<< <i>If these 64-D pieces were being made in China using the exact same process and materials, and marketed in exactly the same way, do you think they would be getting the same level of support here that they currently are? >>
Probably not. But those doing the "supporting" are the ones to answer that.
I will add these caveats regarding my issue (which have not applied to previous Chinese issues):
1) Minted by a Denver native who was born near the Denver Mint. 2) Minted by the designer of two US Mint coins. 3) A detailed account of the total mintage is provided (with no cheating !). 4) Struck over actual Peace silver dollars (yes, Chinese minters could do that as well, but they're unlikely to ever spend the money needed to buy real Peace dollars, and even if they did, nobody would believe that the Chinese coins were made of real silver). 5) Much more accurate engravings. 6) Struck using a surplus Denver Mint coin press.
<< <i>I guess your kid is not familiar with the subtle die changes - so what does this say about the "artistry" of the coin? I have read a few other comments that it just looks very fake. Is it worth the $110 now? >>
Ever since I started this project (1964-D Peace dollar), I've been trying to get the right luster and texture. The engraving itself was fine, but I couldn't get the "booming" luster I wanted, no matter how hard I tried. Today I found the answer.
The first 200 minted from Die Pair 5, and all the ones before that, were all stamped multiple times (usually 4 times). The reason for that is the additional stampings helped bring up the relief while eradicating the host coin's design as much as possible (but never 100%). Before the first strike, the modified host coin fits in the collar with about a quarter of a millimeter of space all the way around. The first strike causes the host coin to expand until it is contained by the collar. This expansion (flow) creates significant "cartwheel" luster on the coin. However, during subsequent strikes, there is no room for radial expansion, and thus, no radial flow. So the subsequent strikes, while having the effect of bringing up the relief, also have the effect of wiping out the luster. So the answer is to stamp once, but very hard.
Today I made 95 more pieces. 90 of those were Peace Dollars that I had already struck with Die Pair 2, which had very high rims. These high rims caused problems. It was much harder to flatten them out, and there was always a trough left just inside the rims which was nearly impossible to strike out. The visible result is a concentric line seen inside the rim in some places. These 90 are the only ones that I'll ever be "recycling" like that - the rest of this issue will be struck on "virgin" Peace Dollars. But, to get to the point, I cranked up the pressue and today I struck them only one time, rather than multiple times at a lower pressure like before. From now on, for the rest of this issue, I'll be stamping only once (at higher pressure).
The first picture below is of one of the first 200 from Die Pair 5. The picture after that, is one that was struck (once) today, on top of a Peace Dollar I had already struck with Die Pair 2. Since the host coin was already significatly work-hardened from so many prior stampings, there are frost-fade patches on Liberty's hair and Eagle's body. This actually looks a lot like original Peace Dollars since they had similar frost fade on the highest points. Both sets of pictures were taken with the same lighting and camera settings.
<< <i>If these 64-D pieces were being made in China using the exact same process and materials, and marketed in exactly the same way, do you think they would be getting the same level of support here that they currently are? >>
Probably not. But those doing the "supporting" are the ones to answer that.
I will add these caveats regarding my issue (which have not applied to previous Chinese issues):
1) Minted by a Denver native who was born near the Denver Mint. 2) Minted by the designer of two US Mint coins. 3) A detailed account of the total mintage is provided (with no cheating !). 4) Struck over actual Peace silver dollars (yes, Chinese minters could do that as well, but they're unlikely to ever spend the money needed to buy real Peace dollars, and even if they did, nobody would believe that the Chinese coins were made of real silver). 5) Much more accurate engravings. 6) Struck using a surplus Denver Mint coin press. >>
Bingo! The biggest difference between the D. Carr coin and a perfect Chinese copy is the provence of the coin which is a BIG difference.
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>OK Dan can we return ones from the first batch and reserve those struck now which have better luster?
You knew you would be asked this question...... >>
The first batch is more valuable since they are the satin proof first strikes which were struck multiple times and limited to a mintage of only 200 while the other will be regular business strikes with a mintage up to 1800.
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
[q(Can you print us up new labels which specify Matte Proof? ) >>
Great idea. Are these Satin Proofs or Matte Proofs? If Dan Carr sent a flip card with "First 200 Satin Proof" or similar to those that already got their dollars, that would be really great customer service and a reward for those that ordered early rather than sit on the sidelines. Also, if the flip cards differentiated between the satin proof strikes and the business/uncirculated strikes, there will be an incentive for collectors to place a second order to get one of each.
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>If these 64-D pieces were being made in China using the exact same process and materials, and marketed in exactly the same way, do you think they would be getting the same level of support here that they currently are? >>
Probably not. But those doing the "supporting" are the ones to answer that.
I will add these caveats regarding my issue (which have not applied to previous Chinese issues):
1) Minted by a Denver native who was born near the Denver Mint. 2) Minted by the designer of two US Mint coins. 3) A detailed account of the total mintage is provided (with no cheating !). 4) Struck over actual Peace silver dollars (yes, Chinese minters could do that as well, but they're unlikely to ever spend the money needed to buy real Peace dollars, and even if they did, nobody would believe that the Chinese coins were made of real silver). 5) Much more accurate engravings. 6) Struck using a surplus Denver Mint coin press. >>
Bingo! The biggest difference between the D. Carr coin and a perfect Chinese copy is the provence of the coin which is a BIG difference. >>
"BIG difference" in what respect? How or why would that make the coins any less likely to fall under the Hobby Protection Act? And what happens if/when that provenance (I presume you meant to write that instead of "provence") is lost?
<< <i>If these 64-D pieces were being made in China using the exact same process and materials, and marketed in exactly the same way, do you think they would be getting the same level of support here that they currently are? >>
Probably not. But those doing the "supporting" are the ones to answer that.
I will add these caveats regarding my issue (which have not applied to previous Chinese issues):
1) Minted by a Denver native who was born near the Denver Mint. 2) Minted by the designer of two US Mint coins. 3) A detailed account of the total mintage is provided (with no cheating !). 4) Struck over actual Peace silver dollars (yes, Chinese minters could do that as well, but they're unlikely to ever spend the money needed to buy real Peace dollars, and even if they did, nobody would believe that the Chinese coins were made of real silver). 5) Much more accurate engravings. 6) Struck using a surplus Denver Mint coin press. >>
Bingo! The biggest difference between the D. Carr coin and a perfect Chinese copy is the provence of the coin which is a BIG difference. >>
"BIG difference" in what respect? How or why would that make the coins any less likely to fall under the Hobby Protection Act? And what happens if/when that provenance (I presume you meant to write that instead of "provence") is lost? >>
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.
<< <i>If these 64-D pieces were being made in China using the exact same process and materials, and marketed in exactly the same way, do you think they would be getting the same level of support here that they currently are? >>
Probably not. But those doing the "supporting" are the ones to answer that.
I will add these caveats regarding my issue (which have not applied to previous Chinese issues):
1) Minted by a Denver native who was born near the Denver Mint. 2) Minted by the designer of two US Mint coins. 3) A detailed account of the total mintage is provided (with no cheating !). 4) Struck over actual Peace silver dollars (yes, Chinese minters could do that as well, but they're unlikely to ever spend the money needed to buy real Peace dollars, and even if they did, nobody would believe that the Chinese coins were made of real silver). 5) Much more accurate engravings. 6) Struck using a surplus Denver Mint coin press. >>
Bingo! The biggest difference between the D. Carr coin and a perfect Chinese copy is the provence of the coin which is a BIG difference. >>
"BIG difference" in what respect? How or why would that make the coins any less likely to fall under the Hobby Protection Act? And what happens if/when that provenance (I presume you meant to write that instead of "provence") is lost? >>
The big difference is that I trust Dan Carr while I don't trust an unknown chinese minter.
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
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.
<< <i>If these 64-D pieces were being made in China using the exact same process and materials, and marketed in exactly the same way, do you think they would be getting the same level of support here that they currently are? >>
Probably not. But those doing the "supporting" are the ones to answer that.
I will add these caveats regarding my issue (which have not applied to previous Chinese issues):
1) Minted by a Denver native who was born near the Denver Mint. 2) Minted by the designer of two US Mint coins. 3) A detailed account of the total mintage is provided (with no cheating !). 4) Struck over actual Peace silver dollars (yes, Chinese minters could do that as well, but they're unlikely to ever spend the money needed to buy real Peace dollars, and even if they did, nobody would believe that the Chinese coins were made of real silver). 5) Much more accurate engravings. 6) Struck using a surplus Denver Mint coin press. >>
Huh? I don't understand how these are caveats.
Lane
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>How or why would that make the coins any less likely to fall under the Hobby Protection Act? >>
This is what I was getting at. Sorry for the lack of clarity in my question.
If the OP had read...
"It's been a long time coming, but Chen Li's website is now offering authentic US Peace dollar coins overstruck with his own version of the mysterious 1964-D design. Li had struck the coins many months ago, but waited until recently to decide on the legal and ethical issues surrounding releasing the issue. In the end he chose not to use the Hobby Protection Act "COPY" stamp for several reasons, and has included some security aspects to the new design."
how many people would be posting here in support of the overstrikes not requiring a "COPY" stamp?
Lots of naysayers and hand wringing, just as I'm sure there were in times past. For example, I imagine the same complainers in this thread whining about the oversized designer initials on the new 1909 Lincoln cent! Or, transport back to 1917 and watch them cry about the nudity on the new Standing Liberty quarter.
What we have here folks with this 1964-D Peace dollar is numismatic history in the making! How many of us can brag we have ever been a part of that ever before? New developments and minting methods happening right before our eyes. This is seriously an exciting time in an otherwise lackluster stage in coin collecting.
<< <i>If these 64-D pieces were being made in China using the exact same process and materials, and marketed in exactly the same way, do you think they would be getting the same level of support here that they currently are? >>
Probably not. But those doing the "supporting" are the ones to answer that.
I will add these caveats regarding my issue (which have not applied to previous Chinese issues):
1) Minted by a Denver native who was born near the Denver Mint. 2) Minted by the designer of two US Mint coins. 3) A detailed account of the total mintage is provided (with no cheating !). 4) Struck over actual Peace silver dollars (yes, Chinese minters could do that as well, but they're unlikely to ever spend the money needed to buy real Peace dollars, and even if they did, nobody would believe that the Chinese coins were made of real silver). 5) Much more accurate engravings. 6) Struck using a surplus Denver Mint coin press. >>
Bingo! The biggest difference between the D. Carr coin and a perfect Chinese copy is the provence of the coin which is a BIG difference. >>
I agree with this. I think the big differences are that Daniel is a known person in the numismatic community given his prior work and that these are fully documented.
To be frank, although another person creating something similar may be as legal, I don't even think any other American creating these would generate as much interest (there may be a few exceptions to this, but I think they are very few). Ron Landis had a following, but didn't go anywhere as far as Dan has and is going given that he did not design official US coins, did not use an official mint press, didn't explore gray areas in the law, etc. We are definitely living in interesting times and I am curious to see Dan's future creations.
<< <i>Lots of naysayers and hand wringing, just as I'm sure there were in times past. For example, I imagine the same complainers in this thread whining about the oversized designer initials on the new 1909 Lincoln cent! Or, transport back to 1917 and watch them cry about the nudity on the new Standing Liberty quarter.
What we have here folks with this 1964-D Peace dollar is numismatic history in the making! How many of us can brag we have ever been a part of that ever before? New developments and minting methods happening right before our eyes. This is seriously an exciting time in an otherwise lackluster stage in coin collecting.
Relish in it. Enjoy! >>
I agree. If you look at the history of any major change in numismatics, there have always been a group of vocal conservatives (with respect to numismatics).
I also think it is very exciting to see the results of new minting methods published and discussed here.
you got a link to Chen Li's website ? I want to order a couple from him !!!!!!!!!! >>
If one was made in China, I would prefer it to be made with a surplus press from the Shanghai Mint that was shipped over from the US Mint. A S mint mark would also be nice. With China's emergence as a world economic and military power, it might be nice to have a fantasy US Peace dollar made on a US Mint press that was officially shipped to the Shanghai Mint to remind us to be at Peace with each other
Of course, cartwheel luster is a factor of die wear. The later the strike, the more cartwheel luster. First strike Morgan Dollars are DMPLs, later strikes are Prooflike and even later strikes are semi-PL, and late strikes show lots of cartwheel luster.
Is that a die crack forming over the TY in LIBERTY?
I don't think anyone is questioning Mr. Carr's abilities or reputation (I know I'm not). My own personal opinion is that the Hobby Protection Act is applicable to all and was not intended to be used selectively, depending on the reputation of the person producing the particular item(s) in question.
"Lots of naysayers and hand wringing?" If you see it that way, I guess. Are we all supposed to be cheerleaders, or what?
Besides, from what I've read, there's just as much naysaying and hand wringing about the naysayers and hand wringers as there is naysaying and hand wringing, so I think it's mostly a draw in that regard.
<< <i>How or why would that make the coins any less likely to fall under the Hobby Protection Act? >>
This is what I was getting at. Sorry for the lack of clarity in my question.
If the OP had read...
"It's been a long time coming, but Chen Li's website is now offering authentic US Peace dollar coins overstruck with his own version of the mysterious 1964-D design. Li had struck the coins many months ago, but waited until recently to decide on the legal and ethical issues surrounding releasing the issue. In the end he chose not to use the Hobby Protection Act "COPY" stamp for several reasons, and has included some security aspects to the new design."
how many people would be posting here in support of the overstrikes not requiring a "COPY" stamp? >>
Here's another fantasy: "It's been a long time coming, but JSG Boggs' website is now offering authentic bleached US dollar bills overprinted with his own version of the mysterious 666 Star Note design. Boggs had the bills printed many months ago, but waited until recently to decide on the legal and ethical issues surrounding releasing the issue. In the end he chose not to worry about government harrassment for several reasons, and has included some additional satirical aspects to the new design."
<< <i>My own personal opinion is that the Hobby Protection Act is applicable to all and was not intended to be used selectively, depending on the reputation of the person producing the particular item(s) in question. >>
I think the HPA would be equally as applicable, or not
However, I think the support from the numismatic community would be different.
I do think there is room for interpretation of the HPA here and think it's ok to test the law. This is how laws in the US are made and refined, with use. The willingness to test boundaries is part of what makes America a great nation so it is good to see it in action in numismatics, in my personal opinion.
<< <i> Lots of naysayers and hand wringing, just as I'm sure there were in times past. For example, I imagine the same complainers in this thread whining about the oversized designer initials on the new 1909 Lincoln cent! Or, transport back to 1917 and watch them cry about the nudity on the new Standing Liberty quarter.
What we have here folks with this 1964-D Peace dollar is numismatic history in the making! How many of us can brag we have ever been a part of that ever before? New developments and minting methods happening right before our eyes. This is seriously an exciting time in an otherwise lackluster stage in coin collecting >>
Mr. Braddick,
I did not complain about the “new 1909 Lincoln cent” when the designer put his oversized initials on it nor would I have complained about a “real” original piece of art like the bare breasted Standing Liberty quarter.
I do find it strange that so many try to defend the action of Mr. Carr but yet criticize some one in Asia for doing the same thing. Isn’t a counterfeit coin a counterfeit coin no matter where it is manufactured, either in Asia or just out side of Denver?
I have read some on here try to defend the action by saying that no 1964-D Peace Dollars really exist. What does it matter? Is this “thing” purporting to be a peace dollar, dated 1964 from the branch mint of Denver?
What is the difference of Mr. Carr’s action relating to these altered coins then someone taking a one dollar bill, bleaching the printers ink out and photo copying the likeness of a series 1968 one hundred dollar bill on it? A counterfeit is a counterfeit and a fake is a fake.
<< The difference is the Chinese would claim they're real coins while D. Carr is up front as to what they are. >>
Well, of course if you add to the scenario I presented something I never said, you'll likely get a different result. I'll repeat, with an addition:
If these 64-D pieces were being made in China using the exact same process and materials, and marketed in exactly the same way, do you think they would be getting the same level of support here that they currently are? >>
Obviously not since the Chinese product is not minted from authentic Peace Dollars but some other cheap alloy which only looks like silver.
<< <i> >>
Mr. 19Lyds,
Why do some try to justify bad conduct? If you read the scenario given, he said “using the exact same process and materials”. So they would be counterfeited on an authentic Peace Dollar just like the ones that Mr. Carr has been hocking.
The hypercritics’ that have posted in support of Mr. Carr’s endeavor astonishes me. If the people who have bought this item really thought it was a “piece of art” would they have pony-ed up the money to buy it “if” it had the word “COPY” as part of the design?
I for one YN hopes that the appropriate agency refers this matter to a US Attorneys Office prosecution.
<< <i>If the people who have bought this item really thought it was a “piece of art” would they have pony-ed up the money to buy it “if” it had the word “COPY” as part of the design? >>
I buy art in the form of paintings and sculptures. I prefer this art not to have COPY as part of the design. Is this surprising or unusual?
Where will it end? If this issue is accepted, then anyone with means should be allowed to produce and market any coin likeness that they want, as long as it's overstamped on an original example and the date or mintmark is different.
<< <i>How or why would that make the coins any less likely to fall under the Hobby Protection Act? >>
This is what I was getting at. Sorry for the lack of clarity in my question.
If the OP had read...
"It's been a long time coming, but Chen Li's website is now offering authentic US Peace dollar coins overstruck with his own version of the mysterious 1964-D design. Li had struck the coins many months ago, but waited until recently to decide on the legal and ethical issues surrounding releasing the issue. In the end he chose not to use the Hobby Protection Act "COPY" stamp for several reasons, and has included some security aspects to the new design."
how many people would be posting here in support of the overstrikes not requiring a "COPY" stamp? >>
Here's another fantasy: "It's been a long time coming, but JSG Boggs' website is now offering authentic bleached US dollar bills overprinted with his own version of the mysterious 666 Star Note design. Boggs had the bills printed many months ago, but waited until recently to decide on the legal and ethical issues surrounding releasing the issue. In the end he chose not to worry about government harrassment for several reasons, and has included some additional satirical aspects to the new design." >>
Folks don't normally "spend" Peace Dollars AND the bleached paper in a Federal Reserve Note has "zero" value (except to a counterfeiter) whereas the Peace Dollar has at the very minimum, 90% Silver Bullion value as assayed by the US Government via the United States Mint.
Your comparison point is totally baseless.
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.
<< <i>I do think there is room for interpretation of the HPA here and think it's ok to test the law. This is how laws in the US are made and refined, with use. The willingness to test boundaries is part of what makes America a great nation so it is good to see it in action in numismatics, in my personal opinion. >>
There is a very simple way to ensure the Hobby Protection Act applies here which is for someone to bring forth a genuine 1964-D Peace dollar and have it properly authenticated as such.
Theoretically, this can happen any time the supposed owners want to put a stop to this because the unconfirmed stories tend to involve people that know what they have.
Until that happens, I think it is fine to move this project forward.
What say you genuine 1964-D Peace dollar holders? Want to come forward? PCGS will even authenticate and grade it for free!
Even IF someone produced counterfeit Peace dollars overstruck on a real peace dollar for the sole purpose of passing them off at face value in commerce would they REALLY be defrauding anyone?
Even a government that got "stuck" with them at the Fed?
Comments
<< <i>I bet these will get a mention in the Red Book.
"all 1964-D Peace dollars are modern replicas" >>
Is there any other kind??
The name is LEE!
<< <i>If these 64-D pieces were being made in China using the exact same process and materials, and marketed in exactly the same way, do you think they would be getting the same level of support here that they currently are? >>
Probably not. But those doing the "supporting" are the ones to answer that.
I will add these caveats regarding my issue (which have not applied to previous Chinese issues):
1) Minted by a Denver native who was born near the Denver Mint.
2) Minted by the designer of two US Mint coins.
3) A detailed account of the total mintage is provided (with no cheating !).
4) Struck over actual Peace silver dollars (yes, Chinese minters could do that as well,
but they're unlikely to ever spend the money needed to buy real Peace dollars,
and even if they did, nobody would believe that the Chinese coins were made of real silver).
5) Much more accurate engravings.
6) Struck using a surplus Denver Mint coin press.
<< <i>I guess your kid is not familiar with the subtle die changes - so what does this say about the "artistry" of the coin? I have read a few other comments that it just looks very fake. Is it worth the $110 now? >>
Ever since I started this project (1964-D Peace dollar), I've been trying to get the right luster and texture. The engraving itself was fine, but I couldn't get the "booming" luster I wanted, no matter how hard I tried. Today I found the answer.
The first 200 minted from Die Pair 5, and all the ones before that, were all stamped multiple times (usually 4 times). The reason for that is the additional stampings helped bring up the relief while eradicating the host coin's design as much as possible (but never 100%). Before the first strike, the modified host coin fits in the collar with about a quarter of a millimeter of space all the way around. The first strike causes the host coin to expand until it is contained by the collar. This expansion (flow) creates significant "cartwheel" luster on the coin. However, during subsequent strikes, there is no room for radial expansion, and thus, no radial flow. So the subsequent strikes, while having the effect of bringing up the relief, also have the effect of wiping out the luster. So the answer is to stamp once, but very hard.
Today I made 95 more pieces. 90 of those were Peace Dollars that I had already struck with Die Pair 2, which had very high rims. These high rims caused problems. It was much harder to flatten them out, and there was always a trough left just inside the rims which was nearly impossible to strike out. The visible result is a concentric line seen inside the rim in some places. These 90 are the only ones that I'll ever be "recycling" like that - the rest of this issue will be struck on "virgin" Peace Dollars. But, to get to the point, I cranked up the pressue and today I struck them only one time, rather than multiple times at a lower pressure like before. From now on, for the rest of this issue, I'll be stamping only once (at higher pressure).
The first picture below is of one of the first 200 from Die Pair 5. The picture after that, is one that was struck (once) today, on top of a Peace Dollar I had already struck with Die Pair 2. Since the host coin was already significatly work-hardened from so many prior stampings, there are frost-fade patches on Liberty's hair and Eagle's body. This actually looks a lot like original Peace Dollars since they had similar frost fade on the highest points. Both sets of pictures were taken with the same lighting and camera settings.
<< <i>Three words... >>
unindicted co-conspirator
Who will be the first to have their 64-D shrunken?
You knew you would be asked this question......
<< <i>OK Dan can we return ones from the first batch and reserve those struck now which have better luster?
You knew you would be asked this question...... >>
Yes, I have a full-refund or exchange return policy.
But remember, only the first 200 will have the subdued "matte proof-like" look
then, the lucky 200 own the uber rare Matte Proof version?
Luv it!
(Can you print us up new labels which specify Matte Proof?
<< <i>
<< <i>If these 64-D pieces were being made in China using the exact same process and materials, and marketed in exactly the same way, do you think they would be getting the same level of support here that they currently are? >>
Probably not. But those doing the "supporting" are the ones to answer that.
I will add these caveats regarding my issue (which have not applied to previous Chinese issues):
1) Minted by a Denver native who was born near the Denver Mint.
2) Minted by the designer of two US Mint coins.
3) A detailed account of the total mintage is provided (with no cheating !).
4) Struck over actual Peace silver dollars (yes, Chinese minters could do that as well,
but they're unlikely to ever spend the money needed to buy real Peace dollars,
and even if they did, nobody would believe that the Chinese coins were made of real silver).
5) Much more accurate engravings.
6) Struck using a surplus Denver Mint coin press. >>
Bingo! The biggest difference between the D. Carr coin and a perfect Chinese copy is the provence of the coin which is a BIG difference.
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>OK Dan can we return ones from the first batch and reserve those struck now which have better luster?
You knew you would be asked this question...... >>
The first batch is more valuable since they are the satin proof first strikes which were struck multiple times and limited to a mintage of only 200 while the other will be regular business strikes with a mintage up to 1800.
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
dan, ya listening??
Great idea. Are these Satin Proofs or Matte Proofs? If Dan Carr sent a flip card with "First 200 Satin Proof" or similar to those that already got their dollars, that would be really great customer service and a reward for those that ordered early rather than sit on the sidelines. Also, if the flip cards differentiated between the satin proof strikes and the business/uncirculated strikes, there will be an incentive for collectors to place a second order to get one of each.
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
Which would I prefer?
I don't know. The Matte Proof may prove to be the more rare one, but the second "business strike" looks better to me.
Any packed up and on their way to South Australia yet, Dan? If not, then I'd prefer the ... uh ... yeah, the ... um... ah heck, surprise me.
I'm so excited!
I think now I really understand the term "Frothy Frenzy"!
Matte Proof!
Matte Proof!
Matte Proof!
Matte Proof!
Matte Proof!
Edited to show my preference to D.Carr.
<< <i>
<< <i>OK Dan can we return ones from the first batch and reserve those struck now which have better luster?
You knew you would be asked this question...... >>
Yes, I have a full-refund or exchange return policy.
But remember, only the first 200 will have the subdued "matte proof-like" look
screw that i will take his i want one of the first 200
who wants to sell theres ???
how much ???
gdavis70,Musky1011,cohodk,cucamongacoin,robkool,chumley, drei3ree, Rampage,jmski52, commoncents05, dimples, dcarr, Grouchy, holeinone1972, JonMN34, mission16,meltdown,Omega,PQpeace, SeaEagleCoins, WaterSport, whatsup,Wizard1,WinLoseWin,MMR,49thStateofMind,SamByrd,Ahrensdad,BAJJERFAN,timrutnat,TWQG,CarlWohlforth,Ciccio,PreTurb,NumisMe,Patches,NotSure,luvcoins123,piecesofme,perryhall,nibanny,atarian,airplanenut
gdavis70,Musky1011,cohodk,cucamongacoin,robkool,chumley, drei3ree, Rampage,jmski52, commoncents05, dimples, dcarr, Grouchy, holeinone1972, JonMN34, mission16,meltdown,Omega,PQpeace, SeaEagleCoins, WaterSport, whatsup,Wizard1,WinLoseWin,MMR,49thStateofMind,SamByrd,Ahrensdad,BAJJERFAN,timrutnat,TWQG,CarlWohlforth,Ciccio,PreTurb,NumisMe,Patches,NotSure,luvcoins123,piecesofme,perryhall,nibanny,atarian,airplanenut
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If these 64-D pieces were being made in China using the exact same process and materials, and marketed in exactly the same way, do you think they would be getting the same level of support here that they currently are? >>
Probably not. But those doing the "supporting" are the ones to answer that.
I will add these caveats regarding my issue (which have not applied to previous Chinese issues):
1) Minted by a Denver native who was born near the Denver Mint.
2) Minted by the designer of two US Mint coins.
3) A detailed account of the total mintage is provided (with no cheating !).
4) Struck over actual Peace silver dollars (yes, Chinese minters could do that as well,
but they're unlikely to ever spend the money needed to buy real Peace dollars,
and even if they did, nobody would believe that the Chinese coins were made of real silver).
5) Much more accurate engravings.
6) Struck using a surplus Denver Mint coin press. >>
Bingo! The biggest difference between the D. Carr coin and a perfect Chinese copy is the provence of the coin which is a BIG difference. >>
"BIG difference" in what respect? How or why would that make the coins any less likely to fall under the Hobby Protection Act? And what happens if/when that provenance (I presume you meant to write that instead of "provence") is lost?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If these 64-D pieces were being made in China using the exact same process and materials, and marketed in exactly the same way, do you think they would be getting the same level of support here that they currently are? >>
Probably not. But those doing the "supporting" are the ones to answer that.
I will add these caveats regarding my issue (which have not applied to previous Chinese issues):
1) Minted by a Denver native who was born near the Denver Mint.
2) Minted by the designer of two US Mint coins.
3) A detailed account of the total mintage is provided (with no cheating !).
4) Struck over actual Peace silver dollars (yes, Chinese minters could do that as well,
but they're unlikely to ever spend the money needed to buy real Peace dollars,
and even if they did, nobody would believe that the Chinese coins were made of real silver).
5) Much more accurate engravings.
6) Struck using a surplus Denver Mint coin press. >>
Bingo! The biggest difference between the D. Carr coin and a perfect Chinese copy is the provence of the coin which is a BIG difference. >>
"BIG difference" in what respect? How or why would that make the coins any less likely to fall under the Hobby Protection Act? And what happens if/when that provenance (I presume you meant to write that instead of "provence") is lost? >>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If these 64-D pieces were being made in China using the exact same process and materials, and marketed in exactly the same way, do you think they would be getting the same level of support here that they currently are? >>
Probably not. But those doing the "supporting" are the ones to answer that.
I will add these caveats regarding my issue (which have not applied to previous Chinese issues):
1) Minted by a Denver native who was born near the Denver Mint.
2) Minted by the designer of two US Mint coins.
3) A detailed account of the total mintage is provided (with no cheating !).
4) Struck over actual Peace silver dollars (yes, Chinese minters could do that as well,
but they're unlikely to ever spend the money needed to buy real Peace dollars,
and even if they did, nobody would believe that the Chinese coins were made of real silver).
5) Much more accurate engravings.
6) Struck using a surplus Denver Mint coin press. >>
Bingo! The biggest difference between the D. Carr coin and a perfect Chinese copy is the provence of the coin which is a BIG difference. >>
"BIG difference" in what respect? How or why would that make the coins any less likely to fall under the Hobby Protection Act? And what happens if/when that provenance (I presume you meant to write that instead of "provence") is lost? >>
The big difference is that I trust Dan Carr while I don't trust an unknown chinese minter.
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>The big difference is that I trust Dan Carr while I don't trust an unknown chinese minter. >>
I don't trust the mints in the Chinese restaurants either... c'mon, how many people have touched them before me?
gdavis70,Musky1011,cohodk,cucamongacoin,robkool,chumley, drei3ree, Rampage,jmski52, commoncents05, dimples, dcarr, Grouchy, holeinone1972, JonMN34, mission16,meltdown,Omega,PQpeace, SeaEagleCoins, WaterSport, whatsup,Wizard1,WinLoseWin,MMR,49thStateofMind,SamByrd,Ahrensdad,BAJJERFAN,timrutnat,TWQG,CarlWohlforth,Ciccio,PreTurb,NumisMe,Patches,NotSure,luvcoins123,piecesofme,perryhall,nibanny,atarian,airplanenut
Gees, now I really really want a 1965.
.I do like the newer, more lustrous one better though , have to get me one of those
<< <i>i got the Matte one coming in the mail , I should have ordered several - those suckers are rare !
how do u know for sure u have a matte one coming u may get the new one
gdavis70,Musky1011,cohodk,cucamongacoin,robkool,chumley, drei3ree, Rampage,jmski52, commoncents05, dimples, dcarr, Grouchy, holeinone1972, JonMN34, mission16,meltdown,Omega,PQpeace, SeaEagleCoins, WaterSport, whatsup,Wizard1,WinLoseWin,MMR,49thStateofMind,SamByrd,Ahrensdad,BAJJERFAN,timrutnat,TWQG,CarlWohlforth,Ciccio,PreTurb,NumisMe,Patches,NotSure,luvcoins123,piecesofme,perryhall,nibanny,atarian,airplanenut
Did you know that one of the 1804 Dollars was struck over a Swiss Shooting Thaler ?
.....under dubious minting procedures
Guess I'm gonna hafta order another!
Miles
<< <i>
<< <i>If these 64-D pieces were being made in China using the exact same process and materials, and marketed in exactly the same way, do you think they would be getting the same level of support here that they currently are? >>
Probably not. But those doing the "supporting" are the ones to answer that.
I will add these caveats regarding my issue (which have not applied to previous Chinese issues):
1) Minted by a Denver native who was born near the Denver Mint.
2) Minted by the designer of two US Mint coins.
3) A detailed account of the total mintage is provided (with no cheating !).
4) Struck over actual Peace silver dollars (yes, Chinese minters could do that as well,
but they're unlikely to ever spend the money needed to buy real Peace dollars,
and even if they did, nobody would believe that the Chinese coins were made of real silver).
5) Much more accurate engravings.
6) Struck using a surplus Denver Mint coin press. >>
Huh? I don't understand how these are caveats.
Lane
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>Hopefully Monday's post will bring my new treasure.
Gees, now I really really want a 1965.
Interesting thought which could bring some legitimacy to a set of Fantasy Coins.
As mentioned earlier, do 1965-1970 on 40% Silver IKE's in keeping with the Silver Coinage Alloy's of the era.
I think I'm gonna get pounded for saying that!
The name is LEE!
<< <i>How or why would that make the coins any less likely to fall under the Hobby Protection Act? >>
This is what I was getting at. Sorry for the lack of clarity in my question.
If the OP had read...
"It's been a long time coming, but Chen Li's website is now offering authentic US Peace dollar coins overstruck with his own version of the mysterious 1964-D design.
Li had struck the coins many months ago, but waited until recently to decide on the legal and ethical issues surrounding releasing the issue.
In the end he chose not to use the Hobby Protection Act "COPY" stamp for several reasons, and has included some security aspects to the new design."
how many people would be posting here in support of the overstrikes not requiring a "COPY" stamp?
What we have here folks with this 1964-D Peace dollar is numismatic history in the making! How many of us can brag we have ever been a part of that ever before? New developments and minting methods happening right before our eyes. This is seriously an exciting time in an otherwise lackluster stage in coin collecting.
Relish in it. Enjoy!
peacockcoins
you got a link to Chen Li's website ? I want to order a couple from him !!!!!!!!!!
<< <i>The big difference is that I trust Dan Carr while I don't trust an unknown chinese minter. >>
Plus, Loveland Colorado is a lot easier to get to than Peking!
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If these 64-D pieces were being made in China using the exact same process and materials, and marketed in exactly the same way, do you think they would be getting the same level of support here that they currently are? >>
Probably not. But those doing the "supporting" are the ones to answer that.
I will add these caveats regarding my issue (which have not applied to previous Chinese issues):
1) Minted by a Denver native who was born near the Denver Mint.
2) Minted by the designer of two US Mint coins.
3) A detailed account of the total mintage is provided (with no cheating !).
4) Struck over actual Peace silver dollars (yes, Chinese minters could do that as well,
but they're unlikely to ever spend the money needed to buy real Peace dollars,
and even if they did, nobody would believe that the Chinese coins were made of real silver).
5) Much more accurate engravings.
6) Struck using a surplus Denver Mint coin press. >>
Bingo! The biggest difference between the D. Carr coin and a perfect Chinese copy is the provence of the coin which is a BIG difference. >>
I agree with this. I think the big differences are that Daniel is a known person in the numismatic community given his prior work and that these are fully documented.
To be frank, although another person creating something similar may be as legal, I don't even think any other American creating these would generate as much interest (there may be a few exceptions to this, but I think they are very few). Ron Landis had a following, but didn't go anywhere as far as Dan has and is going given that he did not design official US coins, did not use an official mint press, didn't explore gray areas in the law, etc. We are definitely living in interesting times and I am curious to see Dan's future creations.
<< <i>Lots of naysayers and hand wringing, just as I'm sure there were in times past. For example, I imagine the same complainers in this thread whining about the oversized designer initials on the new 1909 Lincoln cent! Or, transport back to 1917 and watch them cry about the nudity on the new Standing Liberty quarter.
What we have here folks with this 1964-D Peace dollar is numismatic history in the making! How many of us can brag we have ever been a part of that ever before? New developments and minting methods happening right before our eyes. This is seriously an exciting time in an otherwise lackluster stage in coin collecting.
Relish in it. Enjoy! >>
I agree. If you look at the history of any major change in numismatics, there have always been a group of vocal conservatives (with respect to numismatics).
I also think it is very exciting to see the results of new minting methods published and discussed here.
<< <i>Mr. Potato ,
you got a link to Chen Li's website ? I want to order a couple from him !!!!!!!!!! >>
If one was made in China, I would prefer it to be made with a surplus press from the Shanghai Mint that was shipped over from the US Mint. A S mint mark would also be nice. With China's emergence as a world economic and military power, it might be nice to have a fantasy US Peace dollar made on a US Mint press that was officially shipped to the Shanghai Mint to remind us to be at Peace with each other
Is that a die crack forming over the TY in LIBERTY?
"Lots of naysayers and hand wringing?" If you see it that way, I guess. Are we all supposed to be cheerleaders, or what?
Besides, from what I've read, there's just as much naysaying and hand wringing about the naysayers and hand wringers as there is naysaying and hand wringing, so I think it's mostly a draw in that regard.
<< <i>
<< <i>How or why would that make the coins any less likely to fall under the Hobby Protection Act? >>
This is what I was getting at. Sorry for the lack of clarity in my question.
If the OP had read...
"It's been a long time coming, but Chen Li's website is now offering authentic US Peace dollar coins overstruck with his own version of the mysterious 1964-D design.
Li had struck the coins many months ago, but waited until recently to decide on the legal and ethical issues surrounding releasing the issue.
In the end he chose not to use the Hobby Protection Act "COPY" stamp for several reasons, and has included some security aspects to the new design."
how many people would be posting here in support of the overstrikes not requiring a "COPY" stamp? >>
Here's another fantasy:
"It's been a long time coming, but JSG Boggs' website is now offering authentic bleached US dollar bills overprinted with his own version of the mysterious 666 Star Note design.
Boggs had the bills printed many months ago, but waited until recently to decide on the legal and ethical issues surrounding releasing the issue.
In the end he chose not to worry about government harrassment for several reasons, and has included some additional satirical aspects to the new design."
<< <i>My own personal opinion is that the Hobby Protection Act is applicable to all and was not intended to be used selectively, depending on the reputation of the person producing the particular item(s) in question. >>
I think the HPA would be equally as applicable, or not
However, I think the support from the numismatic community would be different.
I do think there is room for interpretation of the HPA here and think it's ok to test the law. This is how laws in the US are made and refined, with use. The willingness to test boundaries is part of what makes America a great nation so it is good to see it in action in numismatics, in my personal opinion.
<< <i> Lots of naysayers and hand wringing, just as I'm sure there were in times past. For example, I imagine the same complainers in this thread whining about the oversized designer initials on the new 1909 Lincoln cent! Or, transport back to 1917 and watch them cry about the nudity on the new Standing Liberty quarter.
What we have here folks with this 1964-D Peace dollar is numismatic history in the making! How many of us can brag we have ever been a part of that ever before? New developments and minting methods happening right before our eyes. This is seriously an exciting time in an otherwise lackluster stage in coin collecting >>
Mr. Braddick,
I did not complain about the “new 1909 Lincoln cent” when the designer put his oversized initials on it nor would I have complained about a “real” original piece of art like the bare breasted Standing Liberty quarter.
I do find it strange that so many try to defend the action of Mr. Carr but yet criticize some one in Asia for doing the same thing. Isn’t a counterfeit coin a counterfeit coin no matter where it is manufactured, either in Asia or just out side of Denver?
I have read some on here try to defend the action by saying that no 1964-D Peace Dollars really exist. What does it matter? Is this “thing” purporting to be a peace dollar, dated 1964 from the branch mint of Denver?
What is the difference of Mr. Carr’s action relating to these altered coins then someone taking a one dollar bill, bleaching the printers ink out and photo copying the likeness of a series 1968 one hundred dollar bill on it? A counterfeit is a counterfeit and a fake is a fake.
<< The difference is the Chinese would claim they're real coins while D. Carr is up front as to what they are. >>
Well, of course if you add to the scenario I presented something I never said, you'll likely get a different result. I'll repeat, with an addition:
If these 64-D pieces were being made in China using the exact same process and materials, and marketed in exactly the same way, do you think they would be getting the same level of support here that they currently are? >>
Obviously not since the Chinese product is not minted from authentic Peace Dollars but some other cheap alloy which only looks like silver.
<< <i> >>
Mr. 19Lyds,
Why do some try to justify bad conduct? If you read the scenario given, he said “using the exact same process and materials”. So they would be counterfeited on an authentic Peace Dollar just like the ones that Mr. Carr has been hocking.
The hypercritics’ that have posted in support of Mr. Carr’s endeavor astonishes me. If the people who have bought this item really thought it was a “piece of art” would they have pony-ed up the money to buy it “if” it had the word “COPY” as part of the design?
I for one YN hopes that the appropriate agency refers this matter to a US Attorneys Office prosecution.
<< <i>If the people who have bought this item really thought it was a “piece of art” would they have pony-ed up the money to buy it “if” it had the word “COPY” as part of the design? >>
I buy art in the form of paintings and sculptures. I prefer this art not to have COPY as part of the design. Is this surprising or unusual?
Maybe the bigger question is this -
Where will it end? If this issue is accepted, then anyone with means should be allowed to produce and market any coin likeness that they want, as long as it's overstamped on an original example and the date or mintmark is different.
How can this be good for the hobby?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>How or why would that make the coins any less likely to fall under the Hobby Protection Act? >>
This is what I was getting at. Sorry for the lack of clarity in my question.
If the OP had read...
"It's been a long time coming, but Chen Li's website is now offering authentic US Peace dollar coins overstruck with his own version of the mysterious 1964-D design.
Li had struck the coins many months ago, but waited until recently to decide on the legal and ethical issues surrounding releasing the issue.
In the end he chose not to use the Hobby Protection Act "COPY" stamp for several reasons, and has included some security aspects to the new design."
how many people would be posting here in support of the overstrikes not requiring a "COPY" stamp? >>
Here's another fantasy:
"It's been a long time coming, but JSG Boggs' website is now offering authentic bleached US dollar bills overprinted with his own version of the mysterious 666 Star Note design.
Boggs had the bills printed many months ago, but waited until recently to decide on the legal and ethical issues surrounding releasing the issue.
In the end he chose not to worry about government harrassment for several reasons, and has included some additional satirical aspects to the new design." >>
Folks don't normally "spend" Peace Dollars AND the bleached paper in a Federal Reserve Note has "zero" value (except to a counterfeiter) whereas the Peace Dollar has at the very minimum, 90% Silver Bullion value as assayed by the US Government via the United States Mint.
Your comparison point is totally baseless.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>I do think there is room for interpretation of the HPA here and think it's ok to test the law. This is how laws in the US are made and refined, with use. The willingness to test boundaries is part of what makes America a great nation so it is good to see it in action in numismatics, in my personal opinion. >>
There is a very simple way to ensure the Hobby Protection Act applies here which is for someone to bring forth a genuine 1964-D Peace dollar and have it properly authenticated as such.
Theoretically, this can happen any time the supposed owners want to put a stop to this because the unconfirmed stories tend to involve people that know what they have.
Until that happens, I think it is fine to move this project forward.
What say you genuine 1964-D Peace dollar holders? Want to come forward? PCGS will even authenticate and grade it for free!
Even a government that got "stuck" with them at the Fed?
Me thinks not with silver at $20 per ounce.