<< <i>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. >>
Which "single unverifiable report" should we put to rest? Dan Brown's report that the Superintendent of the Denver Mint told him that they had sold coins to employees but gotten them back, or my report of a conversation with a Denver Mint employee who was there at the time? By my new math these are TWO separate reports.
As to Mr. Lantz's alleged story that the Mint allegedly sold 1964-D half dollars to employees and then allegedly threated said alleged employees with alleged dismissal if they did not allegedly return them, I allegedly disbelieve him.
Please get your facts straight before you drink the Mint kool-aid. The Mint lies when it is convenient for them to do so. They lied to Coin World in the 1977/6 cent case.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>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. >>
To keep this Very Brief..I guess we should find the artist of the "Hobo Nickels" guilty as well....!!..
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the original US Mint 1964-D dollars melted since there was no actual legislation (it never passed) authorizing their production? If so, then those US Mint produced 1964-D Peace dollars are more like patterns.
The hyperreal is becoming realer than the real by the moment.
<< <i>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. >>
To keep this Very Brief..I guess we should find the artist of the "Hobo Nickels" guilty as well....!!.. >>
No, those don't appear (anywhere close to) identical to genuine Buffalo Nickels or to be items which could pass as real US legal tender coins.
<< <i>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. >>
To keep this Very Brief..I guess we should find the artist of the "Hobo Nickels" guilty as well....!!.. >>
I think it's unlikely the average American would think a Hobo nickel is legal tender as a nickel since most of the time, the denomination is obscured by the design. However, most Americans would believe the 1964-D Peace dollar is a legal tender American silver dollar.
<< <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. >>
To me, it seems the applicability of the HPA would depend on whether a non-existing coin that was never monetized or issued qualifies as an original numismatic item. To make a decision, the court will have to use the definition of original numismatic item and decide if that piece was part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person, object, place, or event. Unfortunately, the terms coinage and issue are not defined in the HPA's Terms definition section, 304.1, which makes this more difficult (I'm assuming for lawyers and non-laywers). When it appears laws are vague, it is often the case in the US that the only way to get more actual clarification on the law is to test it by having a case brought forth. I think it is unclear whether the HPA applies here, there are feelings on both sides, and Daniel's coin may help us clarify the HPA on whether it applies or not. It may be the case that it does, or does not, as it is currently worded.
<< <i>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. >>
Which "single unverifiable report" should we put to rest? Dan Brown's report that the Superintendent of the Denver Mint told him that they had sold coins to employees but gotten them back, or my report of a conversation with a Denver Mint employee who was there at the time? By my new math these are TWO separate reports. >>
My mistake, two separate unverifiable accounts. At least the Dan Brown story has a name associated with the source. I don't understand why you stand by your account so strongly w/o feeling a need to know your alleged source's name. How do you expect people to accept your story?
<< <i>As to Mr. Lantz's alleged story that the Mint allegedly sold 1964-D half dollars to employees and then allegedly threated said alleged employees with alleged dismissal if they did not allegedly return them, I allegedly disbelieve him. >>
Regardless of belief, would Mr. Lantz's account be considered official and not hearsy?
<< <i>the Mint lies when it is convenient for them to do so. They lied to Coin World in the 1977/6 cent case. >>
To keep this Very Brief..I guess we should find the artist of the "Hobo Nickels" guilty as well....!!.. >>
Apples and oranges. Hobo Nickels are defaced coins that have been turned into works of art. Other than the size and depending on the carving, they aren't made to look like other nickels. It is not a case of a carver retooling a Jefferson or Buff Nickel to look like a 1913 V Nickel. They completely deface the coin and turn it into something else. Here, Mr. Carr is turning real Peace Dollars (presumably 1922 or other common dates) into "fantasy" 1964 Peace Dollars. What he has done is no different, in my opinion, from removing or adding a mintmark to make a less valuable coin look like a more valuable coin. The resulting product is, in and of itself, in violation of the law.
<< <i>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. >>
To keep this Very Brief..I guess we should find the artist of the "Hobo Nickels" guilty as well....!!.. >>
No, those don't appear (anywhere close to) identical to genuine Buffalo Nickels or to be items which could pass as real US legal tender coins. >>
This is the point...He is not Passing them off as legal tender.The buyer knowns as does the Hobo Nickels..IF..If..the the recipient accepts the exchange....!!
<< <i>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. >>
To keep this Very Brief..I guess we should find the artist of the "Hobo Nickels" guilty as well....!!.. >>
No, those don't appear (anywhere close to) identical to genuine Buffalo Nickels or to be items which could pass as real US legal tender coins. >>
This is the point...He is not Passing them off as legal tender.The buyer knowns as does the Hobo Nickels..IF..If..the the recipient accepts the exchange....!! >>
Okay... is this one of my ex-wives or girlfriends? C'mon, which one is it? They always had to be right too!
<< <i>No, those don't appear (anywhere close to) identical to genuine Buffalo Nickels or to be items which could pass as real US legal tender coins.
This is the point...He is not Passing them off as legal tender.The buyer knowns as does the Hobo Nickels..IF..If..the the recipient accepts the exchange....!! >>
Larry, you are missing the point. It doesn't matter that DC is not personally trying to pass it off as legal tender (actually, he make the point in his descriptions that they are legal tender Peace Dollars that have been overstruck, but we're splitting hairs unnecessarily). The coins can pass as legal tender because they have the look and say One Dollar.
Tell you what; try this: Make some really high quality copies of $100 notes on a color copier, but change the series date on them to a year in which they were not produced. Oh, and used bleached out $1.00 notes to print them on. Take them to the Secret Service and ask them their opinion. Tell them you did it for personal enjoyment with no intent to pass them off as real and that its really just art. See what they say.
<< <i>No, those don't appear (anywhere close to) identical to genuine Buffalo Nickels or to be items which could pass as real US legal tender coins.
This is the point...He is not Passing them off as legal tender.The buyer knowns as does the Hobo Nickels..IF..If..the the recipient accepts the exchange....!! >>
Larry, you are missing the point. It doesn't matter that DC is not personally trying to pass it off as legal tender (actually, he make the point in his descriptions that they are legal tender Peace Dollars that have been overstruck, but we're splitting hairs unnecessarily). The coins can pass as legal tender because they have the look and say One Dollar.
Tell you what; try this: Make some really high quality copies of $100 notes on a color copier, but change the series date on them to a year in which they were not produced. Oh, and used bleached out $1.00 notes to print them on. Take them to the Secret Service and ask them their opinion. Tell them you did it for personal enjoyment with no intent to pass them off as real and that its really just art. See what they say. >>
Your example is confusing the issue with irrelevant denomination change.
A better example would be to take $1 notes and turn them into $1 notes with a date series that wasn't issued. Better yet, a date that is widely known to the intended collector audience to not exist and be illegal to own if they did exist.
I think there is sufficient disagreement here, that it is acceptable to test the law and see where it really stands. This may happen with Daniel's issue, allowing all of us to see the issue more clearly.
I would be surprised if anything gets "tested" he made a few hundred fantasy coins and its a big deal on coin forums and proabably attributed to alot more sales but in reality thats all folks. Just a fantasy coin, a coin that never was. AL
So we are not talking at cross purposes, it might be worthwhile to break it down to various arguments:
1) It is something that is meant to pass a currency? If not, then the legal tender arguments don't hold much water. No one is going to attempt to spend these. The fact that they are over-struck on legal tender means nothing either. Compare this to a counter-stamped coin.
2) Is it a counterfeit meant to defraud collectors? If yes, then there should be a harmed party. Is anyone being defrauded? Compare it to a counterfeit 1845 Bust half, either contemporary or recent origin. Using a fictitious date for a reproduction may be classified as an evasion piece, like some British fake Half Pence from the 1790's.
3) Is altering a coin illegal? Compare to hobo nickels. I don't think a fraudulent alteration like altering mint marks and dates or doctoring coins is a fair comparison to these pieces.
4) Does it fall into the guidelines of the Hobby Protection Act? Does it need a COPY stamp? It is not a copy of a real-dated coin. It is a copy of the Peace Dollar type though.
I am not offering any conclusions, just asking more questions. Maybe we'll get to 1000.
<< <i>So we are not talking at cross purposes, it might be worthwhile to break it down to various arguments:
1) It is something that is meant to pass a currency? If not, then the legal tender arguments don't hold much water. No one is going to attempt to spend these. The fact that they are over-struck on legal tender means nothing either. Compare this to a counter-stamped coin.
2) Is it a counterfeit meant to defraud collectors? If yes, then there should be a harmed party. Is anyone being defrauded? Compare it to a counterfeit 1845 Bust half, either contemporary or recent origin. Using a fictitious date for a reproduction may be classified as an evasion piece, like some British fake Half Pence from the 1790's.
3) Is altering a coin illegal? Compare to hobo nickels. I don't think a fraudulent alteration like altering mint marks and dates or doctoring coins is a fair comparison to these pieces.
4) Does it fall into the guidelines of the Hobby Protection Act? Does it need a COPY stamp? It is not a copy of a real-dated coin. It is a copy of the Peace Dollar type though.
I am not offering any conclusions, just asking more questions. Maybe we'll get to 1000. >>
Rick, regarding your #4 above, the H.P.A. language does not read "a copy of a real-dated coin" in order that "COPY" be required. It might be a moot point as to whether any genuine 1964 Peace Dollars exist or not. While I don't know that his argument would prevail in a court of law, it looks as if Raybob15239 has done an excellent job of addressing that issue:
<<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!>>
<< <i>"Oh, and used bleached out $1.00 notes to print them on"
He put a dollar on a dollar, not 100 dollar on a dollar, there is a big difference. >>
ok lets make his argumeent better what if he printed a serial#1 on a regular dollar would this be fine ...or would this be a no no.. me i could care lest i had to have one
It is illegal to "utter" counterfeits - meaning to spend them. If Daniel Carr was minting state quarters and selling them for 5 cents to people spending them for a quarter, then he would be counterfeiting. He is stamping something on a silver dollar and selling it for greatly more than the face value of the coin - a coin which dropped out of circulation long ago.
The federal government believes the 1964-D dollar doesn't exist. So anything resembling it is a mere fantasy.
In memory of my kitty Seryozha 14.2.1996 ~ 13.9.2016 and Shadow 3.4.2015 - 16.4.21
<< <i>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. >>
Which "single unverifiable report" should we put to rest? Dan Brown's report that the Superintendent of the Denver Mint told him that they had sold coins to employees but gotten them back, or my report of a conversation with a Denver Mint employee who was there at the time? By my new math these are TWO separate reports. >>
My mistake, two separate unverifiable accounts. At least the Dan Brown story has a name associated with the source. I don't understand why you stand by your account so strongly w/o feeling a need to know your alleged source's name. How do you expect people to accept your story?
<< <i>As to Mr. Lantz's alleged story that the Mint allegedly sold 1964-D half dollars to employees and then allegedly threated said alleged employees with alleged dismissal if they did not allegedly return them, I allegedly disbelieve him. >>
Regardless of belief, would Mr. Lantz's account be considered official and not hearsy?
<< <i>the Mint lies when it is convenient for them to do so. They lied to Coin World in the 1977/6 cent case. >>
This sounds like a conspiracy theory.... >>
Now, now.....no foaming at the mouth..........
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>Who's actually sending one in for slabbing??? >>
Has any credible slabbing service stated that they will slab it? Any guesses as to what will they put on the label?
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>Who's actually sending one in for slabbing??? >>
Has any credible slabbing service stated that they will slab it? Any guesses as to what will they put on the label? >>
I think it would be great if someone like PCGS slabbed it stating it was a fantasy coin with a grade. That would set a precedence for consumer research into what this coin is in 50 years when someone's grand child ends up with it and tries to sell it.
<< <i>Who's actually sending one in for slabbing??? >>
Has any credible slabbing service stated that they will slab it? Any guesses as to what will they put on the label? >>
I think it would be great if someone like PCGS slabbed it stating it was a fantasy coin with a grade. That would set a precedence for consumer research into what this coin is in 50 years when someone's grand child ends up with it and tries to sell it. >>
Fantasy Island Grading Service!
De grade, boss! De grade!!!!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>Who's actually sending one in for slabbing??? >>
Has any credible slabbing service stated that they will slab it? Any guesses as to what will they put on the label? >>
ANACS is the official TPG for DCarr creations. You're guaranteed they'll slab the Peace dollar. I actually wonder why he didn't have them slabbed before he sold them?
<< <i>It's a MS70. It is the same relief as a normal 1922. The reeded edge is way too sharp. >>
A sharp reeded edge (rim) is one necessary result of stamping over existing Peace silver dollars. The striking pressure needs to be very high to eradicate most of the underlying design, which forces more metal up into the rims and between the die and collar. If I used vigin silver dollar-sized blanks, it would be a bit different (but I'm not).
By the way, the reeding itself is exactly like the original coins - the "sharp" part is where the edge on the side meets the rim on the front. An original Peace dollar, if struck with maximum force, would likely have the same appearance (but few, if any, were).
In an attempt to stir the pot--but really, out of some genuine interest--has anyone brought up the fact that at least some of the hostility surrounding this issue derives from the fact that the Big Players are getting cut out of the loop? As an independent publisher, I've faced some real hostility that I would dare cut out the middleman in publishing my own books. I sense a bit of that going on here, and totally laud Dan for taking this bold business direction and dealing directly with the public.
<< <i>In an attempt to stir the pot--but really, out of some genuine interest--has anyone brought up the fact that at least some of the hostility surrounding this issue derives from the fact that the Big Players are getting cut out of the loop? As an independent publisher, I've faced some real hostility that I would dare cut out the middleman in publishing my own books. I sense a bit of that going on here, and totally laud Dan for taking this bold business direction and dealing directly with the public.
>>
Even among those who think the word "COPY" should appear on the coins, I've seen very little, if any hostility. And, as far as I know, the "Big Players" haven't even participated in this thread.
I have some franklin mint pure 1 oz silver coins/medals commemorating events in the Civil War. Struck about 1970 and all high relief too. They are even toned ! In a nice original album.
I manage money. I earn money. I save money . I give away money. I collect money. I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>Looking forward to 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, and 1933 PDS peace dollars. >>
Why stop there? Do 1936-63 as well!!!!!!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Comments
<< <i>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. >>
Which "single unverifiable report" should we put to rest? Dan Brown's report that the Superintendent of the Denver Mint told him that they had sold coins to employees but gotten them back, or my report of a conversation with a Denver Mint employee who was there at the time? By my new math these are TWO separate reports.
As to Mr. Lantz's alleged story that the Mint allegedly sold 1964-D half dollars to employees and then allegedly threated said alleged employees with alleged dismissal if they did not allegedly return them, I allegedly disbelieve him.
Please get your facts straight before you drink the Mint kool-aid. The Mint lies when it is convenient for them to do so. They lied to Coin World in the 1977/6 cent case.
TD
<< <i>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. >>
To keep this Very Brief..I guess we should find the artist of the "Hobo Nickels" guilty as well....!!..
If so, then those US Mint produced 1964-D Peace dollars are more like patterns.
The hyperreal is becoming realer than the real by the moment.
<< <i>
<< <i>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. >>
To keep this Very Brief..I guess we should find the artist of the "Hobo Nickels" guilty as well....!!..
No, those don't appear (anywhere close to) identical to genuine Buffalo Nickels or to be items which could pass as real US legal tender coins.
<< <i>
<< <i>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. >>
To keep this Very Brief..I guess we should find the artist of the "Hobo Nickels" guilty as well....!!..
I think it's unlikely the average American would think a Hobo nickel is legal tender as a nickel since most of the time, the denomination is obscured by the design. However, most Americans would believe the 1964-D Peace dollar is a legal tender American silver dollar.
<< <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. >>
To me, it seems the applicability of the HPA would depend on whether a non-existing coin that was never monetized or issued qualifies as an original numismatic item. To make a decision, the court will have to use the definition of original numismatic item and decide if that piece was part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person, object, place, or event. Unfortunately, the terms coinage and issue are not defined in the HPA's Terms definition section, 304.1, which makes this more difficult (I'm assuming for lawyers and non-laywers). When it appears laws are vague, it is often the case in the US that the only way to get more actual clarification on the law is to test it by having a case brought forth. I think it is unclear whether the HPA applies here, there are feelings on both sides, and Daniel's coin may help us clarify the HPA on whether it applies or not. It may be the case that it does, or does not, as it is currently worded.
<< <i>
<< <i>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. >>
Which "single unverifiable report" should we put to rest? Dan Brown's report that the Superintendent of the Denver Mint told him that they had sold coins to employees but gotten them back, or my report of a conversation with a Denver Mint employee who was there at the time? By my new math these are TWO separate reports. >>
My mistake, two separate unverifiable accounts. At least the Dan Brown story has a name associated with the source. I don't understand why you stand by your account so strongly w/o feeling a need to know your alleged source's name. How do you expect people to accept your story?
<< <i>As to Mr. Lantz's alleged story that the Mint allegedly sold 1964-D half dollars to employees and then allegedly threated said alleged employees with alleged dismissal if they did not allegedly return them, I allegedly disbelieve him. >>
Regardless of belief, would Mr. Lantz's account be considered official and not hearsy?
<< <i>the Mint lies when it is convenient for them to do so. They lied to Coin World in the 1977/6 cent case. >>
This sounds like a conspiracy theory....
Apples and oranges. Hobo Nickels are defaced coins that have been turned into works of art. Other than the size and depending on the carving, they aren't made to look like other nickels. It is not a case of a carver retooling a Jefferson or Buff Nickel to look like a 1913 V Nickel. They completely deface the coin and turn it into something else. Here, Mr. Carr is turning real Peace Dollars (presumably 1922 or other common dates) into "fantasy" 1964 Peace Dollars. What he has done is no different, in my opinion, from removing or adding a mintmark to make a less valuable coin look like a more valuable coin. The resulting product is, in and of itself, in violation of the law.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>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. >>
To keep this Very Brief..I guess we should find the artist of the "Hobo Nickels" guilty as well....!!..
No, those don't appear (anywhere close to) identical to genuine Buffalo Nickels or to be items which could pass as real US legal tender coins. >>
This is the point...He is not Passing them off as legal tender.The buyer knowns as does the Hobo Nickels..IF..If..the the recipient accepts the exchange....!!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>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. >>
To keep this Very Brief..I guess we should find the artist of the "Hobo Nickels" guilty as well....!!..
No, those don't appear (anywhere close to) identical to genuine Buffalo Nickels or to be items which could pass as real US legal tender coins. >>
This is the point...He is not Passing them off as legal tender.The buyer knowns as does the Hobo Nickels..IF..If..the the recipient accepts the exchange....!! >>
Okay... is this one of my ex-wives or girlfriends? C'mon, which one is it? They always had to be right too!
<< <i>
Okay... is this one of my ex-wives or girlfriends? C'mon, which one is it? They always had to be right too!
This might be the only place...My wife always tells me I'm wrong....
<< <i>No, those don't appear (anywhere close to) identical to genuine Buffalo Nickels or to be items which could pass as real US legal tender coins.
This is the point...He is not Passing them off as legal tender.The buyer knowns as does the Hobo Nickels..IF..If..the the recipient accepts the exchange....!! >>
Larry, you are missing the point. It doesn't matter that DC is not personally trying to pass it off as legal tender (actually, he make the point in his descriptions that they are legal tender Peace Dollars that have been overstruck, but we're splitting hairs unnecessarily). The coins can pass as legal tender because they have the look and say One Dollar.
Tell you what; try this: Make some really high quality copies of $100 notes on a color copier, but change the series date on them to a year in which they were not produced. Oh, and used bleached out $1.00 notes to print them on. Take them to the Secret Service and ask them their opinion. Tell them you did it for personal enjoyment with no intent to pass them off as real and that its really just art. See what they say.
<< <i>
<< <i>No, those don't appear (anywhere close to) identical to genuine Buffalo Nickels or to be items which could pass as real US legal tender coins.
This is the point...He is not Passing them off as legal tender.The buyer knowns as does the Hobo Nickels..IF..If..the the recipient accepts the exchange....!! >>
Larry, you are missing the point. It doesn't matter that DC is not personally trying to pass it off as legal tender (actually, he make the point in his descriptions that they are legal tender Peace Dollars that have been overstruck, but we're splitting hairs unnecessarily). The coins can pass as legal tender because they have the look and say One Dollar.
Tell you what; try this: Make some really high quality copies of $100 notes on a color copier, but change the series date on them to a year in which they were not produced. Oh, and used bleached out $1.00 notes to print them on. Take them to the Secret Service and ask them their opinion. Tell them you did it for personal enjoyment with no intent to pass them off as real and that its really just art. See what they say. >>
Your example is confusing the issue with irrelevant denomination change.
A better example would be to take $1 notes and turn them into $1 notes with a date series that wasn't issued. Better yet, a date that is widely known to the intended collector audience to not exist and be illegal to own if they did exist.
He put a dollar on a dollar, not 100 dollar on a dollar, there is a big difference.
Suffice it to say that unless & until the goverment says DC's actions are illegal NO ONE can proove they are. Even then, a court would have to agree.
Hopefully Dan has deep enough pockets to make his case.
AL
1) It is something that is meant to pass a currency? If not, then the legal tender arguments don't hold much water. No one is going to attempt to spend these. The fact that they are over-struck on legal tender means nothing either. Compare this to a counter-stamped coin.
2) Is it a counterfeit meant to defraud collectors? If yes, then there should be a harmed party. Is anyone being defrauded? Compare it to a counterfeit 1845 Bust half, either contemporary or recent origin. Using a fictitious date for a reproduction may be classified as an evasion piece, like some British fake Half Pence from the 1790's.
3) Is altering a coin illegal? Compare to hobo nickels. I don't think a fraudulent alteration like altering mint marks and dates or doctoring coins is a fair comparison to these pieces.
4) Does it fall into the guidelines of the Hobby Protection Act? Does it need a COPY stamp? It is not a copy of a real-dated coin. It is a copy of the Peace Dollar type though.
I am not offering any conclusions, just asking more questions. Maybe we'll get to 1000.
<< <i>So we are not talking at cross purposes, it might be worthwhile to break it down to various arguments:
1) It is something that is meant to pass a currency? If not, then the legal tender arguments don't hold much water. No one is going to attempt to spend these. The fact that they are over-struck on legal tender means nothing either. Compare this to a counter-stamped coin.
2) Is it a counterfeit meant to defraud collectors? If yes, then there should be a harmed party. Is anyone being defrauded? Compare it to a counterfeit 1845 Bust half, either contemporary or recent origin. Using a fictitious date for a reproduction may be classified as an evasion piece, like some British fake Half Pence from the 1790's.
3) Is altering a coin illegal? Compare to hobo nickels. I don't think a fraudulent alteration like altering mint marks and dates or doctoring coins is a fair comparison to these pieces.
4) Does it fall into the guidelines of the Hobby Protection Act? Does it need a COPY stamp? It is not a copy of a real-dated coin. It is a copy of the Peace Dollar type though.
I am not offering any conclusions, just asking more questions. Maybe we'll get to 1000. >>
Rick, regarding your #4 above, the H.P.A. language does not read "a copy of a real-dated coin" in order that "COPY" be required. It might be a moot point as to whether any genuine 1964 Peace Dollars exist or not. While I don't know that his argument would prevail in a court of law, it looks as if Raybob15239 has done an excellent job of addressing that issue:
<<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!>>
Nothing since has shocked me in the world of Numismatics.
(Just got an email stating mine have shipped!)
peacockcoins
<< <i>"Oh, and used bleached out $1.00 notes to print them on"
He put a dollar on a dollar, not 100 dollar on a dollar, there is a big difference. >>
ok lets make his argumeent better what if he printed a serial#1 on a regular dollar would this be fine ...or would this be a no no..
me i could care lest i had to have one
gdavis70,Musky1011,cohodk,cucamongacoin,robkool,chumley, drei3ree, Rampage,jmski52, commoncents05, dimples, dcarr, Grouchy, holeinone1972, JonMN34, mission16,meltdown,Omega,PQpeace, SeaEagleCoins, WaterSport, whatsup,Wizard1,WinLoseWin,MMR,49thStateofMind,SamByrd,Ahrensdad,BAJJERFAN,timrutnat,TWQG,CarlWohlforth,Ciccio,PreTurb,NumisMe,Patches,NotSure,luvcoins123,piecesofme,perryhall,nibanny,atarian,airplanenut
The federal government believes the 1964-D dollar doesn't exist. So anything resembling it is a mere fantasy.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>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. >>
Which "single unverifiable report" should we put to rest? Dan Brown's report that the Superintendent of the Denver Mint told him that they had sold coins to employees but gotten them back, or my report of a conversation with a Denver Mint employee who was there at the time? By my new math these are TWO separate reports. >>
My mistake, two separate unverifiable accounts. At least the Dan Brown story has a name associated with the source. I don't understand why you stand by your account so strongly w/o feeling a need to know your alleged source's name. How do you expect people to accept your story?
<< <i>As to Mr. Lantz's alleged story that the Mint allegedly sold 1964-D half dollars to employees and then allegedly threated said alleged employees with alleged dismissal if they did not allegedly return them, I allegedly disbelieve him. >>
Regardless of belief, would Mr. Lantz's account be considered official and not hearsy?
<< <i>the Mint lies when it is convenient for them to do so. They lied to Coin World in the 1977/6 cent case. >>
This sounds like a conspiracy theory.... >>
Now, now.....no foaming at the mouth..........
<< <i>Laura once sold a PCGS slabbed proof Kennedy on her website.
Nothing since has shocked me in the world of Numismatics.
(Just got an email stating mine have shipped!) >>
I'm willing to bet that the imprint of ole' Abe Lincoln was stamped on it too....!!!...
<< <i>Now, now.....no foaming at the mouth..........
I was working hard to avoid this, but now that you mention it in your own words ...
Hello pot, meet kettle
<< <i>Who's actually sending one in for slabbing??? >>
Has any credible slabbing service stated that they will slab it? Any guesses as to what will they put on the label?
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>
<< <i>Who's actually sending one in for slabbing??? >>
Has any credible slabbing service stated that they will slab it? Any guesses as to what will they put on the label? >>
I think it would be great if someone like PCGS slabbed it stating it was a fantasy coin with a grade. That would set a precedence for consumer research into what this coin is in 50 years when someone's grand child ends up with it and tries to sell it.
Well, just Love coins, period.
Great Strike.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Who's actually sending one in for slabbing??? >>
Has any credible slabbing service stated that they will slab it? Any guesses as to what will they put on the label? >>
I think it would be great if someone like PCGS slabbed it stating it was a fantasy coin with a grade. That would set a precedence for consumer research into what this coin is in 50 years when someone's grand child ends up with it and tries to sell it. >>
Fantasy Island Grading Service!
De grade, boss! De grade!!!!
<< <i>
<< <i>Who's actually sending one in for slabbing??? >>
Has any credible slabbing service stated that they will slab it? Any guesses as to what will they put on the label? >>
ANACS is the official TPG for DCarr creations. You're guaranteed they'll slab the Peace dollar. I actually wonder why he didn't have them slabbed before he sold them?
<< <i>It's a MS70. It is the same relief as a normal 1922. The reeded edge is way too sharp. >>
A sharp reeded edge (rim) is one necessary result of stamping over existing Peace silver dollars.
The striking pressure needs to be very high to eradicate most of the underlying design,
which forces more metal up into the rims and between the die and collar.
If I used vigin silver dollar-sized blanks, it would be a bit different (but I'm not).
By the way, the reeding itself is exactly like the original coins - the "sharp" part is where
the edge on the side meets the rim on the front. An original Peace dollar, if struck with
maximum force, would likely have the same appearance (but few, if any, were).
PS:
Nice picture
<< <i>In an attempt to stir the pot--but really, out of some genuine interest--has anyone brought up the fact that at least some of the hostility surrounding this issue derives from the fact that the Big Players are getting cut out of the loop? As an independent publisher, I've faced some real hostility that I would dare cut out the middleman in publishing my own books. I sense a bit of that going on here, and totally laud Dan for taking this bold business direction and dealing directly with the public.
Even among those who think the word "COPY" should appear on the coins, I've seen very little, if any hostility. And, as far as I know, the "Big Players" haven't even participated in this thread.
Honey, was I premature again?
still on the fence about this coin.
SNMAN
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>still on the fence about this coin. >>
Don't jump, this coin isn't worth your life!
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>Looking forward to 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, and 1933 PDS peace dollars. >>
Why stop there?
Do 1936-63 as well!!!!!!
hell, how about 1826 and 1829 quarters? any gold or silver 1816 US coin? 1799 dimes! 1805 dollars!
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>
<< <i>still on the fence about this coin. >>
Don't jump, this coin isn't worth your life! >>