You missed 2 things, go back and read it one more time and don't just focus on part of the sentence. If you still can't figure out what you've missed; I'll point it out for you! >>
You haven't responded to the part where you were saying people who altered 1803 dies to say 1804 were reputable. That is what I was commenting on.
<< <i>It is quite obvious who the cheerleaders are and who believe this might be walking too fine a line in the field of numismatics. I will say it again. The obvious cheerleaders should dig down deep and find that special spot and pull the plug - place an order for 1,000 pieces and corner the market. Don't dicker around with 2 or 3 pieces, show some ....you know what to show.
I don't think this has hit the half way mark in the #@-&***LOOK***@%#@* limited run of only 2,000 pieces. Go ahead and corner the market and help get this @#$#@ run @#$#@ completed. Then the prices will go through the stratosphere ... and beyond. >>
This rant makes no sense whatsoever. Those that are defending Dan's right to produce this fantasy coin don't necesarily think that these coins will be a good investment so why would it be a good idea for them to try to corner the market in these coins? I bought two which I think are really neat and I don't think Dan did anything wrong but I doubt that they will be a good investment so I have not tried to corner the market. >>
The above is not a rant PH My rants might not rival those epics Rick can throw out there, but you would recognize them as rants. The above are my thoughts which right or wrong are my thoughts, with a little humor interjected for the cheerleaders... . They were not meant as an absolute nor were they meant to include everyone.
Quote "Those that are defending Dan's right to produce this fantasy coin don't necesarily think that these coins will be a good investment so why would it be a good idea for them to try to corner the market in these coins? "
I don't think everyone will think this, but my opinion is that many do, hence laying out a good chunk of change to purchase them...especially more than one. I think that many people buy coins...or these copies....with the hopes that they will appreciate in value. If that premise makes sense, why not try to corner the market? Imagine being able to find and buy a roll of chain cents? This may be that opportunity PH...I think you should go for it.
edited to add If 1,000 is too many PH, maybe you should really consider another say...ten ?
JRocco, what do you think if those less interested in these pieces took them off the market by buying out the mintage and melting them? That might be an interesting statement.
<< <i>Who you asking what, Zoids? Too many quotes spoil the broth!!!!!! >>
In the post above, I was responding to mudskippie.
While you wrote that referring to the Horatio Rust Fugios as "restrikes" was an error, mudskippie is defending the classification as well as the reputability of the the people that altered the 1803 cent dies to say 1804. If he wants to defend them, that's fine, however, I think it's inconsistent to have a different standard for Dan Carr.
I personally don't think the Carr '64-D Peace dollars should be called "restrikes" (I like the term "overstrike"), but by having the numismatic community apply the term to the New Haven Fugios, I think the same reasoning can be used to apply the word to the Carr '64-D Peace Dollars. Earlier both mudskippie and Bill said the Carr piece should not be called a restrike by definition. I am just pointing out that their definition is not used in numismatics by PCGS (as well as a number of prominent posters on these boards). If the error should be correct in one case, it should be corrected in the other case as well. >>
I do not recall referring to Horatio Rust anywhere in this thread. Could you elaborate, please? 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>JRocco, what do you think if those less interested in these pieces took them off the market by buying out the mintage and melting them? That might be an interesting statement.
<< <i>I think you should go for it. >>
>>
Zoins Zoins Zoins...
You know All those things people say about you are not true... You're alright
<< <i>The commonality of an error does not make it correct. >>
Perhaps you were referring to a different error? >>
There you go again, leaping to confusions.......
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>I don't think I missed anything material regarding that. Please highlight the text you would like discussed. >>
I made a guess
<< <i>I guess... >>
, the guess could be true or not, since I do not know the history behind the coin, I gave it a shot but I did not claim that "people who altered 1803 dies to say 1804 were reputable" although it would be very self explanatory if the coins were produced by a reputable firm.
You also missed this: "Just like the Fucios restrikes, this coin was probably produced in a time when privately minted coins are readily acceptable!"
By the way, why are we comparing these old restrikes coins with the 64D produced by Carr? There aren't any similarities between them! The US Hobby Protection Act, and many other regulations didn't even exist at that time.
<< <i>By the way, why are we comparing these old restrikes coins with the 64D produced by Carr? There aren't any similarities between them! The US Hobby Protection Act, and many other regulations didn't even exist at that time. >>
So you're saying that the Hobby Protection Act makes these older fakes and restrikes right?
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>So you're saying that the Hobby Protection Act makes these older fakes and restrikes right? >>
No way that's what I'm saying; the Hobby Protection Act has nothing to do with these old restrikes. What I mean is that things were very different back then, so don't compare something that was minted in 1860 to something that was produced today!
I think that people should do one of these things: If you like 'em... buy one. If not...Don't buy one. Armchair lawyers-File suit if you're so convinced. If you aren't... shaddup already.
Daniel Carr's 1964 Peace Dollars is unique and not a Copy for 2 reasons:
A. The US mint and the Us Gove does not recognise the year 1964 $1 peace as an offical coin (despite the facts about # minted and meleted down etc, ). B. Unless you have one and also have a few MS-68 1921's to compare it to you dont know what you are talking about --
Its NO copy, Its a Fantasy Coin, and is not advertised as a rarity.
“When you don't know what you're talking about, it's hard to know when you're finished.” - Tommy Smothers
The U.S. Mint does not recognize 1923-D or 1930-D dimes either, but the ones that exist are counterfeits.
Calling them fantasies or plum puddings does not make them either.
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>The U.S. Mint does not recognize 1923-D or 1930-D dimes either, but the ones that exist are counterfeits.
Calling them fantasies or plum puddings does not make them either.
TD >>
The "1923-D" and "1930-D" dimes were NOT struck over genuine US Mint dimes. They were struck on non-monetized anonymous pieces of metal, and are thus currency counterfeits (made with the intent of clandestinely spending at face value for a profit). That is a comletely different situation than a genuine coin altered to be a fantasy and sold to collectors for more than face value with full disclosure provided.
<< <i>The U.S. Mint does not recognize 1923-D or 1930-D dimes either, but the ones that exist are counterfeits.
Calling them fantasies or plum puddings does not make them either.
TD >>
The "1923-D" and "1930-D" dimes were NOT struck over genuine US Mint dimes. They were struck on non-monetized anonymous pieces of metal, and are thus currency counterfeits (made with the intent of clandestinely spending at face value for a profit). That is a comletely different situation than a genuine coin altered to be a fantasy and sold to collectors for more than face value with full disclosure provided. >>
Folks seem to forget that little fact Daniel.
Counterfeit in the strictest government sense relates to non assayed metals made to look like assayed metals (similar to making 100 dollar bills out of 5 dollar bills) Counterfeit to the collector means something different such as making a 1 out of a 4 or adding a mintmark.
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>The U.S. Mint does not recognize 1923-D or 1930-D dimes either, but the ones that exist are counterfeits.
Calling them fantasies or plum puddings does not make them either.
TD >>
The "1923-D" and "1930-D" dimes were NOT struck over genuine US Mint dimes. They were struck on non-monetized anonymous pieces of metal, and are thus currency counterfeits (made with the intent of clandestinely spending at face value for a profit). That is a comletely different situation than a genuine coin altered to be a fantasy and sold to collectors for more than face value with full disclosure provided. >>
Methinks thou doth protest too much.........
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>The U.S. Mint does not recognize 1923-D or 1930-D dimes either, but the ones that exist are counterfeits.
Calling them fantasies or plum puddings does not make them either.
TD >>
The "1923-D" and "1930-D" dimes were NOT struck over genuine US Mint dimes. They were struck on non-monetized anonymous pieces of metal, and are thus currency counterfeits (made with the intent of clandestinely spending at face value for a profit). That is a comletely different situation than a genuine coin altered to be a fantasy and sold to collectors for more than face value with full disclosure provided. >>
Methinks thou doth protest too much......... >>
Funny - I thought the same thing about RWB, and some other folks as well. Regardless, I don't find that to be a very strong counter-argument for either side.
ME: One (now two) posts in this thread. YOU: 16+ posts in this thread, plus letter to Coin World.
Who is protesting more ?
I'm wondering, did I spoil anyone's plans with this coin ? As in, somebody preparing to take a recently-made (not by me) 1964-D Peace Dollar and fraudulently debut it to the coin market as a purported original ?
Funny - I thought the same thing about RWB, and some other folks as well.
Nice to know Mr. Carr now understands the basic objections to making and selling counterfeit US coins. The ANA code of ethics and similar guidelines uniformly condemn such activities. Many collectors feel they are not only illegal, but immoral and unethical.
Of course, this activity is only an allegation and must be proven in a court of law.
Sound ethical lessons seem too often overridden by greed.
<< <i>Funny - I thought the same thing about RWB, and some other folks as well.
Nice to know Mr. Carr now understands the basic objections to making and selling counterfeit US coins. The ANA code of ethics and similar guidelines uniformly condemn such activities. Many collectors feel they are not only illegal, but immoral and unethical.
Of course, this activity is only an allegation and must be proven in a court of law.
Sound ethical lessons seem too often overridden by greed. >>
I see you edited your post significantly and removed the inappropriate reference about a pending penitentiary residency. That was wise of you, since it was bordering on slander. Are you going to go back and edit all your other previous posts to remove such references ?
> Nice to know Mr. Carr now understands the basic objections to making and selling counterfeit US coins.
I've always known, and to imply that I only now understand that is totally false. And I've never made a counterfeit coin. For the umpteenth time: I only alter existing genuine coins to give them the appearance of coins that don't exist, and it is all done with full disclosure.
<< <i>It is quite obvious who the cheerleaders are and who believe this might be walking too fine a line in the field of numismatics. I will say it again. The obvious cheerleaders should dig down deep and find that special spot and pull the plug - place an order for 1,000 pieces and corner the market. Don't dicker around with 2 or 3 pieces, show some ....you know what to show.
I don't think this has hit the half way mark in the #@-&***LOOK***@%#@* limited run of only 2,000 pieces. Go ahead and corner the market and help get this @#$#@ run @#$#@ completed. Then the prices will go through the stratosphere ... and beyond. >>
Then what fun would it be for those that start these threads every week to generate more sales >>
Gotta admit It is fun watching how hard some of you guys are working this... >>
How do the dies made for these '64s not violate US Code? Regardless of the Hobby protection act even the possession of dies (in this case especially the reverse die) seems to be unlawful.
"Whoever, without lawful authority, makes any die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, either of steel or plaster, or any other substance, in likeness or similitude, as to the design or the inscription thereon, of any die, hub, or mold designated for the coining or making of any of the genuine gold, silver, nickel, bronze, copper, or other coins coined at the mints of the United States; or Whoever, without lawful authority, possesses any such die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, or permits the same to be used for or in aid of the counterfeiting of any such coins of the United States— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both."
<< <i>How do the dies made for these '64s not violate US Code? Regardless of the Hobby protection act even the possession of dies (in this case especially the reverse die) seems to be unlawful.
"Whoever, without lawful authority, makes any die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, either of steel or plaster, or any other substance, in likeness or similitude, as to the design or the inscription thereon, of any die, hub, or mold designated for the coining or making of any of the genuine gold, silver, nickel, bronze, copper, or other coins coined at the mints of the United States; or Whoever, without lawful authority, possesses any such die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, or permits the same to be used for or in aid of the counterfeiting of any such coins of the United States— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both." >>
The "Hobby Protection Act", which was enacted after the above law was written, specifically allows numismatic replicas to be made. And that implies that the maker of such replicas is legally allowed to posess and use molds or dies in the likeness of US coins because the molds/dies are necessary to make the very replicas that are specifically allowed.
For those who wonder, Mr. Carr is presumed innocent of the crime of counterfeiting until convicted, regardless of public opinion.
Large quantities of replica silver dollars including the required "COPY" stamp have been produced over the past years. Mr. Carr decided not to stamp his pieces as required by the Hobby Protection Act. He will have to sort this out with his lawyers and federal prosecutors.
<< <i>For those who wonder, Mr. Carr is presumed innocent of the crime of counterfeiting until convicted, regardless of public opinion.
Large quantities of replica silver dollars including the required "COPY" stamp have been produced over the past years. Mr. Carr decided not to stamp his pieces as required by the Hobby Protection Act. He will have to sort this out with his lawyers and federal prosecutors.
It is a waste of time to comment further. >>
Further comment from you on the matter would be a libelous fiesta. Daniel Carr is not accused by the government of any wrongdoing, crime or infraction whatsoever, tho' you continue to insinuate such, nor has he been indicted, approached by any recognized authority, nor questioned by same. In short, you continually offer a line of total BS and wish to pretend it had a factual basis. For the sake of civility I suggest you shet yer yap.
if the mint claims that all the 64 peace dollars were destroyed, then none would exist and thus the carr dollar is a fantasy of a coin that does not exist. no one has to prove that none exist, the mint has aleady done so. i agree with the letter, if a piece does not exist in the first place, then anything made to resemble something that does not exist wont easily be confused with anything that doesnt exist. in short, worry about what YOU buy and what YOU collect, let others do the same. stop trying to censor what others collect
regardless of how many posts I have, I don't consider myself an "expert" at anything
"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"
technically, that is an altered coin not a counterfeit. a genuine coin that has been altered, is still a genuine coin that has been altered, no matter what the alteration is
regardless of how many posts I have, I don't consider myself an "expert" at anything
<< <i>I'm wondering, did I spoil anyone's plans with this coin ? As in, somebody preparing to take a recently-made (not by me) 1964-D Peace Dollar and fraudulently debut it to the coin market as a purported original. >>
Nahhh, you did not spoil anyone's plans with this coin! In fact, you just gave them the OPPOTUNITY to present this 64-D coin of yours to the market as a purported original!
I know that you have done your homework before releasing this coin. I know that you have given the 64-D significant thoughts, and I also know that you have referenced every US codes/regulations to make sure that your product is legal to be produced. My question is whether you have given a minute to think about the hobby before making something like this? You can claim/disclose whatever when you sell this coin to your buyers, but how do you know that your buyers won't try to pass it on to some novice collectors as a genuine piece?
I know that you have done your homework before releasing this coin. I know that you have given the 64-D significant thoughts, and I also know that you have referenced every US codes/regulations to make sure that your product is legal to be produced. My question is whether you have given a minute to think about the hobby before making something like this? You can claim/disclose whatever when you sell this coin to your buyers, but how do you know that your buyers won't try to pass it on to some novice collectors as a genuine piece? >>
No different than you selling a 1922D cent to someone then asking them how do they know someone they sell it to won't remove the mint mark and try to sell it as a 1922P. In other words you have asked Mr. Carr to answer a question that is impossible for him to answer any other way except..."I don't know".
<< <i>No different than you selling a 1922D cent to someone then asking them how do they know someone they sell it to won't remove the mint mark and try to sell it as a 1922P. In other words you have asked Mr. Carr to answer a question that is impossible for him to answer any other way except..."I don't know". >>
Thank you for answering it, but the question that you answered isn't a the question that I am focusing on!
<< <i>No different than you selling a 1922D cent to someone then asking them how do they know someone they sell it to won't remove the mint mark and try to sell it as a 1922P. In other words you have asked Mr. Carr to answer a question that is impossible for him to answer any other way except..."I don't know". >>
BTW, your 1922-D example and the 64-D are two different stories.
I know that you have done your homework before releasing this coin. I know that you have given the 64-D significant thoughts, and I also know that you have referenced every US codes/regulations to make sure that your product is legal to be produced. My question is whether you have given a minute to think about the hobby before making something like this? You can claim/disclose whatever when you sell this coin to your buyers, but how do you know that your buyers won't try to pass it on to some novice collectors as a genuine piece? >>
Who is going to pay a bunch of money for a "1964-D" Peace Dollar ?
A novice ? Unlikely, since a novice is probably not going to know anything about the story behind the original 1964-D dollars. I've shown one of my coins to a couple of people who had some older Peace Dollars. Neither of them were impressed at all. They were a lot prouder of their older 1922 coins that they got for $15 or whatever. They wouldn't have paid that much for my coin if I offered it to them. But suppose the novice did know something about the original 1964-D Peace dollars. The person selling the coin would still have to "work them over" pretty good (knowingly mis-represent the coin) to get them to spend any significant amount of money. In a case like that, I can't be responsible for a future transaction involving fraud at one end and ignorance at the other. Suppose you had a rare coin with horrible spots. You clean it to make it look at least somewhat presentable and then sell it to someone (and tell them it was cleaned at time of sale), and that buyer turns around and represents it as an original "BU" and sells it to someone else for a big price. You would not be at fault for the deception and lack of due dilligence in that latter transaction.
How about an expert ? If an expert were to pay big money for a "1964" Peace Dollar, they would have to believe one of two things: 1) The coin is an original, but illegal to own and subject to confiscation by the Treasury Department; or 2) The coin is a modern recreation of some sort. Either way, they would knowingly be taking a risk buying it.
I've made considerable efforts to insure that information about my over-strikes has been provided to (and circulated within) the hobby. This included providing information to Coin World, posting information here, etc. I will continue to provide the hobby with information and diagnostics about such things. But be aware that there may be other people out there working on similar things, and they likely will not disclose anything about what they are doing.
carr really cannot (and should not) be resoponsible for what anyone else does or does not do. thinking otherwise is just plain ignorance. no different than saying "what if aliens come down from planet zootron and masacre the world because they dont like 1964 peace dollars. the mint says all of the 64 peace dollars were destroyed, so this guy is overstriking peace dollars with essentially a 1964 date, he is no counterfeiting, he is altering a genuine coin. that coin is just as genuine as one with the date entirely removed. altering is very different from counterfeiting
regardless of how many posts I have, I don't consider myself an "expert" at anything
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>Did I miss something? >>
You missed 2 things, go back and read it one more time and don't just focus on part of the sentence. If you still can't figure out what you've missed; I'll point it out for you! >>
You haven't responded to the part where you were saying people who altered 1803 dies to say 1804 were reputable. That is what I was commenting on.
<< <i>You haven't responded to the part where you were saying people who altered 1803 dies to say 1804 were reputable. >>
I still haven't responded because that's what you missed; again, read the previous post!
<< <i>
<< <i>You haven't responded to the part where you were saying people who altered 1803 dies to say 1804 were reputable. >>
I still haven't responded because that's what you missed; again, read the previous post! >>
I don't think I missed anything material regarding that. Please highlight the text you would like discussed.
<< <i>
<< <i>It is quite obvious who the cheerleaders are and who believe this might be walking too fine a line in the field of numismatics.
I will say it again.
The obvious cheerleaders should dig down deep and find that special spot
and pull the plug - place an order for 1,000 pieces and corner the market.
Don't dicker around with 2 or 3 pieces, show some ....you know what to show.
I don't think this has hit the half way mark in the #@-&***LOOK***@%#@* limited run of only 2,000 pieces.
Go ahead and corner the market and help get this @#$#@ run @#$#@ completed.
Then the prices will go through the stratosphere ... and beyond.
This rant makes no sense whatsoever. Those that are defending Dan's right to produce this fantasy coin don't necesarily think that these coins will be a good investment so why would it be a good idea for them to try to corner the market in these coins? I bought two which I think are really neat and I don't think Dan did anything wrong but I doubt that they will be a good investment so I have not tried to corner the market. >>
The above is not a rant PH
My rants might not rival those epics Rick can throw out there, but you would recognize them as rants.
The above are my thoughts which right or wrong are my thoughts, with a little humor interjected for the cheerleaders... .
They were not meant as an absolute nor were they meant to include everyone.
Quote
"Those that are defending Dan's right to produce this fantasy coin don't necesarily think that these coins will be a good investment so why would it be a good idea for them to try to corner the market in these coins? "
I don't think everyone will think this, but my opinion is that many do, hence laying out a good chunk of change to purchase them...especially more than one.
I think that many people buy coins...or these copies....with the hopes that they will appreciate in value. If that premise makes sense, why not try to corner the market? Imagine being able to find and buy a roll of chain cents? This may be that opportunity PH...I think you should go for it.
edited to add
If 1,000 is too many PH, maybe you should really consider another say...ten ?
<< <i>I think you should go for it. >>
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>Who you asking what, Zoids?
Too many quotes spoil the broth!!!!!! >>
In the post above, I was responding to mudskippie.
While you wrote that referring to the Horatio Rust Fugios as "restrikes" was an error, mudskippie is defending the classification as well as the reputability of the the people that altered the 1803 cent dies to say 1804. If he wants to defend them, that's fine, however, I think it's inconsistent to have a different standard for Dan Carr.
I personally don't think the Carr '64-D Peace dollars should be called "restrikes" (I like the term "overstrike"), but by having the numismatic community apply the term to the New Haven Fugios, I think the same reasoning can be used to apply the word to the Carr '64-D Peace Dollars. Earlier both mudskippie and Bill said the Carr piece should not be called a restrike by definition. I am just pointing out that their definition is not used in numismatics by PCGS (as well as a number of prominent posters on these boards). If the error should be correct in one case, it should be corrected in the other case as well. >>
I do not recall referring to Horatio Rust anywhere in this thread. Could you elaborate, please?
TD
<< <i>The commonality of an error does not make it correct. >>
Perhaps you were referring to a different error?
<< <i>JRocco, what do you think if those less interested in these pieces took them off the market by buying out the mintage and melting them? That might be an interesting statement.
<< <i>I think you should go for it. >>
Zoins Zoins Zoins...
You know
All those things people say about you are not true...
You're alright
You're all right too JRocco
<< <i>I was referring to where you wrote:
<< <i>The commonality of an error does not make it correct. >>
Perhaps you were referring to a different error? >>
There you go again, leaping to confusions.......
<< <i>
<< <i>I was referring to where you wrote:
<< <i>The commonality of an error does not make it correct. >>
Perhaps you were referring to a different error? >>
There you go again, leaping to confusions....... >>
It seemed reasonable from your post, but feel free to clarify. If not that, what were you referring to?
<< <i>I don't think I missed anything material regarding that. Please highlight the text you would like discussed. >>
I made a guess
<< <i>I guess... >>
, the guess could be true or not, since I do not know the history behind the coin, I gave it a shot but I did not claim that "people who altered 1803 dies to say 1804 were reputable" although it would be very self explanatory if the coins were produced by a reputable firm.
You also missed this: "Just like the Fucios restrikes, this coin was probably produced in a time when privately minted coins are readily acceptable!"
<< <i>By the way, why are we comparing these old restrikes coins with the 64D produced by Carr? There aren't any similarities between them! The US Hobby Protection Act, and many other regulations didn't even exist at that time. >>
So you're saying that the Hobby Protection Act makes these older fakes and restrikes right?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>So you're saying that the Hobby Protection Act makes these older fakes and restrikes right? >>
No way that's what I'm saying; the Hobby Protection Act has nothing to do with these old restrikes. What I mean is that things were very different back then, so don't compare something that was minted in 1860 to something that was produced today!
The name is LEE!
If you like 'em... buy one.
If not...Don't buy one.
Armchair lawyers-File suit if you're so convinced.
If you aren't... shaddup already.
All the rest of it is balloon juice.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
A. The US mint and the Us Gove does not recognise the year 1964 $1 peace as an offical coin (despite the facts about # minted and meleted down etc, ).
B. Unless you have one and also have a few MS-68 1921's to compare it to you dont know what you are talking about --
Its NO copy,
Its a Fantasy Coin, and is not advertised as a rarity.
Calling them fantasies or plum puddings does not make them either.
TD
<< <i>Yikes! I am the only that does not have a strong opinion on the matter (so far). >>
I don't either!
Successful Trades: Swampboy,
<< <i>The U.S. Mint does not recognize 1923-D or 1930-D dimes either, but the ones that exist are counterfeits.
Wow, DC has been around longer than I thought.
<< <i>The U.S. Mint does not recognize 1923-D or 1930-D dimes either, but the ones that exist are counterfeits.
Calling them fantasies or plum puddings does not make them either.
TD >>
The "1923-D" and "1930-D" dimes were NOT struck over genuine US Mint dimes. They were struck on non-monetized anonymous pieces of metal, and are thus currency counterfeits (made with the intent of clandestinely spending at face value for a profit). That is a comletely different situation than a genuine coin altered to be a fantasy and sold to collectors for more than face value with full disclosure provided.
<< <i>
<< <i>The U.S. Mint does not recognize 1923-D or 1930-D dimes either, but the ones that exist are counterfeits.
Calling them fantasies or plum puddings does not make them either.
TD >>
The "1923-D" and "1930-D" dimes were NOT struck over genuine US Mint dimes. They were struck on non-monetized anonymous pieces of metal, and are thus currency counterfeits (made with the intent of clandestinely spending at face value for a profit). That is a comletely different situation than a genuine coin altered to be a fantasy and sold to collectors for more than face value with full disclosure provided. >>
Folks seem to forget that little fact Daniel.
Counterfeit in the strictest government sense relates to non assayed metals made to look like assayed metals (similar to making 100 dollar bills out of 5 dollar bills)
Counterfeit to the collector means something different such as making a 1 out of a 4 or adding a mintmark.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>The U.S. Mint does not recognize 1923-D or 1930-D dimes either, but the ones that exist are counterfeits.
Calling them fantasies or plum puddings does not make them either.
TD >>
The "1923-D" and "1930-D" dimes were NOT struck over genuine US Mint dimes. They were struck on non-monetized anonymous pieces of metal, and are thus currency counterfeits (made with the intent of clandestinely spending at face value for a profit). That is a comletely different situation than a genuine coin altered to be a fantasy and sold to collectors for more than face value with full disclosure provided. >>
Methinks thou doth protest too much.........
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The U.S. Mint does not recognize 1923-D or 1930-D dimes either, but the ones that exist are counterfeits.
Calling them fantasies or plum puddings does not make them either.
TD >>
The "1923-D" and "1930-D" dimes were NOT struck over genuine US Mint dimes. They were struck on non-monetized anonymous pieces of metal, and are thus currency counterfeits (made with the intent of clandestinely spending at face value for a profit). That is a comletely different situation than a genuine coin altered to be a fantasy and sold to collectors for more than face value with full disclosure provided. >>
Methinks thou doth protest too much......... >>
Funny - I thought the same thing about RWB, and some other folks as well. Regardless, I don't find that to be a very strong counter-argument for either side.
ME: One (now two) posts in this thread.
YOU: 16+ posts in this thread, plus letter to Coin World.
Who is protesting more ?
I'm wondering, did I spoil anyone's plans with this coin ? As in, somebody preparing to take a recently-made (not by me) 1964-D Peace Dollar and fraudulently debut it to the coin market as a purported original ?
PS: I don't mean anybody here, of course.
Nice to know Mr. Carr now understands the basic objections to making and selling counterfeit US coins. The ANA code of ethics and similar guidelines uniformly condemn such activities. Many collectors feel they are not only illegal, but immoral and unethical.
Of course, this activity is only an allegation and must be proven in a court of law.
Sound ethical lessons seem too often overridden by greed.
<< <i>Funny - I thought the same thing about RWB, and some other folks as well.
Nice to know Mr. Carr now understands the basic objections to making and selling counterfeit US coins. The ANA code of ethics and similar guidelines uniformly condemn such activities. Many collectors feel they are not only illegal, but immoral and unethical.
Of course, this activity is only an allegation and must be proven in a court of law.
Sound ethical lessons seem too often overridden by greed. >>
I see you edited your post significantly and removed the inappropriate reference about a pending penitentiary residency. That was wise of you, since it was bordering on slander. Are you going to go back and edit all your other previous posts to remove such references ?
> Nice to know Mr. Carr now understands the basic objections to making and selling counterfeit US coins.
I've always known, and to imply that I only now understand that is totally false. And I've never made a counterfeit coin. For the umpteenth time: I only alter existing genuine coins to give them the appearance of coins that don't exist, and it is all done with full disclosure.
I was going to say you should mail him a postcard from Club Fed.
<< <i>Considering all of the latest comments I am wondering if RWB is sitting on an original coin. >>
or a creaky bar stool.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>It is quite obvious who the cheerleaders are and who believe this might be walking too fine a line in the field of numismatics.
I will say it again.
The obvious cheerleaders should dig down deep and find that special spot
and pull the plug - place an order for 1,000 pieces and corner the market.
Don't dicker around with 2 or 3 pieces, show some ....you know what to show.
I don't think this has hit the half way mark in the #@-&***LOOK***@%#@* limited run of only 2,000 pieces.
Go ahead and corner the market and help get this @#$#@ run @#$#@ completed.
Then the prices will go through the stratosphere ... and beyond.
Then what fun would it be for those that start these threads every week to generate more sales
Gotta admit
It is fun watching how hard some of you guys are working this...
The fun is on both sides
+1
Successful Trades: Swampboy,
"Whoever, without lawful authority, makes any die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, either of steel or plaster, or any other substance, in likeness or similitude, as to the design or the inscription thereon, of any die, hub, or mold designated for the coining or making of any of the genuine gold, silver, nickel, bronze, copper, or other coins coined at the mints of the United States; or
Whoever, without lawful authority, possesses any such die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, or permits the same to be used for or in aid of the counterfeiting of any such coins of the United States—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both."
<< <i>How do the dies made for these '64s not violate US Code? Regardless of the Hobby protection act even the possession of dies (in this case especially the reverse die) seems to be unlawful.
"Whoever, without lawful authority, makes any die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, either of steel or plaster, or any other substance, in likeness or similitude, as to the design or the inscription thereon, of any die, hub, or mold designated for the coining or making of any of the genuine gold, silver, nickel, bronze, copper, or other coins coined at the mints of the United States; or
Whoever, without lawful authority, possesses any such die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, or permits the same to be used for or in aid of the counterfeiting of any such coins of the United States—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both." >>
The "Hobby Protection Act", which was enacted after the above law was written, specifically allows numismatic replicas to be made. And that implies that the maker of such replicas is legally allowed to posess and use molds or dies in the likeness of US coins because the molds/dies are necessary to make the very replicas that are specifically allowed.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>Replicas with "COPY" stamped on them.....
Which is after the coin is produced and not in the die itself.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>Replicas with "COPY" stamped on them.....
Which is after the coin is produced and not in the die itself. >>
Exactly.
Large quantities of replica silver dollars including the required "COPY" stamp have been produced over the past years. Mr. Carr decided not to stamp his pieces as required by the Hobby Protection Act. He will have to sort this out with his lawyers and federal prosecutors.
It is a waste of time to comment further.
<< <i>For those who wonder, Mr. Carr is presumed innocent of the crime of counterfeiting until convicted, regardless of public opinion.
Large quantities of replica silver dollars including the required "COPY" stamp have been produced over the past years. Mr. Carr decided not to stamp his pieces as required by the Hobby Protection Act. He will have to sort this out with his lawyers and federal prosecutors.
It is a waste of time to comment further. >>
Further comment from you on the matter would be a libelous fiesta.
Daniel Carr is not accused by the government of any wrongdoing, crime or infraction whatsoever, tho' you continue to insinuate such, nor has he been indicted, approached by any recognized authority, nor questioned by same.
In short, you continually offer a line of total BS and wish to pretend it had a factual basis.
For the sake of civility I suggest you shet yer yap.
technically, that is an altered coin not a counterfeit. a genuine coin that has been altered, is still a genuine coin that has been altered, no matter what the alteration is
<< <i>I'm wondering, did I spoil anyone's plans with this coin ? As in, somebody preparing to take a recently-made (not by me) 1964-D Peace Dollar and fraudulently debut it to the coin market as a purported original. >>
Nahhh, you did not spoil anyone's plans with this coin! In fact, you just gave them the OPPOTUNITY to present this 64-D coin of yours to the market as a purported original!
I know that you have done your homework before releasing this coin. I know that you have given the 64-D significant thoughts, and I also know that you have referenced every US codes/regulations to make sure that your product is legal to be produced. My question is whether you have given a minute to think about the hobby before making something like this? You can claim/disclose whatever when you sell this coin to your buyers, but how do you know that your buyers won't try to pass it on to some novice collectors as a genuine piece?
<< <i>Carr, I have a question for you!
I know that you have done your homework before releasing this coin. I know that you have given the 64-D significant thoughts, and I also know that you have referenced every US codes/regulations to make sure that your product is legal to be produced. My question is whether you have given a minute to think about the hobby before making something like this? You can claim/disclose whatever when you sell this coin to your buyers, but how do you know that your buyers won't try to pass it on to some novice collectors as a genuine piece? >>
No different than you selling a 1922D cent to someone then asking them how do they know someone they sell it to won't remove the mint mark and try to sell it as a 1922P.
In other words you have asked Mr. Carr to answer a question that is impossible for him to answer any other way except..."I don't know".
<< <i>No different than you selling a 1922D cent to someone then asking them how do they know someone they sell it to won't remove the mint mark and try to sell it as a 1922P.
In other words you have asked Mr. Carr to answer a question that is impossible for him to answer any other way except..."I don't know". >>
Thank you for answering it, but the question that you answered isn't a the question that I am focusing on!
<< <i>No different than you selling a 1922D cent to someone then asking them how do they know someone they sell it to won't remove the mint mark and try to sell it as a 1922P.
In other words you have asked Mr. Carr to answer a question that is impossible for him to answer any other way except..."I don't know". >>
BTW, your 1922-D example and the 64-D are two different stories.
<< <i>Carr, I have a question for you!
I know that you have done your homework before releasing this coin. I know that you have given the 64-D significant thoughts, and I also know that you have referenced every US codes/regulations to make sure that your product is legal to be produced. My question is whether you have given a minute to think about the hobby before making something like this? You can claim/disclose whatever when you sell this coin to your buyers, but how do you know that your buyers won't try to pass it on to some novice collectors as a genuine piece? >>
Who is going to pay a bunch of money for a "1964-D" Peace Dollar ?
A novice ? Unlikely, since a novice is probably not going to know anything about the story behind the original 1964-D dollars. I've shown one of my coins to a couple of people who had some older Peace Dollars. Neither of them were impressed at all. They were a lot prouder of their older 1922 coins that they got for $15 or whatever. They wouldn't have paid that much for my coin if I offered it to them. But suppose the novice did know something about the original 1964-D Peace dollars. The person selling the coin would still have to "work them over" pretty good (knowingly mis-represent the coin) to get them to spend any significant amount of money. In a case like that, I can't be responsible for a future transaction involving fraud at one end and ignorance at the other. Suppose you had a rare coin with horrible spots. You clean it to make it look at least somewhat presentable and then sell it to someone (and tell them it was cleaned at time of sale), and that buyer turns around and represents it as an original "BU" and sells it to someone else for a big price. You would not be at fault for the deception and lack of due dilligence in that latter transaction.
How about an expert ? If an expert were to pay big money for a "1964" Peace Dollar, they would have to believe one of two things: 1) The coin is an original, but illegal to own and subject to confiscation by the Treasury Department; or 2) The coin is a modern recreation of some sort. Either way, they would knowingly be taking a risk buying it.
I've made considerable efforts to insure that information about my over-strikes has been provided to (and circulated within) the hobby. This included providing information to Coin World, posting information here, etc. I will continue to provide the hobby with information and diagnostics about such things. But be aware that there may be other people out there working on similar things, and they likely will not disclose anything about what they are doing.