Bill if the Chinese start copying DC's pieces in silver in large numbers I may rethink my position. Otherwise it's a straw man argument you and others present. One that could be made my just about anything. DC's pieces always offer at least two changes and are not meant to deceive. I find most of his pieces intriguing and collectable.
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
It is precisely THIS discourse that will require the numismatic historians of future decades to publish diagnostics and historical accounts regarding the minting of these pieces. Whoever the Q. David Bowers of 2052 is, will write eloquently about Daniel Carr and the controversial opinions expressed by contemporary numismatists of OUR day, including (perhaps) publishing THIS very thread. Those future historical accounts may be positive or negative -- we can't know for sure -- but the low mintages and unique manufacture by an actual United States Coin designer -- overstriking actual coins using a retired mint press -- will create a demand for the limited supply of these unique collectibles. Like 'em or hate 'em, Daniel Carr has a good sense of how to parlay his knowledge and nexus to the coin design process to secure his place in numismatic history. The complete historical account of the "Daniel Carr Overstrikes" is a story not yet completed, and one that will not be written by ourselves.
"Giving away an MS-65 $20 St. Gaudens to everyone logged in when I make my 10,000th post..."
<< <i>Tomato - Tomatoe , it is what it is , a fake US coin.You'll defend them til the cows come home and for good reason , you make money hand over fist on these items.Good day to you , my yardwork awaits. >>
It can't be a "fake" 1927-D Oregon Trail half dollar if none previously existed. "Altered" yes, "fake" no. >>
According to my Redbook, the 1923-D and 1930-D dimes and 1915-D half eagles, that never previously existed until somebody made them outside of the Mint, are "counterfeit." >>
Those coins were made with the intent to deceive, and/or to spend at face value for a profit. They were NOT over-struck on genuine legal-tender coins, and so they are currency counterfeits. That is the difference. >>
But it destroys your argument that it can't be fake just because none previously existed. >>
Date aside, the 1923-D and 1930-D dimes are currency fakes of the Winged Liberty Head type. They were not counter-stamped on legal-tender coins. They were made to spend at face value for a profit.
My over-strikes are the same type they were before, and so they are altered coins.
If a "hobo" nickel carver carved a "1992" date over the original date on a Buffalo nickel, that coin is then an altered coin, not a "fake" coin, and certainly not a "counterfeit" coin.
<< <i>It is precisely THIS discourse that will require the numismatic historians of future decades to publish diagnostics and historical accounts regarding the minting of these pieces. Whoever the Q. David Bowers of 2052 is, will write eloquently about Daniel Carr and the controversial opinions expressed by contemporary numismatists of OUR day, including (perhaps) publishing THIS very thread. Those future historical accounts may be positive or negative -- we can't know for sure -- but the low mintages and unique manufacture by an actual United States Coin designer -- overstriking actual coins using a retired mint press -- will create a demand for the limited supply of these unique collectibles. Like 'em or hate 'em, Daniel Carr has a good sense of how to parlay his knowledge and nexus to the coin design process to secure his place in numismatic history. The complete historical account of the "Daniel Carr Overstrikes" is a story not yet completed, and one that will not be written by ourselves. >>
Interesting commentary, and I generally agree.
Who hasn't dreamed of sneaking into a Mint and making some "neat" stuff ?
I'm fortunate that, in a sense, I get to do that - and I have a lot of numismatic fun doing it. If I didn't enjoy what I do, I'd do something else.
<< <i>Date aside, the 1923-D and 1930-D dimes are currency fakes of the Winged Liberty Head type. They were not counter-stamped on legal-tender coins. They were made to spend at face value for a profit. >>
No they weren't! If they were made to be spent at face value, why picked a date that does not exist?
<< <i>They were not counter-stamped on legal-tender coins. >>
Because your products were counter-stamped on legal-tender coins does not exclude them from being considered counterfeits; matter of fact, they are even more deceptive than other counterfeits.
OK. We dug up Bolen and were mean to his bones...now let's dig up the guys from Machin's Mint that made the counterfeit British coins and be mean to whatever is left of them. Then all the haters can talk all of the collectors of those into giving them up and destroying them "for the good of the hobby". Again I say...to each their own.
Part of the problem with this issue is the fans of the Exonumia think that objections of the product equate to an attack on them which simply isn't the case. There is a long standing tradition of collecting counterfeits and oddities and private issues that look like something they are not be it contemporary electrotypes or lead fakes, Micro O Morgans or even Henning nickels and despite what D. Carr thinks all well made fakes take a level of craftsmanship and artistry to produce which doesn't legitimatize them. Objecting to the product does not mean objecting to collecting them and even the most ardent opponent would be intrigued by a collection of his work.
The rub is that just as a Henning nickel isn't a "Non-War Fantasy issue" neither are 31s quarters or 64d dollars. The US mint is the only true producer of Peace dollars, Commemorative halves, Franklin, SQ or DE ect and anything else is a fake, counterfeit, forgery, facsimile , tribute (call it what you will). The problem lies is that our currency and hobby has clear laws governing the production of fakes, counterfeits, forgeries, facsimiles , tributes and Mr Carr seem intent in compiling his preconceived technicalities and loop holes trying to skirt the edge of the laws and flying in the face of the spirit them for profits sake which comes off as sleazy and scummy. Most true artists sign their work but he being a smart man knows that the money is by keeping them as close to original as possible much as the same motive as every other forger out there. The truth is that none of us know for sure the legality and I suspect that the only reason he has got away with it is the small nature of his operation and if it was put to a legal test I suspect he would be shut down but only a judge can make that call.
All I know is I have no respect for the Gallery Mint, Moon Light Mint, Beijin Mint or anybody else that makes things that they are not. Can we please just call them what they are (Fakes). I respect your right to collect it but just because it is altered for the better and not completely from scratch does not make it real. If my wife got breast implants even though they were made with original breast parts doesn't mean they aren't called fake Ti*s
<< <i>Part of the problem with this issue is the fans of the Exonumia think that objections of the product equate to an attack on them which simply isn't the case. There is a long standing tradition of collecting counterfeits and oddities and private issues that look like something they are not be it contemporary electrotypes or lead fakes, Micro O Morgans or even Henning nickels and despite what D. Carr thinks all well made fakes take a level of craftsmanship and artistry to produce which doesn't legitimatize them. Objecting to the product does not mean objecting to collecting them and even the most ardent opponent would be intrigued by a collection of his work.
The rub is that just as a Henning nickel isn't a "Non-War Fantasy issue" neither are 31s quarters or 64d dollars. The US mint is the only true producer of Peace dollars, Commemorative halves, Franklin, SQ or DE ect and anything else is a fake, counterfeit, forgery, facsimile , tribute (call it what you will). The problem lies is that our currency and hobby has clear laws governing the production of fakes, counterfeits, forgeries, facsimiles , tributes and Mr Carr seem intent in compiling his preconceived technicalities and loop holes trying to skirt the edge of the laws and flying in the face of the spirit them for profits sake which comes off as sleazy and scummy. Most true artists sign their work but he being a smart man knows that the money is by keeping them as close to original as possible much as the same motive as every other forger out there. The truth is that none of us know for sure the legality and I suspect that the only reason he has got away with it is the small nature of his operation and if it was put to a legal test I suspect he would be shut down but only a judge can make that call.
All I know is I have no respect for the Gallery Mint, Moon Light Mint, Beijin Mint or anybody else that makes things that they are not. Can we please just call them what they are (Fakes). I respect your right to collect it but just because it is altered for the better and not completely from scratch does not make it real. If my wife got breast implants even though they were made with original breast parts doesn't mean they aren't called fake Ti*s >>
No, the implants are not the same thing. It would be essentially taking the real ones, and adding a tatoo if you will. They're still real, just altered.
^ Out of all the "Mints" noted above, none of them overstrike genuine coins.
The end game is this: in 100 years these will be considered part of numismatic lore and collectable as such. I'd just rather not wait 100 years and begin collecting them now.
Edited to add: If the Chinese, or anyone for that fact, wants to mint a 1895 FH dollar over a genuine 1795 FH dollar host coin then I'll stop calling that a "fake" too.
Well written John (crypto) but at the end of the day you sprinkled in a few facts and a lot opinion and stirred them up. It really is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be IMHO. I agree Dan dances in the grey area and that makes them somewhat more interesting to me in a most static hobby. I collect his work as I lay and wait for the coins to come for my core collection. DC's coins add a little spice to my collecting interests. A sidebar.
As a fellow artist I personally have respect for Dan's work, thought process, execution and marketing savvy. I think he is brilliant in that regard.
I also have great respect for you.
PS- Some fake b@@bs I've had access to could be deemed as works of art. I once told someone that I was dating that her Dr should have been given a Nobel Peace prize. Altered and enhanced with no intent to deceive.
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I'll start calling D. Carr's creations, "fake" as soon as you begin calling hobo nickels, opium dollars, love tokens and yes, even colorized eagles as FAKE.
In the meantime I'll continue to refer to them, along with the other examples, as altered/fantasy COINS.
<< <i>Date aside, the 1923-D and 1930-D dimes are currency fakes of the Winged Liberty Head type. They were not counter-stamped on legal-tender coins. They were made to spend at face value for a profit. >>
No they weren't! If they were made to be spent at face value, why picked a date that does not exist? >>
You are grossly mis-informed. They did pick a date that existed (just not with that mint mark).
From the David Lawrence website:
John J Ford, Jr. was the editor of Numisma, and it was he who penned the following account. His wartime service in the army saw him posted to the American headquarters for the European Theater of Operations, a position in which he would have been privy to the gossip concerning Russian/American relations. His remarks reveal much of the curious history behind the dimes dated 1923-D and 1930-D:
"To the best of our knowledge, these are counterfeits made of good silver and struck from excellent false dies — evidencing better technical facilities than those available to American crime rings. They were made, along with many wornappearing (dateless) Liberty Standing quarters, prior to and during World War II — and probably to the present day — in the Soviet Union. Evidence of this practice turned up during the war, but nothing was done because of the probability of antagonizing our “gallant Soviet ally!” The Soviet technical experts evidentially perfected some process of transferring genuine designs from coins to plaster and from plaster to steel dies, the latter presumably by some machine similar to the Contamin portrait-lathe used in Philadelphia and Tower Hill (English) mints for over a century. They also have good silver, heavy presses and collars — equipment available to no American counterfeiter. The purpose has nothing to do with numismatics. So far as we know these coins were intended (like those made by the Chinese and Italian imitators of American gold coins) to pass as a circulating medium. Silver, or gold, in the form of coins seemingly backed by a stable government, can be spent at a far better rate (i.e. has a higher purchasing power) than its bullion price as ingots. The Soviet imitations have evidently succeeded, as to date all specimens seen are considerably worn. The differences between them and the genuine are microscopic. It is highly likely that other dates have been manufactured and passed unnoticed. Fortunately for us, the quantities passed in this country have apparently been too small to disturb the economy."
<< <i>They were not counter-stamped on legal-tender coins. >>
Because your products were counter-stamped on legal-tender coins does not exclude them from being considered counterfeits; >>
Considered counterfeit by whom ?
<< <i>matter of fact they are even more deceptive than other counterfeits. >>
Again, you make libelous accusations of "counterfeiting". Are you prepared to defend those accusations in court ? >>
Are you? Your antics are lame and what ever talent is clouded in my eyes by your disregard for your actions and the ramifications to our hobby. Your core (trite) argument is built around "intent" but if someone did exactly what you do but did it to deceive what exactly is the net difference?
<< <i>Are you? Your antics are lame and what ever talent is clouded in my eyes by your disregard for your actions and the ramifications to our hobby. Your core (trite) argument is built around "intent" but if someone did exactly what you do but did it to deceive what exactly is the net difference? >>
What are the "ramifications to our hobby" of which you speak? What harm comes of this to coin collectors?
<< <i>They were not counter-stamped on legal-tender coins. >>
Because your products were counter-stamped on legal-tender coins does not exclude them from being considered counterfeits; >>
Considered counterfeit by whom ?
<< <i>matter of fact they are even more deceptive than other counterfeits. >>
Again, you make libelous accusations of "counterfeiting". Are you prepared to defend those accusations in court ? >>
Are you? Your antics are lame and what ever talent is clouded by your disregard your actions and the ramifications to our hobby. Your core (trite) argument is built around "intent" but if someone did exactly what you do but did it to deceive what exactly is the net difference? >>
Of course. I've researched all the laws. Even if I indended to "deceive", it wouldn't work very well to make coins with dates that were never issued. My "core" argument is not about intent. It is the simple fact that the coins I over-strike are altered coins. Altered in a way that is obvious.
Altering coins is legal except for these four instances:
1) For fraudulent purposes. 2) Affixing commercial advertising. 3) Lightening (intentionally removing significant quantities of metal). 4) Large-scale melting (scrapping) of current cents and nickels.
<< <i>Are you? Your antics are lame and what ever talent is clouded in my eyes by your disregard for your actions and the ramifications to our hobby. Your core (trite) argument is built around "intent" but if someone did exactly what you do but did it to deceive what exactly is the net difference? >>
What are the "ramifications to our hobby" of which you speak? What harm comes of this to coin collectors? >>
Great question ! It is the classic slippery slope to allow private manufacturers to make facsimiles of mint made products that can only be differentiated by small nuisances that only specialists know about. Show a DC 64d to my father and he will tell you about spending those when he was a kid, if he looks it up in the redbook he is going to think about which beach house to buy. And even if DC draws the line with random dates that aren't real what about the precedence that is set for the next guy who makes a 1909-s VOB off of a real 1909p and calls it a fantasy designer over-strike? Where is the line drawn? I draw mine at mint made or not .
<< <i>Are you? Your antics are lame and what ever talent is clouded in my eyes by your disregard for your actions and the ramifications to our hobby. Your core (trite) argument is built around "intent" but if someone did exactly what you do but did it to deceive what exactly is the net difference? >>
What are the "ramifications to our hobby" of which you speak? What harm comes of this to coin collectors? >>
Great question ! It is the classic slippery slope to allow private manufacturers to make facsimiles of mint made products that can only be differentiated by small nuisances that only specialists know about. Show a DC 64d to my father and he will tell you about spending those when he was a kid, if he looks it up in the redbook he is going to think about which beach house to buy. And even if DC draws the line with random dates that aren't real what about the precedence that is set for the next guy who makes a 1909-s VOB off of a real 1909p and calls it a fantasy designer over-strike? Where is the line drawn? I draw mine at mint made or not . >>
Yes, it's a good question. Now, please answer it. :What ramifications or harm becomes coin collectors if DCarr continues to mint/overstrike authentic coins with fantasy dated dies?
<< <i>Are you? Your antics are lame and what ever talent is clouded in my eyes by your disregard for your actions and the ramifications to our hobby. Your core (trite) argument is built around "intent" but if someone did exactly what you do but did it to deceive what exactly is the net difference? >>
What are the "ramifications to our hobby" of which you speak? What harm comes of this to coin collectors? >>
Great question ! It is the classic slippery slope to allow private manufacturers to make facsimiles of mint made products that can only be differentiated by small nuisances that non-specialists know about. Show a DC 64d to my father and he will tell you about spending those when he was a kid, if he looks it up in the redbook he is going to think about which beach house to buy. And even if DC draws the line with random dates that aren't real what about the precedence sent for the next guy who makes a 1909-s VOB off of a real 1909p and calls it a fantasy designer over-strike? Where is the line drawn? I draw mine at mint made or not . >>
I don't speculate on what other people might hypothetically do. The only over-strikes I'm doing have dates that don't exist, or if over-struck with the same date as the host coin, have at least two other OBVIOUS changes (like an unissued surface finish combined with a large "DC" mint mark, for example). Note that I don't consider a "1930-D" dime to be an unissued date, and a "1930-D" dime is not somthing I'd do (a mint mark change alone is insufficient). A "1930-D" dime is an issued date, with an unknown mint mark combination.
Your father might temporarily think he hit a jackpot. But seriously, how much would he actually PAY for one of the "1964-D" Peace Dollar over-strikes ?
It has been a year and a half since my "1964-D" Peace Dollars have been out there. Anybody wondering what their "1964" silver dollar is worth, all they have to do is search the internet - sites like eBay and wikipedia will have all the info you need. And my site still shows pictures, diagnostics, and issue prices for them.
<< <i>Anybody wondering what their "1964" silver dollar is worth, all they have to do is search the internet - sites like eBay and wikipedia will have all the info you need. >>
Absolutely. Anyone overpaying for something like this under the mistaken impression they're buying an actual mint issued 1964 dollar has nobody to blame but themselves.
<< <i>Why would I ? Im not the guy touting altered coins and baubles on a US coin forum. >>
I'm not touting them. I never started a tread about one of my over-struck coins, ever. I only post replies to correct and clarify what is being talked about.
Your use of the term "plagiarism" was not fitting in this case. >>
Oh , i hadnt realised you designed the Oregon Commem and not just slapped a different date on an existing piece of work. >>
Taxpayers paid for that Oregon Trail design, so by law it is public domain. I did not remove the James/Laura Fraser initials from the coins, and I credit them with the design on the certificates I package with the coins. And, what I have made is an altered existing Oregon Trail, not one made from scratch. >>
Using that same logic I can print a 1992 hundred dollar bill since they didn't make that date, I'll use a bleached out one so it has the sme paper and since they " the government" Did not make one it's not counterfeiting or is it ? Edit we ll change it to 1934 gold certificate
Anyone who do not buy into your marketing gimmick. Anyone who got burned purchasing counterfeit coins.
<< <i>Again, you make false libelous accusations of "counterfeiting". Are you prepared to defend those accusations in court ? >>
I'm not making false libelous accusations; your products are counterfeits and that's my opinion, so is the opinion of many people in this forum. Don't bring up court because there's absolutely nothing you can do to me. Trying to scare me? Very premature of you!
<< <i>Date aside, the 1923-D and 1930-D dimes are currency fakes of the Winged Liberty Head type. They were not counter-stamped on legal-tender coins. They were made to spend at face value for a profit. >>
No they weren't! If they were made to be spent at face value, why picked a date that does not exist? >>
You are grossly mis-informed. They did pick a date that existed (just not with that mint mark).
From the David Lawrence website:
John J Ford, Jr. was the editor of Numisma, and it was he who penned the following account. His wartime service in the army saw him posted to the American headquarters for the European Theater of Operations, a position in which he would have been privy to the gossip concerning Russian/American relations. His remarks reveal much of the curious history behind the dimes dated 1923-D and 1930-D:
"To the best of our knowledge, these are counterfeits made of good silver and struck from excellent false dies — evidencing better technical facilities than those available to American crime rings. They were made, along with many wornappearing (dateless) Liberty Standing quarters, prior to and during World War II — and probably to the present day — in the Soviet Union. Evidence of this practice turned up during the war, but nothing was done because of the probability of antagonizing our “gallant Soviet ally!” The Soviet technical experts evidentially perfected some process of transferring genuine designs from coins to plaster and from plaster to steel dies, the latter presumably by some machine similar to the Contamin portrait-lathe used in Philadelphia and Tower Hill (English) mints for over a century. They also have good silver, heavy presses and collars — equipment available to no American counterfeiter. The purpose has nothing to do with numismatics. So far as we know these coins were intended (like those made by the Chinese and Italian imitators of American gold coins) to pass as a circulating medium. Silver, or gold, in the form of coins seemingly backed by a stable government, can be spent at a far better rate (i.e. has a higher purchasing power) than its bullion price as ingots. The Soviet imitations have evidently succeeded, as to date all specimens seen are considerably worn. The differences between them and the genuine are microscopic. It is highly likely that other dates have been manufactured and passed unnoticed. Fortunately for us, the quantities passed in this country have apparently been too small to disturb the economy." >>
I actually like the article. Do you see similarities here? In the article, the intent is for circulation, but it is very possible that someone got burned purchasing one thinking it's a rare date. Your products are (claimed to be) fatasies, could someone in the future got burned purchasing one thinking it's a rare date? Yes, very likely!
<< <i>Why would I ? Im not the guy touting altered coins and baubles on a US coin forum. >>
I'm not touting them. I never started a tread about one of my over-struck coins, ever. I only post replies to correct and clarify what is being talked about.
Your use of the term "plagiarism" was not fitting in this case. >>
Oh , i hadnt realised you designed the Oregon Commem and not just slapped a different date on an existing piece of work. >>
Taxpayers paid for that Oregon Trail design, so by law it is public domain. I did not remove the James/Laura Fraser initials from the coins, and I credit them with the design on the certificates I package with the coins. And, what I have made is an altered existing Oregon Trail, not one made from scratch. >>
Using that same logic I can print a 1992 hundred dollar bill since they didn't make that date, I'll use a bleached out one so it has the sme paper and since they " the government" Did not make one it's not counterfeiting or is it ? Edit we ll change it to 1934 gold certificate >>
In your scenario, your are REMOVING a key component of the bill - the ink. Suppose you didn't remove any ink and just printed a gold seal and "1934" over the existing bill. What would that make it ? I don't know, but I wouldn't automaticaly assume that it is "counterfeit". Stamping "Where's George" on a bill doesn't nullify the legal tender status.
When I over-strike an existing coin, I do not add or remove any metal.
Anyone who do not buy into your marketing gimmick. Anyone who got burned purchasing counterfeit coins.
<< <i>Again, you make false libelous accusations of "counterfeiting". Are you prepared to defend those accusations in court ? >>
I'm not making false libelous accusations; your products are counterfeits and that's my opinion, so is the opinion of many people in this forum. Don't bring up court because there's absolutely nothing you can do to me. Trying to scare me? Very premature of you! >>
Ok, so we have made some progress. Your statement claiming that my over-strikes are factually "counterfeit", has now been downgraded to "in your opinion". You are entitled to your opinion. But that doesn't make it a fact. Nor does anyone else necessarily share in your opinion at all. There are plenty of people here who do not think they are "counterfeits". Here is a poll on that matter, at another site: View Poll Results: What do you consider the Daniel Carr coins to be ?
<< <i>Date aside, the 1923-D and 1930-D dimes are currency fakes of the Winged Liberty Head type. They were not counter-stamped on legal-tender coins. They were made to spend at face value for a profit. >>
No they weren't! If they were made to be spent at face value, why picked a date that does not exist? >>
You are grossly mis-informed. They did pick a date that existed (just not with that mint mark).
From the David Lawrence website:
John J Ford, Jr. was the editor of Numisma, and it was he who penned the following account. His wartime service in the army saw him posted to the American headquarters for the European Theater of Operations, a position in which he would have been privy to the gossip concerning Russian/American relations. His remarks reveal much of the curious history behind the dimes dated 1923-D and 1930-D:
"To the best of our knowledge, these are counterfeits made of good silver and struck from excellent false dies — evidencing better technical facilities than those available to American crime rings. They were made, along with many wornappearing (dateless) Liberty Standing quarters, prior to and during World War II — and probably to the present day — in the Soviet Union. Evidence of this practice turned up during the war, but nothing was done because of the probability of antagonizing our “gallant Soviet ally!” The Soviet technical experts evidentially perfected some process of transferring genuine designs from coins to plaster and from plaster to steel dies, the latter presumably by some machine similar to the Contamin portrait-lathe used in Philadelphia and Tower Hill (English) mints for over a century. They also have good silver, heavy presses and collars — equipment available to no American counterfeiter. The purpose has nothing to do with numismatics. So far as we know these coins were intended (like those made by the Chinese and Italian imitators of American gold coins) to pass as a circulating medium. Silver, or gold, in the form of coins seemingly backed by a stable government, can be spent at a far better rate (i.e. has a higher purchasing power) than its bullion price as ingots. The Soviet imitations have evidently succeeded, as to date all specimens seen are considerably worn. The differences between them and the genuine are microscopic. It is highly likely that other dates have been manufactured and passed unnoticed. Fortunately for us, the quantities passed in this country have apparently been too small to disturb the economy." >>
I actually like the article. Do you see similarities here? In the article, the intent is for circulation, but it is very possible that someone got burned purchasing one thinking it's a rare date. Your products are (claimed to be) fatasies, could someone in the future got burned purchasing one thinking it's a rare date? Yes, very likely! >>
How do you know that ANYONE got "burned" buying one ? Please cite the actual incident. Do you have any idea what one is worth now ? It might be significant. Do you have one for sale ? I would buy one.
If he were striking facsimile coins from blanks with dates already released as currency by the US government with the intent to pass them off as currency and with the intent to defraud, it would be counterfeiting.
Dan provides provenance and documentation for every restrike he makes. If someone ends up with one of his overstrikes and wants to convince themself that they've discovered a rarity without learning anything about the series in question, I fail to see how that matters one way or the other.
Review Captn Henway's thread, "why coin dealers drink" and try to point out how every idiot who walks through the door of a coin shop has been screwed by the fact that they want the spot price of gold for their Sac Dollars or think that a bag of dateless Buffalo Nickels is worth a fortune because they've never actually seen one before.
I like his work and at some point, he will be recognized as one of the premier private minters of our time, in the same tradition of the private minters who came before him.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
Once again, my two cents. This is quite a unique numismatic situation, as Daniel Carr is a bonafide US Mint coin designer. Thus, the government already knows who he is. It's not like he's working in obscurity. If they didn't like it, he'd have found out long ago. There is probably no other instance of such a coin designer embarking on projects like this. It's historical. And, in the related issue of Gallery Mint Museum issues, Gallery Mint founder, Ron Landis, has just had an interview (his second) to become the next chief engraver of the US Mint. Nothing succeeds like success.
<< <i>Ok, so we have made some progress. Your statement claiming that my over-strikes are factually "counterfeit", has now been downgraded to "in your opinion". You are entitled to your opinion. But that doesn't make it a fact. Nor does anyone else necessarily share in your opinion at all. There are plenty of people here who do not think they are "counterfeits". Here is a poll on that matter, at another site: View Poll Results: What do you consider the Daniel Carr coins to be ? >>
It has always been my opinion that your products are counterfeits. There aren't any such thing as downgrading or upgrading or any kind of progress. About the poll, please give me break, I know you have many fans here and that poll means absolutely nothing.
<< <i>It has always been my opinion that your products are counterfeits. There aren't any such thing as downgrading or upgrading or any kind of progress. About the poll, please give me break, I know you have many fans here and that poll means absolutely nothing. >>
It's always been my opinion I can eat all the french fries and consume all the chocolate malts I want, but doctors tell me otherwise.
Calling DC's coins 'counterfeits' is like calling the tail on a dog a leg. (The dog doesn't then have five legs.) The tail is still a tail no matter what your opinion or no matter what you call it such as DC's coins are still not counterfeits no matter what your opinion nor what you call it.
<< <i>Ok, so we have made some progress. Your statement claiming that my over-strikes are factually "counterfeit", has now been downgraded to "in your opinion". You are entitled to your opinion. But that doesn't make it a fact. Nor does anyone else necessarily share in your opinion at all. There are plenty of people here who do not think they are "counterfeits". Here is a poll on that matter, at another site: View Poll Results: What do you consider the Daniel Carr coins to be ? >>
It has always been my opinion that your products are counterfeits. There aren't any such thing as downgrading or upgrading or any kind of progress. About the poll, please give me break, I know you have many fans here and that poll means absolutely nothing. >>
The poll shows 11% of the people think my over-strikes are "counterfeits". 78% think they are "fantasy" coins, not counterfeits. It puts your contentions, about who thinks what, into question.
Do you have any data or evidence to support your position - polls, court cases, statutes, etc ?
<< <i>Part of the problem with this issue is the fans of the Exonumia think that objections of the product equate to an attack on them which simply isn't the case. There is a long standing tradition of collecting counterfeits and oddities and private issues that look like something they are not be it contemporary electrotypes or lead fakes, Micro O Morgans or even Henning nickels and despite what D. Carr thinks all well made fakes take a level of craftsmanship and artistry to produce which doesn't legitimatize them. Objecting to the product does not mean objecting to collecting them and even the most ardent opponent would be intrigued by a collection of his work.
The rub is that just as a Henning nickel isn't a "Non-War Fantasy issue" neither are 31s quarters or 64d dollars. The US mint is the only true producer of Peace dollars, Commemorative halves, Franklin, SQ or DE ect and anything else is a fake, counterfeit, forgery, facsimile , tribute (call it what you will). The problem lies is that our currency and hobby has clear laws governing the production of fakes, counterfeits, forgeries, facsimiles , tributes and Mr Carr seem intent in compiling his preconceived technicalities and loop holes trying to skirt the edge of the laws and flying in the face of the spirit them for profits sake which comes off as sleazy and scummy. Most true artists sign their work but he being a smart man knows that the money is by keeping them as close to original as possible much as the same motive as every other forger out there. The truth is that none of us know for sure the legality and I suspect that the only reason he has got away with it is the small nature of his operation and if it was put to a legal test I suspect he would be shut down but only a judge can make that call.
All I know is I have no respect for the Gallery Mint, Moon Light Mint, Beijin Mint or anybody else that makes things that they are not. Can we please just call them what they are (Fakes). I respect your right to collect it but just because it is altered for the better and not completely from scratch does not make it real. If my wife got breast implants even though they were made with original breast parts doesn't mean they aren't called fake Ti*s >>
I have known people who collect counterfeit Capped Bust Halves (including dates that were never struck).
Never knew a one of them who felt compelled to insist that they were not counterfeits.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I have known people who collect counterfeit Capped Bust Halves (including dates that were never struck).
Never knew a one of them who felt compelled to insist that they were not counterfeits. >>
Where they die struck over existing, already minted Capped Bust halves? If so, I wonder why they felt compelled to insist they were not counterfeits?
If they were not die struck over existing, already minted Capped Bust halves then I perfectly understand their position and totally agree with it. >>
Please correct your logical error.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I like almost every one of dcarr's designs, but not this one. Just don't see a need for it. There are plenty of nice examples of this issue to be had; maybe I'm just missing the point.
the point is: Someone found a way to turn a $3 coin into a $75 coin, or a $25 coin into a $300 coin, and there are 3 main opinions about it..
1. That's Great! We'll line up to buy them! 2. Whatever! We don't want any part of it, (but maybe I wish I thought of it!) 3. That's Wrong! We cannot put our finger on who the "victim" of this is, but we don't like it!
I welcome this DC issue and am certainly going to make an attempt to own one. As for the negative comments on whether you like the piece or not.............you have that right to object or accept.......,nobody is forcing these on you... I, however, applaud the Moonlight Mint for their work. Some (very few) issues do not appeal to me. Others are outstanding. Full steam ahead, Dan.............
<< <i>the point is: Someone found a way to turn a $3 coin into a $75 coin, or a $25 coin into a $300 coin, and there are 3 main opinions about it..
1. That's Great! We'll line up to buy them! 2. Whatever! We don't want any part of it, (but maybe I wish I thought of it!) 3. That's Wrong! We cannot put our finger on who the "victim" of this is, but we don't like it! >>
The above perfectly describes coin certification. Yes! It all started in 1986! Welcome to the world of slabbing! Where a $25. coin is turned into a $300. coin. . .
If they had a massive 'FAKE" or "COPY" stamped into them I would'nt be interested.. >>
How silly of the law to try to spoil your collecting pleasure......
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
If they had a massive 'FAKE" or "COPY" stamped into them I would'nt be interested.. >>
How silly of the law to try to spoil your collecting pleasure...... >>
NOT the law. Struck over genuine coins don't require the COPY mark. Counterfeit or fake coins do.
Why not mark, "COIN" on all your Morgans? Same concept. Potty dollars; love tokens; hobo nickels all don't require COPY placed on them as they are altered, genuine coins: The same as DC's creations.
Now, you may not like hobo nickels. You may detest love tokens. You may genuinely despise opium Trade dollars, but that doesn't mean:
1: I should care. 2: I should stop collecting them. 3: Craftsmen should stop carving them. 4: The government should imprison those who do. 5: There should be a ban on them. 6: They should require a COPY mark placed upon them.
DC's coins are COINS that have been altered, not counterfeited.
The u.s. government says so (via their lack of prosecution) and common sense says so.
Comments
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
It's the weekend fellas!
Enjoy your hobby.
peacockcoins
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Tomato - Tomatoe , it is what it is , a fake US coin.You'll defend them til the cows come home and for good reason , you make money hand over fist on these items.Good day to you , my yardwork awaits. >>
It can't be a "fake" 1927-D Oregon Trail half dollar if none previously existed. "Altered" yes, "fake" no. >>
According to my Redbook, the 1923-D and 1930-D dimes and 1915-D half eagles, that never previously existed until somebody made them outside of the Mint, are "counterfeit." >>
Those coins were made with the intent to deceive, and/or to spend at face value for a profit. They were NOT over-struck on genuine legal-tender coins, and so they are currency counterfeits. That is the difference. >>
But it destroys your argument that it can't be fake just because none previously existed. >>
Date aside, the 1923-D and 1930-D dimes are currency fakes of the Winged Liberty Head type. They were not counter-stamped on legal-tender coins. They were made to spend at face value for a profit.
My over-strikes are the same type they were before, and so they are altered coins.
If a "hobo" nickel carver carved a "1992" date over the original date on a Buffalo nickel, that coin is then an altered coin, not a "fake" coin, and certainly not a "counterfeit" coin.
<< <i>It is precisely THIS discourse that will require the numismatic historians of future decades to publish diagnostics and historical accounts regarding the minting of these pieces. Whoever the Q. David Bowers of 2052 is, will write eloquently about Daniel Carr and the controversial opinions expressed by contemporary numismatists of OUR day, including (perhaps) publishing THIS very thread. Those future historical accounts may be positive or negative -- we can't know for sure -- but the low mintages and unique manufacture by an actual United States Coin designer -- overstriking actual coins using a retired mint press -- will create a demand for the limited supply of these unique collectibles. Like 'em or hate 'em, Daniel Carr has a good sense of how to parlay his knowledge and nexus to the coin design process to secure his place in numismatic history. The complete historical account of the "Daniel Carr Overstrikes" is a story not yet completed, and one that will not be written by ourselves. >>
Interesting commentary, and I generally agree.
Who hasn't dreamed of sneaking into a Mint and making some "neat" stuff ?
I'm fortunate that, in a sense, I get to do that - and I have a lot of numismatic fun doing it.
If I didn't enjoy what I do, I'd do something else.
<< <i>Date aside, the 1923-D and 1930-D dimes are currency fakes of the Winged Liberty Head type. They were not counter-stamped on legal-tender coins. They were made to spend at face value for a profit. >>
No they weren't! If they were made to be spent at face value, why picked a date that does not exist?
<< <i>They were not counter-stamped on legal-tender coins. >>
Because your products were counter-stamped on legal-tender coins does not exclude them from being considered counterfeits; matter of fact, they are even more deceptive than other counterfeits.
The rub is that just as a Henning nickel isn't a "Non-War Fantasy issue" neither are 31s quarters or 64d dollars. The US mint is the only true producer of Peace dollars, Commemorative halves, Franklin, SQ or DE ect and anything else is a fake, counterfeit, forgery, facsimile , tribute (call it what you will). The problem lies is that our currency and hobby has clear laws governing the production of fakes, counterfeits, forgeries, facsimiles , tributes and Mr Carr seem intent in compiling his preconceived technicalities and loop holes trying to skirt the edge of the laws and flying in the face of the spirit them for profits sake which comes off as sleazy and scummy. Most true artists sign their work but he being a smart man knows that the money is by keeping them as close to original as possible much as the same motive as every other forger out there. The truth is that none of us know for sure the legality and I suspect that the only reason he has got away with it is the small nature of his operation and if it was put to a legal test I suspect he would be shut down but only a judge can make that call.
All I know is I have no respect for the Gallery Mint, Moon Light Mint, Beijin Mint or anybody else that makes things that they are not. Can we please just call them what they are (Fakes). I respect your right to collect it but just because it is altered for the better and not completely from scratch does not make it real. If my wife got breast implants even though they were made with original breast parts doesn't mean they aren't called fake Ti*s
<< <i>Part of the problem with this issue is the fans of the Exonumia think that objections of the product equate to an attack on them which simply isn't the case. There is a long standing tradition of collecting counterfeits and oddities and private issues that look like something they are not be it contemporary electrotypes or lead fakes, Micro O Morgans or even Henning nickels and despite what D. Carr thinks all well made fakes take a level of craftsmanship and artistry to produce which doesn't legitimatize them. Objecting to the product does not mean objecting to collecting them and even the most ardent opponent would be intrigued by a collection of his work.
The rub is that just as a Henning nickel isn't a "Non-War Fantasy issue" neither are 31s quarters or 64d dollars. The US mint is the only true producer of Peace dollars, Commemorative halves, Franklin, SQ or DE ect and anything else is a fake, counterfeit, forgery, facsimile , tribute (call it what you will). The problem lies is that our currency and hobby has clear laws governing the production of fakes, counterfeits, forgeries, facsimiles , tributes and Mr Carr seem intent in compiling his preconceived technicalities and loop holes trying to skirt the edge of the laws and flying in the face of the spirit them for profits sake which comes off as sleazy and scummy. Most true artists sign their work but he being a smart man knows that the money is by keeping them as close to original as possible much as the same motive as every other forger out there. The truth is that none of us know for sure the legality and I suspect that the only reason he has got away with it is the small nature of his operation and if it was put to a legal test I suspect he would be shut down but only a judge can make that call.
All I know is I have no respect for the Gallery Mint, Moon Light Mint, Beijin Mint or anybody else that makes things that they are not. Can we please just call them what they are (Fakes). I respect your right to collect it but just because it is altered for the better and not completely from scratch does not make it real. If my wife got breast implants even though they were made with original breast parts doesn't mean they aren't called fake Ti*s >>
No, the implants are not the same thing. It would be essentially taking the real ones, and adding a tatoo if you will. They're still real, just altered.
Out of all the "Mints" noted above, none of them overstrike genuine coins.
The end game is this: in 100 years these will be considered part of numismatic lore and collectable as such.
I'd just rather not wait 100 years and begin collecting them now.
Edited to add:
If the Chinese, or anyone for that fact, wants to mint a 1895 FH dollar over a genuine 1795 FH dollar host coin then I'll stop calling that a "fake" too.
peacockcoins
As a fellow artist I personally have respect for Dan's work, thought process, execution and marketing savvy. I think he is brilliant in that regard.
I also have great respect for you.
PS- Some fake b@@bs I've had access to could be deemed as works of art. I once told someone that I was dating that her Dr should have been given a Nobel Peace prize. Altered and enhanced with no intent to deceive.
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
In the meantime I'll continue to refer to them, along with the other examples, as altered/fantasy COINS.
peacockcoins
<< <i>Such a silly argument. Purchase them, or not.
It's the weekend fellas!
Enjoy your hobby.
<< <i>
<< <i>Date aside, the 1923-D and 1930-D dimes are currency fakes of the Winged Liberty Head type. They were not counter-stamped on legal-tender coins. They were made to spend at face value for a profit. >>
No they weren't! If they were made to be spent at face value, why picked a date that does not exist? >>
You are grossly mis-informed. They did pick a date that existed (just not with that mint mark).
From the David Lawrence website:
John J Ford, Jr. was the editor of Numisma, and it was he who penned the following account. His wartime service in the army saw him posted to the American headquarters for the European Theater of Operations, a position in which he would have been privy to the gossip concerning Russian/American relations. His remarks reveal much of the curious history behind the dimes dated 1923-D and 1930-D:
"To the best of our knowledge, these are counterfeits made of good silver and struck from excellent false dies — evidencing better technical facilities than those available to American crime rings. They were made, along with many wornappearing (dateless) Liberty Standing quarters, prior to and during World War II — and probably to the present day — in the Soviet Union. Evidence of this practice turned up during the war, but nothing was done because of the probability of antagonizing our “gallant Soviet ally!” The Soviet technical experts evidentially perfected some process of transferring genuine designs from coins to plaster and from plaster to steel dies, the latter presumably by some machine similar to the Contamin portrait-lathe used in Philadelphia and Tower Hill (English) mints for over a century. They also have good silver, heavy presses and collars — equipment available to no American counterfeiter. The purpose has nothing to do with numismatics. So far as we know these coins were intended (like those made by the Chinese and Italian imitators of American gold coins) to pass as a circulating medium. Silver, or gold, in the form of coins seemingly backed by a stable government, can be spent at a far better rate (i.e. has a higher purchasing power) than its bullion price as ingots. The Soviet imitations have evidently succeeded, as to date all specimens seen are considerably worn. The differences between them and the genuine are microscopic. It is highly likely that other dates have been manufactured and passed unnoticed. Fortunately for us, the quantities passed in this country have apparently been too small to disturb the economy."
<< <i>
<< <i>They were not counter-stamped on legal-tender coins. >>
Because your products were counter-stamped on legal-tender coins does not exclude them from being considered counterfeits; >>
Considered counterfeit by whom ?
<< <i>matter of fact they are even more deceptive than other counterfeits. >>
Again, you make false libelous accusations of "counterfeiting".
Are you prepared to defend those accusations in court ?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>They were not counter-stamped on legal-tender coins. >>
Because your products were counter-stamped on legal-tender coins does not exclude them from being considered counterfeits; >>
Considered counterfeit by whom ?
<< <i>matter of fact they are even more deceptive than other counterfeits. >>
Again, you make libelous accusations of "counterfeiting".
Are you prepared to defend those accusations in court ? >>
Are you? Your antics are lame and what ever talent is clouded in my eyes by your disregard for your actions and the ramifications to our hobby. Your core (trite) argument is built around "intent" but if someone did exactly what you do but did it to deceive what exactly is the net difference?
<< <i>Are you? Your antics are lame and what ever talent is clouded in my eyes by your disregard for your actions and the ramifications to our hobby. Your core (trite) argument is built around "intent" but if someone did exactly what you do but did it to deceive what exactly is the net difference? >>
What are the "ramifications to our hobby" of which you speak? What harm comes of this to coin collectors?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>They were not counter-stamped on legal-tender coins. >>
Because your products were counter-stamped on legal-tender coins does not exclude them from being considered counterfeits; >>
Considered counterfeit by whom ?
<< <i>matter of fact they are even more deceptive than other counterfeits. >>
Again, you make libelous accusations of "counterfeiting".
Are you prepared to defend those accusations in court ? >>
Are you? Your antics are lame and what ever talent is clouded by your disregard your actions and the ramifications to our hobby. Your core (trite) argument is built around "intent" but if someone did exactly what you do but did it to deceive what exactly is the net difference? >>
Of course. I've researched all the laws. Even if I indended to "deceive", it wouldn't work very well to make coins with dates that were never issued.
My "core" argument is not about intent. It is the simple fact that the coins I over-strike are altered coins. Altered in a way that is obvious.
Altering coins is legal except for these four instances:
1) For fraudulent purposes.
2) Affixing commercial advertising.
3) Lightening (intentionally removing significant quantities of metal).
4) Large-scale melting (scrapping) of current cents and nickels.
<< <i>
<< <i>Are you? Your antics are lame and what ever talent is clouded in my eyes by your disregard for your actions and the ramifications to our hobby. Your core (trite) argument is built around "intent" but if someone did exactly what you do but did it to deceive what exactly is the net difference? >>
What are the "ramifications to our hobby" of which you speak? What harm comes of this to coin collectors? >>
Great question !
It is the classic slippery slope to allow private manufacturers to make facsimiles of mint made products that can only be differentiated by small nuisances that only specialists know about. Show a DC 64d to my father and he will tell you about spending those when he was a kid, if he looks it up in the redbook he is going to think about which beach house to buy. And even if DC draws the line with random dates that aren't real what about the precedence that is set for the next guy who makes a 1909-s VOB off of a real 1909p and calls it a fantasy designer over-strike? Where is the line drawn? I draw mine at mint made or not .
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Are you? Your antics are lame and what ever talent is clouded in my eyes by your disregard for your actions and the ramifications to our hobby. Your core (trite) argument is built around "intent" but if someone did exactly what you do but did it to deceive what exactly is the net difference? >>
What are the "ramifications to our hobby" of which you speak? What harm comes of this to coin collectors? >>
Great question !
It is the classic slippery slope to allow private manufacturers to make facsimiles of mint made products that can only be differentiated by small nuisances that only specialists know about. Show a DC 64d to my father and he will tell you about spending those when he was a kid, if he looks it up in the redbook he is going to think about which beach house to buy. And even if DC draws the line with random dates that aren't real what about the precedence that is set for the next guy who makes a 1909-s VOB off of a real 1909p and calls it a fantasy designer over-strike? Where is the line drawn? I draw mine at mint made or not . >>
Yes, it's a good question. Now, please answer it.
:What ramifications or harm becomes coin collectors if DCarr continues to mint/overstrike authentic coins with fantasy dated dies?
peacockcoins
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Are you? Your antics are lame and what ever talent is clouded in my eyes by your disregard for your actions and the ramifications to our hobby. Your core (trite) argument is built around "intent" but if someone did exactly what you do but did it to deceive what exactly is the net difference? >>
What are the "ramifications to our hobby" of which you speak? What harm comes of this to coin collectors? >>
Great question !
It is the classic slippery slope to allow private manufacturers to make facsimiles of mint made products that can only be differentiated by small nuisances that non-specialists know about. Show a DC 64d to my father and he will tell you about spending those when he was a kid, if he looks it up in the redbook he is going to think about which beach house to buy. And even if DC draws the line with random dates that aren't real what about the precedence sent for the next guy who makes a 1909-s VOB off of a real 1909p and calls it a fantasy designer over-strike? Where is the line drawn? I draw mine at mint made or not . >>
I don't speculate on what other people might hypothetically do. The only over-strikes I'm doing have dates that don't exist, or if over-struck with the same date as the host coin, have at least two other OBVIOUS changes (like an unissued surface finish combined with a large "DC" mint mark, for example). Note that I don't consider a "1930-D" dime to be an unissued date, and a "1930-D" dime is not somthing I'd do (a mint mark change alone is insufficient). A "1930-D" dime is an issued date, with an unknown mint mark combination.
Your father might temporarily think he hit a jackpot. But seriously, how much would he actually PAY for one of the "1964-D" Peace Dollar over-strikes ?
It has been a year and a half since my "1964-D" Peace Dollars have been out there. Anybody wondering what their "1964" silver dollar is worth, all they have to do is search the internet - sites like eBay and wikipedia will have all the info you need. And my site still shows pictures, diagnostics, and issue prices for them.
Hey Dan,,,,
How about a really cool Hobo Nickel?
GrandAm
<< <i>Anybody wondering what their "1964" silver dollar is worth, all they have to do is search the internet - sites like eBay and wikipedia will have all the info you need. >>
Absolutely. Anyone overpaying for something like this under the mistaken impression they're buying an actual mint issued 1964 dollar has nobody to blame but themselves.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Why would I ? Im not the guy touting altered coins and baubles on a US coin forum. >>
I'm not touting them. I never started a tread about one of my over-struck coins, ever.
I only post replies to correct and clarify what is being talked about.
Your use of the term "plagiarism" was not fitting in this case. >>
Oh , i hadnt realised you designed the Oregon Commem and not just slapped a different date on an existing piece of work. >>
Taxpayers paid for that Oregon Trail design, so by law it is public domain.
I did not remove the James/Laura Fraser initials from the coins, and I credit them with the design on the certificates I package with the coins.
And, what I have made is an altered existing Oregon Trail, not one made from scratch. >>
Using that same logic I can print a 1992 hundred dollar bill since they didn't make that date, I'll use a bleached out one so it has the sme paper and since they " the government" Did not make one it's not counterfeiting or is it ?
Edit we ll change it to 1934 gold certificate
<< <i>Considered counterfeit by whom ? >>
Anyone who do not buy into your marketing gimmick. Anyone who got burned purchasing counterfeit coins.
<< <i>Again, you make false libelous accusations of "counterfeiting".
Are you prepared to defend those accusations in court ? >>
I'm not making false libelous accusations; your products are counterfeits and that's my opinion, so is the opinion of many people in this forum. Don't bring up court because there's absolutely nothing you can do to me. Trying to scare me? Very premature of you!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Date aside, the 1923-D and 1930-D dimes are currency fakes of the Winged Liberty Head type. They were not counter-stamped on legal-tender coins. They were made to spend at face value for a profit. >>
No they weren't! If they were made to be spent at face value, why picked a date that does not exist? >>
You are grossly mis-informed. They did pick a date that existed (just not with that mint mark).
From the David Lawrence website:
John J Ford, Jr. was the editor of Numisma, and it was he who penned the following account. His wartime service in the army saw him posted to the American headquarters for the European Theater of Operations, a position in which he would have been privy to the gossip concerning Russian/American relations. His remarks reveal much of the curious history behind the dimes dated 1923-D and 1930-D:
"To the best of our knowledge, these are counterfeits made of good silver and struck from excellent false dies — evidencing better technical facilities than those available to American crime rings. They were made, along with many wornappearing (dateless) Liberty Standing quarters, prior to and during World War II — and probably to the present day — in the Soviet Union. Evidence of this practice turned up during the war, but nothing was done because of the probability of antagonizing our “gallant Soviet ally!” The Soviet technical experts evidentially perfected some process of transferring genuine designs from coins to plaster and from plaster to steel dies, the latter presumably by some machine similar to the Contamin portrait-lathe used in Philadelphia and Tower Hill (English) mints for over a century. They also have good silver, heavy presses and collars — equipment available to no American counterfeiter. The purpose has nothing to do with numismatics. So far as we know these coins were intended (like those made by the Chinese and Italian imitators of American gold coins) to pass as a circulating medium. Silver, or gold, in the form of coins seemingly backed by a stable government, can be spent at a far better rate (i.e. has a higher purchasing power) than its bullion price as ingots. The Soviet imitations have evidently succeeded, as to date all specimens seen are considerably worn. The differences between them and the genuine are microscopic. It is highly likely that other dates have been manufactured and passed unnoticed. Fortunately for us, the quantities passed in this country have apparently been too small to disturb the economy." >>
I actually like the article. Do you see similarities here? In the article, the intent is for circulation, but it is very possible that someone got burned purchasing one thinking it's a rare date. Your products are (claimed to be) fatasies, could someone in the future got burned purchasing one thinking it's a rare date? Yes, very likely!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Why would I ? Im not the guy touting altered coins and baubles on a US coin forum. >>
I'm not touting them. I never started a tread about one of my over-struck coins, ever.
I only post replies to correct and clarify what is being talked about.
Your use of the term "plagiarism" was not fitting in this case. >>
Oh , i hadnt realised you designed the Oregon Commem and not just slapped a different date on an existing piece of work. >>
Taxpayers paid for that Oregon Trail design, so by law it is public domain.
I did not remove the James/Laura Fraser initials from the coins, and I credit them with the design on the certificates I package with the coins.
And, what I have made is an altered existing Oregon Trail, not one made from scratch. >>
Using that same logic I can print a 1992 hundred dollar bill since they didn't make that date, I'll use a bleached out one so it has the sme paper and since they " the government" Did not make one it's not counterfeiting or is it ?
Edit we ll change it to 1934 gold certificate >>
In your scenario, your are REMOVING a key component of the bill - the ink.
Suppose you didn't remove any ink and just printed a gold seal and "1934" over the existing bill.
What would that make it ? I don't know, but I wouldn't automaticaly assume that it is "counterfeit".
Stamping "Where's George" on a bill doesn't nullify the legal tender status.
When I over-strike an existing coin, I do not add or remove any metal.
<< <i>
<< <i>Considered counterfeit by whom ? >>
Anyone who do not buy into your marketing gimmick. Anyone who got burned purchasing counterfeit coins.
<< <i>Again, you make false libelous accusations of "counterfeiting".
Are you prepared to defend those accusations in court ? >>
I'm not making false libelous accusations; your products are counterfeits and that's my opinion, so is the opinion of many people in this forum. Don't bring up court because there's absolutely nothing you can do to me. Trying to scare me? Very premature of you! >>
Ok, so we have made some progress.
Your statement claiming that my over-strikes are factually "counterfeit", has now been downgraded to "in your opinion".
You are entitled to your opinion. But that doesn't make it a fact. Nor does anyone else necessarily share in your opinion at all.
There are plenty of people here who do not think they are "counterfeits". Here is a poll on that matter, at another site:
View Poll Results: What do you consider the Daniel Carr coins to be ?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Date aside, the 1923-D and 1930-D dimes are currency fakes of the Winged Liberty Head type. They were not counter-stamped on legal-tender coins. They were made to spend at face value for a profit. >>
No they weren't! If they were made to be spent at face value, why picked a date that does not exist? >>
You are grossly mis-informed. They did pick a date that existed (just not with that mint mark).
From the David Lawrence website:
John J Ford, Jr. was the editor of Numisma, and it was he who penned the following account. His wartime service in the army saw him posted to the American headquarters for the European Theater of Operations, a position in which he would have been privy to the gossip concerning Russian/American relations. His remarks reveal much of the curious history behind the dimes dated 1923-D and 1930-D:
"To the best of our knowledge, these are counterfeits made of good silver and struck from excellent false dies — evidencing better technical facilities than those available to American crime rings. They were made, along with many wornappearing (dateless) Liberty Standing quarters, prior to and during World War II — and probably to the present day — in the Soviet Union. Evidence of this practice turned up during the war, but nothing was done because of the probability of antagonizing our “gallant Soviet ally!” The Soviet technical experts evidentially perfected some process of transferring genuine designs from coins to plaster and from plaster to steel dies, the latter presumably by some machine similar to the Contamin portrait-lathe used in Philadelphia and Tower Hill (English) mints for over a century. They also have good silver, heavy presses and collars — equipment available to no American counterfeiter. The purpose has nothing to do with numismatics. So far as we know these coins were intended (like those made by the Chinese and Italian imitators of American gold coins) to pass as a circulating medium. Silver, or gold, in the form of coins seemingly backed by a stable government, can be spent at a far better rate (i.e. has a higher purchasing power) than its bullion price as ingots. The Soviet imitations have evidently succeeded, as to date all specimens seen are considerably worn. The differences between them and the genuine are microscopic. It is highly likely that other dates have been manufactured and passed unnoticed. Fortunately for us, the quantities passed in this country have apparently been too small to disturb the economy." >>
I actually like the article. Do you see similarities here? In the article, the intent is for circulation, but it is very possible that someone got burned purchasing one thinking it's a rare date. Your products are (claimed to be) fatasies, could someone in the future got burned purchasing one thinking it's a rare date? Yes, very likely! >>
How do you know that ANYONE got "burned" buying one ?
Please cite the actual incident.
Do you have any idea what one is worth now ?
It might be significant.
Do you have one for sale ?
I would buy one.
Dan provides provenance and documentation for every restrike he makes. If someone ends up with one of his overstrikes and wants to convince themself that they've discovered a rarity without learning anything about the series in question, I fail to see how that matters one way or the other.
Review Captn Henway's thread, "why coin dealers drink" and try to point out how every idiot who walks through the door of a coin shop has been screwed by the fact that they want the spot price of gold for their Sac Dollars or think that a bag of dateless Buffalo Nickels is worth a fortune because they've never actually seen one before.
I like his work and at some point, he will be recognized as one of the premier private minters of our time, in the same tradition of the private minters who came before him.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>I am done, you can never convince bad drivers that they are indeed bad drivers. >>
Worse, you can never convince those who think they're good drivers they are indeed bad drivers.
peacockcoins
This not so much. Like his SLQ, this piece doesn't ring true to me.
But the man has mad skills and I dig how he's gone in a direction that few would or could.
--Severian the Lame
This is quite a unique numismatic situation, as Daniel Carr is a bonafide US Mint coin designer. Thus, the government already knows who he is. It's not like he's working in obscurity. If they didn't like it, he'd have found out long ago. There is probably no other instance of such a coin designer embarking on projects like this. It's historical.
And, in the related issue of Gallery Mint Museum issues, Gallery Mint founder, Ron Landis, has just had an interview (his second) to become the next chief engraver of the US Mint.
Nothing succeeds like success.
<< <i>Ok, so we have made some progress.
Your statement claiming that my over-strikes are factually "counterfeit", has now been downgraded to "in your opinion".
You are entitled to your opinion. But that doesn't make it a fact. Nor does anyone else necessarily share in your opinion at all.
There are plenty of people here who do not think they are "counterfeits". Here is a poll on that matter, at another site:
View Poll Results: What do you consider the Daniel Carr coins to be ? >>
It has always been my opinion that your products are counterfeits. There aren't any such thing as downgrading or upgrading or any kind of progress. About the poll, please give me break, I know you have many fans here and that poll means absolutely nothing.
<< <i>It has always been my opinion that your products are counterfeits. There aren't any such thing as downgrading or upgrading or any kind of progress. About the poll, please give me break, I know you have many fans here and that poll means absolutely nothing. >>
It's always been my opinion I can eat all the french fries and consume all the chocolate malts I want, but doctors tell me otherwise.
Calling DC's coins 'counterfeits' is like calling the tail on a dog a leg. (The dog doesn't then have five legs.) The tail is still a tail no matter what your opinion or no matter what you call it such as DC's coins are still not counterfeits no matter what your opinion nor what you call it.
peacockcoins
<< <i>
<< <i>Ok, so we have made some progress.
Your statement claiming that my over-strikes are factually "counterfeit", has now been downgraded to "in your opinion".
You are entitled to your opinion. But that doesn't make it a fact. Nor does anyone else necessarily share in your opinion at all.
There are plenty of people here who do not think they are "counterfeits". Here is a poll on that matter, at another site:
View Poll Results: What do you consider the Daniel Carr coins to be ? >>
It has always been my opinion that your products are counterfeits. There aren't any such thing as downgrading or upgrading or any kind of progress. About the poll, please give me break, I know you have many fans here and that poll means absolutely nothing. >>
The poll shows 11% of the people think my over-strikes are "counterfeits". 78% think they are "fantasy" coins, not counterfeits.
It puts your contentions, about who thinks what, into question.
Do you have any data or evidence to support your position - polls, court cases, statutes, etc ?
<< <i>Part of the problem with this issue is the fans of the Exonumia think that objections of the product equate to an attack on them which simply isn't the case. There is a long standing tradition of collecting counterfeits and oddities and private issues that look like something they are not be it contemporary electrotypes or lead fakes, Micro O Morgans or even Henning nickels and despite what D. Carr thinks all well made fakes take a level of craftsmanship and artistry to produce which doesn't legitimatize them. Objecting to the product does not mean objecting to collecting them and even the most ardent opponent would be intrigued by a collection of his work.
The rub is that just as a Henning nickel isn't a "Non-War Fantasy issue" neither are 31s quarters or 64d dollars. The US mint is the only true producer of Peace dollars, Commemorative halves, Franklin, SQ or DE ect and anything else is a fake, counterfeit, forgery, facsimile , tribute (call it what you will). The problem lies is that our currency and hobby has clear laws governing the production of fakes, counterfeits, forgeries, facsimiles , tributes and Mr Carr seem intent in compiling his preconceived technicalities and loop holes trying to skirt the edge of the laws and flying in the face of the spirit them for profits sake which comes off as sleazy and scummy. Most true artists sign their work but he being a smart man knows that the money is by keeping them as close to original as possible much as the same motive as every other forger out there. The truth is that none of us know for sure the legality and I suspect that the only reason he has got away with it is the small nature of his operation and if it was put to a legal test I suspect he would be shut down but only a judge can make that call.
All I know is I have no respect for the Gallery Mint, Moon Light Mint, Beijin Mint or anybody else that makes things that they are not. Can we please just call them what they are (Fakes). I respect your right to collect it but just because it is altered for the better and not completely from scratch does not make it real. If my wife got breast implants even though they were made with original breast parts doesn't mean they aren't called fake Ti*s >>
I have known people who collect counterfeit Capped Bust Halves (including dates that were never struck).
Never knew a one of them who felt compelled to insist that they were not counterfeits.
<< <i>
I have known people who collect counterfeit Capped Bust Halves (including dates that were never struck).
Never knew a one of them who felt compelled to insist that they were not counterfeits. >>
Where they die struck over existing, already minted Capped Bust halves?
If so, I wonder why they felt compelled to insist they were not counterfeits?
If they were not die struck over existing, already minted Capped Bust halves then I perfectly understand their position and totally agree with it.
peacockcoins
<< <i>
<< <i>
I have known people who collect counterfeit Capped Bust Halves (including dates that were never struck).
Never knew a one of them who felt compelled to insist that they were not counterfeits. >>
Where they die struck over existing, already minted Capped Bust halves?
If so, I wonder why they felt compelled to insist they were not counterfeits?
If they were not die struck over existing, already minted Capped Bust halves then I perfectly understand their position and totally agree with it. >>
Please correct your logical error.
But if you like it, buy it.
1. That's Great! We'll line up to buy them!
2. Whatever! We don't want any part of it, (but maybe I wish I thought of it!)
3. That's Wrong! We cannot put our finger on who the "victim" of this is, but we don't like it!
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
If they had a massive 'FAKE" or "COPY" stamped into them I would'nt be interested..
I, however, applaud the Moonlight Mint for their work. Some (very few) issues do not appeal to me. Others are outstanding. Full steam ahead, Dan.............
<< <i>the point is: Someone found a way to turn a $3 coin into a $75 coin, or a $25 coin into a $300 coin, and there are 3 main opinions about it..
1. That's Great! We'll line up to buy them!
2. Whatever! We don't want any part of it, (but maybe I wish I thought of it!)
3. That's Wrong! We cannot put our finger on who the "victim" of this is, but we don't like it! >>
The above perfectly describes coin certification.
Yes! It all started in 1986! Welcome to the world of slabbing! Where a $25. coin is turned into a $300. coin. . .
peacockcoins
<< <i>They look Great!! Definately a buyer.
If they had a massive 'FAKE" or "COPY" stamped into them I would'nt be interested.. >>
How silly of the law to try to spoil your collecting pleasure......
<< <i>
<< <i>They look Great!! Definately a buyer.
If they had a massive 'FAKE" or "COPY" stamped into them I would'nt be interested.. >>
How silly of the law to try to spoil your collecting pleasure...... >>
NOT the law. Struck over genuine coins don't require the COPY mark.
Counterfeit or fake coins do.
Why not mark, "COIN" on all your Morgans? Same concept.
Potty dollars; love tokens; hobo nickels all don't require COPY placed on them as they are altered, genuine coins:
The same as DC's creations.
Now, you may not like hobo nickels. You may detest love tokens. You may genuinely despise opium Trade dollars, but that doesn't mean:
1: I should care.
2: I should stop collecting them.
3: Craftsmen should stop carving them.
4: The government should imprison those who do.
5: There should be a ban on them.
6: They should require a COPY mark placed upon them.
DC's coins are COINS that have been altered, not counterfeited.
The u.s. government says so (via their lack of prosecution) and common sense says so.
peacockcoins