The final production number was 33. I am not producing any more.
Of those 33, more than half were holed. All but one of the holed coins was plugged with silver (at the owner's request) prior to the over-striking. Of the non-holed coins, only 3 or 4 were not corroded or heavily cleaned. Those 3 or 4 had other problems such as graffiti and they were also heavily worn. So all 33 had problems of some sort.
Also, of the 33 produced, 25 were submitted by a single Draped Bust Dollar collector.
@CaptHenway said:
I have always maintained that his legal tender design overstrikes with fantasy dates were subject to the HPA requirement that they be stamped with the word "COPY." He defense was that he was simply altering an existing coin by changing a small portion of the design, as does the engraver of a Hobo Nickel. I have always politely disagreed with that defense, even if I do see the point of his argument. Buffalo nickels are still Buffalo nickels even if the Native American's head has been changed to something else.
However, I do object to him striking these pieces on Morgan and Peace dollars and etc. because he is NOT "(using) actual series coins and actual series designs." He is changing other series coins and other series designs into Draped Bust dollars. As I said above the markings on the pieces that identify this fact are in raised letters that can be easily tooled away. This is a step down a slippery slope away from his original good intentions. Stamp altered design coins with the word "COPY" following the height, width and depth requirements of the HPA, or don't make them.
His argument is irrelevant. The FTC has already ruled that changing digits in a date is insufficient to remove a novelty from the ambit of the HPA. In the same case, they decided subjective intent is irrelevant. Carr and his supporters can argue about it until they are blue in the face. It doesn't matter. The only question is one of enforcement and whether the FTC will ever do its job and rid this hobby of his numismatic abortions once and for all.
@CaptHenway said:
I have always maintained that his legal tender design overstrikes with fantasy dates were subject to the HPA requirement that they be stamped with the word "COPY." He defense was that he was simply altering an existing coin by changing a small portion of the design, as does the engraver of a Hobo Nickel. I have always politely disagreed with that defense, even if I do see the point of his argument. Buffalo nickels are still Buffalo nickels even if the Native American's head has been changed to something else.
However, I do object to him striking these pieces on Morgan and Peace dollars and etc. because he is NOT "(using) actual series coins and actual series designs." He is changing other series coins and other series designs into Draped Bust dollars. As I said above the markings on the pieces that identify this fact are in raised letters that can be easily tooled away. This is a step down a slippery slope away from his original good intentions. Stamp altered design coins with the word "COPY" following the height, width and depth requirements of the HPA, or don't make them.
His argument is irrelevant. The FTC has already ruled that changing digits in a date is insufficient to remove a novelty from the ambit of the HPA. In the same case, they decided subjective intent is irrelevant. Carr and his supporters can argue about it until they are blue in the face. It doesn't matter. The only question is one of enforcement and whether the FTC will ever do its job and rid this hobby of his numismatic abortions once and for all.
@CaptHenway said:
I have always maintained that his legal tender design overstrikes with fantasy dates were subject to the HPA requirement that they be stamped with the word "COPY." He defense was that he was simply altering an existing coin by changing a small portion of the design, as does the engraver of a Hobo Nickel. I have always politely disagreed with that defense, even if I do see the point of his argument. Buffalo nickels are still Buffalo nickels even if the Native American's head has been changed to something else.
However, I do object to him striking these pieces on Morgan and Peace dollars and etc. because he is NOT "(using) actual series coins and actual series designs." He is changing other series coins and other series designs into Draped Bust dollars. As I said above the markings on the pieces that identify this fact are in raised letters that can be easily tooled away. This is a step down a slippery slope away from his original good intentions. Stamp altered design coins with the word "COPY" following the height, width and depth requirements of the HPA, or don't make them.
His argument is irrelevant. The FTC has already ruled that changing digits in a date is insufficient to remove a novelty from the ambit of the HPA. In the same case, they decided subjective intent is irrelevant. Carr and his supporters can argue about it until they are blue in the face. It doesn't matter. The only question is one of enforcement and whether the FTC will ever do its job and rid this hobby of his numismatic abortions once and for all.
Dan and his collectors have no need to argue. The coins are being overstruck, collected, and enjoyed. They have been for the last 10 years.
It would be good to see the ruling. It may not apply the way you think it would.
Absolutely - I have bought many of his issues of different types, enjoy them all and never sold a one.
If you don’t like them, step on and take the @hating” elsewhere.
I might as that many non-coin people enjoy his works that I have shown.
Go Danny!
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
@cameonut2011 said:
His argument is irrelevant. The FTC has already ruled that changing digits in a date is insufficient to remove a novelty from the ambit of the HPA. In the same case, they decided subjective intent is irrelevant. Carr and his supporters can argue about it until they are blue in the face. It doesn't matter. The only question is one of enforcement and whether the FTC will ever do its job and rid this hobby of his numismatic abortions once and for all.
@chesterb said:
To be honest, all of this forum drama makes me wish, I would have found a cheap bust dollar that was corroded or had grafitti and done the same thing.
My point/opinion is more that the coin went form an artifact of early America to a highend art round. And I prefer the previous to the latter but that doesn’t really matter as it isn’t mine.
I agree with this to an extent. I value the high end art round and since only a few were struck, it would be hard to replace.
I like the coin in the original state as well, but I consider that a widget that I can buy at any time, and would probably buy a problem free one when I did. For better or worse, the market (and my personal preferences) seems to have moved to eye-appealing, non-damaged widgets or rare, non-widgets.
I don’t believe Dan making US coinage dies is legal regardless of any Easter eggs and his overstrikes are a very slippery slope that the next person doing it might not have the integrity Carr does. Overall net negative for the hobby IMHO
What are your reasons for thinking it’s a net negative? The mintages are super low so it seems it wouldn’t impact the overall market and the collectors seem to really like them.
We either encourage people making real looking but fake American coins and dies all while mutating the real things or we don’t. I personally don’t believe I want random people buying minting presses and using computers to make realistic knockoffs
I do concede Carr is a on the level kind of guy who is an artist but let him make printing plates of 100$ bills and recondition a printing press, I believe we would see a different response from our gov who i suspect don’t see the work vs reward for someone on the razors edge of the law for coins esp when mostly collectible.
My point/opinion is more that the coin went form an artifact of early America to a highend art round. And I prefer the previous to the latter but that doesn’t really matter as it isn’t mine.
I agree with this to an extent. I value the high end art round and since only a few were struck, it would be hard to replace.
I like the coin in the original state as well, but I consider that a widget that I can buy at any time, and would probably buy a problem free one when I did. For better or worse, the market (and my personal preferences) seems to have moved to eye-appealing, non-damaged widgets or rare, non-widgets.
I don’t believe Dan making US coinage dies is legal regardless of any Easter eggs and his overstrikes are a very slippery slope that the next person doing it might not have the integrity Carr does. Overall net negative for the hobby IMHO
What are your reasons for thinking it’s a net negative? The mintages are super low so it seems it wouldn’t impact the overall market and the collectors seem to really like them.
We either encourage people making real looking but fake American coins and dies all while mutating the real things or we don’t. I personally don’t believe I want random people buying minting presses and using computers to make realistic knockoffs
I don't think Dan has much to do with this in the greater scheme of things, if anything measurable at all.
Fake coins are like drugs. We encourage people to make them by paying numismatic premiums for coins, pure and simple. This is why the Middle East made fake gold coins, the Omega counterfeits were made, John Jay Ford sold pieces from the Massapequa Mint, and the Big Tree Coin Company makes counterfeit coins, apparently legally.
I think efforts would be better spent getting the POTUS and U.S. Trade Representative to make counterfeiting coins older than 1949 illegal in our largest trading partner countries.
I do concede Carr is a on the level kind of guy who is an artist but let him make printing plates of 100$ bills and recondition a printing press, I believe we would see a different response from our gov who i suspect don’t see the work vs reward for someone on the razors edge of the law for coins esp when mostly collectible.
The good thing is that he's not doing that. The potential to do something illegal is often allowed in the US. For example, we sell cars that can go up to 200 mph which would get you thrown into jail if you actually drove that fast, but luckily most people are well behaved.
@Zoins said:
The good thing is that he's not doing that. The potential to do something illegal is often allowed in the US. For example, we sell cars that can go up to 200 mph which would get you thrown into jail if you actually drove that fast, but luckily most people are well behaved.
It isn't illegal to make the cars. It is illegal, however, to make counterfeit U.S. coins or HPA non compliant imitation numismatic items. The car analogy is not apt.
@Zoins said:
The good thing is that he's not doing that. The potential to do something illegal is often allowed in the US. For example, we sell cars that can go up to 200 mph which would get you thrown into jail if you actually drove that fast, but luckily most people are well behaved.
It isn't illegal to make the cars. It is illegal, however, to make counterfeit U.S. coins or HPA non compliant imitation numismatic items. The car analogy is not apt.
Dan's position is that he isn't making counterfeit U.S. coins or HPA non-compliant imitation numismatic items. Using that position, the analogy is apt.
@CoinJunkie said:
The level of angst and hand-wringing this topic engenders in many people here truly amazes me. If the OP's coin had spent a few more years in circulation and been worn flat beyond recognition, would it still be viewed as a sacred "piece of history"? These pieces of stamped metal were originally created to facilitate commerce, not as inviolable objects of high art. There are still plenty of Bust dollars for sale to the collector who didn't get to own the OP's coin. Get over it.
I'm on the other side. I was truly amazed that so many actually APPROVED of this.
So, which of us is right, and which is wrong?
I was ignoring the thread, for the most part. But the continued attempts to justify it, and attempts to belittle one valid side of the argument, ("get over it"), made me at least want to make it clear that we hadn't universally decided that this is just peachy fine.
I don't approve OR disapprove of taking a worn out Bust dollar and turning it into a fantasy coin. As I said off the top, neither the before or after artifact is anything I have a particular interest in owning or even viewing. The "get over it" comment was directed at folks who seem to impute any old slug of a coin with some sort of quasi-religious or historical significance. It's a piece of metal that changed hands a whole bunch of times in exchange for goods or services. The same can be said about the quarter I've got in my pocket right now. At some point, it gets worn down to where whatever aesthetic value it had when minted is basically unrecognizable. (BTW, I asked a specific question along those lines which you neglected to answer.)
I'm not going to get into the legalities of all this, mostly because I don't know or care about them particularly. My (possibly naive) view is that Dan Carr is not doing anything nefarious. As always, YMMV.
@CaptHenway said:
However, I do object to him striking these pieces on Morgan and Peace dollars and etc. because he is NOT "(using) actual series coins and actual series designs." He is changing other series coins and other series designs into Draped Bust dollars. As I said above the markings on the pieces that identify this fact are in raised letters that can be easily tooled away. This is a step down a slippery slope away from his original good intentions. Stamp altered design coins with the word "COPY" following the height, width and depth requirements of the HPA, or don't make them.
>
The "1805" Draped Bust over-strikes on Morgan/Peace/Commemorative silver dollars have three things that differentiate them from the "1805" Draped Bust over-strikes that were done on actual Draped Bust Dollars.
Those over-struck on actual Draped Bust silver dollars have:
The original lettered edge showing, although somewhat flattened.
Those over-struck on Morgan/Peace/Commemorative silver dollars have:
The original edge reeding of the host coin showing, and no lettered edge;
A significantly smaller modified olive branch;
Small text along the lower reverse rim "STRUCK ON A USA SILVER DOLLAR".
How many times must I repeat that a minor change in design, be it a smaller olive branch or a non-original date digit, DOES NOT exempt an imitation numismatic item from the requirements of the Hobby Protection Act? Read the law.
The small added text is raised, and can easily be removed. The marking requirements of the HPA are incused to make that marking more difficult to remove by filling in.
A flattened reeded edge can be polished smooth. A smooth edge can be lettered. Look at the Class III 1804 dollars, which were lettered after they were struck (by the U.S. Mint) to deceive collectors.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway said:
However, I do object to him striking these pieces on Morgan and Peace dollars and etc. because he is NOT "(using) actual series coins and actual series designs." He is changing other series coins and other series designs into Draped Bust dollars. As I said above the markings on the pieces that identify this fact are in raised letters that can be easily tooled away. This is a step down a slippery slope away from his original good intentions. Stamp altered design coins with the word "COPY" following the height, width and depth requirements of the HPA, or don't make them.
>
The "1805" Draped Bust over-strikes on Morgan/Peace/Commemorative silver dollars have three things that differentiate them from the "1805" Draped Bust over-strikes that were done on actual Draped Bust Dollars.
Those over-struck on actual Draped Bust silver dollars have:
The original lettered edge showing, although somewhat flattened.
Those over-struck on Morgan/Peace/Commemorative silver dollars have:
The original edge reeding of the host coin showing, and no lettered edge;
A significantly smaller modified olive branch;
Small text along the lower reverse rim "STRUCK ON A USA SILVER DOLLAR".
How many times must I repeat that a minor change in design, be it a smaller olive branch or a non-original date digit, DOES NOT exempt an imitation numismatic item from the requirements of the Hobby Protection Act? Read the law.
The small added text is raised, and can easily be removed. The marking requirements of the HPA are incused to make that marking more difficult to remove by filling in.
A flattened reeded edge can be polished smooth. A smooth edge can be lettered. Look at the Class III 1804 dollars, which were lettered after they were struck (by the U.S. Mint) to deceive collectors.
TD
My belief is that adding small letters is exactly what the Smithsonian does to follow the HPA. They added their small initials “SI” in their Confederate Cent fantasy coins with the same date and design.
In my opinion the Smithsonian pieces are also subject to the HPA. However, the FTC does not give a FIG!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Reminds me of the discussion as to the value of a melted 1933 DE. Personally I think it's worth the melt value.
To each their own, but to me this is taking a piece of history, albeit damaged, and turning it into a round. DC could make a million of these with other host coins/silver. I don't see the value in what it once was.
@nags said:
Reminds me of the discussion as to the value of a melted 1933 DE. Personally I think it's worth the melt value.
Well, we do have S.S. Central America gold dust slabbed with its provenance by PCGS.
To each their own, but to me this is taking a piece of history, albeit damaged, and turning it into a round. DC could make a million of these with other host coins/silver.
The thing is that he can’t with other host coins/silver, which is why there are only 33 of these.
I don't see the value in what it once was.
Agreed. The value is now in what it is now, not necessarily what it once was. It is nice that this one wasn’t holed.
Agreed. The value is now in what it is now, not necessarily what it once was. It is nice that this one wasn’t holed.
SInce according to Carr there is only one holded coin, wouldnt that one be worth more? It is more rare (unique) and more like its original, prefabbed state?
Agreed. The value is now in what it is now, not necessarily what it once was. It is nice that this one wasn’t holed.
SInce according to Carr there is only one holded coin, wouldnt that one be worth more? It is more rare (unique) and more like its original, prefabbed state?
“Worth” depends on which one a buyer would would pay more for.
@jughead1893 said:
since when is a bust dollar a widget?
The Internet, including CU search, has made it easy to find coins from multiple dealers at a time. There’s quite a few low grade, damaged ones out there, possibly because many collectors, like the ones here, don’t buy them.
Of course, high grade bust dollars are certainly not widgets, but that’s not what we’re taking about here.
@CaptHenway said:
In my opinion the Smithsonian pieces are also subject to the HPA. However, the FTC does not give a FIG!
I think the Smithsonian wants to comply with the HPA. The Smithsonian and FTC could just have a different opinion than you do on what it means to comply.
I am a serious variety guy and do not generally like throwing one away forever essentially. I even attributed it, BB-124. It was a coin with little future prospects for love. It is much better in new skin and fundamentally rarer.
The BB-214 probably has a couple hundred around this former condition, another couple hundred around VF, and a couple dozen in finer grades. There are only two of us competing currently in the early dollar variety sets at PCGS and not many total out there. As valuations are not terribly likely to significantly decline in the future, it is doubtful the thousands of surviving early dollars of the date and the type will be too low to satisfy variety, date, and type collectors.
@Baley said:
they look just like other modern reproductions.
Sterile and lifeless and pretty much all the same.
Until, that is, the potential application of fake toning, fake wear, fake dirt..
Or real toning. Some Gallery Mint pieces from 25 years ago have nice toning now. I also have a 1914 Liberty V nickel that's picking up some nice natural toning now which would go well with this.
For me, it's like going back in time and picking up a coin in 1805 and seeing what happens to it! It's the journey
@alefzero said:
My ratty plugged "widget":
[...]
I am a serious variety guy and do not generally like throwing one away forever essentially. I even attributed it, BB-124. It was a coin with little future prospects for love. It is much better in new skin and fundamentally rarer.
[...]
There are only two of us competing currently in the early dollar variety sets at PCGS and not many total out there.
Thanks for posting your coin! It's great to see another one. It's amazing how rare collectors seem to be for these. They certainly seem to be rarer than the coins. I agree the coin looks better and is rarer now. It will be great to see what a little age does with these coins.
@Baley said:
I hope when these coins are sold in the future, the next buyers get good "before" photos along with the coins
Even better than photos when sold, I've been thinking it would be great to have photos in an 1805 dollar census since there are so few. We have 2 of the 33 here now. Hope others can post theirs too
Agreed. The value is now in what it is now, not necessarily what it once was. It is nice that this one wasn’t holed.
SInce according to Carr there is only one holded coin, wouldnt that one be worth more? It is more rare (unique) and more like its original, prefabbed state?
“Worth” depends on which one a buyer would would pay more for.
I think there were more than one holed coin. He received the others already plugged and added a plug to that one. When choosing a host coin, for budget considerations as well as to not sacrifice too decent of a coin, getting a low grade plugged or holed made more sense. For future appreciation, the unholed population would have likely been lower and a few hundred more bucks might have been more prudent.
I was hoping to locate another suitable host coin to send in time to get a circulated presentation one back to have an unc/circ pair.
Must correct myself. Re-read Dan's comment above. Looks like he did strike an unplugged holed coin. We all know the collector mentality. In time, there will be at least two collectors to beat each other up with insane bids to get that one.
Imagine if the collector who sent in 25 only had sent in a few. There might have been fewer than a dozen of these.
For the record, when provided a coin that was already plugged, I always punched a new (slightly larger) hole to cleanly remove it. This was because the plugs were often lead and/or poorly made. I would then properly dispose of the old plug and insert a new .900 fine silver plug into the hole. Then after cleaning the host coin was over-struck with new plug in place.
@Zoins said:
The good thing is that he's not doing that. The potential to do something illegal is often allowed in the US. For example, we sell cars that can go up to 200 mph which would get you thrown into jail if you actually drove that fast, but luckily most people are well behaved.
It isn't illegal to make the cars. It is illegal, however, to make counterfeit U.S. coins or HPA non compliant imitation numismatic items. The car analogy is not apt.
Dan's position is that he isn't making counterfeit U.S. coins or HPA non-compliant imitation numismatic items. Using that position, the analogy is apt.
It isn't just the coins with dubious legality, the production quality dies are too IMO. The Henning nickels aren't fantasy issues because they left off the period correct mint mark. They are counterfeits too. You can say they had ill intent but the true intent has been lost to time and no one ever talked to the maker on the record. They are high quality fakes just like Dan's and it should be noted collectors like them too. Doesn't make them any less of fakes. The Omega gold coins aren't Greek tributes, counterfeiters are often proud of their work and put tells on them
This statement is included in his website for every fantasy Daniel makes.
"NOTE: Defacing of US coins is legal so long as the defacement isn't for fraudulent purposes.
By purchasing one or more of these, the buyer agrees to provide full disclosure of their origin when reselling them. Failure to provide potential buyers with complete and accurate information when offering these could result in criminal and/or civil fraud charges. In other words, don't try to sell to unaware buyers as original coins of this date.
Do not attempt to use these as legal tender. This product is NOT endorsed or approved by the US Mint, US Treasury, or US Government."
@LindyS said:
This statement is included in his website for every fantasy Daniel makes.
"NOTE: Defacing of US coins is legal so long as the defacement isn't for fraudulent purposes.
By purchasing one or more of these, the buyer agrees to provide full disclosure of their origin when reselling them. Failure to provide potential buyers with complete and accurate information when offering these could result in criminal and/or civil fraud charges. In other words, don't try to sell to unaware buyers as original coins of this date.
Do not attempt to use these as legal tender. This product is NOT endorsed or approved by the US Mint, US Treasury, or US Government."
Good until the clueless heirs find these in a collection and think they have something valuable or get in trouble for passing off fakes.
@LindyS said:
This statement is included in his website for every fantasy Daniel makes.
"NOTE: Defacing of US coins is legal so long as the defacement isn't for fraudulent purposes.
By purchasing one or more of these, the buyer agrees to provide full disclosure of their origin when reselling them. Failure to provide potential buyers with complete and accurate information when offering these could result in criminal and/or civil fraud charges. In other words, don't try to sell to unaware buyers as original coins of this date.
Do not attempt to use these as legal tender. This product is NOT endorsed or approved by the US Mint, US Treasury, or US Government."
Good until the clueless heirs find these in a collection and think they have something valuable or get in trouble for passing off fakes.
Some unknown percentage make their way in to ANACS, ICG, and perhaps soon other graded holders, which clearly identify them as Carr's work and as tokens or similar. Would be nice if they all ended up like that, at least any that might be deceptive under some circumstances.
@LindyS said:
This statement is included in his website for every fantasy Daniel makes.
"NOTE: Defacing of US coins is legal so long as the defacement isn't for fraudulent purposes.
By purchasing one or more of these, the buyer agrees to provide full disclosure of their origin when reselling them. Failure to provide potential buyers with complete and accurate information when offering these could result in criminal and/or civil fraud charges. In other words, don't try to sell to unaware buyers as original coins of this date.
Do not attempt to use these as legal tender. This product is NOT endorsed or approved by the US Mint, US Treasury, or US Government."
His disclaimer hurts him as it is intentionally misleading to customers and may very well be a violation of other consumer protection statutes. The statute he cites, 18 U.S.C. 331, makes it a crime to deface coins if it is done with fraudulent intent. That is true. It does not follow logically, however, that defacing of coin is always legal so as long as there is no fraudulent intent. It is legal only if there is no fraudulent intent and if it does not violate another federal statute. (Because of a couple of quirky early 19th century SCOTUS cases there are no federal common law crimes). There is nothing that prevents the application of the counterfeiting statutes to his pieces. And if you adopt a literal interpretation of the Hobby Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 2101(b), "the sale in commerce of any imitation numismatic item which is not plainly and permanently marked 'copy', is unlawful and is an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act." In other words, these are not lawful to sell either if you adhere to the plain meaning of that section.
His over strike argument is also bogus. Multiple people have been convicted of counterfeiting for over striking genuine coins of the same type and denomination for coins with numismatic value and those convictions were affirmed by a federal appeals court. SCOTUS refused to hear the appeal. If over striking were sufficient to remove a coin from the ambit of the counterfeiting statutes then those convictions would have been vacated on appeal (regardless of subjective intent).
@LindyS said:
This statement is included in his website for every fantasy Daniel makes.
"NOTE: Defacing of US coins is legal so long as the defacement isn't for fraudulent purposes.
By purchasing one or more of these, the buyer agrees to provide full disclosure of their origin when reselling them. Failure to provide potential buyers with complete and accurate information when offering these could result in criminal and/or civil fraud charges. In other words, don't try to sell to unaware buyers as original coins of this date.
Do not attempt to use these as legal tender. This product is NOT endorsed or approved by the US Mint, US Treasury, or US Government."
His disclaimer hurts him as it is intentionally misleading to customers and may very well be a violation of other consumer protection statutes. The statute he cites, 18 U.S.C. 331, makes it a crime to deface coins if it is done with fraudulent intent. That is true. It does not follow logically, however, that defacing of coin is always legal so as long as there is no fraudulent intent. It is legal only if there is no fraudulent intent and if it does not violate another federal statute. (Because of a couple of quirky early 19th century SCOTUS cases there are no federal common law crimes). There is nothing that prevents the application of the counterfeiting statutes to his pieces.
His over strike argument is also bogus. Multiple people have been convicted of counterfeiting for over striking genuine coins of the same type and denomination for coins with numismatic value and those convictions were affirmed by a federal appeals court. SCOTUS refused to hear the appeal. If over striking were sufficient to remove a coin from the ambit of the counterfeiting statutes then those convictions would have been vacated on appeal (regardless of subjective intent).
I need to take a break. I read "armpit" in there!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Comments
The final production number was 33. I am not producing any more.
Of those 33, more than half were holed. All but one of the holed coins was plugged with silver (at the owner's request) prior to the over-striking. Of the non-holed coins, only 3 or 4 were not corroded or heavily cleaned. Those 3 or 4 had other problems such as graffiti and they were also heavily worn. So all 33 had problems of some sort.
Also, of the 33 produced, 25 were submitted by a single Draped Bust Dollar collector.
Thanks for the info. It makes sense a Draped Bust Dollar collector would really enjoy these.
To be honest, all of this forum drama makes me wish, I would have found a cheap bust dollar that was corroded or had grafitti and done the same thing.
His argument is irrelevant. The FTC has already ruled that changing digits in a date is insufficient to remove a novelty from the ambit of the HPA. In the same case, they decided subjective intent is irrelevant. Carr and his supporters can argue about it until they are blue in the face. It doesn't matter. The only question is one of enforcement and whether the FTC will ever do its job and rid this hobby of his numismatic abortions once and for all.
Links to your stated HPA / FTC ruling please ?
Thank You !
Dan and his collectors have no need to argue. The coins are being overstruck, collected, and enjoyed. They have been for the last 10 years.
It would be good to see the ruling. It may not apply the way you think it would.
Absolutely - I have bought many of his issues of different types, enjoy them all and never sold a one.
If you don’t like them, step on and take the @hating” elsewhere.
I might as that many non-coin people enjoy his works that I have shown.
Go Danny!
Well, just Love coins, period.
cameonut2011 Post 6,739
January 26 2020 2:33 PM
Really?
.
.
I think we can universally decide to agree that your bolded comment is true.
Which would then make it false...which would then make it true...which would then make it false...which would then... ... ...
What is that dang Schrödinger's cat up to now.
.
.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
Same here; numismatic crack
Once hooked, where does it end?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
We either encourage people making real looking but fake American coins and dies all while mutating the real things or we don’t. I personally don’t believe I want random people buying minting presses and using computers to make realistic knockoffs
I do concede Carr is a on the level kind of guy who is an artist but let him make printing plates of 100$ bills and recondition a printing press, I believe we would see a different response from our gov who i suspect don’t see the work vs reward for someone on the razors edge of the law for coins esp when mostly collectible.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
.> @LindyS said:
I'll pull it again tomorrow and send you a PDF.
Edited:
PDF sent via PM to keep this from turning into a legal thread.
I don't think Dan has much to do with this in the greater scheme of things, if anything measurable at all.
Fake coins are like drugs. We encourage people to make them by paying numismatic premiums for coins, pure and simple. This is why the Middle East made fake gold coins, the Omega counterfeits were made, John Jay Ford sold pieces from the Massapequa Mint, and the Big Tree Coin Company makes counterfeit coins, apparently legally.
I think efforts would be better spent getting the POTUS and U.S. Trade Representative to make counterfeiting coins older than 1949 illegal in our largest trading partner countries.
The good thing is that he's not doing that. The potential to do something illegal is often allowed in the US. For example, we sell cars that can go up to 200 mph which would get you thrown into jail if you actually drove that fast, but luckily most people are well behaved.
It isn't illegal to make the cars. It is illegal, however, to make counterfeit U.S. coins or HPA non compliant imitation numismatic items. The car analogy is not apt.
Dan's position is that he isn't making counterfeit U.S. coins or HPA non-compliant imitation numismatic items. Using that position, the analogy is apt.
I don't approve OR disapprove of taking a worn out Bust dollar and turning it into a fantasy coin. As I said off the top, neither the before or after artifact is anything I have a particular interest in owning or even viewing. The "get over it" comment was directed at folks who seem to impute any old slug of a coin with some sort of quasi-religious or historical significance. It's a piece of metal that changed hands a whole bunch of times in exchange for goods or services. The same can be said about the quarter I've got in my pocket right now. At some point, it gets worn down to where whatever aesthetic value it had when minted is basically unrecognizable. (BTW, I asked a specific question along those lines which you neglected to answer.)
I'm not going to get into the legalities of all this, mostly because I don't know or care about them particularly. My (possibly naive) view is that Dan Carr is not doing anything nefarious. As always, YMMV.
How many times must I repeat that a minor change in design, be it a smaller olive branch or a non-original date digit, DOES NOT exempt an imitation numismatic item from the requirements of the Hobby Protection Act? Read the law.
The small added text is raised, and can easily be removed. The marking requirements of the HPA are incused to make that marking more difficult to remove by filling in.
A flattened reeded edge can be polished smooth. A smooth edge can be lettered. Look at the Class III 1804 dollars, which were lettered after they were struck (by the U.S. Mint) to deceive collectors.
TD
My belief is that adding small letters is exactly what the Smithsonian does to follow the HPA. They added their small initials “SI” in their Confederate Cent fantasy coins with the same date and design.
In my opinion the Smithsonian pieces are also subject to the HPA. However, the FTC does not give a FIG!
Reminds me of the discussion as to the value of a melted 1933 DE. Personally I think it's worth the melt value.
To each their own, but to me this is taking a piece of history, albeit damaged, and turning it into a round. DC could make a million of these with other host coins/silver. I don't see the value in what it once was.
Well, we do have S.S. Central America gold dust slabbed with its provenance by PCGS.
The thing is that he can’t with other host coins/silver, which is why there are only 33 of these.
Agreed. The value is now in what it is now, not necessarily what it once was. It is nice that this one wasn’t holed.
SInce according to Carr there is only one holded coin, wouldnt that one be worth more? It is more rare (unique) and more like its original, prefabbed state?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
since when is a bust dollar a widget?
“Worth” depends on which one a buyer would would pay more for.
The Internet, including CU search, has made it easy to find coins from multiple dealers at a time. There’s quite a few low grade, damaged ones out there, possibly because many collectors, like the ones here, don’t buy them.
Of course, high grade bust dollars are certainly not widgets, but that’s not what we’re taking about here.
I think the Smithsonian wants to comply with the HPA. The Smithsonian and FTC could just have a different opinion than you do on what it means to comply.
Thanks for sharing
INYNWHWeTrust-TexasNationals,ajaan,blu62vette
coinJP, Outhaul ,illini420,MICHAELDIXON, Fade to Black,epcjimi1,19Lyds,SNMAN,JerseyJoe, bigjpst, DMWJR , lordmarcovan, Weiss,Mfriday4962,UtahCoin,Downtown1974,pitboss,RichieURich,Bullsitter,JDsCoins,toyz4geo,jshaulis, mustanggt, SNMAN, MWallace, ms71
My ratty plugged "widget":
After playing host to Dan's 1805 dies:
I am a serious variety guy and do not generally like throwing one away forever essentially. I even attributed it, BB-124. It was a coin with little future prospects for love. It is much better in new skin and fundamentally rarer.
That lady had a lot of history and character in her face... now that she's had radical reconstructive surgery, she sure is smoother.
I hope when these coins are sold in the future, the next buyers get good "before" photos along with the coins
..
Otherwise, they look just like other modern reproductions.
Sterile and lifeless and pretty much all the same.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Uhhhh Ohhhhh!!!!!
Only 54,454, 1801 Draped Bust Dollars minted!
Spaghetti hair, just like poor George Washington.
The BB-214 probably has a couple hundred around this former condition, another couple hundred around VF, and a couple dozen in finer grades. There are only two of us competing currently in the early dollar variety sets at PCGS and not many total out there. As valuations are not terribly likely to significantly decline in the future, it is doubtful the thousands of surviving early dollars of the date and the type will be too low to satisfy variety, date, and type collectors.
Until, that is, the potential application of fake toning, fake wear, fake dirt..
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Or real toning. Some Gallery Mint pieces from 25 years ago have nice toning now. I also have a 1914 Liberty V nickel that's picking up some nice natural toning now which would go well with this.
For me, it's like going back in time and picking up a coin in 1805 and seeing what happens to it! It's the journey
Thanks for posting your coin! It's great to see another one. It's amazing how rare collectors seem to be for these. They certainly seem to be rarer than the coins. I agree the coin looks better and is rarer now. It will be great to see what a little age does with these coins.
Even better than photos when sold, I've been thinking it would be great to have photos in an 1805 dollar census since there are so few. We have 2 of the 33 here now. Hope others can post theirs too
I think there were more than one holed coin. He received the others already plugged and added a plug to that one. When choosing a host coin, for budget considerations as well as to not sacrifice too decent of a coin, getting a low grade plugged or holed made more sense. For future appreciation, the unholed population would have likely been lower and a few hundred more bucks might have been more prudent.
I was hoping to locate another suitable host coin to send in time to get a circulated presentation one back to have an unc/circ pair.
Must correct myself. Re-read Dan's comment above. Looks like he did strike an unplugged holed coin. We all know the collector mentality. In time, there will be at least two collectors to beat each other up with insane bids to get that one.
Imagine if the collector who sent in 25 only had sent in a few. There might have been fewer than a dozen of these.
For the record, when provided a coin that was already plugged, I always punched a new (slightly larger) hole to cleanly remove it. This was because the plugs were often lead and/or poorly made. I would then properly dispose of the old plug and insert a new .900 fine silver plug into the hole. Then after cleaning the host coin was over-struck with new plug in place.
It isn't just the coins with dubious legality, the production quality dies are too IMO. The Henning nickels aren't fantasy issues because they left off the period correct mint mark. They are counterfeits too. You can say they had ill intent but the true intent has been lost to time and no one ever talked to the maker on the record. They are high quality fakes just like Dan's and it should be noted collectors like them too. Doesn't make them any less of fakes. The Omega gold coins aren't Greek tributes, counterfeiters are often proud of their work and put tells on them
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
This statement is included in his website for every fantasy Daniel makes.
"NOTE: Defacing of US coins is legal so long as the defacement isn't for fraudulent purposes.
By purchasing one or more of these, the buyer agrees to provide full disclosure of their origin when reselling them. Failure to provide potential buyers with complete and accurate information when offering these could result in criminal and/or civil fraud charges. In other words, don't try to sell to unaware buyers as original coins of this date.
Do not attempt to use these as legal tender. This product is NOT endorsed or approved by the US Mint, US Treasury, or US Government."
Good until the clueless heirs find these in a collection and think they have something valuable or get in trouble for passing off fakes.
The brown one has the bite radius of a great white shark!
Some unknown percentage make their way in to ANACS, ICG, and perhaps soon other graded holders, which clearly identify them as Carr's work and as tokens or similar. Would be nice if they all ended up like that, at least any that might be deceptive under some circumstances.
Thats Izzy she is the sweet one!
His disclaimer hurts him as it is intentionally misleading to customers and may very well be a violation of other consumer protection statutes. The statute he cites, 18 U.S.C. 331, makes it a crime to deface coins if it is done with fraudulent intent. That is true. It does not follow logically, however, that defacing of coin is always legal so as long as there is no fraudulent intent. It is legal only if there is no fraudulent intent and if it does not violate another federal statute. (Because of a couple of quirky early 19th century SCOTUS cases there are no federal common law crimes). There is nothing that prevents the application of the counterfeiting statutes to his pieces. And if you adopt a literal interpretation of the Hobby Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 2101(b), "the sale in commerce of any imitation numismatic item which is not plainly and permanently marked 'copy', is unlawful and is an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act." In other words, these are not lawful to sell either if you adhere to the plain meaning of that section.
His over strike argument is also bogus. Multiple people have been convicted of counterfeiting for over striking genuine coins of the same type and denomination for coins with numismatic value and those convictions were affirmed by a federal appeals court. SCOTUS refused to hear the appeal. If over striking were sufficient to remove a coin from the ambit of the counterfeiting statutes then those convictions would have been vacated on appeal (regardless of subjective intent).
double post
I need to take a break. I read "armpit" in there!