Testing the boundaries and testing the waters...Is that's what this is about..??..Well ..I can't drive 55 miles per hour on the expressway..so maybe they should change the law for me..!!...I don't think that will happen..Here is a situation of a product piece ..a copy if you will..the resembles of what "Would " look like if it were issued.I say issued in the respect of a coin that was never issued by the U.S.Mint.We all have to agree on that fact to be clear to get past the issue.Daniel then proceeded to modify a regular Peace Dollar to make it look like it would look in 1964.What you are buying is a modifid coin.It could have a hole in it or a star in it.It is modified...If this were a product of Chinese origin I would not purchase it that's a fact as most who have purchased them.Time will tell if these pieces will ever be passed as original but today the thrill of our hobby is getting the best attention..........
<< <i>Testing the boundaries and testing the waters...Is that's what this is about..?? >>
I don't think this is what this is about. I think it's about people wanting to own a coin that doesn't exist. Simple.
Testing the boundaries relates to whether it is legal or not for collectors to get what they want in this instance. It's unclear whether the law applies and there are opinions on both sides.
I do think this is better than the theoretical scenario of people sitting on secret 1964-D Peace dollars, not testing the law, and keeping the numismatic community in the dark for 45 years. I hope someone would come forward with a genuine one if they do indeed exist. If they don't exist or people don't want to share, 45 years is long enough that I think it's okay to move on as if they don't exist until proven otherwise.
<< <i>today the thrill of our hobby is getting the best attention.......... >>
It is quite thrilling to see collectors passionate about an issue
Some folks here have their panties in a knot worrying about someone in the future, looking to buy a coin that doesn’t exist, but if it does exist, is illegal to own, and instead gets duped into buying a fantasy coin?
Some folks here have their panties in a knot worrying about someone in the future, looking to buy a coin that doesn’t exist, but if it does exist, is illegal to own, and instead gets duped into buying a fantasy coin? >>
Some folks here have their panties in a knot worrying about someone in the future, looking to buy a coin that doesn’t exist, but if it does exist, is illegal to own, and instead gets duped into buying a fantasy coin? >>
<< <i>How or why would that make the coins any less likely to fall under the Hobby Protection Act? >>
This is what I was getting at. Sorry for the lack of clarity in my question.
If the OP had read...
"It's been a long time coming, but Chen Li's website is now offering authentic US Peace dollar coins overstruck with his own version of the mysterious 1964-D design. Li had struck the coins many months ago, but waited until recently to decide on the legal and ethical issues surrounding releasing the issue. In the end he chose not to use the Hobby Protection Act "COPY" stamp for several reasons, and has included some security aspects to the new design."
how many people would be posting here in support of the overstrikes not requiring a "COPY" stamp? >>
Here's another fantasy: "It's been a long time coming, but JSG Boggs' website is now offering authentic bleached US dollar bills overprinted with his own version of the mysterious 666 Star Note design. Boggs had the bills printed many months ago, but waited until recently to decide on the legal and ethical issues surrounding releasing the issue. In the end he chose not to worry about government harrassment for several reasons, and has included some additional satirical aspects to the new design." >>
Folks don't normally "spend" Peace Dollars AND the bleached paper in a Federal Reserve Note has "zero" value (except to a counterfeiter) whereas the Peace Dollar has at the very minimum, 90% Silver Bullion value as assayed by the US Government via the United States Mint.
Your comparison point is totally baseless. >>
I don't know what comparison you think I am making. Some compare Carr's designs to Chinese counterfeits. I'd rather compare them to Boggs' conceptual art. Conceptual art is about linking together the various aspects of a creation into a totality. Take Duchamp's artwork titled "Fountain". It is a urinal placed on it's side, with the name "R. Mutt" and the date 1917 inscribed along the top. Or how about Duchamp's "L.H.O.O.Q.", which is a cheap postcard of the Mona Lisa with a mustache and goatee drawn on it, inscribed with initials that basicallly sound out "She's got hot pants." What is a urinal worth? What about the "Fountain"? How about a cheap copy of the Mona Lisa, or one with a mustache by Duchamp? They made a film about Boggs, given his ability to attract attention. Maybe one day Carr's designs will also appeare in art gallerys.
Some folks here have their panties in a knot worrying about someone in the future, looking to buy a coin that doesn’t exist, but if it does exist, is illegal to own, and instead gets duped into buying a fantasy coin? >>
Yup. That pretty much describes this so called controversy. The same person that would buy this coin thinking it's a real mint product would be just as likely to buy the Brooklyn bridge. You can't protect stupid people from doing stupid things.
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
Let's consider the 1792 Half Dismes, the 1856 Flying Eagle Cents, the 1913 nickels, the 1933 Double Eagles, the 1878 & 1879 Stellas, the 1804 Silver Dollar Restrikes, the 1836 Gobrecht Dollar Restrikes, the 1964 SMS Sets, and the 2000 Sacagawea Mules.
While we're at it, let's throw in all of the private & territorial gold, all of the colonial tokens and Washington pieces issued after 1787, and all of the Judd patterns that were never made legal tender and every other coin that was ever struck without authorization and snuck out of the Mint by dishonest Mint employees. By the logic of some in this thread, none of these should be considered collectible for various reasons and should be immediately confiscated.
In my view, stuff from bygone years that was made by Mint employees illegally on US Government-owned equipment and spirited out of a US Government facility is a much more serious matter than a modern day private minter walking a thin line by producing an overstrike that may or may not be legal. D.Carr may be walking on a gray line that has fuzzy boundries, but one thing is certain - you can't buy this kind of notoriety, and the fact is that nobody knows what the Treasury will do until they do it. One thing is clear, the Treasury is consistantly inconsistant in their enforcement of collectable coin questions.
Lastly, if D.Carr ever does run into trouble with the Feds because of this issue, I would assume that they would have first raided ebay's offices, impounded all records, issued cease and desist orders, and filed international complaints with the Chinese government for flooding our markets with counterfeits and have issued a ban on all Chinese replicas of US coinage, period. Then we can talk about whether or not there are hobby issues with D.Carr's 1964-D Peace Dollar Overstrike.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
Those griping the most about some hobby act I never even heard of , and implying the future potential of misuse of the coins are probably the one's that will kicking themselves in the butt
the hardest that they didn't order any .
Any coin that can inspire such controversy and near 1000 posts in just a few days should be embraced and happily slabbed by the TPG's
Might not have sold as many but I think all the concern over these would have gone away if the mint mark was DC, not D. Of course I would like mine with just a D on it please.
Gold and silver are valuable but wisdom is priceless.
Mr. Postman just delivered mine. I am totally thrilled with it. VERY NICE!! All you guys gripeing, pizzing and moaning....hope ya enjoy your 115 bucks in your pocket as much as I enjoy this coin in my collection. Hope ya spend your 115 bucks on your cell phone bill, or maybe pay a teeny bit of your car insurance with it...hope you get some enjoyment out of it.
All I can tell you, money well spent, Job "WELL DONE" Dan and this is a very nice piece that fills a need a lot of collector want, and that is to hold in their hand a coin which embodies a numismatic myth.
Surfaces are bright white, a frosty luster, with more of a polished look on the portrait. The lettering is soft on the reverse, mintmark well struck and not obviously double struck to my eyes. Reeding sharp and crisp. I suppose this is exactly what a 1922 Matte Proof Peace Dollar would look like in PR70.
I ***DO WANT*** a new label though, Dan, one that says '1 of first 200' Matte Proof Surfaces stuck 4 times. Ya hear?
A super nice piece!!!!
all that being said, and with joy...is it a counterfeit?
So to those of you still not happy, would you say that a painted silver eagle (you've seen them) needs to be stamped copy? How about a quarter with a sticker on it?
And if you say no to either of these, then when does a modified coin need to be stamped? When the date changes? Where does it say that in the hobby protection act.
<< <i>How or why would that make the coins any less likely to fall under the Hobby Protection Act? >>
This is what I was getting at. Sorry for the lack of clarity in my question.
If the OP had read...
"It's been a long time coming, but Chen Li's website is now offering authentic US Peace dollar coins overstruck with his own version of the mysterious 1964-D design. Li had struck the coins many months ago, but waited until recently to decide on the legal and ethical issues surrounding releasing the issue. In the end he chose not to use the Hobby Protection Act "COPY" stamp for several reasons, and has included some security aspects to the new design."
how many people would be posting here in support of the overstrikes not requiring a "COPY" stamp? >>
Here's another fantasy: "It's been a long time coming, but JSG Boggs' website is now offering authentic bleached US dollar bills overprinted with his own version of the mysterious 666 Star Note design. Boggs had the bills printed many months ago, but waited until recently to decide on the legal and ethical issues surrounding releasing the issue. In the end he chose not to worry about government harrassment for several reasons, and has included some additional satirical aspects to the new design." >>
Folks don't normally "spend" Peace Dollars AND the bleached paper in a Federal Reserve Note has "zero" value (except to a counterfeiter) whereas the Peace Dollar has at the very minimum, 90% Silver Bullion value as assayed by the US Government via the United States Mint.
Your comparison point is totally baseless. >>
I don't know what comparison you think I am making. Some compare Carr's designs to Chinese counterfeits. I'd rather compare them to Boggs' conceptual art. Conceptual art is about linking together the various aspects of a creation into a totality. Take Duchamp's artwork titled "Fountain". It is a urinal placed on it's side, with the name "R. Mutt" and the date 1917 inscribed along the top. Or how about Duchamp's "L.H.O.O.Q.", which is a cheap postcard of the Mona Lisa with a mustache and goatee drawn on it, inscribed with initials that basicallly sound out "She's got hot pants." What is a urinal worth? What about the "Fountain"? How about a cheap copy of the Mona Lisa, or one with a mustache by Duchamp? They made a film about Boggs, given his ability to attract attention. Maybe one day Carr's designs will also appeare in art gallerys. >>
Your point in relevance to the subject matter of the thread is still pointless.
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 assume the electrical process of shrinking the diameter of coins takes a lot of set-up time to do one coin, and the electrical windings are basically destroyed every time it is done ? If you could shrink a lof of coins efficiently like that, I might use the process.
<< <i>So to those of you still not happy, would you say that a painted silver eagle (you've seen them) needs to be stamped copy? How about a quarter with a sticker on it?
And if you say no to either of these, then when does a modified coin need to be stamped? When the date changes? Where does it say that in the hobby protection act.
--Jerry >>
OTC paint thinner/remover will return the ASE to it's original state, peeling off the sticker will return the quarter to mint condition, the 1964-D Peace dollar has been forever altered. Now it needs to be stamped ~copy~ / replica....something to denote the permanent change of an original mint issued coin.
Edit: This one thread has more posts to it in three days than an entire year of postings over on the Stamp Forum.
I assume the electrical process of shrinking the diameter of coins takes a lot of set-up time to do one coin, and the electrical windings are basically destroyed every time it is done ? If you could shrink a lof of coins efficiently like that, I might use the process. >>
Nope it's relatively easy, just set your 1800 watt microwave to 90% for 3:32 seconds.
I assume the electrical process of shrinking the diameter of coins takes a lot of set-up time to do one coin, and the electrical windings are basically destroyed every time it is done ? If you could shrink a lof of coins efficiently like that, I might use the process. >>
Sounds complicated. Just stick them in your drier for an hour.
Gold and silver are valuable but wisdom is priceless.
then, the lucky 200 own the uber rare Matte Proof version?
Luv it!
(Can you print us up new labels which specify Matte Proof? ) >>
Hmmm... This is a little bit tricky. If I did do new labels, not everyone would know about them, and some "matte proof-like" coins might not ever get the replacement labels. And I could see such a label end up with the wrong coin type. Since I haven't shipped any of the high-luster (single-struck) type yet, maybe I'll just make a new label for those and leave the first 200 labels as they are.
Every production run of these coins could potentially have something different about it. I am still refining the whole process each time I do it. So while I never intended to issue more than one type, by the time it is all done, there may be more than two different types.
<< <i>So to those of you still not happy, would you say that a painted silver eagle (you've seen them) needs to be stamped copy? How about a quarter with a sticker on it?
And if you say no to either of these, then when does a modified coin need to be stamped? When the date changes? Where does it say that in the hobby protection act.
--Jerry >>
Jerry, do you honestly believe that those items which you have used as comparisons qualify under this language?:
"(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."
<< <i>So to those of you still not happy, would you say that a painted silver eagle (you've seen them) needs to be stamped copy? How about a quarter with a sticker on it?
And if you say no to either of these, then when does a modified coin need to be stamped? When the date changes? Where does it say that in the hobby protection act.
--Jerry >>
OTC paint thinner/remover will return the ASE to it's original state, peeling off the sticker will return the quarter to mint condition, the 1964-D Peace dollar has been forever altered. Now it needs to be stamped ~copy~ / replica....something to denote the permanent change of an original mint issued coin.
Edit: This one thread has more posts to it in three days than an entire year of postings over on the Stamp Forum. >>
What about those penny "restrikes" I get a tourist spots? Do they need the word copy on them since the metal was permanently altered? Also, to be a copy doesn't an original have to exist?
Gold and silver are valuable but wisdom is priceless.
<< <i>the photo on his website is now of the new coin ...shouldnt the old one be there aswell and say sold out if he is starting the new ones .... >>
Eventually I will provice full mintage records and footnotes for these - just like I do with every other coin I mint. But for now, I think I'll just have the one "product" listing with a picture of the current production.
<< <i>So to those of you still not happy, would you say that a painted silver eagle (you've seen them) needs to be stamped copy? How about a quarter with a sticker on it?
And if you say no to either of these, then when does a modified coin need to be stamped? When the date changes? Where does it say that in the hobby protection act.
--Jerry >>
OTC paint thinner/remover will return the ASE to it's original state, peeling off the sticker will return the quarter to mint condition, the 1964-D Peace dollar has been forever altered. Now it needs to be stamped ~copy~ / replica....something to denote the permanent change of an original mint issued coin.
Edit: This one thread has more posts to it in three days than an entire year of postings over on the Stamp Forum. >>
What about those penny "restrikes" I get a tourist spots? Do they need the word copy on them since the metal was permanently altered? Also, to be a copy doesn't an original have to exist? >>
I don't believe that an original has to exist - have you read the language from the Hobby Protection Act, including what I posted, one post above yours?
<< <i>to be a copy doesn't an original have to exist? >>
I don't believe that an original has to exist - have you read the language from the Hobby Protection Act >>
I do believe an original has to exist. Additionally, I don't believe the 1964-D Peace dollar qualifies as an original numismatic item according to my reading of 304.1.(f)
<< <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. >>
My reading is that the Mint created 1964-D Peace dollar was never used in exchange or used to commemorate a person, object, place, or event. Because of this, even a Mint-issued one may not qualify as an original numismatic item according to the law as written.
<< <i>So to those of you still not happy, would you say that a painted silver eagle (you've seen them) needs to be stamped copy? How about a quarter with a sticker on it?
And if you say no to either of these, then when does a modified coin need to be stamped? When the date changes? Where does it say that in the hobby protection act.
--Jerry >>
OTC paint thinner/remover will return the ASE to it's original state, peeling off the sticker will return the quarter to mint condition, the 1964-D Peace dollar has been forever altered. Now it needs to be stamped ~copy~ / replica....something to denote the permanent change of an original mint issued coin.
Edit: This one thread has more posts to it in three days than an entire year of postings over on the Stamp Forum. >>
What about those penny "restrikes" I get a tourist spots? Do they need the word copy on them since the metal was permanently altered? Also, to be a copy doesn't an original have to exist? >>
I don't believe that an original has to exist - have you read the language from the Hobby Protection Act, including what I posted, one post above yours? >>
I believe I read what you are talking about. What I read refers to copies of "original numismatic items", right? It would take a lawyer and a judge to decide what that means but I would think a case could be made that since no 1964-D Peace Dollars are in existence then it would not qualify as an "original numismatic item".
Gold and silver are valuable but wisdom is priceless.
<< <i>are the first 200 sold out ...if we havent got a confirmation of shipment does that mean we wont get one of the matte proof version??? >>
Order numbers up through 5303 were filled with coins from the first batch of 200. Order numbers higher than that will get coins from the second batch. As I mentioned previously, there might be differences in each run. So it is unknown if the first batch of 200 will be the lowest-mintage subtype or not. I do think that the later they are in the minting, the better they will look. At some point, who knows, it might be neccessary to replace one or both dies. For now, perhaps people should just consider them early die state vs middle die state, like any issue ?
<< <i>are the first 200 sold out ...if we havent got a confirmation of shipment does that mean we wont get one of the matte proof version??? >>
Order numbers up through 5303 were filled with coins from the first batch of 200. Order numbers higher than that will get coins from the second batch. As I mentioned previously, there might be differences in each run. So it is unknown if the first batch of 200 will be the lowest-mintage subtype or not. I do think that the later they are in the minting, the better they will look. At some point, who knows, it might be neccessary to replace one or both dies. For now, perhaps people should just consider them early die state vs middle die state, like any issue ? >>
I think it is a little more interesting than just die state since the pressure and number of strikings are being adjusted. It will be good to have each run documented.
<< <i>Also, to be a copy doesn't an original have to exist? >>
Yes. Since a 1964 peace dollar doesn't exist, it would be illogical to call a D. Carr 1964 dollar coin a "copy".
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>The dollars you struck today Dan on the Die Pair 2, would be the one's shipping out at this point forward??
Miles >>
Yes, but only 90 of those were made (struck over Die Pair 2). The next run I do will be on "virgin" Peace dollars, so they won't have the rim issues that the run of 90 had. But future runs will have the stronger luster.
Note that a significant quantity of those 90 from run 2 have visible rim issues (due to the high rims of the Die Pair 2 host coins). I'll have to cull a bunch of them out. I may give them a simulated circulated finish and sell at a discount, or maybe just scrap them and mint replacements - not sure yet.
<< <i>If these 64-D pieces were being made in China using the exact same process and materials, and marketed in exactly the same way, do you think they would be getting the same level of support here that they currently are? >>
Probably not. But those doing the "supporting" are the ones to answer that.
I will add these caveats regarding my issue (which have not applied to previous Chinese issues):
1) Minted by a Denver native who was born near the Denver Mint. 2) Minted by the designer of two US Mint coins. 3) A detailed account of the total mintage is provided (with no cheating !). 4) Struck over actual Peace silver dollars (yes, Chinese minters could do that as well, but they're unlikely to ever spend the money needed to buy real Peace dollars, and even if they did, nobody would believe that the Chinese coins were made of real silver). 5) Much more accurate engravings. 6) Struck using a surplus Denver Mint coin press. >>
Huh? I don't understand how these are caveats.
Lane >>
What I'm saying is, while these are obviosly an unoffical issue, they are likely to be as close to an official issue as there will ever be (some indirect connections with the US Mint are involved). Of course, the US Mint does NOT approve of or endorse these coins.
<< <i>So to those of you still not happy, would you say that a painted silver eagle (you've seen them) needs to be stamped copy? How about a quarter with a sticker on it?
And if you say no to either of these, then when does a modified coin need to be stamped? When the date changes? Where does it say that in the hobby protection act.
--Jerry >>
Jerry, do you honestly believe that those items which you have used as comparisons qualify under this language?:
"(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." >>
Mark, I was more addressing the fact that it is indeed a real peace dollar and that modifying the date, does not make it a "copy". Many posts in this thread are comparing the DCarr dollar to a fake dollar and that is just incorrect. It is a modified dollar but a genuine peace dollar. As for the section of the act that you are quoting, I say that a 1964 peace dollar is not a "Numismatic Item" because none exist. Those who believe they exist, would not agree with me.
The line you quoted would keep DCarr from making 1913 V nickels or 1933 saints. And I think he would agree.
I received mine also today. Like always its just an amazingly good work, and very well done. I ordered another a day or so ago after the first batch just because I figured with a quantity of 2k to be made and Dans strive for perfection there would be more than likely an improvement somewhere.
<< <i>So to those of you still not happy, would you say that a painted silver eagle (you've seen them) needs to be stamped copy? How about a quarter with a sticker on it?
And if you say no to either of these, then when does a modified coin need to be stamped? When the date changes? Where does it say that in the hobby protection act.
--Jerry >>
Jerry, do you honestly believe that those items which you have used as comparisons qualify under this language?:
"(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." >>
Mark, I was more addressing the fact that it is indeed a real peace dollar and that modifying the date, does not make it a "copy". Many posts in this thread are comparing the DCarr dollar to a fake dollar and that is just incorrect. It is a modified dollar but a genuine peace dollar. As for the section of the act that you are quoting, I say that a 1964 peace dollar is not a "Numismatic Item" because none exist. Those who believe they exist, would not agree with me.
The line you quoted would keep DCarr from making 1913 V nickels or 1933 saints. And I think he would agree.
--Jerry >>
Jerry, the language I quoted doesn't appear to require that a genuine one even exist - note the "purports to be part". "....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".
<< <i>Of course, cartwheel luster is a factor of die wear. The later the strike, the more cartwheel luster. First strike Morgan Dollars are DMPLs, later strikes are Prooflike and even later strikes are semi-PL, and late strikes show lots of cartwheel luster.
Is that a die crack forming over the TY in LIBERTY? >>
Cartwheel luster is a product of two things : die wear, like you said, but also planchet expansion.
Proof-finish coins are struck two or more times because the first strike raises the relief and causes planchet expansion (flow), while the second strike wipes out the flow lines (luster) and imparts the polished finish.
I can take a fresh fully-polished die, stamp once with it, and there will be some flow lines visible if any planchet expansion occurs. I can take a freshly sand-blasted (matte) die, stamp once with it, and there will also be some flow lines visible if any planchet expansion occurs.
After use, a die will develop luster on it's surface. That luster will transfer to coins struck by it. But if struck more than once, with the planchet expansion contained after the first strike, the second strike will REDUCE the cartwheel luster, even if the die face has cartwheel luster on it.
> Is that a die crack forming over the TY in LIBERTY?
No, that is the effect I was describing where there were rim issues involved with striking over the high-rim Die Pair 2 host coins. The concentric somewhat-irregular line seen inside the rim in some places is the visible artifact I was talking about.
Comments
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
<< <i>I need to get a new sniping tool....this one is not working. >>
You have a forum sniping tool? Mmm, the possibilities....
<< <i>Testing the boundaries and testing the waters...Is that's what this is about..?? >>
I don't think this is what this is about. I think it's about people wanting to own a coin that doesn't exist. Simple.
Testing the boundaries relates to whether it is legal or not for collectors to get what they want in this instance. It's unclear whether the law applies and there are opinions on both sides.
I do think this is better than the theoretical scenario of people sitting on secret 1964-D Peace dollars, not testing the law, and keeping the numismatic community in the dark for 45 years. I hope someone would come forward with a genuine one if they do indeed exist. If they don't exist or people don't want to share, 45 years is long enough that I think it's okay to move on as if they don't exist until proven otherwise.
<< <i>today the thrill of our hobby is getting the best attention..........
It is quite thrilling to see collectors passionate about an issue
Some folks here have their panties in a knot worrying about someone in the future, looking to buy a coin that doesn’t exist, but if it does exist, is illegal to own, and instead gets duped into buying a fantasy coin?
<< <i>Let me see if I understand the debate.
Some folks here have their panties in a knot worrying about someone in the future, looking to buy a coin that doesn’t exist, but if it does exist, is illegal to own, and instead gets duped into buying a fantasy coin?
Pretty much sums it up
Hope I get mine today
<< <i>
<< <i>Let me see if I understand the debate.
Some folks here have their panties in a knot worrying about someone in the future, looking to buy a coin that doesn’t exist, but if it does exist, is illegal to own, and instead gets duped into buying a fantasy coin?
Pretty much sums it up
Not even close
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>How or why would that make the coins any less likely to fall under the Hobby Protection Act? >>
This is what I was getting at. Sorry for the lack of clarity in my question.
If the OP had read...
"It's been a long time coming, but Chen Li's website is now offering authentic US Peace dollar coins overstruck with his own version of the mysterious 1964-D design.
Li had struck the coins many months ago, but waited until recently to decide on the legal and ethical issues surrounding releasing the issue.
In the end he chose not to use the Hobby Protection Act "COPY" stamp for several reasons, and has included some security aspects to the new design."
how many people would be posting here in support of the overstrikes not requiring a "COPY" stamp? >>
Here's another fantasy:
"It's been a long time coming, but JSG Boggs' website is now offering authentic bleached US dollar bills overprinted with his own version of the mysterious 666 Star Note design.
Boggs had the bills printed many months ago, but waited until recently to decide on the legal and ethical issues surrounding releasing the issue.
In the end he chose not to worry about government harrassment for several reasons, and has included some additional satirical aspects to the new design." >>
Folks don't normally "spend" Peace Dollars AND the bleached paper in a Federal Reserve Note has "zero" value (except to a counterfeiter) whereas the Peace Dollar has at the very minimum, 90% Silver Bullion value as assayed by the US Government via the United States Mint.
Your comparison point is totally baseless. >>
I don't know what comparison you think I am making.
Some compare Carr's designs to Chinese counterfeits.
I'd rather compare them to Boggs' conceptual art. Conceptual art is about linking together the various aspects of a creation into a totality. Take Duchamp's artwork titled "Fountain". It is a urinal placed on it's side, with the name "R. Mutt" and the date 1917 inscribed along the top. Or how about Duchamp's "L.H.O.O.Q.", which is a cheap postcard of the Mona Lisa with a mustache and goatee drawn on it, inscribed with initials that basicallly sound out "She's got hot pants." What is a urinal worth? What about the "Fountain"? How about a cheap copy of the Mona Lisa, or one with a mustache by Duchamp?
They made a film about Boggs, given his ability to attract attention.
Maybe one day Carr's designs will also appeare in art gallerys.
<< <i>Let me see if I understand the debate.
Some folks here have their panties in a knot worrying about someone in the future, looking to buy a coin that doesn’t exist, but if it does exist, is illegal to own, and instead gets duped into buying a fantasy coin?
Yup. That pretty much describes this so called controversy. The same person that would buy this coin thinking it's a real mint product would be just as likely to buy the Brooklyn bridge. You can't protect stupid people from doing stupid things.
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
While we're at it, let's throw in all of the private & territorial gold, all of the colonial tokens and Washington pieces issued after 1787, and all of the Judd patterns that were never made legal tender and every other coin that was ever struck without authorization and snuck out of the Mint by dishonest Mint employees. By the logic of some in this thread, none of these should be considered collectible for various reasons and should be immediately confiscated.
In my view, stuff from bygone years that was made by Mint employees illegally on US Government-owned equipment and spirited out of a US Government facility is a much more serious matter than a modern day private minter walking a thin line by producing an overstrike that may or may not be legal. D.Carr may be walking on a gray line that has fuzzy boundries, but one thing is certain - you can't buy this kind of notoriety, and the fact is that nobody knows what the Treasury will do until they do it. One thing is clear, the Treasury is consistantly inconsistant in their enforcement of collectable coin questions.
Lastly, if D.Carr ever does run into trouble with the Feds because of this issue, I would assume that they would have first raided ebay's offices, impounded all records, issued cease and desist orders, and filed international complaints with the Chinese government for flooding our markets with counterfeits and have issued a ban on all Chinese replicas of US coinage, period. Then we can talk about whether or not there are hobby issues with D.Carr's 1964-D Peace Dollar Overstrike.
I knew it would happen.
the hardest that they didn't order any .
Any coin that can inspire such controversy and near 1000 posts in just a few days should be embraced and happily slabbed by the TPG's
I sure hope mine get's a "+" !
All I can tell you, money well spent, Job "WELL DONE" Dan and this is a very nice piece that fills a need a lot of collector want, and that is to hold in their hand a coin which embodies a numismatic myth.
Surfaces are bright white, a frosty luster, with more of a polished look on the portrait. The lettering is soft on the reverse, mintmark well struck and not obviously double struck to my eyes. Reeding sharp and crisp. I suppose this is exactly what a 1922 Matte Proof Peace Dollar would look like in PR70.
I ***DO WANT*** a new label though, Dan, one that says '1 of first 200' Matte Proof Surfaces stuck 4 times. Ya hear?
A super nice piece!!!!
all that being said, and with joy...is it a counterfeit?
yes
one labeled Matte 1 of 200
one labeled Unc 1 of 1800
<< <i>I think both types would look nice in a 2 hole Capital Plastics Holder
one labeled Matte 1 of 200
one labeled Unc 1 of 1800 >>
<< <i>
<< <i>I think both types would look nice in a 2 hole Capital Plastics Holder
one labeled Matte 1 of 200
one labeled Unc 1 of 1800 >>
We got First Strikes on these too.
1964-D Peace Dollar
Restrikes
Matte 1 of 200
Uncirculated 1 of 1800
That would be cool............maybe Dan could see what a bulk price would be on those.......he can make a few extra bucks...
And if you say no to either of these, then when does a modified coin need to be stamped? When the date changes? Where does it say that in the hobby protection act.
--Jerry
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>How or why would that make the coins any less likely to fall under the Hobby Protection Act? >>
This is what I was getting at. Sorry for the lack of clarity in my question.
If the OP had read...
"It's been a long time coming, but Chen Li's website is now offering authentic US Peace dollar coins overstruck with his own version of the mysterious 1964-D design.
Li had struck the coins many months ago, but waited until recently to decide on the legal and ethical issues surrounding releasing the issue.
In the end he chose not to use the Hobby Protection Act "COPY" stamp for several reasons, and has included some security aspects to the new design."
how many people would be posting here in support of the overstrikes not requiring a "COPY" stamp? >>
Here's another fantasy:
"It's been a long time coming, but JSG Boggs' website is now offering authentic bleached US dollar bills overprinted with his own version of the mysterious 666 Star Note design.
Boggs had the bills printed many months ago, but waited until recently to decide on the legal and ethical issues surrounding releasing the issue.
In the end he chose not to worry about government harrassment for several reasons, and has included some additional satirical aspects to the new design." >>
Folks don't normally "spend" Peace Dollars AND the bleached paper in a Federal Reserve Note has "zero" value (except to a counterfeiter) whereas the Peace Dollar has at the very minimum, 90% Silver Bullion value as assayed by the US Government via the United States Mint.
Your comparison point is totally baseless. >>
I don't know what comparison you think I am making.
Some compare Carr's designs to Chinese counterfeits.
I'd rather compare them to Boggs' conceptual art. Conceptual art is about linking together the various aspects of a creation into a totality. Take Duchamp's artwork titled "Fountain". It is a urinal placed on it's side, with the name "R. Mutt" and the date 1917 inscribed along the top. Or how about Duchamp's "L.H.O.O.Q.", which is a cheap postcard of the Mona Lisa with a mustache and goatee drawn on it, inscribed with initials that basicallly sound out "She's got hot pants." What is a urinal worth? What about the "Fountain"? How about a cheap copy of the Mona Lisa, or one with a mustache by Duchamp?
They made a film about Boggs, given his ability to attract attention.
Maybe one day Carr's designs will also appeare in art gallerys. >>
Your point in relevance to the subject matter of the thread is still pointless.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
I assume the electrical process of shrinking the diameter of coins takes a lot of set-up time to do one coin, and the electrical windings are basically destroyed every time it is done ? If you could shrink a lof of coins efficiently like that, I might use the process.
<< <i>So to those of you still not happy, would you say that a painted silver eagle (you've seen them) needs to be stamped copy? How about a quarter with a sticker on it?
And if you say no to either of these, then when does a modified coin need to be stamped? When the date changes? Where does it say that in the hobby protection act.
--Jerry >>
OTC paint thinner/remover will return the ASE to it's original state, peeling off the sticker will return the quarter to mint condition, the 1964-D Peace dollar has been forever altered. Now it needs to be stamped ~copy~ / replica....something to denote the permanent change of an original mint issued coin.
Edit: This one thread has more posts to it in three days than an entire year of postings over on the Stamp Forum.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
<< <i>
<< <i>
I assume the electrical process of shrinking the diameter of coins takes a lot of set-up time to do one coin, and the electrical windings are basically destroyed every time it is done ? If you could shrink a lof of coins efficiently like that, I might use the process. >>
Nope it's relatively easy, just set your 1800 watt microwave to 90% for 3:32 seconds.
<< <i>
<< <i>
I assume the electrical process of shrinking the diameter of coins takes a lot of set-up time to do one coin, and the electrical windings are basically destroyed every time it is done ? If you could shrink a lof of coins efficiently like that, I might use the process. >>
Sounds complicated. Just stick them in your drier for an hour.
<< <i>.....ahhh variety collectors delight, eh?
then, the lucky 200 own the uber rare Matte Proof version?
Luv it!
(Can you print us up new labels which specify Matte Proof?
Hmmm...
This is a little bit tricky. If I did do new labels, not everyone would know about them, and some "matte proof-like" coins might not ever get the replacement labels.
And I could see such a label end up with the wrong coin type. Since I haven't shipped any of the high-luster (single-struck) type yet, maybe I'll just make a new
label for those and leave the first 200 labels as they are.
Every production run of these coins could potentially have something different about it. I am still refining the whole process each time I do it. So while I never
intended to issue more than one type, by the time it is all done, there may be more than two different types.
<< <i>So to those of you still not happy, would you say that a painted silver eagle (you've seen them) needs to be stamped copy? How about a quarter with a sticker on it?
And if you say no to either of these, then when does a modified coin need to be stamped? When the date changes? Where does it say that in the hobby protection act.
--Jerry >>
Jerry, do you honestly believe that those items which you have used as comparisons qualify under this language?:
"(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."
<< <i>
<< <i>So to those of you still not happy, would you say that a painted silver eagle (you've seen them) needs to be stamped copy? How about a quarter with a sticker on it?
And if you say no to either of these, then when does a modified coin need to be stamped? When the date changes? Where does it say that in the hobby protection act.
--Jerry >>
OTC paint thinner/remover will return the ASE to it's original state, peeling off the sticker will return the quarter to mint condition, the 1964-D Peace dollar has been forever altered. Now it needs to be stamped ~copy~ / replica....something to denote the permanent change of an original mint issued coin.
Edit: This one thread has more posts to it in three days than an entire year of postings over on the Stamp Forum. >>
What about those penny "restrikes" I get a tourist spots? Do they need the word copy on them since the metal was permanently altered?
Also, to be a copy doesn't an original have to exist?
<< <i>the photo on his website is now of the new coin ...shouldnt the old one be there aswell and say sold out if he is starting the new ones .... >>
Eventually I will provice full mintage records and footnotes for these - just like I do with every other coin I mint. But for now, I think I'll just have the one "product" listing with a picture of the current production.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>So to those of you still not happy, would you say that a painted silver eagle (you've seen them) needs to be stamped copy? How about a quarter with a sticker on it?
And if you say no to either of these, then when does a modified coin need to be stamped? When the date changes? Where does it say that in the hobby protection act.
--Jerry >>
OTC paint thinner/remover will return the ASE to it's original state, peeling off the sticker will return the quarter to mint condition, the 1964-D Peace dollar has been forever altered. Now it needs to be stamped ~copy~ / replica....something to denote the permanent change of an original mint issued coin.
Edit: This one thread has more posts to it in three days than an entire year of postings over on the Stamp Forum. >>
What about those penny "restrikes" I get a tourist spots? Do they need the word copy on them since the metal was permanently altered?
Also, to be a copy doesn't an original have to exist? >>
I don't believe that an original has to exist - have you read the language from the Hobby Protection Act, including what I posted, one post above yours?
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
<< <i>
<< <i>to be a copy doesn't an original have to exist? >>
I don't believe that an original has to exist - have you read the language from the Hobby Protection Act >>
I do believe an original has to exist. Additionally, I don't believe the 1964-D Peace dollar qualifies as an original numismatic item according to my reading of 304.1.(f)
<< <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. >>
My reading is that the Mint created 1964-D Peace dollar was never used in exchange or used to commemorate a person, object, place, or event. Because of this, even a Mint-issued one may not qualify as an original numismatic item according to the law as written.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>So to those of you still not happy, would you say that a painted silver eagle (you've seen them) needs to be stamped copy? How about a quarter with a sticker on it?
And if you say no to either of these, then when does a modified coin need to be stamped? When the date changes? Where does it say that in the hobby protection act.
--Jerry >>
OTC paint thinner/remover will return the ASE to it's original state, peeling off the sticker will return the quarter to mint condition, the 1964-D Peace dollar has been forever altered. Now it needs to be stamped ~copy~ / replica....something to denote the permanent change of an original mint issued coin.
Edit: This one thread has more posts to it in three days than an entire year of postings over on the Stamp Forum. >>
What about those penny "restrikes" I get a tourist spots? Do they need the word copy on them since the metal was permanently altered?
Also, to be a copy doesn't an original have to exist? >>
I don't believe that an original has to exist - have you read the language from the Hobby Protection Act, including what I posted, one post above yours? >>
I believe I read what you are talking about. What I read refers to copies of "original numismatic items", right? It would take a lawyer and a judge to decide what that means but I would think a case could be made that since no 1964-D Peace Dollars are in existence then it would not qualify as an "original numismatic item".
<< <i>are the first 200 sold out ...if we havent got a confirmation of shipment does that mean we wont get one of the matte proof version??? >>
Order numbers up through 5303 were filled with coins from the first batch of 200. Order numbers higher than that will get coins from the second batch.
As I mentioned previously, there might be differences in each run. So it is unknown if the first batch of 200 will be the lowest-mintage subtype or not.
I do think that the later they are in the minting, the better they will look. At some point, who knows, it might be neccessary to replace one or both dies.
For now, perhaps people should just consider them early die state vs middle die state, like any issue ?
<< <i>
<< <i>are the first 200 sold out ...if we havent got a confirmation of shipment does that mean we wont get one of the matte proof version??? >>
Order numbers up through 5303 were filled with coins from the first batch of 200. Order numbers higher than that will get coins from the second batch.
As I mentioned previously, there might be differences in each run. So it is unknown if the first batch of 200 will be the lowest-mintage subtype or not.
I do think that the later they are in the minting, the better they will look. At some point, who knows, it might be neccessary to replace one or both dies.
For now, perhaps people should just consider them early die state vs middle die state, like any issue ? >>
I think it is a little more interesting than just die state since the pressure and number of strikings are being adjusted. It will be good to have each run documented.
<< <i>Also, to be a copy doesn't an original have to exist? >>
Yes. Since a 1964 peace dollar doesn't exist, it would be illogical to call a D. Carr 1964 dollar coin a "copy".
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>The dollars you struck today Dan on the Die Pair 2, would be the one's shipping out at this point forward??
Miles >>
Yes, but only 90 of those were made (struck over Die Pair 2). The next run I do will be on "virgin" Peace dollars, so they won't have the rim issues that the run of 90 had. But future runs will have the stronger luster.
Note that a significant quantity of those 90 from run 2 have visible rim issues (due to the high rims of the Die Pair 2 host coins). I'll have to cull a bunch of them out. I may give them a simulated circulated finish and sell at a discount, or maybe just scrap them and mint replacements - not sure yet.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If these 64-D pieces were being made in China using the exact same process and materials, and marketed in exactly the same way, do you think they would be getting the same level of support here that they currently are? >>
Probably not. But those doing the "supporting" are the ones to answer that.
I will add these caveats regarding my issue (which have not applied to previous Chinese issues):
1) Minted by a Denver native who was born near the Denver Mint.
2) Minted by the designer of two US Mint coins.
3) A detailed account of the total mintage is provided (with no cheating !).
4) Struck over actual Peace silver dollars (yes, Chinese minters could do that as well,
but they're unlikely to ever spend the money needed to buy real Peace dollars,
and even if they did, nobody would believe that the Chinese coins were made of real silver).
5) Much more accurate engravings.
6) Struck using a surplus Denver Mint coin press. >>
Huh? I don't understand how these are caveats.
Lane >>
What I'm saying is, while these are obviosly an unoffical issue, they are likely to be as close to an official issue as there will ever be
(some indirect connections with the US Mint are involved). Of course, the US Mint does NOT approve of or endorse these coins.
<< <i>
<< <i>So to those of you still not happy, would you say that a painted silver eagle (you've seen them) needs to be stamped copy? How about a quarter with a sticker on it?
And if you say no to either of these, then when does a modified coin need to be stamped? When the date changes? Where does it say that in the hobby protection act.
--Jerry >>
Jerry, do you honestly believe that those items which you have used as comparisons qualify under this language?:
"(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." >>
Mark,
I was more addressing the fact that it is indeed a real peace dollar and that modifying the date, does not make it a "copy". Many posts in this thread are comparing the DCarr dollar to a fake dollar and that is just incorrect. It is a modified dollar but a genuine peace dollar. As for the section of the act that you are quoting, I say that a 1964 peace dollar is not a "Numismatic Item" because none exist. Those who believe they exist, would not agree with me.
The line you quoted would keep DCarr from making 1913 V nickels or 1933 saints. And I think he would agree.
--Jerry
I say that a 1964 peace dollar is not a "Numismatic Item" because none exist. Those who believe they exist, would not agree with me.
The line you quoted would keep DCarr from making 1913 V nickels or 1933 saints. And I think he would agree.
--Jerry >>
Just because someone believes they exist does not make it so as a legal matter in my book. It has to be documented.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>So to those of you still not happy, would you say that a painted silver eagle (you've seen them) needs to be stamped copy? How about a quarter with a sticker on it?
And if you say no to either of these, then when does a modified coin need to be stamped? When the date changes? Where does it say that in the hobby protection act.
--Jerry >>
Jerry, do you honestly believe that those items which you have used as comparisons qualify under this language?:
"(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." >>
Mark,
I was more addressing the fact that it is indeed a real peace dollar and that modifying the date, does not make it a "copy". Many posts in this thread are comparing the DCarr dollar to a fake dollar and that is just incorrect. It is a modified dollar but a genuine peace dollar. As for the section of the act that you are quoting, I say that a 1964 peace dollar is not a "Numismatic Item" because none exist. Those who believe they exist, would not agree with me.
The line you quoted would keep DCarr from making 1913 V nickels or 1933 saints. And I think he would agree.
--Jerry >>
Jerry, the language I quoted doesn't appear to require that a genuine one even exist - note the "purports to be part". "....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".
<< <i>
<< <i>I say that a 1964 peace dollar is not a "Numismatic Item" because none exist. Those who believe they exist, would not agree with me.
The line you quoted would keep DCarr from making 1913 V nickels or 1933 saints. And I think he would agree.
--Jerry >>
Just because someone believes they exist does not make it so as a legal matter in my book. It has to be documented. >>
It is documented. Official government records indicate that none exist!
<< <i>Of course, cartwheel luster is a factor of die wear. The later the strike, the more cartwheel luster. First strike Morgan Dollars are DMPLs, later strikes are Prooflike and even later strikes are semi-PL, and late strikes show lots of cartwheel luster.
Is that a die crack forming over the TY in LIBERTY? >>
Cartwheel luster is a product of two things : die wear, like you said, but also planchet expansion.
Proof-finish coins are struck two or more times because the first strike raises the relief and causes planchet expansion (flow),
while the second strike wipes out the flow lines (luster) and imparts the polished finish.
I can take a fresh fully-polished die, stamp once with it, and there will be some flow lines visible if any planchet expansion occurs.
I can take a freshly sand-blasted (matte) die, stamp once with it, and there will also be some flow lines visible if any planchet expansion occurs.
After use, a die will develop luster on it's surface. That luster will transfer to coins struck by it. But if struck more than once, with the planchet
expansion contained after the first strike, the second strike will REDUCE the cartwheel luster, even if the die face has cartwheel luster on it.
> Is that a die crack forming over the TY in LIBERTY?
No, that is the effect I was describing where there were rim issues involved with striking over the high-rim Die Pair 2 host coins. The concentric
somewhat-irregular line seen inside the rim in some places is the visible artifact I was talking about.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I say that a 1964 peace dollar is not a "Numismatic Item" because none exist. Those who believe they exist, would not agree with me.
The line you quoted would keep DCarr from making 1913 V nickels or 1933 saints. And I think he would agree.
--Jerry >>
Just because someone believes they exist does not make it so as a legal matter in my book. It has to be documented. >>
It is documented. Official government records indicate that none exist! >>
I was saying that those who believe they exist must prove it or show strong evidence at least.