a jacket, or stamped on the inside of a cartridge box under the tins? So long as the repro stamp isnt blazed orange or readily visible, I think its a responsible thing to do."

Because it doesn't belong there.

Dr.Phil's Life Law No. 1.

Curt

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: House Bill:Marking Requirements for Reproduction Civil War Items

How do you prove something is a reproduction? If I make a "gray wool fall-weight jacket" for myself, does that need to be marked?

If I make a reproduction of a Tait jacket, and it is not marked in any way, how can anyone prove the date of manufacture? (presumably, items produced before the requirement would not be expected to be marked retrospectively... or would they?)

Why Civil War reproductions and not WW2, WW1, Rev War, Napoleonic War, or anything else?

If I construct a "put together" musket from original parts, is it original, or is it a reproduction? If I use a Dunlap stock, then is it a reproduction? How many parts must be replaced with repros before an original is a reproduction?

If I strip the paint off of a pencil for my writing kit, must I mark it "reproduction", or face charges?

How do you mark a reproduction nipple pick?

Sorry... I just don't think the law is enforcable (sp?).

[Dignann]

Re: House Bill:Marking Requirements for Reproduction Civil War Items

Just out curiosity, have any of you written your elected respresentatives about this, and if so, what kind of response did you get?

While I agree that Congress has more important things to deal with, such as investigating cheating in the NFL and steroid use in MLB, I personally don't see this bill as that big of an issue, because as John stated, how are they going to enforce it? Who knows, perhaps one day all shell jackets will come with a "Do not remove under penalty of law" tag like our mattresses.

Eric

[Slouch]

Re: House Bill:Marking Requirements for Reproduction Civil War Items

Would you like to add .25 to each button on those uniforms to pay for the new die work to stamp that marking on the back of each button?

I have been collecting for over thirty years and in all that time I have yet to see someone ripped off because they spent too much time studying originals to educate themselves.

I agree with you that collectors must know what they are collecting. However, as technology advances it becomes easier to create objects that look hundreds of years old. Also, most of the buttons available to us do not match the originals anyway. Even if the price went up 0.25/button, it will be blamed on the price of crude oil. Four billion dollars isnt enough profit for Exxon, but back to the subject...

I agree that this bill will not pass, and if it does there will be little enforcement. I imagine enforcement would only happen if someone was found red-handed selling repro items as originals, especially if those items are here illegally from Mexico

[JimKindred]

Re: House Bill:Marking Requirements for Reproduction Civil War Items

They enforce it on the manufacturer not the end user. If such a law passed, after the enforcement date all I would need is a visit from the "Federal Button Police" to inspect what was on the shelves to find out if I am in compliance or not.

While the bill may not have a strong chance of passing as a stand alone what you have to watch out for is the bill being slipped into another as a provision of a bill that will pass. They do not even have to be on the same subject, most get passed without ever having been read by those voting on it.

[JimKindred]

Re: House Bill:Marking Requirements for Reproduction Civil War Items

Even if the price went up 0.25/button, it will be blamed on the price of crude oil.

It will not be blamed on the price of crude oil from me. If such a bill was passed I would lay the blame on the folks that voted for it and those that wanted it passed. This is another one of those Nanny State laws being proposed to protect those too lazy or stupid to learn the difference between real and reproduction.

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

Re: House Bill:Marking Requirements for Reproduction Civil War Items

Bottom Line...this law would hurt the Living History Community as a whole...not the crooks who already try to pass fakes off as originals. These people are already breaking the law by selling items that are not what they claim to be...if this law were to pass, what's to stop them from continueing business as usual? NOTHING!

Jim I agree with you 100%...for many full-time vendors/sutlers...a bill like this could be devistating if passed!

[JimKindred]

Re: House Bill:Marking Requirements for Reproduction Civil War Items

I would not go so far as to say devastating but it would definitely raise the prices for the end user.

I suspect as someone may have said earlier some friend of this congressman got burned and now he wants to make some feel good law. The problem is what do you do with the millions of items all ready in the market place? With those already in the market the selling of fake goods would not even slow down.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: House Bill:Marking Requirements for Reproduction Civil War Items

as technology advances it becomes easier to create objects that look hundreds of years old.

As technology advances, it will be easier for science to detect a forgery in even the most visually correct fake.

[tmattimore]

Re: House Bill:Marking Requirements for Reproduction Civil War Items

If the bill is passed as written then the markings will not be on the inside. If similar to the markings under numismatics the marking must be clearly visible to an uninformed observer. The bill will most likely pass if the Honarable sponsor puts it into a 20,000 page earmark appropriation.
I have written my congress rep and senator. All are up for election so they seem attentive. It may help. If it does pass be prepared to cover up copy a lot.
Tom

[1stMaine]

Re: House Bill:Marking Requirements for Reproduction Civil War Items

Heh,

Tom, I was just thinking to myself about how passing rediculous all of this is, then remembered something else about "fakes" that might add something to the discussion vis-a-vis putting all of this into perspective. Prior to the 50th anniversary of Gettysburg, the Pennsylvania National Guard went all over the battlefield, especially alond the walking paths, "salting" fired mini balls and even unfired ones and peices of shrapnell and shell fragments so the old vetrans could "find" a "relic" of the engagement to take home with them. Sort of a modern day easter egg hunt, if you will.

Also, there are copies of letters extant at the VA Hospital in Togus, Maine, of orders for "Army 4-button blouses, of the old pattern" for vetrans of the civil war residing there who refused to wear the newer pattern (5-button) blouse with their uniform. Thus, it is entirely possible that some surviving blouses may, in fact, be post-war products designed for these same veterans and veteran's homes, rather than actual surplus CW blouses.

Still and all, the onus HAS to be upon the purchaser to do his or her homework. Fraud is still a crime, whether or not this law passes, and nothing in this law will stop the lucrative market in CW fakes that currently exists. Enforcement of the laws already upon the books would be money better spent than any new legislation.

Respects to all,

[tmattimore]

Re: House Bill:Marking Requirements for Reproduction Civil War Items

Tim
Amen, fraud is fraud and there are enough laws to deal with that. The problem is that if any one decides to enforce this they will do so at events in sutler row or at the doorstep of manufacturers like jim and myself. Thankfully we both are too far away from the beltway for the casual afternoon job justification. It all depends on some cheese head beaurecrat getting an attitude just how far it will go.
Tom

[Ken]

Hobby Protection Act

I just thought I would share the response I got form my Senator regarding the Hobby Protection Act. I oppose forcing Makers of Civil War Reproductions to somehow stamp their reproductions as copy or facsimile. The root cause for the problem with fakes, in my opinion, lies with the ignorant buyer of fake artifacts. You have an obligation to do research and educate yourself before you start plunking down your hard earned money on ebay goodies. People who are unwilling to do that are always going to get taken no matter what. My 2 cents


April 22, 2008









Dear Mr. Raia:



Thank you for contacting me regarding your opposition to the Hobby Protection Act (H.R.4125). I appreciate hearing from you about this important matter.



As you know, Representative James Moran (D-VA) introduced H.R. 4125 on November 8, 2007. This bill would make it illegal to distribute or produce any imitation Civil War artifact that is not permanently marked with "copy" or "facsimile". The purpose of this bill is to ensure consumers who believe they are purchasing or viewing authentic Civil War artifacts are in fact doing so and not purchasing imitation pieces under false pretenses. This bill has been referred to the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce



With that being said, I understand your concerns that the markings required under this legislation could possibly hinder the accurateness you strive for in your Civil War re-enactments. I understand how having your uniform marked as fake could hamper the believability of your Civil War portrayals. On the other hand, supporters of this bill contend it would help ensure historical accuracy as well as protect consumers from fraudulent purchases.



This bill has yet to be introduced in the Senate but should I get the chance to consider the Hobby Protection Act or a related measure with my colleagues in the full Senate, I will be sure to keep your views in mind.



Thank you again for contacting me about this important matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any further questions on this issue or any other matter of importance.



With best personal regards, I am




Sincerely,

Tom Carper
United States Senator

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Hobby Protection Act

Ken,
I applaud you for writing your congressman!

As I said in a previous post, I think this bill will die a quick death as it cannot possibly be enforced.

If I write my congressmen about it, I will pose the very same questions that I pose in the post linked, above.

We can voice our opposition to the bill based on the fact that it will put a booger on our personal windows to the past (cost = $0), or we can voice our opposition based on the fact that the law just makes no darned sense and can't be reasonably enforced.

Now, I'm just a poor ignorant Hoosier, but...

I think if you let your elected representatives the "sound bite" that could be used against them if they vote for the bill come next election, you'll get there attention.
Reenactors = Few in number = No Clout
People who hate do-nothing bills that waste money = Many in number = more clout

My two cents.

[Johnny Lloyd]

Re: Hobby Protection Act

Wow...

Aren't you glad to know the state legislature is worried more about marking Civil War Repros and not about crime, terrorism, gridlocked traffic, the local economy, and the high price of food and gas?

But seriously...

I feel any effort like this will be either killed in any state legislature or not enforceable even if it passes into law. I wouldn't sweat it too hard at this point.

Not addressing this thread specifically, but I get the itchy feeling that sometimes the more we talk about stuff out-loud within earshot of those that don't understand what they are hearing, the more we could invite outsiders to the hobby to make legislation that could adversely affect it. (See also: black power rifle bans, black powder/percussion caps bans, bladed weapons bans, etc.)

Ever get that itchy feeling either?

Bully for your effort with your lawmaker, sir!

Thanks- Johnny