Home U.S. Coin Forum

Any one need a 1964 proof silver dillar? Grading by NCG?

rec78rec78 Posts: 5,749 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited January 2, 2021 3:08PM in U.S. Coin Forum

This auction needs to be reported. The seller is using obvious deception to try to sell these. In the specifics he has the grading service as NGC. The slab even says genuine? If you look closely the slab says ".900 Silver Medal". Who ever heard of NCG? I have never seen a genuine coin in an NCG holder. Yes, there are people this will fool. https://ebay.com/itm/1964-MORGAN-SILVER-DILLAR-999-NATIONAL-COIN-GRADING-LLC-GEM-PROOF/303803344362?hash=item46bc1725ea:g:2EUAAOSwWiNfgH8F

image

Comments

  • OnastoneOnastone Posts: 4,017 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It looks like a genuine counterfeit to me.

  • JBKJBK Posts: 15,803 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Questionable for sure but the label does say it is a medal.

  • TurtleCatTurtleCat Posts: 4,619 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It is deceptive but it isn’t as bad as most I’ve seen.

  • HydrantHydrant Posts: 7,773 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2, 2021 4:13PM

    If youe buys 4 of thim thar dillers theis ony $55.25 a peaice. If theise silvor the novilti valiu of that yere kiks in. So,...watever......the stickr dos sayd thies the jeanuin rtikal Waits be al the fussn bout? 🐓&🐂

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 35,085 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Daniel Carr special

  • morgandollar1878morgandollar1878 Posts: 4,006 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I don't know how you can be sure if the purity on the holder says .900 or .999, when I am looking at it it looks like it may be .999 but not 100% sure because the label is blurry. So what I did was look at a similar listing and found that the label does actually say .999. As for the specifics, maybe it was bad judgement to use NGC but it also could have been a mistake. I really don't find the listing deceptive, there are many third world holders out there and this is one of them .

    Instagram: nomad_numismatics
  • rec78rec78 Posts: 5,749 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @morgandollar1878 said:
    I don't know how you can be sure if the purity on the holder says .900 or .999, when I am looking at it it looks like it may be .999 but not 100% sure because the label is blurry. So what I did was look at a similar listing and found that the label does actually say .999. As for the specifics, maybe it was bad judgement to use NGC but it also could have been a mistake. I really don't find the listing deceptive, there are many third world holders out there and this is one of them .

    Not deceptive?
    1. Blurry "silver medal" on label
    2. Title does not say it is a medal
    3. Item specifics say it is "NGC"
    4. Description does not say it is a medal
    5. National coin grading is not a recognized grading service.
    6. Label on reverse says "Genuine".
    7. I don't know what a "Silver Dillar" is but he meant "silver dollar"

    Certainly deceptive to me

    image
  • oih82w8oih82w8 Posts: 12,340 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The listing is no longer active.

    oih82w8 = Oh I Hate To Wait _defectus patientia_aka...Dr. Defecto - Curator of RMO's

    BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,879 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @oih82w8 said:
    The listing is no longer active.

    More specifically, it was removed by Ebay, not merely ended.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • OPAOPA Posts: 17,129 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @oih82w8 said:
    The listing is no longer active.

    More specifically, it was removed by Ebay, not merely ended.

    Or as the saying goes: "NUKED" ;)

    "Bongo drive 1984 Lincoln that looks like old coin dug from ground."
  • lkeigwinlkeigwin Posts: 16,892 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @oih82w8 said:
    The listing is no longer active.

    More specifically, it was removed by Ebay, not merely ended.

    :*
    Lance.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 35,085 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @thefinn said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    Daniel Carr special

    Not a Carr piece. His are struck over real coins, so they aren't counterfeit dollars.

    Not my point. My point is that if Daniel Carr had struck it, no one would call it a counterfeit even though it's just as deceptive.

    Riddle me this: Why is a counterfeit 1964-D Peace dollar struck on a 0.900 fine silver planchet NOT a counterfeit while a 1964 Morgan dollar struck on a 0.999 planchet is a counterfeit?

  • thefinnthefinn Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @thefinn said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    Daniel Carr special

    Not a Carr piece. His are struck over real coins, so they aren't counterfeit dollars.

    Not my point. My point is that if Daniel Carr had struck it, no one would call it a counterfeit even though it's just as deceptive.

    Riddle me this: Why is a counterfeit 1964-D Peace dollar struck on a 0.900 fine silver planchet NOT a counterfeit while a 1964 Morgan dollar struck on a 0.999 planchet is a counterfeit?

    Because one is struck over an existing dollar using a fantasy date. The other created a dollar by putting the words, "ONE DOLLAR" on a blank. The second is a counterfeit - they created a new "dollar" that had never existed before. Daniel Carr uses real coins as the host, so he is not making a coin pop into existence.

    I would love to have an 1878-O Morgan Dollar, but Carr won't make any beca1878 Morgan Dollars exist, and he won't use a date that was used. Not even if it was only issued as a pattern.

    thefinn
  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,879 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @thefinn said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @thefinn said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    Daniel Carr special

    Not a Carr piece. His are struck over real coins, so they aren't counterfeit dollars.

    Not my point. My point is that if Daniel Carr had struck it, no one would call it a counterfeit even though it's just as deceptive.

    Riddle me this: Why is a counterfeit 1964-D Peace dollar struck on a 0.900 fine silver planchet NOT a counterfeit while a 1964 Morgan dollar struck on a 0.999 planchet is a counterfeit?

    Because one is struck over an existing dollar using a fantasy date. The other created a dollar by putting the words, "ONE DOLLAR" on a blank. The second is a counterfeit - they created a new "dollar" that had never existed before. Daniel Carr uses real coins as the host, so he is not making a coin pop into existence.

    I would love to have an 1878-O Morgan Dollar, but Carr won't make any beca1878 Morgan Dollars exist, and he won't use a date that was used. Not even if it was only issued as a pattern.

    Using that logic, how could he justify a 1964? That date was certainly “used” more than a pattern.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • thefinnthefinn Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @thefinn said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @thefinn said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    Daniel Carr special

    Not a Carr piece. His are struck over real coins, so they aren't counterfeit dollars.

    Not my point. My point is that if Daniel Carr had struck it, no one would call it a counterfeit even though it's just as deceptive.

    Riddle me this: Why is a counterfeit 1964-D Peace dollar struck on a 0.900 fine silver planchet NOT a counterfeit while a 1964 Morgan dollar struck on a 0.999 planchet is a counterfeit?

    Because one is struck over an existing dollar using a fantasy date. The other created a dollar by putting the words, "ONE DOLLAR" on a blank. The second is a counterfeit - they created a new "dollar" that had never existed before. Daniel Carr uses real coins as the host, so he is not making a coin pop into existence.

    I would love to have an 1878-O Morgan Dollar, but Carr won't make any beca1878 Morgan Dollars exist, and he won't use a date that was used. Not even if it was only issued as a pattern.

    Using that logic, how could he justify a 1964? That date was certainly “used” more than a pattern.

    Because the government said they were all destroyed and not issued. If they had said that they thought they had all been destroyed, but some may have escaped, THEN he could be found to be counterfeiting.

    thefinn
  • thefinnthefinn Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If you read Section 18 it states that only the fraudulent defacement of U.S. coins is illegal. If I change the date or mintmark to that of a more valuable coin, or change cents to dimes, etc., that is illegal. I can put them on train tracks, elongate them at a zoo, etc.
    In Canada it is illegal because the coins have an effigy of the queen.

    thefinn
  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,879 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @thefinn said:

    @MFeld said:

    @thefinn said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @thefinn said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    Daniel Carr special

    Not a Carr piece. His are struck over real coins, so they aren't counterfeit dollars.

    Not my point. My point is that if Daniel Carr had struck it, no one would call it a counterfeit even though it's just as deceptive.

    Riddle me this: Why is a counterfeit 1964-D Peace dollar struck on a 0.900 fine silver planchet NOT a counterfeit while a 1964 Morgan dollar struck on a 0.999 planchet is a counterfeit?

    Because one is struck over an existing dollar using a fantasy date. The other created a dollar by putting the words, "ONE DOLLAR" on a blank. The second is a counterfeit - they created a new "dollar" that had never existed before. Daniel Carr uses real coins as the host, so he is not making a coin pop into existence.

    I would love to have an 1878-O Morgan Dollar, but Carr won't make any beca1878 Morgan Dollars exist, and he won't use a date that was used. Not even if it was only issued as a pattern.

    Using that logic, how could he justify a 1964? That date was certainly “used” more than a pattern.

    Because the government said they were all destroyed and not issued. If they had said that they thought they had all been destroyed, but some may have escaped, THEN he could be found to be counterfeiting.

    Even if they were all destroyed, they once existed and got further along than patterns, whose dates you said he wouldn’t use. Which do you think would be more likely to deceive someone, a copy of a 1964 Peace Dollar (that many people have heard about) or one of a Pattern (about which most people have zero knowledge)?

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • thefinnthefinn Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @thefinn said:

    @MFeld said:

    @thefinn said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @thefinn said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    Daniel Carr special

    Not a Carr piece. His are struck over real coins, so they aren't counterfeit dollars.

    Not my point. My point is that if Daniel Carr had struck it, no one would call it a counterfeit even though it's just as deceptive.

    Riddle me this: Why is a counterfeit 1964-D Peace dollar struck on a 0.900 fine silver planchet NOT a counterfeit while a 1964 Morgan dollar struck on a 0.999 planchet is a counterfeit?

    Because one is struck over an existing dollar using a fantasy date. The other created a dollar by putting the words, "ONE DOLLAR" on a blank. The second is a counterfeit - they created a new "dollar" that had never existed before. Daniel Carr uses real coins as the host, so he is not making a coin pop into existence.

    I would love to have an 1878-O Morgan Dollar, but Carr won't make any beca1878 Morgan Dollars exist, and he won't use a date that was used. Not even if it was only issued as a pattern.

    Using that logic, how could he justify a 1964? That date was certainly “used” more than a pattern.

    Because the government said they were all destroyed and not issued. If they had said that they thought they had all been destroyed, but some may have escaped, THEN he could be found to be counterfeiting.

    Even if they were all destroyed, they once existed and got further along than patterns, whose dates you said he wouldn’t use. Which do you think would be more likely to deceive someone, a copy of a 1964 Peace Dollar (that many people have heard about) or one of a Pattern (about which most people have zero knowledge)?

    A Chinese Alibaba1888-CC Morgan dollar.

    thefinn
  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,879 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @thefinn said:

    @MFeld said:

    @thefinn said:

    @MFeld said:

    @thefinn said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @thefinn said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    Daniel Carr special

    Not a Carr piece. His are struck over real coins, so they aren't counterfeit dollars.

    Not my point. My point is that if Daniel Carr had struck it, no one would call it a counterfeit even though it's just as deceptive.

    Riddle me this: Why is a counterfeit 1964-D Peace dollar struck on a 0.900 fine silver planchet NOT a counterfeit while a 1964 Morgan dollar struck on a 0.999 planchet is a counterfeit?

    Because one is struck over an existing dollar using a fantasy date. The other created a dollar by putting the words, "ONE DOLLAR" on a blank. The second is a counterfeit - they created a new "dollar" that had never existed before. Daniel Carr uses real coins as the host, so he is not making a coin pop into existence.

    I would love to have an 1878-O Morgan Dollar, but Carr won't make any beca1878 Morgan Dollars exist, and he won't use a date that was used. Not even if it was only issued as a pattern.

    Using that logic, how could he justify a 1964? That date was certainly “used” more than a pattern.

    Because the government said they were all destroyed and not issued. If they had said that they thought they had all been destroyed, but some may have escaped, THEN he could be found to be counterfeiting.

    Even if they were all destroyed, they once existed and got further along than patterns, whose dates you said he wouldn’t use. Which do you think would be more likely to deceive someone, a copy of a 1964 Peace Dollar (that many people have heard about) or one of a Pattern (about which most people have zero knowledge)?

    A Chinese Alibaba1888-CC Morgan dollar.

    It sounds like you can’t or don’t care to explain how your below comment would disallow dates used on patterns but allow dollars dated 1964.

    “I would love to have an 1878-O Morgan Dollar, but Carr won't make any beca1878 Morgan Dollars exist, and he won't use a date that was used. Not even if it was only issued as a pattern.”

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • vplite99vplite99 Posts: 1,314 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It has been removed; I wish someone had preserved the original listing.

    Vplite99
  • MasonGMasonG Posts: 6,261 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:
    It sounds like you can’t or don’t care to explain how your below comment would disallow dates used on patterns but allow dollars dated 1964.

    The Church of Carr is strong in some. ;)

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,169 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Is this a Carr?

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,169 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 3, 2021 8:50PM

    @thefinn said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    Daniel Carr special

    Not a Carr piece. His are struck over real coins, so they aren't counterfeit dollars.

    Great. I think I am going to find some cull large cents and over strike them with the chain cent design. Any buyers? Since the pieces are over struck over genuine U.S. copper coinage, it must be okay by your logic no?

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,169 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MasonG said:

    @MFeld said:
    It sounds like you can’t or don’t care to explain how your below comment would disallow dates used on patterns but allow dollars dated 1964.

    The Church of Carr is strong in some. ;)

    More like cult altar.

  • MasonGMasonG Posts: 6,261 ✭✭✭✭✭

    That works too.

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,879 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @thefinn said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    Daniel Carr special

    Not a Carr piece. His are struck over real coins, so they aren't counterfeit dollars.

    Great. I think I am going to find some cull large cents and over strike them with the chain cent design. Any buyers? Since the pieces are over struck over genuine U.S. copper coinage, it must be okay by your logic no?

    As I understand the logic, a Chain cent would not be a OK, because Chain cents were legally produced and released. I can understand that distinction from a 1964 Peace Dollar, even though I still think the latter is problematic.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,169 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 4, 2021 3:54AM

    @MFeld said:

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @thefinn said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    Daniel Carr special

    Not a Carr piece. His are struck over real coins, so they aren't counterfeit dollars.

    Great. I think I am going to find some cull large cents and over strike them with the chain cent design. Any buyers? Since the pieces are over struck over genuine U.S. copper coinage, it must be okay by your logic no?

    As I understand the logic, a Chain cent would not be a OK, because Chain cents were legally produced and released. I can understand that distinction from a 1964 Peace Dollar, even though I still think the latter is problematic.

    I'm only commenting on the one aspect he wrote that being "struck over real coins" is enough to remove a coin from the purview of counterfeiting statutes. (That argument by the way has already been rejected and convictions for striking counterfeits over existing planchets have been affirmed by appellate courts - overstriking genuine coins with false dies is still counterfeiting). If it isn't the host coin then it comes down to minor design differences (like dates) as you suggest. That argument falls apart when you read case law from both the FTC commission decisions and federal appellate courts holding that minor date alterations aren't enough to remove a coin from counterfeit status and that "counterfeits" need not be exact copies. When you reference these decisions the answer always comes back to the red herring overstrike argument. And if neither is enough, then having both of them doesn't really change much.

    I'm trying to make some of them see how their argument falls apart when analyzed piece by piece. If overstriking over a genuine planchet was enough then they should have no problem with my hypothetical chain cents. And if fictitious dates were enough, then the Alibaba special (e.g. 1888-CC Chinese Morgan) should be fine too.

    Anyway, I think we've managed to turn this into another Carr thread. :/

  • ldhairldhair Posts: 7,262 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I find it hard to agree with some of his work. Being struck over a real coin does not change my opinion. I feel the same about all the China stuff that has done harm to this hobby. In a better world, folks should not have to worry if a US coin is real.
    I'm glad that Ebay takes action to help with the problem. It's great that members here point out some of the problems to Ebay.

    Larry

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 35,085 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @ldhair said:
    I find it hard to agree with some of his work. Being struck over a real coin does not change my opinion. I feel the same about all the China stuff that has done harm to this hobby. In a better world, folks should not have to worry if a US coin is real.
    I'm glad that Ebay takes action to help with the problem. It's great that members here point out some of the problems to Ebay.

    I have to give him credit. He's created a market for some very expensive medallic work.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 35,085 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @MFeld said:

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @thefinn said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    Daniel Carr special

    Not a Carr piece. His are struck over real coins, so they aren't counterfeit dollars.

    Great. I think I am going to find some cull large cents and over strike them with the chain cent design. Any buyers? Since the pieces are over struck over genuine U.S. copper coinage, it must be okay by your logic no?

    As I understand the logic, a Chain cent would not be a OK, because Chain cents were legally produced and released. I can understand that distinction from a 1964 Peace Dollar, even though I still think the latter is problematic.

    I only brought it up because I just think people need to be consistent. If they want to give Dan Carr a pass on a 1964 Peace Dollar on a 0.900 planchet, then a 1964 Morgan dollar on a 0.999 planchet also deserves a pass. Yet, the forum jumped on shutting down the latter auction while generally embracing anything Carr.

    The 1964 Peace dollar is one of those quasi-mythical numismatic beasts akin to a 1933 Double Eagle.

  • PerryHallPerryHall Posts: 46,356 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:

    The 1964 Peace dollar is one of those quasi-mythical numismatic beasts akin to a 1933 Double Eagle.

    Bad analogy. There are no 1964 Peace dollars since they were all destroyed by the government. There are at least 13 1933 Saints in existence.

    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

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 35,085 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @PerryHall said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    The 1964 Peace dollar is one of those quasi-mythical numismatic beasts akin to a 1933 Double Eagle.

    Bad analogy. There are no 1964 Peace dollars since they were all destroyed by the government. There are at least 13 1933 Saints in existence.

    No. Excellent analogy.

    For as long as I've been in coins, coin guys dreamed of stumbling into either one of them because it was always believed that they were out there but, of necessity, needed to exist in the shadows.. People still believe there are 1964 Peace dollars in the wild that haven't come to light. People still believe there are 1933 DEs out there hiding in the shadows.

  • MasonGMasonG Posts: 6,261 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:
    For as long as I've been in coins, coin guys dreamed of stumbling into either one of them because it was always believed that they were out there but, of necessity, needed to exist in the shadows.. People still believe there are 1964 Peace dollars in the wild that haven't come to light.

    Make them legal to own. Why not? If they were all destroyed, it wouldn't make any difference, right?

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 13,879 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MasonG said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    For as long as I've been in coins, coin guys dreamed of stumbling into either one of them because it was always believed that they were out there but, of necessity, needed to exist in the shadows.. People still believe there are 1964 Peace dollars in the wild that haven't come to light.

    Make them legal to own. Why not? If they were all destroyed, it wouldn't make any difference, right?

    No need to do that. It can't be illegal to own something that doesn't exist. ;)

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • MasonGMasonG Posts: 6,261 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:
    No need to do that. It can't be illegal to own something that doesn't exist. ;)

    One wouldn't think. On the other hand, there'd be no reason to go to the trouble of making something illegal to own if none existed. :)

  • NotSureNotSure Posts: 2,978 ✭✭✭

    Excellent analogy or not, logic or not, Carr piece or not, seller had it as NGC, when its clearly NCG/Numismatic Coin Grading, whatever the hell THAT is........nuthin' else matters with this.

    I'll come up with something.
  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 35,085 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @NotSure said:
    Excellent analogy or not, logic or not, Carr piece or not, seller had it as NGC, when its clearly NCG/Numismatic Coin Grading, whatever the hell THAT is........nuthin' else matters with this.

    Ridiculously strict for a lousy radar button. He clearly says NCG in the title and shows the full slab. He could easily have hit the NGC button by mistake or misread it.

    You may be able find a raw coin of mine that says PCGS in the specifics if I forget to remove it when making the listing

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 35,085 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @BryceM said:
    If we could somehow get a combined CAC and Carr thread going, it would melt down the entire forum.

    If we could only get CAC to sticker Carr...

    Or maybe we could get Carr to sticker coins. He could print over original CAC stickers so it is legal. >:)

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 35,085 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MasonG said:

    @MFeld said:
    No need to do that. It can't be illegal to own something that doesn't exist. ;)

    One wouldn't think. On the other hand, there'd be no reason to go to the trouble of making something illegal to own if none existed. :)

    @MasonG has a point. Best way to flush them out would be to officially make them legal.

    I've always wondered why 1913 Liberty Nickels were not de facto illegal since there is no record of the Mint striking them or releasing them. They should be the most illegal of all of them.

  • 3keepSECRETif2rDEAD3keepSECRETif2rDEAD Posts: 4,285 ✭✭✭✭✭

    ...I just read an article that has an actual Harvard professor stating that our solar system has already been visited by space aliens...sooo yeah, even the smart people will believe just about anything ;)

    Think about this...there are so many D-Carr haters in the world today that if there were any floating ‘64 PD’s, they would have come out by now just to spite him ;)

    IMHO...they aren’t out there fellas...just like Hoffa went into a commercial garbage disposal...Gone forever ;)

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,169 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @BryceM said:
    If we could somehow get a combined CAC and Carr thread going, it would melt down the entire forum.

    We just need to throw eBay in there somewhere...

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,169 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @3keepSECRETif2rDEAD said:

    Think about this...there are so many D-Carr haters in the world today that if there were any floating ‘64 PD’s, they would have come out by now just to spite him ;)

    IMHO...they aren’t out there fellas...just like Hoffa went into a commercial garbage disposal...Gone forever ;)

    Whether the coins survive or not is not the point.

  • 3keepSECRETif2rDEAD3keepSECRETif2rDEAD Posts: 4,285 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @3keepSECRETif2rDEAD said:

    Think about this...there are so many D-Carr haters in the world today that if there were any floating ‘64 PD’s, they would have come out by now just to spite him ;)

    IMHO...they aren’t out there fellas...just like Hoffa went into a commercial garbage disposal...Gone forever ;)

    Whether the coins survive or not is not the point.

    ...well it was my point...are you saying my point isn’t sharp? ;)

  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,169 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @3keepSECRETif2rDEAD said:

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @3keepSECRETif2rDEAD said:

    Think about this...there are so many D-Carr haters in the world today that if there were any floating ‘64 PD’s, they would have come out by now just to spite him ;)

    IMHO...they aren’t out there fellas...just like Hoffa went into a commercial garbage disposal...Gone forever ;)

    Whether the coins survive or not is not the point.

    ...well it was my point...are you saying my point isn’t sharp? ;)

    No it's just another Carrism (a/k/a red herring).

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file