Now my boys each want a time machine well x-mass is approaching Lego is fantastic.
Hey this just made me think of something (I know amazing) Has the U.S. Mint ever sanctioned the production of tokens out side of the mint? I know old notes were but what about coinage? What about the coins by the Franklin Mint (ouch why did you slap me so hard)?
mr1874 says:<< It occurs to me that I would be alot more comfortable with pieces such as this 1933 Quarter being out there if there was a requirement to stamp a distinct mintmark on the piece where a mintmark would appear if the piece were an authentic US mint product. "DC" mintmark on the reverse right above "QUARTER DOLLAR" would work to clearly identify the item as a token and would also be great advertising for the maker. All such pieces,no matter who makes them,would need a distinct mintmark totally different from the mintmarks used by the mint. For example,simply using a "D" for "Dan" wouldn't comply with my new law because the Denver Mint uses this letter.I'm talking distinctly different and thinking a recall of the "1933 Quarter" would be in order once my law goes into effect.Leaving a mintmark off the "coin" is not an option,in other words. "CC" would even work for the "1933 Quarter" as distinctly different since everyone knows the last Carson City coins were struck in 1893. >>
dbldie55 says:If you are not smart enough to realize the US minted never made a 1933 quarter, you probably would not be smart enough to know the mint mark represents a mint that did not mint the 1933 quarter.
mr1874 says:So the "1933 Quarter" is for people who are smart enough to know that the US never minted a Quarter Dollar that bears the date 1933. Thanks for clearing this up for me.
Let's say a business decision is made to make 1808 Draped Bust Large Cents.The US mint never made one.Did you know that?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>my questions always seem to go unanswered but I'll ask another one anyway.....................to DC specifically this time.
several members have made reference to your "artistic" ability and the beauty of the products you produce, yet they are really no more than copies of another's work. after having worked as a Machinist/Tool and Die maker for close to 30 years I view you as "skilled" and assume that a person such as me, once acquainted with the machinery required to make the product you sell, could do the same quality work. however, I doubt I could ever produce an original work of art which might be viewed in the same manner as these copies. understanding your limited success of the past regarding US coin design and your other original work, why do you choose to focus on what amounts to plagiarism instead of moving forward to improve your artistic skill and focus your talent on original work??
from what I have seen I am left to infer that the "original" work finds no market to sell into, at least not a market that will sustain itself, while the "overstrike" market(at the PCGS forums) flourishes and carries an incentive to continue. it strikes me sort of like the Starving Artist type of pictures where a guy can't make anything that will hang in a gallery but can do all sorts of stuff that will hang over a living room couch. perhaps a bad analogy but one supported by the evidence at hand. >>
What constitutes "art" ? Art is not necessarily just the object itself. There can also be a performance aspect to it. The artist Boggs would draw accurate images of US currency and then try to convince someone to accept it at face value as a piece of art that he drew. That is performance art. Most or all of Boggs' Bills are worth more than face value as collectibles today.
>>> "why do you choose to focus on what amounts to plagiarism instead of moving forward to improve your artistic skill and focus your talent on original work"
It is not possible to "plagiarize" something that is public domain. The vast majority of US coin designs were created by sculptors who were paid by the government using taxpayer dollars, and so those designs are public domain by law. There are a few exceptions where a US coin design is copyrighted, but those are limited to a few modern commemoratives and the Sacagawea Dollar obverse. None of the designs that I have over-struck were copyrighted.
I've said this before, but I will reiterate: I am not the one who focuses on the over-strikes. It is everyone else, such as yourself. So far this year, the over-struck items that I have made are: "1963" Kennedy Half Dollar "1975" Kennedy Half Dollar "1933" Washington Quarter "1975" Washington Quarter. So that makes two basic designs. Non over-struck items that I have produced so far this year are:
<< <i>Let's say a business decision is made to make 1808 Draped Bust Large Cents.The US mint never made one.Did you know that? >>
If I didn't know off the top of my head that "1808" Draped Bust Large Cents were not minted, I would at least look up the value of such a coin in the Red Book before buying it. At which point, of course, I would discover that none are listed - which would warrant further research before laying out any money.
<< <i>Yes, however, there are more connotations to "ignorant" than just "uninformed". I feel that, given how many people have defended these counterfeit/fantasy pieces, that they deem anyone not into the hobby who purchases them, and maybe doesn't due enough work to try to hunt down info, as ignorant in the sense of being stupid or willfully uninformed to the point of deserving to be ripped off. >>
Absolutely! Nobody deserves to be "ripped off".
However, those folks that do not bother to actually "investigate" what they are about to pour money into, come pretty close.
I'm not saying they "deserve it" but there's not much that can be done to head off an "ignorant" buyer that chooses to be "ignorant". We've all seen them and we all "feel" for their loss and will do everything we can to help them either understand what went wrong or recoup their costs.
BUT, there's always the truly "ignorant" individuals who embrace their ignorance.
For them, there simply is no hope.
ANYBODY with half of a functioning brain that buys something online or in some clandestine trade can easily do a Google or whatever search engine is used on Daniel Carr. The whole story is right there for all to read.
For that matter, given Daniel Carr's popularity, I don't see why he doesn't offer a buyback program at original issue price.
Say, there's an idea. I wonder if Dan has considered this?
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>Dan---Do these threads help your sales of these numismatic items? Just curious if there is an up-tick in orders when the CU Debating Society generates these long winded threads. >>
It does appear that there is an uptick in activity when discussions here are ongoing. >>
I treat these threads as press releases. Every time I see one I know it is time to check out Carr's website to see what the new offerings are.
<< <i>... For that matter, given Daniel Carr's popularity, I don't see why he doesn't offer a buyback program at original issue price. Say, there's an idea. I wonder if Dan has considered this? >>
I have a policy where I will take in trade my past issues, and I will give credits (equivalent to the original issue prices) towards any current offerings I have (subject to availability). This applies to items that I sold, but not to items that were originally marketed by someone else.
On several occasions I have purchased my own items at coin shows for more than the original issue price. I recently bought back a Globalization Panda for $125 at a coin show because I had a customer that wanted one and I had sold out of them last year.
Apparently nobody likes my idea to put a distinct mintmark on products like the "1933 Quarter." I acknowledge that seeing "FAKE" or "COPY" on the piece would take away some of the fun of owning one of these for many.
Speaking of an extra empty hole at the end of the album or folder....
I recently bought three dime collections housed in Whitman Blue Folders.One of the Mercury dime books has an opening near the 1945 "P" opening for an extra coin.The other,newer Mercury dime folder doesn't.All three folders are copyright 1940.
The collector had designated the coin in there as a "1942 over 1941."Before buying this folder with the dimes in it I was sure to tell the owner that the coin in the extra hole is not a "42 over 41" despite the indications that it is.This folder dates to about 1947 since one of the other folders with coins in it that I bought is "ROOSEVELT DIME" No.9029.The last factory printed date in this book is "1947-D." The dates from then on are marked in pen below the opening for the coin.
Speaking of copyright,Mr. Carr,did you manage to obtain a copyright on your "1933 Quarter?"
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Speaking of copyright,Mr. Carr,did you manage to obtain a copyright on your "1933 Quarter?" >>
Specific date aside, the Washington Quarter design is public domain (not copyrighted).
Can a "1933 Quarter" be copyrighted ? I believe that if someone copied my exact version of the "1933" over-struck quarter, using exactly the same font style, font size, and font placement of the "1933" date, that could be a copyright violation. If they did their own version without directly copying mine, then I don't think that would be a copyright violation.
<< <i>Dan---Do these threads help your sales of these numismatic items? Just curious if there is an up-tick in orders when the CU Debating Society generates these long winded threads. >>
It does appear that there is an uptick in activity when discussions here are ongoing. >>
I should clarify that there is always an uptick in activity whenever I release new products. So it is hard to say how much of the increased activity comes from discussions here, and how much comes with just having new products. Some of both, I assume.
<< <i>Apparently nobody likes my idea to put a distinct mintmark on products like the "1933 Quarter." I acknowledge that seeing "FAKE" or "COPY" on the piece would take away some of the fun of owning one of these for many. >>
I believe that this is because a "mintmark" is something that only applies to "coin collectors" as the general public is not even aware that mintmarks exists.
"People" (aka consumers, the public, anybody that's not a coin collector) do not even LOOK at their change. They simply spend it.
Even stamping the word "COPY" or "FAKE" into a couins design would not make one bit of difference to the public because they don't look at the coins unless there is something obviously "different" about it.
Discolored? Sometimes they look but rarely.
Beat to death? Sometimes they look but rarely.
None existent date? Sometimes they look but rarely. I'd be willing to bet that a well made Lincoln Cent with a date of 1602 would circulate for quite awhile before some coin collector came across it. Just because folks do not look at their change beyond insuring that its the correct amount.
Heck, even some cashier's do not look at the change they receive nor the change they give out. It's human nature to do as little work as possible.
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.
Heck, even some cashier's do not look at the change they receive nor the change they give out. It's human nature to do as little work as possible.
Recently,I was at the post office to do some mailing.In addition to the mailing which I paid for by check,I decided to buy a book of 20 "Forever" stamps and a pack of "Jennies" for cash.I had $.80 change coming back and had spotted a warnickel laying on the counter,so I asked if I could have the nickel on the counter as part of my change.
Cashier said "sure" and didn't ask why I wanted the nickel on the counter as part of my change.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Heck, even some cashier's do not look at the change they receive nor the change they give out. It's human nature to do as little work as possible.
Recently,I was at the post office to do some mailing.In addition to the mailing which I paid for by check,I decided to buy a book of 20 "Forever" stamps and a pack of "Jennies" for cash.I had $.80 change coming back and had spotted a warnickel laying on the counter,so I asked if I could have the nickel on the counter as part of my change.
Cashier said "sure" and didn't ask why I wanted the nickel on the counter as part of my change. >>
Are you saying that you took advantage of an ignorant person?
Curiously enough I navigated over to Dan's site just before seeing this thread and ordered the '33s - it had been awhile since he has had new overstrike material and I was getting impatient. Have to drive into town this morn to see if they came finally. I don't get into the post office much - it is quite a hike from my hovel in the sticks.
Tir nam beann, nan gleann, s'nan gaisgeach ~ Saorstat Albanaich a nis!
I believe the design of any US coin is public domain - any work produced for the US Govt. is Public Domain IIRC.
The "micro O" Dollars were marked, or not, and they managed to fool quite a few for some time.
Andy Warhol reference was a bad comparison IMHO (or not) - Warhol did not paint but had studio boys silkscreen the soup images. He did not cut his own stencils. He did not stretch his fabrics. He did not always handle the squeegee or mix the polymers. It was called "Factory" for a reason. Remember how he loved his Polaroid? Rembrandt was doing this (w/o the silkscreen) 300 years before Andy. Rembrandt used pre-primed canvas bought at a store and used adulterated/fake pigments along with tons of cheap driers, extenders and junk that have made his paintings darken to the point the backgrounds are gone. It would be foolish to believe Rembrandt executed all the "dead coloring" of his paintings - he had help. Those artists are known today - just as there are now (older) studio boys creating silkscreened images of Andy images and selling them. Andy might or might not like this. I think he might say "umm, maybe". Warhol's name had appeared as author of works he did not touch as far back as the mid 60's. Then there is the Warhol Foundation - sort of a TPG for his work. You can have a hand-painted version of a soup can you saw Andy paint and sign in front of you for you - and if they don't say "OK" it is NOT a Warhol. This reminds me of the Rembrandt Corpus. Anyway, none of this impacts the value of either painter or his work. Good stuff stands over time.
<< <i>Curiously enough I navigated over to Dan's site just before seeing this thread and ordered the '33s - it had been awhile since he has had new overstrike material and I was getting impatient. Have to drive into town this morn to see if they came finally. I don't get into the post office much - it is quite a hike from my hovel in the sticks. >>
I had quite a bit of difficulty getting the quarters to come out right. My new engraving bits didn't cut right (I finally found a way to modify them before using to make them work properly). The dies didn't hold up very well, possibly due to being a different steel formula and the heat-treating process eroded them somewhat. And they didn't harden well enough to stand up the the forces involved. I had to make a second die pair, and that didn't work out either. Finally, the third die pair worked out ok. So I was finally able to produce enough pieces to start filling orders (will start shipping Monday). I will update my "production blog" when I get a chance.
CORRECTION: Will start shipping Tuesday. Monday is Veterans Day (banks and post offices closed).
Comments
Hey this just made me think of something (I know amazing) Has the U.S. Mint ever sanctioned the production of tokens out side of the mint? I know old notes were but what about coinage? What about the coins by the Franklin Mint (ouch why did you slap me so hard)?
"DC" mintmark on the reverse right above "QUARTER DOLLAR" would work to clearly identify the item as a token and would also be great advertising for the maker.
All such pieces,no matter who makes them,would need a distinct mintmark totally different from the mintmarks used by the mint.
For example,simply using a "D" for "Dan" wouldn't comply with my new law because the Denver Mint uses this letter.I'm talking distinctly different and thinking a recall of the "1933 Quarter" would be in order once my law goes into effect.Leaving a mintmark off the "coin" is not an option,in other words.
"CC" would even work for the "1933 Quarter" as distinctly different since everyone knows the last Carson City coins were struck in 1893. >>
dbldie55 says:If you are not smart enough to realize the US minted never made a 1933 quarter, you probably would not be smart enough to know the mint mark represents a mint that did not mint the 1933 quarter.
mr1874 says:So the "1933 Quarter" is for people who are smart enough to know that the US never minted a Quarter Dollar that bears the date 1933. Thanks for clearing this up for me.
Let's say a business decision is made to make 1808 Draped Bust Large Cents.The US mint never made one.Did you know that?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>my questions always seem to go unanswered but I'll ask another one anyway.....................to DC specifically this time.
several members have made reference to your "artistic" ability and the beauty of the products you produce, yet they are really no more than copies of another's work. after having worked as a Machinist/Tool and Die maker for close to 30 years I view you as "skilled" and assume that a person such as me, once acquainted with the machinery required to make the product you sell, could do the same quality work. however, I doubt I could ever produce an original work of art which might be viewed in the same manner as these copies. understanding your limited success of the past regarding US coin design and your other original work, why do you choose to focus on what amounts to plagiarism instead of moving forward to improve your artistic skill and focus your talent on original work??
from what I have seen I am left to infer that the "original" work finds no market to sell into, at least not a market that will sustain itself, while the "overstrike" market(at the PCGS forums) flourishes and carries an incentive to continue. it strikes me sort of like the Starving Artist type of pictures where a guy can't make anything that will hang in a gallery but can do all sorts of stuff that will hang over a living room couch. perhaps a bad analogy but one supported by the evidence at hand. >>
What constitutes "art" ?
Art is not necessarily just the object itself. There can also be a performance aspect to it. The artist Boggs would draw accurate images of US currency and then try to convince someone to accept it at face value as a piece of art that he drew. That is performance art. Most or all of Boggs' Bills are worth more than face value as collectibles today.
>>> "why do you choose to focus on what amounts to plagiarism instead of moving forward to improve your artistic skill and focus your talent on original work"
It is not possible to "plagiarize" something that is public domain. The vast majority of US coin designs were created by sculptors who were paid by the government using taxpayer dollars, and so those designs are public domain by law. There are a few exceptions where a US coin design is copyrighted, but those are limited to a few modern commemoratives and the Sacagawea Dollar obverse. None of the designs that I have over-struck were copyrighted.
I've said this before, but I will reiterate:
I am not the one who focuses on the over-strikes. It is everyone else, such as yourself. So far this year, the over-struck items that I have made are:
"1963" Kennedy Half Dollar
"1975" Kennedy Half Dollar
"1933" Washington Quarter
"1975" Washington Quarter.
So that makes two basic designs. Non over-struck items that I have produced so far this year are:
<< <i>Let's say a business decision is made to make 1808 Draped Bust Large Cents.The US mint never made one.Did you know that? >>
If I didn't know off the top of my head that "1808" Draped Bust Large Cents were not minted, I would at least look up the value of such a coin in the Red Book before buying it.
At which point, of course, I would discover that none are listed - which would warrant further research before laying out any money.
coin
koin/
noun
noun: coin; plural noun: coins
verb: coin; 3rd person present: coins; past tense: coined; past participle: coined; gerund or present participle: coining
1.
make (coins) by stamping metal.
synonyms: mint, stamp, strike, cast, punch, die, mold, forge, make
"dimes were coined"
<< <i>Yes, however, there are more connotations to "ignorant" than just "uninformed". I feel that, given how many people have defended these counterfeit/fantasy pieces, that they deem anyone not into the hobby who purchases them, and maybe doesn't due enough work to try to hunt down info, as ignorant in the sense of being stupid or willfully uninformed to the point of deserving to be ripped off. >>
Absolutely! Nobody deserves to be "ripped off".
However, those folks that do not bother to actually "investigate" what they are about to pour money into, come pretty close.
I'm not saying they "deserve it" but there's not much that can be done to head off an "ignorant" buyer that chooses to be "ignorant". We've all seen them and we all "feel" for their loss and will do everything we can to help them either understand what went wrong or recoup their costs.
BUT, there's always the truly "ignorant" individuals who embrace their ignorance.
For them, there simply is no hope.
ANYBODY with half of a functioning brain that buys something online or in some clandestine trade can easily do a Google or whatever search engine is used on Daniel Carr.
The whole story is right there for all to read.
For that matter, given Daniel Carr's popularity, I don't see why he doesn't offer a buyback program at original issue price.
Say, there's an idea. I wonder if Dan has considered this?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Those that tell other people what they should and should not collect also leave a bad taste in my mouth,.......... >>
That right there throws a monkey wrench into the business model for most B&M Coin Dealers.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>Dan---Do these threads help your sales of these numismatic items? Just curious if there is an up-tick in orders when the CU Debating Society generates these long winded threads. >>
It does appear that there is an uptick in activity when discussions here are ongoing. >>
I treat these threads as press releases. Every time I see one I know it is time to check out Carr's website to see what the new offerings are.
<< <i>... For that matter, given Daniel Carr's popularity, I don't see why he doesn't offer a buyback program at original issue price.
Say, there's an idea. I wonder if Dan has considered this?
I have a policy where I will take in trade my past issues, and I will give credits (equivalent to the original issue prices) towards any current offerings I have (subject to availability).
This applies to items that I sold, but not to items that were originally marketed by someone else.
On several occasions I have purchased my own items at coin shows for more than the original issue price.
I recently bought back a Globalization Panda for $125 at a coin show because I had a customer that wanted one and I had sold out of them last year.
Speaking of an extra empty hole at the end of the album or folder....
I recently bought three dime collections housed in Whitman Blue Folders.One of the Mercury dime books has an opening near the 1945 "P" opening for an extra coin.The other,newer Mercury dime folder doesn't.All three folders are copyright 1940.
The collector had designated the coin in there as a "1942 over 1941."Before buying this folder with the dimes in it I was sure to tell the owner that the coin in the extra hole is not a "42 over 41" despite the indications that it is.This folder dates to about 1947 since one of the other folders with coins in it that I bought is "ROOSEVELT DIME" No.9029.The last factory printed date in this book is "1947-D." The dates from then on are marked in pen below the opening for the coin.
Speaking of copyright,Mr. Carr,did you manage to obtain a copyright on your "1933 Quarter?"
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Speaking of copyright,Mr. Carr,did you manage to obtain a copyright on your "1933 Quarter?" >>
Specific date aside, the Washington Quarter design is public domain (not copyrighted).
Can a "1933 Quarter" be copyrighted ?
I believe that if someone copied my exact version of the "1933" over-struck quarter, using exactly the same font style, font size, and font placement of the "1933" date, that could be a copyright violation.
If they did their own version without directly copying mine, then I don't think that would be a copyright violation.
<< <i>
<< <i>Dan---Do these threads help your sales of these numismatic items? Just curious if there is an up-tick in orders when the CU Debating Society generates these long winded threads. >>
It does appear that there is an uptick in activity when discussions here are ongoing. >>
I should clarify that there is always an uptick in activity whenever I release new products.
So it is hard to say how much of the increased activity comes from discussions here, and how much comes with just having new products.
Some of both, I assume.
<< <i>Apparently nobody likes my idea to put a distinct mintmark on products like the "1933 Quarter." I acknowledge that seeing "FAKE" or "COPY" on the piece would take away some of the fun of owning one of these for many. >>
I believe that this is because a "mintmark" is something that only applies to "coin collectors" as the general public is not even aware that mintmarks exists.
"People" (aka consumers, the public, anybody that's not a coin collector) do not even LOOK at their change. They simply spend it.
Even stamping the word "COPY" or "FAKE" into a couins design would not make one bit of difference to the public because they don't look at the coins unless there is something obviously "different" about it.
Discolored? Sometimes they look but rarely.
Beat to death? Sometimes they look but rarely.
None existent date? Sometimes they look but rarely. I'd be willing to bet that a well made Lincoln Cent with a date of 1602 would circulate for quite awhile before some coin collector came across it. Just because folks do not look at their change beyond insuring that its the correct amount.
Heck, even some cashier's do not look at the change they receive nor the change they give out. It's human nature to do as little work as possible.
The name is LEE!
Recently,I was at the post office to do some mailing.In addition to the mailing which I paid for by check,I decided to buy a book of 20 "Forever" stamps and a pack of "Jennies" for cash.I had $.80 change coming back and had spotted a warnickel laying on the counter,so I asked if I could have the nickel on the counter as part of my change.
Cashier said "sure" and didn't ask why I wanted the nickel on the counter as part of my change.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Heck, even some cashier's do not look at the change they receive nor the change they give out. It's human nature to do as little work as possible.
Recently,I was at the post office to do some mailing.In addition to the mailing which I paid for by check,I decided to buy a book of 20 "Forever" stamps and a pack of "Jennies" for cash.I had $.80 change coming back and had spotted a warnickel laying on the counter,so I asked if I could have the nickel on the counter as part of my change.
Cashier said "sure" and didn't ask why I wanted the nickel on the counter as part of my change.
Are you saying that you took advantage of an ignorant person?
Joe.
I believe the design of any US coin is public domain - any work produced for the US Govt. is Public Domain IIRC.
The "micro O" Dollars were marked, or not, and they managed to fool quite a few for some time.
Andy Warhol reference was a bad comparison IMHO (or not) - Warhol did not paint but had studio boys silkscreen the soup images. He did not cut his own stencils. He did not stretch his fabrics. He did not always handle the squeegee or mix the polymers. It was called "Factory" for a reason. Remember how he loved his Polaroid? Rembrandt was doing this (w/o the silkscreen) 300 years before Andy. Rembrandt used pre-primed canvas bought at a store and used adulterated/fake pigments along with tons of cheap driers, extenders and junk that have made his paintings darken to the point the backgrounds are gone. It would be foolish to believe Rembrandt executed all the "dead coloring" of his paintings - he had help. Those artists are known today - just as there are now (older) studio boys creating silkscreened images of Andy images and selling them. Andy might or might not like this. I think he might say "umm, maybe". Warhol's name had appeared as author of works he did not touch as far back as the mid 60's. Then there is the Warhol Foundation - sort of a TPG for his work. You can have a hand-painted version of a soup can you saw Andy paint and sign in front of you for you - and if they don't say "OK" it is NOT a Warhol. This reminds me of the Rembrandt Corpus.
Anyway, none of this impacts the value of either painter or his work. Good stuff stands over time.
Eric
The cashier wanted me to have that nickel.It was a way of saying thanks for buying the Jennies from him.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Curiously enough I navigated over to Dan's site just before seeing this thread and ordered the '33s - it had been awhile since he has had new overstrike material and I was getting impatient. Have to drive into town this morn to see if they came finally. I don't get into the post office much - it is quite a hike from my hovel in the sticks. >>
I had quite a bit of difficulty getting the quarters to come out right.
My new engraving bits didn't cut right (I finally found a way to modify them before using to make them work properly).
The dies didn't hold up very well, possibly due to being a different steel formula and the heat-treating process eroded them somewhat.
And they didn't harden well enough to stand up the the forces involved. I had to make a second die pair, and that didn't work out either.
Finally, the third die pair worked out ok. So I was finally able to produce enough pieces to start filling orders (will start shipping Monday).
I will update my "production blog" when I get a chance.
CORRECTION:
Will start shipping Tuesday.
Monday is Veterans Day (banks and post offices closed).