<< <i>Here's a copy of the Definition of COPY (Merriam Webster)
1: an imitation, transcript, or reproduction of an original work (as a letter, a painting, a table, or a dress)
2: one of a series of especially mechanical reproductions of an original impression; also : an individual example of such a reproduction
It appears the 1964-D Peace dollar fits the definition, so I'm not going to argue with anyone about this coins status among collectors.
Thank you... >>
Any real one would be illegal to own anyway so it doesn't matter if a unmarked copy exists. As soon as someone tried to pass it off as real they would have the feds come down on them. >>
You mean like what happens with all of the unmarked copies that sell on Ebay? >>
I doubt anyone would have success selling a "genuine" 1964 Peace Dollar on Ebay for say $100,000. Any takers? Anyone? Anyone? If you did you might be hearing a knock on your door a few days later after making the covers of NN and Coin World.
Gold and silver are valuable but wisdom is priceless.
This issue has been beat into the dirt. Anyone is entitled to an opinion.... but that is all it is, just opinion. The fact is, the coin is not counterfeit and it breaks no law. If you do not like it, do not buy it. If you think that Daniel Carr did not do his research prior to embarking on this venture, then you are sadly mistaken. It is legal, the design has significant differences from the original design, and is not a copy because there was no such coin issued by the mint. Now, for all those who do not like it, fine - your opinion - and only an opinion, is duly noted. For others who purchase one, enjoy your coin. Cheers, RickO
<< <i>Until then though, since we believe that the US Mint said that these coins WERE produced through press releases and documentation that we should also believe that the US Mint also destroyed every example. >>
No, we shouldn't. It is entirely possible to accept that one claim made by the mint is true without the need to assume that any other claim made by the mint is true, also. If somebody provided a claim made by the mint that is verifiably false, would you agree that, with no other evidence, any other claim made by the mint is false, too? I'd hope not. >>
Of course not excpet for the verifiably false clain but thats not the point Spuddy.
In regard to this PARTICULAR subject (and certainly not other items the Mint has screwed up), the point is that everybody "accepts" the fact that the coins were produced based solely on US Mint documentation (remember NO PHOTO's EXIST and no physical evidence exists that the coins were ever really produced) yet folks will not "accept" the fact that the US Mint says they were all destroyed. Can you say Conspiracy Theorists?
Just trying to compare apples to apples.
Bottom line, for me at least, I'll assume that none exist until someone can prove otherwise since reality dictates that much more than heresay would exist if even one existed. As proven by the Langbord suit, the long arm of the law can only reach so far.
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>This issue has been beat into the dirt. Anyone is entitled to an opinion.... but that is all it is, just opinion. The fact is, the coin is not counterfeit and it breaks no law. If you do not like it, do not buy it. If you think that Daniel Carr did not do his research prior to embarking on this venture, then you are sadly mistaken. It is legal, the design has significant differences from the original design, and is not a copy because there was no such coin issued by the mint. Now, for all those who do not like it, fine - your opinion - and only an opinion, is duly noted. For others who purchase one, enjoy your coin. Cheers, RickO >>
Rick, what you state as "fact" is, in fact, another opinion. Time will tell whether it is correct or not.
<< <i>In regard to this PARTICULAR subject (and certainly not other items the Mint has screwed up), the point is that everybody "accepts" the fact that the coins were produced based solely on US Mint documentation (remember NO PHOTO's EXIST and no physical evidence exists that the coins were ever really produced) yet folks will not "accept" the fact that the US Mint says they were all destroyed. Can you say Conspiracy Theorists? >>
You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that the mint might make a claim that is not true. I posted in another thread about the claim made by the Director of the Mint (I think- maybe it was the Treasurer- I don't remember) which was reported in Numismatic Scrapbook (again, I think that was the publication- I'm not going to go look this up again) that all the dollars had been destroyed when, in fact, they hadn't, as a couple came to light in later years. So- if the government could be wrong about it once, what makes you think they couldn't be mistaken twice?
<< <i>This issue has been beat into the dirt. Anyone is entitled to an opinion.... but that is all it is, just opinion. The fact is, the coin is not counterfeit and it breaks no law. If you do not like it, do not buy it. If you think that Daniel Carr did not do his research prior to embarking on this venture, then you are sadly mistaken. It is legal, the design has significant differences from the original design, and is not a copy because there was no such coin issued by the mint. Now, for all those who do not like it, fine - your opinion - and only an opinion, is duly noted. For others who purchase one, enjoy your coin. Cheers, RickO >>
I think this is mostly about some who had a "fantasy" of finding a real one in a shoe box somewhere. That is their fantasy coin and they don't want any fantasy fakes around to confuse things. Ok, I have beat enough dirt.
Gold and silver are valuable but wisdom is priceless.
<< <i>This issue has been beat into the dirt. Anyone is entitled to an opinion.... but that is all it is, just opinion. The fact is, the coin is not counterfeit and it breaks no law. If you do not like it, do not buy it. If you think that Daniel Carr did not do his research prior to embarking on this venture, then you are sadly mistaken. It is legal, the design has significant differences from the original design, and is not a copy because there was no such coin issued by the mint. Now, for all those who do not like it, fine - your opinion - and only an opinion, is duly noted. For others who purchase one, enjoy your coin. Cheers, RickO >>
Ricko, let us have our fun!
But, it is a copy of coin that was produced but not issued by the USM.
<< <i>This issue has been beat into the dirt. Anyone is entitled to an opinion.... but that is all it is, just opinion. The fact is, the coin is not counterfeit and it breaks no law. If you do not like it, do not buy it. If you think that Daniel Carr did not do his research prior to embarking on this venture, then you are sadly mistaken. It is legal, the design has significant differences from the original design, and is not a copy because there was no such coin issued by the mint. Now, for all those who do not like it, fine - your opinion - and only an opinion, is duly noted. For others who purchase one, enjoy your coin. Cheers, RickO >>
Rick, what you state as "fact" is, in fact, another opinion. Time will tell whether it is correct or not. >>
Ah yes!
The value of coinage "used" to be based upon its intrinsic precious metal content meaning that even a blank silver dollar planchet was still worth a buck. However to a collector, that very same blank is worth a whole lot more than a buck.
However, since these Fantasy Peaces have been on the market for more than a month, I'm kinda wonder what's taking the Feds so friggin long in busting up this counterfeiting operation?
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>This issue has been beat into the dirt. Anyone is entitled to an opinion.... but that is all it is, just opinion. The fact is, the coin is not counterfeit and it breaks no law. If you do not like it, do not buy it. If you think that Daniel Carr did not do his research prior to embarking on this venture, then you are sadly mistaken. It is legal, the design has significant differences from the original design, and is not a copy because there was no such coin issued by the mint. Now, for all those who do not like it, fine - your opinion - and only an opinion, is duly noted. For others who purchase one, enjoy your coin. Cheers, RickO >>
Rick, what you state as "fact" is, in fact, another opinion. Time will tell whether it is correct or not. >>
Ah yes!
The value of coinage "used" to be based upon its intrinsic precious metal content meaning that even a blank silver dollar planchet was still worth a buck. However to a collector, that very same blank is worth a whole lot more than a buck.
However, since these Fantasy Peaces have been on the market for more than a month, I'm kinda wonder what's taking the Feds so friggin long in busting up this counterfeiting operation? >>
Do you wonder the same about the lack of action by the Feds with respect to the much greater number and value of counterfeits on Ebay? My point is, that lack of action doesn't necessarily indicate that the coins aren't considered to be counterfeit.
Apropos various comments above (plug them in where you wish):
The fact that no 1964-D Peace dollar has surfaced to date, and the fact that no picture of a 1964-D Peace dollar is known 45 years after they were struck, is irrelevant. The 1870-S half dime did not surface or get photographed until approximately 110 years after it was struck.
The fact that the Carr-produced 1964-D Peace dollars have a tiny identifying mark on them does not exempt them from scrutiny under the laws designed to protect the public from counterfeit coins. The "Omega counterfeit" MCMVII High Relief $20 gold pieces and various "Omega counterfeit" $3 gold pieces have a tiny identifying mark on them. That does not make them non-counterfeit.
The fact that the Mint never struck Capped Bust half dollars dated after 1839, or 1923-D dimes, or 1930-D dimes, does not make the known counterfeits of those dates non-counterfeit. They are counterfeits.
TD
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Also won the PNG's Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
<< <i>However, since these Fantasy Peaces have been on the market for more than a month, I'm kinda wonder what's taking the Feds so friggin long in busting up this counterfeiting operation? >>
Do you wonder the same about the lack of action by the Feds with respect to the much greater number and value of counterfeits on Ebay? >>
Yes I do Mark.
However, for Carr's coins, it's definitely a gray area since technically, they still have that original intrinsic value of a silver dollar, they just had the design pushed around.
The Chinese counterfeits, on the other hand, don't even have that. So technically, they represent "true" counterfeit coins from the "governments perspective".
Had Daniel Carr not been upfront with his intentions and with what he was doing AND had he used a slag alloy for creating these coins, then yes, they would be considered counterfeits from a "government perspective".
I think that many, not a majority mind you, but many in the collecting community consider these counterfeits from a "numismatic perspective" and there is a difference.
These are not widely accepted right now but if it is ever determined that they are legal to produce based upon the emotionless facts, then they very well could be just like numerous other restrikes which exist and currently reside in respected TPG plastic.
Heck, for that matter, even some well known counterfeits are considered collectible and many collectors are pleased to either find them or win them on eBay!
From my perspective, the production of these Peace Dollars is simply another facet to the history of coin collecting. Some folks will like and collect them while others will run away in disgust.
I'm just waiting around to see what happens.
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 think that technically every single coin ever made is a copy... except for the FIRST coin made of each type of coin... so there
And I also think that EVERY coin is a FANTASY coin... because out entire economic system is based on pure fantasy... a double so there
Take that you bunch of obsessive/compulsive numismatistical coin forum weenies!!!!!
Re: Slabbed coins - There are some coins that LIVE within clear plastic and wear their labels with pride... while there are others that HIDE behind scratched plastic and are simply dragged along by a label. Then there are those coins that simply hang out, naked and free
Much to the chagrin of many Dan Carr is still a free man. Although this may be a hotly debated topic in Coin Land nobody else in the world cares, least of all the Feds.
I own two of Dan's 1964 Peace Dollars. I personally think they are an interesting fringe piece. The guy is an artist.
I truly don't understand at all why anyone thinks this hurts the hobby. These are sold with full disclosure. I think the fear is that Mr. Carr has demonstrated that anyone with less honorable intentions could do this.
He's the guy you hire to combat such things. He's the expert.
I haven't read the entire thread but what is the difference between Carr's Peace Dollar and a "Hobo Buffalo" Nickel? They are both art. I like the Carr coin but will probably never own one. I don't own a Hobo Nickel either.
Carr has just shown us what might have been.
Ron
Collect for the love of the hobby, the beauty of the coins, and enjoy the ride.
<< <i>I haven't read the entire thread but what is the difference between Carr's Peace Dollar and a "Hobo Buffalo" Nickel? They are both art. I like the Carr coin but will probably never own one. I don't own a Hobo Nickel either.
Carr has just shown us what might have been.
Ron >>
A hobo nickel changes the design to something noticable different. Carr's 1964-D reproduces the original design almost exactly.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Also won the PNG's Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
I have no problem with such privately made issues, as long as they are clearly marked "copy", "replica", "fantasy" or some other word that makes clear *on the coin itself* that it is not an original government issue.
The original purchaser of such a coin may know its status, but subsequent buyers (especially if less knowledgeable) would be at risk unless the coin is clearly identified as a non-government issue.
I have no problem with such privately made issues, as long as they are clearly marked "copy", "replica", "fantasy" or some other word that makes clear *on the coin itself* that it is not an original government issue.
The original purchaser of such a coin may know its status, but subsequent buyers (especially if less knowledgeable) would be at risk unless the coin is clearly identified as a non-government issue.
Well stated and I agree. >>
Double ditto >>
I would like my ditto added to this. >>
Any subsequent buyer who would buy a 64 Peace Dollar could also be sold the Brooklyn Bridge. None exist. Any that you buy are going to be fake. Or illegal.
<< <i>Any subsequent buyer who would buy a 64 Peace Dollar could also be sold the Brooklyn Bridge. None exist. Any that you buy are going to be fake. Or illegal.
John >>
Agree. You can only go so far protecting stupid people from themselves.
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
Apparently several very prominent forum members strenuously object to this fantasy coin. I wonder how many of them secretly own one.
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>Yes, I think copies of real coins (at least those which do not conform to the HPA) are a problem. That said, the D Carr 64D dollar is not a copy. It is a real peace dollar--albeit an altered one. It is every bit as much a legitimate numismatic item as a hobo nickel. >>
Bingo. Carr appears to have a defendable position here, which could be considered taking advantage of a loophole in the HPA, but a loophole nonetheless.
<< <i>Apparently several very prominent forum members strenuously object to this fantasy coin. I wonder how many of them secretly own one. >>
I would never own one because I have no desire to provide financial support to enterprises like this. Once the coin altering people perfect this technique, look for a lot more bogus 1909-S Indian cents and virtually any other key date coin made from a genuine common date piece. I’d like to see this type operation nipped in the bud with the person who made the 1964-D Peace Dollar put out of business.
It’s a shame that you people are so obsessed with owning a copy of this legendary coin. It could do great damage to this hobby if it spreads. You might be shooting all of us in the foot over a piece of foolishness.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
<< <i>Anyone is entitled to an opinion.... but that is all it is, just opinion. The fact is, the coin is not counterfeit and it breaks no law. >>
Altering the date or mint mark of a coin and trying to selll it as an example of the altered date makes it a counterfeit.
Do you think that the Buffalo nickels with the embossed mint marks that showed up some years ago are not counterfeits? They were made from genuine coins, had a mint mark placed on them by drilling a small hole into the rim of the coin, adding a mint mark and then the side hole was filled. Is that okay because it was made on a genunine coin?
This is the kind of crap that we are encouraging here, and if the Hobby Protection Act can't stop, we need new legislation.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
<< <i>Apparently several very prominent forum members strenuously object to this fantasy coin. I wonder how many of them secretly own one. >>
I would never own one because I have no desire to provide financial support to enterprises like this. Once the coin altering people perfect this technique, look for a lot more bogus 1909-S Indian cents and virtually any other key date coin made from a genuine common date piece. I�d like to see this type operation nipped in the bud with the person who made the 1964-D Peace Dollar put out of business.
It�s a shame that you people are so obsessed with owning a copy of this legendary coin. It could do great damage to this hobby if it spreads. You might be shooting all of us in the foot over a piece of foolishness. >>
This is why God made Lucite. It's almost bulletproof.
<< <i>Apparently several very prominent forum members strenuously object to this fantasy coin. I wonder how many of them secretly own one. >>
Not I.............
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Also won the PNG's Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
<< <i>Once the coin altering people perfect this technique, look for a lot more bogus 1909-S Indian cents and virtually any other key date coin made from a genuine common date piece. >>
This is a bogus argument. The production of a coin that doesn't exist (1964-D Peace dollar) is a fantasy coin while producing a coin that does exist (1909-S cent or key date) is a counterfeit coin. Big difference here. As far as more bogus 1909-S Indian cents and other key date coins, they've been mass counterfeited for many decades now.
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>Once the coin altering people perfect this technique, look for a lot more bogus 1909-S Indian cents and virtually any other key date coin made from a genuine common date piece. >>
This is a bogus argument. The production of a coin that doesn't exist (1964-D Peace dollar) is a fantasy coin while producing a coin that does exist (1909-S cent or key date) is a counterfeit coin. Big difference here. As far as more bogus 1909-S Indian cents and other key date coins, they've been mass counterfeited for many decades now. >>
THIS is a bogus argument. If you were to strike a non-existant 1975 quarter dollar and spend it you would be guilty of counterfeiting. I don't think that if you offered it on eBay as a "fantasy" with a starting bid of $9.95 it would suddenly become NOT a counterfeit! The counterfeiting laws do not give time off for good intentions.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Also won the PNG's Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
<< <i>Once the coin altering people perfect this technique, look for a lot more bogus 1909-S Indian cents and virtually any other key date coin made from a genuine common date piece. >>
This is a bogus argument. The production of a coin that doesn't exist (1964-D Peace dollar) is a fantasy coin while producing a coin that does exist (1909-S cent or key date) is a counterfeit coin. Big difference here. As far as more bogus 1909-S Indian cents and other key date coins, they've been mass counterfeited for many decades now. >>
THIS is a bogus argument. If you were to strike a non-existant 1975 quarter dollar and spend it you would be guilty of counterfeiting. I don't think that if you offered it on eBay as a "fantasy" with a starting bid of $9.95 it would suddenly become NOT a counterfeit! The counterfeiting laws do not give time off for good intentions. >>
Don't forget that this Dan Carr fantasy coin is struck over a real Peace dollar so if it were spent as a dollar, it would be difficult to prove that the merchant that received this coin in exchange for $1 of merchandise was defrauded.
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>Once the coin altering people perfect this technique, look for a lot more bogus 1909-S Indian cents and virtually any other key date coin made from a genuine common date piece. >>
This is a bogus argument. The production of a coin that doesn't exist (1964-D Peace dollar) is a fantasy coin while producing a coin that does exist (1909-S cent or key date) is a counterfeit coin. Big difference here. As far as more bogus 1909-S Indian cents and other key date coins, they've been mass counterfeited for many decades now. >>
THIS is a bogus argument. If you were to strike a non-existant 1975 quarter dollar and spend it you would be guilty of counterfeiting. I don't think that if you offered it on eBay as a "fantasy" with a starting bid of $9.95 it would suddenly become NOT a counterfeit! The counterfeiting laws do not give time off for good intentions. >>
Don't forget that this Dan Carr fantasy coin is struck over a real Peace dollar so if it were spent as a dollar, it would be difficult to prove that the merchant that received this coin in exchange for $1 of merchandise was defrauded. >>
The best die-struck counterfeit 1909-SVDB cent that we ever saw at ANACS was struck over a 1960 Lincoln cent. It was still a counterfeit.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Also won the PNG's Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
<< <i>Apparently several very prominent forum members strenuously object to this fantasy coin. I wonder how many of them secretly own one. >>
I would never own one because I have no desire to provide financial support to enterprises like this. Once the coin altering people perfect this technique, look for a lot more bogus 1909-S Indian cents and virtually any other key date coin made from a genuine common date piece. I’d like to see this type operation nipped in the bud with the person who made the 1964-D Peace Dollar put out of business.
It’s a shame that you people are so obsessed with owning a copy of this legendary coin. It could do great damage to this hobby if it spreads. You might be shooting all of us in the foot over a piece of foolishness. >>
Well said Bill
As for owning one....thats funny.
I am still waiting for one of the cheerleaders to step up to the plate and place an order for 1,000 pieces, Put your money where your mouth is and corner the market. Just remember to keep the hype going, but open it up to more than the dozen or so speculators that appear to be trying sooo hard.
I think it's a cool way to force the issue - make the Gov't come forward with the real deal if they want to call DC's coin a counterfeit.
"My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose, Cardinal.
<< <i>These are not widely accepted right now but if it is ever determined that they are legal to produce based upon the emotionless facts, then they very well could be just like numerous other restrikes which exist and currently reside in respected TPG plastic. >>
No way this counterfeit coin will ever be considered a restrike. Why? It's a big difference between a counterfeit and a restrike coin! go figure.
A restrike is a piece that is struck from the original dies at a date later than appears on the coin. There is no way that these counterfeit 1964-D dollars are restrikes. They are made from recently fabricated tools that alter the date and add a mint mark of existing, genuine coins.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
Would it be cool to have a 2010 Mercury Dime. Maybe Dan can make a complete set from the start of the FDR's until now? Imagine a 200 year anniversary 2007 capped bust half dollar? The sky's the limit.
<< <i>A restrike is a piece that is struck from the original dies at a date later than appears on the coin. There is no way that these counterfeit 1964-D dollars are restrikes. They are made from recently fabricated tools that alter the date and add a mint mark of existing, genuine coins. >>
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Also won the PNG's Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
The numismatic community uses the term "restrike" for pieces that were made by third parties using entirely new and different dies. Coins such as the New Haven Fugios are often called restrikes and are also slabbed by PCGS and other top TPGs. Although I don't necessarily agree with calling these restrikes, it seems to be common usage of the term. Given the market acceptability of these pieces at the highest levels and the increased levels of legitimacy of the 1964-D Peace dollars (designer of US Mint coins, former US Mint press, genuine Peace dollars, etc.) it seems plausible that the Carr dollars could find and it could be argued they should find broad collector and TPG acceptance.
<< <i>Once the coin altering people perfect this technique, look for a lot more bogus 1909-S Indian cents and virtually any other key date coin made from a genuine common date piece. >>
This is a bogus argument. The production of a coin that doesn't exist (1964-D Peace dollar) is a fantasy coin while producing a coin that does exist (1909-S cent or key date) is a counterfeit coin. Big difference here. As far as more bogus 1909-S Indian cents and other key date coins, they've been mass counterfeited for many decades now. >>
THIS is a bogus argument. If you were to strike a non-existant 1975 quarter dollar and spend it you would be guilty of counterfeiting. I don't think that if you offered it on eBay as a "fantasy" with a starting bid of $9.95 it would suddenly become NOT a counterfeit! The counterfeiting laws do not give time off for good intentions. >>
Who would pay $10 for the opportunity to spend 25 cents?
<< <i>The numismatic community uses the term "restrike" for pieces that were made by third parties using entirely new and different dies. Coins such as the New Haven Fugios are often called restrikes and are also slabbed by PCGS and other top TPGs. Although I don't necessarily agree with calling these restrikes, it seems to be common usage of the term. Given the market acceptability of these pieces at the highest levels and the increased levels of legitimacy of the 1964-D Peace dollars (designer of US Mint coins, former US Mint press, genuine Peace dollars, etc.) it seems plausible that the Carr dollars could find and it could be argued they should find broad collector and TPG acceptance. >>
The TPG's are companies whose interest is in generating a profit for themselves as well as their shareholders. You are putting them in too prominent a position in numismatics than is deserved.
<< <i>The numismatic community uses the term "restrike" for pieces that were made by third parties using entirely new and different dies. Coins such as the New Haven Fugios are often called restrikes and are also slabbed by PCGS and other top TPGs. Although I don't necessarily agree with calling these restrikes, it seems to be common usage of the term. >>
The commonality of an error does not make it correct.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Also won the PNG's Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
<< <i>Given the market acceptability of these pieces at the highest levels and the increased levels of legitimacy of the 1964-D Peace dollars (designer of US Mint coins, former US Mint press, genuine Peace dollars, etc.)... >>
Don't stop there- you're on a roll. I'd suggest it's possible that, while working on the project, Mr. Carr ate a hamburger made of beef from a cow descended from a cow which was raised for beef to feed the workers who actually built the Denver mint.
Talk about legitimacy- wha could be better than that?
I am simply discussing common usage of the term restrike in response to posts using a more narrow definition of the term than is commonly used. Am I incorrect in its usage?
I personally prefer the more strict defimition but think it should be applied consistently. It would be more consistent if the people suggesting the Peace dollars are not restrikes also say the same about the Fugios as vigorously, which I would welcome. How many would support requests to our hosts about reclassifying the New Haven Fugios?
Seems to me, in order to restrike a coin, you have to have struck some first. Otherwise, what's that "re" part all about? Obviously, this would be the case if original US Mint dies were used, but I'm pretty sure that's not what happened here.
Not that this'll change anybody's mind on the subject, of course.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Here's a copy of the Definition of COPY (Merriam Webster)
1: an imitation, transcript, or reproduction of an original work (as a letter, a painting, a table, or a dress)
2: one of a series of especially mechanical reproductions of an original impression; also : an individual example of such a reproduction
It appears the 1964-D Peace dollar fits the definition, so I'm not going to argue with anyone about this coins status among collectors.
Thank you... >>
Any real one would be illegal to own anyway so it doesn't matter if a unmarked copy exists. As soon as someone tried to pass it off as real they would have the feds come down on them. >>
You mean like what happens with all of the unmarked copies that sell on Ebay?
I doubt anyone would have success selling a "genuine" 1964 Peace Dollar on Ebay for say $100,000. Any takers? Anyone? Anyone? If you did you might be hearing a knock on your door a few days later after making the covers of NN and Coin World.
Anyone is entitled to an opinion.... but that is all it is, just opinion. The fact is, the coin is not counterfeit and it breaks no law. If you do not like it, do not buy it. If you think that Daniel Carr did not do his research prior to embarking on this venture, then you are sadly mistaken. It is legal, the design has significant differences from the original design, and is not a copy because there was no such coin issued by the mint. Now, for all those who do not like it, fine - your opinion - and only an opinion, is duly noted. For others who purchase one, enjoy your coin. Cheers, RickO
<< <i>
<< <i>Until then though, since we believe that the US Mint said that these coins WERE produced through press releases and documentation that we should also believe that the US Mint also destroyed every example. >>
No, we shouldn't. It is entirely possible to accept that one claim made by the mint is true without the need to assume that any other claim made by the mint is true, also. If somebody provided a claim made by the mint that is verifiably false, would you agree that, with no other evidence, any other claim made by the mint is false, too? I'd hope not.
Of course not excpet for the verifiably false clain but thats not the point Spuddy.
In regard to this PARTICULAR subject (and certainly not other items the Mint has screwed up), the point is that everybody "accepts" the fact that the coins were produced based solely on US Mint documentation (remember NO PHOTO's EXIST and no physical evidence exists that the coins were ever really produced) yet folks will not "accept" the fact that the US Mint says they were all destroyed. Can you say Conspiracy Theorists?
Just trying to compare apples to apples.
Bottom line, for me at least, I'll assume that none exist until someone can prove otherwise since reality dictates that much more than heresay would exist if even one existed. As proven by the Langbord suit, the long arm of the law can only reach so far.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>This issue has been beat into the dirt.
Anyone is entitled to an opinion.... but that is all it is, just opinion. The fact is, the coin is not counterfeit and it breaks no law. If you do not like it, do not buy it. If you think that Daniel Carr did not do his research prior to embarking on this venture, then you are sadly mistaken. It is legal, the design has significant differences from the original design, and is not a copy because there was no such coin issued by the mint. Now, for all those who do not like it, fine - your opinion - and only an opinion, is duly noted. For others who purchase one, enjoy your coin. Cheers, RickO >>
Rick, what you state as "fact" is, in fact, another opinion. Time will tell whether it is correct or not.
<< <i>In regard to this PARTICULAR subject (and certainly not other items the Mint has screwed up), the point is that everybody "accepts" the fact that the coins were produced based solely on US Mint documentation (remember NO PHOTO's EXIST and no physical evidence exists that the coins were ever really produced) yet folks will not "accept" the fact that the US Mint says they were all destroyed. Can you say Conspiracy Theorists? >>
You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that the mint might make a claim that is not true. I posted in another thread about the claim made by the Director of the Mint (I think- maybe it was the Treasurer- I don't remember) which was reported in Numismatic Scrapbook (again, I think that was the publication- I'm not going to go look this up again) that all the dollars had been destroyed when, in fact, they hadn't, as a couple came to light in later years. So- if the government could be wrong about it once, what makes you think they couldn't be mistaken twice?
<< <i>This issue has been beat into the dirt.
Anyone is entitled to an opinion.... but that is all it is, just opinion. The fact is, the coin is not counterfeit and it breaks no law. If you do not like it, do not buy it. If you think that Daniel Carr did not do his research prior to embarking on this venture, then you are sadly mistaken. It is legal, the design has significant differences from the original design, and is not a copy because there was no such coin issued by the mint. Now, for all those who do not like it, fine - your opinion - and only an opinion, is duly noted. For others who purchase one, enjoy your coin. Cheers, RickO >>
I think this is mostly about some who had a "fantasy" of finding a real one in a shoe box somewhere. That is their fantasy coin and they don't want any fantasy fakes around to confuse things. Ok, I have beat enough dirt.
<< <i>This issue has been beat into the dirt.
Anyone is entitled to an opinion.... but that is all it is, just opinion. The fact is, the coin is not counterfeit and it breaks no law. If you do not like it, do not buy it. If you think that Daniel Carr did not do his research prior to embarking on this venture, then you are sadly mistaken. It is legal, the design has significant differences from the original design, and is not a copy because there was no such coin issued by the mint. Now, for all those who do not like it, fine - your opinion - and only an opinion, is duly noted. For others who purchase one, enjoy your coin. Cheers, RickO >>
Ricko, let us have our fun!
But, it is a copy of coin that was produced but not issued by the USM.
And, I really like them.
<< <i>
<< <i>This issue has been beat into the dirt.
Anyone is entitled to an opinion.... but that is all it is, just opinion. The fact is, the coin is not counterfeit and it breaks no law. If you do not like it, do not buy it. If you think that Daniel Carr did not do his research prior to embarking on this venture, then you are sadly mistaken. It is legal, the design has significant differences from the original design, and is not a copy because there was no such coin issued by the mint. Now, for all those who do not like it, fine - your opinion - and only an opinion, is duly noted. For others who purchase one, enjoy your coin. Cheers, RickO >>
Rick, what you state as "fact" is, in fact, another opinion. Time will tell whether it is correct or not. >>
Ah yes!
The value of coinage "used" to be based upon its intrinsic precious metal content meaning that even a blank silver dollar planchet was still worth a buck. However to a collector, that very same blank is worth a whole lot more than a buck.
However, since these Fantasy Peaces have been on the market for more than a month, I'm kinda wonder what's taking the Feds so friggin long in busting up this counterfeiting operation?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>This issue has been beat into the dirt.
Anyone is entitled to an opinion.... but that is all it is, just opinion. The fact is, the coin is not counterfeit and it breaks no law. If you do not like it, do not buy it. If you think that Daniel Carr did not do his research prior to embarking on this venture, then you are sadly mistaken. It is legal, the design has significant differences from the original design, and is not a copy because there was no such coin issued by the mint. Now, for all those who do not like it, fine - your opinion - and only an opinion, is duly noted. For others who purchase one, enjoy your coin. Cheers, RickO >>
Rick, what you state as "fact" is, in fact, another opinion. Time will tell whether it is correct or not. >>
Ah yes!
The value of coinage "used" to be based upon its intrinsic precious metal content meaning that even a blank silver dollar planchet was still worth a buck. However to a collector, that very same blank is worth a whole lot more than a buck.
However, since these Fantasy Peaces have been on the market for more than a month, I'm kinda wonder what's taking the Feds so friggin long in busting up this counterfeiting operation? >>
Do you wonder the same about the lack of action by the Feds with respect to the much greater number and value of counterfeits on Ebay? My point is, that lack of action doesn't necessarily indicate that the coins aren't considered to be counterfeit.
The fact that no 1964-D Peace dollar has surfaced to date, and the fact that no picture of a 1964-D Peace dollar is known 45 years after they were struck, is irrelevant. The 1870-S half dime did not surface or get photographed until approximately 110 years after it was struck.
The fact that the Carr-produced 1964-D Peace dollars have a tiny identifying mark on them does not exempt them from scrutiny under the laws designed to protect the public from counterfeit coins. The "Omega counterfeit" MCMVII High Relief $20 gold pieces and various "Omega counterfeit" $3 gold pieces have a tiny identifying mark on them. That does not make them non-counterfeit.
The fact that the Mint never struck Capped Bust half dollars dated after 1839, or 1923-D dimes, or 1930-D dimes, does not make the known counterfeits of those dates non-counterfeit. They are counterfeits.
TD
<< <i>However, since these Fantasy Peaces have been on the market for more than a month, I'm kinda wonder what's taking the Feds so friggin long in busting up this counterfeiting operation? >>
Do you wonder the same about the lack of action by the Feds with respect to the much greater number and value of counterfeits on Ebay? >>
Yes I do Mark.
However, for Carr's coins, it's definitely a gray area since technically, they still have that original intrinsic value of a silver dollar, they just had the design pushed around.
The Chinese counterfeits, on the other hand, don't even have that. So technically, they represent "true" counterfeit coins from the "governments perspective".
Had Daniel Carr not been upfront with his intentions and with what he was doing AND had he used a slag alloy for creating these coins, then yes, they would be considered counterfeits from a "government perspective".
I think that many, not a majority mind you, but many in the collecting community consider these counterfeits from a "numismatic perspective" and there is a difference.
These are not widely accepted right now but if it is ever determined that they are legal to produce based upon the emotionless facts, then they very well could be just like numerous other restrikes which exist and currently reside in respected TPG plastic.
Heck, for that matter, even some well known counterfeits are considered collectible and many collectors are pleased to either find them or win them on eBay!
From my perspective, the production of these Peace Dollars is simply another facet to the history of coin collecting. Some folks will like and collect them while others will run away in disgust.
I'm just waiting around to see what happens.
The name is LEE!
I think that technically every single coin ever made is a copy... except for the FIRST coin made of each type of coin... so there
And I also think that EVERY coin is a FANTASY coin... because out entire economic system is based on pure fantasy... a double so there
Take that you bunch of obsessive/compulsive numismatistical coin forum weenies!!!!!
I own two of Dan's 1964 Peace Dollars. I personally think they are an interesting fringe piece. The guy is an artist.
I truly don't understand at all why anyone thinks this hurts the hobby. These are sold with full disclosure. I think the fear is that Mr. Carr has demonstrated that anyone with less honorable intentions could do this.
He's the guy you hire to combat such things. He's the expert.
John
Never view my other linked pages. They aren't coin related.
<< <i>I’d like to see the government crack down in this stuff before we get to be like China. What do you think? >>
I think we already have too much goverment involvement in our lives. I'd like to have less government involvement in my life!
They are both art. I like the Carr coin but will probably never own one. I don't own a Hobo Nickel either.
Carr has just shown us what might have been.
Ron
<< <i>I haven't read the entire thread but what is the difference between Carr's Peace Dollar and a "Hobo Buffalo" Nickel?
They are both art. I like the Carr coin but will probably never own one. I don't own a Hobo Nickel either.
Carr has just shown us what might have been.
Ron >>
A hobo nickel changes the design to something noticable different.
Carr's 1964-D reproduces the original design almost exactly.
<< <i>
<< <i>Overdate October 28, 2010 1
I have no problem with such privately made issues, as long as they are clearly marked "copy", "replica", "fantasy" or some other word that makes clear *on the coin itself* that it is not an original government issue.
The original purchaser of such a coin may know its status, but subsequent buyers (especially if less knowledgeable) would be at risk unless the coin is clearly identified as a non-government issue.
Well stated and I agree. >>
Double ditto >>
I would like my ditto added to this.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Overdate October 28, 2010 1
I have no problem with such privately made issues, as long as they are clearly marked "copy", "replica", "fantasy" or some other word that makes clear *on the coin itself* that it is not an original government issue.
The original purchaser of such a coin may know its status, but subsequent buyers (especially if less knowledgeable) would be at risk unless the coin is clearly identified as a non-government issue.
Well stated and I agree. >>
Double ditto >>
I would like my ditto added to this. >>
Any subsequent buyer who would buy a 64 Peace Dollar could also be sold the Brooklyn Bridge. None exist. Any that you buy are going to be fake. Or illegal.
John
Never view my other linked pages. They aren't coin related.
<< <i>What do you think? >>
I think this is an irresistible topic for many
<< <i>Any subsequent buyer who would buy a 64 Peace Dollar could also be sold the Brooklyn Bridge. None exist. Any that you buy are going to be fake. Or illegal.
John >>
Agree. You can only go so far protecting stupid people from themselves.
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
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>Yes, I think copies of real coins (at least those which do not conform to the HPA) are a problem. That said, the D Carr 64D dollar is not a copy. It is a real peace dollar--albeit an altered one. It is every bit as much a legitimate numismatic item as a hobo nickel. >>
Bingo. Carr appears to have a defendable position here, which could be considered taking advantage of a loophole in the HPA, but a loophole nonetheless.
<< <i>Apparently several very prominent forum members strenuously object to this fantasy coin. I wonder how many of them secretly own one.
I would never own one because I have no desire to provide financial support to enterprises like this. Once the coin altering people perfect this technique, look for a lot more bogus 1909-S Indian cents and virtually any other key date coin made from a genuine common date piece. I’d like to see this type operation nipped in the bud with the person who made the 1964-D Peace Dollar put out of business.
It’s a shame that you people are so obsessed with owning a copy of this legendary coin. It could do great damage to this hobby if it spreads. You might be shooting all of us in the foot over a piece of foolishness.
<< <i>Anyone is entitled to an opinion.... but that is all it is, just opinion. The fact is, the coin is not counterfeit and it breaks no law. >>
Altering the date or mint mark of a coin and trying to selll it as an example of the altered date makes it a counterfeit.
Do you think that the Buffalo nickels with the embossed mint marks that showed up some years ago are not counterfeits? They were made from genuine coins, had a mint mark placed on them by drilling a small hole into the rim of the coin, adding a mint mark and then the side hole was filled. Is that okay because it was made on a genunine coin?
This is the kind of crap that we are encouraging here, and if the Hobby Protection Act can't stop, we need new legislation.
<< <i>
<< <i>Apparently several very prominent forum members strenuously object to this fantasy coin. I wonder how many of them secretly own one.
I would never own one because I have no desire to provide financial support to enterprises like this. Once the coin altering people perfect this technique, look for a lot more bogus 1909-S Indian cents and virtually any other key date coin made from a genuine common date piece. I�d like to see this type operation nipped in the bud with the person who made the 1964-D Peace Dollar put out of business.
It�s a shame that you people are so obsessed with owning a copy of this legendary coin. It could do great damage to this hobby if it spreads. You might be shooting all of us in the foot over a piece of foolishness. >>
This is why God made Lucite. It's almost bulletproof.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>Apparently several very prominent forum members strenuously object to this fantasy coin. I wonder how many of them secretly own one.
Not I.............
<< <i>Once the coin altering people perfect this technique, look for a lot more bogus 1909-S Indian cents and virtually any other key date coin made from a genuine common date piece. >>
This is a bogus argument. The production of a coin that doesn't exist (1964-D Peace dollar) is a fantasy coin while producing a coin that does exist (1909-S cent or key date) is a counterfeit coin. Big difference here. As far as more bogus 1909-S Indian cents and other key date coins, they've been mass counterfeited for many decades now.
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>Once the coin altering people perfect this technique, look for a lot more bogus 1909-S Indian cents and virtually any other key date coin made from a genuine common date piece. >>
This is a bogus argument. The production of a coin that doesn't exist (1964-D Peace dollar) is a fantasy coin while producing a coin that does exist (1909-S cent or key date) is a counterfeit coin. Big difference here. As far as more bogus 1909-S Indian cents and other key date coins, they've been mass counterfeited for many decades now. >>
THIS is a bogus argument. If you were to strike a non-existant 1975 quarter dollar and spend it you would be guilty of counterfeiting. I don't think that if you offered it on eBay as a "fantasy" with a starting bid of $9.95 it would suddenly become NOT a counterfeit! The counterfeiting laws do not give time off for good intentions.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Once the coin altering people perfect this technique, look for a lot more bogus 1909-S Indian cents and virtually any other key date coin made from a genuine common date piece. >>
This is a bogus argument. The production of a coin that doesn't exist (1964-D Peace dollar) is a fantasy coin while producing a coin that does exist (1909-S cent or key date) is a counterfeit coin. Big difference here. As far as more bogus 1909-S Indian cents and other key date coins, they've been mass counterfeited for many decades now. >>
THIS is a bogus argument. If you were to strike a non-existant 1975 quarter dollar and spend it you would be guilty of counterfeiting. I don't think that if you offered it on eBay as a "fantasy" with a starting bid of $9.95 it would suddenly become NOT a counterfeit! The counterfeiting laws do not give time off for good intentions. >>
Don't forget that this Dan Carr fantasy coin is struck over a real Peace dollar so if it were spent as a dollar, it would be difficult to prove that the merchant that received this coin in exchange for $1 of merchandise was defrauded.
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>
<< <i>
<< <i>Once the coin altering people perfect this technique, look for a lot more bogus 1909-S Indian cents and virtually any other key date coin made from a genuine common date piece. >>
This is a bogus argument. The production of a coin that doesn't exist (1964-D Peace dollar) is a fantasy coin while producing a coin that does exist (1909-S cent or key date) is a counterfeit coin. Big difference here. As far as more bogus 1909-S Indian cents and other key date coins, they've been mass counterfeited for many decades now. >>
THIS is a bogus argument. If you were to strike a non-existant 1975 quarter dollar and spend it you would be guilty of counterfeiting. I don't think that if you offered it on eBay as a "fantasy" with a starting bid of $9.95 it would suddenly become NOT a counterfeit! The counterfeiting laws do not give time off for good intentions. >>
Don't forget that this Dan Carr fantasy coin is struck over a real Peace dollar so if it were spent as a dollar, it would be difficult to prove that the merchant that received this coin in exchange for $1 of merchandise was defrauded. >>
The best die-struck counterfeit 1909-SVDB cent that we ever saw at ANACS was struck over a 1960 Lincoln cent. It was still a counterfeit.
<< <i>
<< <i>Apparently several very prominent forum members strenuously object to this fantasy coin. I wonder how many of them secretly own one.
I would never own one because I have no desire to provide financial support to enterprises like this. Once the coin altering people perfect this technique, look for a lot more bogus 1909-S Indian cents and virtually any other key date coin made from a genuine common date piece. I’d like to see this type operation nipped in the bud with the person who made the 1964-D Peace Dollar put out of business.
It’s a shame that you people are so obsessed with owning a copy of this legendary coin. It could do great damage to this hobby if it spreads. You might be shooting all of us in the foot over a piece of foolishness. >>
Well said Bill
As for owning one....thats funny.
I am still waiting for one of the cheerleaders to step up to the plate and place an order for 1,000 pieces,
Put your money where your mouth is and corner the market.
Just remember to keep the hype going, but open it up to more than the dozen or so speculators that appear to be trying sooo hard.
<< <i>I think it's a cool way to force the issue - make the Gov't come forward with the real deal if they want to call DC's coin a counterfeit.
Or anyone with a real one
<< <i>if the Hobby Protection Act can't stop, we need new legislation. >>
That sounds like a reasonable approach Bill. I think there are few options:
* Have a real one become known
* Test the HPA in court
* Create a new law
* Enjoy the coin
<< <i>These are not widely accepted right now but if it is ever determined that they are legal to produce based upon the emotionless facts, then they very well could be just like numerous other restrikes which exist and currently reside in respected TPG plastic. >>
No way this counterfeit coin will ever be considered a restrike. Why? It's a big difference between a counterfeit and a restrike coin! go figure.
<< <i>No we can't. It is neither one...it is a restruck genuine coin. >>
Again, it is not a restrike because a legitimate restrike coin must be produced using authentic dies that were used to mint original pieces.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>A restrike is a piece that is struck from the original dies at a date later than appears on the coin. There is no way that these counterfeit 1964-D dollars are restrikes. They are made from recently fabricated tools that alter the date and add a mint mark of existing, genuine coins. >>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Once the coin altering people perfect this technique, look for a lot more bogus 1909-S Indian cents and virtually any other key date coin made from a genuine common date piece. >>
This is a bogus argument. The production of a coin that doesn't exist (1964-D Peace dollar) is a fantasy coin while producing a coin that does exist (1909-S cent or key date) is a counterfeit coin. Big difference here. As far as more bogus 1909-S Indian cents and other key date coins, they've been mass counterfeited for many decades now. >>
THIS is a bogus argument. If you were to strike a non-existant 1975 quarter dollar and spend it you would be guilty of counterfeiting. I don't think that if you offered it on eBay as a "fantasy" with a starting bid of $9.95 it would suddenly become NOT a counterfeit! The counterfeiting laws do not give time off for good intentions. >>
Who would pay $10 for the opportunity to spend 25 cents?
John
Never view my other linked pages. They aren't coin related.
<< <i>The numismatic community uses the term "restrike" for pieces that were made by third parties using entirely new and different dies. Coins such as the New Haven Fugios are often called restrikes and are also slabbed by PCGS and other top TPGs. Although I don't necessarily agree with calling these restrikes, it seems to be common usage of the term. Given the market acceptability of these pieces at the highest levels and the increased levels of legitimacy of the 1964-D Peace dollars (designer of US Mint coins, former US Mint press, genuine Peace dollars, etc.) it seems plausible that the Carr dollars could find and it could be argued they should find broad collector and TPG acceptance. >>
The TPG's are companies whose interest is in generating a profit for themselves as well as their shareholders.
You are putting them in too prominent a position in numismatics than is deserved.
<< <i>The numismatic community uses the term "restrike" for pieces that were made by third parties using entirely new and different dies. Coins such as the New Haven Fugios are often called restrikes and are also slabbed by PCGS and other top TPGs. Although I don't necessarily agree with calling these restrikes, it seems to be common usage of the term. >>
The commonality of an error does not make it correct.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>Given the market acceptability of these pieces at the highest levels and the increased levels of legitimacy of the 1964-D Peace dollars (designer of US Mint coins, former US Mint press, genuine Peace dollars, etc.)... >>
Don't stop there- you're on a roll. I'd suggest it's possible that, while working on the project, Mr. Carr ate a hamburger made of beef from a cow descended from a cow which was raised for beef to feed the workers who actually built the Denver mint.
Talk about legitimacy- wha could be better than that?
I personally prefer the more strict defimition but think it should be applied consistently. It would be more consistent if the people suggesting the Peace dollars are not restrikes also say the same about the Fugios as vigorously, which I would welcome. How many would support requests to our hosts about reclassifying the New Haven Fugios?
Not that this'll change anybody's mind on the subject, of course.