I ordered one yesterday and no shipping confirm. I did add a copper hard times token and hope that is not the delay. If so please save me one of the first 200 struck
I think DC looked at all that he needed to or he would not have did it. But Dcarr what will be the mintage on this one and totals sold. I would like to know so I can buy more if close to sell out?
<< <i>Just an opinion: The pieces are in the likeness of a legal tender U.S. coin, and are obvious counterfeits. The medals or tokens, shown above, are not coins – they do not include a recognized statement of value.
If the counterfeits are stamped with “COPY” then they are legal just as are Gallery Mint products. Absent the copy stamp, they are exactly like any Chinese counterfeit, similarly unmarked. The counterfeit can be in any media – including limburger cheese – but it will still stink.
It is amazing how many “collectors” appear to have jumped at the chance to buy a counterfeit, yet gripe and complain about the Chinese fakes flooding the market. The poll about properly marked pieces is even more revealing of the attitudes of some.
No further comments from me…let the Treasury Dept. do it’s investigation and make a determination. >>
Nothing counterfeit about that coin & comparing it to the Chinese junk (mostly junk) that's being passed of, is an insult to Mr. Carr and the collectors of this forum. I would consider the 64 Peace a "restrike" of a non issued coin with minor changes. The Paris Mint has been doing that for a long time for their classic coins or medals & never have I seen the wording copy or restrike on any of their issues.
"Bongo drive 1984 Lincoln that looks like old coin dug from ground."
<< <i>Just an opinion: T It is amazing how many “collectors” appear to have jumped at the chance to buy a counterfeit, yet gripe and complain about the Chinese fakes flooding the market. The poll about properly marked pieces is even more revealing of the attitudes of some.
. >>
The chinese fake are to deceive people. Dan is very upfront about his coin and how can you counterfeit a coin that the mint says does not exist.
<< <i>Just an opinion: The pieces are in the likeness of a legal tender U.S. coin, and are obvious counterfeits. The medals or tokens, shown above, are not coins – they do not include a recognized statement of value.
If the counterfeits are stamped with “COPY” then they are legal just as are Gallery Mint products. Absent the copy stamp, they are exactly like any Chinese counterfeit, similarly unmarked. The counterfeit can be in any media – including limburger cheese – but it will still stink.
It is amazing how many “collectors” appear to have jumped at the chance to buy a counterfeit, yet gripe and complain about the Chinese fakes flooding the market. The poll about properly marked pieces is even more revealing of the attitudes of some.
No further comments from me…let the Treasury Dept. do it’s investigation and make a determination. >>
I can understand why Mr. Carr and buyers of these items don't want the word "copy" to appear on them. But I think Roger's above post is right on the (pun intended) money.
<< <i>I think DC looked at all that he needed to or he would not have did it. But Dcarr what will be the mintage on this one and totals sold. I would like to know so I can buy more if close to sell out? >>
Mintage so far: about 200 Maximum mintage limit: 2,000 or less.
Total "sold" so far (includes internet & local sales, plus some I saved for myself): about 220
< Just an opinion: The pieces are in the likeness of a legal tender U.S. coin, and are obvious counterfeits. The medals or tokens, shown above, are not coins – they do not include a recognized statement of value.
If the counterfeits are stamped with “COPY” then they are legal just as are Gallery Mint products. Absent the copy stamp, they are exactly like any Chinese counterfeit, similarly unmarked. The counterfeit can be in any media – including limburger cheese – but it will still stink.
It is amazing how many “collectors” appear to have jumped at the chance to buy a counterfeit, yet gripe and complain about the Chinese fakes flooding the market. The poll about properly marked pieces is even more revealing of the attitudes of some.
No further comments from me…let the Treasury Dept. do it’s investigation and make a determination. >>
Again, I'm with Mark - really with RWB's quote above. Its like lemmings - sorry but that is how it looks to me. Same with the line for the Kool Aid. Can all this logic be applied to an 1895 BS Morgan $?
If Daniel Carr can manufacture or produce a.. Mule Sacagawea coin ..( which is also illegal and not issued by the mint ) I would buy that Fantasy coin...!!
Can he do that? I mean, did he just say he is striking coins himself? W/O the appearance of a Peace dollar, this is still a coin? And with the appearance of a Peace dollar and no "copy", this is not a counterfeit? What is the measure - to the average person would this look like money? It silver, it says so..same size...does it matter what the intent is now?
Eric
Edited to switch a t for a w in "what" in the last last sentence.
<< <i>"...and they ARE legal tender coins..." - DC
Can he do that? I mean, did he just say he is striking coins himself? W/O the appearance of a Peace dollar, this is still a coin? And with the appearance of a Peace dollar and no "copy", this is not a counterfeit? What is the measure - to the average person would this look like money? It silver, it says so..same size...does it matter what the intent is now? >>
It seems we keep going around and around regarding the definition of a "counterfeit" coin vs an "altered" coin.
I take a genuine legal-tender dollar coin, and re-face it with a different date (that was never issued). It still says "ONE DOLLAR" on it, like it did before. No metal is ever added or removed - just pushed around. My contention is that it is still a legal tender dollar. An ALTERED coin, not COUNTERFEIT legal tender.
<< <i>Just an opinion: The pieces are in the likeness of a legal tender U.S. coin, and are obvious counterfeits. The medals or tokens, shown above, are not coins – they do not include a recognized statement of value.
If the counterfeits are stamped with “COPY” then they are legal just as are Gallery Mint products. Absent the copy stamp, they are exactly like any Chinese counterfeit, similarly unmarked. The counterfeit can be in any media – including limburger cheese – but it will still stink.
It is amazing how many “collectors” appear to have jumped at the chance to buy a counterfeit, yet gripe and complain about the Chinese fakes flooding the market. The poll about properly marked pieces is even more revealing of the attitudes of some.
No further comments from me…let the Treasury Dept. do it’s investigation and make a determination. >>
WELL SAID!!!
<< <i>Nothing counterfeit about that coin & comparing it to the Chinese junk (mostly junk) that's being passed of, is an insult to Mr. Carr and the collectors of this forum. I would consider the 64 Peace a "restrike" of a non issued coin with minor changes. The Paris Mint has been doing that for a long time for their classic coins or medals & never have I seen the wording copy or restrike on any of their issues. >>
Insulting to Mr. Carr? Maybe it is the other way around, what Mr. Carr is doing is insulting to collectors? Is the Paris Mint based in the United States?
<< <i>The chinese fake are to deceive people. Dan is very upfront about his coin and how can you counterfeit a coin that the mint says does not exist. >>
Mr. Carr is still making a device that can be used to deceive people in the future. I thought that was what the Hobby Act was supposed to help prevent. I am amazed at the members you are willing to look the other way. To except this situation and then criticize the counterfeiting going on in China is hypercritical at best. Maybe it is just part of the “good old boys”. Hope you enjoy the kool-aid.
<< <i>Nothing counterfeit about that coin & comparing it to the Chinese junk (mostly junk) that's being passed of, is an insult to Mr. Carr and the collectors of this forum. I would consider the 64 Peace a "restrike" of a non issued coin with minor changes. The Paris Mint has been doing that for a long time for their classic coins or medals & never have I seen the wording copy or restrike on any of their issues. >>
I respectfully disagree. First, it is not a restrike, but an overstrike. As I understand it, Mr. Carr has made dies that replicate the Peace Dollar design and has processed actual Peace Dollars to use as planchets. He then strikes his design over the Peace Dollar.
Mr. Carr has created nearly perfect dies for striking Peace Dollars. The date is not 1921-1935, however, it is a date and mintmark which is legend among Peace Dollar collectors. Coins with the date and mintmark were minted. Although Mr. Carr has no intent to defraud and is not creating coins that could be sold as authentic Peace Dollars from 1921-1935, he has, in fact, created very deceptive dies that produce very deceptive replicas of coins that at the very least are rumored to exist. The Chinese have been working diligently to do what Mr. Carr has done (albeit with more sinister intent). Other than the artistic skill and the purported intent, what is the difference between the 1964 D Dollar produced by Mr. Carr and this 1964 Peace Dollar offered on ebay by chinahuntercoins333 (other than the "copy" stamp)? Here's another 1964-D Peace Dollar being offered on ebay. Again, why is Mr. Carr's piece different than this one (besides skill and execution)?
As of the Paris Mint's products, they are producing replicas of French coins, correct? I know nothing of the Paris Mint or its products, but if they are producing restrikes of French coins, in France, perhaps French law permits this? As for the Chinese, the minting of counterfiet US and European coins is perfectly legal there, while minting of counterfiet Chinese coins will likely result in execution. The sale of the Chinese counterfiets in the US is illegal.
We will never have a consensus on this coin. There will be those in Mr. Carr's camp who argue that its perfectly legal and there is no issue, and those on the other side who see a problem. In the end, those who want to buy the coin will do so and those who are offended by it, or believe it to be illegal in some way, will not.
Mr. Carr is, of course, free to follow whatever course of action he deems appropriate. I would not personally do so, but that is my opinion. I would hate to see anything (legal-wise) happen to Mr. Carr as a result of this coin. I think that he is an incredible artist who produces wonderful works of art. I just fear that he may have gone too far with this one work. Even his proof 2009 SAE bore a DC mintmark as opposed to an S. I just believe that he should have followed the same protocol with this coin. I believe that these coins should be marked as copies.
Finally, with respect to the secret service, it is true that they are doing very little to stop the flow of Chinese counterfiets into the US. The fact is that they have no power or jurisdiction to take action against the Chinese minters of these counterfiets. They do have power and jurisdiction over items produced in the United States and Mr. Carr's coins fall under that jurisdiction. The existence of these threads on this forum also serve to show that there is at least a segment of collectors who agree that this is an issue, and these threads may well be used as evidence in any legal action taken against Mr. Carr.
What would these coins be called? I know they are not U.S. Mint issue but they are exact copies of the J. J. Conway coins. Since I hear the word "Counterfeit" thrown around quite often in this thread, do you consider them counterfeits? They don't say copy. Some unsuspecting buyer could think they are purchasing a real set of Conway coins and spend a large sum of money to own them. They were struck to present to VIP's and others attending the Denver Mint's offical 50th Anniversary celebration. What say ye?
When Larry Lee took over operations from the Gallery Mint Museum in Eureka Springs in 2006, they planned to make a fantasy 1815 large cent, since none were ever minted. Ultimately they decided to use the Coronet design for the obverse and also went with a Hobby Protection Act "COPY" stamp, after lots of deliberation. I was in favor of them creating that piece, but wouldn't buy it once they chose to use the COPY stamp, as my collection of Gallery Mint Museum designs consist mainly of those not requiring a COPY stamp (i.e., medalets and such.) In our current case, Daniel Carr has simply gone the extra step.
What a great thread and I've enjoyed all the POV's. With that being said, I'm looking forward to receiving mine.................MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>"...and they ARE legal tender coins..." - DC
Can he do that? I mean, did he just say he is striking coins himself? W/O the appearance of a Peace dollar, this is still a coin? And with the appearance of a Peace dollar and no "copy", this is not a counterfeit? What is the measure - to the average person would this look like money? It silver, it says so..same size...does it matter what the intent is now? >>
It seems we keep going around and around regarding the definition of a "counterfeit" coin vs an "altered" coin.
I take a genuine legal-tender dollar coin, and re-face it with a different date (that was never issued). It still says "ONE DOLLAR" on it, like it did before. No metal is ever added or removed - just pushed around. My contention is that it is still a legal tender dollar. An ALTERED coin, not COUNTERFEIT legal tender. >>
That's great and as may be - but why would you deliberately swim in what might correctly be called murky waters? What is the upside?
I take a genuine legal-tender dollar coin, and re-face it with a different date (that was never issued). It still says "ONE DOLLAR" on it, like it did before. No metal is ever added or removed - just pushed around. My contention is that it is still a legal tender dollar. An ALTERED coin, not COUNTERFEIT legal tender.
Mr Carr. I think you are a very talented artist and have often admired your products and skill but I don't understand how the coins could still be classed as being legal tender dollar. Sure they are the same weight and size but because they weren't officially struck at the mint or released by the US government I would assume they aren't legal tender.
To make an example if I purchase a US $20 banknote and change the date without damaging the note to 2025 would that banknote still be legal tender as on the face of it, it shouldn't have been issued yet?
By changing the date to a date where no known coins were officially released, I don't know how it can still be described as being a legal tender?
I'm not taking sides and I think you deserve kudos for producing such a close "similar" design "coin" of an original and I'm not going down the allay of counterfeit or not. Only trying to find out how it could be deemed a legal tender.
I serioiusly think we can debate this all the way till these things are bringing a grand on ebay....then those who bought will be happy and those who did not will regret.
The thing Dan has going for him he is in the words of O brother where art thou "Bona Fide". In that he is a recognized artist and his work carries a value of its own. Thats something that Wong Chong over in China cannot say.
<< <i>DC is just trying to make a buck - by destroying a real one to make a copy of one that doesn't exist. >>
How many Morgan and Peace dollars are being carried around as pocket pieces? Won't carrying them around eventually turn them into silver slugs and in essence destroy them?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>When Larry Lee took over operations from the Gallery Mint Museum in Eureka Springs in 2006, they planned to make a fantasy 1815 large cent, since none were ever minted. Ultimately they decided to use the Coronet design for the obverse and also went with a Hobby Protection Act "COPY" stamp, after lots of deliberation. I was in favor of them creating that piece, but wouldn't buy it once they chose to use the COPY stamp, as my collection of Gallery Mint Museum designs consist mainly of those not requiring a COPY stamp (i.e., medalets and such.) In our current case, Daniel Carr has simply gone the extra step.
I remember that. But also note that the Gallery Mint planned to strike them on virgin (non-monetized) copper blanks. So they would have been creating what looks like a legal-tender one-cent instrument out of something that wasn't to start with (aka legal-tender counterfeiting, if not for the "COPY" stamp). What if they had struck them on junk (but genuine) large cents that were already one-cent legal tender ?
PS: Are large cents still legal tender ? I seem to remember there was a time when they weren't (no, I'm not that old !).
What a load of self-delusional krapski. It does not matter what you strike a counterfeit on, or if you cast it in germanium - if it looks like a coin, has a monetary value in US dollars stated on it, and does not have the "COPY" stamp, it is a counterfeit.
Doesn’t matter if it’s made in China, or a Denver warehouse, or some other place.
Maybe the Judge will listen to a “temporary insanity” plea….?
PS: So-called "artistic intent" is immaterial. Just a final opinion……doesn’t bode well for the hobby if this foolishness is supported by coin collectors.
<< <i>I take a genuine legal-tender dollar coin, and re-face it with a different date (that was never issued). It still says "ONE DOLLAR" on it, like it did before. No metal is ever added or removed - just pushed around. My contention is that it is still a legal tender dollar. An ALTERED coin, not COUNTERFEIT legal tender.
Mr Carr. I think you are a very talented artist and have often admired your products and skill but I don't understand how the coins could still be classed as being legal tender dollar. Sure they are the same weight and size but because they weren't officially struck at the mint or released by the US government I would assume they aren't legal tender. ... >>
That is the legal question. If you purpously deface money, is it still legal tender for the original face value ? I believe it is. But, nobody would be required to accept it as legal tender.
PS: >Sure they are the same weight and size but because they weren't officially struck at the mint or released by the US government ... The host coins that I alter WERE officially struck at the mint and released by the US government, before I altered them.
I wonder if you will wind up with a lot more than that.... To the average person who knows not re 1933 or 1964 or "d" etc., will this look like a silver dollar?
<< <i>When Larry Lee took over operations from the Gallery Mint Museum in Eureka Springs in 2006, they planned to make a fantasy 1815 large cent, since none were ever minted. Ultimately they decided to use the Coronet design for the obverse and also went with a Hobby Protection Act "COPY" stamp, after lots of deliberation. I was in favor of them creating that piece, but wouldn't buy it once they chose to use the COPY stamp, as my collection of Gallery Mint Museum designs consist mainly of those not requiring a COPY stamp (i.e., medalets and such.) In our current case, Daniel Carr has simply gone the extra step.
I remember that. But also note that the Gallery Mint planned to strike them on virgin (non-monetized) copper blanks. So they would have been creating what looks like a legal-tender one-cent instrument out of something that wasn't to start with (aka legal-tender counterfeiting, if not for the "COPY" stamp). What if they had struck them on junk (but genuine) large cents that were already one-cent legal tender ?
PS: Are large cents still legal tender ? I seem to remember there was a time when they weren't (no, I'm not that old !). >>
GMM did use COPY stamps on their special overstrike auctions that I hosted on my webpages [I have at least one overstruck on a FEC, with the Longacre eagle design on one side (commemorating the OCC) and the 2005 DDO Lincoln on the other.]:
Seems to me that two different definitions of counterfeit are being referred to here.
Counterfeit A - A coin made from non-standard alloy's that is created with the intent to defraud merchants of real value at the expense of the US Government. Example: Henning Nickel.
Counterfeit B - A coin made from non-standard alloy's that is created to defraud collectors with regard to numismatic value. Example: Chinese Counterfeits.
In the case of this 1964-D Peace Dollar, I think folks are confusing or at least blending the two definitions. Primarily because the coin is made from an Authentic Peace Dollar with Authentic Silver Alloys.
A simplistic version: The original intent behind coinage in the first place was to provide government certified precious metals (gold, silver, copper) in a standardized form for use in day to day transactions. The amount of metal in each denomination reflected the relative bullion value of the metal used in the alloy. This eliminated the different "types" of coins floating around the country at the time and brought a standard to United states of America coinage which ultimately replaced all those other types of coinage. Being that bullion was the basis for the coinage was also a primary reason for getting off of the gold and silver standards. Other uses were being defined daily on how to use these metals which caused price increases. A price increase in the bullion meant a relative price increase in the value of the coin. Yes, there was a presumed silver shortage in 1964 but the shortage for coinage grade silver was also affected by the need for silver in the fast growing electronics and integrated circuits market. silver was as widely used as gold.
So, since the value of the coin is based upon the governments certification (assay) over its bullion content, other than removing metal, how could one possible change the coin by simply altering the way it looks? Seems to me, this is what has been done. An authentic, government assayed and certified one dollar silver coin has been restruck to look like a coin which "technically" was never produced.
I suppose you could get carried away with such a thing by following this up with the release of 1965, 1966, and 1967 Peace Dollars but then those coins were never "trial" struck in the first place. As such, those coins have no place in numismatic history whereas that 1964-D does. SImply because it was produced and every single one of us wishes that they had actually gone into full production! But, they didn't so all we have are our wishes and stories.
Regardless of all the negative opinions about what has been done, I feel confident that this Carr Coin will take its place in numismatic history. What that place is, is yet to be determined but for now, folks are certainly eager to have one to hold in their hands.
What they do with it after that is up to the individual. But, the general knowledge is that no 1964-D Peace Dollars exist.
This really is a teeter-totter scenario in that if the process gets shut down (remember the Liberty Dollar Raids? Those were out for a ling time before they got shut down.) then it gets shut down. If it doesn't, then the coin, as a legitimate restrike (like the New Haven Fugio's), will certainly have some collectibility and I for one don't want to pony up to my laptop one day and see these selling, on the open market as certified restrikes, for tidy profits. At that point I'll wish I'd purchased one and I've done that way too many times in the past. I kown full well that it's a gamble, but it's a gamble I just feel needs to be taken by me.
Others certainly feel differently and thats fine with me.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
All of a sudden, why am I getting this inkling feeling that all this is a ruse just to add value to maybe only a handful of overstrikes that still belong to the maker and there was never any intent to release ordered coins?
What a load of self-delusional krapski. It does not matter what you strike a counterfeit on, or if you cast it in germanium - if it looks like a coin, has a monetary value in US dollars stated on it, and does not have the "COPY" stamp, it is a counterfeit.
Doesn’t matter if it’s made in China, or a Denver warehouse, or some other place.
Maybe the Judge will listen to a “temporary insanity” plea….? >>
By your line of thinking, is this not a "counterfeit" ? It could fool a novice collector into thinking it is a rare "1981" Ike Dollar !:
<< <i> PS: So-called "artistic intent" is immaterial. Just a final opinion……doesn’t bode well for the hobby if this foolishness is supported by coin collectors. >>
It would appear that a lot of collectors don't care what you think, nor do they hold your view of what coin collecting should be - they rightfully decide that for themselves.
The Liberty Dollar thing was a different scenario. That guy was passing liberty dollars off as an alternate currency. The Headquarters of that operation was in my home town and I was happy to see it raided and shut down.
That being said I saw the controversy and purchased a couple of them hoping that some day they'll have some value beyond melt.
I support this whole fantasy overstrike thing and did so by purchasing one as well and now wishing I'd have bought two or three. I don't see anything illegal in this. Last night I was reading a coffee table book called "The 100 Greatest US Coins" (or something like that) and a fair amount of the greatest coins were never supposed to really be minted in the first place. Each one of those has a story that is pretty well documented, like the 1913 nickels. Obviously somebody made up 5 at the mint illegally (it seems) and now they are well accepted.
Dan's coins are not much different in my opinion. Well documented, heck he did the documentation and told the story for us.
Of particular interest to me is his linked page at Moonlight Mint where he has photos of his press and all the coins and blanks he found inside the surplus machine.
Anyway, the whole community will see these coins and recognize them for exactly what they are. What that is, none of us know yet. I think its ultra cool though myself.
I think another thing Mr. Carr has just demonstrated is that clearly the technology is out there for anyone so talented to produce darn near perfect examples of coinage. I think that's what is scaring a lot of people.
<< <i>All of a sudden, why am I getting this inkling feeling that all this is a ruse just to add value to maybe only a handful of overstrikes that still belong to the maker and there was never any intent to release ordered coins? >>
Hmm... Shucks, too late, most orders have already shipped (first in, first out).
<< <i>All of a sudden, why am I getting this inkling feeling that all this is a ruse just to add value to maybe only a handful of overstrikes that still belong to the maker and there was never any intent to release ordered coins? >>
You're getting this inkling after people have said they've received shipment notices?
<< <i>I take a genuine legal-tender dollar coin, and re-face it with a different date (that was never issued). It still says "ONE DOLLAR" on it, like it did before. No metal is ever added or removed - just pushed around. My contention is that it is still a legal tender dollar. An ALTERED coin, not COUNTERFEIT legal tender.
Mr Carr. I think you are a very talented artist and have often admired your products and skill but I don't understand how the coins could still be classed as being legal tender dollar. Sure they are the same weight and size but because they weren't officially struck at the mint or released by the US government I would assume they aren't legal tender. ... >>
That is the legal question. If you purpously deface money, is it still legal tender for the original face value ? I believe it is. But, nobody would be required to accept it as legal tender.
PS: >Sure they are the same weight and size but because they weren't officially struck at the mint or released by the US government ... The host coins that I alter WERE officially struck at the mint and released by the US government, before I altered them. >>
My only criticism of this question of ethics and law is that DC is splitting the proverbial hair with the argument that his "fantasy" pieces are "altered" legal tender coins as opposed to coins resembling authentic U.S. Mint-issued coins made from new planchets (i.e., the 1815 "fantasy" large cent) and hence one would be legit and the 1815 considered counterfeit.
Consider, the 1815 was never struck, the 1964-D was struck, but subsequently melted. The 1964-D fantasy piece is an altered 1922-35 coin, whereas the 1815 fantasy piece was made from new planchets. If it were made from altering original coins, what's the difference? A: hair-splitting.
After reading this entire thread, I have come to two diametrically opposed conclusions (thus I remain ambivalent ):
1) I think what Dan has done is no different than pasting the image of Santa Claus over the image of George on the $1 bill, or painting a U.S. bullion silver Eagle $1, both are still legal tender and worth $1 as is Dan's altered Peace Dollars.
2) I also consider that the altering of the date on the original Peace Dollars and overstriking them with 1964 is no different than changing a 4 to a 1 on a 1944-D Lincoln cent, or removing the D from a 1922 Plain cent. It has the same effect: It causes the coin to look like something it is not. The 1944-D is no more a 1914-D than the 1992-D is a 1922 Plain, nor a 1922-35 Peace is a 1964-D dollar. Yet they all strongly resemble what they're not.
At the end of the day the is in the details
That said, I think Dan can both legally and ethically sell these. Because they are offered without fraudulent intent and buyers have been warned and have agreed with the terms of sale; not to pass these off as legitimate 1964-D Peace dollars if they should resell them in the future.
The updside of making this coin as quoted by Dan is "I now have my 1964-D Peace Dollar"
This is the same reason that I purchased one.
Cheers!
Kirk
P.S. I just received an e-mail from Designs Computed that my order #5234 has shipped! I am excited to receive it so that I can say: "I now have my 1964-D Peace Dollar" too!
"Please help us keep these boards professional and informative…. And fun." - DW --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BONGO HURTLES ALONG THE RAIN SODDEN HIGHWAY OF LIFE ON UNDERINFLATED BALD RETREAD TIRES
<< <i>All of a sudden, why am I getting this inkling feeling that all this is a ruse just to add value to maybe only a handful of overstrikes that still belong to the maker and there was never any intent to release ordered coins? >>
You're getting this inkling after people have said they've received shipment notices? >>
Being told your order has shipped vs having it in hand is like night and day. Hopefully those who have placed an order will post "received" when they arrive.
After following this thread, there is now room for skepticism until proven different.
I serioiusly think we can debate this all the way till these things are bringing a grand on ebay....then those who bought will be happy and those who did not will regret..."
eBay won't allow them to be sold without the COPY or REPLICA stamp. They've already made that quite clear.
<< <i>Being told your order has shipped vs having it in hand is like night and day. Hopefully those who have placed an order will post "received" when they arrive.
After following this thread, there is now room for skepticism until proven different. >>
Well, I did get an e-mail from the U.S. Mint that my order for $250 box of Zach Taylor $1s was canceled because it was sold out!
However, I think Dan is not "stoopid", so I trust that the ship notice is quite true. Ya know it's one thing to question and debate the ethics/legality of this coin issue, it's quite another to be downright rude. While your comment is technically accurate, I question your intent. On-the-other-hand, I do not question the intent of DC and I promise to post pics of my 1964-D Peace the day that it arrives!
Cheers!
Kirk
"Please help us keep these boards professional and informative…. And fun." - DW --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BONGO HURTLES ALONG THE RAIN SODDEN HIGHWAY OF LIFE ON UNDERINFLATED BALD RETREAD TIRES
<< <i>I serioiusly think we can debate this all the way till these things are bringing a grand on ebay....then those who bought will be happy and those who did not will regret..."
eBay won't allow them to be sold without the COPY or REPLICA stamp. They've already made that quite clear. >>
I bet I could word an auction so that it would stand. You need to be totally forthright--a link to the Dcarr website would help--and point out that they are not a copy since the 1964 peace dollar doesn't exist. Point out that they are a real peace dollar that has been modified, not unlike an SAE that has been painted.
Hey dcarr- if these sell out and start selling for thousands- are you going to turn on the press again and sell one at a time? what about others doing the same thing?
<< <i>what about a hobo nickel? no difference. AL >>
DCarr claims he is simply moving metal and not removing it. This is what sets his argument apart from the "altered" 1944-D/1914-D; 1922-D/1922-Plain; Buffalo Nickle/Hobo Nickle; BU Silver Eagle/Colorized Silver Eagle $1. I believe that the difference amounts to splitting the proverbial hair. But, Hey, I'm no legal expert! I leave it to the lawyers to determine where the split-hairs lie!!
"Please help us keep these boards professional and informative…. And fun." - DW --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BONGO HURTLES ALONG THE RAIN SODDEN HIGHWAY OF LIFE ON UNDERINFLATED BALD RETREAD TIRES
<< <i>Just an opinion: The pieces are in the likeness of a legal tender U.S. coin, and are obvious counterfeits. >>
No, they are obvious ALTERED coins. >>
Perhaps, but "obvious" to whom? Besides those involved in the hobby, the vast majority of the unsuspecting American public may think your objects are the real thing and buy one.
By the way, what's next on your agenda? Taking 1912 Liberty V nickels and overstrike them into "coins" dated 1913?
What if DC altered the denomination to read TEN DOLLARS? Would that be similar to raising the value of a $1 bill to a $10 by altering it? Then you are creating a fraudulent situation where you are changing the legal value of the coin/bill.
Since he is changing the date, admittedly still an alteration, then it falls into the altered coin category, just as if you changed the date on any coin. Is it a fraudulent alteration, like removing or adding mintmarks intended to defraud a collector?
What if he struck it on a blank planchet or a base metal blank, like the Chinese 1834-CC Trade Dollar fakes. Then it is an evasion piece. Made to fall outside of counterfeiting laws.
As I posted before, the code to look at is the Hobby Protection Act. Anyone care to post any relevant section?
Comments
<< <i>In the drug world there are terms like "for personal use" or "for distribution"
personal use might be a only a misdemeanor, where as distribution is a felony.
Offering these re-strikes for sale on a internet web site is distribution. >>
I'm a junk box junky.
Hoard the keys.
<< <i>Just an opinion:
The pieces are in the likeness of a legal tender U.S. coin, and are obvious counterfeits.
The medals or tokens, shown above, are not coins – they do not include a recognized statement of value.
If the counterfeits are stamped with “COPY” then they are legal just as are Gallery Mint products. Absent the copy stamp, they are exactly like any Chinese counterfeit, similarly unmarked. The counterfeit can be in any media – including limburger cheese – but it will still stink.
It is amazing how many “collectors” appear to have jumped at the chance to buy a counterfeit, yet gripe and complain about the Chinese fakes flooding the market. The poll about properly marked pieces is even more revealing of the attitudes of some.
No further comments from me…let the Treasury Dept. do it’s investigation and make a determination. >>
Nothing counterfeit about that coin & comparing it to the Chinese junk (mostly junk) that's being passed of, is an insult to Mr. Carr and the collectors of this forum. I would consider the 64 Peace a "restrike" of a non issued coin with minor changes. The Paris Mint has been doing that for a long time for their classic coins or medals & never have I seen the wording copy or restrike on any of their issues.
<< <i>Just an opinion:
T
It is amazing how many “collectors” appear to have jumped at the chance to buy a counterfeit, yet gripe and complain about the Chinese fakes flooding the market. The poll about properly marked pieces is even more revealing of the attitudes of some.
. >>
The chinese fake are to deceive people. Dan is very upfront about his coin and how can you counterfeit a coin that the mint says does not exist.
<< <i>Just an opinion:
The pieces are in the likeness of a legal tender U.S. coin, and are obvious counterfeits.
The medals or tokens, shown above, are not coins – they do not include a recognized statement of value.
If the counterfeits are stamped with “COPY” then they are legal just as are Gallery Mint products. Absent the copy stamp, they are exactly like any Chinese counterfeit, similarly unmarked. The counterfeit can be in any media – including limburger cheese – but it will still stink.
It is amazing how many “collectors” appear to have jumped at the chance to buy a counterfeit, yet gripe and complain about the Chinese fakes flooding the market. The poll about properly marked pieces is even more revealing of the attitudes of some.
No further comments from me…let the Treasury Dept. do it’s investigation and make a determination. >>
I can understand why Mr. Carr and buyers of these items don't want the word "copy" to appear on them. But I think Roger's above post is right on the (pun intended) money.
<< <i>I think DC looked at all that he needed to or he would not have did it. But Dcarr what will be the mintage on this one and totals sold. I would like to know so I can buy more if close to sell out?
Mintage so far: about 200
Maximum mintage limit: 2,000 or less.
Total "sold" so far (includes internet & local sales, plus some I saved for myself): about 220
<< <i>Just an opinion:
The pieces are in the likeness of a legal tender U.S. coin, and are obvious counterfeits. >>
No, they are obvious ALTERED coins. They are in the likeness of legal tender coins, and they ARE legal tender coins (now re-faced).
The pieces are in the likeness of a legal tender U.S. coin, and are obvious counterfeits.
The medals or tokens, shown above, are not coins – they do not include a recognized statement of value.
If the counterfeits are stamped with “COPY” then they are legal just as are Gallery Mint products. Absent the copy stamp, they are exactly like any Chinese counterfeit, similarly unmarked. The counterfeit can be in any media – including limburger cheese – but it will still stink.
It is amazing how many “collectors” appear to have jumped at the chance to buy a counterfeit, yet gripe and complain about the Chinese fakes flooding the market. The poll about properly marked pieces is even more revealing of the attitudes of some.
No further comments from me…let the Treasury Dept. do it’s investigation and make a determination. >>
Again, I'm with Mark - really with RWB's quote above. Its like lemmings - sorry but that is how it looks to me. Same with the line for the Kool Aid. Can all this logic be applied to an 1895 BS Morgan $?
Eric
edited for clarity of quote origin
Can he do that? I mean, did he just say he is striking coins himself? W/O the appearance of a Peace dollar, this is still a coin? And with the appearance of a Peace dollar and no "copy", this is not a counterfeit? What is the measure - to the average person would this look like money? It silver, it says so..same size...does it matter what the intent is now?
Eric
Edited to switch a t for a w in "what" in the last last sentence.
<< <i>"...and they ARE legal tender coins..." - DC
Can he do that? I mean, did he just say he is striking coins himself? W/O the appearance of a Peace dollar, this is still a coin? And with the appearance of a Peace dollar and no "copy", this is not a counterfeit? What is the measure - to the average person would this look like money? It silver, it says so..same size...does it matter what the intent is now? >>
It seems we keep going around and around regarding the definition of a "counterfeit" coin vs an "altered" coin.
I take a genuine legal-tender dollar coin, and re-face it with a different date (that was never issued). It still says "ONE DOLLAR" on it, like it did before. No metal is ever added or removed - just pushed around. My contention is that it is still a legal tender dollar. An ALTERED coin, not COUNTERFEIT legal tender.
<< <i>Just an opinion:
The pieces are in the likeness of a legal tender U.S. coin, and are obvious counterfeits.
The medals or tokens, shown above, are not coins – they do not include a recognized statement of value.
If the counterfeits are stamped with “COPY” then they are legal just as are Gallery Mint products. Absent the copy stamp, they are exactly like any Chinese counterfeit, similarly unmarked. The counterfeit can be in any media – including limburger cheese – but it will still stink.
It is amazing how many “collectors” appear to have jumped at the chance to buy a counterfeit, yet gripe and complain about the Chinese fakes flooding the market. The poll about properly marked pieces is even more revealing of the attitudes of some.
No further comments from me…let the Treasury Dept. do it’s investigation and make a determination. >>
WELL SAID!!!
<< <i>Nothing counterfeit about that coin & comparing it to the Chinese junk (mostly junk) that's being passed of, is an insult to Mr. Carr and the collectors of this forum. I would consider the 64 Peace a "restrike" of a non issued coin with minor changes. The Paris Mint has been doing that for a long time for their classic coins or medals & never have I seen the wording copy or restrike on any of their issues. >>
Insulting to Mr. Carr? Maybe it is the other way around, what Mr. Carr is doing is insulting to collectors? Is the Paris Mint based in the United States?
<< <i>The chinese fake are to deceive people. Dan is very upfront about his coin and how can you counterfeit a coin that the mint says does not exist. >>
Mr. Carr is still making a device that can be used to deceive people in the future. I thought that was what the Hobby Act was supposed to help prevent. I am amazed at the members you are willing to look the other way. To except this situation and then criticize the counterfeiting going on in China is hypercritical at best. Maybe it is just part of the “good old boys”. Hope you enjoy the kool-aid.
<< <i>Nothing counterfeit about that coin & comparing it to the Chinese junk (mostly junk) that's being passed of, is an insult to Mr. Carr and the collectors of this forum. I would consider the 64 Peace a "restrike" of a non issued coin with minor changes. The Paris Mint has been doing that for a long time for their classic coins or medals & never have I seen the wording copy or restrike on any of their issues. >>
I respectfully disagree. First, it is not a restrike, but an overstrike. As I understand it, Mr. Carr has made dies that replicate the Peace Dollar design and has processed actual Peace Dollars to use as planchets. He then strikes his design over the Peace Dollar.
Mr. Carr has created nearly perfect dies for striking Peace Dollars. The date is not 1921-1935, however, it is a date and mintmark which is legend among Peace Dollar collectors. Coins with the date and mintmark were minted. Although Mr. Carr has no intent to defraud and is not creating coins that could be sold as authentic Peace Dollars from 1921-1935, he has, in fact, created very deceptive dies that produce very deceptive replicas of coins that at the very least are rumored to exist. The Chinese have been working diligently to do what Mr. Carr has done (albeit with more sinister intent). Other than the artistic skill and the purported intent, what is the difference between the 1964 D Dollar produced by Mr. Carr and this 1964 Peace Dollar offered on ebay by chinahuntercoins333 (other than the "copy" stamp)? Here's another 1964-D Peace Dollar being offered on ebay. Again, why is Mr. Carr's piece different than this one (besides skill and execution)?
As of the Paris Mint's products, they are producing replicas of French coins, correct? I know nothing of the Paris Mint or its products, but if they are producing restrikes of French coins, in France, perhaps French law permits this? As for the Chinese, the minting of counterfiet US and European coins is perfectly legal there, while minting of counterfiet Chinese coins will likely result in execution. The sale of the Chinese counterfiets in the US is illegal.
We will never have a consensus on this coin. There will be those in Mr. Carr's camp who argue that its perfectly legal and there is no issue, and those on the other side who see a problem. In the end, those who want to buy the coin will do so and those who are offended by it, or believe it to be illegal in some way, will not.
Mr. Carr is, of course, free to follow whatever course of action he deems appropriate. I would not personally do so, but that is my opinion. I would hate to see anything (legal-wise) happen to Mr. Carr as a result of this coin. I think that he is an incredible artist who produces wonderful works of art. I just fear that he may have gone too far with this one work. Even his proof 2009 SAE bore a DC mintmark as opposed to an S. I just believe that he should have followed the same protocol with this coin. I believe that these coins should be marked as copies.
Finally, with respect to the secret service, it is true that they are doing very little to stop the flow of Chinese counterfiets into the US. The fact is that they have no power or jurisdiction to take action against the Chinese minters of these counterfiets. They do have power and jurisdiction over items produced in the United States and Mr. Carr's coins fall under that jurisdiction. The existence of these threads on this forum also serve to show that there is at least a segment of collectors who agree that this is an issue, and these threads may well be used as evidence in any legal action taken against Mr. Carr.
In our current case, Daniel Carr has simply gone the extra step.
From the original press release:
Striker Announces New 1794 Patterns and Fantasy 1815 Large Cent
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>
<< <i>"...and they ARE legal tender coins..." - DC
Can he do that? I mean, did he just say he is striking coins himself? W/O the appearance of a Peace dollar, this is still a coin? And with the appearance of a Peace dollar and no "copy", this is not a counterfeit? What is the measure - to the average person would this look like money? It silver, it says so..same size...does it matter what the intent is now? >>
It seems we keep going around and around regarding the definition of a "counterfeit" coin vs an "altered" coin.
I take a genuine legal-tender dollar coin, and re-face it with a different date (that was never issued). It still says "ONE DOLLAR" on it, like it did before. No metal is ever added or removed - just pushed around. My contention is that it is still a legal tender dollar. An ALTERED coin, not COUNTERFEIT legal tender. >>
That's great and as may be - but why would you deliberately swim in what might correctly be called murky waters? What is the upside?
Eric
I take a genuine legal-tender dollar coin, and re-face it with a different date (that was never issued). It still says "ONE DOLLAR" on it, like it did before. No metal is ever added or removed - just pushed around. My contention is that it is still a legal tender dollar. An ALTERED coin, not COUNTERFEIT legal tender.
Mr Carr. I think you are a very talented artist and have often admired your products and skill but I don't understand how the coins could still be classed as being legal tender dollar. Sure they are the same weight and size but because they weren't officially struck at the mint or released by the US government I would assume they aren't legal tender.
To make an example if I purchase a US $20 banknote and change the date without damaging the note to 2025 would that banknote still be legal tender as on the face of it, it shouldn't have been issued yet?
By changing the date to a date where no known coins were officially released, I don't know how it can still be described as being a legal tender?
I'm not taking sides and I think you deserve kudos for producing such a close "similar" design "coin" of an original and I'm not going down the allay of counterfeit or not. Only trying to find out how it could be deemed a legal tender.
<< <i>That's great and as may be - but why would you deliberately swim in what might correctly be called murky waters? What is the upside? >>
I now have my own "1964-D" Peace dollar
The thing Dan has going for him he is in the words of O brother where art thou "Bona Fide". In that he is a recognized artist and his work carries a value of its own. Thats something that Wong Chong over in China cannot say.
who knows................
<< <i>DC is just trying to make a buck - by destroying a real one to make a copy of one that doesn't exist. >>
How many Morgan and Peace dollars are being carried around as pocket pieces? Won't carrying them around eventually turn them into silver slugs and in essence destroy them?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>I now have my own "1964-D" Peace dollar >>
That is certainly more affordable than saying "I now have my own "1933" $20 Saint
Heck, in the last three days the buyer of these 1964-D peace dollars have recouped $1 in the bullion value of the coin itself.
<< <i>When Larry Lee took over operations from the Gallery Mint Museum in Eureka Springs in 2006, they planned to make a fantasy 1815 large cent, since none were ever minted. Ultimately they decided to use the Coronet design for the obverse and also went with a Hobby Protection Act "COPY" stamp, after lots of deliberation. I was in favor of them creating that piece, but wouldn't buy it once they chose to use the COPY stamp, as my collection of Gallery Mint Museum designs consist mainly of those not requiring a COPY stamp (i.e., medalets and such.)
In our current case, Daniel Carr has simply gone the extra step.
From the original press release:
Striker Announces New 1794 Patterns and Fantasy 1815 Large Cent >>
I remember that. But also note that the Gallery Mint planned to strike them on virgin (non-monetized) copper blanks. So they would have been creating what looks like a legal-tender one-cent instrument out of something that wasn't to start with (aka legal-tender counterfeiting, if not for the "COPY" stamp). What if they had struck them on junk (but genuine) large cents that were already one-cent legal tender ?
PS: Are large cents still legal tender ? I seem to remember there was a time when they weren't (no, I'm not that old !).
What a load of self-delusional krapski. It does not matter what you strike a counterfeit on, or if you cast it in germanium - if it looks like a coin, has a monetary value in US dollars stated on it, and does not have the "COPY" stamp, it is a counterfeit.
Doesn’t matter if it’s made in China, or a Denver warehouse, or some other place.
Maybe the Judge will listen to a “temporary insanity” plea….?
PS: So-called "artistic intent" is immaterial. Just a final opinion……doesn’t bode well for the hobby if this foolishness is supported by coin collectors.
<< <i>I take a genuine legal-tender dollar coin, and re-face it with a different date (that was never issued). It still says "ONE DOLLAR" on it, like it did before. No metal is ever added or removed - just pushed around. My contention is that it is still a legal tender dollar. An ALTERED coin, not COUNTERFEIT legal tender.
Mr Carr. I think you are a very talented artist and have often admired your products and skill but I don't understand how the coins could still be classed as being legal tender dollar. Sure they are the same weight and size but because they weren't officially struck at the mint or released by the US government I would assume they aren't legal tender. ... >>
That is the legal question. If you purpously deface money, is it still legal tender for the original face value ? I believe it is. But, nobody would be required to accept it as legal tender.
PS:
>Sure they are the same weight and size but because they weren't officially struck at the mint or released by the US government ...
The host coins that I alter WERE officially struck at the mint and released by the US government, before I altered them.
I wonder if you will wind up with a lot more than that....
To the average person who knows not re 1933 or 1964 or "d" etc., will this look like a silver dollar?
Best,
Eric
<< <i>
<< <i>When Larry Lee took over operations from the Gallery Mint Museum in Eureka Springs in 2006, they planned to make a fantasy 1815 large cent, since none were ever minted. Ultimately they decided to use the Coronet design for the obverse and also went with a Hobby Protection Act "COPY" stamp, after lots of deliberation. I was in favor of them creating that piece, but wouldn't buy it once they chose to use the COPY stamp, as my collection of Gallery Mint Museum designs consist mainly of those not requiring a COPY stamp (i.e., medalets and such.)
In our current case, Daniel Carr has simply gone the extra step.
From the original press release:
Striker Announces New 1794 Patterns and Fantasy 1815 Large Cent >>
I remember that. But also note that the Gallery Mint planned to strike them on virgin (non-monetized) copper blanks. So they would have been creating what looks like a legal-tender one-cent instrument out of something that wasn't to start with (aka legal-tender counterfeiting, if not for the "COPY" stamp). What if they had struck them on junk (but genuine) large cents that were already one-cent legal tender ?
PS: Are large cents still legal tender ? I seem to remember there was a time when they weren't (no, I'm not that old !). >>
GMM did use COPY stamps on their special overstrike auctions that I hosted on my webpages [I have at least one overstruck on a FEC, with the Longacre eagle design on one side (commemorating the OCC) and the 2005 DDO Lincoln on the other.]:
An expired GMM overstrike auction
Counterfeit A - A coin made from non-standard alloy's that is created with the intent to defraud merchants of real value at the expense of the US Government. Example: Henning Nickel.
Counterfeit B - A coin made from non-standard alloy's that is created to defraud collectors with regard to numismatic value. Example: Chinese Counterfeits.
In the case of this 1964-D Peace Dollar, I think folks are confusing or at least blending the two definitions. Primarily because the coin is made from an Authentic Peace Dollar with Authentic Silver Alloys.
A simplistic version: The original intent behind coinage in the first place was to provide government certified precious metals (gold, silver, copper) in a standardized form for use in day to day transactions. The amount of metal in each denomination reflected the relative bullion value of the metal used in the alloy. This eliminated the different "types" of coins floating around the country at the time and brought a standard to United states of America coinage which ultimately replaced all those other types of coinage. Being that bullion was the basis for the coinage was also a primary reason for getting off of the gold and silver standards. Other uses were being defined daily on how to use these metals which caused price increases. A price increase in the bullion meant a relative price increase in the value of the coin. Yes, there was a presumed silver shortage in 1964 but the shortage for coinage grade silver was also affected by the need for silver in the fast growing electronics and integrated circuits market. silver was as widely used as gold.
So, since the value of the coin is based upon the governments certification (assay) over its bullion content, other than removing metal, how could one possible change the coin by simply altering the way it looks? Seems to me, this is what has been done. An authentic, government assayed and certified one dollar silver coin has been restruck to look like a coin which "technically" was never produced.
I suppose you could get carried away with such a thing by following this up with the release of 1965, 1966, and 1967 Peace Dollars but then those coins were never "trial" struck in the first place. As such, those coins have no place in numismatic history whereas that 1964-D does. SImply because it was produced and every single one of us wishes that they had actually gone into full production! But, they didn't so all we have are our wishes and stories.
Regardless of all the negative opinions about what has been done, I feel confident that this Carr Coin will take its place in numismatic history. What that place is, is yet to be determined but for now, folks are certainly eager to have one to hold in their hands.
What they do with it after that is up to the individual. But, the general knowledge is that no 1964-D Peace Dollars exist.
This really is a teeter-totter scenario in that if the process gets shut down (remember the Liberty Dollar Raids? Those were out for a ling time before they got shut down.) then it gets shut down. If it doesn't, then the coin, as a legitimate restrike (like the New Haven Fugio's), will certainly have some collectibility and I for one don't want to pony up to my laptop one day and see these selling, on the open market as certified restrikes, for tidy profits. At that point I'll wish I'd purchased one and I've done that way too many times in the past. I kown full well that it's a gamble, but it's a gamble I just feel needs to be taken by me.
Others certainly feel differently and thats fine with me.
The name is LEE!
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
<< <i>... (non-monetized) ...
What a load of self-delusional krapski. It does not matter what you strike a counterfeit on, or if you cast it in germanium - if it looks like a coin, has a monetary value in US dollars stated on it, and does not have the "COPY" stamp, it is a counterfeit.
Doesn’t matter if it’s made in China, or a Denver warehouse, or some other place.
Maybe the Judge will listen to a “temporary insanity” plea….? >>
By your line of thinking, is this not a "counterfeit" ? It could fool a novice collector into thinking it is a rare "1981" Ike Dollar !:
<< <i>
PS: So-called "artistic intent" is immaterial. Just a final opinion……doesn’t bode well for the hobby if this foolishness is supported by coin collectors. >>
It would appear that a lot of collectors don't care what you think, nor do they hold your view of what coin collecting should be - they rightfully decide that for themselves.
The Liberty Dollar thing was a different scenario. That guy was passing liberty dollars off as an alternate currency. The Headquarters of that operation was in my home town and I was happy to see it raided and shut down.
That being said I saw the controversy and purchased a couple of them hoping that some day they'll have some value beyond melt.
I support this whole fantasy overstrike thing and did so by purchasing one as well and now wishing I'd have bought two or three. I don't see anything illegal in this. Last night I was reading a coffee table book called "The 100 Greatest US Coins" (or something like that) and a fair amount of the greatest coins were never supposed to really be minted in the first place. Each one of those has a story that is pretty well documented, like the 1913 nickels. Obviously somebody made up 5 at the mint illegally (it seems) and now they are well accepted.
Dan's coins are not much different in my opinion. Well documented, heck he did the documentation and told the story for us.
Of particular interest to me is his linked page at Moonlight Mint where he has photos of his press and all the coins and blanks he found inside the surplus machine.
Anyway, the whole community will see these coins and recognize them for exactly what they are. What that is, none of us know yet. I think its ultra cool though myself.
I think another thing Mr. Carr has just demonstrated is that clearly the technology is out there for anyone so talented to produce darn near perfect examples of coinage. I think that's what is scaring a lot of people.
John
Never view my other linked pages. They aren't coin related.
<< <i>All of a sudden, why am I getting this inkling feeling that all this is a ruse just to add value to maybe only a handful of overstrikes that still belong to the maker and there was never any intent to release ordered coins? >>
Hmm...
Shucks, too late, most orders have already shipped (first in, first out).
<< <i>Got notice mine have been shipped!
I received a notice also at 4:53 a.m? Moon Light shipping
Successful Trades: Swampboy,
<< <i>All of a sudden, why am I getting this inkling feeling that all this is a ruse just to add value to maybe only a handful of overstrikes that still belong to the maker and there was never any intent to release ordered coins? >>
You're getting this inkling after people have said they've received shipment notices?
<< <i>
<< <i>I take a genuine legal-tender dollar coin, and re-face it with a different date (that was never issued). It still says "ONE DOLLAR" on it, like it did before. No metal is ever added or removed - just pushed around. My contention is that it is still a legal tender dollar. An ALTERED coin, not COUNTERFEIT legal tender.
Mr Carr. I think you are a very talented artist and have often admired your products and skill but I don't understand how the coins could still be classed as being legal tender dollar. Sure they are the same weight and size but because they weren't officially struck at the mint or released by the US government I would assume they aren't legal tender. ... >>
That is the legal question. If you purpously deface money, is it still legal tender for the original face value ? I believe it is. But, nobody would be required to accept it as legal tender.
PS:
>Sure they are the same weight and size but because they weren't officially struck at the mint or released by the US government ...
The host coins that I alter WERE officially struck at the mint and released by the US government, before I altered them. >>
My only criticism of this question of ethics and law is that DC is splitting the proverbial hair with the argument that his "fantasy" pieces are "altered" legal tender coins as opposed to coins resembling authentic U.S. Mint-issued coins made from new planchets (i.e., the 1815 "fantasy" large cent) and hence one would be legit and the 1815 considered counterfeit.
Consider, the 1815 was never struck, the 1964-D was struck, but subsequently melted. The 1964-D fantasy piece is an altered 1922-35 coin, whereas the 1815 fantasy piece was made from new planchets. If it were made from altering original coins, what's the difference? A: hair-splitting.
After reading this entire thread, I have come to two diametrically opposed conclusions (thus I remain ambivalent
1) I think what Dan has done is no different than pasting the image of Santa Claus over the image of George on the $1 bill, or painting a U.S. bullion silver Eagle $1, both are still legal tender and worth $1 as is Dan's altered Peace Dollars.
2) I also consider that the altering of the date on the original Peace Dollars and overstriking them with 1964 is no different than changing a 4 to a 1 on a 1944-D Lincoln cent, or removing the D from a 1922 Plain cent. It has the same effect: It causes the coin to look like something it is not. The 1944-D is no more a 1914-D than the 1992-D is a 1922 Plain, nor a 1922-35 Peace is a 1964-D dollar. Yet they all strongly resemble what they're not.
At the end of the day the
That said, I think Dan can both legally and ethically sell these. Because they are offered without fraudulent intent and buyers have been warned and have agreed with the terms of sale; not to pass these off as legitimate 1964-D Peace dollars if they should resell them in the future.
The updside of making this coin as quoted by Dan is "I now have my 1964-D Peace Dollar"
This is the same reason that I purchased one.
Cheers!
Kirk
P.S. I just received an e-mail from Designs Computed that my order #5234 has shipped! I am excited to receive it so that I can say: "I now have my 1964-D Peace Dollar" too!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BONGO HURTLES ALONG THE RAIN SODDEN HIGHWAY OF LIFE ON UNDERINFLATED BALD RETREAD TIRES
<< <i>
<< <i>All of a sudden, why am I getting this inkling feeling that all this is a ruse just to add value to maybe only a handful of overstrikes that still belong to the maker and there was never any intent to release ordered coins? >>
You're getting this inkling after people have said they've received shipment notices? >>
Being told your order has shipped vs having it in hand is like night and day. Hopefully those who have placed an order will post "received" when they arrive.
After following this thread, there is now room for skepticism until proven different.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
eBay won't allow them to be sold without the COPY or REPLICA stamp. They've already made that quite clear.
<< <i>Being told your order has shipped vs having it in hand is like night and day. Hopefully those who have placed an order will post "received" when they arrive.
After following this thread, there is now room for skepticism until proven different. >>
Well, I did get an e-mail from the U.S. Mint that my order for $250 box of Zach Taylor $1s was canceled because it was sold out!
However, I think Dan is not "stoopid", so I trust that the ship notice is quite true. Ya know it's one thing to question and debate the ethics/legality of this coin issue, it's quite another to be downright rude. While your comment is technically accurate, I question your intent. On-the-other-hand, I do not question the intent of DC and I promise to post pics of my 1964-D Peace the day that it arrives!
Cheers!
Kirk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BONGO HURTLES ALONG THE RAIN SODDEN HIGHWAY OF LIFE ON UNDERINFLATED BALD RETREAD TIRES
<< <i>I serioiusly think we can debate this all the way till these things are bringing a grand on ebay....then those who bought will be happy and those who did not will regret..."
eBay won't allow them to be sold without the COPY or REPLICA stamp. They've already made that quite clear. >>
I bet I could word an auction so that it would stand. You need to be totally forthright--a link to the Dcarr website would help--and point out that they are not a copy since the 1964 peace dollar doesn't exist. Point out that they are a real peace dollar that has been modified, not unlike an SAE that has been painted.
--Jerry
AL
what about others doing the same thing?
<< <i>what about a hobo nickel? no difference.
AL >>
DCarr claims he is simply moving metal and not removing it. This is what sets his argument apart from the "altered" 1944-D/1914-D; 1922-D/1922-Plain; Buffalo Nickle/Hobo Nickle; BU Silver Eagle/Colorized Silver Eagle $1. I believe that the difference amounts to splitting the proverbial hair. But, Hey, I'm no legal expert! I leave it to the lawyers to determine where the split-hairs lie!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BONGO HURTLES ALONG THE RAIN SODDEN HIGHWAY OF LIFE ON UNDERINFLATED BALD RETREAD TIRES
<< <i>I just picked mine up at the P.O.
The police are following you home, watch out!
<< <i>
<< <i>Just an opinion:
The pieces are in the likeness of a legal tender U.S. coin, and are obvious counterfeits. >>
No, they are obvious ALTERED coins. >>
Perhaps, but "obvious" to whom? Besides those involved in the hobby, the vast majority of the unsuspecting American public may think your objects are the real thing and buy one.
By the way, what's next on your agenda? Taking 1912 Liberty V nickels and overstrike them into "coins" dated 1913?
Since he is changing the date, admittedly still an alteration, then it falls into the altered coin category, just as if you changed the date on any coin. Is it a fraudulent alteration, like removing or adding mintmarks intended to defraud a collector?
What if he struck it on a blank planchet or a base metal blank, like the Chinese 1834-CC Trade Dollar fakes. Then it is an evasion piece. Made to fall outside of counterfeiting laws.
As I posted before, the code to look at is the Hobby Protection Act. Anyone care to post any relevant section?