Yes:

Yes, but the good ones are few and far between. Even when the designs are great, the execution is a little too Chuck-E-Cheese token for my taste. One of the things I like about Peace dollars, Walkers, and Buff nickels (and many of the classic commems) is the roughness of the design.

This one was well done, and looks nice enough. The ASE design isn't too bad and many of the Platinum reverse designs are good. There were a handful of good designs in the State Quarter program too.

Strangely, I sort of like the obverse of this one, but I wish the relief was much higher. The reverse is garbage.

Yes

The only modern series I collect is the $5 gold commemoratives... this is my favorite....

I say generally no, and I think it's why fewer younger people collect coins. When many of us were kids, we could still find Wheat pennies, Buffalo nickels, etc. in change which sparked interest in the treasures. There are some unique examples posted here though, and I also love the Apollo 11 commem:

@earlycoins said:

@Tomthecoinguy said:

@PerryHall said:

@Tomthecoinguy said:

@abcde12345 said:
Minted the last few years, no one can state this isn't an attractive modern coin.

I can, it is not an attractive modern coin. It is in fact not a coin at all, but a counterfeit.

It's not a counterfeit. Technically it's a fantasy coin overstruck on a genuine Peace dollar.

AKA a counterfeit. It is certainly not a modern coin.

A “counterfeit” is something created in an attempt to fool the unwary, that it is real.

Mr. Carr’s pieces are representations of coins that never existed, and therefore are neither copies, nor counterfeits.

They are fantasy pieces.

Not necessary, the intent of the maker to deceive the person they are selling to is not a requirement to label something a counterfeit. Think of the Chinese counterfeiters who sell to people that know they are not getting original goods. Here is what Wikipedia says about counterfeits products.

"Counterfeit products are fakes or unauthorized replicas of the real product. Counterfeit products are often produced with the intent to take advantage of the superior value of the imitated product. The word counterfeit frequently describes both the forgeries of currency and documents, as well as the imitations of items such as clothing, handbags, shoes, pharmaceuticals, aviation and automobile parts, watches, electronics (both parts and finished products), software, works of art, toys, and movies."

I understand there is a lot of "group think" among members of this board. They like Mr. Carr, so they come up with crazy rational to justify what they are supporting.

I understand this is not the thread to discuss, Mr. Carr's work, but can we at least agree that they are not coins, and should not be posted in this thread as examples of "Modern coins." Post it in the Mr. Carr thread so I don't have to look at it.

Started collecting these in '99 and always thought they'd look cool in a black Capital holder. Finall bought one a couple of months ago and had a label made at a local trophy shop.

This is a coin forum. The title of the thread is also "modern Coins".

I don't think D Carr stuff should even be allowed on this forum at all, at least in the context of someone proporting them to be a "coin" (except for the couple real state quarters he designed). It really gets me when someone makes a post calling it a "coin." If that isn't deceptive, I don't know what is.