I think of the overstrikes like art. Similar to the guy that would hand draw money, blank on one side , explain what it was and have it accepted at face value. His pieces are worth alot.
A bird sitting on a tree is never afraid of the branch breaking because it's trust is not in the branch but it's own wings.
Should we really assume that a random coin dealer has some knowledge of the value of one of these? I mean, it's not documented anywhere....The market is probably fairly thin relative to the entire coin market....and the general assumption is that ANY silver round is probably worth melt, even if that Snoopy round sells for $50 in some gift shop somewhere...
Yes, a dealer has access to price guides for your 82-S Morgans, and your 1921 Lincoln. But I wouldn't fault them for thinking your privately minted overstrike Eagle is worth only melt.
what if one of those tv guys that modify cars for their "reality show" made a "Shelby" like conversion.
This is more like the question at hand with a "Proof ASE" vs. a "proofed" ASE.
It's not a Shelby and some will consider it sacrilege to make a similar conversion to a Shelby and refuse to handle it, however there already exists a market for this person's conversions ... so ....
the question remains how each person handles the situation.
Pass? Sell it for parts (sell at melt)? Sell it as it is -- a conversion (DC piece)?
<< <i>Should we really assume that a random coin dealer has some knowledge of the value of one of these? I mean, it's not documented anywhere....The market is probably fairly thin relative to the entire coin market....and the general assumption is that ANY silver round is probably worth melt, even if that Snoopy round sells for $50 in some gift shop somewhere...
Yes, a dealer has access to price guides for your 82-S Morgans, and your 1921 Lincoln. But I wouldn't fault them for thinking your privately minted overstrike Eagle is worth only melt. >>
well, I think the argument needs to be modified to "random dealer even know what it is" because there is a place to look at documented values for what it is as it is... ebay, and it's not that thin
edit: and I note there is a _____ selling them with mint boxes.
<< <i>DC creations = prices that have appreciated = greater fool theory in evidence. >>
I don't agree with this. Dan has some popular pieces which don't get offered for sale for long periods of time. If there weren't collectors for these, they would be for sale much more often.
DC's pieces are also much better buys than the common coin that's purchased at retail and sold at wholesale.
<< <i>DC creations = prices that have appreciated = greater fool theory in evidence. >>
I don't agree with this. Dan has some popular pieces which don't get offered for sale for long periods of time. If there weren't collectors for these, they would be for sale much more often. >>
Or, couldn't someone always say "greater fool theory" when it comes to any collectible?
<< <i>DC creations = prices that have appreciated = greater fool theory in evidence. >>
I don't agree with this. Dan has some popular pieces which don't get offered for sale for long periods of time. If there weren't collectors for these, they would be for sale much more often. >>
Or, couldn't someone always say "greater fool theory" when it comes to any collectible? >>
That sounds reasonable and can almost be the case due to the innate nature of collectibles.
Or, couldn't someone always say "greater fool theory" when it comes to any collectible?
why does someone have to be a "fool" of any degree to buy a collectible, whether it be this item, a Beanie Baby, a knock-off Gucci bag or a fake Rolex?? the main point of the thread wasn't necessarily about the product per se, if you go back and read the OP you'll see that I was clearly upset about what I perceive as the deceptive nature of the capsule/wording/hologram which went with the coin. did there need to be a picture of a Genuine ASE on the holder front/back?? did it really need to be called a "Silver Eagle"?? did the capsule have to resemble a PCGS slab so close that it actually nests in a genuine PCGS slab?? did the hologram really have to say "Original" and Authentic"??
despite the fact that it has other indications/wording that it isn't in fact a genuine US Mint struck American Silver Eagle my point is that it can deceive. while I accept that certain collectors may be willing to pay $150+ for such an item, to the majority of the hobby it is nothing more than an interesting novelty worth melt. that fact has been proven to me as I have shown it to customers in the past couple of days and gotten some strange looks and not a single offer to buy at $125!! does that mean that those who declined are fools?? does that mean that those who purchased at issue for that price are fools?? does that mean that the seller who bought it for whatever he paid a fool?? does that mean that my boss who bought it for whatever he paid a fool??
to me it all just means that there are currently products on the open market which are intentionally deceptive. that is what pisses me off.
I recall PCGS encapsulated a slew of silver eagles and placed a 911 Twin Towers American Flag insert in the slab back in 2001. Many thought these were a grotesque marketing ploy.
Even the First Strike eagles are looked at with a jaundice eye among many collectors. So many proclamations along with their accompanying slab labels! I suppose one could with little effort, have a collection with a couple of dozen different ones by the end of the day.
(I did attempt to purchase one of these DC creations when it popped up on eBay yesterday with a BIN of $199. I logged in with the user name/password and upon clicking the auction see it had sold before my opportunity was complete.)
<< <i>Or, couldn't someone always say "greater fool theory" when it comes to any collectible?
why does someone have to be a "fool" of any degree to buy a collectible, whether it be this item, a Beanie Baby, a knock-off Gucci bag or a fake Rolex?? the main point of the thread wasn't necessarily about the product per se, if you go back and read the OP you'll see that I was clearly upset about what I perceive as the deceptive nature of the capsule/wording/hologram which went with the coin. did there need to be a picture of a Genuine ASE on the holder front/back?? did it really need to be called a "Silver Eagle"?? did the capsule have to resemble a PCGS slab so close that it actually nests in a genuine PCGS slab?? did the hologram really have to say "Original" and Authentic"??
despite the fact that it has other indications/wording that it isn't in fact a genuine US Mint struck American Silver Eagle my point is that it can deceive. while I accept that certain collectors may be willing to pay $150+ for such an item, to the majority of the hobby it is nothing more than an interesting novelty worth melt. that fact has been proven to me as I have shown it to customers in the past couple of days and gotten some strange looks and not a single offer to buy at $125!! does that mean that those who declined are fools?? does that mean that those who purchased at issue for that price are fools?? does that mean that the seller who bought it for whatever he paid a fool?? does that mean that my boss who bought it for whatever he paid a fool??
to me it all just means that there are currently products on the open market which are intentionally deceptive. that is what pisses me off. >>
I happen to agree with the sentiments and the violation of, or our perceived violations of the integrity of all that's good in the coin world, but let's face it: Where money is , it's not perfect. Where Capitalism is, it's not either…. However… with that said, If sellers and buyers have a meeting of the minds and a transaction takes place which benefited , or suited both parties…. well, in essence ; "IT AIN'T no skin off my nose".
When the buck stops, it stops. And teachers often take the brunt of the backlash. Kudos.
I'm just curious, now that you know the resale value, why would you attempt to sell in the shop for $125 knowing you could likely sell right here for the same price. Yes the market may not have reached your in store customers, but it doesn't make the medals worth any less to the people that do collect these. Then someone can start a thread bashing dealers for not paying fair amounts and telling you that you should call the guy back and give him more money.
<< <i>Or, couldn't someone always say "greater fool theory" when it comes to any collectible?
why does someone have to be a "fool" of any degree to buy a collectible, whether it be this item, a Beanie Baby, a knock-off Gucci bag or a fake Rolex?? the main point of the thread wasn't necessarily about the product per se, if you go back and read the OP you'll see that I was clearly upset about what I perceive as the deceptive nature of the capsule/wording/hologram which went with the coin. did there need to be a picture of a Genuine ASE on the holder front/back?? did it really need to be called a "Silver Eagle"?? did the capsule have to resemble a PCGS slab so close that it actually nests in a genuine PCGS slab?? did the hologram really have to say "Original" and Authentic"??
despite the fact that it has other indications/wording that it isn't in fact a genuine US Mint struck American Silver Eagle my point is that it can deceive. while I accept that certain collectors may be willing to pay $150+ for such an item, to the majority of the hobby it is nothing more than an interesting novelty worth melt. that fact has been proven to me as I have shown it to customers in the past couple of days and gotten some strange looks and not a single offer to buy at $125!! does that mean that those who declined are fools?? does that mean that those who purchased at issue for that price are fools?? does that mean that the seller who bought it for whatever he paid a fool?? does that mean that my boss who bought it for whatever he paid a fool??
to me it all just means that there are currently products on the open market which are intentionally deceptive. that is what pisses me off. >>
Please inform your boss that I will gladly pay $125 (or 50% more than he paid for it, whichever number is higher), plus $5 for shipping for the coin, via PayPal. This fool will also swear on a stack of bibles that I will not use it to deceive another collector/investor/speculator. He can email me at ryk@blackandgoldcoins if he is interested in completing the deal.
<< <i>Or, couldn't someone always say "greater fool theory" when it comes to any collectible?
why does someone have to be a "fool" of any degree to buy a collectible, whether it be this item, a Beanie Baby, a knock-off Gucci bag or a fake Rolex?? the main point of the thread wasn't necessarily about the product per se, if you go back and read the OP you'll see that I was clearly upset about what I perceive as the deceptive nature of the capsule/wording/hologram which went with the coin. did there need to be a picture of a Genuine ASE on the holder front/back?? did it really need to be called a "Silver Eagle"?? did the capsule have to resemble a PCGS slab so close that it actually nests in a genuine PCGS slab?? did the hologram really have to say "Original" and Authentic"??
despite the fact that it has other indications/wording that it isn't in fact a genuine US Mint struck American Silver Eagle my point is that it can deceive. while I accept that certain collectors may be willing to pay $150+ for such an item, to the majority of the hobby it is nothing more than an interesting novelty worth melt. that fact has been proven to me as I have shown it to customers in the past couple of days and gotten some strange looks and not a single offer to buy at $125!! does that mean that those who declined are fools?? does that mean that those who purchased at issue for that price are fools?? does that mean that the seller who bought it for whatever he paid a fool?? does that mean that my boss who bought it for whatever he paid a fool??
to me it all just means that there are currently products on the open market which are intentionally deceptive. that is what pisses me off. >>
Please inform your boss that I will gladly pay $125 (or 50% more than he paid for it, whichever number is higher), plus $5 for shipping for the coin, via PayPal. This fool will also swear on a stack of bibles that I will not use it to deceive another collector/investor/speculator. He can email me at ryk@blackandgoldcoins if he is interested in completing the deal. >>
I don't think we'll ever know what the coin shop paid for that coin. The fact that Keets won't tell us speaks volumes.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>Or, couldn't someone always say "greater fool theory" when it comes to any collectible?
why does someone have to be a "fool" of any degree to buy a collectible, whether it be this item, a Beanie Baby, a knock-off Gucci bag or a fake Rolex?? the main point of the thread wasn't necessarily about the product per se, if you go back and read the OP you'll see that I was clearly upset about what I perceive as the deceptive nature of the capsule/wording/hologram which went with the coin. did there need to be a picture of a Genuine ASE on the holder front/back?? did it really need to be called a "Silver Eagle"?? did the capsule have to resemble a PCGS slab so close that it actually nests in a genuine PCGS slab?? did the hologram really have to say "Original" and Authentic"??
despite the fact that it has other indications/wording that it isn't in fact a genuine US Mint struck American Silver Eagle my point is that it can deceive. while I accept that certain collectors may be willing to pay $150+ for such an item, to the majority of the hobby it is nothing more than an interesting novelty worth melt. that fact has been proven to me as I have shown it to customers in the past couple of days and gotten some strange looks and not a single offer to buy at $125!! does that mean that those who declined are fools?? does that mean that those who purchased at issue for that price are fools?? does that mean that the seller who bought it for whatever he paid a fool?? does that mean that my boss who bought it for whatever he paid a fool??
to me it all just means that there are currently products on the open market which are intentionally deceptive. that is what pisses me off. >>
Please inform your boss that I will gladly pay $125 (or 50% more than he paid for it, whichever number is higher), plus $5 for shipping for the coin, via PayPal. This fool will also swear on a stack of bibles that I will not use it to deceive another collector/investor/speculator. He can email me at ryk@blackandgoldcoins if he is interested in completing the deal. >>
I don't think we'll ever know what the coin shop paid for that coin. The fact that Keets won't tell us speaks volumes. >>
Not necessarily. I believe Keets when he tells me that he does not set the final price for these transactions, the owner does. I also believe that it is very difficult to price odd numismatic material, which are not listed in price guides, traded frequently on ebay, etc. What if the old fool tried to sell his elongated cent collection? His love token collection? Etc.
I think that we know now with a high level of certainty that the dealer payed less than $125 for the DC overstrike SAE, and I would guess less than $100. How much less, we will likely never know.
Edit: I am using the term, "old fool", not as a knock on the seller, or on older people in general, but more for the irony in that the seller was considered a rube for acquiring the piece, but may have been smarter than the rest of us for doing so.
I don't think we'll ever know what the coin shop paid for that coin. The fact that Keets won't tell us speaks volumes.
Perry, I don't know what I've done to incite you so much, but you constantly criticize and rail against everything I post. I have grown tired of it to the point where I generally ignore your replies totally. perhaps it's time for you to just bury the hatchet and send me a PM so we can clear things up. it serves neither of us well at this point.
Regarding "constantly criticize," "rail," and "grown tired" it seems that some folks constantly criticize and rail against DC pieces to the point that some others may have "grown tired" of the posts. This may be the case more when those that criticize do not acknowledge the pieces have genuine collector interest and have a better financial return than many other areas of collecting. In this particular case, it even appears that the collector may have been harmed by the shop if it did not inform the collector of the item and it's fair market value, items which are glossed over and ignored by those doing the criticizing.
On these forums where people often talk about collecting what you like, there is a steady stream of criticism from some that seem to single out these pieces, and not other fantasy, restrike, and even counterfeit pieces for their wrath. What's so wrong with collecting what you like and live and let live? Beyond that, it's seems that some people feel a need to "constantly" bring up this topic to "rail" against again and again, without the ability to seemly let it lie.
In this particular case, if the collector was harmed by being misled, it is likely because the store did not tell him what he had and the fair market value of the item.
<< <i>Regarding "constantly criticize," "rail," and "grown tired" it seems that some folks seem to constantly criticize and rail against DC pieces to the point that some others may have "grown tired" of the posts. This may be the case more when those that criticize do not acknowledge that the pieces have genuine collector interest and have a better financial return than many other areas of collecting. In this particular case, it even appears that the collector may have been harmed by the shop if it did not inform the collector of the item and it's fair market value, items which are glossed over and ignored by those doing the criticizing.
On these forums where people often talk about collecting what you like, there is a steady stream of criticism from some that seem to single out these pieces, and not other fantasy, restrike, and even counterfeit pieces for their wrath. What's so wrong with collecting what you like and live and let live? Beyond that, it's seems that some people feel a need to "constantly" bring up this topic to "rail" against again and again, without the ability to seemly let it lie.
In this particular case, if the collector was harmed by being misled, it is likely because the store did not tell him what he had and the fair market value of the item. >>
My thoughts exactly. I have nothing against Keets and generally agree with what he posts but in this case the thread he started is nothing more than a thinly disguised attempt to bash Dan Carr who is also a fellow forum member. If you don't like his products, don't buy them. If you think he is breaking the law, report him to the Secret Service. Otherwise, all this bashing is getting quite tiresome.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
When people are surprised by the reaction to their posts, I have to wonder if they realize how they come across with the constant criticism they inject into these forums.
Here's the thing...NO ONE WAS TRYING TO DECEIVE ANYONE ELSE! For crying-out-loud, the holder DOESN'T say it's a PCGS holder (I will give you that it kind-of looks a little like one to the uninitiated,) and it states in plain english that it was privately made. I'm not sure what else can be done to help people understand. To those who don't know anything about the issue, all they would have to do is look in ANY coin guide if a proof 2009 was issued by the mint...nope.
I don't think this is on anyone but the collector, he didn't even try to understand what he had. I don't see any malicious intent here, it is upfront and honest, even more so than if it was presented in raw form, at least here there's information to go on.
<< <i>Here's the thing...NO ONE WAS TRYING TO DECEIVE ANYONE ELSE! For crying-out-loud, the holder DOESN'T say it's a PCGS holder (I will give you that it kind-of looks a little like one to the uninitiated,) and it states in plain english that it was privately made. I'm not sure what else can be done to help people understand. To those who don't know anything about the issue, all they would have to do is look in ANY coin guide if a proof 2009 was issued by the mint...nope.
I don't think this is on anyone but the collector, he didn't even try to understand what he had. I don't see any malicious intent here, it is upfront and honest, even more so than if it was presented in raw form, at least here there's information to go on. >>
I agree that no one was trying to deceive anybody here on either side of the transaction, and that there was no malicious intent on either side of the transaction. It does sound as though both parties were honestly fooled by the coin, perhaps because buyers and sellers do not generally look every coin up in the Redbook before buying and/or selling them.
Perhaps this honest mistake could have been avoided had the piece been marked with the word "COPY" in accordance with the Hoppy Protection Act of 1973. We will never know.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. 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. Author "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," due out late 2025.
<< <i>Can anyone tell me what "privately minted" means? I'm unsophisticated.
>>
I've gotta tell you -- I'm guessing that 80-90% or more of legit, honest coin shops would pay a little back of melt for this if they bought it over the counter, and not figure that they got a "rip", but rather they got something that was worth about melt value at best.
I say this with great respect to Mr. Carr, who I think is a very talented artist.
The market for these could possibly be researched on the Internet or on eBay, but considering there are hundreds (or perhaps thousands?) of privately made silver rounds out there, I do not think it is reasonable to expect that retail coin shop owners would be knowledgeable about the very few that sell for a premium over melt in the secondary marketplace.
Dave Wnuck. Redbook contributor; long time PNG Member; listed on the PCGS Board of Experts. PM me with your email address to receive my e-newsletter, and visit DaveWcoins.com Find me on eBay at davewcoins
<< <i>Can anyone tell me what "privately minted" means? I'm unsophisticated.
>>
I've gotta tell you -- I'm guessing that 80-90% or more of legit, honest coin shops would pay a little back of melt for this if they bought it over the counter, and not figure that they got a "rip", but rather they got something that was worth about melt value at best.
I say this with great respect to Mr. Carr, who I think is a very talented artist.
The market for these could possibly be researched on the Internet or on eBay, but considering there are hundreds (or perhaps thousands?) of privately made silver rounds out there, I do not think it is reasonable to expect that retail coin shop owners would be knowledgeable about the very few that sell for a premium over melt in the secondary marketplace. >>
That is an interesting possibility that I had not even considered, that it would be mistaken as a private round (some of which do resemble American Eagles) because of the "privately minted" notation. That is plausible.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. 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. Author "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," due out late 2025.
<< <i>Perhaps this honest mistake could have been avoided had the piece been marked with the word "COPY" in accordance with the Hoppy Protection Act of 1973 >>
<< <i>Here's the thing...NO ONE WAS TRYING TO DECEIVE ANYONE ELSE! For crying-out-loud, the holder DOESN'T say it's a PCGS holder (I will give you that it kind-of looks a little like one to the uninitiated,) and it states in plain english that it was privately made. I'm not sure what else can be done to help people understand. To those who don't know anything about the issue, all they would have to do is look in ANY coin guide if a proof 2009 was issued by the mint...nope.
I don't think this is on anyone but the collector, he didn't even try to understand what he had. I don't see any malicious intent here, it is upfront and honest, even more so than if it was presented in raw form, at least here there's information to go on. >>
I agree that no one was trying to deceive anybody here on either side of the transaction, and that there was no malicious intent on either side of the transaction. It does sound as though both parties were honestly fooled by the coin, perhaps because buyers and sellers do not generally look every coin up in the Redbook before buying and/or selling them.
Perhaps this honest mistake could have been avoided had the piece been marked with the word "COPY" in accordance with the Hoppy Protection Act of 1973. We will never know. >>
as there are no 2009 proofs, it does not purport to be an original numismatic item.....
<< <i>Can anyone tell me what "privately minted" means? I'm unsophisticated.
>>
I've gotta tell you -- I'm guessing that 80-90% or more of legit, honest coin shops would pay a little back of melt for this if they bought it over the counter, and not figure that they got a "rip", but rather they got something that was worth about melt value at best.
I say this with great respect to Mr. Carr, who I think is a very talented artist.
The market for these could possibly be researched on the Internet or on eBay, but considering there are hundreds (or perhaps thousands?) of privately made silver rounds out there, I do not think it is reasonable to expect that retail coin shop owners would be knowledgeable about the very few that sell for a premium over melt in the secondary marketplace. >>
<< <i>Here's the thing...NO ONE WAS TRYING TO DECEIVE ANYONE ELSE! For crying-out-loud, the holder DOESN'T say it's a PCGS holder (I will give you that it kind-of looks a little like one to the uninitiated,) and it states in plain english that it was privately made. I'm not sure what else can be done to help people understand. To those who don't know anything about the issue, all they would have to do is look in ANY coin guide if a proof 2009 was issued by the mint...nope.
I don't think this is on anyone but the collector, he didn't even try to understand what he had. I don't see any malicious intent here, it is upfront and honest, even more so than if it was presented in raw form, at least here there's information to go on. >>
I agree that no one was trying to deceive anybody here on either side of the transaction, and that there was no malicious intent on either side of the transaction. It does sound as though both parties were honestly fooled by the coin, perhaps because buyers and sellers do not generally look every coin up in the Redbook before buying and/or selling them.
Perhaps this honest mistake could have been avoided had the piece been marked with the word "COPY" in accordance with the Hoppy Protection Act of 1973. We will never know. >>
as there are no 2009 proofs, it does not purport to be an original numismatic item..... >>
I believe that you are misinterpreting the word "purport." At first glance, the "2009 Proofed Overstrike" purports to be a Proof United States American Eagle. The fact that the United States government never made such a coin proves the "purportment" to be false, but it does not change the fact that the piece purported to be a Proof United States American Eagle in the first place.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. 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. Author "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," due out late 2025.
<< <i>...while I accept that certain collectors may be willing to pay $150+ for such an item, to the majority of the hobby it is nothing more than an interesting novelty worth melt. that fact has been proven to me as I have shown it to customers in the past couple of days and gotten some strange looks and not a single offer to buy at $125!! does that mean that those who declined are fools??... >>
Years ago, beautifully toned Morgan Dollars used to flow through our local small town shop, both across the counter at retail and on the bid board. They brought no premium, if fact, many of the older collectors wanted the tarnish dipped off. Your market for the Carr is imperfect. Why bemoan the lack of interest in a small pool of local buyers when the larger market assigns a higher value?
On another note, I am missing the deceptive nature of the holder. I just don't see it.
(f) Original numismatic item means anything which has been a part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person, object, place, or event. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals.
-Was the host planchet an American silver eagle or a blank? >>
It was done over an existing 2009 silver eagle, or possibly another date, not a blank (hence the term overstrike, if it was a blank he would not have bothered stating that it was an overstrike...I would assume.)
<< <i>Or, couldn't someone always say "greater fool theory" when it comes to any collectible?
why does someone have to be a "fool" of any degree to buy a collectible, whether it be this item, a Beanie Baby, a knock-off Gucci bag or a fake Rolex?? the main point of the thread wasn't necessarily about the product per se, if you go back and read the OP you'll see that I was clearly upset about what I perceive as the deceptive nature of the capsule/wording/hologram which went with the coin. did there need to be a picture of a Genuine ASE on the holder front/back?? did it really need to be called a "Silver Eagle"?? did the capsule have to resemble a PCGS slab so close that it actually nests in a genuine PCGS slab?? did the hologram really have to say "Original" and Authentic"??
despite the fact that it has other indications/wording that it isn't in fact a genuine US Mint struck American Silver Eagle my point is that it can deceive. while I accept that certain collectors may be willing to pay $150+ for such an item, to the majority of the hobby it is nothing more than an interesting novelty worth melt. that fact has been proven to me as I have shown it to customers in the past couple of days and gotten some strange looks and not a single offer to buy at $125!! does that mean that those who declined are fools?? does that mean that those who purchased at issue for that price are fools?? does that mean that the seller who bought it for whatever he paid a fool?? does that mean that my boss who bought it for whatever he paid a fool??
to me it all just means that there are currently products on the open market which are intentionally deceptive. that is what pisses me off. >>
<< <i>The image on the reverse of that slab has no "DC" mint mark >>
It might be another 3-rd party person cranking out 2009 proof silver eagle overstrikes ala Carr's method, which would be totally legal/ethical, using the "There's no such thing as a 2009 proof silver eagle" argument.
"I'll split the atom! I am the fifth dimension! I am the eighth wonder of the world!" -Gef the talking mongoose.
<< <i>(f) Original numismatic item means anything which has been a part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person, object, place, or event. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals. >>
and read the definitions, and see that it applies to copies of BOTH original numismatic items and things that "purport" to be original numismatic items. Thus, evasion pieces, with some small change in the design, including but not limited to a date or a mint mark, are still purporting to be original numismatic items.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. 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. Author "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," due out late 2025.
Dave Wnuck. Redbook contributor; long time PNG Member; listed on the PCGS Board of Experts. PM me with your email address to receive my e-newsletter, and visit DaveWcoins.com Find me on eBay at davewcoins
Comments
We're looking for a simple Yes or No
Spare us the nuance
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
one side , explain what it was and have it accepted at face value. His pieces are worth alot.
<< <i>Still a 1965 Mustang?
We're looking for a simple Yes or No
Spare us the nuance
No
Yes
Yes
Next!
<< <i>
<< <i>Still a 1965 Mustang?
We're looking for a simple Yes or No
Spare us the nuance
No
Yes
Yes
Next! >>
Well, you got 1 of three correct, according to my answer key. Fail!
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Still a 1965 Mustang?
We're looking for a simple Yes or No
Spare us the nuance
No
Yes
Yes
Next! >>
Well, you got 1 of three correct, according to my answer key. Fail!
At least I failed with conviction!
<< <i>Still a 1965 Mustang?
We're looking for a simple Yes or No
Spare us the nuance
My answer in relation to the underlying coin situation is a "Yes" on all counts because each mustang can be sold for their equivalent metal value.
<< <i>BTW, I am only still hanging out on this thread to find out what the coin dealer paid the old fool for the non-SAE SAE.
and I'm still curious how the thing will be sold, etc. and more.
consider it finding out a market report from a couple different people.
Should we really assume that a random coin dealer has some knowledge of the value of one of these? I mean, it's not documented anywhere....The market is probably fairly thin relative to the entire coin market....and the general assumption is that ANY silver round is probably worth melt, even if that Snoopy round sells for $50 in some gift shop somewhere...
Yes, a dealer has access to price guides for your 82-S Morgans, and your 1921 Lincoln. But I wouldn't fault them for thinking your privately minted overstrike Eagle is worth only melt.
This is more like the question at hand with a "Proof ASE" vs. a "proofed" ASE.
It's not a Shelby and some will consider it sacrilege to make a similar conversion to a Shelby and refuse to handle it, however there already exists a market for this person's conversions ... so ....
the question remains how each person handles the situation.
Pass? Sell it for parts (sell at melt)? Sell it as it is -- a conversion (DC piece)?
<< <i>Should we really assume that a random coin dealer has some knowledge of the value of one of these? I mean, it's not documented anywhere....The market is probably fairly thin relative to the entire coin market....and the general assumption is that ANY silver round is probably worth melt, even if that Snoopy round sells for $50 in some gift shop somewhere...
Yes, a dealer has access to price guides for your 82-S Morgans, and your 1921 Lincoln. But I wouldn't fault them for thinking your privately minted overstrike Eagle is worth only melt. >>
well, I think the argument needs to be modified to "random dealer even know what it is" because there is a place to look at documented values for what it is as it is... ebay, and it's not that thin
edit: and I note there is a _____ selling them with mint boxes.
link to active auction and there are closed auctions, too.
<< <i>DC creations = prices that have appreciated = greater fool theory in evidence. >>
I don't agree with this. Dan has some popular pieces which don't get offered for sale for long periods of time. If there weren't collectors for these, they would be for sale much more often.
DC's pieces are also much better buys than the common coin that's purchased at retail and sold at wholesale.
<< <i>
<< <i>DC creations = prices that have appreciated = greater fool theory in evidence.
I don't agree with this. Dan has some popular pieces which don't get offered for sale for long periods of time. If there weren't collectors for these, they would be for sale much more often. >>
Or, couldn't someone always say "greater fool theory" when it comes to any collectible?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>DC creations = prices that have appreciated = greater fool theory in evidence.
I don't agree with this. Dan has some popular pieces which don't get offered for sale for long periods of time. If there weren't collectors for these, they would be for sale much more often. >>
Or, couldn't someone always say "greater fool theory" when it comes to any collectible? >>
That sounds reasonable and can almost be the case due to the innate nature of collectibles.
why does someone have to be a "fool" of any degree to buy a collectible, whether it be this item, a Beanie Baby, a knock-off Gucci bag or a fake Rolex?? the main point of the thread wasn't necessarily about the product per se, if you go back and read the OP you'll see that I was clearly upset about what I perceive as the deceptive nature of the capsule/wording/hologram which went with the coin. did there need to be a picture of a Genuine ASE on the holder front/back?? did it really need to be called a "Silver Eagle"?? did the capsule have to resemble a PCGS slab so close that it actually nests in a genuine PCGS slab?? did the hologram really have to say "Original" and Authentic"??
despite the fact that it has other indications/wording that it isn't in fact a genuine US Mint struck American Silver Eagle my point is that it can deceive. while I accept that certain collectors may be willing to pay $150+ for such an item, to the majority of the hobby it is nothing more than an interesting novelty worth melt. that fact has been proven to me as I have shown it to customers in the past couple of days and gotten some strange looks and not a single offer to buy at $125!! does that mean that those who declined are fools?? does that mean that those who purchased at issue for that price are fools?? does that mean that the seller who bought it for whatever he paid a fool?? does that mean that my boss who bought it for whatever he paid a fool??
to me it all just means that there are currently products on the open market which are intentionally deceptive. that is what pisses me off.
Even the First Strike eagles are looked at with a jaundice eye among many collectors.
So many proclamations along with their accompanying slab labels! I suppose one could with little effort, have a collection with a couple of dozen different ones by the end of the day.
(I did attempt to purchase one of these DC creations when it popped up on eBay yesterday with a BIN of $199. I logged in with the user name/password and upon clicking the auction see it had sold before
my opportunity was complete.)
peacockcoins
<< <i>Or, couldn't someone always say "greater fool theory" when it comes to any collectible?
why does someone have to be a "fool" of any degree to buy a collectible, whether it be this item, a Beanie Baby, a knock-off Gucci bag or a fake Rolex?? the main point of the thread wasn't necessarily about the product per se, if you go back and read the OP you'll see that I was clearly upset about what I perceive as the deceptive nature of the capsule/wording/hologram which went with the coin. did there need to be a picture of a Genuine ASE on the holder front/back?? did it really need to be called a "Silver Eagle"?? did the capsule have to resemble a PCGS slab so close that it actually nests in a genuine PCGS slab?? did the hologram really have to say "Original" and Authentic"??
despite the fact that it has other indications/wording that it isn't in fact a genuine US Mint struck American Silver Eagle my point is that it can deceive. while I accept that certain collectors may be willing to pay $150+ for such an item, to the majority of the hobby it is nothing more than an interesting novelty worth melt. that fact has been proven to me as I have shown it to customers in the past couple of days and gotten some strange looks and not a single offer to buy at $125!! does that mean that those who declined are fools?? does that mean that those who purchased at issue for that price are fools?? does that mean that the seller who bought it for whatever he paid a fool?? does that mean that my boss who bought it for whatever he paid a fool??
to me it all just means that there are currently products on the open market which are intentionally deceptive. that is what pisses me off. >>
I happen to agree with the sentiments and the violation of, or our perceived violations of the integrity of all that's good in the coin world, but let's face it: Where money is , it's not perfect. Where Capitalism is, it's not either…. However… with that said, If sellers and buyers have a meeting of the minds and a transaction takes place which benefited , or suited both parties…. well, in essence ; "IT AIN'T no skin off my nose".
When the buck stops, it stops. And teachers often take the brunt of the backlash. Kudos.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
My Ebay Store
<< <i>Or, couldn't someone always say "greater fool theory" when it comes to any collectible?
why does someone have to be a "fool" of any degree to buy a collectible, whether it be this item, a Beanie Baby, a knock-off Gucci bag or a fake Rolex?? the main point of the thread wasn't necessarily about the product per se, if you go back and read the OP you'll see that I was clearly upset about what I perceive as the deceptive nature of the capsule/wording/hologram which went with the coin. did there need to be a picture of a Genuine ASE on the holder front/back?? did it really need to be called a "Silver Eagle"?? did the capsule have to resemble a PCGS slab so close that it actually nests in a genuine PCGS slab?? did the hologram really have to say "Original" and Authentic"??
despite the fact that it has other indications/wording that it isn't in fact a genuine US Mint struck American Silver Eagle my point is that it can deceive. while I accept that certain collectors may be willing to pay $150+ for such an item, to the majority of the hobby it is nothing more than an interesting novelty worth melt. that fact has been proven to me as I have shown it to customers in the past couple of days and gotten some strange looks and not a single offer to buy at $125!! does that mean that those who declined are fools?? does that mean that those who purchased at issue for that price are fools?? does that mean that the seller who bought it for whatever he paid a fool?? does that mean that my boss who bought it for whatever he paid a fool??
to me it all just means that there are currently products on the open market which are intentionally deceptive. that is what pisses me off. >>
Please inform your boss that I will gladly pay $125 (or 50% more than he paid for it, whichever number is higher), plus $5 for shipping for the coin, via PayPal. This fool will also swear on a stack of bibles that I will not use it to deceive another collector/investor/speculator. He can email me at ryk@blackandgoldcoins if he is interested in completing the deal.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>
<< <i>Or, couldn't someone always say "greater fool theory" when it comes to any collectible?
why does someone have to be a "fool" of any degree to buy a collectible, whether it be this item, a Beanie Baby, a knock-off Gucci bag or a fake Rolex?? the main point of the thread wasn't necessarily about the product per se, if you go back and read the OP you'll see that I was clearly upset about what I perceive as the deceptive nature of the capsule/wording/hologram which went with the coin. did there need to be a picture of a Genuine ASE on the holder front/back?? did it really need to be called a "Silver Eagle"?? did the capsule have to resemble a PCGS slab so close that it actually nests in a genuine PCGS slab?? did the hologram really have to say "Original" and Authentic"??
despite the fact that it has other indications/wording that it isn't in fact a genuine US Mint struck American Silver Eagle my point is that it can deceive. while I accept that certain collectors may be willing to pay $150+ for such an item, to the majority of the hobby it is nothing more than an interesting novelty worth melt. that fact has been proven to me as I have shown it to customers in the past couple of days and gotten some strange looks and not a single offer to buy at $125!! does that mean that those who declined are fools?? does that mean that those who purchased at issue for that price are fools?? does that mean that the seller who bought it for whatever he paid a fool?? does that mean that my boss who bought it for whatever he paid a fool??
to me it all just means that there are currently products on the open market which are intentionally deceptive. that is what pisses me off. >>
Please inform your boss that I will gladly pay $125 (or 50% more than he paid for it, whichever number is higher), plus $5 for shipping for the coin, via PayPal. This fool will also swear on a stack of bibles that I will not use it to deceive another collector/investor/speculator. He can email me at ryk@blackandgoldcoins if he is interested in completing the deal. >>
I don't think we'll ever know what the coin shop paid for that coin. The fact that Keets won't tell us speaks volumes.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Or, couldn't someone always say "greater fool theory" when it comes to any collectible?
why does someone have to be a "fool" of any degree to buy a collectible, whether it be this item, a Beanie Baby, a knock-off Gucci bag or a fake Rolex?? the main point of the thread wasn't necessarily about the product per se, if you go back and read the OP you'll see that I was clearly upset about what I perceive as the deceptive nature of the capsule/wording/hologram which went with the coin. did there need to be a picture of a Genuine ASE on the holder front/back?? did it really need to be called a "Silver Eagle"?? did the capsule have to resemble a PCGS slab so close that it actually nests in a genuine PCGS slab?? did the hologram really have to say "Original" and Authentic"??
despite the fact that it has other indications/wording that it isn't in fact a genuine US Mint struck American Silver Eagle my point is that it can deceive. while I accept that certain collectors may be willing to pay $150+ for such an item, to the majority of the hobby it is nothing more than an interesting novelty worth melt. that fact has been proven to me as I have shown it to customers in the past couple of days and gotten some strange looks and not a single offer to buy at $125!! does that mean that those who declined are fools?? does that mean that those who purchased at issue for that price are fools?? does that mean that the seller who bought it for whatever he paid a fool?? does that mean that my boss who bought it for whatever he paid a fool??
to me it all just means that there are currently products on the open market which are intentionally deceptive. that is what pisses me off. >>
Please inform your boss that I will gladly pay $125 (or 50% more than he paid for it, whichever number is higher), plus $5 for shipping for the coin, via PayPal. This fool will also swear on a stack of bibles that I will not use it to deceive another collector/investor/speculator. He can email me at ryk@blackandgoldcoins if he is interested in completing the deal. >>
I don't think we'll ever know what the coin shop paid for that coin. The fact that Keets won't tell us speaks volumes. >>
Not necessarily. I believe Keets when he tells me that he does not set the final price for these transactions, the owner does. I also believe that it is very difficult to price odd numismatic material, which are not listed in price guides, traded frequently on ebay, etc. What if the old fool tried to sell his elongated cent collection? His love token collection? Etc.
I think that we know now with a high level of certainty that the dealer payed less than $125 for the DC overstrike SAE, and I would guess less than $100. How much less, we will likely never know.
Edit: I am using the term, "old fool", not as a knock on the seller, or on older people in general, but more for the irony in that the seller was considered a rube for acquiring the piece, but may have been smarter than the rest of us for doing so.
Perry, I don't know what I've done to incite you so much, but you constantly criticize and rail against everything I post. I have grown tired of it to the point where I generally ignore your replies totally. perhaps it's time for you to just bury the hatchet and send me a PM so we can clear things up. it serves neither of us well at this point.
On these forums where people often talk about collecting what you like, there is a steady stream of criticism from some that seem to single out these pieces, and not other fantasy, restrike, and even counterfeit pieces for their wrath. What's so wrong with collecting what you like and live and let live? Beyond that, it's seems that some people feel a need to "constantly" bring up this topic to "rail" against again and again, without the ability to seemly let it lie.
In this particular case, if the collector was harmed by being misled, it is likely because the store did not tell him what he had and the fair market value of the item.
<< <i>Regarding "constantly criticize," "rail," and "grown tired" it seems that some folks seem to constantly criticize and rail against DC pieces to the point that some others may have "grown tired" of the posts. This may be the case more when those that criticize do not acknowledge that the pieces have genuine collector interest and have a better financial return than many other areas of collecting. In this particular case, it even appears that the collector may have been harmed by the shop if it did not inform the collector of the item and it's fair market value, items which are glossed over and ignored by those doing the criticizing.
On these forums where people often talk about collecting what you like, there is a steady stream of criticism from some that seem to single out these pieces, and not other fantasy, restrike, and even counterfeit pieces for their wrath. What's so wrong with collecting what you like and live and let live? Beyond that, it's seems that some people feel a need to "constantly" bring up this topic to "rail" against again and again, without the ability to seemly let it lie.
In this particular case, if the collector was harmed by being misled, it is likely because the store did not tell him what he had and the fair market value of the item. >>
My thoughts exactly. I have nothing against Keets and generally agree with what he posts but in this case the thread he started is nothing more than a thinly disguised attempt to bash Dan Carr who is also a fellow forum member. If you don't like his products, don't buy them. If you think he is breaking the law, report him to the Secret Service. Otherwise, all this bashing is getting quite tiresome.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I don't think this is on anyone but the collector, he didn't even try to understand what he had. I don't see any malicious intent here, it is upfront and honest, even more so than if it was presented in raw form, at least here there's information to go on.
<< <i>Here's the thing...NO ONE WAS TRYING TO DECEIVE ANYONE ELSE! For crying-out-loud, the holder DOESN'T say it's a PCGS holder (I will give you that it kind-of looks a little like one to the uninitiated,) and it states in plain english that it was privately made. I'm not sure what else can be done to help people understand. To those who don't know anything about the issue, all they would have to do is look in ANY coin guide if a proof 2009 was issued by the mint...nope.
I don't think this is on anyone but the collector, he didn't even try to understand what he had. I don't see any malicious intent here, it is upfront and honest, even more so than if it was presented in raw form, at least here there's information to go on. >>
I agree that no one was trying to deceive anybody here on either side of the transaction, and that there was no malicious intent on either side of the transaction. It does sound as though both parties were honestly fooled by the coin, perhaps because buyers and sellers do not generally look every coin up in the Redbook before buying and/or selling them.
Perhaps this honest mistake could have been avoided had the piece been marked with the word "COPY" in accordance with the Hoppy Protection Act of 1973. We will never know.
<< <i>Can anyone tell me what "privately minted" means? I'm unsophisticated.
I've gotta tell you -- I'm guessing that 80-90% or more of legit, honest coin shops would pay a little back of melt for this if they bought it over the counter, and not figure that they got a "rip", but rather they got something that was worth about melt value at best.
I say this with great respect to Mr. Carr, who I think is a very talented artist.
The market for these could possibly be researched on the Internet or on eBay, but considering there are hundreds (or perhaps thousands?) of privately made silver rounds out there, I do not think it is reasonable to expect that retail coin shop owners would be knowledgeable about the very few that sell for a premium over melt in the secondary marketplace.
<< <i>
<< <i>Can anyone tell me what "privately minted" means? I'm unsophisticated.
I've gotta tell you -- I'm guessing that 80-90% or more of legit, honest coin shops would pay a little back of melt for this if they bought it over the counter, and not figure that they got a "rip", but rather they got something that was worth about melt value at best.
I say this with great respect to Mr. Carr, who I think is a very talented artist.
The market for these could possibly be researched on the Internet or on eBay, but considering there are hundreds (or perhaps thousands?) of privately made silver rounds out there, I do not think it is reasonable to expect that retail coin shop owners would be knowledgeable about the very few that sell for a premium over melt in the secondary marketplace. >>
That is an interesting possibility that I had not even considered, that it would be mistaken as a private round (some of which do resemble American Eagles) because of the "privately minted" notation. That is plausible.
<< <i>Perhaps this honest mistake could have been avoided had the piece been marked with the word "COPY" in accordance with the Hoppy Protection Act of 1973 >>
This thread is getting a bit Hoppy.
<< <i>
<< <i>Here's the thing...NO ONE WAS TRYING TO DECEIVE ANYONE ELSE! For crying-out-loud, the holder DOESN'T say it's a PCGS holder (I will give you that it kind-of looks a little like one to the uninitiated,) and it states in plain english that it was privately made. I'm not sure what else can be done to help people understand. To those who don't know anything about the issue, all they would have to do is look in ANY coin guide if a proof 2009 was issued by the mint...nope.
I don't think this is on anyone but the collector, he didn't even try to understand what he had. I don't see any malicious intent here, it is upfront and honest, even more so than if it was presented in raw form, at least here there's information to go on. >>
I agree that no one was trying to deceive anybody here on either side of the transaction, and that there was no malicious intent on either side of the transaction. It does sound as though both parties were honestly fooled by the coin, perhaps because buyers and sellers do not generally look every coin up in the Redbook before buying and/or selling them.
Perhaps this honest mistake could have been avoided had the piece been marked with the word "COPY" in accordance with the Hoppy Protection Act of 1973. We will never know. >>
as there are no 2009 proofs, it does not purport to be an original numismatic item.....
<< <i>
<< <i>Can anyone tell me what "privately minted" means? I'm unsophisticated.
I've gotta tell you -- I'm guessing that 80-90% or more of legit, honest coin shops would pay a little back of melt for this if they bought it over the counter, and not figure that they got a "rip", but rather they got something that was worth about melt value at best.
I say this with great respect to Mr. Carr, who I think is a very talented artist.
The market for these could possibly be researched on the Internet or on eBay, but considering there are hundreds (or perhaps thousands?) of privately made silver rounds out there, I do not think it is reasonable to expect that retail coin shop owners would be knowledgeable about the very few that sell for a premium over melt in the secondary marketplace. >>
Here is the other side of that slab
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Here's the thing...NO ONE WAS TRYING TO DECEIVE ANYONE ELSE! For crying-out-loud, the holder DOESN'T say it's a PCGS holder (I will give you that it kind-of looks a little like one to the uninitiated,) and it states in plain english that it was privately made. I'm not sure what else can be done to help people understand. To those who don't know anything about the issue, all they would have to do is look in ANY coin guide if a proof 2009 was issued by the mint...nope.
I don't think this is on anyone but the collector, he didn't even try to understand what he had. I don't see any malicious intent here, it is upfront and honest, even more so than if it was presented in raw form, at least here there's information to go on. >>
I agree that no one was trying to deceive anybody here on either side of the transaction, and that there was no malicious intent on either side of the transaction. It does sound as though both parties were honestly fooled by the coin, perhaps because buyers and sellers do not generally look every coin up in the Redbook before buying and/or selling them.
Perhaps this honest mistake could have been avoided had the piece been marked with the word "COPY" in accordance with the Hoppy Protection Act of 1973. We will never know. >>
as there are no 2009 proofs, it does not purport to be an original numismatic item..... >>
I believe that you are misinterpreting the word "purport." At first glance, the "2009 Proofed Overstrike" purports to be a Proof United States American Eagle. The fact that the United States government never made such a coin proves the "purportment" to be false, but it does not change the fact that the piece purported to be a Proof United States American Eagle in the first place.
<< <i>I'd think an "unsophisticated collector/investor" would not know.................
my point exactly, they could easily fall prey to someone. >>
"Falling prey" to me = "losing money". Were you to pay him a fair market price, would he have lost money?
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
<< <i>...while I accept that certain collectors may be willing to pay $150+ for such an item, to the majority of the hobby it is nothing more than an interesting novelty worth melt. that fact has been proven to me as I have shown it to customers in the past couple of days and gotten some strange looks and not a single offer to buy at $125!! does that mean that those who declined are fools??... >>
Years ago, beautifully toned Morgan Dollars used to flow through our local small town shop, both across the counter at retail and on the bid board. They brought no premium, if fact, many of the older collectors wanted the tarnish dipped off. Your market for the Carr is imperfect. Why bemoan the lack of interest in a small pool of local buyers when the larger market assigns a higher value?
On another note, I am missing the deceptive nature of the holder. I just don't see it.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
-Slab looks more ICG'ish rather than PCGS.
-Was the host planchet an American silver eagle or a blank?
peacockcoins
<< <i>Quick thought followed by a question:
-Slab looks more ICG'ish rather than PCGS.
-Was the host planchet an American silver eagle or a blank? >>
It was done over an existing 2009 silver eagle, or possibly another date, not a blank (hence the term overstrike, if it was a blank he would not have bothered stating that it was an overstrike...I would assume.)
<< <i>Or, couldn't someone always say "greater fool theory" when it comes to any collectible?
why does someone have to be a "fool" of any degree to buy a collectible, whether it be this item, a Beanie Baby, a knock-off Gucci bag or a fake Rolex?? the main point of the thread wasn't necessarily about the product per se, if you go back and read the OP you'll see that I was clearly upset about what I perceive as the deceptive nature of the capsule/wording/hologram which went with the coin. did there need to be a picture of a Genuine ASE on the holder front/back?? did it really need to be called a "Silver Eagle"?? did the capsule have to resemble a PCGS slab so close that it actually nests in a genuine PCGS slab?? did the hologram really have to say "Original" and Authentic"??
despite the fact that it has other indications/wording that it isn't in fact a genuine US Mint struck American Silver Eagle my point is that it can deceive. while I accept that certain collectors may be willing to pay $150+ for such an item, to the majority of the hobby it is nothing more than an interesting novelty worth melt. that fact has been proven to me as I have shown it to customers in the past couple of days and gotten some strange looks and not a single offer to buy at $125!! does that mean that those who declined are fools?? does that mean that those who purchased at issue for that price are fools?? does that mean that the seller who bought it for whatever he paid a fool?? does that mean that my boss who bought it for whatever he paid a fool??
to me it all just means that there are currently products on the open market which are intentionally deceptive. that is what pisses me off. >>
Did the customers also think it was deceptive?
Did any think it was numis-junk?
<< <i>The image on the reverse of that slab has no "DC" mint mark >>
It might be another 3-rd party person cranking out 2009 proof silver eagle overstrikes ala Carr's method, which would be totally legal/ethical, using the "There's no such thing as a 2009 proof silver eagle" argument.
<< <i>(f) Original numismatic item means anything which has been a part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person, object, place, or event. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals. >>
Go here:
link
and read the definitions, and see that it applies to copies of BOTH original numismatic items and things that "purport" to be original numismatic items. Thus, evasion pieces, with some small change in the design, including but not limited to a date or a mint mark, are still purporting to be original numismatic items.
Let's get back to the new fun stuff......
Any of the customers looking at it muse about it being counterfeit?
<< <i>I have not received an email from the boss. I guess they sold it. >>
Yes, I believe they did.
Edited to add: next post is 100!
peacockcoins
I always wanted to do that.