Well I'll call you a strict constructionist if you want, but you still need to explain something.

(4) The term ''imitation numismatic item'' means an item which
purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item
or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original
numismatic item.

under this definition there are two ways that an item can qualify as a "imitation numismatic item" one is to purport to be, but in fact not be an original numismatic item, the other way is to be a reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an original numismatic item.

Now you and I agree that Casino Chips are not original numismatic items under the terms of the statute, but let us for the sake of argument assume that they are as you have been doing.

You propose that 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."

The suggestion is that since the casino never had a red $100 chip not only is this not a reproduction (which I agree it is not) but that it does not purport to be an original numismatic item. I would suggest that to use your extremely narrow interpretation of the "purport" clause renders that clause a nullity since you only say a chip purported to be an original if it in fact was a reproduction.

Clearly the "purport" clause is not meant to be read so narrowly as to make it superfluous.

I assume Travis doesn't get involved in this thread unless we each pay him $20,000 per year as tuition. <g>