Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>So, no one wants to talk about whether these items are required to have "Copy" on them, under the Hobby Protection Act? >>
Guess not, probably because it requires one to engage in critical thinking...
Thanks for posting the obvious, at least to rational thinking individuals. These objects are both illegal and worthless except for the silver they contain.
Like I said before, what's to prevent Mr. Carr from overstriking 1912 "V" nickels with 1913 dates? >>
His professional integrity along with the fact that all 5 known examples are well documented to exist whereas the 1964-D is not.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
I instantly thought of the scene from Amimal House for Double Secret Probation ( Dean Wormer)
And the scene From "Dude, Where's My Car?" I have three words for you, " Anger Manage Ment"
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Otter: Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests - we did. [winks at Dean Wormer] Otter: But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen! [Leads the Deltas out of the hearing, all humming the Star-Spangled Banner]
Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Sorry, having lived through and presently living in my third war, the reference slipped by me. I go home in 18 days... I'm sure I'll catch the references when I'm home!
I'll never forget the first time I heard Blutarsky utter those words. I broke a rib laughing so hard......Belushi's best delivery ever. MJ
Congrat's and welcome home llfaoe!!!!
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>My belief is that the Hobby Protection Act would require COPY on an altered date 1913 "V" nickel but not on a 1964-D Peace dollar.
This is because I believe a 1913 "V" nickel qualifies as an "original numismatic item" while there are no 1964-D Peace dollars to represent an "original numismatic item." Because there is not a single 1964-D Peace dollar to qualify as an "original numismatic item," I'm unclear whether the Hobby Protection Act is relevant here. It may very well not be.
I do not feel the hobby needs to be protected with respect to Daniel's 1964-D Peace dollar because our best available information is that there are no real ones to be protected. In the unlikely event that a real one does appear, Daniel's coins have positive diagnostics and are well documented. However, I do not feel we should base our decisions on suppositions and what ifs. We can just make decisions on our best available information today, which is that there are no Mint issued 1964-D Peace dollars. >>
That is my take on it too, thanks.
PS: I wrote to the FTC twice about this (second time by FedEx). Never got the courtesy of a reply. The Federal Trade Commision is the entity in charge of administering the Hobby Protection Act.
The FTC might have thought you were a certified kook, yeah right, he's got a coin press in his basement ant he wants to know if it's OK to mint 1964 Peace dollars.
I had a request to describe the 5 die pairs used in this project.
First off, "die pair 5" definitely looks the best and that is the only die pair I will be releasing (unless I have to make a die pair 6 due to unexpected failure of die pair 5).
Die pairs 1 through 4 did not meet the standards I had in mind, and have already been destroyed.
Die Pair 1: Markers: Repunched mint mark with original D punched about half a letter width to the north, then corrected. Quantity struck: 4 struck on Peace dollars (all 4 were given a post-strike simulated circulation finish). Several more were test struck over 1965 Kennedy half dollars. Quantity released or will be released: 0
Die Pair 2: Markers: No repunching of mint mark. Shiny, rippled surfaces. Un-naturally high rims (coin looks thick when viewed from edge). Repeating pattern of shallow die gouges between "B" and "E" of Liberty. Quantity struck: About 120 (the vast majority of those have been reprocessed to be struck with Die Pair 5). A few were were mis-struck and/or multiply-struck. Quantity released or will be released: 0
Die Pair 3: Markers: Insufficient detail in engraving. Quantity struck: 0. Quantity released or will be released: 0
Die Pair 4: Markers: Obverse die failed to harden in heat-treating resulting in a "mushroomed" obverse die (central design expanded radially). Very narrow obverse rims. Reverse die is the same as next (Die Pair 5). Quantity struck: 6 (most were multiply-struck and/or have a post-strike simulated circulation finish). Quantity released or will be released: 0
Die Pair 5: Markers: Normal obverse die. Reverse die carried over from Die Pair 4. Repunched mint mark with first D far to the left, then corrected. Quantity struck: About 200 so far, maximum limit of 2,000. Quantity released or will be released: Up to 2,000.
This is a Die Pair 2 coin (looks better in the picture than in reality - fingerprint oil was applied to subdue the overly-shiny rippled appearance):
<< <i>Like I said before, what's to prevent Mr. Carr from overstriking 1912 "V" nickels with 1913 dates? >>
There's a BIG difference. There are no 1964 dollars in existence while there are five 1913 nickels in existence. Also, the Hobby Protection Act doesn't apply since you can't "COPY" something that doesn't exist.
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
Here's some additional information on the alleged employee sale from this thread:
<< <i>1. Former Denver Mint employee Michael Lantz discussed these in a Coin World article a couple of years ago. He was present when the coins were struck and can provide details about the location of the press room, types of presses used, etc. He also answered questions about them at the ANA in Denver. Mr. Lantz also believes that the story about employees being able to buy 2 of the new dollars is actually a transference of what was permitted for the new Kennedy halves. He said no one was allowed to purchase, trade, exchange or otherwise acquire any of the 1964-D Peace dollars. He also said that several (exact quantity not specified) were sent to the Director in Washington, but he does not know what happened to these. >>
Should we put the employee sale story to rest since it seems to be based on a single unverifiable account and is disputed by a named Mint employee? Should there be more interest in coins sent to Washington?
I don't think this actually changes anything material unless a real 1964-D coin shows up; however, it does provide more information on which theories may be more interesting to pursue.
"...d) Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified. The term shall not include any re-issue or re-strike of any original numismatic item by the United States or any foreign government..."
Seems pretty clear that it all hinges on the definition of "an original numismatic item".
Since a 1964-D Peace Dollar never was "an original numismatic item" (can anyone PROOVE otherwise) O Danny Boy is in the clear.
Thanks Dan: "This email has been sent to inform you that your order, #xxxx, has been updated to a status of Shipped."
This highlited portion was left out of Mark Feld's response..
<< <i>(]f) Original numismatic item means anything which has been a part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person, object, place, or event. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals. >>
The 1964 D Peace Dollar was never issued into commerce..as public record they were indeed minted but were destroyed and not blessd by the U.S.Treasury..So if in fact the original coin was never issued or released or part of coinage or commemorative then this Fantacy coin should not propose a problem....JMHO...
<< <i>"...d) Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified. The term shall not include any re-issue or re-strike of any original numismatic item by the United States or any foreign government..."
Seems pretty clear that it all hinges on the definition of "an original numismatic item".
Since a 1964-D Peace Dollar never was "an original numismatic item" (can anyone PROOVE otherwise) O Danny Boy is in the clear.
Thanks Dan: "This email has been sent to inform you that your order, #xxxx, has been updated to a status of Shipped." >>
Even if they were not released, since they were produced, weren't 1964-D Peace Dollars "original numismatic items"?
Whatever your answer to that question, do you think that it would be OK to sell ("non-original numismatic item") Trade Dollars dated after 1885, since no genuine ones were produced after that year?
And what about business strike 1895 Morgan Dollars? None of them are known to exist. But when they are offered on Ebay, the sellers are condemned as scammers.
Does the issue come down to this?: How unlikely must/should it be that a genuine example of a given coin exists, in order for it to be OK to produce a copy of it, without including "COPY" on the item?
I believe the criminal element goes to ..intent..There is no intent to decieve the public as to the authenticity of a Dollar Coin.Dan is merely selling this coin as a Fantasy Piece..
<< <i>I believe the criminal element goes to ..intent..There is no intent to decieve the public as to the authenticity of a Dollar Coin.Dan is merely selling this coin as a Fantasy Piece.. >>
Larry (and to anyone who has wondered and/or asked), for the record, I have no problem with Dan's intentions. Nor am I convinced that, per the Hobby Protection Act, the items he is producing are required to have the word "COPY" stamped on them. But, I think that's a good possibility. And, these items aside, I'm concerned about where the line will be drawn with respect to what is OK to offer without the word "COPY" included.
<< <i>I believe the criminal element goes to ..intent..There is no intent to decieve the public as to the authenticity of a Dollar Coin.Dan is merely selling this coin as a Fantasy Piece.. >>
I tend to agree with this. It's the same argument used in the AT vs NT disputes.
<< <i>And, these items aside, I'm concerned about where the line will be drawn with respect to what is OK to offer without the word "COPY" included. >>
I ..Do..agree....!!!...We do need to be educated an diligent in our hobby...
<< <i>BTW, FWIW, I was reminded today of another case where a genuine U.S. coin was overstruck with false dies to change the date.
The coin in question was what appeared to be a 1977/6 cent, which came into the Coin World office in 1977. With the owner's permission, we sent it to the Mint Lab in Washington, D.C. The head of the lab declared it to be a genuine overdate.
We published the story, and then a few days later the Mint called us back to say that the number two man at the Mint Lab had returned from a business trip, examined the coin and called it an alteration. They now said that it had been overstruck with false dies to add a 7 over the 6.
The man who had sent us the coin was arrested, charged and pled guilty in exchange for a suspended sentence. The Secret Service said that they found material used to make a false die in his residence. The coin was never returned. >>
The above story is not an example of what DC is doing with the Peace dollars. The important difference is that the 1977/6 cent was presented by the creator as an authentic Mint production (intent to deceive), where DC is being up front about what these overstrikes really are (no intent to deceive). The Mint did release both 1976 and 1977 cents, while they did not release 1964 dollars and claim all were destroyed.
Further, if I understand correctly a suspended sentence is basically probation that stays on your record, but no jail time. By making such an offer for a guilty plea, the prosecutor must have felt the infraction was not worthy of jail time, based on the laws of the day.
<< <i>"...d) Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified. The term shall not include any re-issue or re-strike of any original numismatic item by the United States or any foreign government..."
Seems pretty clear that it all hinges on the definition of "an original numismatic item".
Since a 1964-D Peace Dollar never was "an original numismatic item" (can anyone PROOVE otherwise) O Danny Boy is in the clear.
Thanks Dan: "This email has been sent to inform you that your order, #xxxx, has been updated to a status of Shipped." >>
Even if they were not released, since they were produced, weren't 1964-D Peace Dollars "original numismatic items"?
Whatever your answer to that question, do you think that it would be OK to sell ("non-original numismatic item") Trade Dollars dated after 1885, since no genuine ones were produced after that year?
And what about business strike 1895 Morgan Dollars? None of them are known to exist. But when they are offered on Ebay, the sellers are condemned as scammers. And in general, I think, rightly so.
Does the issue come down to this?: How unlikely must/should it be that a genuine example of a given coin exists, in order for it to be OK to produce a copy of it, without including "COPY" on the item? >>
Here's my take on this: from a legal standpoint, Mr. Carr has an argument that he is not violating the HPA. The government may have an argument that he is. If this were to go to court, Mr. Carr may prevail, but it would be a Phyrric victory; Mr. Carr would be hit with such high legal costs that he could be wiped out. On the otherhand, he may lose. If he loses, he could face substantial fines, potential (but not likely) prison time and the confiscation of the tools he used to create the coins (the coin press, dies, die making tools, etc.) I would hope that he has consulted a licensed attorney and received a written legal opinion upon which he has based his decision to move forward. If he has done so, and ends up facing charges, he would have recourse against the lawyer/firm that gave the opinion.
As for the points set forth above,
Even if they were not released, since they were produced, weren't 1964-D Peace Dollars "original numismatic items"?
1964 Peace Dollars were minted. The entire run was said to have been destroyed. There were two kept for identification purposes and they were eventually destroyed. The facts are clear: 1964 Peace Dollars did exist, even if only briefly. Because there is wide spread knowledge of their existance among collectors, I would see how an argument can be made that they are "original numismatic items."
Whatever your answer to that question, do you think that it would be OK to sell ("non-original numismatic item") Trade Dollars dated after 1885, since no genuine ones were produced after that year?
Trade Dollars were not issued after 1885. However, their existence is widely known. If I were to mint 1887 dated Trade Dollars and sold them as unmarked fantasy pieces, I would imagine that I would be subject to the HPA. Look at the definition of "imitation numismatic item", which a fantasy piece would be. The HPA defines it as an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. OK, so what is an "original numismatic item? The term “original numismatic item” means anything which has been a part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person or event. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals. Trade Dollars, and Peace Dollars for that matter, have been part of the coinage of the United States. The definition does not make mention of dates or mintmarks. While they are important for identifying valuable specimens, they are not relevant under the HPA. I can mint a Peace Dollar dated 2010. Clearly, no Peace Dollars were minted in 2010, but it still would be seen as a reproduction, copy or counterfiet. I can argue 'til blue that its a tribute piece, and not minted as a counterfiet, but that will get me no where. It has all of the mottos, all of the legends and a denomination on it. It appears to be a United States coin.
Section 2101(b) provides that "The manufacture in the United States, or the importation into the United States, for introduction into or distribution 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 in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act." This would apply to a fantasy piece, especially where the piece is nearly identical to a real coin in terms of appearance, wieght, markings and denominations. In this case, real Peace Dollars have been modified to look like a 1964 D Peace Dollar.
Sec. 304.1 (d) of the Rules under the HPA provides that an "imitation numismatic item" means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. (NOW THIS PART IS KEY)Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified.
The key words here are "an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified." The regulations and the Act does not address the intent of the maker, but rather the effect of the item. Regardless of Mr. Carr's intent, the coin could reasonably purport to be a 1964-D dollar in that it has every aspect of the real thing: 90% silver planchet (in this case a real Peace Dollar), all of the design elements faithfully reproduced, and a denomination. If you look at Mr. Carr's other work (the Astronaut $2 fantasy piece, the denomimation is "TWO ROLLERS" not "TWO DOLLARS". Why? Because he designed the coin so that it clearly would not look like a US Government issued legal tender coin. Here we have legal tender coins being modified to look like a legal tender coin!
And what about business strike 1895 Morgan Dollars? None of them are known to exist. But when they are offered on Ebay, the sellers are condemned as scammers. And in general, I think, rightly so.
For all of the same reasons I outlined above, an 1895 P Morgan would be illegal. If you take an 1895-O and remove the mintmark, aren't you violating the law? If you add an "S" to an 1893-P are you not violating the law? If you modify the date to read 1964 and add a D to a Peace Dollar aren't you doing the same thing?
Does the issue come down to this?: How unlikely must/should it be that a genuine example of a given coin exists, in order for it to be OK to produce a copy of it, without including "COPY" on the item?
In my opinion, this is irrelevant. The 1964-D Dollar, whether it was ever released or not, did exist. None made it to circulation, but neither the HPA nor the regulations promulgated thereunder restrict enforcement to dates and mintmarks.
I believe that these coins should be stamped with the word "copy".
"...How unlikely must/should it be that a genuine example of a given coin exists, in order for it to be OK to produce a copy of it, without including "COPY" on the item?..."
In civil matters only by a preponderance of evidence. In criminal beyond reasonable doubt. Seems sorta silly that in a matter as trivial as this an even higher standard - beyond all doubt - should be applied - IMHO.
Edited to add: RayBob sounds like he knows his stuff. DC, stop producing without "COPY" immediately (now that mine has shipped).
I would guess that if you were to hand these "fantasy strikes" over to 99.9% of the general public, they would think that they were real coins. If they pass hands after the initial disclaimer is fogotten, this is where an issue could arise.
Also, IMO, all of the technical loopholes may not matter much if brought under the scrutiny of a govenment agency.
<< <i>"...d) Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified. The term shall not include any re-issue or re-strike of any original numismatic item by the United States or any foreign government..."
Seems pretty clear that it all hinges on the definition of "an original numismatic item".
Since a 1964-D Peace Dollar never was "an original numismatic item" (can anyone PROOVE otherwise) O Danny Boy is in the clear.
Thanks Dan: "This email has been sent to inform you that your order, #xxxx, has been updated to a status of Shipped." >>
Even if they were not released, since they were produced, weren't 1964-D Peace Dollars "original numismatic items"?
Whatever your answer to that question, do you think that it would be OK to sell ("non-original numismatic item") Trade Dollars dated after 1885, since no genuine ones were produced after that year?
And what about business strike 1895 Morgan Dollars? None of them are known to exist. But when they are offered on Ebay, the sellers are condemned as scammers. And in general, I think, rightly so.
Does the issue come down to this?: How unlikely must/should it be that a genuine example of a given coin exists, in order for it to be OK to produce a copy of it, without including "COPY" on the item? >>
Here's my take on this: from a legal standpoint, Mr. Carr has an argument that he is not violating the HPA. The government may have an argument that he is. If this were to go to court, Mr. Carr may prevail, but it would be a Phyrric victory; Mr. Carr would be hit with such high legal costs that he could be wiped out. On the otherhand, he may lose. If he loses, he could face substantial fines, potential (but not likely) prison time and the confiscation of the tools he used to create the coins (the coin press, dies, die making tools, etc.) I would hope that he has consulted a licensed attorney and received a written legal opinion upon which he has based his decision to move forward. If he has done so, and ends up facing charges, he would have recourse against the lawyer/firm that gave the opinion.
As for the points set forth above,
Even if they were not released, since they were produced, weren't 1964-D Peace Dollars "original numismatic items"?
1964 Peace Dollars were minted. The entire run was said to have been destroyed. There were two kept for identification purposes and they were eventually destroyed. The facts are clear: 1964 Peace Dollars did exist, even if only briefly. Because there is wide spread knowledge of their existance among collectors, I would see how an argument can be made that they are "original numismatic items."
Whatever your answer to that question, do you think that it would be OK to sell ("non-original numismatic item") Trade Dollars dated after 1885, since no genuine ones were produced after that year?
Trade Dollars were not issued after 1885. However, their existence is widely known. If I were to mint 1887 dated Trade Dollars and sold them as unmarked fantasy pieces, I would imagine that I would be subject to the HPA. Look at the definition of "imitation numismatic item", which a fantasy piece would be. The HPA defines it as an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. OK, so what is an "original numismatic item? The term “original numismatic item” means anything which has been a part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person or event. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals. Trade Dollars, and Peace Dollars for that matter, have been part of the coinage of the United States. The definition does not make mention of dates or mintmarks. While they are important for identifying valuable specimens, they are not relevant under the HPA. I can mint a Peace Dollar dated 2010. Clearly, no Peace Dollars were minted in 2010, but it still would be seen as a reproduction, copy or counterfiet. I can argue 'til blue that its a tribute piece, and not minted as a counterfiet, but that will get me no where. It has all of the mottos, all of the legends and a denomination on it. It appears to be a United States coin.
Section 2101(b) provides that "The manufacture in the United States, or the importation into the United States, for introduction into or distribution 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 in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act." This would apply to a fantasy piece, especially where the piece is nearly identical to a real coin in terms of appearance, wieght, markings and denominations. In this case, real Peace Dollars have been modified to look like a 1964 D Peace Dollar.
Sec. 304.1 (d) of the Rules under the HPA provides that an "imitation numismatic item" means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. (NOW THIS PART IS KEY)Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified.
The key words here are "an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified." The regulations and the Act does not address the intent of the maker, but rather the effect of the item. Regardless of Mr. Carr's intent, the coin could reasonably purport to be a 1964-D dollar in that it has every aspect of the real thing: 90% silver planchet (in this case a real Peace Dollar), all of the design elements faithfully reproduced, and a denomination. If you look at Mr. Carr's other work (the Astronaut $2 fantasy piece, the denomimation is "TWO ROLLERS" not "TWO DOLLARS". Why? Because he designed the coin so that it clearly would not look like a US Government issued legal tender coin. Here we have legal tender coins being modified to look like a legal tender coin!
And what about business strike 1895 Morgan Dollars? None of them are known to exist. But when they are offered on Ebay, the sellers are condemned as scammers. And in general, I think, rightly so.
For all of the same reasons I outlined above, an 1895 P Morgan would be illegal. If you take an 1895-O and remove the mintmark, aren't you violating the law? If you add an "S" to an 1893-P are you not violating the law? If you modify the date to read 1964 and add a D to a Peace Dollar aren't you doing the same thing?
Does the issue come down to this?: How unlikely must/should it be that a genuine example of a given coin exists, in order for it to be OK to produce a copy of it, without including "COPY" on the item?
In my opinion, this is irrelevant. The 1964-D Dollar, whether it was ever released or not, did exist. None made it to circulation, but neither the HPA nor the regulations promulgated thereunder restrict enforcement to dates and mintmarks.
I believe that these coins should be stamped with the word "copy". >>
Thank you for taking the time to reply in such a thorough manner.
Raybob15239, ...I disagree....First ..let me state I am not a lawer and will not go into details.To keep this brief as I stated previously the 1964 D Peace Dollar was indeed minted.It was not issued for circulation and not ..Blessed..by the U.S.Treasury. Therefore any coins dated dated 1964 D are not legal..they were destroyed..These are fantasy Coins with the intent to duplicate a coin that was not issued...copy..should NOT appear on this coin..!!!...to be brief..It goes with intent..
Rec'd mine today...... In a word....WOW!! They have satin finish look and the look is brand spanking new!! They look like a 67-68 grade-wise and are the most impressive Peace dollar I've ever seen. Wow, wow, wow!!! Well worth the $. Did I say wow already?? Thanks Mr. Carr!! A true work of art!!
<< <i>Rec'd mine today...... In a word....WOW!! They have satin finish look and the look is brand spanking new!! They look like a 67-68 grade-wise and are the most impressive Peace dollar I've ever seen. Wow, wow, wow!!! Well worth the $. Did I say wow already?? Thanks Mr. Carr!! A true work of art!! >>
I'm sincerely glad that you're so pleased. But, considering the circumstances of their production, are you really surprised that they look like that, grade-wise? Why wouldn't/shouldn't they look more impressive than ordinary Peace Dollars?
<< <i>Raybob15239, ...I disagree....First ..let me state I am not a lawer and will not go into details.To keep this brief as I stated previously the 1964 D Peace Dollar was indeed minted.It was not issued for circulation and not ..Blessed..by the U.S.Treasury. Therefore any coins dated dated 1964 D are not legal..they were destroyed..These are fantasy Coins with the intent to duplicate a coin that was not issued...copy..should NOT appear on this coin..!!!...to be brief..It goes with intent.. >>
I am a lawyer. Intent is irrelevant. Read the statute and the regs. The item is identical, except for date, to a real Peace Dollar and is in fact struck over a real Peace Dollar. Regardless of intentional minor flaws, the item could pass as a real US legal tender coin. In addition, it is a deliberate alteration of a real US legal tender coin to make it appear to be a very rare/desirable coin (regardless of whether technically the coin was ever issued). If I were advising Mr. Carr, I would have told him to stamp copy on it.
<< <i>Raybob15239, ...I disagree....First ..let me state I am not a lawer and will not go into details.To keep this brief as I stated previously the 1964 D Peace Dollar was indeed minted.It was not issued for circulation and not ..Blessed..by the U.S.Treasury. Therefore any coins dated dated 1964 D are not legal..they were destroyed..These are fantasy Coins with the intent to duplicate a coin that was not issued...copy..should NOT appear on this coin..!!!...to be brief..It goes with intent.. >>
I am a lawyer. Intent is irrelevant. Read the statute and the regs. The item is identical, except for date, to a real Peace Dollar and is in fact struck over a real Peace Dollar. Regardless of intentional minor flaws, the item could pass as a real US legal tender coin. In addition, it is a deliberate alteration of a real US legal tender coin to make it appear to be a very rare/desirable coin (regardless of whether technically the coin was ever issued). If I were advising Mr. Carr, I would have told him to stamp copy on it. >>
Okay, all those that have received or will receive the unstamped 1964-D Peace dollar, please return it so it can be stamped "COPY" to:
Daniel Carr - President Designs Computed, LLC P.O. Box 7486 Loveland, CO 80537-0486 USA
<< <i>Raybob15239, ...I disagree....First ..let me state I am not a lawer and will not go into details.To keep this brief as I stated previously the 1964 D Peace Dollar was indeed minted.It was not issued for circulation and not ..Blessed..by the U.S.Treasury. Therefore any coins dated dated 1964 D are not legal..they were destroyed..These are fantasy Coins with the intent to duplicate a coin that was not issued...copy..should NOT appear on this coin..!!!...to be brief..It goes with intent.. >>
I am a lawyer. Intent is irrelevant. Read the statute and the regs. The item is identical, except for date, to a real Peace Dollar and is in fact struck over a real Peace Dollar. Regardless of intentional minor flaws, the item could pass as a real US legal tender coin. In addition, it is a deliberate alteration of a real US legal tender coin to make it appear to be a very rare/desirable coin (regardless of whether technically the coin was ever issued). If I were advising Mr. Carr, I would have told him to stamp copy on it. >>
Intent is Indeed relevant...and Kosher..Mr.Carr is not decieving his buyers who know full well what they are purchasing...
<< <i>Raybob15239, ...I disagree....First ..let me state I am not a lawer and will not go into details.To keep this brief as I stated previously the 1964 D Peace Dollar was indeed minted.It was not issued for circulation and not ..Blessed..by the U.S.Treasury. Therefore any coins dated dated 1964 D are not legal..they were destroyed..These are fantasy Coins with the intent to duplicate a coin that was not issued...copy..should NOT appear on this coin..!!!...to be brief..It goes with intent.. >>
I am a lawyer. Intent is irrelevant. Read the statute and the regs. The item is identical, except for date, to a real Peace Dollar and is in fact struck over a real Peace Dollar. Regardless of intentional minor flaws, the item could pass as a real US legal tender coin. In addition, it is a deliberate alteration of a real US legal tender coin to make it appear to be a very rare/desirable coin (regardless of whether technically the coin was ever issued). If I were advising Mr. Carr, I would have told him to stamp copy on it. >>
Intent is Indeed relevant...and Kosher..Mr.Carr is not decieving his buyers who know full well what they are purchasing... >>
Larry, please cite the applicable language in the H.P.A. in support of your stance? Let me save you some time - I don't think it's there.
Your probably correct.All that I am stating is that there is not one clear instance tha Daniel Car is trying to decieve in any way or attempt to deceive or even pass off this coin as a One Dollar Coin in any way.His attempt of sale is of a Fantasy Coin and goes into details of how he has produced it and alslo his attempts to contact U.S. oficialls with his lawers with no avail...
<< <i> Intent is Indeed relevant...and Kosher..Mr.Carr is not decieving his buyers who know full well what they are purchasing... >>
As I stated above, Sec. 304.1 (d) of the Rules under the HPA provides that an "imitation numismatic item" means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. (NOW THIS PART IS KEY)Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified.
The key words here are "an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified." The regulations and the Act does not address the intent of the maker, but rather the effect of the item.
Regardless of Mr. Carr's intent, the coin could reasonably purport to be a 1964-D dollar in that it has every aspect of the real thing: 90% silver planchet (in this case a real Peace Dollar), all of the design elements faithfully reproduced, and a denomination. If you look at Mr. Carr's other work (the Astronaut $2 fantasy piece, the denomimation is "TWO ROLLERS" not "TWO DOLLARS". Why? Because he designed the coin so that it clearly would not look like a US Government issued legal tender coin. Here we have legal tender coins being modified to look like a legal tender coin!
Mr. Carr has produced what on its face is a legal tender coin. Did he produce it to use in commerce? No. Did he produce it to defraud a buyer? No. Does the product violate the Hobby Protection Act? Yes, in my opinion it does.
Say you want some pot for your own personal use, so you plant a few seeds in the back yard... are you intending to distribute? No, its personal use. Are you hurting anyone? No (except yourself, according to some). Is it legal? No. Pot is a controlled substance and is illegal to grow regardless of your intent.
Its the same with this coin. I would love to own an 1893-S Morgan. So if I alter an 1893 P to look like an 1893-S for my own personal collection, with no intent to defraud anyone, is that coin "legal" under the HPA? No, its not. Let's take it a step further... I take the mintmark off my 1895-O and make it look like an 1895-P, I'm not hurting anyone, right? Wrong. I've illegally modified a real coin to look like a more valuable real coin. The coin itself is in violation of the law. If I alter a 1924 P Peace Dollar to be a nearly perfect 1964-D, what's the difference? The coins by themselves are in violation of the law. The creation of a 1964-D Dollar without markings in compliance with the Hobby Protection Act is clearly in violation of the law. We get angry about the Chinese doing it, but because Mr. Carr is an accomplished artist with a strong following on this forum, he somehow warrants a free pass? We hear every day about one celebrity or another getting away with things that ordinary folks would serve jail time for and gripe about the unfairness of it all. Aren't we doing the same thing by giving a "celebrity" a pass on producing 1964 D dollars that we would get outraged over if it was some Chinese counterfieter?
<< <i>Your probably correct.All that I am stating is that there is not one clear instance tha Daniel Car is trying to decieve in any way or attempt to deceive or even pass off this coin as a One Dollar Coin in any way.His attempt of sale is of a Fantasy Coin and goes into details of how he has produced it and alslo his attempts to contact U.S. oficialls with his lawers with no avail... >>
I agree with all of that. But, according to Raybob15239's interpretation of the H.P.A., at least, it's irrelevant.
Comments
(snipped again)
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
I knew it would happen.
Kidding
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
That's how they vote in Chicago as well
Well played TD. MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>
<< <i>So, no one wants to talk about whether these items are required to have "Copy" on them, under the Hobby Protection Act? >>
Guess not, probably because it requires one to engage in critical thinking...
Thanks for posting the obvious, at least to rational thinking individuals. These objects are both illegal and worthless except for the silver they contain.
Like I said before, what's to prevent Mr. Carr from overstriking 1912 "V" nickels with 1913 dates? >>
His professional integrity along with the fact that all 5 known examples are well documented to exist whereas the 1964-D is not.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Aren't you glad you started this thread? >>
You think the issue will make this week's E-Sylum?
Double Secret Probation >
< Two words? >
I instantly thought of the scene from Amimal House for Double Secret Probation ( Dean Wormer)
And the scene From "Dude, Where's My Car?" I have three words for you, " Anger Manage Ment"
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
[winks at Dean Wormer]
Otter: But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!
[Leads the Deltas out of the hearing, all humming the Star-Spangled Banner]
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Elephant: "When a person creates a product and that product sells for a profit and that person makes a little money that's capitalism"
<< <i>Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! >>
When did the Germans bomb Pearl Harbor?
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
<< <i>When did the Germans bomb Pearl Harbor? >>
Three words...
Ani Mal House
<< <i>
<< <i>When did the Germans bomb Pearl Harbor? >>
Three words...
Ani Mal House >>
Sorry, having lived through and presently living in my third war, the reference slipped by me. I go home in 18 days... I'm sure I'll catch the references when I'm home!
<< <i>
<< <i>When did the Germans bomb Pearl Harbor? >>
Three words...
Ani Mal House >>
I'll never forget the first time I heard Blutarsky utter those words. I broke a rib laughing so hard......Belushi's best delivery ever. MJ
Congrat's and welcome home llfaoe!!!!
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>My belief is that the Hobby Protection Act would require COPY on an altered date 1913 "V" nickel but not on a 1964-D Peace dollar.
This is because I believe a 1913 "V" nickel qualifies as an "original numismatic item" while there are no 1964-D Peace dollars to represent an "original numismatic item." Because there is not a single 1964-D Peace dollar to qualify as an "original numismatic item," I'm unclear whether the Hobby Protection Act is relevant here. It may very well not be.
I do not feel the hobby needs to be protected with respect to Daniel's 1964-D Peace dollar because our best available information is that there are no real ones to be protected. In the unlikely event that a real one does appear, Daniel's coins have positive diagnostics and are well documented. However, I do not feel we should base our decisions on suppositions and what ifs. We can just make decisions on our best available information today, which is that there are no Mint issued 1964-D Peace dollars. >>
That is my take on it too, thanks.
PS:
I wrote to the FTC twice about this (second time by FedEx). Never got the courtesy of a reply. The Federal Trade Commision is the entity in charge of administering the Hobby Protection Act.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
First off, "die pair 5" definitely looks the best and that is the only die pair I will be releasing
(unless I have to make a die pair 6 due to unexpected failure of die pair 5).
Die pairs 1 through 4 did not meet the standards I had in mind, and have already been destroyed.
Die Pair 1:
Markers: Repunched mint mark with original D punched about half a letter width to the north, then corrected.
Quantity struck: 4 struck on Peace dollars (all 4 were given a post-strike simulated circulation finish). Several more were test struck over 1965 Kennedy half dollars.
Quantity released or will be released: 0
Die Pair 2:
Markers: No repunching of mint mark. Shiny, rippled surfaces. Un-naturally high rims (coin looks thick when viewed from edge).
Repeating pattern of shallow die gouges between "B" and "E" of Liberty.
Quantity struck: About 120 (the vast majority of those have been reprocessed to be struck with Die Pair 5). A few were were mis-struck and/or multiply-struck.
Quantity released or will be released: 0
Die Pair 3:
Markers: Insufficient detail in engraving.
Quantity struck: 0.
Quantity released or will be released: 0
Die Pair 4:
Markers: Obverse die failed to harden in heat-treating resulting in a "mushroomed" obverse die (central design expanded radially). Very narrow obverse rims.
Reverse die is the same as next (Die Pair 5).
Quantity struck: 6 (most were multiply-struck and/or have a post-strike simulated circulation finish).
Quantity released or will be released: 0
Die Pair 5:
Markers: Normal obverse die. Reverse die carried over from Die Pair 4. Repunched mint mark with first D far to the left, then corrected.
Quantity struck: About 200 so far, maximum limit of 2,000.
Quantity released or will be released: Up to 2,000.
This is a Die Pair 2 coin (looks better in the picture than in reality - fingerprint oil was applied to subdue the overly-shiny rippled appearance):
<< <i>Like I said before, what's to prevent Mr. Carr from overstriking 1912 "V" nickels with 1913 dates? >>
There's a BIG difference. There are no 1964 dollars in existence while there are five 1913 nickels in existence.
Also, the Hobby Protection Act doesn't apply since you can't "COPY" something that doesn't exist.
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>1. Former Denver Mint employee Michael Lantz discussed these in a Coin World article a couple of years ago. He was present when the coins were struck and can provide details about the location of the press room, types of presses used, etc. He also answered questions about them at the ANA in Denver. Mr. Lantz also believes that the story about employees being able to buy 2 of the new dollars is actually a transference of what was permitted for the new Kennedy halves. He said no one was allowed to purchase, trade, exchange or otherwise acquire any of the 1964-D Peace dollars. He also said that several (exact quantity not specified) were sent to the Director in Washington, but he does not know what happened to these. >>
Should we put the employee sale story to rest since it seems to be based on a single unverifiable account and is disputed by a named Mint employee? Should there be more interest in coins sent to Washington?
I don't think this actually changes anything material unless a real 1964-D coin shows up; however, it does provide more information on which theories may be more interesting to pursue.
Seems pretty clear that it all hinges on the definition of "an original numismatic item".
Since a 1964-D Peace Dollar never was "an original numismatic item" (can anyone PROOVE otherwise) O Danny Boy is in the clear.
Thanks Dan: "This email has been sent to inform you that your order, #xxxx, has been updated to a status of Shipped."
<< <i>(]f) Original numismatic item means anything which has been a part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person, object, place, or event. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals. >>
The 1964 D Peace Dollar was never issued into commerce..as public record they were indeed minted but were destroyed and not blessd by the U.S.Treasury..So if in fact the original coin was never issued or released or part of coinage or commemorative then this Fantacy coin should not propose a problem....JMHO...
<< <i>"...d) Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified. The term shall not include any re-issue or re-strike of any original numismatic item by the United States or any foreign government..."
Seems pretty clear that it all hinges on the definition of "an original numismatic item".
Since a 1964-D Peace Dollar never was "an original numismatic item" (can anyone PROOVE otherwise) O Danny Boy is in the clear.
Thanks Dan: "This email has been sent to inform you that your order, #xxxx, has been updated to a status of Shipped." >>
Even if they were not released, since they were produced, weren't 1964-D Peace Dollars "original numismatic items"?
Whatever your answer to that question, do you think that it would be OK to sell ("non-original numismatic item") Trade Dollars dated after 1885, since no genuine ones were produced after that year?
And what about business strike 1895 Morgan Dollars? None of them are known to exist. But when they are offered on Ebay, the sellers are condemned as scammers.
Does the issue come down to this?: How unlikely must/should it be that a genuine example of a given coin exists, in order for it to be OK to produce a copy of it, without including "COPY" on the item?
<< <i>I believe the criminal element goes to ..intent..There is no intent to decieve the public as to the authenticity of a Dollar Coin.Dan is merely selling this coin as a Fantasy Piece.. >>
Larry (and to anyone who has wondered and/or asked), for the record, I have no problem with Dan's intentions. Nor am I convinced that, per the Hobby Protection Act, the items he is producing are required to have the word "COPY" stamped on them. But, I think that's a good possibility. And, these items aside, I'm concerned about where the line will be drawn with respect to what is OK to offer without the word "COPY" included.
<< <i>I believe the criminal element goes to ..intent..There is no intent to decieve the public as to the authenticity of a Dollar Coin.Dan is merely selling this coin as a Fantasy Piece.. >>
I tend to agree with this. It's the same argument used in the AT vs NT disputes.
Can't wait to get my dollars!
<< <i>And, these items aside, I'm concerned about where the line will be drawn with respect to what is OK to offer without the word "COPY" included. >>
I ..Do..agree....!!!...We do need to be educated an diligent in our hobby...
<< <i>BTW, FWIW, I was reminded today of another case where a genuine U.S. coin was overstruck with false dies to change the date.
The coin in question was what appeared to be a 1977/6 cent, which came into the Coin World office in 1977. With the owner's permission, we sent it to the Mint Lab in Washington, D.C. The head of the lab declared it to be a genuine overdate.
We published the story, and then a few days later the Mint called us back to say that the number two man at the Mint Lab had returned from a business trip, examined the coin and called it an alteration. They now said that it had been overstruck with false dies to add a 7 over the 6.
The man who had sent us the coin was arrested, charged and pled guilty in exchange for a suspended sentence. The Secret Service said that they found material used to make a false die in his residence. The coin was never returned. >>
The above story is not an example of what DC is doing with the Peace dollars. The important difference is that the 1977/6 cent was presented by the creator as an authentic Mint production (intent to deceive), where DC is being up front about what these overstrikes really are (no intent to deceive). The Mint did release both 1976 and 1977 cents, while they did not release 1964 dollars and claim all were destroyed.
Further, if I understand correctly a suspended sentence is basically probation that stays on your record, but no jail time. By making such an offer for a guilty plea, the prosecutor must have felt the infraction was not worthy of jail time, based on the laws of the day.
<< <i>
<< <i>"...d) Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified. The term shall not include any re-issue or re-strike of any original numismatic item by the United States or any foreign government..."
Seems pretty clear that it all hinges on the definition of "an original numismatic item".
Since a 1964-D Peace Dollar never was "an original numismatic item" (can anyone PROOVE otherwise) O Danny Boy is in the clear.
Thanks Dan: "This email has been sent to inform you that your order, #xxxx, has been updated to a status of Shipped." >>
Even if they were not released, since they were produced, weren't 1964-D Peace Dollars "original numismatic items"?
Whatever your answer to that question, do you think that it would be OK to sell ("non-original numismatic item") Trade Dollars dated after 1885, since no genuine ones were produced after that year?
And what about business strike 1895 Morgan Dollars? None of them are known to exist. But when they are offered on Ebay, the sellers are condemned as scammers. And in general, I think, rightly so.
Does the issue come down to this?: How unlikely must/should it be that a genuine example of a given coin exists, in order for it to be OK to produce a copy of it, without including "COPY" on the item? >>
Here's my take on this: from a legal standpoint, Mr. Carr has an argument that he is not violating the HPA. The government may have an argument that he is. If this were to go to court, Mr. Carr may prevail, but it would be a Phyrric victory; Mr. Carr would be hit with such high legal costs that he could be wiped out. On the otherhand, he may lose. If he loses, he could face substantial fines, potential (but not likely) prison time and the confiscation of the tools he used to create the coins (the coin press, dies, die making tools, etc.) I would hope that he has consulted a licensed attorney and received a written legal opinion upon which he has based his decision to move forward. If he has done so, and ends up facing charges, he would have recourse against the lawyer/firm that gave the opinion.
As for the points set forth above,
Even if they were not released, since they were produced, weren't 1964-D Peace Dollars "original numismatic items"?
1964 Peace Dollars were minted. The entire run was said to have been destroyed. There were two kept for identification purposes and they were eventually destroyed. The facts are clear: 1964 Peace Dollars did exist, even if only briefly. Because there is wide spread knowledge of their existance among collectors, I would see how an argument can be made that they are "original numismatic items."
Whatever your answer to that question, do you think that it would be OK to sell ("non-original numismatic item") Trade Dollars dated after 1885, since no genuine ones were produced after that year?
Trade Dollars were not issued after 1885. However, their existence is widely known. If I were to mint 1887 dated Trade Dollars and sold them as unmarked fantasy pieces, I would imagine that I would be subject to the HPA. Look at the definition of "imitation numismatic item", which a fantasy piece would be. The HPA defines it as an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. OK, so what is an "original numismatic item? The term “original numismatic item” means anything which has been a part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person or event. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals. Trade Dollars, and Peace Dollars for that matter, have been part of the coinage of the United States. The definition does not make mention of dates or mintmarks. While they are important for identifying valuable specimens, they are not relevant under the HPA. I can mint a Peace Dollar dated 2010. Clearly, no Peace Dollars were minted in 2010, but it still would be seen as a reproduction, copy or counterfiet. I can argue 'til blue that its a tribute piece, and not minted as a counterfiet, but that will get me no where. It has all of the mottos, all of the legends and a denomination on it. It appears to be a United States coin.
Section 2101(b) provides that "The manufacture in the United States, or the importation into the United States, for introduction into or distribution 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 in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act." This would apply to a fantasy piece, especially where the piece is nearly identical to a real coin in terms of appearance, wieght, markings and denominations. In this case, real Peace Dollars have been modified to look like a 1964 D Peace Dollar.
Sec. 304.1 (d) of the Rules under the HPA provides that an "imitation numismatic item" means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. (NOW THIS PART IS KEY)Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified.
The key words here are "an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified." The regulations and the Act does not address the intent of the maker, but rather the effect of the item. Regardless of Mr. Carr's intent, the coin could reasonably purport to be a 1964-D dollar in that it has every aspect of the real thing: 90% silver planchet (in this case a real Peace Dollar), all of the design elements faithfully reproduced, and a denomination. If you look at Mr. Carr's other work (the Astronaut $2 fantasy piece, the denomimation is "TWO ROLLERS" not "TWO DOLLARS". Why? Because he designed the coin so that it clearly would not look like a US Government issued legal tender coin. Here we have legal tender coins being modified to look like a legal tender coin!
And what about business strike 1895 Morgan Dollars? None of them are known to exist. But when they are offered on Ebay, the sellers are condemned as scammers. And in general, I think, rightly so.
For all of the same reasons I outlined above, an 1895 P Morgan would be illegal. If you take an 1895-O and remove the mintmark, aren't you violating the law? If you add an "S" to an 1893-P are you not violating the law? If you modify the date to read 1964 and add a D to a Peace Dollar aren't you doing the same thing?
Does the issue come down to this?: How unlikely must/should it be that a genuine example of a given coin exists, in order for it to be OK to produce a copy of it, without including "COPY" on the item?
In my opinion, this is irrelevant. The 1964-D Dollar, whether it was ever released or not, did exist. None made it to circulation, but neither the HPA nor the regulations promulgated thereunder restrict enforcement to dates and mintmarks.
I believe that these coins should be stamped with the word "copy".
In civil matters only by a preponderance of evidence. In criminal beyond reasonable doubt. Seems sorta silly that in a matter as trivial as this an even higher standard - beyond all doubt - should be applied - IMHO.
Edited to add: RayBob sounds like he knows his stuff. DC, stop producing without "COPY" immediately (now that mine has shipped).
I would guess that if you were to hand these "fantasy strikes" over to 99.9% of the general public, they would think that they were real coins. If they pass hands after the initial disclaimer is fogotten, this is where an issue could arise.
Also, IMO, all of the technical loopholes may not matter much if brought under the scrutiny of a govenment agency.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>"...d) Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified. The term shall not include any re-issue or re-strike of any original numismatic item by the United States or any foreign government..."
Seems pretty clear that it all hinges on the definition of "an original numismatic item".
Since a 1964-D Peace Dollar never was "an original numismatic item" (can anyone PROOVE otherwise) O Danny Boy is in the clear.
Thanks Dan: "This email has been sent to inform you that your order, #xxxx, has been updated to a status of Shipped." >>
Even if they were not released, since they were produced, weren't 1964-D Peace Dollars "original numismatic items"?
Whatever your answer to that question, do you think that it would be OK to sell ("non-original numismatic item") Trade Dollars dated after 1885, since no genuine ones were produced after that year?
And what about business strike 1895 Morgan Dollars? None of them are known to exist. But when they are offered on Ebay, the sellers are condemned as scammers. And in general, I think, rightly so.
Does the issue come down to this?: How unlikely must/should it be that a genuine example of a given coin exists, in order for it to be OK to produce a copy of it, without including "COPY" on the item? >>
Here's my take on this: from a legal standpoint, Mr. Carr has an argument that he is not violating the HPA. The government may have an argument that he is. If this were to go to court, Mr. Carr may prevail, but it would be a Phyrric victory; Mr. Carr would be hit with such high legal costs that he could be wiped out. On the otherhand, he may lose. If he loses, he could face substantial fines, potential (but not likely) prison time and the confiscation of the tools he used to create the coins (the coin press, dies, die making tools, etc.) I would hope that he has consulted a licensed attorney and received a written legal opinion upon which he has based his decision to move forward. If he has done so, and ends up facing charges, he would have recourse against the lawyer/firm that gave the opinion.
As for the points set forth above,
Even if they were not released, since they were produced, weren't 1964-D Peace Dollars "original numismatic items"?
1964 Peace Dollars were minted. The entire run was said to have been destroyed. There were two kept for identification purposes and they were eventually destroyed. The facts are clear: 1964 Peace Dollars did exist, even if only briefly. Because there is wide spread knowledge of their existance among collectors, I would see how an argument can be made that they are "original numismatic items."
Whatever your answer to that question, do you think that it would be OK to sell ("non-original numismatic item") Trade Dollars dated after 1885, since no genuine ones were produced after that year?
Trade Dollars were not issued after 1885. However, their existence is widely known. If I were to mint 1887 dated Trade Dollars and sold them as unmarked fantasy pieces, I would imagine that I would be subject to the HPA. Look at the definition of "imitation numismatic item", which a fantasy piece would be. The HPA defines it as an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. OK, so what is an "original numismatic item? The term “original numismatic item” means anything which has been a part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person or event. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals. Trade Dollars, and Peace Dollars for that matter, have been part of the coinage of the United States. The definition does not make mention of dates or mintmarks. While they are important for identifying valuable specimens, they are not relevant under the HPA. I can mint a Peace Dollar dated 2010. Clearly, no Peace Dollars were minted in 2010, but it still would be seen as a reproduction, copy or counterfiet. I can argue 'til blue that its a tribute piece, and not minted as a counterfiet, but that will get me no where. It has all of the mottos, all of the legends and a denomination on it. It appears to be a United States coin.
Section 2101(b) provides that "The manufacture in the United States, or the importation into the United States, for introduction into or distribution 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 in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act." This would apply to a fantasy piece, especially where the piece is nearly identical to a real coin in terms of appearance, wieght, markings and denominations. In this case, real Peace Dollars have been modified to look like a 1964 D Peace Dollar.
Sec. 304.1 (d) of the Rules under the HPA provides that an "imitation numismatic item" means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. (NOW THIS PART IS KEY)Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified.
The key words here are "an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified." The regulations and the Act does not address the intent of the maker, but rather the effect of the item. Regardless of Mr. Carr's intent, the coin could reasonably purport to be a 1964-D dollar in that it has every aspect of the real thing: 90% silver planchet (in this case a real Peace Dollar), all of the design elements faithfully reproduced, and a denomination. If you look at Mr. Carr's other work (the Astronaut $2 fantasy piece, the denomimation is "TWO ROLLERS" not "TWO DOLLARS". Why? Because he designed the coin so that it clearly would not look like a US Government issued legal tender coin. Here we have legal tender coins being modified to look like a legal tender coin!
And what about business strike 1895 Morgan Dollars? None of them are known to exist. But when they are offered on Ebay, the sellers are condemned as scammers. And in general, I think, rightly so.
For all of the same reasons I outlined above, an 1895 P Morgan would be illegal. If you take an 1895-O and remove the mintmark, aren't you violating the law? If you add an "S" to an 1893-P are you not violating the law? If you modify the date to read 1964 and add a D to a Peace Dollar aren't you doing the same thing?
Does the issue come down to this?: How unlikely must/should it be that a genuine example of a given coin exists, in order for it to be OK to produce a copy of it, without including "COPY" on the item?
In my opinion, this is irrelevant. The 1964-D Dollar, whether it was ever released or not, did exist. None made it to circulation, but neither the HPA nor the regulations promulgated thereunder restrict enforcement to dates and mintmarks.
I believe that these coins should be stamped with the word "copy". >>
Thank you for taking the time to reply in such a thorough manner.
...I disagree....First ..let me state I am not a lawer and will not go into details.To keep this brief as I stated previously the 1964 D Peace Dollar was indeed minted.It was not issued for circulation and not ..Blessed..by the U.S.Treasury. Therefore any coins dated dated 1964 D are not legal..they were destroyed..These are fantasy Coins with the intent to duplicate a coin that was not issued...copy..should NOT appear on this coin..!!!...to be brief..It goes with intent..
<< <i>Rec'd mine today...... In a word....WOW!! They have satin finish look and the look is brand spanking new!! They look like a 67-68 grade-wise and are the most impressive Peace dollar I've ever seen. Wow, wow, wow!!! Well worth the $. Did I say wow already?? Thanks Mr. Carr!! A true work of art!! >>
I'm sincerely glad that you're so pleased. But, considering the circumstances of their production, are you really surprised that they look like that, grade-wise? Why wouldn't/shouldn't they look more impressive than ordinary Peace Dollars?
<< <i>Raybob15239,
...I disagree....First ..let me state I am not a lawer and will not go into details.To keep this brief as I stated previously the 1964 D Peace Dollar was indeed minted.It was not issued for circulation and not ..Blessed..by the U.S.Treasury. Therefore any coins dated dated 1964 D are not legal..they were destroyed..These are fantasy Coins with the intent to duplicate a coin that was not issued...copy..should NOT appear on this coin..!!!...to be brief..It goes with intent.. >>
I am a lawyer. Intent is irrelevant. Read the statute and the regs. The item is identical, except for date, to a real Peace Dollar and is in fact struck over a real Peace Dollar. Regardless of intentional minor flaws, the item could pass as a real US legal tender coin. In addition, it is a deliberate alteration of a real US legal tender coin to make it appear to be a very rare/desirable coin (regardless of whether technically the coin was ever issued). If I were advising Mr. Carr, I would have told him to stamp copy on it.
<< <i>
<< <i>Raybob15239,
...I disagree....First ..let me state I am not a lawer and will not go into details.To keep this brief as I stated previously the 1964 D Peace Dollar was indeed minted.It was not issued for circulation and not ..Blessed..by the U.S.Treasury. Therefore any coins dated dated 1964 D are not legal..they were destroyed..These are fantasy Coins with the intent to duplicate a coin that was not issued...copy..should NOT appear on this coin..!!!...to be brief..It goes with intent.. >>
I am a lawyer. Intent is irrelevant. Read the statute and the regs. The item is identical, except for date, to a real Peace Dollar and is in fact struck over a real Peace Dollar. Regardless of intentional minor flaws, the item could pass as a real US legal tender coin. In addition, it is a deliberate alteration of a real US legal tender coin to make it appear to be a very rare/desirable coin (regardless of whether technically the coin was ever issued). If I were advising Mr. Carr, I would have told him to stamp copy on it. >>
Okay, all those that have received or will receive the unstamped 1964-D Peace dollar, please return it so it can be stamped "COPY" to:
Daniel Carr - President
Designs Computed, LLC
P.O. Box 7486
Loveland, CO
80537-0486
USA
<< <i>
<< <i>Raybob15239,
...I disagree....First ..let me state I am not a lawer and will not go into details.To keep this brief as I stated previously the 1964 D Peace Dollar was indeed minted.It was not issued for circulation and not ..Blessed..by the U.S.Treasury. Therefore any coins dated dated 1964 D are not legal..they were destroyed..These are fantasy Coins with the intent to duplicate a coin that was not issued...copy..should NOT appear on this coin..!!!...to be brief..It goes with intent.. >>
I am a lawyer. Intent is irrelevant. Read the statute and the regs. The item is identical, except for date, to a real Peace Dollar and is in fact struck over a real Peace Dollar. Regardless of intentional minor flaws, the item could pass as a real US legal tender coin. In addition, it is a deliberate alteration of a real US legal tender coin to make it appear to be a very rare/desirable coin (regardless of whether technically the coin was ever issued). If I were advising Mr. Carr, I would have told him to stamp copy on it. >>
Intent is Indeed relevant...and Kosher..Mr.Carr is not decieving his buyers who know full well what they are purchasing...
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Raybob15239,
...I disagree....First ..let me state I am not a lawer and will not go into details.To keep this brief as I stated previously the 1964 D Peace Dollar was indeed minted.It was not issued for circulation and not ..Blessed..by the U.S.Treasury. Therefore any coins dated dated 1964 D are not legal..they were destroyed..These are fantasy Coins with the intent to duplicate a coin that was not issued...copy..should NOT appear on this coin..!!!...to be brief..It goes with intent.. >>
I am a lawyer. Intent is irrelevant. Read the statute and the regs. The item is identical, except for date, to a real Peace Dollar and is in fact struck over a real Peace Dollar. Regardless of intentional minor flaws, the item could pass as a real US legal tender coin. In addition, it is a deliberate alteration of a real US legal tender coin to make it appear to be a very rare/desirable coin (regardless of whether technically the coin was ever issued). If I were advising Mr. Carr, I would have told him to stamp copy on it. >>
Intent is Indeed relevant...and Kosher..Mr.Carr is not decieving his buyers who know full well what they are purchasing... >>
Larry, please cite the applicable language in the H.P.A. in support of your stance? Let me save you some time - I don't think it's there.
<< <i> Intent is Indeed relevant...and Kosher..Mr.Carr is not decieving his buyers who know full well what they are purchasing... >>
As I stated above, Sec. 304.1 (d) of the Rules under the HPA provides that an "imitation numismatic item" means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. (NOW THIS PART IS KEY)Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified.
The key words here are "an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified." The regulations and the Act does not address the intent of the maker, but rather the effect of the item.
Regardless of Mr. Carr's intent, the coin could reasonably purport to be a 1964-D dollar in that it has every aspect of the real thing: 90% silver planchet (in this case a real Peace Dollar), all of the design elements faithfully reproduced, and a denomination. If you look at Mr. Carr's other work (the Astronaut $2 fantasy piece, the denomimation is "TWO ROLLERS" not "TWO DOLLARS". Why? Because he designed the coin so that it clearly would not look like a US Government issued legal tender coin. Here we have legal tender coins being modified to look like a legal tender coin!
Mr. Carr has produced what on its face is a legal tender coin. Did he produce it to use in commerce? No. Did he produce it to defraud a buyer? No. Does the product violate the Hobby Protection Act? Yes, in my opinion it does.
Say you want some pot for your own personal use, so you plant a few seeds in the back yard... are you intending to distribute? No, its personal use. Are you hurting anyone? No (except yourself, according to some). Is it legal? No. Pot is a controlled substance and is illegal to grow regardless of your intent.
Its the same with this coin. I would love to own an 1893-S Morgan. So if I alter an 1893 P to look like an 1893-S for my own personal collection, with no intent to defraud anyone, is that coin "legal" under the HPA? No, its not. Let's take it a step further... I take the mintmark off my 1895-O and make it look like an 1895-P, I'm not hurting anyone, right? Wrong. I've illegally modified a real coin to look like a more valuable real coin. The coin itself is in violation of the law. If I alter a 1924 P Peace Dollar to be a nearly perfect 1964-D, what's the difference? The coins by themselves are in violation of the law. The creation of a 1964-D Dollar without markings in compliance with the Hobby Protection Act is clearly in violation of the law. We get angry about the Chinese doing it, but because Mr. Carr is an accomplished artist with a strong following on this forum, he somehow warrants a free pass? We hear every day about one celebrity or another getting away with things that ordinary folks would serve jail time for and gripe about the unfairness of it all. Aren't we doing the same thing by giving a "celebrity" a pass on producing 1964 D dollars that we would get outraged over if it was some Chinese counterfieter?
BST successful dealings with:MsMorrisine, goldman86
<< <i>Your probably correct.All that I am stating is that there is not one clear instance tha Daniel Car is trying to decieve in any way or attempt to deceive or even pass off this coin as a One Dollar Coin in any way.His attempt of sale is of a Fantasy Coin and goes into details of how he has produced it and alslo his attempts to contact U.S. oficialls with his lawers with no avail... >>
I agree with all of that. But, according to Raybob15239's interpretation of the H.P.A., at least, it's irrelevant.