<< <i>I haven't heard anyone respond to my question on stamping COPY on counterfeit Fugios.
I would be more comfortable with COPY stamped on Carr's piece if the Fugios were also stamped COPY; however, people seem to be pretty silent or against this.... >>
I think copies should be stamped "copy." The fake fugio cents should be identified as such. >>
Thanks sumnom. I feel these types of issues should be treated consistently, whether with COPY or without.
<< <i>I haven't heard anyone respond to my question on stamping COPY on counterfeit Fugios.
I would be more comfortable with COPY stamped on Carr's piece if the Fugios were also stamped COPY; however, people seem to be pretty silent or against this.... >>
I think copies should be stamped "copy." The fake fugio cents should be identified as such. >>
Thanks sumnom. I feel these types of issues should be treated consistently, whether with COPY or without. >>
Since it is intended as a fantasy piece he should have dated it 1965 d. I think he did it to drum up business. He knew using the 1964 date and not stamping "copy" on it would do the trick. Priced at $110, he planned this out.
Mark NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!! working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
<< <i>Since it is intended as a fantasy piece he should have dated it 1965 d. I think he did it to drum up business. He knew using the 1964 date and not stamping "copy" on it would do the trick. Priced at $110, he planned this out. >>
Since it bears the date and mint mark of a coin produced by the US Mint, it is indeed a copy and not a fantasy. A 1965 piece would have been a fantasy issue. You are right.
<< <i>Neat item. Too pricey for me, though. Keep up the good work! >>
Even though I am uncomfortable with the marketing, I do think these are interesting and if they were cheaper I would probably buy one. Copies in and of themselves are not wrong. They just have to be clearly identified as such.
"Whoever fraudulently alters, defaces, mutilates, impairs, diminishes, falsifies, scales or lightens any of the coins coined at the mints of the United States, or any foreign coins which are by law made current or are in actual use or circulation as money within the United States; or whoever fraudulently possesses, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or brings into the United States, any such coin, knowing the same to be altered, defaced, mutilated, impaired, diminished, falsified, scaled or lightened - shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
Making a $20 1922 Peace dollar into a $110 1964-D "fantasy" piece really seems to be tempting fate with respect to this. It is definitely altering a genuine coin. The result is a piece that's being valued higher than the original. I would not want to have to defend my actions as being non-fraudulent.
18 USC §487:
"Whoever, without lawful authority, makes any die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, either of steel or plaster, or any other substance, in likeness or similitude, as to the design or the inscription thereon, of any die, hub, or mold designated for the coining or making of any of the genuine gold, silver, nickel, bronze, copper, or other coins coined at the mints of the United States; or "Whoever, without lawful authority, possesses any such die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, or permits the same to be used for or in aid of the counterfeiting of any such coins of the United States - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both."
Is selling these as fantasy pieces not marked as copies of real coins (which 1964-D Peace dollars were) that may eventually end up in the hands of someone that passes them off to the unsuspecting as real permitting these dies to be used in the aid of counterfeiting? Again, I would not want to have to defend my actions here.
<< <i>I would probably buy one if it had "COPY" clearly stamped somewhere on the reverse. I would not feel comfortable buying or owning one that is not clearly identified as a copy. >>
I'll be glad to stamp it for you, or teach you to stamp it yourself. --Jerry
I think it is clear that Mr. Carr is not intending to pass his copies (not "fantasy issues") as real so I don't think one would could say he is committing fraud. He is very clear on his website about that. However, it is my understanding that since he has produced copies of an actual coin, he is legally required to mark them as such. His minor changes to the design are not the same as the word COPY or REPLICA.
<< <i>I would probably buy one if it had "COPY" clearly stamped somewhere on the reverse.
I would not feel comfortable buying or owning one that is not clearly identified as a copy. >>
That's noble sentiment. But I am sure most buyers feel quite differently.
This is some press for Moonlight Mint, huh? 100 easily. Lance. >>
It is press for MM but maybe not the sort Mr. Carr would want. On the other hand, it is said that there is no such thing as bad publicity. The very fact that Mr. Carr's copies are controversial will increase interest in them. My interest is aroused, that is for sure.
That said, he has technical skill and the stones to acquire and refurbish the mint's own coining press.
This isn't his design. It happens to be one of my favorite US coins. The government has had 45 years to produce a "legit" collectible backdated '64 dollar and they haven't.
I'm 100% in favor of these pieces. I have no problem at all with them.
We are like children who look at print and see a serpent in the last letter but one, and a sword in the last. --Severian the Lame
<< <i>I think it is clear that Mr. Carr is not intending to pass his copies (not "fantasy issues") as real so I don't think one would could say he is committing fraud. He is very clear on his website about that. However, it is my understanding that since he has produced copies of an actual coin, he is legally required to mark them as such. His minor changes to the design are not the same as the word COPY or REPLICA. >>
His point is that the 1964 peace dollar is NOT an actual coin. --Jerry
<< <i>The day that the 1964-D Peace dollars were struck at the Denver Mint, they were offered to employees at face value. Some employees bought them. The next day they were ordered to return them. I heard this first hand from a man who was working at the Denver Mint that day. This is not hearsay. TD
I recall that was reported in either NN or Coin World at the time. I remember reading about it. >>
I remember that this discussion occured on these boards a couple of years ago. Perhaps Michael Lantz could get a userid id and post his comments since I think he was there. I used to have a phone number but cannot seem to locate it.
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>. I, personally, find this deceptive and just a greedy grab at money. To me, it is no better than Chinese counterfeits and someone, somewhere, down the line, WILL be deceptive with these because "they were struck". >>
I COMPLETELY Disagree with you. D Carr is one VERY TALENTED individual who produces high end art. People without talent bash him. >>
And "I COMPLETELY disagree with you." I can imagine the Chinese saying that they too "produce hing end art".
To me, it comes down to: Did the US Mint produce 1964-D Peace Dollars? If the answer is yes then any coin produced baring the same likeness and date not made by the US Mint should have the word "COPY" stamped into it. Too not put "COPY" on the coin, how is that different then what the counterfeits in Asia are doing?
JMHO >>
Its not a copy, he uses REAL peace dollars as the blanks, it was already monetized by the mint so there is no need for copy, its a real Peace Dollar and real legal tender. Do you think that Hobo nickels should have copy on them (kind of a poor analogy) but its a defaced genuine US coin, as is this coin.
"1) These are not copies of Peace silver dollars - they are privately over-struck on GENUINE government-issue Peace silver dollars that were originally minted from 1922-1935."
<< <i>Sooner or later one of these coins, worn down and antiqued, will be sold for a large sum of money to somebody who doesn't know better. By the time the hidden diagnostics are pointed out to him or her, the seller and the money will be long gone. . I guarantee that this will happen. . Tom DeLorey >>
I've been bracing for the eventual onslaught here - and it came much sooner than expected (I just put the things on my web site this morning).
The main difference between the Chinese fakes and mine is that the Chinese pieces are outright counterfeits of US legal-tender dollar instruments. They are creating what looks like legal-tender dollars out of something that wasn't to start with. They aren't legally monetized. And, of course, the Chinese coins are very low quality and usually contain little if any actual silver. Mine are overstruck on genuine legally-monetized Peace silver dollars. No metal is added or removed.
My main motivation for producing these is that I always wanted one for myself. I debated the releasing of these for a considerable period. Everybody I knew in the local coin scene kept asking me when they would be available.
As for the price, yes it is somewhat high. I don't expect to sell a lot of these. But the amount of work and the number of steps required to produce them is far more than anythng else I've ever minted. I spent a considerable amount of time to get them to look "right" - which wasn't until the fifth pair of dies was put into use, and some specialized tooling was built to process the raw Peace dollars before over-striking.
<< <i>18 USC §331:
"Whoever fraudulently alters, defaces, mutilates, impairs, diminishes, falsifies, scales or lightens any of the coins coined at the mints of the United States, or any foreign coins which are by law made current or are in actual use or circulation as money within the United States; or whoever fraudulently possesses, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or brings into the United States, any such coin, knowing the same to be altered, defaced, mutilated, impaired, diminished, falsified, scaled or lightened - shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
Making a $20 1922 Peace dollar into a $110 1964-D "fantasy" piece really seems to be tempting fate with respect to this. It is definitely altering a genuine coin. The result is a piece that's being valued higher than the original. I would not want to have to defend my actions as being non-fraudulent. >>
The key word here, of course, is "fraudulently". You can legally stamp "Where's George" on a dollar bill. But if you alter a $1 bill to make it look like a $100 bill, and then try to pass it for $100, that's fraud. You can take a 1944-D cent and cut off part of the "4" to make it look like a "1914-D" cent. You can even sell it for more than you paid. All that is legal. But if you sell it as a genuine 1914-D cent, that's crossing the line and becomes fraud.
<< <i>18 USC §487:
"Whoever, without lawful authority, makes any die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, either of steel or plaster, or any other substance, in likeness or similitude, as to the design or the inscription thereon, of any die, hub, or mold designated for the coining or making of any of the genuine gold, silver, nickel, bronze, copper, or other coins coined at the mints of the United States; or "Whoever, without lawful authority, possesses any such die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, or permits the same to be used for or in aid of the counterfeiting of any such coins of the United States - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both."
Is selling these as fantasy pieces not marked as copies of real coins (which 1964-D Peace dollars were) that may eventually end up in the hands of someone that passes them off to the unsuspecting as real permitting these dies to be used in the aid of counterfeiting? Again, I would not want to have to defend my actions here. >>
Discussion of this law has come up before. On the surface, it would appear that ANYONE who has EVER made a replica coin (even those marked "COPY") is in violation of this law. Because to make a copy/replica coin, by definition, it is necessary to possess molds or dies in the likeness of the original coin. However, the Hobby Protection Act (which was enacted after the above law was written) superceedes this law by explicitly allowing numismatic replicas to be manufactured and sold, with some restrictions.
But again, there is no counterfeiting going on here, only defacing/altering of genuine coins. My 1964-D Peace dollars are still (technically) legally-monetized dollars.
Last thought: The original 1964-D Peace dollars - are they real or not ? Can they be real if none exist ? Can they be real coins if not officially monetized ?
<< <i>Its not a copy, he uses REAL peace dollars as the blanks, it was already monetized by the mint so there is no need for copy, its a real Peace Dollar and real legal tender. Do you think that Hobo nickels should have copy on them (kind of a poor analogy) but its a defaced genuine US coin, as is this coin. >>
I say the coin is not defaced, but rather altered to resemble a real coin made by the US Mint. He's selling it for a $90 profit over the cost of a common date Peace dollar. A prosecutor or plaintiff is not going to be interested in how much it cost him to make. As I said before, I would not want to have to defend this.
The difference between the manufacture of this product and the Chinese products is that Mr. Carr is at arms reach of the U.S. Treasury.They can say and do as they please with this item.With the Chinese products it would be very difficult to get hold of whomever is the manufacturer of such products..but in this case we know it is our own D. Carr....!!!!!!!.....
I love overstruck coins and I think this is pretty cool. I figured my collection would be limited to 100 year old coins, not I'll have a more modern addition
<< <i>I've been bracing for the eventual onslaught here - and it came much sooner than expected (I just put the things on my web site this morning). >>
I had to do something to get the subject off of Cristy and back to numismatics.
<< <i>You can take a 1944-D cent and cut off part of the "4" to make it look like a "1914-D" cent. You can even sell it for more than you paid. All that is legal. But if you sell it as a genuine 1914-D cent, that's crossing the line and becomes fraud. >>
If don't sell it as a genuine coin, but the person that you sold it to later does, and the person he cheated finds out you are the one who altered it, how long before he comes after you? Once he does, you will now have to spend time and money defending your actions even though the person you enabled to cheat the end-buyer made more money, but is nowhere to be found, as he is a flea market gypsy. In the end, you may or may not be successful. It may cost you a little to find out, and it may cost you your entire operation. Not a risk worth taking.
The 1964-D VAM-1 RPM extra ray Peac Dollar. I think I'll buy one.
Many may be concerned about the ethical question of selling these. By agreeing to purchase one, I am fully aware of the terms and conditions of sale, legal questions aside.
"Please help us keep these boards professional and informative…. And fun." - DW --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BONGO HURTLES ALONG THE RAIN SODDEN HIGHWAY OF LIFE ON UNDERINFLATED BALD RETREAD TIRES
<< <i>. I, personally, find this deceptive and just a greedy grab at money. To me, it is no better than Chinese counterfeits and someone, somewhere, down the line, WILL be deceptive with these because "they were struck". >>
I COMPLETELY Disagree with you. D Carr is one VERY TALENTED individual who produces high end art. People without talent bash him. >>
And "I COMPLETELY disagree with you." I can imagine the Chinese saying that they too "produce hing end art".
To me, it comes down to: Did the US Mint produce 1964-D Peace Dollars? If the answer is yes then any coin produced baring the same likeness and date not made by the US Mint should have the word "COPY" stamped into it. Too not put "COPY" on the coin, how is that different then what the counterfeits in Asia are doing?
JMHO >>
Its not a copy, he uses REAL peace dollars as the blanks, it was already monetized by the mint so there is no need for copy, its a real Peace Dollar and real legal tender. Do you think that Hobo nickels should have copy on them (kind of a poor analogy) but its a defaced genuine US coin, as is this coin.
"1) These are not copies of Peace silver dollars - they are privately over-struck on GENUINE government-issue Peace silver dollars that were originally minted from 1922-1935." >>
It is still a “COPY” of a 1964-D Peace dollar. The coin is purporting to be a 1964-D Peace Dollar. Mr. Carr can have all the disclaimers he wants on his web site, they mean nothing. When his “Replica” (not marked) changes hands three or five times and the last one holding the coin bought it because it was believed to be real, I hope he back tracks it to the manufacturer and files a complaint for fraud or at least “accessory to fraud”. I believe the prosecution shouldn’t have any problem proving that a “reasonable person” would have suspected that this devise he created would eventually be used to deceive someone out of a substantial amount of money. Just the fact that Mr. Carr commented in this thread I think shows that he has knowledge of a potential future fraud using one of his so called “1964-D Peace Dollars”.
Something my dad is always telling me, “if your cat has kittens in your oven, you don’t call them biscuits do you?” What is the bottom line here? Did the US Mint produce Peace Dollars dated 1964-D? Is there a change that these “over strikes” that Mr. Carr altered the date to 1964-D could become the instrument for a fraud? As the manufacturer of these “altered” / “over strike” 1964-D Peace dollars, would Mr. Carr have any culpability or responsibility to any future crime of fraud involving the use of one of them knowing that he failed to stamp them “COPY” or “REPLICA”?
<< <i>It sure looks nice but in my opinion, it was a bad idea... a real bad idea. I won't bother to look up and post the definition of "opinion" in the dictionary as I figure y'all know what it means...
If you don't think it could cause confusion just hand one to a hundred different people on the street and ask them what it is. Well... maybe that's a bad idea; but my point is that while folks knowledgable in coins would know it is fake the average person would not. There should have been some sort of clear marking on the coin that even an average person who is not a coin person would say it is a fake without having to look it up on the internet. Perhaps the notation could have been done on the edge of the coin so as to not mess up the "look" of it. >>
Remember that fellow from Nebraska that retired and his former boss gave him an 1804 Reeded Edge Silver Dollar? ( Ref Link )
Well, to make a long story short, the fellow thought he been given a rather "expensive" gift and reported it to the local news and the newspapers. Turns out it was a fake copy. My point being, a 1964-D Peace Dollar will certainly gather attention since none are supposed to exist. Anybody coming across one will more than likely seek professional expertise in order to maximize their profits. At that point, it will be identified as a fantasy restrike. Additionally, anybody that ponies up thousands for a supposed "non-existant" coin "without" seeking professional opinions, is simply a fool and we all know how quickly a fool and his money part ways.
I have no problem with this particular coin not having the word COPY just as I have no problem with the fantasy Fugio's not having COPY on them. The collecting Community knows they exist and these are the folks who pay out serious money for serious coins.
The folks that get turned away at Tom's business are not unique as that particular form of disappoinment orrurs on a daily basis with Eisenhowers, Kennedy's and yes even Chinese copy coins. It's just the way it is in this business/hobby.
However, having said that and after having ordered two, I think that once these actually hit the market, the Secret Service "may" have an interest and at that point, we'll probably get an official ruling on their legality.
With the Media Monsters that exist today, I personally don't think it'll be a straight up confiscation followed by a destruction as proven by the 1933 Saint's lawsuit. Too many political noses could get bloodied and far too many individual lawsuits would get generated.
This is just a wait and see scenario.
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.
"Whoever fraudulently alters, defaces, mutilates, impairs, diminishes, falsifies, scales or lightens any of the coins coined at the mints of the United States, or any foreign coins which are by law made current or are in actual use or circulation as money within the United States; or whoever fraudulently possesses, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or brings into the United States, any such coin, knowing the same to be altered, defaced, mutilated, impaired, diminished, falsified, scaled or lightened - shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
Making a $20 1922 Peace dollar into a $110 1964-D "fantasy" piece really seems to be tempting fate with respect to this. It is definitely altering a genuine coin. The result is a piece that's being valued higher than the original. I would not want to have to defend my actions as being non-fraudulent.
18 USC §487:
"Whoever, without lawful authority, makes any die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, either of steel or plaster, or any other substance, in likeness or similitude, as to the design or the inscription thereon, of any die, hub, or mold designated for the coining or making of any of the genuine gold, silver, nickel, bronze, copper, or other coins coined at the mints of the United States; or "Whoever, without lawful authority, possesses any such die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, or permits the same to be used for or in aid of the counterfeiting of any such coins of the United States - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both."
Is selling these as fantasy pieces not marked as copies of real coins (which 1964-D Peace dollars were) that may eventually end up in the hands of someone that passes them off to the unsuspecting as real permitting these dies to be used in the aid of counterfeiting? Again, I would not want to have to defend my actions here. >>
Line up all the Spoon Ring makers right after Mr. Carr's arrest. Besides, they'll have him on a couple of counts seeing as how he "altered" his Grabener Press Coins".
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 like the piece, but then I think Daniel Carr is a numismatic artist extraordinaire. I have several of his pieces. Do I think the price is a bit nigh, yes. But then again it doesn't have a cheap look to it like some of the others I have seen - the ones made by company in Michigan that sell for far less, but have that cheapy look to them.
I just might buy one. Yep, it is expensive, but worth it.
In memory of my kitty Seryozha 14.2.1996 ~ 13.9.2016 and Shadow 3.4.2015 - 16.4.21
Very, very poor form on the part of Daniel Carr, in my opinion. It appears from Daniel's own response to this thread that he spent almost as much time contemplating the semantics to appear innocent as he did in physically preparing the dies for the product. While I think this is a nasty marketing product, I also think it is an exellent example of how folks might cut some slack to others that they like or think they know. In other words, I just can't help but wonder if there would be as much defense for an otherwise anonymous Chinese-based counterfeiter selling these pieces on ebay as there is for a "known" US-based seller offering these on his own website.
<< <i>Yowza! Very, very poor form on the part of Daniel Carr, in my opinion. It appears from Daniel's own response to this thread that he spent almost as much time contemplating the semantics to appear innocent as he did in physically preparing the dies for the product. While I think this is a nasty marketing product, I also think it is an exellent example of how folks might cut some slack to others that they like or think they know. In other words, I just can't help but wonder if there would be as much defense for an otherwise anonymous Chinese-based counterfeiter selling these pieces on ebay as there is for a "known" US-based seller offering these on his own website. >>
Tom, You seem to be treating this in the same light as you would a fake "real coin", such as an 1893-s Morgan for instance. Do you consider there to be any difference at all? --jerry
<< <i>Yowza! Very, very poor form on the part of Daniel Carr, in my opinion. It appears from Daniel's own response to this thread that he spent almost as much time contemplating the semantics to appear innocent as he did in physically preparing the dies for the product. While I think this is a nasty marketing product, I also think it is an exellent example of how folks might cut some slack to others that they like or think they know. In other words, I just can't help but wonder if there would be as much defense for an otherwise anonymous Chinese-based counterfeiter selling these pieces on ebay as there is for a "known" US-based seller offering these on his own website. >>
Tom, You seem to be treating this in the same light as you would a fake "real coin", such as an 1893-s Morgan for instance. Do you consider there to be any difference at all? --jerry >>
Good question, Jerry. I think there are differences, but I think both are entirely inappropriate.
Several things about this bother me. Most have been already mentioned so I won't rehash them.
Dan, This may or may not be legal/moral/ethical or whatever. However, the consequences of finding out may be losing your equipment, dies, tools and etc for a very long time. At least until it's sorted out in the courts.
Don't risk it.
bob
Registry: CC lowballs (boblindstrom), bobinvegas1989@yahoo.com
<< <i>Yowza! Very, very poor form on the part of Daniel Carr, in my opinion. It appears from Daniel's own response to this thread that he spent almost as much time contemplating the semantics to appear innocent as he did in physically preparing the dies for the product. While I think this is a nasty marketing product, I also think it is an exellent example of how folks might cut some slack to others that they like or think they know. In other words, I just can't help but wonder if there would be as much defense for an otherwise anonymous Chinese-based counterfeiter selling these pieces on ebay as there is for a "known" US-based seller offering these on his own website. >>
Tom, You seem to be treating this in the same light as you would a fake "real coin", such as an 1893-s Morgan for instance. Do you consider there to be any difference at all? --jerry >>
Good question, Jerry. I think there are differences, but I think both are entirely inappropriate. >>
I think I don't feel they are the same because he is imitating a coin that doesn't exist. Suppose they were dated 2050, would that be OK? Maybe not to many of you. But the 1964 date is cool just because it is imitating a legendary but never proven-to-exist entity--a sasquatch or a UFO, so to speak.
I also don't feel I need to appoint myself as superhero in charge of protecting a future generation of stupid people.
So I don't feel real strongly either way. I respect those of you who object.
If this were a copy of a small sized $100 bill with a date of 1927 I can pretty much guaranty the secret service would not consider it a "fantasy piece".
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>I haven't heard anyone respond to my question on stamping COPY on counterfeit Fugios.
I would be more comfortable with COPY stamped on Carr's piece if the Fugios were also stamped COPY; however, people seem to be pretty silent or against this.... >>
I think copies should be stamped "copy." The fake fugio cents should be identified as such. >>
Thanks sumnom. I feel these types of issues should be treated consistently, whether with COPY or without.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I haven't heard anyone respond to my question on stamping COPY on counterfeit Fugios.
I would be more comfortable with COPY stamped on Carr's piece if the Fugios were also stamped COPY; however, people seem to be pretty silent or against this.... >>
I think copies should be stamped "copy." The fake fugio cents should be identified as such. >>
Thanks sumnom. I feel these types of issues should be treated consistently, whether with COPY or without. >>
Agreed. Consistency is a good thing.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
<< <i>Since it is intended as a fantasy piece he should have dated it 1965 d. I think he did it to drum up business. He knew using the 1964 date and not stamping "copy" on it would do the trick. Priced at $110, he planned this out. >>
Since it bears the date and mint mark of a coin produced by the US Mint, it is indeed a copy and not a fantasy. A 1965 piece would have been a fantasy issue. You are right.
I would not feel comfortable buying or owning one that is not clearly identified as a copy.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
<< <i>Neat item. Too pricey for me, though. Keep up the good work! >>
Even though I am uncomfortable with the marketing, I do think these are interesting and if they were cheaper I would probably buy one. Copies in and of themselves are not wrong. They just have to be clearly identified as such.
"Whoever fraudulently alters, defaces, mutilates, impairs, diminishes, falsifies, scales or lightens any of the coins coined at the mints of the United States, or any foreign coins which are by law made current or are in actual use or circulation as money within the United States; or whoever fraudulently possesses, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or brings into the United States, any such coin, knowing the same to be altered, defaced, mutilated, impaired, diminished, falsified, scaled or lightened - shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
Making a $20 1922 Peace dollar into a $110 1964-D "fantasy" piece really seems to be tempting fate with respect to this. It is definitely altering a genuine coin. The result is a piece that's being valued higher than the original. I would not want to have to defend my actions as being non-fraudulent.
18 USC §487:
"Whoever, without lawful authority, makes any die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, either of steel or plaster, or any other substance, in likeness or similitude, as to the design or the inscription thereon, of any die, hub, or mold designated for the coining or making of any of the genuine gold, silver, nickel, bronze, copper, or other coins coined at the mints of the United States; or
"Whoever, without lawful authority, possesses any such die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, or permits the same to be used for or in aid of the counterfeiting of any such coins of the United States - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both."
Is selling these as fantasy pieces not marked as copies of real coins (which 1964-D Peace dollars were) that may eventually end up in the hands of someone that passes them off to the unsuspecting as real permitting these dies to be used in the aid of counterfeiting? Again, I would not want to have to defend my actions here.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
<< <i>I would probably buy one if it had "COPY" clearly stamped somewhere on the reverse. I would not feel comfortable buying or owning one that is not clearly identified as a copy. >>
I'll be glad to stamp it for you, or teach you to stamp it yourself. --Jerry
<< <i>I would probably buy one if it had "COPY" clearly stamped somewhere on the reverse.
I would not feel comfortable buying or owning one that is not clearly identified as a copy. >>
That's noble sentiment. But I am sure most buyers feel quite differently.
This is some press for Moonlight Mint, huh? 100 easily.
Lance.
<< <i>
<< <i>I would probably buy one if it had "COPY" clearly stamped somewhere on the reverse.
I would not feel comfortable buying or owning one that is not clearly identified as a copy. >>
That's noble sentiment. But I am sure most buyers feel quite differently.
This is some press for Moonlight Mint, huh? 100 easily.
Lance. >>
It is press for MM but maybe not the sort Mr. Carr would want. On the other hand, it is said that there is no such thing as bad publicity. The very fact that Mr. Carr's copies are controversial will increase interest in them. My interest is aroused, that is for sure.
That said, he has technical skill and the stones to acquire and refurbish the mint's own coining press.
This isn't his design. It happens to be one of my favorite US coins. The government has had 45 years to produce a "legit" collectible backdated '64 dollar and they haven't.
I'm 100% in favor of these pieces. I have no problem at all with them.
--Severian the Lame
<< <i>I think it is clear that Mr. Carr is not intending to pass his copies (not "fantasy issues") as real so I don't think one would could say he is committing fraud. He is very clear on his website about that. However, it is my understanding that since he has produced copies of an actual coin, he is legally required to mark them as such. His minor changes to the design are not the same as the word COPY or REPLICA. >>
His point is that the 1964 peace dollar is NOT an actual coin. --Jerry
<< <i>The day that the 1964-D Peace dollars were struck at the Denver Mint, they were offered to employees at face value. Some employees bought them.
The next day they were ordered to return them. I heard this first hand from a man who was working at the Denver Mint that day. This is not hearsay.
TD
I recall that was reported in either NN or Coin World at the time. I remember reading about it. >>
I remember that this discussion occured on these boards a couple of years ago. Perhaps Michael Lantz could get a userid id and post his comments since I think he was there. I used to have a phone number but cannot seem to locate it.
The name is LEE!
i can't see this as justifiable myself and this is not a jab at Mr Carr.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>. I, personally, find this deceptive and just a greedy grab at money. To me, it is no better than Chinese counterfeits and someone, somewhere, down the line, WILL be deceptive with these because "they were struck". >>
I COMPLETELY Disagree with you. D Carr is one VERY TALENTED individual who produces high end art. People without talent bash him. >>
And "I COMPLETELY disagree with you." I can imagine the Chinese saying that they too "produce hing end art".
To me, it comes down to: Did the US Mint produce 1964-D Peace Dollars? If the answer is yes then any coin produced baring the same likeness and date not made by the US Mint should have the word "COPY" stamped into it. Too not put "COPY" on the coin, how is that different then what the counterfeits in Asia are doing?
JMHO >>
Its not a copy, he uses REAL peace dollars as the blanks, it was already monetized by the mint so there is no need for copy, its a real Peace Dollar and real legal tender. Do you think that Hobo nickels should have copy on them (kind of a poor analogy) but its a defaced genuine US coin, as is this coin.
"1) These are not copies of Peace silver dollars - they are privately over-struck on GENUINE government-issue Peace silver dollars that were originally minted from 1922-1935."
<< <i>Sooner or later one of these coins, worn down and antiqued, will be sold for a large sum of money to somebody who doesn't know better. By the time the hidden diagnostics are pointed out to him or her, the seller and the money will be long gone.
.
I guarantee that this will happen.
.
Tom DeLorey >>
Just thought this bore repeating.
Successful Trades: Swampboy,
The main difference between the Chinese fakes and mine is that the Chinese pieces are outright counterfeits of US legal-tender dollar instruments. They are creating what looks like legal-tender dollars out of something that wasn't to start with. They aren't legally monetized. And, of course, the Chinese coins are very low quality and usually contain little if any actual silver. Mine are overstruck on genuine legally-monetized Peace silver dollars. No metal is added or removed.
My main motivation for producing these is that I always wanted one for myself. I debated the releasing of these for a considerable period. Everybody I knew in the local coin scene kept asking me when they would be available.
As for the price, yes it is somewhat high. I don't expect to sell a lot of these. But the amount of work and the number of steps required to produce them is far more than anythng else I've ever minted. I spent a considerable amount of time to get them to look "right" - which wasn't until the fifth pair of dies was put into use, and some specialized tooling was built to process the raw Peace dollars before over-striking.
<< <i>18 USC §331:
"Whoever fraudulently alters, defaces, mutilates, impairs, diminishes, falsifies, scales or lightens any of the coins coined at the mints of the United States, or any foreign coins which are by law made current or are in actual use or circulation as money within the United States; or whoever fraudulently possesses, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or brings into the United States, any such coin, knowing the same to be altered, defaced, mutilated, impaired, diminished, falsified, scaled or lightened - shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
Making a $20 1922 Peace dollar into a $110 1964-D "fantasy" piece really seems to be tempting fate with respect to this. It is definitely altering a genuine coin. The result is a piece that's being valued higher than the original. I would not want to have to defend my actions as being non-fraudulent. >>
The key word here, of course, is "fraudulently". You can legally stamp "Where's George" on a dollar bill. But if you alter a $1 bill to make it look like a $100 bill, and then try to pass it for $100, that's fraud. You can take a 1944-D cent and cut off part of the "4" to make it look like a "1914-D" cent. You can even sell it for more than you paid. All that is legal. But if you sell it as a genuine 1914-D cent, that's crossing the line and becomes fraud.
<< <i>18 USC §487:
"Whoever, without lawful authority, makes any die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, either of steel or plaster, or any other substance, in likeness or similitude, as to the design or the inscription thereon, of any die, hub, or mold designated for the coining or making of any of the genuine gold, silver, nickel, bronze, copper, or other coins coined at the mints of the United States; or
"Whoever, without lawful authority, possesses any such die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, or permits the same to be used for or in aid of the counterfeiting of any such coins of the United States - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both."
Is selling these as fantasy pieces not marked as copies of real coins (which 1964-D Peace dollars were) that may eventually end up in the hands of someone that passes them off to the unsuspecting as real permitting these dies to be used in the aid of counterfeiting? Again, I would not want to have to defend my actions here. >>
Discussion of this law has come up before. On the surface, it would appear that ANYONE who has EVER made a replica coin (even those marked "COPY") is in violation of this law. Because to make a copy/replica coin, by definition, it is necessary to possess molds or dies in the likeness of the original coin. However, the Hobby Protection Act (which was enacted after the above law was written) superceedes this law by explicitly allowing numismatic replicas to be manufactured and sold, with some restrictions.
But again, there is no counterfeiting going on here, only defacing/altering of genuine coins. My 1964-D Peace dollars are still (technically) legally-monetized dollars.
Last thought:
The original 1964-D Peace dollars - are they real or not ? Can they be real if none exist ? Can they be real coins if not officially monetized ?
<< <i>Its not a copy, he uses REAL peace dollars as the blanks, it was already monetized by the mint so there is no need for copy, its a real Peace Dollar and real legal tender. Do you think that Hobo nickels should have copy on them (kind of a poor analogy) but its a defaced genuine US coin, as is this coin. >>
I say the coin is not defaced, but rather altered to resemble a real coin made by the US Mint. He's selling it for a $90 profit over the cost of a common date Peace dollar. A prosecutor or plaintiff is not going to be interested in how much it cost him to make. As I said before, I would not want to have to defend this.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
(Plus, I love the peace design anyways)
<< <i>I've been bracing for the eventual onslaught here - and it came much sooner than expected (I just put the things on my web site this morning). >>
I had to do something to get the subject off of Cristy and back to numismatics.
<< <i>You can take a 1944-D cent and cut off part of the "4" to make it look like a "1914-D" cent. You can even sell it for more than you paid. All that is legal. But if you sell it as a genuine 1914-D cent, that's crossing the line and becomes fraud. >>
If don't sell it as a genuine coin, but the person that you sold it to later does, and the person he cheated finds out you are the one who altered it, how long before he comes after you? Once he does, you will now have to spend time and money defending your actions even though the person you enabled to cheat the end-buyer made more money, but is nowhere to be found, as he is a flea market gypsy. In the end, you may or may not be successful. It may cost you a little to find out, and it may cost you your entire operation. Not a risk worth taking.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
<< <i>shuttup and ship mine, dammit. quick! >>
Very quick, before the SS comes a kicking on your door.
Oh and would you please delete my order and shipping information from your database before they get there, uh, uh, I mean IF I was to order one
<< <i>shuttup and ship mine, dammit. quick! >>
Mine to ... it nothing else, this will definitely become a conversation piece.
Many may be concerned about the ethical question of selling these. By agreeing to purchase one, I am fully aware of the terms and conditions of sale, legal questions aside.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BONGO HURTLES ALONG THE RAIN SODDEN HIGHWAY OF LIFE ON UNDERINFLATED BALD RETREAD TIRES
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>. I, personally, find this deceptive and just a greedy grab at money. To me, it is no better than Chinese counterfeits and someone, somewhere, down the line, WILL be deceptive with these because "they were struck". >>
I COMPLETELY Disagree with you. D Carr is one VERY TALENTED individual who produces high end art. People without talent bash him. >>
And "I COMPLETELY disagree with you." I can imagine the Chinese saying that they too "produce hing end art".
To me, it comes down to: Did the US Mint produce 1964-D Peace Dollars? If the answer is yes then any coin produced baring the same likeness and date not made by the US Mint should have the word "COPY" stamped into it. Too not put "COPY" on the coin, how is that different then what the counterfeits in Asia are doing?
JMHO >>
Its not a copy, he uses REAL peace dollars as the blanks, it was already monetized by the mint so there is no need for copy, its a real Peace Dollar and real legal tender. Do you think that Hobo nickels should have copy on them (kind of a poor analogy) but its a defaced genuine US coin, as is this coin.
"1) These are not copies of Peace silver dollars - they are privately over-struck on GENUINE government-issue Peace silver dollars that were originally minted from 1922-1935." >>
It is still a “COPY” of a 1964-D Peace dollar. The coin is purporting to be a 1964-D Peace Dollar. Mr. Carr can have all the disclaimers he wants on his web site, they mean nothing. When his “Replica” (not marked) changes hands three or five times and the last one holding the coin bought it because it was believed to be real, I hope he back tracks it to the manufacturer and files a complaint for fraud or at least “accessory to fraud”. I believe the prosecution shouldn’t have any problem proving that a “reasonable person” would have suspected that this devise he created would eventually be used to deceive someone out of a substantial amount of money. Just the fact that Mr. Carr commented in this thread I think shows that he has knowledge of a potential future fraud using one of his so called “1964-D Peace Dollars”.
Something my dad is always telling me, “if your cat has kittens in your oven, you don’t call them biscuits do you?” What is the bottom line here? Did the US Mint produce Peace Dollars dated 1964-D? Is there a change that these “over strikes” that Mr. Carr altered the date to 1964-D could become the instrument for a fraud? As the manufacturer of these “altered” / “over strike” 1964-D Peace dollars, would Mr. Carr have any culpability or responsibility to any future crime of fraud involving the use of one of them knowing that he failed to stamp them “COPY” or “REPLICA”?
Just thinking out loud
<< <i>I'll be glad to stamp it for you, or teach you to stamp it yourself. --Jerry >>
Badger Mint offers a steel "COPY" stamp to counterstamp such items as needs be desired.
<< <i>It sure looks nice but in my opinion, it was a bad idea... a real bad idea. I won't bother to look up and post the definition of "opinion" in the dictionary as I figure y'all know what it means...
If you don't think it could cause confusion just hand one to a hundred different people on the street and ask them what it is. Well... maybe that's a bad idea; but my point is that while folks knowledgable in coins would know it is fake the average person would not. There should have been some sort of clear marking on the coin that even an average person who is not a coin person would say it is a fake without having to look it up on the internet. Perhaps the notation could have been done on the edge of the coin so as to not mess up the "look" of it. >>
Remember that fellow from Nebraska that retired and his former boss gave him an 1804 Reeded Edge Silver Dollar? ( Ref Link )
Well, to make a long story short, the fellow thought he been given a rather "expensive" gift and reported it to the local news and the newspapers. Turns out it was a fake copy.
My point being, a 1964-D Peace Dollar will certainly gather attention since none are supposed to exist. Anybody coming across one will more than likely seek professional expertise in order to maximize their profits. At that point, it will be identified as a fantasy restrike. Additionally, anybody that ponies up thousands for a supposed "non-existant" coin "without" seeking professional opinions, is simply a fool and we all know how quickly a fool and his money part ways.
I have no problem with this particular coin not having the word COPY just as I have no problem with the fantasy Fugio's not having COPY on them. The collecting Community knows they exist and these are the folks who pay out serious money for serious coins.
The folks that get turned away at Tom's business are not unique as that particular form of disappoinment orrurs on a daily basis with Eisenhowers, Kennedy's and yes even Chinese copy coins. It's just the way it is in this business/hobby.
However, having said that and after having ordered two, I think that once these actually hit the market, the Secret Service "may" have an interest and at that point, we'll probably get an official ruling on their legality.
With the Media Monsters that exist today, I personally don't think it'll be a straight up confiscation followed by a destruction as proven by the 1933 Saint's lawsuit. Too many political noses could get bloodied and far too many individual lawsuits would get generated.
This is just a wait and see scenario.
The name is LEE!
.
CoinsAreFun Toned Silver Eagle Proof Album
.
Gallery Mint Museum, Ron Landis& Joe Rust, The beginnings of the Golden Dollar
.
More CoinsAreFun Pictorials NGC
<< <i>18 USC §331:
"Whoever fraudulently alters, defaces, mutilates, impairs, diminishes, falsifies, scales or lightens any of the coins coined at the mints of the United States, or any foreign coins which are by law made current or are in actual use or circulation as money within the United States; or whoever fraudulently possesses, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or brings into the United States, any such coin, knowing the same to be altered, defaced, mutilated, impaired, diminished, falsified, scaled or lightened - shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
Making a $20 1922 Peace dollar into a $110 1964-D "fantasy" piece really seems to be tempting fate with respect to this. It is definitely altering a genuine coin. The result is a piece that's being valued higher than the original. I would not want to have to defend my actions as being non-fraudulent.
18 USC §487:
"Whoever, without lawful authority, makes any die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, either of steel or plaster, or any other substance, in likeness or similitude, as to the design or the inscription thereon, of any die, hub, or mold designated for the coining or making of any of the genuine gold, silver, nickel, bronze, copper, or other coins coined at the mints of the United States; or
"Whoever, without lawful authority, possesses any such die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, or permits the same to be used for or in aid of the counterfeiting of any such coins of the United States - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both."
Is selling these as fantasy pieces not marked as copies of real coins (which 1964-D Peace dollars were) that may eventually end up in the hands of someone that passes them off to the unsuspecting as real permitting these dies to be used in the aid of counterfeiting? Again, I would not want to have to defend my actions here. >>
Line up all the Spoon Ring makers right after Mr. Carr's arrest. Besides, they'll have him on a couple of counts seeing as how he "altered" his Grabener Press Coins".
The name is LEE!
I just might buy one. Yep, it is expensive, but worth it.
Very, very poor form on the part of Daniel Carr, in my opinion. It appears from Daniel's own response to this thread that he spent almost as much time contemplating the semantics to appear innocent as he did in physically preparing the dies for the product. While I think this is a nasty marketing product, I also think it is an exellent example of how folks might cut some slack to others that they like or think they know. In other words, I just can't help but wonder if there would be as much defense for an otherwise anonymous Chinese-based counterfeiter selling these pieces on ebay as there is for a "known" US-based seller offering these on his own website.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>Yowza! Very, very poor form on the part of Daniel Carr, in my opinion. It appears from Daniel's own response to this thread that he spent almost as much time contemplating the semantics to appear innocent as he did in physically preparing the dies for the product. While I think this is a nasty marketing product, I also think it is an exellent example of how folks might cut some slack to others that they like or think they know. In other words, I just can't help but wonder if there would be as much defense for an otherwise anonymous Chinese-based counterfeiter selling these pieces on ebay as there is for a "known" US-based seller offering these on his own website. >>
Tom,
You seem to be treating this in the same light as you would a fake "real coin", such as an 1893-s Morgan for instance. Do you consider there to be any difference at all? --jerry
<< <i>
<< <i>Yowza! Very, very poor form on the part of Daniel Carr, in my opinion. It appears from Daniel's own response to this thread that he spent almost as much time contemplating the semantics to appear innocent as he did in physically preparing the dies for the product. While I think this is a nasty marketing product, I also think it is an exellent example of how folks might cut some slack to others that they like or think they know. In other words, I just can't help but wonder if there would be as much defense for an otherwise anonymous Chinese-based counterfeiter selling these pieces on ebay as there is for a "known" US-based seller offering these on his own website. >>
Tom,
You seem to be treating this in the same light as you would a fake "real coin", such as an 1893-s Morgan for instance. Do you consider there to be any difference at all? --jerry >>
Good question, Jerry. I think there are differences, but I think both are entirely inappropriate.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
rehash them.
Dan,
This may or may not be legal/moral/ethical or whatever. However, the consequences of
finding out may be losing your equipment, dies, tools and etc for a very long time. At least
until it's sorted out in the courts.
Don't risk it.
bob
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Yowza! Very, very poor form on the part of Daniel Carr, in my opinion. It appears from Daniel's own response to this thread that he spent almost as much time contemplating the semantics to appear innocent as he did in physically preparing the dies for the product. While I think this is a nasty marketing product, I also think it is an exellent example of how folks might cut some slack to others that they like or think they know. In other words, I just can't help but wonder if there would be as much defense for an otherwise anonymous Chinese-based counterfeiter selling these pieces on ebay as there is for a "known" US-based seller offering these on his own website. >>
Tom, You seem to be treating this in the same light as you would a fake "real coin", such as an 1893-s Morgan for instance. Do you consider there to be any difference at all? --jerry >>
Good question, Jerry. I think there are differences, but I think both are entirely inappropriate. >>
I think I don't feel they are the same because he is imitating a coin that doesn't exist. Suppose they were dated 2050, would that be OK? Maybe not to many of you. But the 1964 date is cool just because it is imitating a legendary but never proven-to-exist entity--a sasquatch or a UFO, so to speak.
I also don't feel I need to appoint myself as superhero in charge of protecting a future generation of stupid people.
So I don't feel real strongly either way. I respect those of you who object.
I would buy one if I collected peace dollars.
--jerry