<< <i>The Chinese do not take an authentic Flowing Hair dollar and mint over it into a fantasy FH dollar. Nor do the Chinese do so with any authentic U.S. struck coin.
No, instead the Chinese take blank planchets and, if you're lucky the planchet is close to correct fineness, strike- using a counterfeit die of the impression of a genuine coin, to be sold and passed at a profit.
Daniel Carr does none of this. You know how I know? Because I've read his website as he describes exactly how he mints his creations and have seen and owned his coins. I have viewed for myself first hand and see the host coin is a real coin. Secondly, the U.S. Secret Service refuses to act as there is no crime that is being committed.
Now, for those that don't like his fantasy tokens, I completely understand. I don't particularly like mid-grade bust half dimes and you know what I do about that? I don't collect them. I also don't scream for the rooftops no one should collect them.
Don't like a TV show? Change the channel. Don't like C. Carr's offerings? Don't purchase them. Don't like McDonald's cheeseburgers? Don't eat them.
And on and on... and on. . . >>
Another applause from me!
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>Wouldn't it be neat if Dan produced a trillion dollar fantasy coin? Of course some here would claim it's a counterfeit even when there is no real counterpart. >>
Do you really think that his detractors are so irrational that they can not tell the difference between a fictional interpretation of a alleged political ploy and a coin that looks EXACTLY like something one could receive in change save for one digit in the date (a detail most don't even pay attention to save for coin nerds).
If I walk into a store and spend a 1963 Kennedy it would most assuredly be accepted for 50c, am I committing a crime? Before you bandwagon folks say for sure think about this, If I take a 1 dollar bill and wash it to remove the print and reprint it a 3 dollar bill and spend it, I am committing a class 1 felony with lots of prostitution precedence behind it. >>
>>> I am committing a class 1 felony with lots of prostitution precedence behind it. If you're picking up a $3 hooker, I suppose you'll get what you pay for.
Your hypothetical scenario is not a good analogy. In it, you are increasing the face value of the note to a factor of three. Creating an additional apparent $2 of legal tender would not go over well with the Fed(s).
A more-accurate analogy would be to somehow rearrange the existing ink on the bill so that the series date reads as a date that was never issued. This being done WITHOUT INCREASING the face falue. No additional apparent legal tender has been created. It looks like $1 before, and $1 after.
My opinion. These coins should have the word "replica" punched onto them. While we know there were no Kennedy's minted in 63 I would bet that most of the fans of this stuff have relatives in their close family that do not know this. Now imagine the general population as a whole.
Out of respect for us collectors, DC should include this in these fantasy pieces. Would any of the folks here who actually buy this stuff not buy it if they contained the word "replica" ? Would everyone here stating how they can not go without this fantasy piece in their collection not like them any longer if that word were stamped on these ? And if they answer they would no longer buy them then why not? DC could easily do this but chooses not to. OK his choice.
Well, here is my .02. If I were striking them and selling them by what seems to be condition and variety I'd just start slabbing them myself (in my own proprietary slab) as well. NO offense, but surely revenue.
<< <i>It has been reported that Henning ended up spending approximately seven cents each for every nickel he counterfeited. However, the fact that he lost money on the deal was not enough to protect him from prosecution. >>
Of course, Henning took scrap metal which had no legal tender status and made apparent 5-cent legal tender instruments out of it.
That is a lot different situation than starting with an actual legal-tender 5-cent coin and carving a different design into it (like a "hobo" nickel).
ANACS, one of the oldest and respected grading firm refuses to grade counterfeits. Seriously. If you don't believe me, check out their website where ANACS expressly states they will not, under any circumstance grade a counterfeit coin. Once you agree that is a true statement, please continue with my post. (If you disagree, please take the time to research my claim before proceeding.)
Ok, with that fact established, ANACS has, does and will grade/authenticate/slab D. Carr's creations. Here is an example:
<< <i>I wonder if the Secret Service would have an issue with our hero washing $1 notes and using the "blanks" to printing some "fantasy" $100 notes with, say, series 1933 or some other series date never produced by the BEP? What could the Secret Service complain about? It's not like there were ever any "real" notes from that series. As long as they were sold with a nice flip explaining the difference, there is no way anybody would be fooled into thinking they were "real." And most importantly ... the fantasy notes could not be considered counterfeits because no real notes of that date were ever produced! Yeah, I don't think the Secret Service would mind at all ... >>
Why in your hypothetical scenario do you have to increse the face value from $1 to $100 ? To make it sound worse ? Take a series 1935 silver certificate. Rearrange the ink particles on it so it looks like a series date that was never issued. It still has an apparent $1 face value. No additional apparent legal tender was created, unlike in your inapplicable scenario.
<< <i>The Chinese do not take an authentic Flowing Hair dollar and mint over it into a fantasy FH dollar. Nor do the Chinese do so with any authentic U.S. struck coin.
No, instead the Chinese take blank planchets and, if you're lucky the planchet is close to correct fineness, strike- using a counterfeit die of the impression of a genuine coin, to be sold and passed at a profit.
Daniel Carr does none of this. You know how I know? Because I've read his website as he describes exactly how he mints his creations and have seen and owned his coins. I have viewed for myself first hand and see the host coin is a real coin. Secondly, the U.S. Secret Service refuses to act as there is no crime that is being committed.
Now, for those that don't like his fantasy tokens, I completely understand. I don't particularly like mid-grade bust half dimes and you know what I do about that? I don't collect them. I also don't scream for the rooftops no one should collect them.
Don't like a TV show? Change the channel. Don't like C. Carr's offerings? Don't purchase them. Don't like McDonald's cheeseburgers? Don't eat them.
And on and on... and on. . . >>
If it is a copy of an American designed and made issue it should be stamped as a copy. It doesn't matter that he started with a real coin and making one small deviation of a real design element doesn't make it a different coin. You think that making a one off date is ok but why stop there? What if he added an overdate error like a 1965/4 Kennedy half or a 1973 silver half? or a 1989 close AM penny or something minor like that. Could he still offer them as Fantasy coins? And on and on... and on. . . Also you got on me when I offered an opinion about his motives so I would ask you not to put words into the Secret Services mouth. Just because they havent arrested him yet doesn't mean he isn't breaking the law. It could also mean he they view him as a small time fraud that they don't have the man power to go after because he is only hurting obsolete collector currency. They don't have the track record of protecting collectors as they do banks and I think my opinion is the more likely of the two.
What about taking real US paper stock and printing 10$ bills with fantasy dates? How about fantasy serial numbers?
Typical artists come up with their own designs which he has done in the past, he just didn't make as much money until he started copying other people designs. Even his fans must admit that he is simply copying a known design and changing one little detail and calling it new. My question to you braddick
If you admit that his die is a copy of a established design why is the product of the copied die not a copy its self?
<< <i>If it is a copy of an American designed and made issue it should be stamped as a copy. It doesn't matter that he started with a real coin and making one small deviation of a real design element doesn't make it a different coin. You think that making a one off date is ok but why stop there? What if he added an overdate error like a 1965/4 Kennedy half or a 1973 silver half? or a 1989 close AM penny or something minor like that. Could he still offer them as Fantasy coins? Also you got on me when I offered an opinion about his motives so I would ask you not to put words into the Secret Services mouth. Just because they havent arrested him yet doesn't mean he isn't breaking the law. It could also mean he they view him as a small time fraud that they don't have the man power to go after because he is only hurting obsolete collector currency. They don't have the track record of protecting collectors as they do banks and I think my opinion is the more likely of the two.
What about taking real US paper stock and printing 10$ bills with fantasy dates? How about fantasy serial numbers?
Typical artists come up with their own designs which he has done in the past, he just didn't make as much money until he started copying other people designs. Even his fans must admit that he is simply copying a known design and changing one little detail and calling it new. My question to you braddick
If you admit that his die is a copy of a established design why is the product of the copied die not a copy its self? >>
Is a genuine 1964 Kennedy half dollar that has an altered date of "1963" a copy of anything ? No. It is a modified 1964 Kennedy Half Dollar. And no "1963" Kennedy half dollars were ever originally issued.
>>> What about taking real US paper stock and printing 10$ bills with fantasy dates? How about fantasy serial numbers?
This analogy doesn't apply. A more applicable analogy would be to take genuine $10 bills and over-print them with some other information, but they still appear to be $10 bills (no new apparent legal tender was created).
>>> Typical artists come up with their own designs which he has done in the past, he just didn't make as much money until he started copying other people designs.
One of Andy Warhol's most famous (and valuable) works of "art" is his painting of a Campbell's soup can label.
ANACS, one of the oldest and respected grading firm refuses to grade counterfeits. Seriously. If you don't believe me, check out their website where ANACS expressly states they will not, under any circumstance grade a counterfeit coin. Once you agree that is a true statement, please continue with my post. (If you disagree, please take the time to research my claim before proceeding.)
Ok, with that fact established, ANACS has, does and will grade/authenticate/slab D. Carr's creations. Here is an example:
(Interestingly, one of our members here on these forums used to grade for ANACS and continues now to call these tokens counterfeits.) >>
"tokens"?
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 wonder if the Secret Service would have an issue with our hero washing $1 notes and using the "blanks" to printing some "fantasy" $100 notes with, say, series 1933 or some other series date never produced by the BEP? What could the Secret Service complain about? It's not like there were ever any "real" notes from that series. As long as they were sold with a nice flip explaining the difference, there is no way anybody would be fooled into thinking they were "real." And most importantly ... the fantasy notes could not be considered counterfeits because no real notes of that date were ever produced! Yeah, I don't think the Secret Service would mind at all ... >>
Why in your hypothetical scenario do you have to increse the face value from $1 to $100 ? To make it sound worse ? Take a series 1935 silver certificate. Rearrange the ink particles on it so it looks like a series date that was never issued. It still has an apparent $1 face value. No additional apparent legal tender was created, unlike in your inapplicable scenario. >>
Okay ... I'll bite. Take a $1 note, wash it, and print a "fantasy" $1 note with a never used series date. Ask the Secret Service if they have a problem with it. Remember ... you only get one phone call.
Rearrange the ink particles? That's a knee-slapper! Are you seriously defending any "legality" of your fantasy coins using a "rearranging the metal particles" argument? When will you start to use a deflection in the spaced-time continuum as a rationale?
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
"One of Andy Warhol's most famous (and valuable) works of "art" is his painting of a Campbell's soup can label."
There was and is a whole concept behind that silkscreen of a can and the other like images by O. Warhola; altering/expanding the perception of what constitutes "art" as opposed to "commercial art" and the repercussions of authorship etc. And profit. Elmyr had another take on this sort of thing. Andy was sent a case of soup by the company; later they bought his works as well. Copyright in 1963/64 seems to have been less a concern in some areas.
Dan's overstrike coins (in my opinion) are fantasy coins. Some you posters (who keep insinuating that he is some sort of crook) really irk me.
Advanced collector of BREWERIANA. Early beer advertising (beer cans, tap knobs, foam scrapers, trays, tin signs, lithos, paper, etc)....My first love...U.S. COINS!
<< <i>I wonder if the Secret Service would have an issue with our hero washing $1 notes and using the "blanks" to printing some "fantasy" $100 notes with, say, series 1933 or some other series date never produced by the BEP? What could the Secret Service complain about? It's not like there were ever any "real" notes from that series. As long as they were sold with a nice flip explaining the difference, there is no way anybody would be fooled into thinking they were "real." And most importantly ... the fantasy notes could not be considered counterfeits because no real notes of that date were ever produced! Yeah, I don't think the Secret Service would mind at all ... >>
Why in your hypothetical scenario do you have to increse the face value from $1 to $100 ? To make it sound worse ? Take a series 1935 silver certificate. Rearrange the ink particles on it so it looks like a series date that was never issued. It still has an apparent $1 face value. No additional apparent legal tender was created, unlike in your inapplicable scenario. >>
Okay ... I'll bite. Take a $1 note, wash it, and print a "fantasy" $1 note with a never used series date. Ask the Secret Service if they have a problem with it. Remember ... you only get one phone call.
Rearrange the ink particles? That's a knee-slapper! Are you seriously defending any "legality" of your fantasy coins using a "rearranging the metal particles" argument? When will you start to use a deflection in the spaced-time continuum as a rationale? >>
Your newly-revised analogy is still off the mark. Take a $1 bill (without removing any of the original ink) and print something over it. It still looks like a $1 bill, but with some different information on it. That is like what I do. I don't first remove the original coin design ("ink"). I stamp ("print") right over what is there.
<< <i>I wonder if the Secret Service would have an issue with our hero washing $1 notes and using the "blanks" to printing some "fantasy" $100 notes with, say, series 1933 or some other series date never produced by the BEP? What could the Secret Service complain about? It's not like there were ever any "real" notes from that series. As long as they were sold with a nice flip explaining the difference, there is no way anybody would be fooled into thinking they were "real." And most importantly ... the fantasy notes could not be considered counterfeits because no real notes of that date were ever produced! Yeah, I don't think the Secret Service would mind at all ... >>
Why in your hypothetical scenario do you have to increse the face value from $1 to $100 ? To make it sound worse ? Take a series 1935 silver certificate. Rearrange the ink particles on it so it looks like a series date that was never issued. It still has an apparent $1 face value. No additional apparent legal tender was created, unlike in your inapplicable scenario. >>
Okay ... I'll bite. Take a $1 note, wash it, and print a "fantasy" $1 note with a never used series date. Ask the Secret Service if they have a problem with it. Remember ... you only get one phone call.
Rearrange the ink particles? That's a knee-slapper! Are you seriously defending any "legality" of your fantasy coins using a "rearranging the metal particles" argument? When will you start to use a deflection in the spaced-time continuum as a rationale? >>
Your newly-revised analogy is still off the mark. Take a $1 bill (without removing any of the original ink) and print something over it. It still looks like a $1 bill, but with some different information on it. That is like what I do. I don't first remove the original coin design ("ink"). I stamp ("print") right over what is there. >>
You sir are grasping at straws but I'll play along and point out the obvious that by striking at pressure the old coin you are obliterating 98% of the previous detail and thus washing the planchet of the earlier detail mush like the dollar bill comparison. The only real reason you use the same type coin is it makes your life easier, obscures the 2% remaining detail under like design, has a correct planchet for weight and size all while allowing you to mind bang your customers into thinking you are more legitimate then you really are.
<< <i>You sir are grasping at straws but I'll play along and point out the obvious that by striking at pressure the old coin you are obliterating 98% of the previous detail and thus washing the planchet of the earlier detail mush like the dollar bill comparison. The only real reason you use the same type coin is it makes your life easier, obscures the 2% remaining detail under like design, has a correct planchet for weight and size all while allowing you to mind bang your customers into thinking you are more legitimate then you really are. >>
Your "washing" analogy is that the original ink is actually removed from the bills. But I don't remove any metal from the coins. So I don't think the paper-money vs. coins comparison really works or applies. What I do is more like a "Hobo" nickel carving (except that I'm not removing any metal).
From a purely technical production point of view, it is far more difficult to over-strike on an existing coin than to strike on a plain blank planchet. So I certainly DON'T do it that way to make it "easier".
The basic facts are: I don't add or remove any metal; I don't heat or melt them; I don't change the face value; and I don't impart dates that already exist for that type.
There are a ton of $20 "Rolex" watches being offered for sale on the streets of NYC everyday. While the average thinking person understands what they are purchasing for $20, is what it is, the real problem arises 10 years later when that $20 "Rolex" is offered for sale for $1000 vs the $1300 the buyer thinks it might be worth not realizing exactly what it is.....or was. He might think he is just getting a decent deal on something that is not what he thinks it is. Can anyone see the problem with this ?
If this "Rolex" sale was done on EBAY wouldn't many posters here get all excited about REVEALING this sale here on these boards ?
NOT, on the analogy....His are all fantasy date combos and once again, and this has been hammered to death, are struck on ORIGINAL pieces - how does that analogy work????
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
There are a ton of $20 "Rolex" watches being offered for sale on the streets of NYC everyday. While the average thinking person understands what they are purchasing for $20, is what it is, the real problem arises 10 years later when that $20 "Rolex" is offered for sale for $1000 vs the $1300 the buyer thinks it might be worth not realizing exactly what it is.....or was. He might think he is just getting a decent deal on something that is not what he thinks it is. Can anyone see the problem with this ?
If this "Rolex" sale was done on EBAY wouldn't many posters here get all excited about REVEALING this sale here on these boards ? >>
A more fitting scenario is this: Suppose you take a genuine Rolex watch, modify some feature of it to be obviously unlike other Rolex watches, then sell it as a special private edition. Nobody can predict future values for something. But it would be a fallacy to automatically assume that the future value of this privately-modified Rolex watch is going to be less than other Rolex watches.
<< <i>Paging mudskippie........................clean up on page 1. MJ >>
lol, this one is not bad: >>
Indeed! As I have said, I like his original work.
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 wonder if the Secret Service would have an issue with our hero washing $1 notes and using the "blanks" to printing some "fantasy" $100 notes with, say, series 1933 or some other series date never produced by the BEP? What could the Secret Service complain about? It's not like there were ever any "real" notes from that series. As long as they were sold with a nice flip explaining the difference, there is no way anybody would be fooled into thinking they were "real." And most importantly ... the fantasy notes could not be considered counterfeits because no real notes of that date were ever produced! Yeah, I don't think the Secret Service would mind at all ... >>
Why in your hypothetical scenario do you have to increse the face value from $1 to $100 ? To make it sound worse ? Take a series 1935 silver certificate. Rearrange the ink particles on it so it looks like a series date that was never issued. It still has an apparent $1 face value. No additional apparent legal tender was created, unlike in your inapplicable scenario. >>
Okay ... I'll bite. Take a $1 note, wash it, and print a "fantasy" $1 note with a never used series date. Ask the Secret Service if they have a problem with it. Remember ... you only get one phone call.
Rearrange the ink particles? That's a knee-slapper! Are you seriously defending any "legality" of your fantasy coins using a "rearranging the metal particles" argument? When will you start to use a deflection in the spaced-time continuum as a rationale? >>
Your newly-revised analogy is still off the mark. Take a $1 bill (without removing any of the original ink) and print something over it. It still looks like a $1 bill, but with some different information on it. That is like what I do. I don't first remove the original coin design ("ink"). I stamp ("print") right over what is there. >>
You sir are grasping at straws but I'll play along and point out the obvious that by striking at pressure the old coin you are obliterating 98% of the previous detail and thus washing the planchet of the earlier detail mush like the dollar bill comparison. The only real reason you use the same type coin is it makes your life easier, obscures the 2% remaining detail under like design, has a correct planchet for weight and size all while allowing you to mind bang your customers into thinking you are more legitimate then you really are. >>
Thats some straw!
Wash all the ink off a Federal Reserve note and all you have is a piece of paper.
Obliterate the design of a 90% Silver Dollar and you still have a 90% Silver dollar that can be spent for a buck. Some are even collectible but ALL are sellable at better than face value.
I'm kinda glad that Dan doesn't start producing "blanks". Have you priced blank Eisenher Clad Planchets?
Yeah, I know. Apples and oranges.............................but together they make a wonderful fruit salad!
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.
So, those who trust (and used to work for) ANACS have no response as to why that professional and highly regarded/trusted has graded and will continue to grade these creations yet refuse to grade counterfeit coins?
Is ANACS along with the seasoned numismatists who work and support this decades old organization all simply wrong and you are right?
You guys can really get going when Dan Carr is the topic. Is it possible that the axes undergoing the grinding process are sharp enough?
Captain Henway questioned the "token" designation being given to Mr. Carr's creations. Given that the general definition of a token is a privately issued item with some type of denomination (Hard Times, Civil War, etc.), how do these not qualify?
I collect Machin's Mills pieces, usually when I can cherry pick one. Anyone want to go after those? They are absolutely counterfeits by any definition. Think I can expect a visit from the Secret Service? (I know, they are counterfeits of non-U.S. coins -- don't get picky.)
I have met Mr. Carr, and in my opinion he does not deserve the abuse repeatedly heaped upon him. I would gladly testify on his behalf IF it was ever necessary.
<< <i>I have met Mr. Carr, and in my opinion he does not deserve the abuse repeatedly heaped upon him. I would gladly testify on his behalf IF it was ever necessary. >>
I'm sure Mr. Carr is a nice guy. Thing is- if somebody in China was making exactly the same things as he is, there wouldn't be near the support for it here. Why do you suppose that is?
<< <i>I have met Mr. Carr, and in my opinion he does not deserve the abuse repeatedly heaped upon him. I would gladly testify on his behalf IF it was ever necessary. >>
I'm sure Mr. Carr is a nice guy. Thing is- if somebody in China was making exactly the same things as he is, there wouldn't be near the support for it here. Why do you suppose that is? >>
For the same reason South American soccer isn't nearly as watched and followed here as American football? We're loyal to our home team.
Is it possible to discuss the issues without getting personal? I think we all know who feels what about these items including me - there is no need I can divine to bash anyone over the head or use unkind language as on previous pages - regardless of where you fall on the spectrum of positions.
<< <i>For the same reason South American soccer isn't nearly as watched and followed here as American football? We're loyal to our home team. >>
So- even though the item is identical, it makes a difference who actually produces it? Okay- got it!
<< <i>Hmmmm. Does this also apply to dipping the haze off of a coin?? >>
Depends on the definition of "altering a genuine coin", I'd think. >>
The items are not identical. Why do you insist on that when it simply isn't true?
What the Chinese mass produce/counterfeit (and ANACS will not slab) are as different from what D. Carr creates (and ANACS will slab) so as to be laughable. To suggest otherwise is equally as so.
<< <i>The items are not identical. Why do you insist on that when it simply isn't true? >>
I didn't insist that. I said:
Thing is- if somebody in China was making exactly the same things as he is, there wouldn't be near the support for it here. Why do you suppose that is?
I would define "exactly the same things" as "identical". What about you?
<< <i>The items are not identical. Why do you insist on that when it simply isn't true? >>
I didn't insist that. I said:
Thing is- if somebody in China was making exactly the same things as he is, there wouldn't be near the support for it here. Why do you suppose that is?
I would define "exactly the same things" as "identical". What about you? >>
I am reminded of a long-ago ex-boss who, when it was pointed out to them why something they had just said was wrong, would say the exact same wrong thing again, LOUDER, as though that would make it right.
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.
But back to the INTERESTING parts of this discussion, love that Mint anniversary medal and wish I had one. My favorite fantasy strikes so far are (in order): * 1861 CSA $20 gold * 1964 Peace dollar * Oregon trail
I'm also a fan of many of the Ameros and Hard Times tokens. Like all artists, some of Dan's pieces come out better than others, but he delivers an outstanding product consistently. There are quite a few of his issues I missed out on, but would like to have...
<< <i>I am reminded of a long-ago ex-boss who, when it was pointed out to them why something they had just said was wrong, would say the exact same wrong thing again, LOUDER, as though that would make it right. >>
Is that your same ex-boss over at ANACS? You know, the one that will absolutely not grade and holder counterfeit coins yet will and do slab D. Carr creations (the ones you refer to as, "counterfeit")?
<< <i>I am reminded of a long-ago ex-boss who, when it was pointed out to them why something they had just said was wrong, would say the exact same wrong thing again, LOUDER, as though that would make it right. >>
Is that your same ex-boss over at ANACS? You know, the one that will absolutely not grade and holder counterfeit coins yet will and do slab D. Carr creations (the ones you refer to as, "counterfeit")? >>
Thank you for illustrating my point, but no, it was not at the ANA.
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 love it! Here comes the parade of nonsense and cliches. The song of the desperate, without logic or reason. All we need is a Nazi or Hitler reference and we could put this thread to bed (just adding to the trite cliche offered in this thread already).
You certainly seem to be playing the role of a most-desperate apologist, braddick. All I can tell you is my opinion: I'd sooner side with Capt. Henway's take any day, vs. the position you seem to have taken. And as for Mr. Carr's "fantasy" pieces, I sure as hell am glad they aren't my product -- I have an aversion to having to constantly look over my legality shoulder, which (again, in my own opinion) he would be most wise to do.
Just read the whole thread and amazingly enough not one new point was made on the subject and probably not one mind changed. Same as it ever was.
Well until the next Fantasy piece is issued please drive safely and be sure to tip your waitresses and waiters. See you at the reunuion.
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......
"Anyone who alters a genuine coin to increase its numismatic value is in violation of Title 18, Section 331 of the United States Code..."
Do these overstrikes increase the numismatic value of the coins used?
>>
The Secret Service website has apparently left out the key aspect of this statute. What counts is the actual United States Code Title 18 Section 331, not what the Secret Service website says.
Here is the actual text of this statute, as posted on the US Mint web site (note the Mint's emphasis on the word "fradulently"): (Text as of 2/19/02) 18 U.S.C. §331:
So there must be fradulent intent for this statute to apply.
Comments
<< <i>The Chinese do not take an authentic Flowing Hair dollar and mint over it into a fantasy FH dollar.
Nor do the Chinese do so with any authentic U.S. struck coin.
No, instead the Chinese take blank planchets and, if you're lucky the planchet is close to correct fineness, strike- using a counterfeit die of the impression of a genuine coin, to be sold and passed at a profit.
Daniel Carr does none of this.
You know how I know?
Because I've read his website as he describes exactly how he mints his creations and have seen and owned his coins. I have viewed for myself first hand and see the host coin is a real coin. Secondly, the U.S. Secret Service refuses to act as there is no crime that is being committed.
Now, for those that don't like his fantasy tokens, I completely understand.
I don't particularly like mid-grade bust half dimes and you know what I do about that? I don't collect them. I also don't scream for the rooftops no one should collect them.
Don't like a TV show? Change the channel.
Don't like C. Carr's offerings? Don't purchase them.
Don't like McDonald's cheeseburgers? Don't eat them.
And on and on... and on. . . >>
Another applause from me!
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>Wouldn't it be neat if Dan produced a trillion dollar fantasy coin? Of course some here would claim it's a counterfeit even when there is no real counterpart. >>
Do you really think that his detractors are so irrational that they can not tell the difference between a fictional interpretation of a alleged political ploy and a coin that looks EXACTLY like something one could receive in change save for one digit in the date (a detail most don't even pay attention to save for coin nerds).
If I walk into a store and spend a 1963 Kennedy it would most assuredly be accepted for 50c, am I committing a crime? Before you bandwagon folks say for sure think about this, If I take a 1 dollar bill and wash it to remove the print and reprint it a 3 dollar bill and spend it, I am committing a class 1 felony with lots of prostitution precedence behind it. >>
>>> I am committing a class 1 felony with lots of prostitution precedence behind it.
If you're picking up a $3 hooker, I suppose you'll get what you pay for.
Your hypothetical scenario is not a good analogy. In it, you are increasing the face value of the note to a factor of three. Creating an additional apparent $2 of legal tender would not go over well with the Fed(s).
A more-accurate analogy would be to somehow rearrange the existing ink on the bill so that the series date reads as a date that was never issued. This being done WITHOUT INCREASING the face falue. No additional apparent legal tender has been created. It looks like $1 before, and $1 after.
While we know there were no Kennedy's minted in 63 I would bet that most of the fans of this stuff have relatives in their close family that do not know this. Now imagine the general population as a whole.
Out of respect for us collectors, DC should include this in these fantasy pieces. Would any of the folks here who actually buy this stuff not buy it if they contained the word "replica" ? Would everyone here stating how they can not go without this fantasy piece in their collection not like them any longer if that word were stamped on these ? And if they answer they would no longer buy them then why not?
DC could easily do this but chooses not to.
OK his choice.
Eric
<< <i>It has been reported that Henning ended up spending approximately seven cents each for every nickel he counterfeited. However, the fact that he lost money on the deal was not enough to protect him from prosecution. >>
Of course, Henning took scrap metal which had no legal tender status and made apparent 5-cent legal tender instruments out of it.
That is a lot different situation than starting with an actual legal-tender 5-cent coin and carving a different design into it (like a "hobo" nickel).
ANACS, one of the oldest and respected grading firm refuses to grade counterfeits. Seriously. If you don't believe me, check out their website where ANACS expressly states they will not, under any circumstance grade a counterfeit coin.
Once you agree that is a true statement, please continue with my post. (If you disagree, please take the time to research my claim before proceeding.)
Ok, with that fact established, ANACS has, does and will grade/authenticate/slab D. Carr's creations.
Here is an example:
LINK to a coin ANACS has designated with a grade; has authenticated, and has subsequently slabbed as genuine.
(Interestingly, one of our members here on these forums used to grade for ANACS and continues now to call these tokens counterfeits.)
peacockcoins
<< <i>I wonder if the Secret Service would have an issue with our hero washing $1 notes and using the "blanks" to printing some "fantasy" $100 notes with, say, series 1933 or some other series date never produced by the BEP? What could the Secret Service complain about? It's not like there were ever any "real" notes from that series. As long as they were sold with a nice flip explaining the difference, there is no way anybody would be fooled into thinking they were "real." And most importantly ... the fantasy notes could not be considered counterfeits because no real notes of that date were ever produced! Yeah, I don't think the Secret Service would mind at all ...
Why in your hypothetical scenario do you have to increse the face value from $1 to $100 ? To make it sound worse ?
Take a series 1935 silver certificate. Rearrange the ink particles on it so it looks like a series date that was never issued. It still has an apparent $1 face value. No additional apparent legal tender was created, unlike in your inapplicable scenario.
<< <i>The Chinese do not take an authentic Flowing Hair dollar and mint over it into a fantasy FH dollar.
Nor do the Chinese do so with any authentic U.S. struck coin.
No, instead the Chinese take blank planchets and, if you're lucky the planchet is close to correct fineness, strike- using a counterfeit die of the impression of a genuine coin, to be sold and passed at a profit.
Daniel Carr does none of this.
You know how I know?
Because I've read his website as he describes exactly how he mints his creations and have seen and owned his coins. I have viewed for myself first hand and see the host coin is a real coin. Secondly, the U.S. Secret Service refuses to act as there is no crime that is being committed.
Now, for those that don't like his fantasy tokens, I completely understand.
I don't particularly like mid-grade bust half dimes and you know what I do about that? I don't collect them. I also don't scream for the rooftops no one should collect them.
Don't like a TV show? Change the channel.
Don't like C. Carr's offerings? Don't purchase them.
Don't like McDonald's cheeseburgers? Don't eat them.
And on and on... and on. . . >>
If it is a copy of an American designed and made issue it should be stamped as a copy. It doesn't matter that he started with a real coin and making one small deviation of a real design element doesn't make it a different coin. You think that making a one off date is ok but why stop there? What if he added an overdate error like a 1965/4 Kennedy half or a 1973 silver half? or a 1989 close AM penny or something minor like that. Could he still offer them as Fantasy coins? And on and on... and on. . .
Also you got on me when I offered an opinion about his motives so I would ask you not to put words into the Secret Services mouth. Just because they havent arrested him yet doesn't mean he isn't breaking the law. It could also mean he they view him as a small time fraud that they don't have the man power to go after because he is only hurting obsolete collector currency. They don't have the track record of protecting collectors as they do banks and I think my opinion is the more likely of the two.
What about taking real US paper stock and printing 10$ bills with fantasy dates? How about fantasy serial numbers?
Typical artists come up with their own designs which he has done in the past, he just didn't make as much money until he started copying other people designs. Even his fans must admit that he is simply copying a known design and changing one little detail and calling it new. My question to you braddick
If you admit that his die is a copy of a established design why is the product of the copied die not a copy its self?
<< <i>If it is a copy of an American designed and made issue it should be stamped as a copy. It doesn't matter that he started with a real coin and making one small deviation of a real design element doesn't make it a different coin. You think that making a one off date is ok but why stop there? What if he added an overdate error like a 1965/4 Kennedy half or a 1973 silver half? or a 1989 close AM penny or something minor like that. Could he still offer them as Fantasy coins?
Also you got on me when I offered an opinion about his motives so I would ask you not to put words into the Secret Services mouth. Just because they havent arrested him yet doesn't mean he isn't breaking the law. It could also mean he they view him as a small time fraud that they don't have the man power to go after because he is only hurting obsolete collector currency. They don't have the track record of protecting collectors as they do banks and I think my opinion is the more likely of the two.
What about taking real US paper stock and printing 10$ bills with fantasy dates? How about fantasy serial numbers?
Typical artists come up with their own designs which he has done in the past, he just didn't make as much money until he started copying other people designs. Even his fans must admit that he is simply copying a known design and changing one little detail and calling it new. My question to you braddick
If you admit that his die is a copy of a established design why is the product of the copied die not a copy its self? >>
Is a genuine 1964 Kennedy half dollar that has an altered date of "1963" a copy of anything ? No. It is a modified 1964 Kennedy Half Dollar. And no "1963" Kennedy half dollars were ever originally issued.
>>> What about taking real US paper stock and printing 10$ bills with fantasy dates? How about fantasy serial numbers?
This analogy doesn't apply. A more applicable analogy would be to take genuine $10 bills and over-print them with some other information, but they still appear to be $10 bills (no new apparent legal tender was created).
>>> Typical artists come up with their own designs which he has done in the past, he just didn't make as much money until he started copying other people designs.
One of Andy Warhol's most famous (and valuable) works of "art" is his painting of a Campbell's soup can label.
<< <i>On a related side note:
ANACS, one of the oldest and respected grading firm refuses to grade counterfeits. Seriously. If you don't believe me, check out their website where ANACS expressly states they will not, under any circumstance grade a counterfeit coin.
Once you agree that is a true statement, please continue with my post. (If you disagree, please take the time to research my claim before proceeding.)
Ok, with that fact established, ANACS has, does and will grade/authenticate/slab D. Carr's creations.
Here is an example:
LINK to a coin ANACS has designated with a grade; has authenticated, and has subsequently slabbed as genuine.
(Interestingly, one of our members here on these forums used to grade for ANACS and continues now to call these tokens counterfeits.) >>
"tokens"?
<< <i>
<< <i>I wonder if the Secret Service would have an issue with our hero washing $1 notes and using the "blanks" to printing some "fantasy" $100 notes with, say, series 1933 or some other series date never produced by the BEP? What could the Secret Service complain about? It's not like there were ever any "real" notes from that series. As long as they were sold with a nice flip explaining the difference, there is no way anybody would be fooled into thinking they were "real." And most importantly ... the fantasy notes could not be considered counterfeits because no real notes of that date were ever produced! Yeah, I don't think the Secret Service would mind at all ...
Why in your hypothetical scenario do you have to increse the face value from $1 to $100 ? To make it sound worse ?
Take a series 1935 silver certificate. Rearrange the ink particles on it so it looks like a series date that was never issued. It still has an apparent $1 face value. No additional apparent legal tender was created, unlike in your inapplicable scenario. >>
Okay ... I'll bite. Take a $1 note, wash it, and print a "fantasy" $1 note with a never used series date. Ask the Secret Service if they have a problem with it. Remember ... you only get one phone call.
Rearrange the ink particles? That's a knee-slapper! Are you seriously defending any "legality" of your fantasy coins using a "rearranging the metal particles" argument? When will you start to use a deflection in the spaced-time continuum as a rationale?
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
There was and is a whole concept behind that silkscreen of a can and the other like images by O. Warhola; altering/expanding the perception of what constitutes "art" as opposed to "commercial art" and the repercussions of authorship etc. And profit. Elmyr had another take on this sort of thing. Andy was sent a case of soup by the company; later they bought his works as well. Copyright in 1963/64 seems to have been less a concern in some areas.
Eric
<< <i>All I can think is "Why?" >>
I think we could hazard a guess.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I wonder if the Secret Service would have an issue with our hero washing $1 notes and using the "blanks" to printing some "fantasy" $100 notes with, say, series 1933 or some other series date never produced by the BEP? What could the Secret Service complain about? It's not like there were ever any "real" notes from that series. As long as they were sold with a nice flip explaining the difference, there is no way anybody would be fooled into thinking they were "real." And most importantly ... the fantasy notes could not be considered counterfeits because no real notes of that date were ever produced! Yeah, I don't think the Secret Service would mind at all ...
Why in your hypothetical scenario do you have to increse the face value from $1 to $100 ? To make it sound worse ?
Take a series 1935 silver certificate. Rearrange the ink particles on it so it looks like a series date that was never issued. It still has an apparent $1 face value. No additional apparent legal tender was created, unlike in your inapplicable scenario. >>
Okay ... I'll bite. Take a $1 note, wash it, and print a "fantasy" $1 note with a never used series date. Ask the Secret Service if they have a problem with it. Remember ... you only get one phone call.
Rearrange the ink particles? That's a knee-slapper! Are you seriously defending any "legality" of your fantasy coins using a "rearranging the metal particles" argument? When will you start to use a deflection in the spaced-time continuum as a rationale? >>
Your newly-revised analogy is still off the mark. Take a $1 bill (without removing any of the original ink) and print something over it. It still looks like a $1 bill, but with some different information on it. That is like what I do. I don't first remove the original coin design ("ink"). I stamp ("print") right over what is there.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I wonder if the Secret Service would have an issue with our hero washing $1 notes and using the "blanks" to printing some "fantasy" $100 notes with, say, series 1933 or some other series date never produced by the BEP? What could the Secret Service complain about? It's not like there were ever any "real" notes from that series. As long as they were sold with a nice flip explaining the difference, there is no way anybody would be fooled into thinking they were "real." And most importantly ... the fantasy notes could not be considered counterfeits because no real notes of that date were ever produced! Yeah, I don't think the Secret Service would mind at all ...
Why in your hypothetical scenario do you have to increse the face value from $1 to $100 ? To make it sound worse ?
Take a series 1935 silver certificate. Rearrange the ink particles on it so it looks like a series date that was never issued. It still has an apparent $1 face value. No additional apparent legal tender was created, unlike in your inapplicable scenario. >>
Okay ... I'll bite. Take a $1 note, wash it, and print a "fantasy" $1 note with a never used series date. Ask the Secret Service if they have a problem with it. Remember ... you only get one phone call.
Rearrange the ink particles? That's a knee-slapper! Are you seriously defending any "legality" of your fantasy coins using a "rearranging the metal particles" argument? When will you start to use a deflection in the spaced-time continuum as a rationale? >>
Your newly-revised analogy is still off the mark. Take a $1 bill (without removing any of the original ink) and print something over it. It still looks like a $1 bill, but with some different information on it. That is like what I do. I don't first remove the original coin design ("ink"). I stamp ("print") right over what is there. >>
You sir are grasping at straws but I'll play along and point out the obvious that by striking at pressure the old coin you are obliterating 98% of the previous detail and thus washing the planchet of the earlier detail mush like the dollar bill comparison. The only real reason you use the same type coin is it makes your life easier, obscures the 2% remaining detail under like design, has a correct planchet for weight and size all while allowing you to mind bang your customers into thinking you are more legitimate then you really are.
When can we expect the trillion dollar modern hard times token?
Thanks,
<< <i>You sir are grasping at straws but I'll play along and point out the obvious that by striking at pressure the old coin you are obliterating 98% of the previous detail and thus washing the planchet of the earlier detail mush like the dollar bill comparison. The only real reason you use the same type coin is it makes your life easier, obscures the 2% remaining detail under like design, has a correct planchet for weight and size all while allowing you to mind bang your customers into thinking you are more legitimate then you really are. >>
Your "washing" analogy is that the original ink is actually removed from the bills. But I don't remove any metal from the coins. So I don't think the paper-money vs. coins comparison really works or applies. What I do is more like a "Hobo" nickel carving (except that I'm not removing any metal).
From a purely technical production point of view, it is far more difficult to over-strike on an existing coin than to strike on a plain blank planchet.
So I certainly DON'T do it that way to make it "easier".
The basic facts are: I don't add or remove any metal; I don't heat or melt them; I don't change the face value; and I don't impart dates that already exist for that type.
<< <i>Dan,
When can we expect the trillion dollar modern hard times token?
Thanks, >>
Maybe three or four weeks.
There are a ton of $20 "Rolex" watches being offered for sale on the streets of NYC everyday.
While the average thinking person understands what they are purchasing for $20, is what it is, the
real problem arises 10 years later when that $20 "Rolex" is offered for sale for $1000 vs the $1300 the
buyer thinks it might be worth not realizing exactly what it is.....or was. He might think he is just getting a decent deal on something
that is not what he thinks it is. Can anyone see the problem with this ?
If this "Rolex" sale was done on EBAY wouldn't many posters here get all excited about REVEALING this sale here on these boards ?
Well, just Love coins, period.
<< <i>A simple analogy comes to mind.
There are a ton of $20 "Rolex" watches being offered for sale on the streets of NYC everyday.
While the average thinking person understands what they are purchasing for $20, is what it is, the
real problem arises 10 years later when that $20 "Rolex" is offered for sale for $1000 vs the $1300 the
buyer thinks it might be worth not realizing exactly what it is.....or was. He might think he is just getting a decent deal on something
that is not what he thinks it is. Can anyone see the problem with this ?
If this "Rolex" sale was done on EBAY wouldn't many posters here get all excited about REVEALING this sale here on these boards ? >>
A more fitting scenario is this:
Suppose you take a genuine Rolex watch, modify some feature of it to be obviously unlike other Rolex watches, then sell it as a special private edition. Nobody can predict future values for something. But it would be a fallacy to automatically assume that the future value of this privately-modified Rolex watch is going to be less than other Rolex watches.
<< <i>Paging mudskippie........................clean up on page 1. MJ >>
lol, this one is not bad:
<< <i>
<< <i>Paging mudskippie........................clean up on page 1. MJ >>
lol, this one is not bad:
Indeed! As I have said, I like his original work.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Paging mudskippie........................clean up on page 1. MJ >>
lol, this one is not bad:
Indeed! As I have said, I like his original work. >>
I broke down and bought an LSCC medal, I too like the talent just not the ethics.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I wonder if the Secret Service would have an issue with our hero washing $1 notes and using the "blanks" to printing some "fantasy" $100 notes with, say, series 1933 or some other series date never produced by the BEP? What could the Secret Service complain about? It's not like there were ever any "real" notes from that series. As long as they were sold with a nice flip explaining the difference, there is no way anybody would be fooled into thinking they were "real." And most importantly ... the fantasy notes could not be considered counterfeits because no real notes of that date were ever produced! Yeah, I don't think the Secret Service would mind at all ...
Why in your hypothetical scenario do you have to increse the face value from $1 to $100 ? To make it sound worse ?
Take a series 1935 silver certificate. Rearrange the ink particles on it so it looks like a series date that was never issued. It still has an apparent $1 face value. No additional apparent legal tender was created, unlike in your inapplicable scenario. >>
Okay ... I'll bite. Take a $1 note, wash it, and print a "fantasy" $1 note with a never used series date. Ask the Secret Service if they have a problem with it. Remember ... you only get one phone call.
Rearrange the ink particles? That's a knee-slapper! Are you seriously defending any "legality" of your fantasy coins using a "rearranging the metal particles" argument? When will you start to use a deflection in the spaced-time continuum as a rationale? >>
Your newly-revised analogy is still off the mark. Take a $1 bill (without removing any of the original ink) and print something over it. It still looks like a $1 bill, but with some different information on it. That is like what I do. I don't first remove the original coin design ("ink"). I stamp ("print") right over what is there. >>
You sir are grasping at straws but I'll play along and point out the obvious that by striking at pressure the old coin you are obliterating 98% of the previous detail and thus washing the planchet of the earlier detail mush like the dollar bill comparison. The only real reason you use the same type coin is it makes your life easier, obscures the 2% remaining detail under like design, has a correct planchet for weight and size all while allowing you to mind bang your customers into thinking you are more legitimate then you really are. >>
Thats some straw!
Wash all the ink off a Federal Reserve note and all you have is a piece of paper.
Obliterate the design of a 90% Silver Dollar and you still have a 90% Silver dollar that can be spent for a buck. Some are even collectible but ALL are sellable at better than face value.
I'm kinda glad that Dan doesn't start producing "blanks". Have you priced blank Eisenher Clad Planchets?
Yeah, I know. Apples and oranges.............................but together they make a wonderful fruit salad!
The name is LEE!
"Anyone who alters a genuine coin to increase its numismatic value is in violation of Title 18, Section 331 of the United States Code..."
Do these overstrikes increase the numismatic value of the coins used?
counterfeit coins?
Is ANACS along with the seasoned numismatists who work and support this decades old organization all simply wrong and you are right?
peacockcoins
process are sharp enough?
Captain Henway questioned the "token" designation being given to Mr. Carr's creations. Given that the general
definition of a token is a privately issued item with some type of denomination (Hard Times, Civil War, etc.), how
do these not qualify?
I collect Machin's Mills pieces, usually when I can cherry pick one. Anyone want to go after those? They are
absolutely counterfeits by any definition. Think I can expect a visit from the Secret Service? (I know, they are
counterfeits of non-U.S. coins -- don't get picky.)
I have met Mr. Carr, and in my opinion he does not deserve the abuse repeatedly heaped upon him. I would
gladly testify on his behalf IF it was ever necessary.
<< <i>I have met Mr. Carr, and in my opinion he does not deserve the abuse repeatedly heaped upon him. I would gladly testify on his behalf IF it was ever necessary. >>
I'm sure Mr. Carr is a nice guy. Thing is- if somebody in China was making exactly the same things as he is, there wouldn't be near the support for it here. Why do you suppose that is?
<< <i>
<< <i>I have met Mr. Carr, and in my opinion he does not deserve the abuse repeatedly heaped upon him. I would gladly testify on his behalf IF it was ever necessary. >>
I'm sure Mr. Carr is a nice guy. Thing is- if somebody in China was making exactly the same things as he is, there wouldn't be near the support for it here. Why do you suppose that is? >>
For the same reason South American soccer isn't nearly as watched and followed here as American football?
We're loyal to our home team.
peacockcoins
Best wishes,
Eric
<< <i>The Secret Service website says:
"Anyone who alters a genuine coin to increase its numismatic value is in violation of Title 18, Section 331 of the United States Code..."
Do these overstrikes increase the numismatic value of the coins used?
Hmmmm. Does this also apply to dipping the haze off of a coin??
The name is LEE!
<< <i>For the same reason South American soccer isn't nearly as watched and followed here as American football?
We're loyal to our home team. >>
So- even though the item is identical, it makes a difference who actually produces it? Okay- got it!
<< <i>Hmmmm. Does this also apply to dipping the haze off of a coin?? >>
Depends on the definition of "altering a genuine coin", I'd think.
<< <i>
<< <i>For the same reason South American soccer isn't nearly as watched and followed here as American football?
We're loyal to our home team. >>
So- even though the item is identical, it makes a difference who actually produces it? Okay- got it!
<< <i>Hmmmm. Does this also apply to dipping the haze off of a coin?? >>
Depends on the definition of "altering a genuine coin", I'd think. >>
The items are not identical.
Why do you insist on that when it simply isn't true?
What the Chinese mass produce/counterfeit (and ANACS will not slab) are as different from what D. Carr creates (and ANACS will slab) so as to be laughable.
To suggest otherwise is equally as so.
peacockcoins
<< <i>The items are not identical.
Why do you insist on that when it simply isn't true? >>
I didn't insist that. I said:
Thing is- if somebody in China was making exactly the same things as he is, there wouldn't be near the support for it here. Why do you suppose that is?
I would define "exactly the same things" as "identical". What about you?
<< <i>
<< <i>The items are not identical.
Why do you insist on that when it simply isn't true? >>
I didn't insist that. I said:
Thing is- if somebody in China was making exactly the same things as he is, there wouldn't be near the support for it here. Why do you suppose that is?
I would define "exactly the same things" as "identical". What about you? >>
You sir are bringing logic to a whine fight.
Well, just Love coins, period.
* 1861 CSA $20 gold
* 1964 Peace dollar
* Oregon trail
I'm also a fan of many of the Ameros and Hard Times tokens. Like all artists, some of Dan's pieces come out better than others, but he delivers an outstanding product consistently. There are quite a few of his issues I missed out on, but would like to have...
<< <i>I am reminded of a long-ago ex-boss who, when it was pointed out to them why something they had just said was wrong, would say the exact same wrong thing again, LOUDER, as though that would make it right. >>
Is that your same ex-boss over at ANACS?
You know, the one that will absolutely not grade and holder counterfeit coins yet will and do slab D. Carr creations (the ones you refer to as, "counterfeit")?
peacockcoins
<< <i>
<< <i>I am reminded of a long-ago ex-boss who, when it was pointed out to them why something they had just said was wrong, would say the exact same wrong thing again, LOUDER, as though that would make it right. >>
Is that your same ex-boss over at ANACS?
You know, the one that will absolutely not grade and holder counterfeit coins yet will and do slab D. Carr creations (the ones you refer to as, "counterfeit")? >>
Thank you for illustrating my point, but no, it was not at the ANA.
<< <i>Or a Haters convention.... >>
You mean the people who hate to hear any comments other than "Aren't they cool?" about Mr. Carr's products?
Here comes the parade of nonsense and cliches. The song of the desperate, without logic or reason.
All we need is a Nazi or Hitler reference and we could put this thread to bed (just adding to the trite cliche offered in this thread already).
PCGS forum charades!
peacockcoins
Well until the next Fantasy piece is issued please drive safely and be sure to tip your waitresses and waiters. See you at the reunuion.
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>The Secret Service website says:
"Anyone who alters a genuine coin to increase its numismatic value is in violation of Title 18, Section 331 of the United States Code..."
Do these overstrikes increase the numismatic value of the coins used?
The Secret Service website has apparently left out the key aspect of this statute.
What counts is the actual United States Code Title 18 Section 331, not what the Secret Service website says.
Here is the actual text of this statute, as posted on the US Mint web site (note the Mint's emphasis on the word "fradulently"):
(Text as of 2/19/02) 18 U.S.C. §331:
So there must be fradulent intent for this statute to apply.