<< <i>I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. I'm saying my "1909-o" over-strike is a "fantasy" not a "copy", because they are over-struck on genuine original Morgan Silver Dollars. If I struck on something that wasn't a Morgan Silver Dollar, then the result would be a copy of the Morgan Dollar type, but even then it still wouldn't be a copy of an actual issued coin because "1909" Morgan Dollars were never originally minted. >>
It doesn't matter that the 1909-o Morgan Dollars do not exist, and it doesn't matter what blank you used to strike your coins on because the moment you engraved your dies with someone else's artwork that is COPY.
<< <i>It doesn't matter that the 1909-o Morgan Dollars do not exist, and it doesn't matter what blank you used to strike your coins on because the moment you engraved your dies with someone else's artwork that is COPY. >>
What matters is the final product that is actually distributed. And that product is an altered coin. The dies are not distributed. They are defaced and scrapped.
The moment that Andy Warhol painted a Campbell's soup label, his painting was a "copy" ? What about Boggs' Bills - are they "copies" (no, I think not really).
PS: Note that the design in question (Morgan Dollar) is not copyrighted. It can not be copyrighted because taxpayers paid for it.
<< <i>PS: Note that the design in question (Morgan Dollar) is not copyrighted. It can not be copyrighted because taxpayers paid for it. >>
Correct, partially. Copyrights cannot be issued for any work by an employee of the US Government. Contractors however, are allowed to copyright work performed for the US Government even if that work is funded by taxpayer dollars..
<< <i>PS: Note that the design in question (Morgan Dollar) is not copyrighted. It can not be copyrighted because taxpayers paid for it. >>
Totally correct! Per US Copyright law: "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government. >>
Yes, we shall see what eBay does regarding fantasy-over-strike coins.
What will they do about "hobo" nickels ? Counter-stamped or otherwise altered coins ?
Regardless, fantasy-nation coins (Ameros, for example) and the like will still be ok. So will modern Hard Times Tokens and other satirical pieces. So I'll still have plenty to do.
<< <i>PS: Note that the design in question (Morgan Dollar) is not copyrighted. It can not be copyrighted because taxpayers paid for it. >>
Correct, partially. Copyrights cannot be issued for any work by an employee of the US Government. Contractors however, are allowed to copyright work performed for the US Government even if that work is funded by taxpayer dollars.. >>
True. Glena Goodacre's Sacagawea dollar obverse is an example of a coin design copyrighted via contractor. Morgan was not a contractor, however.
<< <i>PS: Note that the design in question (Morgan Dollar) is not copyrighted. It can not be copyrighted because taxpayers paid for it. >>
Correct, partially. Copyrights cannot be issued for any work by an employee of the US Government. Contractors however, are allowed to copyright work performed for the US Government even if that work is funded by taxpayer dollars.. >>
True. Glena Goodacre's Sacagawea dollar obverse is an example of a coin design copyrighted via contractor. Morgan was not a contractor, however. >>
Don't you hold a copyright for a U.S. 25 cent piece?
<< <i>PS: Note that the design in question (Morgan Dollar) is not copyrighted. It can not be copyrighted because taxpayers paid for it. >>
Correct, partially. Copyrights cannot be issued for any work by an employee of the US Government. Contractors however, are allowed to copyright work performed for the US Government even if that work is funded by taxpayer dollars.. >>
True. Glena Goodacre's Sacagawea dollar obverse is an example of a coin design copyrighted via contractor. Morgan was not a contractor, however. >>
Don't you hold a copyright for a U.S. 25 cent piece? >>
No. Artists in the competition for the 2001 state quarters were required to sign a release form.
<< <i>Ironically, the only coins that Boggs issued (as far as I know) were crude (apparently Chinese made) versions of the Sacagawea dollar:
>>
I've not seen that one before. Is it plastic or metal ? >>
Those are orange plastic. (Orange for the F.U.N. show.) I have the whole set. He made quite a lot of them. More detail on Mike Wallace's site: JSG Boggs Sacagawea Dollars
<< <i>Ironically, the only coins that Boggs issued (as far as I know) were crude (apparently Chinese made) versions of the Sacagawea dollar:
>>
I've not seen that one before. Is it plastic or metal ? >>
Those are orange plastic. (Orange for the F.U.N. show.) I have the whole set. He made quite a lot of them. More detail on Mike Wallace's site: JSG Boggs Sacagawea Dollars >>
Very interesting...but you can't sell those on ebay any more. --Jerry
<< <i>Ironically, the only coins that Boggs issued (as far as I know) were crude (apparently Chinese made) versions of the Sacagawea dollar:
>>
I've not seen that one before. Is it plastic or metal ? >>
Those are orange plastic. (Orange for the F.U.N. show.) I have the whole set. He made quite a lot of them. More detail on Mike Wallace's site: JSG Boggs Sacagawea Dollars >>
I don't know why I never noticed those before - strange since there was apparently a lot of them made.
<< <i>The moment that Andy Warhol painted a Campbell's soup label, his painting was a "copy" ? >>
Obviously he painted someone else's artwork! It depends on the details of the painting, more likely the painting is his, but the designs & ideas on Campbell's soup label will always belong to Campbell's soup. You, in this case, didn't paint anything, so don't even try to compare.
<< <i>What matters is the final product that is actually distributed. And that product is an altered coin. The dies are not distributed. They are defaced and scrapped. >>
Are you serious? The artworks on the dies are copied, hence, the artworks on all coins that were minted using these dies are copied.
<< <i>Note that the design in question (Morgan Dollar) is not copyrighted. It can not be copyrighted because taxpayers paid for it. >>
It doesn't matter if it's copyrighted or not! What matters is that the artworks aren't yours.
<< <i>Ironically, the only coins that Boggs issued (as far as I know) were crude (apparently Chinese made) versions of the Sacagawea dollar:
I've not seen that one before. Is it plastic or metal ? >>
Those are orange plastic. (Orange for the F.U.N. show.) I have the whole set. He made quite a lot of them. More detail on Mike Wallace's site: JSG Boggs Sacagawea Dollars >>
Very interesting...but you can't sell those on ebay any more. --Jerry >>
They may still be available from Rare Coins of Raleigh.
<< <i>It doesn't matter if it's copyrighted or not! What matters is that the artworks aren't yours. >>
I never claimed that the artwork was mine, ever. In fact, the small certificates that are packaged with the over-struck coins credit Morgan as the designer. But the over-struck coins aren't copies. They're altered coins.
If you take a car and put different wheels on it and paint it a different color, it isn't a "copy".
No doubt you have serious talent when it comes to the arts, but based on your description, a "1909" Morgan shares 99.36% of its features with a real Morgan, but it's not a copy? And that figure assumes that all 4 digits in the date are "modified", not just the last one or two. >>
I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. I'm saying my "1909-o" over-strike is a "fantasy" not a "copy", because they are over-struck on genuine original Morgan Silver Dollars. If I struck on something that wasn't a Morgan Silver Dollar, then the result would be a copy of the Morgan Dollar type, but even then it still wouldn't be a copy of an actual issued coin because "1909" Morgan Dollars were never originally minted. >>
Think of them like potty dollars (or other engraved pieces). No metal was added or removed ... just moved around to created a piece of "art" that didn't exist before. The one major difference is that engraved coins are not masquerading as and would likely never be confused to be "coins."
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>You are only allowed to reproduce up to 500 words in a citation without expressed permission from the author (or estate, as the case may be). >>
Huh? To what does this refer? Copyright infringement? Without direct indication that the passage is quoted, it is easily considered plagiarism. You certainly can't mean that I can copy up to 500 words of another person's work and not give credit to the original author, or do you?
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>"... any properly footnoted quotation of up to 500 sequential words may be used without permission, as long as the total number of words does not exceed 2000. For longer quotations or for a greater number of words quoted, permission from the publisher is required." >>
Source?
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Not sure if this clears things up or not, but I would stress the point that eBay's goal is to remove all of the confusion surrounding "copies" on the site because they have heard from many, many dealers and collectors who have been harmed by unwittingly buying such copies as real coins. Despite the fact that many sellers list the copies as stamped "copy" most are delivered without the stamping, and these are resold, etc. I haven't heard anything about fantasy coins, specifically, but anything that looks like a copy, or replica of a real coin (and possible, tokens) will be banned by eBay at this time. The feeling is that this part of their business is really small compared to the credibility-hit they are taking by allowing them. I'm guessing items in the grey area will probably need to find a new marketplace (other than eBay) during this time. Hopefully when things clean up, the legit sellers of fantasy coins will be able to petition for a change. I also would assume that the execs @ eBay who are making such decisions are reading this thread so the discussion is very informative for them.
I knew this would turn into a polarizing D Carr thread
I love D Carr's work and concept.I also appreciate his business savvy.
I don't use Ebay and have a utter distain for the company. I really don't know what the PNG does or doesn't do.
I think D Carr is a very good sport. Some in this thread, not so much............MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>You are only allowed to reproduce up to 500 words in a citation without expressed permission from the author (or estate, as the case may be). >>
Huh? To what does this refer? Copyright infringement? Without direct indication that the passage is quoted, it is easily considered plagiarism. You certainly can't mean that I can copy up to 500 words of another person's work and not give credit to the original author, or do you? >>
I think means, if you credit the source, you can use up to 500 words without requiring the source's permission. If you use more than 500 words, you need explicit permission from the source.
If you use a sequence of words (no matter how many) that can be identified as coming from a specific source, and you don't credit that source, then you are plagiarizing.
<< <i>I never claimed that the artwork was mine, ever. In fact, the small certificates that are packaged with the over-struck coins credit Morgan as the designer. But the over-struck coins aren't copies. They're altered coins. >>
No, there are mainly 2 different types of altered coins: altered a small detail of the coin (altered date or mint mark... ect) or altered the main design (Hobo nickel). Your products are not altered because they were engraved, almost from head to toes, using the original designs. In other words your products are copies and should be marked as so!
<< <i>I never claimed that the artwork was mine, ever. In fact, the small certificates that are packaged with the over-struck coins credit Morgan as the designer. But the over-struck coins aren't copies. They're altered coins. >>
No, there are mainly 2 different types of altered coins: altered a small detail of the coin (altered date or mint mark... ect) or altered the main design (Hobo nickel). Your products are not altered because they were engraved, almost from head to toes, using the original designs. In other words your products are copies and should be marked as so! >>
If I took a genuine 1893-S Morgan dollar, and over-struck it with "1893-S" Morgan Dollar dies, so as to repair damage the coin suffered and/or increase the apparent grade, would it be a copy ? No. It would be a "doctored" altered coin. And even so, I'm NOT doing that.
An EXTENSIVELY "tooled" coin, where ALL the details were directly re-engraved to increase the apparent grade, is still a genuine coin, not a copy. But at this point it would be difficult to authenticate.
To use the car collecting analogy again - Take a valuable but rusted-out car. The body is so shot you have to replace all the outer sheetmetal with hand-fabricated replacements. You put that entire new body on the old chassis. In car collecting circles, this would NOT considered a "copy" car. It would be considered an extensively "restored" car. Selling the car without disclosing the modifications would be a no-no, possibly subject to civil penalties but not crimminal penalties (so long as the VIN wasn't forged).
<< <i>"... any properly footnoted quotation of up to 500 sequential words may be used without permission, as long as the total number of words does not exceed 2000. For longer quotations or for a greater number of words quoted, permission from the publisher is required." >>
Source? >>
Heh! Well, I'm not an academic. This was from the copyright page of a single work by an established publisher that noted that copyrights are required for book publishing, but in their case as a disliked necessity. I had falsely assumed it was a universal thing. (However, I did find a writers guide in England that claims: "Quotation without permission is possible in works of criticism. You can use up to 400 words in a single extract or you can quote up to 300 words at a time provided that you don’t use more than 800 in total. For poems, you’re allowed up to 40 lines as long as this is less than a quarter of the piece." This is somewhat similar to the quoted American lit. piece above, but I'll not quibble on it.) Officially (or legally), as I've just read, "U.S. Fair Use" is written slightly differently, dependent on several factors, including the amount (which can vary greatly) and substantiality of the quotations. Sorry!
<< <i>If I took a genuine 1893-S Morgan dollar, and over-struck it with "1893-S" Morgan Dollar dies, so as to repair damage the coin suffered and/or increase the apparent grade, would it be a copy ? No. It would be a "doctored" altered coin. And even so, I'm NOT doing that. >>
No, it would not be a "doctored" altered coin. And No, it would not only be a copy coin, but a blatant counterfeit. Unless it was struck using the original Mint made dies, then it will be considered a restrike or double strike; any 1893-S dies that were created by you or anyone else, no matter how good they are, will only yield counterfeits.
<< <i>An EXTENSIVELY "tooled" coin, where ALL the details were directly re-engraved to increase the apparent grade, is still a genuine coin, not a copy. But at this point it would be difficult to authenticate. >>
It may still be a genuine blank, but will now be considered a counterfeit, because all the details were not recreated by the original Mint made dies.
<< <i>To use the car collecting analogy again - >>
Your car analogy makes no sense because Cars collecting and Coins collecting are two different entities with distinct standards.
<< <i>I never claimed that the artwork was mine, ever. In fact, the small certificates that are packaged with the over-struck coins credit Morgan as the designer. But the over-struck coins aren't copies. They're altered coins. >>
No, there are mainly 2 different types of altered coins: altered a small detail of the coin (altered date or mint mark... ect) or altered the main design (Hobo nickel). Your products are not altered because they were engraved, almost from head to toes, using the original designs. In other words your products are copies and should be marked as so! >>
That post reminds me of my 10 yr old son playing games in the neighborhood, making up the rules as he explains them to the other kids. --Jerry
Yah, recently the daughter of co-founder of Gallery Mint Museum, the late Joe Rust, has been selling off his archive of creations, including many historical replicas. Some of the pieces have been hit and miss, considering the economy and the state of eBay sales these days, but without that venue, she might be hard pressed to liquidate it.
I'm actually browsing ebay looking for cool replicas to buy before they are banned.
--Jerry >>
Correction! Those are not Gallery Mint Museum creations. They are low quality replicas being sold by a company simply called Gallery Museum. Don't be fooled by crass imitators!
I'm actually browsing ebay looking for cool replicas to buy before they are banned.
--Jerry >>
Correction! Those are not Gallery Mint Museum creations. They are low quality replicas being sold by a company simply called Gallery Museum. Don't be fooled by crass imitators! >>
Yes, I figured that out after I posted. I didn't find much quality reproductions. Was thinking about a 1794 $1 but didn't find one that was even close. --Jerry
Those are not Gallery Mint Museum creations. They are low quality replicas being sold by a company simply called Gallery Museum. Don't be fooled by crass imitators! >>
So now they're making copies of the copies. "Hey, these aren't real replicas, they're fake replicas! what a rip off!"
<< <i>Your car analogy makes no sense because Cars collecting and Coins collecting are two different entities with distinct standards. >>
There are replica cars, and there are replica coins. There are altered cars and altered coins. There are counterfeit cars and counterfeit coins. There is no difference in the terminology. The only real difference is that with cars, modifications and restoration is acceptible, while with coins it is frowned upon.
<< <i>It may still be a genuine blank, but will now be considered a counterfeit, because all the details were not recreated by the original Mint made dies. >>
Mint luster comes from pressure by the original dies. By your logic, a coin that has been "whizzed" (wire-brushed all over to give it the appearance of more mint luster) is a "counterfeit". That simply isn't the case.
It's my understanding that those auctions that were started before the end cutoff date will be allowed to come to a natural end (sell or fade away). So the category is still alive as long as there are auctions that meet than standard.
bob
Registry: CC lowballs (boblindstrom), bobinvegas1989@yahoo.com
It's my understanding that those auctions that were started before the end cutoff date will be allowed to come to a natural end (sell or fade away). So the category is still alive as long as there are auctions that meet than standard.
bob >>
You are correct. Auctions that started prior to 2/20 are allowed to run their course not to exceed 30 days.
"Bongo drive 1984 Lincoln that looks like old coin dug from ground."
Apparently, my over-struck fantasy coins are still allowed. I started this auction on February 24 (four days after the "ban" started). It ran for 10 days to conclusion: "1975-D" over-struck Ike Dollar
Ironically, the first couple times I listed the above coin, the auctions were cancelled by eBay. But not because of the ban on "copy" coins. The initial auctions were cancelled because I listed my original issue price in the description (apparently that is an eBay no-no for un-certified coins). But once I removed the issue price information, the auction ran to conclusion with no interference.
ebay no longer allows replicas to be listed properly... this has little effect on the reality that they will still be sold. but is a huge victory for the people that have thier head in the sand
regardless of how many posts I have, I don't consider myself an "expert" at anything
Comments
<< <i>I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. I'm saying my "1909-o" over-strike is a "fantasy" not a "copy", because they are over-struck on genuine original Morgan Silver Dollars. If I struck on something that wasn't a Morgan Silver Dollar, then the result would be a copy of the Morgan Dollar type, but even then it still wouldn't be a copy of an actual issued coin because "1909" Morgan Dollars were never originally minted. >>
It doesn't matter that the 1909-o Morgan Dollars do not exist, and it doesn't matter what blank you used to strike your coins on because the moment you engraved your dies with someone else's artwork that is COPY.
Sounds like a written guarantee!
Economic headlines the mainstream media are hiding from you.
<< <i>"We also expect that this update will increase marketplace confidence by letting our community know that coin listings on eBay are authentic"
Sounds like a written guarantee! >>
or a delusion
<< <i>It doesn't matter that the 1909-o Morgan Dollars do not exist, and it doesn't matter what blank you used to strike your coins on because the moment you engraved your dies with someone else's artwork that is COPY. >>
What matters is the final product that is actually distributed. And that product is an altered coin. The dies are not distributed. They are defaced and scrapped.
The moment that Andy Warhol painted a Campbell's soup label, his painting was a "copy" ?
What about Boggs' Bills - are they "copies" (no, I think not really).
PS:
Note that the design in question (Morgan Dollar) is not copyrighted. It can not be copyrighted because taxpayers paid for it.
<< <i>PS:
Note that the design in question (Morgan Dollar) is not copyrighted. It can not be copyrighted because taxpayers paid for it. >>
Correct, partially. Copyrights cannot be issued for any work by an employee of the US Government. Contractors however, are allowed to copyright work performed for the US Government even if that work is funded by taxpayer dollars..
Economic headlines the mainstream media are hiding from you.
<< <i>
<< <i>PS:
Note that the design in question (Morgan Dollar) is not copyrighted. It can not be copyrighted because taxpayers paid for it. >>
Totally correct! Per US Copyright law: "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government. >>
Yes, we shall see what eBay does regarding fantasy-over-strike coins.
What will they do about "hobo" nickels ?
Counter-stamped or otherwise altered coins ?
Regardless, fantasy-nation coins (Ameros, for example) and the like will still be ok. So will modern Hard Times Tokens and other satirical pieces.
So I'll still have plenty to do.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>PS:
Note that the design in question (Morgan Dollar) is not copyrighted. It can not be copyrighted because taxpayers paid for it. >>
Totally correct! Per US Copyright law: "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government. >>
Yes, we shall see what eBay does regarding fantasy-over-strike coins. >>
Note the correction to my earlier post.
Economic headlines the mainstream media are hiding from you.
<< <i>
<< <i>PS:
Note that the design in question (Morgan Dollar) is not copyrighted. It can not be copyrighted because taxpayers paid for it. >>
Correct, partially. Copyrights cannot be issued for any work by an employee of the US Government. Contractors however, are allowed to copyright work performed for the US Government even if that work is funded by taxpayer dollars.. >>
True. Glena Goodacre's Sacagawea dollar obverse is an example of a coin design copyrighted via contractor.
Morgan was not a contractor, however.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>PS:
Note that the design in question (Morgan Dollar) is not copyrighted. It can not be copyrighted because taxpayers paid for it. >>
Correct, partially. Copyrights cannot be issued for any work by an employee of the US Government. Contractors however, are allowed to copyright work performed for the US Government even if that work is funded by taxpayer dollars.. >>
True. Glena Goodacre's Sacagawea dollar obverse is an example of a coin design copyrighted via contractor.
Morgan was not a contractor, however. >>
Don't you hold a copyright for a U.S. 25 cent piece?
Economic headlines the mainstream media are hiding from you.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>PS:
Note that the design in question (Morgan Dollar) is not copyrighted. It can not be copyrighted because taxpayers paid for it. >>
Correct, partially. Copyrights cannot be issued for any work by an employee of the US Government. Contractors however, are allowed to copyright work performed for the US Government even if that work is funded by taxpayer dollars.. >>
True. Glena Goodacre's Sacagawea dollar obverse is an example of a coin design copyrighted via contractor.
Morgan was not a contractor, however. >>
Don't you hold a copyright for a U.S. 25 cent piece? >>
No. Artists in the competition for the 2001 state quarters were required to sign a release form.
<< <i>Ironically, the only coins that Boggs issued (as far as I know) were crude (apparently Chinese made) versions of the Sacagawea dollar:
I've not seen that one before. Is it plastic or metal ?
<< <i>
<< <i>Ironically, the only coins that Boggs issued (as far as I know) were crude (apparently Chinese made) versions of the Sacagawea dollar:
I've not seen that one before. Is it plastic or metal ? >>
Those are orange plastic. (Orange for the F.U.N. show.) I have the whole set. He made quite a lot of them.
More detail on Mike Wallace's site: JSG Boggs Sacagawea Dollars
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Ironically, the only coins that Boggs issued (as far as I know) were crude (apparently Chinese made) versions of the Sacagawea dollar:
I've not seen that one before. Is it plastic or metal ? >>
Those are orange plastic. (Orange for the F.U.N. show.) I have the whole set. He made quite a lot of them.
More detail on Mike Wallace's site: JSG Boggs Sacagawea Dollars >>
Very interesting...but you can't sell those on ebay any more. --Jerry
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Ironically, the only coins that Boggs issued (as far as I know) were crude (apparently Chinese made) versions of the Sacagawea dollar:
I've not seen that one before. Is it plastic or metal ? >>
Those are orange plastic. (Orange for the F.U.N. show.) I have the whole set. He made quite a lot of them.
More detail on Mike Wallace's site: JSG Boggs Sacagawea Dollars >>
I don't know why I never noticed those before - strange since there was apparently a lot of them made.
<< <i>The moment that Andy Warhol painted a Campbell's soup label, his painting was a "copy" ? >>
Obviously he painted someone else's artwork! It depends on the details of the painting, more likely the painting is his, but the designs & ideas on Campbell's soup label will always belong to Campbell's soup. You, in this case, didn't paint anything, so don't even try to compare.
<< <i>What matters is the final product that is actually distributed. And that product is an altered coin. The dies are not distributed. They are defaced and scrapped. >>
Are you serious? The artworks on the dies are copied, hence, the artworks on all coins that were minted using these dies are copied.
<< <i>Note that the design in question (Morgan Dollar) is not copyrighted. It can not be copyrighted because taxpayers paid for it. >>
It doesn't matter if it's copyrighted or not! What matters is that the artworks aren't yours.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Ironically, the only coins that Boggs issued (as far as I know) were crude (apparently Chinese made) versions of the Sacagawea dollar:
I've not seen that one before. Is it plastic or metal ? >>
Those are orange plastic. (Orange for the F.U.N. show.) I have the whole set. He made quite a lot of them.
More detail on Mike Wallace's site: JSG Boggs Sacagawea Dollars >>
Very interesting...but you can't sell those on ebay any more. --Jerry >>
They may still be available from Rare Coins of Raleigh.
Certainly this would be allowed political note or not
How about this replica: replica quarter eagle
<< <i>It doesn't matter if it's copyrighted or not! What matters is that the artworks aren't yours. >>
I never claimed that the artwork was mine, ever. In fact, the small certificates that are packaged with the over-struck coins credit Morgan as the designer. But the over-struck coins aren't copies. They're altered coins.
If you take a car and put different wheels on it and paint it a different color, it isn't a "copy".
<< <i>Allowed or not?educational dollar
Certainly this would be allowed political note or not
How about this replica: replica quarter eagle >>
Good question. I don't think anybody knows the answer, not even eBay.
<< <i>
<< <i>Mr. Carr,
No doubt you have serious talent when it comes to the arts, but based on your description, a "1909" Morgan shares 99.36% of its features with a real Morgan, but it's not a copy? And that figure assumes that all 4 digits in the date are "modified", not just the last one or two. >>
I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. I'm saying my "1909-o" over-strike is a "fantasy" not a "copy", because they are over-struck on genuine original Morgan Silver Dollars. If I struck on something that wasn't a Morgan Silver Dollar, then the result would be a copy of the Morgan Dollar type, but even then it still wouldn't be a copy of an actual issued coin because "1909" Morgan Dollars were never originally minted. >>
Think of them like potty dollars (or other engraved pieces). No metal was added or removed ... just moved around to created a piece of "art" that didn't exist before. The one major difference is that engraved coins are not masquerading as and would likely never be confused to be "coins."
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>You are only allowed to reproduce up to 500 words in a citation without expressed permission from the author (or estate, as the case may be). >>
Huh? To what does this refer? Copyright infringement? Without direct indication that the passage is quoted, it is easily considered plagiarism. You certainly can't mean that I can copy up to 500 words of another person's work and not give credit to the original author, or do you?
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>"... any properly footnoted quotation of up to 500 sequential words may be used without permission, as long as the total number of words does not exceed 2000. For longer quotations or for a greater number of words quoted, permission from the publisher is required." >>
Source?
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
I love D Carr's work and concept.I also appreciate his business savvy.
I don't use Ebay and have a utter distain for the company. I really don't know what the PNG does or doesn't do.
I think D Carr is a very good sport. Some in this thread, not so much............MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>I knew this would turn into a polarizing D Carr thread
I love D Carr's work and concept.I also appreciate his business savvy.
I don't use Ebay and have a utter distain for the company. I really don't know what the PNG does or doesn't do.
I think D Carr is a very good sport. Some in this thread, not so much............MJ >>
+1
<< <i>
<< <i>You are only allowed to reproduce up to 500 words in a citation without expressed permission from the author (or estate, as the case may be). >>
Huh? To what does this refer? Copyright infringement? Without direct indication that the passage is quoted, it is easily considered plagiarism. You certainly can't mean that I can copy up to 500 words of another person's work and not give credit to the original author, or do you? >>
I think means, if you credit the source, you can use up to 500 words without requiring the source's permission.
If you use more than 500 words, you need explicit permission from the source.
If you use a sequence of words (no matter how many) that can be identified as coming from a specific source, and you don't credit that source, then you are plagiarizing.
<< <i>I never claimed that the artwork was mine, ever. In fact, the small certificates that are packaged with the over-struck coins credit Morgan as the designer. But the over-struck coins aren't copies. They're altered coins. >>
No, there are mainly 2 different types of altered coins: altered a small detail of the coin (altered date or mint mark... ect) or altered the main design (Hobo nickel). Your products are not altered because they were engraved, almost from head to toes, using the original designs. In other words your products are copies and should be marked as so!
<< <i>
<< <i>I never claimed that the artwork was mine, ever. In fact, the small certificates that are packaged with the over-struck coins credit Morgan as the designer. But the over-struck coins aren't copies. They're altered coins. >>
No, there are mainly 2 different types of altered coins: altered a small detail of the coin (altered date or mint mark... ect) or altered the main design (Hobo nickel). Your products are not altered because they were engraved, almost from head to toes, using the original designs. In other words your products are copies and should be marked as so! >>
If I took a genuine 1893-S Morgan dollar, and over-struck it with "1893-S" Morgan Dollar dies, so as to repair damage the coin suffered and/or increase the apparent grade, would it be a copy ? No. It would be a "doctored" altered coin. And even so, I'm NOT doing that.
An EXTENSIVELY "tooled" coin, where ALL the details were directly re-engraved to increase the apparent grade, is still a genuine coin, not a copy. But at this point it would be difficult to authenticate.
To use the car collecting analogy again -
Take a valuable but rusted-out car. The body is so shot you have to replace all the outer sheetmetal with hand-fabricated replacements.
You put that entire new body on the old chassis. In car collecting circles, this would NOT considered a "copy" car. It would be considered an extensively "restored" car. Selling the car without disclosing the modifications would be a no-no, possibly subject to civil penalties but not crimminal penalties (so long as the VIN wasn't forged).
<< <i>
<< <i>"... any properly footnoted quotation of up to 500 sequential words may be used without permission, as long as the total number of words does not exceed 2000. For longer quotations or for a greater number of words quoted, permission from the publisher is required." >>
Source? >>
Heh! Well, I'm not an academic. This was from the copyright page of a single work by an established publisher that noted that copyrights are required for book publishing, but in their case as a disliked necessity. I had falsely assumed it was a universal thing. (However, I did find a writers guide in England that claims: "Quotation without permission is possible in works of criticism. You can use up to 400 words in a single extract or you can quote up to 300 words at a time provided that you don’t use more than 800 in total. For poems, you’re allowed up to 40 lines as long as this is less than a quarter of the piece." This is somewhat similar to the quoted American lit. piece above, but I'll not quibble on it.)
Officially (or legally), as I've just read, "U.S. Fair Use" is written slightly differently, dependent on several factors, including the amount (which can vary greatly) and substantiality of the quotations.
Sorry!
<< <i>If I took a genuine 1893-S Morgan dollar, and over-struck it with "1893-S" Morgan Dollar dies, so as to repair damage the coin suffered and/or increase the apparent grade, would it be a copy ? No. It would be a "doctored" altered coin. And even so, I'm NOT doing that. >>
No, it would not be a "doctored" altered coin. And No, it would not only be a copy coin, but a blatant counterfeit. Unless it was struck using the original Mint made dies, then it will be considered a restrike or double strike; any 1893-S dies that were created by you or anyone else, no matter how good they are, will only yield counterfeits.
<< <i>An EXTENSIVELY "tooled" coin, where ALL the details were directly re-engraved to increase the apparent grade, is still a genuine coin, not a copy. But at this point it would be difficult to authenticate. >>
It may still be a genuine blank, but will now be considered a counterfeit, because all the details were not recreated by the original Mint made dies.
<< <i>To use the car collecting analogy again - >>
Your car analogy makes no sense because Cars collecting and Coins collecting are two different entities with distinct standards.
<< <i>
<< <i>I never claimed that the artwork was mine, ever. In fact, the small certificates that are packaged with the over-struck coins credit Morgan as the designer. But the over-struck coins aren't copies. They're altered coins. >>
No, there are mainly 2 different types of altered coins: altered a small detail of the coin (altered date or mint mark... ect) or altered the main design (Hobo nickel). Your products are not altered because they were engraved, almost from head to toes, using the original designs. In other words your products are copies and should be marked as so! >>
That post reminds me of my 10 yr old son playing games in the neighborhood, making up the rules as he explains them to the other kids. --Jerry
<< <i>
<< <i>Allowed or not?educational dollar
Certainly this would be allowed political note or not
How about this replica: replica quarter eagle >>
Good question. I don't think anybody knows the answer, not even eBay. >>
At this point, that is probably true.
They need to start providing guidance though.
All three would seem to be legitimate products to the "marketplace."
sellers of these items need to know what's coming in February.
<< <i>
<< <i>Allowed or not?educational dollar
Certainly this would be allowed political note or not
How about this replica: replica quarter eagle >>
Good question. I don't think anybody knows the answer, not even eBay. >>
I'd say none of these will be allowed and most of the posters here saying "about time ebay did something" don't really understand the scope.
Here is the gallery mint copies that will be most affected by this decision. I wonder who gallery mint crossed?
I'm actually browsing ebay looking for cool replicas to buy before they are banned.
--Jerry
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Allowed or not?educational dollar
Certainly this would be allowed political note or not
How about this replica: replica quarter eagle >>
Good question. I don't think anybody knows the answer, not even eBay. >>
I'd say none of these will be allowed and most of the posters here saying "about time ebay did something" don't really understand the scope.
Here is the gallery mint copies that will be most affected by this decision. I wonder who gallery mint crossed?
I'm actually browsing ebay looking for cool replicas to buy before they are banned.
--Jerry >>
Correction! Those are not Gallery Mint Museum creations. They are low quality replicas being sold by a company simply called Gallery Museum. Don't be fooled by crass imitators!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Allowed or not?educational dollar
Certainly this would be allowed political note or not
How about this replica: replica quarter eagle >>
Good question. I don't think anybody knows the answer, not even eBay. >>
I'd say none of these will be allowed and most of the posters here saying "about time ebay did something" don't really understand the scope.
Here is the gallery mint copies that will be most affected by this decision. I wonder who gallery mint crossed?
I'm actually browsing ebay looking for cool replicas to buy before they are banned.
--Jerry >>
Correction! Those are not Gallery Mint Museum creations. They are low quality replicas being sold by a company simply called Gallery Museum. Don't be fooled by crass imitators! >>
Yes, I figured that out after I posted. I didn't find much quality reproductions. Was thinking about a 1794 $1 but didn't find one that was even close. --Jerry
Those are not Gallery Mint Museum creations. They are low quality replicas being sold by a company simply called Gallery Museum. Don't be fooled by crass imitators! >>
So now they're making copies of the copies. "Hey, these aren't real replicas, they're fake replicas! what a rip off!"
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>Your car analogy makes no sense because Cars collecting and Coins collecting are two different entities with distinct standards. >>
There are replica cars, and there are replica coins. There are altered cars and altered coins. There are counterfeit cars and counterfeit coins. There is no difference in the terminology. The only real difference is that with cars, modifications and restoration is acceptible, while with coins it is frowned upon.
<< <i>It may still be a genuine blank, but will now be considered a counterfeit, because all the details were not recreated by the original Mint made dies. >>
Mint luster comes from pressure by the original dies.
By your logic, a coin that has been "whizzed" (wire-brushed all over to give it the appearance of more mint luster) is a "counterfeit". That simply isn't the case.
I don't think so:
Coins & Paper Money > Exonumia > Replicas & Reproductions
<< <i>replicas and copies are no longer allowed?
I don't think so:
Coins & Paper Money > Exonumia > Replicas & Reproductions >>
It's my understanding that those auctions that were started before the end cutoff date will be allowed to
come to a natural end (sell or fade away).
So the category is still alive as long as there are auctions that meet than standard.
bob
<< <i>
<< <i>replicas and copies are no longer allowed?
I don't think so:
Coins & Paper Money > Exonumia > Replicas & Reproductions >>
It's my understanding that those auctions that were started before the end cutoff date will be allowed to
come to a natural end (sell or fade away).
So the category is still alive as long as there are auctions that meet than standard.
bob >>
You are correct. Auctions that started prior to 2/20 are allowed to run their course not to exceed 30 days.
I started this auction on February 24 (four days after the "ban" started).
It ran for 10 days to conclusion:
"1975-D" over-struck Ike Dollar
Ironically, the first couple times I listed the above coin, the auctions were cancelled by eBay.
But not because of the ban on "copy" coins. The initial auctions were cancelled because I
listed my original issue price in the description (apparently that is an eBay no-no for
un-certified coins). But once I removed the issue price information, the auction ran
to conclusion with no interference.
"over-struck fantasy coins"
I do believe that's the first time i've seen this term used for these items.Im glad that's settled. : )