What if Mr. Carr used genuine Morgan Dollars and over-struck them so that the date read 1895?

coinguy1 · February 10, 2011 10:57PM

I can't take credit or blame for the question, as someone asked me that the other day.

Such coins couldn't fairly be considered counterfeit, could they? After all, there are no known business strike examples dated 1895.

PawPaul · February 10, 2011 11:04PM

......what if pigs could fly ?

llafoe · February 10, 2011 11:05PM

<< ......what if pigs could fly ? >>

Bacon would be more expensive?

coinguy1 · February 10, 2011 11:08PM

<< ......what if pigs could fly ? >>

If you don't want to discuss the issue, that is your choice. But your analogy was a large cop out.

jmski52 · February 10, 2011 11:08PM

Then the Treasury Dept. would shut down ebay?

AngryTurtle · February 10, 2011 11:12PM

I may have my history wrong, but weren't 1895 Morgans minted and supposedly released? IOW, the US government contends there are no 1964-D Peace $, but does not make that assertion for 1895 Morgans?

coinguy1 · February 10, 2011 11:16PM

<< I may have my history wrong, but weren't 1895 Morgans minted and supposedly released? IOW, the US government contends there are no 1964-D Peace $, but does not make that assertion for 1895 Morgans? >>

If they were even produced, speculation is that they were all melted.

COINB0Y · February 10, 2011 11:16PM

Great Idea!

What about a 1965 Franklin, too?

UncleJoe · February 10, 2011 11:24PM

To answer the question, no, he should not be allowed to strike morgan dollars with an 1895 date.

This is like, I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it. Of course many of us would have very different views of what constitutes pornography.

I feel the same way about these overstruck coins. I feel they should have the word copy on them but I don't think I could successfully put into words why. On the other hand, I bought one of the first 200 (or was it 220?) of the 1964-D Peace Dollars specifically because it did not have the word copy stamped onto it.

I think it looks great and fits in quite well with my Peace Dollar collection display.

Joe.

TavernTreasures · February 10, 2011 11:45PM

<< Great Idea!

What about a 1965 Franklin, too? >>

Why a 1965 Franklin? I would think that the mint intended continue the Franklin series with the 1964 date when JFK was shot in Nov 63.

drwstr123 · February 10, 2011 11:48PM

Then Dan could apply for Most Favored Nation status????

EagleEye · February 10, 2011 11:50PM

He should put COPY on it, since there are 1895 dollars existing in Proof.

notwilight · February 10, 2011 11:55PM

<< He should put COPY on it, since there are 1895 dollars existing in Proof. >>

Yes, this makes it pretty risky to skirt that line. --Jerry

BillJones · February 10, 2011 11:57PM

I'm not happy with his 1964-D Peace dollar creation without the word "COPY" on it so I'd be even less thrilled with his "Mint State" 1895-P Morgan dollar.

If he puts "COPY" on the piece, I have no problem with it, but if he omits that mark, I would hope that the government would shut him down.

coinguy1 · February 10, 2011 11:58PM

<< He should put COPY on it, since there are 1895 dollars existing in Proof. >>

That is a good point.

But a business strike would/should probably be as easily distinguishable from a Proof as the Carr Peace Dollars would/should be from a genuine 1964-D. And Mr. Carr has maintained that (paraphrased here) the non-fraudulent intent of and disclosure by the producer of the coins is, in large part, what makes them harmless replicas, as opposed to dangerous counterfeits.

EagleEye · February 11, 2011 12:04AM

There are circulated Proofs as well, These may not be distinguishable from artificially circulated overstrikes.

questor54 · February 11, 2011 12:10AM

If he just would put COPY on his stuff we could all be happy. Until then, I have to treat his productions the same way I would treat a 1900 ASE coming out of China - fake counterfeit whatever. The fact that he uses original coins as planchets (sometimes) puts that material in the category of love tokens and hobo nickels and colorized state quarters - decoratively mutilated coins - and have to be sold as such.

Smittys · February 11, 2011 12:12AM

No 1895 Business strike were minted , so making a copy without the word copy, it's a " Fantasy " Coin

1964-D business strikes were minted and supposivly destroyed so, So since they were really minted making a copy without the word copy is counterfeiting.

IMHO both would be counterfeiting, just like the Chinese fakes

BigRick · February 11, 2011 12:14AM

As Rick points out, incorrect since there exist genuine 1895 Morgan's so it would be a counterfeit. Proof/Business strike distinction is irrelavent.

ziggy29 · February 11, 2011 12:17AM

We don't *know* that no 1895 business strikes exist, though when none were found in the Treasury vaults in the 1960s the odds of there still being any are approaching zero. We also don't know whether the 12,000 business strikes reported by Philly in 1895 were even dated 1895 -- or even if they were struck at all, but rather an accounting gimmick to balance some books at the end of the fiscal year in June 1895.

Having said that, unlike the 1964-D Peace Dollar, the government has never said that none were released or that none were dated 1895. AND -- if authentic 1895 Philly business strikes are found to exist, the government has not declared any extant are contraband (as opposed to the 1964-D Peace Dollar). For that reason, while the Carr specimens are dancing *on* the line of legality and ethics, IMO, striking 1895-dated "Morgans" without the COPY designation would be clearly crossing it.

messydesk · February 11, 2011 12:21AM

If he produced 1895 "business strikes," the balance of people favoring them and opposing them would be tilted slightly more toward those opposing them than it is for the the 64-D Peace dollar, and those still in favor of them would be less likely to buy them if there were a copy stamp on them.

AUandAG · February 11, 2011 12:42AM

Probably no chance in he11 to convince Dan to make those dollars.

I think that would be pushing the envelope over the edge!
Unless of course, it had a D mintmark!
bob

ziggy29 · February 11, 2011 12:51AM

<< Probably no chance in he11 to convince Dan to make those dollars.

I think that would be pushing the envelope over the edge!
Unless of course, it had a D mintmark!
bob >>

Or a CC mintmark, but what a waste of an authentic 'CC' dollar...

mgoodm3 · February 11, 2011 1:21AM

fantasy restrike... piffle.

7Jaguars · February 11, 2011 1:26AM

I think Dan should lay off of any 1895 dollar production, as much as I love his product and as much as I would be tempted to buy it (not for resale)....Now, let's not go there with an 1861 O Confederate 20 dollar gold piece!!!

PerryHall · February 11, 2011 1:55AM

<< I may have my history wrong, but weren't 1895 Morgans minted and supposedly released? IOW, the US government contends there are no 1964-D Peace $, but does not make that assertion for 1895 Morgans? >>

Excellent point. If the 1964-D showed up, it would be confiscated and destroyed since it would be illegal to own while the 1895 wouldn't be confiscated since it would be legal to own. BIG difference so the analogy isn't valid.

lcoopie · February 11, 2011 2:18AM

I don't think a lay person can distinguish
between a proof and a business strike,
therefore,
what they see is an 1895 dollar
which do exist.

how about if he uses a proof 1895 and restrikes it to create a business strike?
that wouldn't be a counterfeit.

Unknown · February 11, 2011 2:29AM

This content has been removed.

BaronVonBaugh · February 11, 2011 4:05AM

Perhaps they should be looked at as what they are. Altered. Therefore, just put a big "A" on the forehead for altered.

IrishMikey · February 11, 2011 4:20AM

I know that Dan reads the message boards. Who thinks that he is considering the idea of
overstriking Morgan dollars with one of his die pairs, now that it has been brought up?

nencoin · February 11, 2011 4:23AM

<< I can't take credit or blame for the question, as someone asked me that the other day. >>

No, but you can take blame for posting the question. ; )

19Lyds · February 11, 2011 4:36AM

Mark I think your not only beating a dead horse but your kickin it across the pasture.

The 1964-D Peace Dollar was specifically chosen because of the aura and legend that surrounds it. After a 30 year absence of minting Peace Dollars, these were minted as a last minute push before the Coinage Act of 1965 and then shot down just as quickly as they were approved. They were coined under tight security, not even maiking it to the counting portion and when the word came down, they were all destroyed without even examples being preserved for the Smithsonian.

The scenario all plays out on paper and in letters and reports and articles yet only through word of mouth could anybody ever prove that they even existed. Even then its just his/her word against somebody elses. None were photographed and there is no "visible" record of any completed coins so for all practical purposes, the coin is a legend. The Unicorn of the numismatic world.

The 1895 Morgan(s) on the other hand were minted in the middle of production and for whatever reason, the Philly mint didn't coin any up. No real mystery or story, they just don't exist (kinda like the 1933 quarters). They just didn't make them. They made 94's (110,000) and they made 96's (9,976,000). Obviously the mintage figures tell a story but I have no idea what it might be.

But, to continually run down the list of US Coinage, looking for and then suggesting that Daniel Carr should over strike each and every missing coin or even add coins to a discontinued series just to keep this notion of the 1964-D being a counterfeit instead of a restrike or fantasy coin is nothing more than beating a dead horse.

Whats done is done and numismatic history will define the fate of the 1964-D Carr Peace Dollars.

dsessom · February 11, 2011 4:41AM

<< I can't take credit or blame for the question, as someone asked me that the other day.

Such coins couldn't fairly be considered counterfeit, could they? After all, there are no known business strike examples dated 1895.

>>

A better analogy would be 1975 dated quarters or halves. There are 1895 proof Morgans.

coinguy1 · February 11, 2011 4:50AM

<< Mark I think your not only beating a dead horse but your kickin it across the pasture.

The 1964-D Peace Dollar was specifically chosen because of the aura and legend that surrounds it. After a 30 year absence of minting Peace Dollars, these were minted as a last minute push before the Coinage Act of 1965 and then shot down just as quickly as they were approved. They were coined under tight security, not even maiking it to the counting portion and when the word came down, they were all destroyed without even examples being preserved for the Smithsonian.

The scenario all plays out on paper and in letters and reports and articles yet only through word of mouth could anybody ever prove that they even existed. Even then its just his/her word against somebody elses. None were photographed and there is no "visible" record of any completed coins so for all practical purposes, the coin is a legend. The Unicorn of the numismatic world.

The 1895 Morgan(s) on the other hand were minted in the middle of production and for whatever reason, the Philly mint didn't coin any up. No real mystery or story, they just don't exist (kinda like the 1933 quarters). They just didn't make them. They made 94's (110,000) and they made 96's (9,976,000). Obviously the mintage figures tell a story but I have no idea what it might be.

But, to continually run down the list of US Coinage, looking for and then suggesting that Daniel Carr should over strike each and every missing coin or even add coins to a discontinued series just to keep this notion of the 1964-D being a counterfeit instead of a restrike or fantasy coin is nothing more than beating a dead horse.

Whats done is done and numismatic history will define the fate of the 1964-D Carr Peace Dollars. >>

Lee, it is unknown whether any 1895 business strike dollars were even produced. And, as you would say "None were photographed and there is no "visible" record of any completed coins so for all practical purposes, the coin is a legend. The Unicorn of the numismatic world."

Overdate · February 11, 2011 5:04AM

<< I think Dan should lay off of any 1895 dollar production, as much as I love his product and as much as I would be tempted to buy it (not for resale)....Now, let's not go there with an 1861 O Confederate 20 dollar gold piece!!! >>

Speaking of Confederate issues, what is the legal tender or counterfeit status of 1861-O half dollars struck by Louisiana and the Confederacy?

Bubblehead · February 11, 2011 5:19AM

I'd be in for a couple of them.

RedHerring · February 11, 2011 5:22AM

With good proof surfaces, they would bring moon money unless marked 'copy' or 'replica'.

BillJones · February 11, 2011 5:22AM

<<

I'd be in for a couple of them. >>

I hope this is a joke.

Why wait for Mr. Carr? The Chinese will sell you all you want.

MsMorrisine · February 11, 2011 5:25AM

<< Probably no chance in he11 to convince Dan to make those dollars.

I think that would be pushing the envelope over the edge!
Unless of course, it had a D mintmark!
>>

Darn, this didn't make it into the The ***Official*** Everything (but Sales) Dan Carr Mega-Thread

I've had to catch myself on a few ideas. e.g. a 2009 UHR of 90% and the classic size.

He's already on record as declining to make a 1933D double eagle for the reasons above. He'd likely pass on the 2009 UHRR idea, and this 1895 Morgan as well.

19Lyds · February 11, 2011 5:27AM

<< Lee, it is unknown whether any 1895 business strike dollars were even produced. And, as you would say "None were photographed and there is no "visible" record of any completed coins so for all practical purposes, the coin is a legend. The Unicorn of the numismatic world."

>>

No more a legend than a 1910-D, 1921-D or 1923-D Lincoln.
No more a legend than a 1932 or 1933 Mercury Dime.
No more a legend than a 1922 Standing Liberty Quarter or a 1933 Quarter.
No more a legend than a 1970 Eisenhower Dollar. (Even though there an existing Galvano.)

MsMorrisine · February 11, 2011 5:29AM

I think he's already said he'd do a 1975 "regular" coin.

coinguy1 · February 11, 2011 5:36AM

<< 

<< Lee, it is unknown whether any 1895 business strike dollars were even produced. And, as you would say "None were photographed and there is no "visible" record of any completed coins so for all practical purposes, the coin is a legend. The Unicorn of the numismatic world."

>>

No more a legend than a 1910-D, 1921-D or 1923-D Lincoln.
No more a legend than a 1932 or 1933 Mercury Dime.
No more a legend than a 1922 Standing Liberty Quarter or a 1933 Quarter.
No more a legend than a 1970 Eisenhower Dollar. (Even though there an existing Galvano.) >>

Sure it is. In the case of the 1895 Dollars, there is at least some well founded supposition that they might have actually existed.

dragon · February 11, 2011 5:40AM

<< Then Dan could apply for Most Favored Nation status???? >>

LOLOLOLOL, good one, that really made me laugh!

19Lyds · February 11, 2011 5:45AM

<< 

<< 

<< Lee, it is unknown whether any 1895 business strike dollars were even produced. And, as you would say "None were photographed and there is no "visible" record of any completed coins so for all practical purposes, the coin is a legend. The Unicorn of the numismatic world."

>>

No more a legend than a 1910-D, 1921-D or 1923-D Lincoln.
No more a legend than a 1932 or 1933 Mercury Dime.
No more a legend than a 1922 Standing Liberty Quarter or a 1933 Quarter.
No more a legend than a 1970 Eisenhower Dollar. (Even though there an existing Galvano.) >>

Sure it is. In the case of the 1895 Dollars, there is at least some well founded supposition that they might have actually existed. >>

As circulated proofs no doubt.

JRocco · February 11, 2011 5:47AM

It would be as wrong for him to do that Mark as it was for him to produce the 64 silver round without the word COPY.
Both are wrong and bad for our hobby.

As for producing the 64 silver rounds.....Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

coinguy1 · February 11, 2011 5:47AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< Lee, it is unknown whether any 1895 business strike dollars were even produced. And, as you would say "None were photographed and there is no "visible" record of any completed coins so for all practical purposes, the coin is a legend. The Unicorn of the numismatic world."

>>

No more a legend than a 1910-D, 1921-D or 1923-D Lincoln.
No more a legend than a 1932 or 1933 Mercury Dime.
No more a legend than a 1922 Standing Liberty Quarter or a 1933 Quarter.
No more a legend than a 1970 Eisenhower Dollar. (Even though there an existing Galvano.) >>

Sure it is. In the case of the 1895 Dollars, there is at least some well founded supposition that they might have actually existed. >>

As circulated proofs no doubt. >>

No, as business strikes. While they certainly might be in error, mintage records show that they were produced.

291fifth · February 11, 2011 6:09AM

In my opinion they would be counterfeit 1895 dollars.

dcarr · February 11, 2011 6:24AM

I will not be making any fantasy coins where only the surface finish is changed from an existing original numismatic item.

I could potentially make fantasy over-struck coins that:

1) Clearly show a date that doesn't exist for that type according to the US Mint / US Treasury (like "1964" Peace Dollars or "1916" Barber half dollars).

2) Have a surface finish not originally issued AND a mint mark that was never used (like 2009 "proofed" Silver Eagles with a permanent "DC" mark).

An "1895" Morgan dollar with a non-proof finish could potentially meet criteria #2 above, but only if I put a permanent "DC" mint mark on it.
But I have no plans to make such an item.

I am thinking I will make a "1909-o" micro-o Morgan Dollar fantasy over-strike.

MsMorrisine · February 11, 2011 6:47AM

<< I will not be making any fantasy coins where only the surface finish is changed from an existing original numismatic item.

I could potentially make fantasy over-struck coins that:

1) Clearly show a date that doesn't exist for that type according to the US Mint / US Treasury (like "1964" Peace Dollars or "1916" Barber half dollars).

2) Have a surface finish not originally issued AND a mint mark that was never used (like 2009 "proofed" Silver Eagles with a permanent "DC" mark).

An "1895" Morgan dollar with a non-proof finish could potentially meet criteria #2 above, but only if I put a permanent "DC" mint mark on it.
But I have no plans to make such an item.

I am thinking I will make a "1909-o" micro-o Morgan Dollar fantasy over-strike. >>

There's no "famed" 1909-o (micro-o) never released from the mint.

Some are interested, but I wonder how popular they'd be. You may ask your followers.

But, considering the info above, then it sounds like you would make a 90% 2009 UHR of the original dimensions, or a Proof 1933DC double eagle. I'd bet people would be standing in line for a Proof 1933DC DE.

dcarr · February 11, 2011 6:56AM

<< There's no "famed" 1909-o (micro-o) never released from the mint.
Some are interested, but I wonder how popular they'd be. You may ask your followers. >>

I just have an urge to do it because I think it would be neat. If it isn't "popular", so be it.

<< 
But, considering the info above, then it sounds like you would make a 90% 2009 UHR of the original dimensions, or a Proof 1933DC double eagle. I'd bet people would be standing in line for a Proof 1933DC DE. >>

I think the price (due to gold content) of such a piece would discourage a lot of folks.

But, instead of a "1933-DC" proof, I'd rather make a regular "1934".

keets · February 11, 2011 6:58AM

Sure it is. In the case of the 1895 Dollars, there is at least some well founded supposition that they might have actually existed.

i was always under the impression that 1895 business strike coins were struck and melted without being released.

What if Mr. Carr used genuine Morgan Dollars and over-struck them so that the date read 1895?

Comments

Leave a Comment