... I'll grant, Peter, that courts will be very reluctant to find a provision entirely superfluous and will frequently engage in considerable linguistic gymnastics to prevent that from happening (though, on rare occasions, it does).

But, I go back to the definition of an "original numismatic item":

>> 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, object, place, or
>> event.

For something to be an "imitation", there has to have been an "original" to "imitate". The "original", by the statutory language, must have "BEEN PART OF a coinage or issue".

As I read that, a fake chip can only be an "imitation numismatic item" (again, assuming coverage under the HPA), if it "imitates" an "original" (hence, a REAL CHIP).

This interpretation of the statute could survive the "superfluity" problem in any event. The example that JB gave us (the Fremont $25's) would, I think, be an example of an "imitation" item which purports to be an "original", but is not a reproduction, copy or counterfeit.

California has a Civil Code section which says, in toto, "Superfluity does not vitiate." One of my all time favorites.

Can you imagine how boring this conversation is to the non-lawyers out there? <g> ----- jim o\-S