Carr overstrikes and Red Book

messydesk

Disclaimer #1: I am not advocating inclusion of these in the Red Book.
Disclaimer #2: I am not using this thread to judge Dan's pieces, those who collect them, or those who don't.
Disclaimer #3: I do not have a Red Book in front of me at the moment, and don't own the Mega Red Book.

That said, the Red Book is one of the first books people recommend that a new collector buy. It has some warning footnotes sprinkled here and there about counterfeit coins that the reader should be aware of, including the 1944 Henning nickels and the 1923-D and 30-D "Russian" Mercury dimes. These are all considered quite collectible today, but their collectibility is beyond the scope of the Red Book.

Should the Red Book include similar warnings about the existence of fantasy-dated strikings, including the 64-D Peace dollar, where a new collector would look to see the coin's value? Are these strikings pervasive enough within the hobby that they will start being found in inherited or gifted collections by enough people to warrant their mention? While the Henning nickels and Russian Mercury dimes are relevant with respect to circulating coins, they can be in collections and are still mentioned.

In general, is a page or two of text about contemporary counterfeits and fantasy coins something that should be in the Red Book, or do not enough people read the non-pricing information to make it worth while?

BillJones

I think that there should be a notation somewhere in the Red Book about Carr's fantasy coins that have nonexistent date or mint mark combinations. I'm not sure about what you can do about covering them all because the list of them is growing. I certainly don't want the Red Book to become of list of Carr creations.

To me it's something akin to the 1944 nickel without the large mint mark above Monticello. It's the sort of thing that could trick a novice into paying a high price for "something unique" when it is only a counterfeit.

crazyhounddog

Interesting thought. Never even considered it.
Good point and well taken.

messydesk

@BillJones said:
I think that there should be a notation somewhere in the Red Book about Carr's fantasy coins that have nonexistent date or mint mark combinations. I'm not sure about what you can do about covering them all because the list of them is growing. I certainly don't want the Red Book to become of list of Carr creations.

This could be done in appropriate sections without "crediting" producers of fantasy coins, whether Carr or someone else, or cataloging the strikings themselves. "Privately made fantasy issues of dates and mint marks not listed above are known to exist. These are not products of the United States Mint." The text wouldn't have to be adjusted each year, since specific dates/mints aren't mentioned.

To me it's something akin to the 1944 nickel without the large mint mark above Monticello. It's the sort of thing could trick a novice into paying a high price for "something unique" when it is only a counterfeit.

I agree. A book aimed at a novice collector should be silent to the collectibility of specific contemporary counterfeits, but needs to acknowledge they exist.

CaptHenway

How about something along the lines of: "Privately made fantasy coins made for collectors with Legal Tender designs, but with various date and mint mark combinations not issued by the U.S. Mint, are known to exist. In addition, many counterfeit coins made to deceive collectors are known to exist, some of regular coins and some with date and mint mark combinations not issued by the U.S. Mint."

This would cover the 1798-CC Trade Dollar I once saw.

TD

MsMorrisine

and may as well warn of counterfeits of every coin type

illini420

Right now the 1964-D Peace Dollars are mentioned in the Red Book (2017 version) in the opening text on that section. It does mention there that "many deceptive reproductions exist."

That is the only overstrike that Dan has made so far where it is a date that really exists (or existed). I don't think the Red Book needs to include fantasy dates or any other warnings about them.

dcarr

@illini420 said:
Right now the 1964-D Peace Dollars are mentioned in the Red Book (2017 version) in the opening text on that section. It does mention there that "many deceptive reproductions exist."

That is the only overstrike that Dan has made so far where it is a date that really exists (or existed). I don't think the Red Book needs to include fantasy dates or any other warnings about them.

I was about to post that Red Book passage. I did produce 2009-DC "proofed" Silver Eagles which were struck over genuine 2009 Silver Eagles. So 2009 Silver Eagles were issued, just not with a proof-like finish or "DC" mint mark. Note that the 1964 dollars were never issued.

Anyway, perhaps the Red Book could include a blanket statement, like this ?:

"Date and mint mark combinations not listed in this book may exist as reproduction, altered, or fantasy coins".

Lakesammman

"Date and mint mark combinations not listed in this book may exist as reproduction, altered, or fantasy coins"

Seems to cover the waterfront nicely.

Lakesammman

Don't forget the TL mintmark.

MsMorrisine

Where is DenTuck lately?

cameonut2011

@BillJones said:
I think that there should be a notation somewhere in the Red Book about Carr's fantasy coins that have nonexistent date or mint mark combinations. I'm not sure about what you can do about covering them all because the list of them is growing. I certainly don't want the Red Book to become of list of Carr creations.

To me it's something akin to the 1944 nickel without the large mint mark above Monticello. It's the sort of thing that could trick a novice into paying a high price for "something unique" when it is only a counterfeit.

What about the ones really struck like 1964-D Peace Dollars?

CaptHenway

@cameonut2011 said:

@BillJones said:
I think that there should be a notation somewhere in the Red Book about Carr's fantasy coins that have nonexistent date or mint mark combinations. I'm not sure about what you can do about covering them all because the list of them is growing. I certainly don't want the Red Book to become of list of Carr creations.

To me it's something akin to the 1944 nickel without the large mint mark above Monticello. It's the sort of thing that could trick a novice into paying a high price for "something unique" when it is only a counterfeit.

What about the ones really struck like 1964-D Peace Dollars?

Aye, there's the rub!

BillJones

Note really. There could be a note that would state that 1964-D Peace Dollars were struck, but that they were not issued and were all subsequently melted. Privately issued pieces have been made which are not official products of the U.S. Mint System.

cameonut2011

@BillJones said:
Note really. There could be a note that would state that 1964-D Peace Dollars were struck, but that they were not issued and were all subsequently melted. Privately issued pieces have been made which are not official products of the U.S. Mint System.

Why sugar coat it? Anything that could be perceived as a legitimization of his pieces and not calling the pieces for what they truly are (counterfeits), has no place in a reference book in my humble opinion. I will not indulge in a discussion of whether said coins exist, whether he is attempting to defraud (he is not), whether there are subtle variations (counterfeits don't have to be exact copies), etc., because none of it matters. Calling something other than what it truly is does not change the character or nature of the piece.

Edited: To be clear, my comments apply to his fantasy pieces and not his medals, etc.

ricko

I do believe an updated notation in the Redbook - and Deluxe version - would be appropriate.. I am sure Dennis will address this issue. Cheers, RickO

Zoins

The Red Book includes others by names, so I don't see a reason to not include these. For example, the Red Book includes the New Haven Restrike Fugios and Bolen Bar Cents. For the Bolen Bar Cents, it includes text saying Bolen did not intend to deceive but some were concerned some would be deceived. It even says the "Bolen copies of the Bar copper are highly collectible in their own right" so I think it could be appropriate for the Red Book to mention the same: Dan is not intending to deceive, some people have concerns, and that they are highly collectible.

New Haven Restrike Fugios

Fugio Coppers > 1787 with Club Rays - New Haven Restrike
The so-called New Haven “restrikes” were made for Horatio N. Rust from dies recreated in 1859, partially through use of hubs or other devices supposedly (though the story is discredited by modern scholars) obtained by 14-year-old C. Wyllis Betts in 1858 on the site of the Broome & Platt store in New Haven, where the original coins had been made.

Bolen Bar Cents

Bar Coppers
John Adams Bolen (1826–1907), a numismatist and a master diesinker in Springfield, Massachusetts, struck copies of the Bar copper around 1862. On these copies, the letter A passes under, instead of over, the S. Bolen’s intent was not to deceive, and he advertised his copies plainly as reproductions. But his skills were such that W. Elliot Woodward, a leading auctioneer of tokens and medals in the 1860s, vacillated between selling Bolen’s copies and describing them as “dangerous counterfeits.” Bolen copies of the Bar copper are highly collectible in their own right, but they are less valuable than the originals.

CaptHenway

Mr. Bolen was not subject to the Hobby Protection Act of 1973. Mr. Carr is.

CascadeChris

@CaptHenway said:
Mr. Bolen was not subject to the Hobby Protection Act of 1973. Mr. Carr is.

And he's in compliance with it so that makes no difference whatsoever.

cameonut2011

@Zoins said:
The Red Book includes others by names, so I don't see a reason to not include these. For example, not only does the Red Book include the New Haven Restrike Fugios and Bolen Bar Cents. For the Bolen Bar Cents, it includes text saying Bolen did not intend to deceive but some were concerned some would be deceived. It even says the "Bolen copies of the Bar copper are highly collectible in their own right" so I think it could be appropriate for the Red Book to mention the same: Dan is not intending to deceive, some people have concerns, and that they are highly collectible.

New Haven Restrike Fugios

Fugio Coppers > 1787 with Club Rays - New Haven Restrike
The so-called New Haven “restrikes” were made for Horatio N. Rust from dies recreated in 1859, partially through use of hubs or other devices supposedly (though the story is discredited by modern scholars) obtained by 14-year-old C. Wyllis Betts in 1858 on the site of the Broome & Platt store in New Haven, where the original coins had been made.

Bolen Bar Cents

Bar Coppers
John Adams Bolen (1826–1907), a numismatist and a master diesinker in Springfield, Massachusetts, struck copies of the Bar copper around 1862. On these copies, the letter A passes under, instead of over, the S. Bolen’s intent was not to deceive, and he advertised his copies plainly as reproductions. But his skills were such that W. Elliot Woodward, a leading auctioneer of tokens and medals in the 1860s, vacillated between selling Bolen’s copies and describing them as “dangerous counterfeits.” Bolen copies of the Bar copper are highly collectible in their own right, but they are less valuable than the originals.

Do Henning and the Omega man have their own sections/comments? How about the orient for Trade Dollars? Do the NORFED people get sections too? Maybe someone should create a Red Book of counterfeits (or unauthorized private restrikes - chose your preferred terminology).

Voyageur

The Red Book would really be helpful to new coin collectors if it also include pictures of all the sleazy coin dealers that still sell cleaned AU coins for Gem BU.

Zoins

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:
The Red Book includes others by names, so I don't see a reason to not include these. For example, not only does the Red Book include the New Haven Restrike Fugios and Bolen Bar Cents. For the Bolen Bar Cents, it includes text saying Bolen did not intend to deceive but some were concerned some would be deceived. It even says the "Bolen copies of the Bar copper are highly collectible in their own right" so I think it could be appropriate for the Red Book to mention the same: Dan is not intending to deceive, some people have concerns, and that they are highly collectible.

New Haven Restrike Fugios

Fugio Coppers > 1787 with Club Rays - New Haven Restrike
The so-called New Haven “restrikes” were made for Horatio N. Rust from dies recreated in 1859, partially through use of hubs or other devices supposedly (though the story is discredited by modern scholars) obtained by 14-year-old C. Wyllis Betts in 1858 on the site of the Broome & Platt store in New Haven, where the original coins had been made.

Bolen Bar Cents

Bar Coppers
John Adams Bolen (1826–1907), a numismatist and a master diesinker in Springfield, Massachusetts, struck copies of the Bar copper around 1862. On these copies, the letter A passes under, instead of over, the S. Bolen’s intent was not to deceive, and he advertised his copies plainly as reproductions. But his skills were such that W. Elliot Woodward, a leading auctioneer of tokens and medals in the 1860s, vacillated between selling Bolen’s copies and describing them as “dangerous counterfeits.” Bolen copies of the Bar copper are highly collectible in their own right, but they are less valuable than the originals.

Do Henning and the Omega man have their own sections/comments? How about the orient for Trade Dollars? Do the NORFED people get sections too? Maybe someone should create a Red Book of counterfeits (or unauthorized private restrikes - chose your preferred terminology).

Henning and Omega man were seeking to deceive, unlike Bolen and Carr.

No need to create new sections when pieces like the New Haven Fugios and Bolen Bar Cents are already covered. Dan Carr's pieces can be covered the same way which was the jist of my post.

CaptHenway

hvvbmv fnienGot ffffffg> @CascadeChris said:

@CaptHenway said:
Mr. Bolen was not subject to the Hobby Protection Act of 1973. Mr. Carr is.

And he's in compliance with it so that makes no difference whatsoever.

My statement is correct as written.

The point of my statement is that any Bolen pieces cannot be used to validate any Carr pieces because they were created at different times under different laws in effect at the different times.

Zoins

Bolen's pieces do not need to be used to justify or validate Carr's pieces under the Hobby Protection Act. Carr's pieces stand on their own with respect to the HPA. Bolen's pieces are used as a comparison for inclusion of privately struck pieces with have similarities to, but are not, original issues.

cameonut2011

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

Do Henning and the Omega man have their own sections/comments? How about the orient for Trade Dollars? Do the NORFED people get sections too? Maybe someone should create a Red Book of counterfeits (or unauthorized private restrikes - chose your preferred terminology).

Henning and Omega man were seeking to deceive, unlike Bolen and Carr.

None of which is relevant to inclusion in a reference book. This thread and my comments are not a criminal indictment of anyone. What matters is the end result, the COINS. The book is called A Guide Book of U.S. Coins, not A Guide Book of Private Issues. As for intent, the end result insofar as the coin is the same regardless of the intent.

Edit: typo

cameonut2011

@CaptHenway said:
hvvbmv fnienGot ffffffg> @CascadeChris said:

@CaptHenway said:
Mr. Bolen was not subject to the Hobby Protection Act of 1973. Mr. Carr is.

And he's in compliance with it so that makes no difference whatsoever.

My statement is correct as written.

The point of my statement is that any Bolen pieces cannot be used to validate any Carr pieces because they were created at different times under different laws in effect at the different times.

Tom you're using logic which gets you nowhere in threads like these.

Zoins

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

Do Henning and the Omega man have their own sections/comments? How about the orient for Trade Dollars? Do the NORFED people get sections too? Maybe someone should create a Red Book of counterfeits (or unauthorized private restrikes - chose your preferred terminology).

Henning and Omega man were seeking to deceive, unlike Bolen and Carr.

No need to create new sections when pieces like the New Haven Fugios and Bolen Bar Cents are already covered. Dan Carr's pieces can be covered the same way which was the jist of my post.

None of which is relevant to inclusion in a reference book. This thread and my comments are not a criminal indictment of anyone. What matters is the end result, the COINS. The book is called A Guide Book of U.S. Coins, not A Guide Book of Private Issues. As for intent, the end result insofar as the coin is the regardless of the intent.

It is relevant because the book already includes references to and listings of private issues as mentioned.

cameonut2011

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

Do Henning and the Omega man have their own sections/comments? How about the orient for Trade Dollars? Do the NORFED people get sections too? Maybe someone should create a Red Book of counterfeits (or unauthorized private restrikes - chose your preferred terminology).

Henning and Omega man were seeking to deceive, unlike Bolen and Carr.

No need to create new sections when pieces like the New Haven Fugios and Bolen Bar Cents are already covered. Dan Carr's pieces can be covered the same way which was the jist of my post.

None of which is relevant to inclusion in a reference book. This thread and my comments are not a criminal indictment of anyone. What matters is the end result, the COINS. The book is called A Guide Book of U.S. Coins, not A Guide Book of Private Issues. As for intent, the end result insofar as the coin is the regardless of the intent.

It is relevant because the book already includes references to and listings of private issues as mentioned.

You said or implied the intent of the producer is relevant in whether the pieces are discussed in the Red Book or at least that is what this thread is about. For purposes of inclusion in the Red Book it doesn't matter if the coin is produced to give the creator some visceral thrill or if the original producer had an intent to defraud. The only thing that matters is the disk and not the subjective intent of the creator. If I misinterpreted your statement, then what was the point of even bringing intent into this thread?

Zoins

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

@Zoins said:

@cameonut2011 said:

Do Henning and the Omega man have their own sections/comments? How about the orient for Trade Dollars? Do the NORFED people get sections too? Maybe someone should create a Red Book of counterfeits (or unauthorized private restrikes - chose your preferred terminology).

Henning and Omega man were seeking to deceive, unlike Bolen and Carr.

No need to create new sections when pieces like the New Haven Fugios and Bolen Bar Cents are already covered. Dan Carr's pieces can be covered the same way which was the jist of my post.

None of which is relevant to inclusion in a reference book. This thread and my comments are not a criminal indictment of anyone. What matters is the end result, the COINS. The book is called A Guide Book of U.S. Coins, not A Guide Book of Private Issues. As for intent, the end result insofar as the coin is the regardless of the intent.

It is relevant because the book already includes references to and listings of private issues as mentioned.

You said or implied the intent of the producer is relevant in whether the pieces are discussed in the Red Book or at least that is what this thread is about. For purposes of inclusion in the Red Book it doesn't matter if the coin is produced to give the creator some visceral thrill or if the original producer had an intent to defraud. The only thing that matters is the disk and not the subjective intent of the creator. If I misinterpreted your statement, then what was the point of even bringing intent into this thread?

I first mentioned intent as part of discussing the similarity to Bolen's pieces where the Red Book happens to mention intent. It's an example of similarity. It was brought up again to highlight the similarity to Bolen's pieces and dissimilarity to Henning and Omega which you introduced.

For purposes of inclusion in the Red Book, the only thing that actually matters is whether the editors choose to include certain pieces or not.

Dentuck

Good morning, all. This is a great question. The Red Book does note, in the Peace dollar section's discussion of 1964-D Peace dollars: "None were preserved or released for circulation. Many deceptive reproductions exist."

The first edition of Mega Red included a lengthy illustrated chapter on counterfeits, and both books (the regular-edition Red Book, and Mega Red) include general warnings about copies, fakes, fantasy pieces, etc.

abcde12345

Maybe a separate section in the REdBook for such aftermarket coins. It can be a pullout section too for those who look at these with distain (like those who look down on modern coins).

Baley

Many coin books will mention fantasy dates being privately overstruck on real coins and sold for profit to collectors, exploiting apparent loopholes in the US counterfeiting Laws and 1973 Hobby Protection Act.

And perhaps will warn collectors of genuine coins to be cautious of skillful alteration of these novelty items to deceptive rare dates, possibly also made more convincing by doctoring with artificial wear and toning. The technology is improving all the time..

cameonut2011

Edited: Nevermind - I see the OP isn't arguing for inclusion in the Red Book.