@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!
I need to take a permanent break from Carr threads.
I would have to believe that a person that has designed TWO State Quarter's that were struck by the Mint, along with other concept designs that were sent for consideration may have learned a bit more than the rest of us about what is and is not acceptable to be able to strike the items he offers.
In the words of Benjamin Franklin; 'Mind Your Business'
On BS&T Now: Nothing. Fighting the Fight for 11 Years with the big "C" - Never Ever Give Up! Member PCGS Open Forum board 2002 - 2006 (closed end of 2006) Current board since 2006 Successful trades with many members, over the past two decades, never a bad deal.
@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.
The thing is Dan's pieces are valuable. There are good records easily found online and an active collector community to identify these. I'd guess the non-collector would be surprised by how much they are worth.
@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.
Zoins repeatedly asks who collects damaged Draped Bust Dollars. I don’t. But I most definitely collect “damaged” Draped Bust Large Cents. In my quest to collect all 187 Sheldon varieties - without spending more than $200 per coin, unless absolutely necessary - I have no choice but to accept some porosity here or an old cleaning there. Despite the “damage”, I find every one of my 90 varieties (and counting) to be beautiful and representative of bygone times.
To each his own but I am firmly in the “sad” camp.
@Aotearoa said:
Zoins repeatedly asks who collects damaged Draped Bust Dollars. I don’t. But I most definitely collect “damaged” Draped Bust Large Cents. In my quest to collect all 187 Sheldon varieties - without spending more than $200 per coin, unless absolutely necessary - I have no choice but to accept some porosity here or an old cleaning there. Despite the “damage”, I find every one of my 90 varieties (and counting) to be beautiful and representative of bygone times.
To each his own but I am firmly in the “sad” camp.
Thanks for the post. Good to hear you collect damaged large cents.
I'm a bit sad too, but because there seems to be no collectors for damaged Draped Bust Dollars here.
At least there are a couple of collectors for 1805 dollars here. It doesn't seem like collectors need worry about supply even after overstriking 33 of these, as it seems like there will continue to be more damaged Draped Bust Dollars than collectors for them. There were 220,920 dollars minted in 1800 alone.
@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).
Nice - wish I could have joined you and Dan for the striking!
I started looking for a beat up dollar when I heard about the offer but my ADD eventually kicked in and now it appears to be over......
"My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose.
@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).
9+ years seems to be a good track record.
Also, during this time, someone initiated an action against Daniel with the ANA where the ANA ultimately sided with Daniel.
That is great to know ANA sided with Daniel in regards to his fantasy coinage !
It's at the Colorado Springs Annual ANA Summer Seminar Coin Show where I've bought some of my best aftermarket Carr Fantasies. I'd guess a solid twelve dealers sell Daniel's goodies mixed into their inventory at the ANA Event each year, for years now.
@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).
9+ years seems to be a good track record.
Also, during this time, someone initiated an action against Daniel with the ANA where the ANA ultimately sided with Daniel.
@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).
9+ years seems to be a good track record.
Also, during this time, someone initiated an action against Daniel with the ANA where the ANA ultimately sided with Daniel.
Who initiated an action against Dan?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I need to take a permanent break from Carr threads.
My only 1805
Hey @Gluggo! Please correct your phony quote! That was not me that said that!
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.
@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).
9+ years seems to be a good track record.
Also, during this time, someone initiated an action against Daniel with the ANA where the ANA ultimately sided with Daniel.
Who initiated an action against Dan?
Roger Burdette. You can read about it at the link below, including copies of the original complaint and ANA dismissal:
@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).
9+ years seems to be a good track record.
Also, during this time, someone initiated an action against Daniel with the ANA where the ANA ultimately sided with Daniel.
Who initiated an action against Dan?
Roger Burdette. You can read about it at the link below, including copies of the original complaint and ANA dismissal:
@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).
9+ years seems to be a good track record.
Also, during this time, someone initiated an action against Daniel with the ANA where the ANA ultimately sided with Daniel.
Who initiated an action against Dan?
Roger Burdette. You can read about it at the link below, including copies of the original complaint and ANA dismissal:
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@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).
There is a difference between his original works of art, some of which are wonderful, and his use of legal tender coinage designs with a few minor alterations in the details such as, but not limited to, the date. In my opinion as a former numismatic Authenticator the latter are subject to the marking requirements of the Hobby Protection Act as currently revised.
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.
I need to take a permanent break from Carr threads.
My only 1805
Hey @Gluggo! Please correct your phony quote! That was not me that said that!
Well I just removed it in the interest of the board but the work " phoney " is a bit much as I did not make it up I just edited it and must of gotten the wrong quote of the person. I mean I could go back and fix must of been the person ahead of you that made the comment. Sorry about that! But I thought you might comment on my dogs cuteness, cause they were concerned and they asked me to put their concerned face up cause they did not want any board member to stop coming to any post's. Especially one like this one. Lots of good comments by all the board memebers. Plus I got to add my 1805 work of art, looks like she is turning in color all these past few months almost the same color as my Izzy / Yorkie! Have a great day busy at work making America Great AGAIN!
@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).
There is a difference between his original works of art, some of which are wonderful, and his use of legal tender coinage designs with a few minor alterations in the details such as, but not limited to, the date. In my opinion as a former numismatic Authenticator the latter are subject to the marking requirements of the Hobby Protection Act as currently revised.
For clarity, Roger's complaint and the ANA's dismissal are specifically for overstruck coins.
Have you thought about having your opinion tested the way Roger has?
@Lakesammman said:
Nice - wish I could have joined you and Dan for the striking!
I started looking for a beat up dollar when I heard about the offer but my ADD eventually kicked in and now it appears to be over......
It would have been great to have you there! I wasn't expecting for it to be struck during the visit but it was great than Dan decided to do it while we were there to we could see the process. It was a super treat! Definitely something to think about for future overstrikes
For clarity, Roger's complaint and the ANA's dismissal are specifically for overstruck coins.
Have you thought about having your opinion tested the way Roger has?
Historically the ANA has been unable to handle its own affairs. Why would anyone care about its opinion on this? The ANA has no legislative or judicial authority, and its opinions are no different than any of ours (either side).
For clarity, Roger's complaint and the ANA's dismissal are specifically for overstruck coins.
Have you thought about having your opinion tested the way Roger has?
Historically the ANA has been unable to handle its own affairs. Why would anyone care about its opinion on this? The ANA has no legislative or judicial authority, and its opinions are no different than any of ours (either side).
Well, they do have authority over their membership and they did have a lawyer respond officially which is more and substantially different than what we post here.
To me it's a question of future usage. The coin as it was, scratched, cleaned and mostly wore off, within a period of a few years would have been a classic candidate for the melting pot. Instead, the coin has been enbibed with a new life and an extended life span which can go on for generations and be enjoyed. I understand the feeling of loss for the historical significance for the coin, but there was no future for it in its previous condition, being melted or thrown in a junk drawer once the final vestiges of the pattern had worn away.
Like Zions Statement about "concours condition" there are many times that I have refused to restore a Rifle, Shotgun or in one case a French dueling pistol to "as new" condition because the historical or collector value would have been destroyed by restoration. Dan Carr also does not arbitrarily over stamp just any coins, he selects those that look like they need a new life! Unfortunately, from the pictures, there was no redeeming value left in this coin, and when it comes my turn to be recycled, I hope someone takes this old worn out, scratched and dirty old man and turns me into something that will go on and be treasured, but hopefully not with a 400 ton press.
Comments
I need to take a permanent break from Carr threads.
I would have to believe that a person that has designed TWO State Quarter's that were struck by the Mint, along with other concept designs that were sent for consideration may have learned a bit more than the rest of us about what is and is not acceptable to be able to strike the items he offers.
In the words of Benjamin Franklin; 'Mind Your Business'
Fighting the Fight for 11 Years with the big "C" - Never Ever Give Up!
Member PCGS Open Forum board 2002 - 2006 (closed end of 2006) Current board since 2006 Successful trades with many members, over the past two decades, never a bad deal.
The thing is Dan's pieces are valuable. There are good records easily found online and an active collector community to identify these. I'd guess the non-collector would be surprised by how much they are worth.
My only 1805
That’s their problem, not Carr’s.
Zoins repeatedly asks who collects damaged Draped Bust Dollars. I don’t. But I most definitely collect “damaged” Draped Bust Large Cents. In my quest to collect all 187 Sheldon varieties - without spending more than $200 per coin, unless absolutely necessary - I have no choice but to accept some porosity here or an old cleaning there. Despite the “damage”, I find every one of my 90 varieties (and counting) to be beautiful and representative of bygone times.
To each his own but I am firmly in the “sad” camp.
Smitten with DBLCs.
Thanks for the post. Good to hear you collect damaged large cents.
I'm a bit sad too, but because there seems to be no collectors for damaged Draped Bust Dollars here.
At least there are a couple of collectors for 1805 dollars here. It doesn't seem like collectors need worry about supply even after overstriking 33 of these, as it seems like there will continue to be more damaged Draped Bust Dollars than collectors for them. There were 220,920 dollars minted in 1800 alone.
Daniel Carr has been making and publically selling his fantasy coins for 9+ years.
I would be quite sad if ALL my Carr Fantasy items suddenly became illegal to trade without COPY stamp.
Over the years I bought these items with the clear understanding fantasy coins are legal to trade if properly represented as fantasy.
I appreciate your input cameonut2011 !
Lindy
Nice - wish I could have joined you and Dan for the striking!
I started looking for a beat up dollar when I heard about the offer but my ADD eventually kicked in and now it appears to be over......
9+ years seems to be a good track record.
Also, during this time, someone initiated an action against Daniel with the ANA where the ANA ultimately sided with Daniel.
That is great to know ANA sided with Daniel in regards to his fantasy coinage !
It's at the Colorado Springs Annual ANA Summer Seminar Coin Show where I've bought some of my best aftermarket Carr Fantasies. I'd guess a solid twelve dealers sell Daniel's goodies mixed into their inventory at the ANA Event each year, for years now.
GALLERY MINT !!!!!
Who initiated an action against Dan?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Hey @Gluggo! Please correct your phony quote! That was not me that said that!
Roger Burdette. You can read about it at the link below, including copies of the original complaint and ANA dismissal:
http://www.moonlightmint.com/burdette_rebuttal_post.htm
Awesome ANA case dismissal link Zoins !
Very interesting. Thanks.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
There is a difference between his original works of art, some of which are wonderful, and his use of legal tender coinage designs with a few minor alterations in the details such as, but not limited to, the date. In my opinion as a former numismatic Authenticator the latter are subject to the marking requirements of the Hobby Protection Act as currently revised.
Well I just removed it in the interest of the board but the work " phoney " is a bit much as I did not make it up I just edited it and must of gotten the wrong quote of the person. I mean I could go back and fix must of been the person ahead of you that made the comment. Sorry about that! But I thought you might comment on my dogs cuteness, cause they were concerned and they asked me to put their concerned face up cause they did not want any board member to stop coming to any post's. Especially one like this one. Lots of good comments by all the board memebers. Plus I got to add my 1805 work of art, looks like she is turning in color all these past few months almost the same color as my Izzy / Yorkie! Have a great day busy at work making America Great AGAIN!
For clarity, Roger's complaint and the ANA's dismissal are specifically for overstruck coins.
Have you thought about having your opinion tested the way Roger has?
It would have been great to have you there! I wasn't expecting for it to be struck during the visit but it was great than Dan decided to do it while we were there to we could see the process. It was a super treat! Definitely something to think about for future overstrikes
Historically the ANA has been unable to handle its own affairs. Why would anyone care about its opinion on this? The ANA has no legislative or judicial authority, and its opinions are no different than any of ours (either side).
Well, they do have authority over their membership and they did have a lawyer respond officially which is more and substantially different than what we post here.
To me it's a question of future usage. The coin as it was, scratched, cleaned and mostly wore off, within a period of a few years would have been a classic candidate for the melting pot. Instead, the coin has been enbibed with a new life and an extended life span which can go on for generations and be enjoyed. I understand the feeling of loss for the historical significance for the coin, but there was no future for it in its previous condition, being melted or thrown in a junk drawer once the final vestiges of the pattern had worn away.
Like Zions Statement about "concours condition" there are many times that I have refused to restore a Rifle, Shotgun or in one case a French dueling pistol to "as new" condition because the historical or collector value would have been destroyed by restoration. Dan Carr also does not arbitrarily over stamp just any coins, he selects those that look like they need a new life! Unfortunately, from the pictures, there was no redeeming value left in this coin, and when it comes my turn to be recycled, I hope someone takes this old worn out, scratched and dirty old man and turns me into something that will go on and be treasured, but hopefully not with a 400 ton press.
JMHO