Options
A U.S. Coin Related Question:
Artist
Posts: 2,038 ✭✭✭
Not trying to offend our gracious hosts by starting this... I have been a contributing, cooperative member of this forum since 2004, and I hope to remain one... but I just spent a considerable amount of time composing a passage in a thread that pertained to COIN World's coverage of Daniel Carr's Fantasy Peace Dollar that disappeared before anyone could read it, and I am vexed as to: why?
Coin World writes about real coins, Daniel Carr's fantasy pieces are struck on real U.S. coins, and moreover, it seems that CU is allowing some dialogue to continue on these coins... what is the basis by which some dialogue is permissible, yet not others?
Numerous comparisons have been made between Daniel's new work and similar historic 'issues' such as the New Haven Fugio re-strikes... now I would like to make a different comparison: There is a rich tradition of private U.S. coinage... historically, whenever the U.S. Mint was unable to satisfy public demand, private citizens stepped in to fill the void.... from Bechler, to Clark & Gruber, to the Mormans, to the French Gold Rush era jewelers who made all those California Fractionals... these are all widely heralded by authoritative publications & collectors alike as REAL U.S. COINS. Personally, I see Daniel's work as no less relevant, except in this case the void being filled is more artistic & conceptual in nature than commerce orientated. (And no, a coin need not be defined as a vehicle of commerce, when a majority of the products offered by the U.S. Mint are not intended for circulation.)
To explain the artistry I recognize in Daniel's U.S. COIN, here is an excerpt from my original post that is no longer available for viewing:
***
"Regarding the recurring criticism on these boards that what Daniel has done is not a true work of art... well, yes, the design is a facsimile of a pre-existing work, but I think this misses the point... in 1917, The Society of Independent Artists held a show for which they claimed "all works would be accepted"... so member Marcel Duchamp, bought a ready-made ceramic urinal, and submitted it as an original work of art to test the rules... of course controversy followed, but the fact is that the piece is still discussed today as a relevant turning point in Western artistic consciousness. The point is that in Duchamp's case, (like Daniel Carr's,) the originality of the design was never the issue, but rather it was the use of a pre-existing (and in both cases, very loaded...) design in new & different context that constituted the work of art. Art is not always pretty pictures & relaxing music... at its core, I believe good art is that which recognizes our collective common understandings & challenges our collective common assumptions... and probably close to 3,000 posts later & counting, I'd say this is something Daniel's Peace Dollar project has done & continues to do, possibly to a greater degree than much of his other, original-design based work.
"(Personally,) I love the coin! I like the connection it makes to the concept of a real 1964-D Peace Dollar, both in terms of its tangibility (the coin is, after all, exquisitely & lovingly rendered...) and also in terms of ownership (in that like the original, these coins seem to exist within a gray area of the law.) But moreover I just think they are just hysterically funny! Consider that the U.S. Mint made 1964-D Peace Dollars, and then destroyed them all without saving one for posterity or for the benefit of the numismatic community, in a scenario that unfortunately echoes the illogic of countless other actions the Mint has rendered in its history... I, for one, recognize the satire & the tongue-in-cheek protest nature of these coins... and best of all, they are real U.S. coins!"
***
IMHO, some controversy is GOOD for the hobby of collecting U.S. COINS and the dialogues & debates that pertain to such. I think a almost unanimous sentiment of this forum, is that the whimsical & fanciful designs of the past are superior to homogenous design-by-committee coins of the present day, and I also think that part of the appeal of these older coins is that the environment they stemmed forth from, was one that prized expressions of Liberty above appeasing all facets controversy (unlike today's) and so in this spirit, my hope is that this discussion is allowed to continue.
Sincerely & Respectfully,
Charles Danek / Master Designer United States Mint, Artistic Infusion Program, 2004-2006
Coin World writes about real coins, Daniel Carr's fantasy pieces are struck on real U.S. coins, and moreover, it seems that CU is allowing some dialogue to continue on these coins... what is the basis by which some dialogue is permissible, yet not others?
Numerous comparisons have been made between Daniel's new work and similar historic 'issues' such as the New Haven Fugio re-strikes... now I would like to make a different comparison: There is a rich tradition of private U.S. coinage... historically, whenever the U.S. Mint was unable to satisfy public demand, private citizens stepped in to fill the void.... from Bechler, to Clark & Gruber, to the Mormans, to the French Gold Rush era jewelers who made all those California Fractionals... these are all widely heralded by authoritative publications & collectors alike as REAL U.S. COINS. Personally, I see Daniel's work as no less relevant, except in this case the void being filled is more artistic & conceptual in nature than commerce orientated. (And no, a coin need not be defined as a vehicle of commerce, when a majority of the products offered by the U.S. Mint are not intended for circulation.)
To explain the artistry I recognize in Daniel's U.S. COIN, here is an excerpt from my original post that is no longer available for viewing:
***
"Regarding the recurring criticism on these boards that what Daniel has done is not a true work of art... well, yes, the design is a facsimile of a pre-existing work, but I think this misses the point... in 1917, The Society of Independent Artists held a show for which they claimed "all works would be accepted"... so member Marcel Duchamp, bought a ready-made ceramic urinal, and submitted it as an original work of art to test the rules... of course controversy followed, but the fact is that the piece is still discussed today as a relevant turning point in Western artistic consciousness. The point is that in Duchamp's case, (like Daniel Carr's,) the originality of the design was never the issue, but rather it was the use of a pre-existing (and in both cases, very loaded...) design in new & different context that constituted the work of art. Art is not always pretty pictures & relaxing music... at its core, I believe good art is that which recognizes our collective common understandings & challenges our collective common assumptions... and probably close to 3,000 posts later & counting, I'd say this is something Daniel's Peace Dollar project has done & continues to do, possibly to a greater degree than much of his other, original-design based work.
"(Personally,) I love the coin! I like the connection it makes to the concept of a real 1964-D Peace Dollar, both in terms of its tangibility (the coin is, after all, exquisitely & lovingly rendered...) and also in terms of ownership (in that like the original, these coins seem to exist within a gray area of the law.) But moreover I just think they are just hysterically funny! Consider that the U.S. Mint made 1964-D Peace Dollars, and then destroyed them all without saving one for posterity or for the benefit of the numismatic community, in a scenario that unfortunately echoes the illogic of countless other actions the Mint has rendered in its history... I, for one, recognize the satire & the tongue-in-cheek protest nature of these coins... and best of all, they are real U.S. coins!"
***
IMHO, some controversy is GOOD for the hobby of collecting U.S. COINS and the dialogues & debates that pertain to such. I think a almost unanimous sentiment of this forum, is that the whimsical & fanciful designs of the past are superior to homogenous design-by-committee coins of the present day, and I also think that part of the appeal of these older coins is that the environment they stemmed forth from, was one that prized expressions of Liberty above appeasing all facets controversy (unlike today's) and so in this spirit, my hope is that this discussion is allowed to continue.
Sincerely & Respectfully,
Charles Danek / Master Designer United States Mint, Artistic Infusion Program, 2004-2006
0
Comments
It was novel in the beginning and has become "War and Peace" in the present... give it a rest.
<< <i>I think, in world-setting record, most members of this forum have grown tired of the coin, tired of the discussions, tired of anything related to the coin and want to move on.
It was novel in the beginning and has become "War and Peace" in the present... give it a rest. >>
Only those who don't like it are tired of it.
I say the controversy is good but when it degrades to "bashing" the thread goes poof. This one will probably get to that point too. --Jerry
<< <i>
<< <i>I think, in world-setting record, most members of this forum have grown tired of the coin, tired of the discussions, tired of anything related to the coin and want to move on.
It was novel in the beginning and has become "War and Peace" in the present... give it a rest. >>
Only those who don't like it are tired of it.
I say the controversy is good but when it degrades to "bashing" the thread goes poof. This one will probably get to that point too. --Jerry >>
Actually, I like the coin a lot. Did I buy one... No. If I knowlingly do something illegal, I lose my job. Do I think this is illegal... I'm not sure; in my case it's better to be safe than unemployed. I'm tired of it, not because I don't like it, but because there's no angle that hasn't been broached, no comment that hasn't been made and this, like all other posts related to this coin, is just another small part in a ever continuing Groundhog Day... let it go.
Do we resent Dan making a small fortune for his efforts? Probably some do. Do we lust after a REAL 64D peace dollar and view this as an acceptable substitute, Probably some do.
Do we think this will be a great moderate term flip? Probably some do. Do some think it is illegal and eventually Dan and everyone who bought on will end up in the same cell block? Probably some do.
Do we enjoy a bit of activity, controversy and an interesting topic on this forum, such as this? Probably some do.
Will we view every new looking rarity that appears out of nowhere now as a 'recreated' coin? Probably some will......and thats the TRUTH that has just been forced down our throats by Mr. Carr.
That all being said..so far Ive ordered two, and Im not even a fan of big clunky dollars at all.
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
But, Perry, maybe you should just post a picture, tell them you found one in a roll!
Regardless of the legality over the production of this piece I believe that some forum members and TPG's (
Legality is not even considered since it's very existance is simply interpreted as wrong regardless of how it's rationalized.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>I'm glad that some people, at least, "get it"
Just got the first of the two I ordered in the mail today and it's very, very cool. I love it, and love the concept. I have no intention of flipping them regardless of secondary market. Goes next to your astronaut coin which I still swear should be circulating US coinage of some denomination. I'm a Sacagawea fan but no fan of the Native American Dollar series. Tom Rogers work on the reverse was as good as the Glenna Goodacre's work on the obverse. Why they struck it on Manganese I'll never know. I mean we know, but what a rotten metal for that design.
Anyway, keep 'em coming Mr. Carr. It's a cool Peace if you'll pardon the pun.
John
Never view my other linked pages. They aren't coin related.
<< <i>I also participate on the NGC coin forums. I am extremely surprised that there hasn't been a single thread or mention of Dan Carr's 1964-D peace dollar over there. Does anyone else find this surprising? >>
I see someone has started a thread ATS on this topic.
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
This is a pretty kool part of Dans website....goes into detail on the press. If youre a "machine head" its really interesting.
http://www.moonlightmint.com/artifacts.htm