<< <i>I still believe that the release of the pieces without the word "COPY" was wrong.
That is the only issue that is questionable. >>
+1
Whether or not somebody likes the coin, encore, replica, fantasy, reproduction, or whatever, is a matter of taste. Whether or not D. Carr crossed the line and violated the Hobby Protection Act is what is up for debate currently.
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Maybe Daniel Carr could resolve the copy controversy without ruining the look of the coin by adding a small incuse C to the right of and below the D mintmark .
<< <i>Talk about a double standard.....and, in this instance, I don't even mean the one about copies of coins, who produces them, etc.
Often, if an owner of a coin posts about it here, and it happens to be for sale on a website or the BST forum, even if the seller doesn't mention that the coin is for sale, there are cries of foul and SPAM. And yet, these coins are widely known as being available for sale and the producer/seller has posted to this and other threads on the subject many, many, times, but there has barely been a peep about the SPAM.
Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against Mr. Carr, personally, even though we disagree as to whether his coins should say "COPY" on them. And most of his posts are customer service related and/or extremely gracious and informative regarding the minting process, etc. They make for excellent reading.
In fact, my complaint is not really about him. But, rather, it is about the huge double standard in play here, probably because many of the posters want to buy the coins in question. So they look the other way, or close their eyes to the issue of SPAM.
I expect that I will receive considerable flack for this post. And if so, that's OK. But, if you don't like what I have said, before you complain about SPAM next time, either give the guy a break or admit to the double standard you are engaging in. >>
Come on Mark. You're diluting any effectiveness your argument may hold by taking on this line of reasoning. D. Carr was not the OP of this thread. He can't control it. He can't even contain it. But, can you imagine if he didn't even contribute to it? That would be your (next) argument! Damned if he does, damned it he doesn't.
To not "allow" D. Carr to respond to statements- many of them outrageously bogus- because the subject matter involves coins he is minting and selling is, best case, disingenuous, worse case, a poor straw man argument and partially takes away from any credible point you may make. >>
Pat, I actually agree with you about the distinction pertaining to Mr. Carr's not having started the thread, himself. That's a very fair point.
<< <i>Maybe Daniel Carr could resolve the copy controversy without ruining the look of the coin by adding a small incuse C to the right of and below the D mintmark . >>
If he is forced to do anything to resolve the controversy, it would have to follow the guidelines as spelled out in the HPA. The placement, size and type of lettering to be used are all quite specific in the regulation. Anything else, such as an extra mark or logo is insufficient, according to the guidelines.
At least that's my take.
I'll leave all that to the lawyers and such.
For now, I'm anxiously awaiting my new silver trinket!
<< <i>Maybe Daniel Carr could resolve the copy controversy without ruining the look of the coin by adding a small incuse C to the right of and below the D mintmark . >>
Too late....the coins have flown.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>I still believe that the release of the pieces without the word "COPY" was wrong.
That is the only issue that is questionable. >>
+1
Whether or not somebody likes the coin, encore, replica, fantasy, reproduction, or whatever, is a matter of taste. Whether or not D. Carr crossed the line and violated the Hobby Protection Act is what is up for debate currently. >>
Carr made a choice on that piece, which I am in favor of in this case.
There are a few other issues that developed during Gallery Mint Museum's operation that come to mind around this issue. One is that Ron Landis ultimately decided against doing a run of 1909-S VDB reproductions turned into storecards overstruck on copper Lincolns for David Lange's book, "The Complete Guide to Lincoln Cents". After consultation with ANA officers, the run was cancelled even though they planned to use a COPY stamp. (A non-COPY stamp version of it sold this year on eBay, from GMM co-founder Joe Rust's estate): The Complete Guide To Lincoln Cents The other was when Ken Bressett counseled Landis not to issue his version of a Pine Tree threepence reproduction, even with a COPY stamp. The second successor to GMM in Eureka Springs, Moffatt & Co., ultimately struck these for sale with the COPY stamp: Massachusetts Tree Coinage (1653-1682)
<< <i>Talk about a double standard.....and, in this instance, I don't even mean the one about copies of coins, who produces them, etc.
Often, if an owner of a coin posts about it here, and it happens to be for sale on a website or the BST forum, even if the seller doesn't mention that the coin is for sale, there are cries of foul and SPAM. And yet, these coins are widely known as being available for sale and the producer/seller has posted to this and other threads on the subject many, many, times, but there has barely been a peep about the SPAM.
Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against Mr. Carr, personally, even though we disagree as to whether his coins should say "COPY" on them. And most of his posts are customer service related and/or extremely gracious and informative regarding the minting process, etc. They make for excellent reading.
In fact, my complaint is not really about him. But, rather, it is about the huge double standard in play here, probably because many of the posters want to buy the coins in question. So they look the other way, or close their eyes to the issue of SPAM.
I expect that I will receive considerable flack for this post. And if so, that's OK. But, if you don't like what I have said, before you complain about SPAM next time, either give the guy a break or admit to the double standard you are engaging in. >>
Interesting point Mark.
I suppose if someone were constantly "hyping" their product for sale here on the US Forum it could be considered SPAM (unwanted email solicitations) but Daniel didn't start this one.
I view it no differently than the John Nanney thread on the 2008 Rev 07 SAE's or the Abraham Lincoln BiCentennial Coin Set threads or even the 2006 SAE Anniversary Set threas which simply stated that the coin(s) were for sale and folks showed an interest. Some chose to look up the web site and purchase while others didn't and I don;t recall Daniel ever promoting the product as much as explaining his thoughts on why he could produce it.
In other words, I'm not seeing SPAM anymore than I would see SPAM for a thread on some new Mint Product or HSN offer.
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.
Rule 6) This forum is about US Coins. If your post is not directly related to US Coins then this is the wrong forum. Do not post it or your posting privileges may be removed.
Comments
That is the only issue that is questionable.
<< <i>I still believe that the release of the pieces without the word "COPY" was wrong.
That is the only issue that is questionable. >>
+1
Whether or not somebody likes the coin, encore, replica, fantasy, reproduction, or whatever, is a matter of taste. Whether or not D. Carr crossed the line and violated the Hobby Protection Act is what is up for debate currently.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>
<< <i>Talk about a double standard.....and, in this instance, I don't even mean the one about copies of coins, who produces them, etc.
Often, if an owner of a coin posts about it here, and it happens to be for sale on a website or the BST forum, even if the seller doesn't mention that the coin is for sale, there are cries of foul and SPAM. And yet, these coins are widely known as being available for sale and the producer/seller has posted to this and other threads on the subject many, many, times, but there has barely been a peep about the SPAM.
Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against Mr. Carr, personally, even though we disagree as to whether his coins should say "COPY" on them. And most of his posts are customer service related and/or extremely gracious and informative regarding the minting process, etc. They make for excellent reading.
In fact, my complaint is not really about him. But, rather, it is about the huge double standard in play here, probably because many of the posters want to buy the coins in question. So they look the other way, or close their eyes to the issue of SPAM.
I expect that I will receive considerable flack for this post. And if so, that's OK. But, if you don't like what I have said, before you complain about SPAM next time, either give the guy a break or admit to the double standard you are engaging in. >>
Come on Mark. You're diluting any effectiveness your argument may hold by taking on this line of reasoning. D. Carr was not the OP of this thread. He can't control it. He can't even contain it. But, can you imagine if he didn't even contribute to it? That would be your (next) argument! Damned if he does, damned it he doesn't.
To not "allow" D. Carr to respond to statements- many of them outrageously bogus- because the subject matter involves coins he is minting and selling is, best case, disingenuous, worse case, a poor straw man argument and partially takes away from any credible point you may make. >>
Pat, I actually agree with you about the distinction pertaining to Mr. Carr's not having started the thread, himself. That's a very fair point.
<< <i>Maybe Daniel Carr could resolve the copy controversy without ruining the look of the coin by adding a small incuse C to the right of and below the D mintmark . >>
If he is forced to do anything to resolve the controversy, it would have to follow the guidelines as spelled out in the HPA. The placement, size and type of lettering to be used are all quite specific in the regulation. Anything else, such as an extra mark or logo is insufficient, according to the guidelines.
At least that's my take.
I'll leave all that to the lawyers and such.
For now, I'm anxiously awaiting my new silver trinket!
<< <i>Maybe Daniel Carr could resolve the copy controversy without ruining the look of the coin by adding a small incuse C to the right of and below the D mintmark . >>
Too late....the coins have flown.
<< <i>
<< <i>I still believe that the release of the pieces without the word "COPY" was wrong.
That is the only issue that is questionable. >>
+1
Whether or not somebody likes the coin, encore, replica, fantasy, reproduction, or whatever, is a matter of taste. Whether or not D. Carr crossed the line and violated the Hobby Protection Act is what is up for debate currently. >>
Carr made a choice on that piece, which I am in favor of in this case.
There are a few other issues that developed during Gallery Mint Museum's operation that come to mind around this issue.
One is that Ron Landis ultimately decided against doing a run of 1909-S VDB reproductions turned into storecards overstruck on copper Lincolns for David Lange's book, "The Complete Guide to Lincoln Cents". After consultation with ANA officers, the run was cancelled even though they planned to use a COPY stamp. (A non-COPY stamp version of it sold this year on eBay, from GMM co-founder Joe Rust's estate):
The Complete Guide To Lincoln Cents
The other was when Ken Bressett counseled Landis not to issue his version of a Pine Tree threepence reproduction, even with a COPY stamp. The second successor to GMM in Eureka Springs, Moffatt & Co., ultimately struck these for sale with the COPY stamp:
Massachusetts Tree Coinage (1653-1682)
<< <i>Talk about a double standard.....and, in this instance, I don't even mean the one about copies of coins, who produces them, etc.
Often, if an owner of a coin posts about it here, and it happens to be for sale on a website or the BST forum, even if the seller doesn't mention that the coin is for sale, there are cries of foul and SPAM. And yet, these coins are widely known as being available for sale and the producer/seller has posted to this and other threads on the subject many, many, times, but there has barely been a peep about the SPAM.
Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against Mr. Carr, personally, even though we disagree as to whether his coins should say "COPY" on them. And most of his posts are customer service related and/or extremely gracious and informative regarding the minting process, etc. They make for excellent reading.
In fact, my complaint is not really about him. But, rather, it is about the huge double standard in play here, probably because many of the posters want to buy the coins in question. So they look the other way, or close their eyes to the issue of SPAM.
I expect that I will receive considerable flack for this post. And if so, that's OK. But, if you don't like what I have said, before you complain about SPAM next time, either give the guy a break or admit to the double standard you are engaging in. >>
Interesting point Mark.
I suppose if someone were constantly "hyping" their product for sale here on the US Forum it could be considered SPAM (unwanted email solicitations) but Daniel didn't start this one.
I view it no differently than the John Nanney thread on the 2008 Rev 07 SAE's or the Abraham Lincoln BiCentennial Coin Set threads or even the 2006 SAE Anniversary Set threas which simply stated that the coin(s) were for sale and folks showed an interest. Some chose to look up the web site and purchase while others didn't and I don;t recall Daniel ever promoting the product as much as explaining his thoughts on why he could produce it.
In other words, I'm not seeing SPAM anymore than I would see SPAM for a thread on some new Mint Product or HSN offer.
The name is LEE!