The prefered parlance by many members here is “fantasy coin.” No Denver pieces were ever produced… No one will be fooled. 🙄😉
"Fantasy coin" is only used if its Dan Carr. For everyone else, it's counterfeit.
Why is he given special status? His work is materially no different than Henning’s work, the Omega man’s work, or the modern works of the orient in my humble opinion.
A huge difference is that he strikes over genuine coins.
Also, his creations are not intended to deceive.
If this were overstruck on a Morgan or Peace Dollar, would it be okay? Do we know for a fact it wasn’t ? How do we know the producer of this piece intended to deceive? It is clearly marked with a D and no 1921-D Peace Dollars we’re ever issued by the Mint. Anyone with a Red Book would know.
This ^^^^. It's actually very simple, and has nothing to do with the fact that someone like Dan is very well respected.
No one with an intent to deceive is going to take the time to produce something that never existed, and then try to pass it off as genuine. Hence, those are fantasy pieces, no matter who is producing them, or how good (or bad) a particular example happens to be.
A counterfeit is an altered or fake version of an actual Mint release. By definition, with an intent to deceive if it is not marked as a copy.
I think it’s inaccurate to label a genuine, but altered coin as a counterfeit. For example, if you have a 1914 cent with an added D mintmark, it’s referred to as added mintmark, not counterfeit. Another example would be a Seated Liberty (with arrows) coin with the arrows removed. It would be labeled as tooled, altered or something else other than counterfeit.
But what if we take a common date 1940s copper cent, take affirmative steps to eradicate as much of the original details as possible, and then overstrike it with counterfeit dies to produce a 1914-D cent, would this be a counterfeit? What about taking a 1943 steel cent and over striking a 1942 cent cent design?
The argument that stamping a new coin over an old coin of the same design and composition deprives the resulting piece of its counterfeit status has already been rejected by at least one federal appellate court.
The best COUNTERFEIT 1909-SVDB I ever saw was struck over a 1960 Lincoln cent. Look in the ANACS reprint books.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
The prefered parlance by many members here is “fantasy coin.” No Denver pieces were ever produced… No one will be fooled. 🙄😉
"Fantasy coin" is only used if its Dan Carr. For everyone else, it's counterfeit.
Why is he given special status? His work is materially no different than Henning’s work, the Omega man’s work, or the modern works of the orient in my humble opinion.
A huge difference is that he strikes over genuine coins.
Also, his creations are not intended to deceive.
If this were overstruck on a Morgan or Peace Dollar, would it be okay? Do we know for a fact it wasn’t ? How do we know the producer of this piece intended to deceive? It is clearly marked with a D and no 1921-D Peace Dollars we’re ever issued by the Mint. Anyone with a Red Book would know.
This ^^^^. It's actually very simple, and has nothing to do with the fact that someone like Dan is very well respected.
No one with an intent to deceive is going to take the time to produce something that never existed, and then try to pass it off as genuine. Hence, those are fantasy pieces, no matter who is producing them, or how good (or bad) a particular example happens to be.
A counterfeit is an altered or fake version of an actual Mint release. By definition, with an intent to deceive if it is not marked as a copy.
I think it’s inaccurate to label a genuine, but altered coin as a counterfeit. For example, if you have a 1914 cent with an added D mintmark, it’s referred to as added mintmark, not counterfeit. Another example would be a Seated Liberty (with arrows) coin with the arrows removed. It would be labeled as tooled, altered or something else other than counterfeit.
But what if we take a common date 1940s copper cent, take affirmative steps to eradicate as much of the original details as possible, and then overstrike it with counterfeit dies to produce a 1914-D cent, would this be a counterfeit? What about taking a 1943 steel cent and over striking a 1942 cent cent design?
The argument that stamping a new coin over an old coin of the same design and composition deprives the resulting piece of its counterfeit status has already been rejected by at least one federal appellate court.
The prefered parlance by many members here is “fantasy coin.” No Denver pieces were ever produced… No one will be fooled. 🙄😉
"Fantasy coin" is only used if its Dan Carr. For everyone else, it's counterfeit.
Why is he given special status? His work is materially no different than Henning’s work, the Omega man’s work, or the modern works of the orient in my humble opinion.
A huge difference is that he strikes over genuine coins.
Also, his creations are not intended to deceive.
If this were overstruck on a Morgan or Peace Dollar, would it be okay? Do we know for a fact it wasn’t ? How do we know the producer of this piece intended to deceive? It is clearly marked with a D and no 1921-D Peace Dollars we’re ever issued by the Mint. Anyone with a Red Book would know.
This ^^^^. It's actually very simple, and has nothing to do with the fact that someone like Dan is very well respected.
No one with an intent to deceive is going to take the time to produce something that never existed, and then try to pass it off as genuine. Hence, those are fantasy pieces, no matter who is producing them, or how good (or bad) a particular example happens to be.
A counterfeit is an altered or fake version of an actual Mint release. By definition, with an intent to deceive if it is not marked as a copy.
I think it’s inaccurate to label a genuine, but altered coin as a counterfeit. For example, if you have a 1914 cent with an added D mintmark, it’s referred to as added mintmark, not counterfeit. Another example would be a Seated Liberty (with arrows) coin with the arrows removed. It would be labeled as tooled, altered or something else other than counterfeit.
But what if we take a common date 1940s copper cent, take affirmative steps to eradicate as much of the original details as possible, and then overstrike it with counterfeit dies to produce a 1914-D cent, would this be a counterfeit? What about taking a 1943 steel cent and over striking a 1942 cent cent design?
The argument that stamping a new coin over an old coin of the same design and composition deprives the resulting piece of its counterfeit status has already been rejected by at least one federal appellate court.
Clearly you aren't familiar with you Tube and social media. EVERYTHING that looks even slightly different looks valuable to newbies.
It would also take about 3 minutes to create a teaser showing prices realized for genuine US patterns and then presenting the Carr piece as a "pattern".
Clearly you aren't familiar with you Tube and social media. EVERYTHING that looks even slightly different looks valuable to newbies.
It would also take about 3 minutes to create a teaser showing prices realized for genuine US patterns and then presenting the Carr piece as a "pattern".
It would also take just a few minutes to find a ton of documentation on Carr material. If you’re going to spend big money on a pattern piece (or any rare coin) I would hope they would do their due diligence by researching the item in question, especially if you’re a newbie.
Clearly you aren't familiar with you Tube and social media. EVERYTHING that looks even slightly different looks valuable to newbies.
It would also take about 3 minutes to create a teaser showing prices realized for genuine US patterns and then presenting the Carr piece as a "pattern".
It would also take just a few minutes to find a ton of documentation on Carr material. If you’re going to spend big money on a pattern piece (or any rare coin) I would hope they would do their due diligence by researching the item in question, especially if you’re a newbie.
It would be much harder to find Dan Carr information for a tricked newbie than it would be to trick him. You'd have to either know who he is or hope that Google Lens or another photo search comes up with the proper information. We have people ask all the time what a coin or medal is, and they aren't newbies. It's not always that easy to find information on a small operation like Mr. Carr's.
Define "big money". I've seen numerous newbies buy obvious fakes in country auctions for $500 or more. I was surprised the first time it happened. I'm no longer surprised.
But I'm not sure what any of that has to do with someone minting "impossible" copies of U.S. coins. Do you really think that Johnny Average knows that Peace dollars were only minted between 1921 and 1935? So if Dan Carr creates a 1918 or a 1965, it would be EASY to sell it as a genuine U.S. coin to most of the public. The Hobby Protection Act exist for a reason, a very good reason.
I know a little bit about coins, but as I sit here I could not give you a definite list of all of the Walking Liberty Half date and mint mark combinations struck from 1921 through 1934..
I have the Redbook next to me if I need it, but not everybody does.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
The Chinese are known to mix dies together to create previously nonexistent items. Beyond that, the artwork on that item is all wrong.
Here's Chinese "1886-CC Morgan Dollar." The Carson City Mint did not make any dollars in 1886.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
Clearly you aren't familiar with you Tube and social media. EVERYTHING that looks even slightly different looks valuable to newbies.
It would also take about 3 minutes to create a teaser showing prices realized for genuine US patterns and then presenting the Carr piece as a "pattern".
It would also take just a few minutes to find a ton of documentation on Carr material. If you’re going to spend big money on a pattern piece (or any rare coin) I would hope they would do their due diligence by researching the item in question, especially if you’re a newbie.
It would be much harder to find Dan Carr information for a tricked newbie than it would be to trick him. You'd have to either know who he is or hope that Google Lens or another photo search comes up with the proper information. We have people ask all the time what a coin or medal is, and they aren't newbies. It's not always that easy to find information on a small operation like Mr. Carr's.
Define "big money". I've seen numerous newbies buy obvious fakes in country auctions for $500 or more. I was surprised the first time it happened. I'm no longer surprised.
But I'm not sure what any of that has to do with someone minting "impossible" copies of U.S. coins. Do you really think that Johnny Average knows that Peace dollars were only minted between 1921 and 1935? So if Dan Carr creates a 1918 or a 1965, it would be EASY to sell it as a genuine U.S. coin to most of the public. The Hobby Protection Act exist for a reason, a very good reason.
For a newbie $500 could be big money. But all anyone has to do is Google a Peace dollar from 1918, 1919, 1965 or any of those odd years, Carr will come up along with his web site. There will likely be information about any pattern if any were made. I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone who spends their money (big or small) without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.
My standard of counterfeit is altered or not real. Using real period parts on a V6 Camaro doesn’t make it a real SS. While some dealers will list it as a clone, some do not.
I know there is a market for his stuff I just don’t think we want to encourage people looking for loop holes in the manufacturing of production quality looking dies and copies of US classic coins. Loving Carr and hating Chan with one of the few differences being Carr used old coins as his blanks and has a web site (currently) is not healthy for the hobby long term. What about the guy who buys Carr’s stuff next and makes subtle changes and states this 69s doubled die has an extra column on the reverse, mint never made one like that. How about the omega gold coins, mint never made them with that hallmark, not counterfeit? Where is the line? Who sets it? Wouldn’t it be better to set it higher to dissuade people from trying to find loopholes?
Clearly you aren't familiar with you Tube and social media. EVERYTHING that looks even slightly different looks valuable to newbies.
It would also take about 3 minutes to create a teaser showing prices realized for genuine US patterns and then presenting the Carr piece as a "pattern".
It would also take just a few minutes to find a ton of documentation on Carr material. If you’re going to spend big money on a pattern piece (or any rare coin) I would hope they would do their due diligence by researching the item in question, especially if you’re a newbie.
It would be much harder to find Dan Carr information for a tricked newbie than it would be to trick him. You'd have to either know who he is or hope that Google Lens or another photo search comes up with the proper information. We have people ask all the time what a coin or medal is, and they aren't newbies. It's not always that easy to find information on a small operation like Mr. Carr's.
Define "big money". I've seen numerous newbies buy obvious fakes in country auctions for $500 or more. I was surprised the first time it happened. I'm no longer surprised.
But I'm not sure what any of that has to do with someone minting "impossible" copies of U.S. coins. Do you really think that Johnny Average knows that Peace dollars were only minted between 1921 and 1935? So if Dan Carr creates a 1918 or a 1965, it would be EASY to sell it as a genuine U.S. coin to most of the public. The Hobby Protection Act exist for a reason, a very good reason.
For a newbie $500 could be big money. But all anyone has to do is Google a Peace dollar from 1918, 1919, 1965 or any of those odd years, Carr will come up along with his web site. There will likely be information about any pattern if any were made. I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone who spends their money (big or small) without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.
So you're okay with Chinese artists making 1901-CC Morgan dollars?
Clearly you aren't familiar with you Tube and social media. EVERYTHING that looks even slightly different looks valuable to newbies.
It would also take about 3 minutes to create a teaser showing prices realized for genuine US patterns and then presenting the Carr piece as a "pattern".
It would also take just a few minutes to find a ton of documentation on Carr material. If you’re going to spend big money on a pattern piece (or any rare coin) I would hope they would do their due diligence by researching the item in question, especially if you’re a newbie.
It would be much harder to find Dan Carr information for a tricked newbie than it would be to trick him. You'd have to either know who he is or hope that Google Lens or another photo search comes up with the proper information. We have people ask all the time what a coin or medal is, and they aren't newbies. It's not always that easy to find information on a small operation like Mr. Carr's.
Define "big money". I've seen numerous newbies buy obvious fakes in country auctions for $500 or more. I was surprised the first time it happened. I'm no longer surprised.
But I'm not sure what any of that has to do with someone minting "impossible" copies of U.S. coins. Do you really think that Johnny Average knows that Peace dollars were only minted between 1921 and 1935? So if Dan Carr creates a 1918 or a 1965, it would be EASY to sell it as a genuine U.S. coin to most of the public. The Hobby Protection Act exist for a reason, a very good reason.
For a newbie $500 could be big money. But all anyone has to do is Google a Peace dollar from 1918, 1919, 1965 or any of those odd years, Carr will come up along with his web site. There will likely be information about any pattern if any were made. I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone who spends their money (big or small) without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.
So you're okay with Chinese artists making 1901-CC Morgan dollars?
Gee, is that what I said?
You got that out of ** “… without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.”**
Clearly you aren't familiar with you Tube and social media. EVERYTHING that looks even slightly different looks valuable to newbies.
It would also take about 3 minutes to create a teaser showing prices realized for genuine US patterns and then presenting the Carr piece as a "pattern".
It would also take just a few minutes to find a ton of documentation on Carr material. If you’re going to spend big money on a pattern piece (or any rare coin) I would hope they would do their due diligence by researching the item in question, especially if you’re a newbie.
It would be much harder to find Dan Carr information for a tricked newbie than it would be to trick him. You'd have to either know who he is or hope that Google Lens or another photo search comes up with the proper information. We have people ask all the time what a coin or medal is, and they aren't newbies. It's not always that easy to find information on a small operation like Mr. Carr's.
Define "big money". I've seen numerous newbies buy obvious fakes in country auctions for $500 or more. I was surprised the first time it happened. I'm no longer surprised.
But I'm not sure what any of that has to do with someone minting "impossible" copies of U.S. coins. Do you really think that Johnny Average knows that Peace dollars were only minted between 1921 and 1935? So if Dan Carr creates a 1918 or a 1965, it would be EASY to sell it as a genuine U.S. coin to most of the public. The Hobby Protection Act exist for a reason, a very good reason.
For a newbie $500 could be big money. But all anyone has to do is Google a Peace dollar from 1918, 1919, 1965 or any of those odd years, Carr will come up along with his web site. There will likely be information about any pattern if any were made. I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone who spends their money (big or small) without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.
So you're okay with Chinese artists making 1901-CC Morgan dollars?
Gee, is that what I said?
You got that out of ** “… without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.”**
I asked the question because there is an odd dichotomy in the way people view Carr and how they view Chinese counterfeits. It's okay for Dan Carr to make a 1965 Peace Dollar but it's a counterfeit if the Chinese do it. They are either both counterfeit or neither.
Clearly you aren't familiar with you Tube and social media. EVERYTHING that looks even slightly different looks valuable to newbies.
It would also take about 3 minutes to create a teaser showing prices realized for genuine US patterns and then presenting the Carr piece as a "pattern".
It would also take just a few minutes to find a ton of documentation on Carr material. If you’re going to spend big money on a pattern piece (or any rare coin) I would hope they would do their due diligence by researching the item in question, especially if you’re a newbie.
It would be much harder to find Dan Carr information for a tricked newbie than it would be to trick him. You'd have to either know who he is or hope that Google Lens or another photo search comes up with the proper information. We have people ask all the time what a coin or medal is, and they aren't newbies. It's not always that easy to find information on a small operation like Mr. Carr's.
Define "big money". I've seen numerous newbies buy obvious fakes in country auctions for $500 or more. I was surprised the first time it happened. I'm no longer surprised.
But I'm not sure what any of that has to do with someone minting "impossible" copies of U.S. coins. Do you really think that Johnny Average knows that Peace dollars were only minted between 1921 and 1935? So if Dan Carr creates a 1918 or a 1965, it would be EASY to sell it as a genuine U.S. coin to most of the public. The Hobby Protection Act exist for a reason, a very good reason.
For a newbie $500 could be big money. But all anyone has to do is Google a Peace dollar from 1918, 1919, 1965 or any of those odd years, Carr will come up along with his web site. There will likely be information about any pattern if any were made. I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone who spends their money (big or small) without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.
So you're okay with Chinese artists making 1901-CC Morgan dollars?
Gee, is that what I said?
You got that out of ** “… without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.”**
I asked the question because there is an odd dichotomy in the way people view Carr and how they view Chinese counterfeits. It's okay for Dan Carr to make a 1965 Peace Dollar but it's a counterfeit if the Chinese do it. They are either both counterfeit or neither.
Not so odd. Do the Chinese overstrike authentic US Peace Dollars and document each issue or just strike a base metal planchet? Every piece Carr overstrikes, such as Morgan and Peace dollars are over struck on Morgan and Peace dollars, not pot metal (which would not be an over strike or altered coin) and each of these overstrikes come with well written documentation. I will repeat my bottom line, do your due diligence when buying what you are told is a rare coin. If it can’t be authenticated don’t buy it …..or beware.
Clearly you aren't familiar with you Tube and social media. EVERYTHING that looks even slightly different looks valuable to newbies.
It would also take about 3 minutes to create a teaser showing prices realized for genuine US patterns and then presenting the Carr piece as a "pattern".
It would also take just a few minutes to find a ton of documentation on Carr material. If you’re going to spend big money on a pattern piece (or any rare coin) I would hope they would do their due diligence by researching the item in question, especially if you’re a newbie.
It would be much harder to find Dan Carr information for a tricked newbie than it would be to trick him. You'd have to either know who he is or hope that Google Lens or another photo search comes up with the proper information. We have people ask all the time what a coin or medal is, and they aren't newbies. It's not always that easy to find information on a small operation like Mr. Carr's.
Define "big money". I've seen numerous newbies buy obvious fakes in country auctions for $500 or more. I was surprised the first time it happened. I'm no longer surprised.
But I'm not sure what any of that has to do with someone minting "impossible" copies of U.S. coins. Do you really think that Johnny Average knows that Peace dollars were only minted between 1921 and 1935? So if Dan Carr creates a 1918 or a 1965, it would be EASY to sell it as a genuine U.S. coin to most of the public. The Hobby Protection Act exist for a reason, a very good reason.
For a newbie $500 could be big money. But all anyone has to do is Google a Peace dollar from 1918, 1919, 1965 or any of those odd years, Carr will come up along with his web site. There will likely be information about any pattern if any were made. I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone who spends their money (big or small) without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.
So you're okay with Chinese artists making 1901-CC Morgan dollars?
Gee, is that what I said?
You got that out of ** “… without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.”**
I asked the question because there is an odd dichotomy in the way people view Carr and how they view Chinese counterfeits. It's okay for Dan Carr to make a 1965 Peace Dollar but it's a counterfeit if the Chinese do it. They are either both counterfeit or neither.
The hobby protection act regards them as different.
Clearly you aren't familiar with you Tube and social media. EVERYTHING that looks even slightly different looks valuable to newbies.
It would also take about 3 minutes to create a teaser showing prices realized for genuine US patterns and then presenting the Carr piece as a "pattern".
It would also take just a few minutes to find a ton of documentation on Carr material. If you’re going to spend big money on a pattern piece (or any rare coin) I would hope they would do their due diligence by researching the item in question, especially if you’re a newbie.
It would be much harder to find Dan Carr information for a tricked newbie than it would be to trick him. You'd have to either know who he is or hope that Google Lens or another photo search comes up with the proper information. We have people ask all the time what a coin or medal is, and they aren't newbies. It's not always that easy to find information on a small operation like Mr. Carr's.
Define "big money". I've seen numerous newbies buy obvious fakes in country auctions for $500 or more. I was surprised the first time it happened. I'm no longer surprised.
But I'm not sure what any of that has to do with someone minting "impossible" copies of U.S. coins. Do you really think that Johnny Average knows that Peace dollars were only minted between 1921 and 1935? So if Dan Carr creates a 1918 or a 1965, it would be EASY to sell it as a genuine U.S. coin to most of the public. The Hobby Protection Act exist for a reason, a very good reason.
For a newbie $500 could be big money. But all anyone has to do is Google a Peace dollar from 1918, 1919, 1965 or any of those odd years, Carr will come up along with his web site. There will likely be information about any pattern if any were made. I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone who spends their money (big or small) without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.
So you're okay with Chinese artists making 1901-CC Morgan dollars?
Gee, is that what I said?
You got that out of ** “… without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.”**
I asked the question because there is an odd dichotomy in the way people view Carr and how they view Chinese counterfeits. It's okay for Dan Carr to make a 1965 Peace Dollar but it's a counterfeit if the Chinese do it. They are either both counterfeit or neither.
Not so odd. Do the Chinese overstrike authentic US Peace Dollars and document each issue or just strike a base metal planchet? Every piece Carr overstrikes, such as Morgan and Peace dollars are over struck on Morgan and Peace dollars, not pot metal (which would not be an over strike or altered coin) and each of these overstrikes come with well written documentation. I will repeat my bottom line, do your due diligence when buying what you are told is a rare coin. If it can’t be authenticated don’t buy it …..or beware.
The Chinese strike the coins in good silver sometimes.
I do not find it remotely compelling that he overstrikes Morgan or Peace dollars. If I overstrike a 1916 Mercury dime with a 1916-D Mercury dime, it is undoubtedly a counterfeit. The underlying planchet does not make it more or less so. You can argue, if you wish, that a fantasy coin isn't a counterfeit because it is a fantasy. But why would the impossible fantasy need to be struck on a particular planchet. Admit it, if the Chinese overstruck cull Morgan/Peace dollars, you would STILL consider them counterfeit.
Clearly you aren't familiar with you Tube and social media. EVERYTHING that looks even slightly different looks valuable to newbies.
It would also take about 3 minutes to create a teaser showing prices realized for genuine US patterns and then presenting the Carr piece as a "pattern".
It would also take just a few minutes to find a ton of documentation on Carr material. If you’re going to spend big money on a pattern piece (or any rare coin) I would hope they would do their due diligence by researching the item in question, especially if you’re a newbie.
It would be much harder to find Dan Carr information for a tricked newbie than it would be to trick him. You'd have to either know who he is or hope that Google Lens or another photo search comes up with the proper information. We have people ask all the time what a coin or medal is, and they aren't newbies. It's not always that easy to find information on a small operation like Mr. Carr's.
Define "big money". I've seen numerous newbies buy obvious fakes in country auctions for $500 or more. I was surprised the first time it happened. I'm no longer surprised.
But I'm not sure what any of that has to do with someone minting "impossible" copies of U.S. coins. Do you really think that Johnny Average knows that Peace dollars were only minted between 1921 and 1935? So if Dan Carr creates a 1918 or a 1965, it would be EASY to sell it as a genuine U.S. coin to most of the public. The Hobby Protection Act exist for a reason, a very good reason.
For a newbie $500 could be big money. But all anyone has to do is Google a Peace dollar from 1918, 1919, 1965 or any of those odd years, Carr will come up along with his web site. There will likely be information about any pattern if any were made. I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone who spends their money (big or small) without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.
So you're okay with Chinese artists making 1901-CC Morgan dollars?
Gee, is that what I said?
You got that out of ** “… without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.”**
I asked the question because there is an odd dichotomy in the way people view Carr and how they view Chinese counterfeits. It's okay for Dan Carr to make a 1965 Peace Dollar but it's a counterfeit if the Chinese do it. They are either both counterfeit or neither.
The hobby protection act regards them as different.
Please show me the verbiage in the HBA that treats them differently.
The HBA makes no such distinction. It does not specifically address "fantasy" objects. However, it also doesn't make Chinese fantasies illegal and Dan Carr fantasies legal.
@jmlanzaf said:
2. I do not find it remotely compelling that he overstrikes Morgan or Peace dollars. If I overstrike a 1916 Mercury dime with a 1916-D Mercury dime, it is undoubtedly a counterfeit. The underlying planchet does not make it more or less so.
It is legal to alter a coin. It's only illegal to alter it for fraudulent purposes. DCarr's fantasy items are arguably an alteration of a genuine coin, and not done to deceive.
@jmlanzaf said:
2. I do not find it remotely compelling that he overstrikes Morgan or Peace dollars. If I overstrike a 1916 Mercury dime with a 1916-D Mercury dime, it is undoubtedly a counterfeit. The underlying planchet does not make it more or less so.
It is legal to alter a coin. It's only illegal to alter it for fraudulent purposes. DCarr's fantasy items are arguably an alteration of a genuine coin, and not done to deceive.
That's fine. But then the same would apply to the Chinese fantasies.
@jmlanzaf said:
2. I do not find it remotely compelling that he overstrikes Morgan or Peace dollars. If I overstrike a 1916 Mercury dime with a 1916-D Mercury dime, it is undoubtedly a counterfeit. The underlying planchet does not make it more or less so.
It is legal to alter a coin. It's only illegal to alter it for fraudulent purposes. DCarr's fantasy items are arguably an alteration of a genuine coin, and not done to deceive.
That's fine. But then the same would apply to the Chinese fantasies.
If they were overstruck on legal coins and if they were marketed appropriately. Then it would be the same thing.
@Jager322 said:
I guess I might as well send it in to be graded 😎
This may be an interesting idea if you sent it in to icg and got it into one of their counterfeit holders. Wouldn’t this coin be somewhat valuable in that holder?
Clearly you aren't familiar with you Tube and social media. EVERYTHING that looks even slightly different looks valuable to newbies.
It would also take about 3 minutes to create a teaser showing prices realized for genuine US patterns and then presenting the Carr piece as a "pattern".
It would also take just a few minutes to find a ton of documentation on Carr material. If you’re going to spend big money on a pattern piece (or any rare coin) I would hope they would do their due diligence by researching the item in question, especially if you’re a newbie.
It would be much harder to find Dan Carr information for a tricked newbie than it would be to trick him. You'd have to either know who he is or hope that Google Lens or another photo search comes up with the proper information. We have people ask all the time what a coin or medal is, and they aren't newbies. It's not always that easy to find information on a small operation like Mr. Carr's.
Define "big money". I've seen numerous newbies buy obvious fakes in country auctions for $500 or more. I was surprised the first time it happened. I'm no longer surprised.
But I'm not sure what any of that has to do with someone minting "impossible" copies of U.S. coins. Do you really think that Johnny Average knows that Peace dollars were only minted between 1921 and 1935? So if Dan Carr creates a 1918 or a 1965, it would be EASY to sell it as a genuine U.S. coin to most of the public. The Hobby Protection Act exist for a reason, a very good reason.
For a newbie $500 could be big money. But all anyone has to do is Google a Peace dollar from 1918, 1919, 1965 or any of those odd years, Carr will come up along with his web site. There will likely be information about any pattern if any were made. I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone who spends their money (big or small) without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.
So you're okay with Chinese artists making 1901-CC Morgan dollars?
Gee, is that what I said?
You got that out of ** “… without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.”**
I asked the question because there is an odd dichotomy in the way people view Carr and how they view Chinese counterfeits. It's okay for Dan Carr to make a 1965 Peace Dollar but it's a counterfeit if the Chinese do it. They are either both counterfeit or neither.
The hobby protection act regards them as different.
Please show me the verbiage in the HBA that treats them differently.
The HBA makes no such distinction. It does not specifically address "fantasy" objects. However, it also doesn't make Chinese fantasies illegal and Dan Carr fantasies legal.
As JBK notes, the difference is that you can alter GENUINE coins as long as it's not deceptive. Carr just happens to alter the entire coin with a date/mm that was never used, and then makes that clear, i.e, not deceptive.
Fair or not, that's the distinction that makes them different than Chinese counterfeits.
@jmlanzaf said:
2. I do not find it remotely compelling that he overstrikes Morgan or Peace dollars. If I overstrike a 1916 Mercury dime with a 1916-D Mercury dime, it is undoubtedly a counterfeit. The underlying planchet does not make it more or less so.
It is legal to alter a coin. It's only illegal to alter it for fraudulent purposes. DCarr's fantasy items are arguably an alteration of a genuine coin, and not done to deceive.
That's fine. But then the same would apply to the Chinese fantasies.
If they were overstruck on legal coins and if they were marketed appropriately. Then it would be the same thing.
I'm still not buying the "overstruck on legal coins". What makes them legal coins is the text you are striking over. Striking a US coin on a UK planchet doesn't make it British.
Clearly you aren't familiar with you Tube and social media. EVERYTHING that looks even slightly different looks valuable to newbies.
It would also take about 3 minutes to create a teaser showing prices realized for genuine US patterns and then presenting the Carr piece as a "pattern".
It would also take just a few minutes to find a ton of documentation on Carr material. If you’re going to spend big money on a pattern piece (or any rare coin) I would hope they would do their due diligence by researching the item in question, especially if you’re a newbie.
It would be much harder to find Dan Carr information for a tricked newbie than it would be to trick him. You'd have to either know who he is or hope that Google Lens or another photo search comes up with the proper information. We have people ask all the time what a coin or medal is, and they aren't newbies. It's not always that easy to find information on a small operation like Mr. Carr's.
Define "big money". I've seen numerous newbies buy obvious fakes in country auctions for $500 or more. I was surprised the first time it happened. I'm no longer surprised.
But I'm not sure what any of that has to do with someone minting "impossible" copies of U.S. coins. Do you really think that Johnny Average knows that Peace dollars were only minted between 1921 and 1935? So if Dan Carr creates a 1918 or a 1965, it would be EASY to sell it as a genuine U.S. coin to most of the public. The Hobby Protection Act exist for a reason, a very good reason.
For a newbie $500 could be big money. But all anyone has to do is Google a Peace dollar from 1918, 1919, 1965 or any of those odd years, Carr will come up along with his web site. There will likely be information about any pattern if any were made. I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone who spends their money (big or small) without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.
So you're okay with Chinese artists making 1901-CC Morgan dollars?
Gee, is that what I said?
You got that out of ** “… without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.”**
I asked the question because there is an odd dichotomy in the way people view Carr and how they view Chinese counterfeits. It's okay for Dan Carr to make a 1965 Peace Dollar but it's a counterfeit if the Chinese do it. They are either both counterfeit or neither.
The hobby protection act regards them as different.
Please show me the verbiage in the HBA that treats them differently.
The HBA makes no such distinction. It does not specifically address "fantasy" objects. However, it also doesn't make Chinese fantasies illegal and Dan Carr fantasies legal.
As JBK notes, the difference is that you can alter GENUINE coins as long as it's not deceptive. Carr just happens to alter the entire coin with a date/mm that was never used, and then makes that clear, i.e, not deceptive.
Fair or not, that's the distinction that makes them different than Chinese counterfeits.
Clearly you aren't familiar with you Tube and social media. EVERYTHING that looks even slightly different looks valuable to newbies.
It would also take about 3 minutes to create a teaser showing prices realized for genuine US patterns and then presenting the Carr piece as a "pattern".
It would also take just a few minutes to find a ton of documentation on Carr material. If you’re going to spend big money on a pattern piece (or any rare coin) I would hope they would do their due diligence by researching the item in question, especially if you’re a newbie.
It would be much harder to find Dan Carr information for a tricked newbie than it would be to trick him. You'd have to either know who he is or hope that Google Lens or another photo search comes up with the proper information. We have people ask all the time what a coin or medal is, and they aren't newbies. It's not always that easy to find information on a small operation like Mr. Carr's.
Define "big money". I've seen numerous newbies buy obvious fakes in country auctions for $500 or more. I was surprised the first time it happened. I'm no longer surprised.
But I'm not sure what any of that has to do with someone minting "impossible" copies of U.S. coins. Do you really think that Johnny Average knows that Peace dollars were only minted between 1921 and 1935? So if Dan Carr creates a 1918 or a 1965, it would be EASY to sell it as a genuine U.S. coin to most of the public. The Hobby Protection Act exist for a reason, a very good reason.
For a newbie $500 could be big money. But all anyone has to do is Google a Peace dollar from 1918, 1919, 1965 or any of those odd years, Carr will come up along with his web site. There will likely be information about any pattern if any were made. I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone who spends their money (big or small) without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.
So you're okay with Chinese artists making 1901-CC Morgan dollars?
Gee, is that what I said?
You got that out of ** “… without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.”**
I asked the question because there is an odd dichotomy in the way people view Carr and how they view Chinese counterfeits. It's okay for Dan Carr to make a 1965 Peace Dollar but it's a counterfeit if the Chinese do it. They are either both counterfeit or neither.
The hobby protection act regards them as different.
Please show me the verbiage in the HBA that treats them differently.
The HBA makes no such distinction. It does not specifically address "fantasy" objects. However, it also doesn't make Chinese fantasies illegal and Dan Carr fantasies legal.
As JBK notes, the difference is that you can alter GENUINE coins as long as it's not deceptive. Carr just happens to alter the entire coin with a date/mm that was never used, and then makes that clear, i.e, not deceptive.
Fair or not, that's the distinction that makes them different than Chinese counterfeits.
I'd like to see the case law on that.
I'm sure @dcarr can explain it better. There's a reason why he does things exactly the way he does.
Clearly you aren't familiar with you Tube and social media. EVERYTHING that looks even slightly different looks valuable to newbies.
It would also take about 3 minutes to create a teaser showing prices realized for genuine US patterns and then presenting the Carr piece as a "pattern".
It would also take just a few minutes to find a ton of documentation on Carr material. If you’re going to spend big money on a pattern piece (or any rare coin) I would hope they would do their due diligence by researching the item in question, especially if you’re a newbie.
It would be much harder to find Dan Carr information for a tricked newbie than it would be to trick him. You'd have to either know who he is or hope that Google Lens or another photo search comes up with the proper information. We have people ask all the time what a coin or medal is, and they aren't newbies. It's not always that easy to find information on a small operation like Mr. Carr's.
Define "big money". I've seen numerous newbies buy obvious fakes in country auctions for $500 or more. I was surprised the first time it happened. I'm no longer surprised.
But I'm not sure what any of that has to do with someone minting "impossible" copies of U.S. coins. Do you really think that Johnny Average knows that Peace dollars were only minted between 1921 and 1935? So if Dan Carr creates a 1918 or a 1965, it would be EASY to sell it as a genuine U.S. coin to most of the public. The Hobby Protection Act exist for a reason, a very good reason.
For a newbie $500 could be big money. But all anyone has to do is Google a Peace dollar from 1918, 1919, 1965 or any of those odd years, Carr will come up along with his web site. There will likely be information about any pattern if any were made. I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone who spends their money (big or small) without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.
So you're okay with Chinese artists making 1901-CC Morgan dollars?
Gee, is that what I said?
You got that out of ** “… without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.”**
I asked the question because there is an odd dichotomy in the way people view Carr and how they view Chinese counterfeits. It's okay for Dan Carr to make a 1965 Peace Dollar but it's a counterfeit if the Chinese do it. They are either both counterfeit or neither.
The hobby protection act regards them as different.
Please show me the verbiage in the HBA that treats them differently.
The HBA makes no such distinction. It does not specifically address "fantasy" objects. However, it also doesn't make Chinese fantasies illegal and Dan Carr fantasies legal.
As JBK notes, the difference is that you can alter GENUINE coins as long as it's not deceptive. Carr just happens to alter the entire coin with a date/mm that was never used, and then makes that clear, i.e, not deceptive.
Fair or not, that's the distinction that makes them different than Chinese counterfeits.
I'd like to see the case law on that.
I'm sure @dcarr can explain it better. There's a reason why he does things exactly the way he does.
The US vs. Wilson declared that obliterating the design on the coin makes it not a coin at all. At the very least, that argument doesn't hold water.
Clearly you aren't familiar with you Tube and social media. EVERYTHING that looks even slightly different looks valuable to newbies.
It would also take about 3 minutes to create a teaser showing prices realized for genuine US patterns and then presenting the Carr piece as a "pattern".
It would also take just a few minutes to find a ton of documentation on Carr material. If you’re going to spend big money on a pattern piece (or any rare coin) I would hope they would do their due diligence by researching the item in question, especially if you’re a newbie.
It would be much harder to find Dan Carr information for a tricked newbie than it would be to trick him. You'd have to either know who he is or hope that Google Lens or another photo search comes up with the proper information. We have people ask all the time what a coin or medal is, and they aren't newbies. It's not always that easy to find information on a small operation like Mr. Carr's.
Define "big money". I've seen numerous newbies buy obvious fakes in country auctions for $500 or more. I was surprised the first time it happened. I'm no longer surprised.
But I'm not sure what any of that has to do with someone minting "impossible" copies of U.S. coins. Do you really think that Johnny Average knows that Peace dollars were only minted between 1921 and 1935? So if Dan Carr creates a 1918 or a 1965, it would be EASY to sell it as a genuine U.S. coin to most of the public. The Hobby Protection Act exist for a reason, a very good reason.
For a newbie $500 could be big money. But all anyone has to do is Google a Peace dollar from 1918, 1919, 1965 or any of those odd years, Carr will come up along with his web site. There will likely be information about any pattern if any were made. I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone who spends their money (big or small) without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.
So you're okay with Chinese artists making 1901-CC Morgan dollars?
Gee, is that what I said?
You got that out of ** “… without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.”**
I asked the question because there is an odd dichotomy in the way people view Carr and how they view Chinese counterfeits. It's okay for Dan Carr to make a 1965 Peace Dollar but it's a counterfeit if the Chinese do it. They are either both counterfeit or neither.
The hobby protection act regards them as different.
Please show me the verbiage in the HBA that treats them differently.
The HBA makes no such distinction. It does not specifically address "fantasy" objects. However, it also doesn't make Chinese fantasies illegal and Dan Carr fantasies legal.
As JBK notes, the difference is that you can alter GENUINE coins as long as it's not deceptive. Carr just happens to alter the entire coin with a date/mm that was never used, and then makes that clear, i.e, not deceptive.
Fair or not, that's the distinction that makes them different than Chinese counterfeits.
I'd like to see the case law on that.
I'm sure @dcarr can explain it better. There's a reason why he does things exactly the way he does.
The US vs. Wilson declared that obliterating the design on the coin makes it big a coin at all. At the very least, that argument doesn't hold water.
Clearly you aren't familiar with you Tube and social media. EVERYTHING that looks even slightly different looks valuable to newbies.
It would also take about 3 minutes to create a teaser showing prices realized for genuine US patterns and then presenting the Carr piece as a "pattern".
It would also take just a few minutes to find a ton of documentation on Carr material. If you’re going to spend big money on a pattern piece (or any rare coin) I would hope they would do their due diligence by researching the item in question, especially if you’re a newbie.
It would be much harder to find Dan Carr information for a tricked newbie than it would be to trick him. You'd have to either know who he is or hope that Google Lens or another photo search comes up with the proper information. We have people ask all the time what a coin or medal is, and they aren't newbies. It's not always that easy to find information on a small operation like Mr. Carr's.
Define "big money". I've seen numerous newbies buy obvious fakes in country auctions for $500 or more. I was surprised the first time it happened. I'm no longer surprised.
But I'm not sure what any of that has to do with someone minting "impossible" copies of U.S. coins. Do you really think that Johnny Average knows that Peace dollars were only minted between 1921 and 1935? So if Dan Carr creates a 1918 or a 1965, it would be EASY to sell it as a genuine U.S. coin to most of the public. The Hobby Protection Act exist for a reason, a very good reason.
For a newbie $500 could be big money. But all anyone has to do is Google a Peace dollar from 1918, 1919, 1965 or any of those odd years, Carr will come up along with his web site. There will likely be information about any pattern if any were made. I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone who spends their money (big or small) without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.
So you're okay with Chinese artists making 1901-CC Morgan dollars?
Gee, is that what I said?
You got that out of ** “… without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.”**
I asked the question because there is an odd dichotomy in the way people view Carr and how they view Chinese counterfeits. It's okay for Dan Carr to make a 1965 Peace Dollar but it's a counterfeit if the Chinese do it. They are either both counterfeit or neither.
The hobby protection act regards them as different.
Please show me the verbiage in the HBA that treats them differently.
The HBA makes no such distinction. It does not specifically address "fantasy" objects. However, it also doesn't make Chinese fantasies illegal and Dan Carr fantasies legal.
As JBK notes, the difference is that you can alter GENUINE coins as long as it's not deceptive. Carr just happens to alter the entire coin with a date/mm that was never used, and then makes that clear, i.e, not deceptive.
Fair or not, that's the distinction that makes them different than Chinese counterfeits.
I'd like to see the case law on that.
I'm sure @dcarr can explain it better. There's a reason why he does things exactly the way he does.
The US vs. Wilson declared that obliterating the design on the coin makes it big a coin at all. At the very least, that argument doesn't hold water.
Clearly you aren't familiar with you Tube and social media. EVERYTHING that looks even slightly different looks valuable to newbies.
It would also take about 3 minutes to create a teaser showing prices realized for genuine US patterns and then presenting the Carr piece as a "pattern".
It would also take just a few minutes to find a ton of documentation on Carr material. If you’re going to spend big money on a pattern piece (or any rare coin) I would hope they would do their due diligence by researching the item in question, especially if you’re a newbie.
It would be much harder to find Dan Carr information for a tricked newbie than it would be to trick him. You'd have to either know who he is or hope that Google Lens or another photo search comes up with the proper information. We have people ask all the time what a coin or medal is, and they aren't newbies. It's not always that easy to find information on a small operation like Mr. Carr's.
Define "big money". I've seen numerous newbies buy obvious fakes in country auctions for $500 or more. I was surprised the first time it happened. I'm no longer surprised.
But I'm not sure what any of that has to do with someone minting "impossible" copies of U.S. coins. Do you really think that Johnny Average knows that Peace dollars were only minted between 1921 and 1935? So if Dan Carr creates a 1918 or a 1965, it would be EASY to sell it as a genuine U.S. coin to most of the public. The Hobby Protection Act exist for a reason, a very good reason.
For a newbie $500 could be big money. But all anyone has to do is Google a Peace dollar from 1918, 1919, 1965 or any of those odd years, Carr will come up along with his web site. There will likely be information about any pattern if any were made. I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone who spends their money (big or small) without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.
So you're okay with Chinese artists making 1901-CC Morgan dollars?
Gee, is that what I said?
You got that out of ** “… without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.”**
I asked the question because there is an odd dichotomy in the way people view Carr and how they view Chinese counterfeits. It's okay for Dan Carr to make a 1965 Peace Dollar but it's a counterfeit if the Chinese do it. They are either both counterfeit or neither.
The hobby protection act regards them as different.
Please show me the verbiage in the HBA that treats them differently.
The HBA makes no such distinction. It does not specifically address "fantasy" objects. However, it also doesn't make Chinese fantasies illegal and Dan Carr fantasies legal.
As JBK notes, the difference is that you can alter GENUINE coins as long as it's not deceptive. Carr just happens to alter the entire coin with a date/mm that was never used, and then makes that clear, i.e, not deceptive.
Fair or not, that's the distinction that makes them different than Chinese counterfeits.
I'd like to see the case law on that.
I'm sure @dcarr can explain it better. There's a reason why he does things exactly the way he does.
The US vs. Wilson declared that obliterating the design on the coin makes it not a coin at all. At the very least, that argument doesn't hold water.
You are left with the possibility that fantasies are not counterfeit. I could maybe accept that but only if also applied to Chinese fantasies equally.
I'm not asking you to accept anything. You view them the same, I don't. Ultimately, it's up to Uncle Sam and he either agrees than Dan's pieces are different, or he doesn't care on way or the other. Ebay regards them as different also.
So I’m allowed to make dies that fit a regulation minting press that resemble American Legal tender as long as it has a different date on it? That in of its self seems like a federal crime. People are focusing in on the selling of his coins and possession via the hobby act but the manufacturing is where I am sure a half-awake Prosecutor could successfully make something stick. I’m not saying I would want to see him charged but I bet he could be if they cared enough to do it. Not caring isn’t the same thing as legal. It isn’t the design that make his dies illegal it is a declared face value on them.
His dies are just counterfeit, no if ands or buts and if the dies are counterfeit, I don’t really agree with the mental gymnastics to rationalize their product being somehow legit.
@Crypto said:
So I’m allowed to make dies that fit a regulation minting press that resemble American Legal tender as long as it has a different date on it? That in of its self seems like a federal crime. People are focusing in on the selling of his coins and possession via the hobby act but the manufacturing is where I am sure a half-awake Prosecutor could successfully make something stick. I’m not saying I would want to see him charged but I bet he could be if they cared enough to do it. Not caring isn’t the same thing as legal. It isn’t the design that make his dies illegal it is a declared face value on them.
His dies are just counterfeit, no if ands or buts and if the dies are counterfeit, I don’t really agree with the mental gymnastics to rationalize their product being somehow legit.
You forgot that they're struck on a genuine coin as part of the "manufacturing".
No one is doing "mental gymnastics". The only thing I, and a couple others, are doing is trying to explain why Dan can sell his coins without the feds shutting him down.
Rest assured, he knows what he's doing to keep things legal. The feds clearly are making a distinction, we're just trying to explain why. Don't shoot the messenger.
@Crypto said:
So I’m allowed to make dies that fit a regulation minting press that resemble American Legal tender as long as it has a different date on it? That in of its self seems like a federal crime. People are focusing in on the selling of his coins and possession via the hobby act but the manufacturing is where I am sure a half-awake Prosecutor could successfully make something stick. I’m not saying I would want to see him charged but I bet he could be if they cared enough to do it. Not caring isn’t the same thing as legal. It isn’t the design that make his dies illegal it is a declared face value on them.
His dies are just counterfeit, no if ands or buts and if the dies are counterfeit, I don’t really agree with the mental gymnastics to rationalize their product being somehow legit.
You forgot that they're struck on a genuine coin as part of the "manufacturing".
No one is doing "mental gymnastics". The only thing I, and a couple others, are doing is trying to explain why Dan can sell his coins without the feds shutting him down.
Rest assured, he knows what he's doing to keep things legal. The feds clearly are making a distinction, we're just trying to explain why. Don't shoot the messenger.
Your comments are filled with hope, speculation and assumptions which is the definition of “mental gymnastics”. The absence of prosecution is not an endorsement of legality. I guess all the weed shops in my area mean then that weed is federally legal and those shop owners could never be charged.
You’re allowed to like his stuff, lots of people who don’t know any better like the Franklin mint stuff. Hell plenty of people collect counterfeits outright although I have yet to hear a person call a Henning nickel merely a fantasy production since they are missing a wartime mint mark. To each their own, just know plenty of serious numismatists will never accept them due to the slippery slope they present.
@Crypto said:
So I’m allowed to make dies that fit a regulation minting press that resemble American Legal tender as long as it has a different date on it? That in of its self seems like a federal crime. People are focusing in on the selling of his coins and possession via the hobby act but the manufacturing is where I am sure a half-awake Prosecutor could successfully make something stick. I’m not saying I would want to see him charged but I bet he could be if they cared enough to do it. Not caring isn’t the same thing as legal. It isn’t the design that make his dies illegal it is a declared face value on them.
His dies are just counterfeit, no if ands or buts and if the dies are counterfeit, I don’t really agree with the mental gymnastics to rationalize their product being somehow legit.
You forgot that they're struck on a genuine coin as part of the "manufacturing".
No one is doing "mental gymnastics". The only thing I, and a couple others, are doing is trying to explain why Dan can sell his coins without the feds shutting him down.
Rest assured, he knows what he's doing to keep things legal. The feds clearly are making a distinction, we're just trying to explain why. Don't shoot the messenger.
Your comments are filled with hope, speculation and assumptions which is the definition of “mental gymnastics”. The absence of prosecution is not an endorsement of legality. I guess all the weed shops in my area mean then that weed is federally legal and those shop owners could never be charged.
You’re allowed to like his stuff, lots of people who don’t know any better like the Franklin mint stuff. Hell plenty of people collect counterfeits outright although I have yet to hear a person call a Henning nickel merely a fantasy production since they are missing a wartime mint mark. To each their own, just know plenty of serious numismatists will never accept them due to the slippery slope they present.
My comments aren't "filled" with anything, I'm just explaining the "letter of the law" argument that is being made that makes Dan's products different. You are free to agree or not agree, I don't care either way.
Per the hobby protection act - You can alter or deface coins as long as there's no intent to deceive.
Dan alters and defaces coins. Henning didn't alter or deface coins. The Chinese aren't altering or defacing coins.
Dan has full disclosure, i.e. no intent to deceive. Henning didn't have full disclosure. The Chinese don't have full disclosure.
I don't understand why so many people can't seem to grasp the distinctions. You can hate Dan's products but don't let emotion get in the way of understanding the basis for the distinction.
@Crypto said:
So I’m allowed to make dies that fit a regulation minting press that resemble American Legal tender as long as it has a different date on it? That in of its self seems like a federal crime. People are focusing in on the selling of his coins and possession via the hobby act but the manufacturing is where I am sure a half-awake Prosecutor could successfully make something stick. I’m not saying I would want to see him charged but I bet he could be if they cared enough to do it. Not caring isn’t the same thing as legal. It isn’t the design that make his dies illegal it is a declared face value on them.
His dies are just counterfeit, no if ands or buts and if the dies are counterfeit, I don’t really agree with the mental gymnastics to rationalize their product being somehow legit.
You forgot that they're struck on a genuine coin as part of the "manufacturing".
No one is doing "mental gymnastics". The only thing I, and a couple others, are doing is trying to explain why Dan can sell his coins without the feds shutting him down.
Rest assured, he knows what he's doing to keep things legal. The feds clearly are making a distinction, we're just trying to explain why. Don't shoot the messenger.
Your comments are filled with hope, speculation and assumptions which is the definition of “mental gymnastics”. The absence of prosecution is not an endorsement of legality. I guess all the weed shops in my area mean then that weed is federally legal and those shop owners could never be charged.
You’re allowed to like his stuff, lots of people who don’t know any better like the Franklin mint stuff. Hell plenty of people collect counterfeits outright although I have yet to hear a person call a Henning nickel merely a fantasy production since they are missing a wartime mint mark. To each their own, just know plenty of serious numismatists will never accept them due to the slippery slope they present.
My comments aren't "filled" with anything, I'm just explaining the "letter of the law" argument that is being made that makes Dan's products different. You are free to agree or not agree, I don't care either way.
Per the hobby protection act - You can alter or deface coins as long as there's no intent to deceive.
Dan alters and defaces coins. Henning didn't alter or deface coins. The Chinese aren't altering or defacing coins.
Dan has full disclosure, i.e. no intent to deceive. Henning didn't have full disclosure. The Chinese don't have full disclosure.
I don't understand why so many people can't seem to grasp the distinctions. You can hate Dan's products but don't let emotion get in the way of understanding the basis for the distinction.
I don’t think you have first hand knowledge of the law and if you did you would know there are dozens and dozens of laws other than the hobby act that could apply to the manufacturing or modifying US coinage. I know Mr Carr has a legal hypothesis that many fans parrot that to date has not ruffled law enforcement feathers but want you don’t seem to get is many of our objections are absolute and not about him or his obvious mechanical talents. I have a few of his products such as the LSCC medals and his products are world class and better than what is often put out by the actual mint.
But you are either ok with people making US coins or you’re not. And while I trust his intentions, one must always factor in the fog of time and the opportunistic exploitation of the under informed. Arguing untested loop holes is a straw argument to my “don’t make peace dollars if your are not the mint”. A loop hole for Mr Carr is a loop hole for Mr Lee and retroactively trying to piece together intent and process is a fools errand and counterfeiting prosecuting should start with if you made it not why you made.
Use Henning nickels as examples. You don’t know they didn’t use old nickels to make them, you don’t know he didn’t make them as a harmless prop. If he could come back at trial and say they are legal because he left the mint mark off and any expert would know that would be ridiculous. 99.9% of people don’t
@Crypto said:
So I’m allowed to make dies that fit a regulation minting press that resemble American Legal tender as long as it has a different date on it? That in of its self seems like a federal crime. People are focusing in on the selling of his coins and possession via the hobby act but the manufacturing is where I am sure a half-awake Prosecutor could successfully make something stick. I’m not saying I would want to see him charged but I bet he could be if they cared enough to do it. Not caring isn’t the same thing as legal. It isn’t the design that make his dies illegal it is a declared face value on them.
His dies are just counterfeit, no if ands or buts and if the dies are counterfeit, I don’t really agree with the mental gymnastics to rationalize their product being somehow legit.
You forgot that they're struck on a genuine coin as part of the "manufacturing".
No one is doing "mental gymnastics". The only thing I, and a couple others, are doing is trying to explain why Dan can sell his coins without the feds shutting him down.
Rest assured, he knows what he's doing to keep things legal. The feds clearly are making a distinction, we're just trying to explain why. Don't shoot the messenger.
Your comments are filled with hope, speculation and assumptions which is the definition of “mental gymnastics”. The absence of prosecution is not an endorsement of legality. I guess all the weed shops in my area mean then that weed is federally legal and those shop owners could never be charged.
You’re allowed to like his stuff, lots of people who don’t know any better like the Franklin mint stuff. Hell plenty of people collect counterfeits outright although I have yet to hear a person call a Henning nickel merely a fantasy production since they are missing a wartime mint mark. To each their own, just know plenty of serious numismatists will never accept them due to the slippery slope they present.
My comments aren't "filled" with anything, I'm just explaining the "letter of the law" argument that is being made that makes Dan's products different. You are free to agree or not agree, I don't care either way.
Per the hobby protection act - You can alter or deface coins as long as there's no intent to deceive.
Dan alters and defaces coins. Henning didn't alter or deface coins. The Chinese aren't altering or defacing coins.
Dan has full disclosure, i.e. no intent to deceive. Henning didn't have full disclosure. The Chinese don't have full disclosure.
I don't understand why so many people can't seem to grasp the distinctions. You can hate Dan's products but don't let emotion get in the way of understanding the basis for the distinction.
I don’t think you have first hand knowledge of the law and if you did you would know there are dozens and dozens of laws other than the hobby act that could apply to the manufacturing or modifying US coinage. I know Mr Carr has a legal hypothesis that many fans parrot that to date has not ruffled law enforcement feathers but want you don’t seem to get is many of our objections are absolute and not about him or his obvious mechanical talents. I have a few of his products such as the LCSS medals and his products are world class and better than what is often put out by the actual mint.
But you are either ok with people making US coins or you’re not. And while I trust his intentions, one must always factor in the fog of time and the opportunistic exploitation of the under informed. Arguing untested loop holes is a straw argument to my “don’t make peace dollars if your are not the mint”. A loop hole for Mr Carr is a loop hole for Mr Lee and retroactively trying to piece together intent and process is a fools errand and counterfeiting prosecuting should start with if you made it not why you made.
Use Henning nickels as examples. You don’t know they didn’t use old nickels to make them, you don’t know he didn’t make them as a harmless prop. If he could come back at trial and say they are legal because he left the mint mark off and any expert would know that would be ridiculous. 99.9% of people don’t
I don't see any letter of the law that makes a US coin legal tender for all eternity of our once was. The slug is not a coin. The slug certified in the minting process is a coin. It's here that I don't think Dan's argument holds water.
Dan is obliterating the US Mint certification that makes it a coin. [See the Wilson case for the letter of the law. ] He's also adding a (counterfeit) copy of the Mint certification that he is not authorized to do. This seems problematic to me.
Again, I'm not arguing one way or the other for Dan's products. I do like some of his products, but don't own any. The government doesn't seem to care one way or the other about Dan or the Chinese.
None of that is my point though. The only point I'm trying to make is that there is a distinction between what Dan does and what the Chinese are doing. What's disingenuous are people saying "Dan's products are exactly like Chinese counterfeits!". At least people should be intellectually honest and admit there's a difference, whether they think the difference matters or not legally.
@Crypto said:
Use Henning nickels as examples. You don’t know they didn’t use old nickels to make them, you don’t know he didn’t make them as a harmless prop. If he could come back at trial and say they are legal because he left the mint mark off and any expert would know that would be ridiculous.
Yes, we do know these things.
He used custom made planchets and he made hundreds of thousands of counterfeit nickels to deceive and circulate.
There was a trial, there were confessions, there was jail time.
I have tried to stay out of this one because everyone here has their own ideas and nothing I say will change that.
Everyone should do more research or hire an attorney to research it for them, I did.
A coin doesn't even need to be struck to be a counterfeit.
If I were to make SBA clad blanks that match the proper weight & diameter and started to use the blanks for commerce in vending machines or on public transit I would be charged with counterfeiting. Not if I only produced 1 of them but if I were to produce thousands of them I would get a knock on my door.
The bottom line is many things are against the law but the government doesn't care or have the resources to pursue.
@ifthevamzarockin said:
I have tried to stay out of this one because everyone here has their own ideas and nothing I say will change that.
Everyone should do more research or hire an attorney to research it for them, I did.
A coin doesn't even need to be struck to be a counterfeit.
If I were to make SBA clad blanks that match the proper weight & diameter and started to use the blanks for commerce in vending machines or on public transit I would be charged with counterfeiting. Not if I only produced 1 of them but if I were to produce thousands of them I would get a knock on my door.
The bottom line is many things are against the law but the government doesn't care or have the resources to pursue.
I agree. I wasn't going to open that door, but glad you did.
Some years ago someone made copper blanks with a reeded edge that worked in vending and coin counting machines. (Not sure why they felt a need to add reeding). The government classified that as counterfeiting.
I believe that it was/is illegal to make slugs/rounds/tokens (blank or struck) that duplicate the composition and dimensions of US coins. How that fits into all these discussions is up to someone else to argue.
Another example..... If Peace dollars were still used as circulating coinage as a value of 1 dollar there would be problems with the 1964 dated fantasy pieces. Everyone is making the argument that a coin collector would know the difference and know it's not a genuine piece. That doesn't matter, a person that doesn't know what dates were produced could easily take one in trade for goods or services. Many cashiers don't even know about Ike dollars or Sac dollars. How would a cashier know what dates were produced on a Peace dollar? Because the Peace dollar is no longer used for commerce the government doesn't care. I could also make a replica Ike dollar with a 2024 date and I'm sure I could pass it to an unknowing cashier, it would be counterfeiting. Arguing with the Secret Service is about like trying to argue with the IRS, they will do what they want and the courts will back them up.
@ifthevamzarockin said:
Another example..... If Peace dollars were still used as circulating coinage as a value of 1 dollar there would be problems with the 1964 dated fantasy pieces. Everyone is making the argument that a coin collector would know the difference and know it's not a genuine piece. That doesn't matter, a person that doesn't know what dates were produced could easily take one in trade for goods or services. Many cashiers don't even know about Ike dollars or Sac dollars. How would a cashier know what dates were produced on a Peace dollar? Because the Peace dollar is no longer used for commerce the government doesn't care. I could also make a replica Ike dollar with a 2024 date and I'm sure I could pass it to an unknowing cashier, it would be counterfeiting. Arguing with the Secret Service is about like trying to argue with the IRS, they will do what they want and the courts will back them up.
Peace dollar are still made and eligible for commerce. The fact people don’t use them is immaterial.
All of Dan’s say one dollar right? One dollar isn’t a unit of currency? He is eligible to print that on things?
@ifthevamzarockin said:
I have tried to stay out of this one because everyone here has their own ideas and nothing I say will change that.
Everyone should do more research or hire an attorney to research it for them, I did.
A coin doesn't even need to be struck to be a counterfeit.
If I were to make SBA clad blanks that match the proper weight & diameter and started to use the blanks for commerce in vending machines or on public transit I would be charged with counterfeiting. Not if I only produced 1 of them but if I were to produce thousands of them I would get a knock on my door.
The bottom line is many things are against the law but the government doesn't care or have the resources to pursue.
I agree. I wasn't going to open that door, but glad you did.
Some years ago someone made copper blanks with a reeded edge that worked in vending and coin counting machines. (Not sure why they felt a need to add reeding). The government classified that as counterfeiting.
I believe that it was/is illegal to make slugs/rounds/tokens (blank or struck) that duplicate the composition and dimensions of US coins. How that fits into all these discussions is up to someone else to argue.
The quarter-sized copper slugs came out in the 1970's. In the same era, some banks and other coin wrapping services were using paper rolls that had a clear plastic window down the side. I am guessing that the windows were so people could spot Canadian coins and/or other foreign coins and/or plain edged slugs in rolls. The reeded edge copper slugs could pass in a roll of copper-nickel clad copper regular U.S. quarters.
The copper slugs were quite a problem for a while and then they just stopped. Various rumors included:
A: The slugs were being made and sold by the Mafia and the Feds shut them down; and
B: Somebody else was making the slugs but they kept turning up in Mafia owned juke boxes and vending machines and the MAFIA shut the maker down.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Comments
I can see it now:
"Rare! Altered Counterfeit. One of a kind!"
peacockcoins
The best COUNTERFEIT 1909-SVDB I ever saw was struck over a 1960 Lincoln cent. Look in the ANACS reprint books.
Are you sure it wasn't a time travel error coin?
Or takes a 1$ bill and prints a 100$ over with a not used date. The intent to deceive is a fickle standard
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
How hard would it be to convince a newbie that your Dan Carr piece is actually a U.S. Mint pattern.
I think it would be pretty difficult. How many newbies have you encountered that are looking for U.S. mint patterns?
Run over it in a parking lot and they will argue to the death that it's real.
Clearly you aren't familiar with you Tube and social media. EVERYTHING that looks even slightly different looks valuable to newbies.
It would also take about 3 minutes to create a teaser showing prices realized for genuine US patterns and then presenting the Carr piece as a "pattern".
Aren't "patterns" usually produced before the final product, to show what the proposed coin would look like? 🤔
Most of DC's offerings that follow actual coin designs are dated or mintmarked within the dates of production of the actual coins.
It would also take just a few minutes to find a ton of documentation on Carr material. If you’re going to spend big money on a pattern piece (or any rare coin) I would hope they would do their due diligence by researching the item in question, especially if you’re a newbie.
- Bob -
"Central Valley" Roosevelts
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
That wouldn't work without the LQQK or perhaps that it was dead grandpa's coin!
It would be much harder to find Dan Carr information for a tricked newbie than it would be to trick him. You'd have to either know who he is or hope that Google Lens or another photo search comes up with the proper information. We have people ask all the time what a coin or medal is, and they aren't newbies. It's not always that easy to find information on a small operation like Mr. Carr's.
Define "big money". I've seen numerous newbies buy obvious fakes in country auctions for $500 or more. I was surprised the first time it happened. I'm no longer surprised.
But I'm not sure what any of that has to do with someone minting "impossible" copies of U.S. coins. Do you really think that Johnny Average knows that Peace dollars were only minted between 1921 and 1935? So if Dan Carr creates a 1918 or a 1965, it would be EASY to sell it as a genuine U.S. coin to most of the public. The Hobby Protection Act exist for a reason, a very good reason.
I know a little bit about coins, but as I sit here I could not give you a definite list of all of the Walking Liberty Half date and mint mark combinations struck from 1921 through 1934..
I have the Redbook next to me if I need it, but not everybody does.
Counterfeit.
The Chinese are known to mix dies together to create previously nonexistent items. Beyond that, the artwork on that item is all wrong.
Here's Chinese "1886-CC Morgan Dollar." The Carson City Mint did not make any dollars in 1886.
For a newbie $500 could be big money. But all anyone has to do is Google a Peace dollar from 1918, 1919, 1965 or any of those odd years, Carr will come up along with his web site. There will likely be information about any pattern if any were made. I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone who spends their money (big or small) without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.
- Bob -
"Central Valley" Roosevelts
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Shake it off and you’ll be alright.
My standard of counterfeit is altered or not real. Using real period parts on a V6 Camaro doesn’t make it a real SS. While some dealers will list it as a clone, some do not.
I know there is a market for his stuff I just don’t think we want to encourage people looking for loop holes in the manufacturing of production quality looking dies and copies of US classic coins. Loving Carr and hating Chan with one of the few differences being Carr used old coins as his blanks and has a web site (currently) is not healthy for the hobby long term. What about the guy who buys Carr’s stuff next and makes subtle changes and states this 69s doubled die has an extra column on the reverse, mint never made one like that. How about the omega gold coins, mint never made them with that hallmark, not counterfeit? Where is the line? Who sets it? Wouldn’t it be better to set it higher to dissuade people from trying to find loopholes?
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
So you're okay with Chinese artists making 1901-CC Morgan dollars?
Gee, is that what I said?
You got that out of ** “… without investigating a rarity for its authenticity. It’s as simple as if it can’t be authenticated don’t buy.”**
- Bob -
"Central Valley" Roosevelts
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
I asked the question because there is an odd dichotomy in the way people view Carr and how they view Chinese counterfeits. It's okay for Dan Carr to make a 1965 Peace Dollar but it's a counterfeit if the Chinese do it. They are either both counterfeit or neither.
Not so odd. Do the Chinese overstrike authentic US Peace Dollars and document each issue or just strike a base metal planchet? Every piece Carr overstrikes, such as Morgan and Peace dollars are over struck on Morgan and Peace dollars, not pot metal (which would not be an over strike or altered coin) and each of these overstrikes come with well written documentation. I will repeat my bottom line, do your due diligence when buying what you are told is a rare coin. If it can’t be authenticated don’t buy it …..or beware.
- Bob -
"Central Valley" Roosevelts
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
The hobby protection act regards them as different.
Please show me the verbiage in the HBA that treats them differently.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-304
The HBA makes no such distinction. It does not specifically address "fantasy" objects. However, it also doesn't make Chinese fantasies illegal and Dan Carr fantasies legal.
It is legal to alter a coin. It's only illegal to alter it for fraudulent purposes. DCarr's fantasy items are arguably an alteration of a genuine coin, and not done to deceive.
That's fine. But then the same would apply to the Chinese fantasies.
If they were overstruck on legal coins and if they were marketed appropriately. Then it would be the same thing.
This may be an interesting idea if you sent it in to icg and got it into one of their counterfeit holders. Wouldn’t this coin be somewhat valuable in that holder?
As JBK notes, the difference is that you can alter GENUINE coins as long as it's not deceptive. Carr just happens to alter the entire coin with a date/mm that was never used, and then makes that clear, i.e, not deceptive.
Fair or not, that's the distinction that makes them different than Chinese counterfeits.
I'm still not buying the "overstruck on legal coins". What makes them legal coins is the text you are striking over. Striking a US coin on a UK planchet doesn't make it British.
I'd like to see the case law on that.
I'm sure @dcarr can explain it better. There's a reason why he does things exactly the way he does.
The US vs. Wilson declared that obliterating the design on the coin makes it not a coin at all. At the very least, that argument doesn't hold water.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1734437530048316053&q=451+f.2d+209+(5th+cir.+1971)&hl=en&as_sdt=2006
You are left with the possibility that fantasies are not counterfeit. I could maybe accept that but only if also applied to Chinese fantasies equally.
I love mine.
- Bob -
"Central Valley" Roosevelts
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
I see three (potentially) major differences.
1) those coins were struck with blank dies to create planchets before they were struck with the engraved dies.
2) they counterfeited actual dates/mm that the mint had struck.
3) they created the counterfeits to deceive.
The absence of case law regarding Daniel Carr's products might be interpreted as proof that there is no violation.
I'm not talking about the "counterfeits to deceive". I'm talking about the fantasy date/mm combinations that have been made for 75 years or more.
I'm not asking you to accept anything. You view them the same, I don't. Ultimately, it's up to Uncle Sam and he either agrees than Dan's pieces are different, or he doesn't care on way or the other. Ebay regards them as different also.
So I’m allowed to make dies that fit a regulation minting press that resemble American Legal tender as long as it has a different date on it? That in of its self seems like a federal crime. People are focusing in on the selling of his coins and possession via the hobby act but the manufacturing is where I am sure a half-awake Prosecutor could successfully make something stick. I’m not saying I would want to see him charged but I bet he could be if they cared enough to do it. Not caring isn’t the same thing as legal. It isn’t the design that make his dies illegal it is a declared face value on them.
His dies are just counterfeit, no if ands or buts and if the dies are counterfeit, I don’t really agree with the mental gymnastics to rationalize their product being somehow legit.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
You forgot that they're struck on a genuine coin as part of the "manufacturing".
No one is doing "mental gymnastics". The only thing I, and a couple others, are doing is trying to explain why Dan can sell his coins without the feds shutting him down.
Rest assured, he knows what he's doing to keep things legal. The feds clearly are making a distinction, we're just trying to explain why. Don't shoot the messenger.
Your comments are filled with hope, speculation and assumptions which is the definition of “mental gymnastics”. The absence of prosecution is not an endorsement of legality. I guess all the weed shops in my area mean then that weed is federally legal and those shop owners could never be charged.
You’re allowed to like his stuff, lots of people who don’t know any better like the Franklin mint stuff. Hell plenty of people collect counterfeits outright although I have yet to hear a person call a Henning nickel merely a fantasy production since they are missing a wartime mint mark. To each their own, just know plenty of serious numismatists will never accept them due to the slippery slope they present.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
My comments aren't "filled" with anything, I'm just explaining the "letter of the law" argument that is being made that makes Dan's products different. You are free to agree or not agree, I don't care either way.
Per the hobby protection act - You can alter or deface coins as long as there's no intent to deceive.
Dan alters and defaces coins. Henning didn't alter or deface coins. The Chinese aren't altering or defacing coins.
Dan has full disclosure, i.e. no intent to deceive. Henning didn't have full disclosure. The Chinese don't have full disclosure.
I don't understand why so many people can't seem to grasp the distinctions. You can hate Dan's products but don't let emotion get in the way of understanding the basis for the distinction.
I don’t think you have first hand knowledge of the law and if you did you would know there are dozens and dozens of laws other than the hobby act that could apply to the manufacturing or modifying US coinage. I know Mr Carr has a legal hypothesis that many fans parrot that to date has not ruffled law enforcement feathers but want you don’t seem to get is many of our objections are absolute and not about him or his obvious mechanical talents. I have a few of his products such as the LSCC medals and his products are world class and better than what is often put out by the actual mint.
But you are either ok with people making US coins or you’re not. And while I trust his intentions, one must always factor in the fog of time and the opportunistic exploitation of the under informed. Arguing untested loop holes is a straw argument to my “don’t make peace dollars if your are not the mint”. A loop hole for Mr Carr is a loop hole for Mr Lee and retroactively trying to piece together intent and process is a fools errand and counterfeiting prosecuting should start with if you made it not why you made.
Use Henning nickels as examples. You don’t know they didn’t use old nickels to make them, you don’t know he didn’t make them as a harmless prop. If he could come back at trial and say they are legal because he left the mint mark off and any expert would know that would be ridiculous. 99.9% of people don’t
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
@Crypto "there are dozens and dozens of laws other than the hobby act that could apply to the manufacturing or modifying US coinage."
Agree
I don't see any letter of the law that makes a US coin legal tender for all eternity of our once was. The slug is not a coin. The slug certified in the minting process is a coin. It's here that I don't think Dan's argument holds water.
Dan is obliterating the US Mint certification that makes it a coin. [See the Wilson case for the letter of the law. ] He's also adding a (counterfeit) copy of the Mint certification that he is not authorized to do. This seems problematic to me.
Again, I'm not arguing one way or the other for Dan's products. I do like some of his products, but don't own any. The government doesn't seem to care one way or the other about Dan or the Chinese.
None of that is my point though. The only point I'm trying to make is that there is a distinction between what Dan does and what the Chinese are doing. What's disingenuous are people saying "Dan's products are exactly like Chinese counterfeits!". At least people should be intellectually honest and admit there's a difference, whether they think the difference matters or not legally.
Yes, we do know these things.
He used custom made planchets and he made hundreds of thousands of counterfeit nickels to deceive and circulate.
There was a trial, there were confessions, there was jail time.
I have tried to stay out of this one because everyone here has their own ideas and nothing I say will change that.
Everyone should do more research or hire an attorney to research it for them, I did.
A coin doesn't even need to be struck to be a counterfeit.
If I were to make SBA clad blanks that match the proper weight & diameter and started to use the blanks for commerce in vending machines or on public transit I would be charged with counterfeiting. Not if I only produced 1 of them but if I were to produce thousands of them I would get a knock on my door.
The bottom line is many things are against the law but the government doesn't care or have the resources to pursue.
I agree. I wasn't going to open that door, but glad you did.
Some years ago someone made copper blanks with a reeded edge that worked in vending and coin counting machines. (Not sure why they felt a need to add reeding). The government classified that as counterfeiting.
I believe that it was/is illegal to make slugs/rounds/tokens (blank or struck) that duplicate the composition and dimensions of US coins. How that fits into all these discussions is up to someone else to argue.
Another example..... If Peace dollars were still used as circulating coinage as a value of 1 dollar there would be problems with the 1964 dated fantasy pieces. Everyone is making the argument that a coin collector would know the difference and know it's not a genuine piece. That doesn't matter, a person that doesn't know what dates were produced could easily take one in trade for goods or services. Many cashiers don't even know about Ike dollars or Sac dollars. How would a cashier know what dates were produced on a Peace dollar? Because the Peace dollar is no longer used for commerce the government doesn't care. I could also make a replica Ike dollar with a 2024 date and I'm sure I could pass it to an unknowing cashier, it would be counterfeiting. Arguing with the Secret Service is about like trying to argue with the IRS, they will do what they want and the courts will back them up.
Peace dollar are still made and eligible for commerce. The fact people don’t use them is immaterial.
All of Dan’s say one dollar right? One dollar isn’t a unit of currency? He is eligible to print that on things?
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
The quarter-sized copper slugs came out in the 1970's. In the same era, some banks and other coin wrapping services were using paper rolls that had a clear plastic window down the side. I am guessing that the windows were so people could spot Canadian coins and/or other foreign coins and/or plain edged slugs in rolls. The reeded edge copper slugs could pass in a roll of copper-nickel clad copper regular U.S. quarters.
The copper slugs were quite a problem for a while and then they just stopped. Various rumors included:
A: The slugs were being made and sold by the Mafia and the Feds shut them down; and
B: Somebody else was making the slugs but they kept turning up in Mafia owned juke boxes and vending machines and the MAFIA shut the maker down.
TD