• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

MJ

Member: Seasoned Veteran
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,689

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by MJ

    Is this "CAC" thing a load of *spoon* or what?

    in US, World, and Ancient Coins

    Posted

    Well, I feel that I know how to grade coins "fairly accurately" and CAC isn't meaningless to me. I also believe that I have more than "little to no knowledge of the hobby" and CAC still has value to me. So, I believe that your sweeping comments are way off base.

    Agree with Mark, who has been generous with his time on these Forums giving us his opinion, advice, and expertise.

     

    CAC is 1 more well-informed opinion. If you don't need it, you don't need it. Most in the hobby sadly do or at least benefit from it (and I include myself in that group).

     

    As do experienced collectors that buy 100K plus coins

     

    Mark

    Is this "CAC" thing a load of *spoon* or what?

    in US, World, and Ancient Coins

    Posted

    If one learns to grade coins fairly accurately for themselves . CAC is meaningless !

    It's only true value ,lies with those who have little to no knowledge of the hobby . Or, what would

    be deemed correct for grades of value. Speaking for myself ,CAC stickers although sparkly and pretty, hold no value ! I buy slabbed coins for authentication purposes . Grading of the coin is so subjective and all over the place today . Even at the top rated services! There are very serious discrepancies between coins of the same grade , when compared to one another ,and graded by the same service ! As well as those graded and compared between different services ! So,really it's just a shot in the dark, if you don't have a decent working knowledge of what is solid for the respective grades. To anyone interested, I would highly recommend they reference just one grading book and one only. The Official A.N.A. Grading Standards for United States Coins.

    In all my years as a collector, (45yrs) it has never failed me. For all intents and purposes for me it has been the equivalent of a numismatic bible!

     

     

    Well, I feel that I know how to grade coins "fairly accurately" and CAC isn't meaningless to me. I also believe that I have more than "little to no knowledge of the hobby" and CAC still has value to me. So, I believe that your sweeping comments are way off base.

     

    +1. Well said.

     

    mark

    Goodbye to Hard Times Tokens

    in US, World, and Ancient Coins

    Posted

    Please allow me to clear the air somewhat. I responded to Hard Times political satire token thread with what would probably be considered real politics. Since few even saw the thread and I can only recollect what I said, I can say that it was probably my response that caused the thread to be poofed. Again I am sorry for that. I enjoy many topics of discussion on this forum and for sure Hard Times topic and opinion are among the most interesting and educating there are. Please reconsider your choice to leave Hard Times, you've got much more to offer.

     

    I did read the OP, and I read your response. I remember the OP, and I also recall your post. I don't believe you should be apologizing for a somewhat inconsequential post that you made in regards to what HT posted. HT presented a "political satire" suggestion for a future fantasy token that was politically charged with sour grapes. For what it's worth; this is the truth. His post was deserving of being removed, and it wasn't an issue of him being egged on by any one poster. He certainly brought this on himself. I was surprised he posted this, as I believe like others that his knowledge is top notch and enjoyed. Everyone has their moments, I think we're all guilty of that, and I chalk this one up as a HT moment. Nothing to get worked up about, really no big deal as it unfortunately seems for most who haven't read the post.

     

    Too bad for others who didn't read it though- I'm sure all of you would not be wasting your time further divulging in such a toxic matter if you had.

     

    I missed it as well

     

    mark

    Dcarr over strike question.

    in US, World, and Ancient Coins

    Posted

    “Allowing others to produce imitation pieces that approximate official coin designs or inscriptions can undermine public confidence in U.S. coin and currency, and threaten the reputation of a government obligation/issue.”

     

    Yet they do allow such coins and production of same to exist, do they not? ...

     

    The Hobby Protection Act (HPA) specifically allows anyone to produce replicas of United States coins (with some restrictions). If Congress was concerned with the non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude to US Coins, they would have not enacted the HPA in the form that they did.

     

    In other words, Congress does not view the non-fraudulent minting of replicas of US Coins as impugning the integrity of the Federal Government. Neither do they think that of non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins.

     

    Curiosity only....you certainly can have an opinion, the same as anyone. I simply don't understand your adamant declarations, not only in the above 2 replies but in most of your replies, and indeed on your website that the activities and pieces are LEGAL (you did the capitalization on your website) that your interpretation is absolutely correct. An example is your above posts. You do not know what Congress views, or what Congress does not view. You do not know what Congress thinks or what they do not think. You do not know what Congress was or is concerned about or not concerned about. You do not know what Congress would or would not have enacted, and you do not know what the Congressional view of "non-fraudulent minting" is or was, and indeed that term does not exist in the legislative record. yet you constantly declare all other thoughts that are not aligned with your opinion as wrong, wrong, wrong, and you change and finesse your wording of your position, and the wording of any particular document or existing law, and declare you are right, right, right. Fair enough.

     

    The courts make rulings based on their perception of what Congress intended when passing various laws. Those rulings can be used to infer Congressional intent on what is (and what is not) in the law.

     

    If there is noting that is remotely wrong with the pieces, why declare on your website that persons that purchase should not try to sell the pieces to others as a true coin? Why declare on your website that the person that has a piece has to tell anybody it is a fantasy piece? If it is LEGAL to produce the piece, wht does it suddenly become not legal by virtue of it being sold to someone else? The person that bought it from you and sold it to somebody else is not selling a counterfeit or fraudulent coin that harms the Government, are they? The person may be a con artist, but that is of no consequence. Then again, why would the person be a con artist? He bought the coin from you with your assurances that the piece is LEGAL. He bought the piece from you that the piece is over-struck on a genuine U.S. coin, and that is LEGAL. He bought the piece from you at a price you set. If he sells it for more, regardless of the story used to sell it, and states, this is a genuine U.S. coin that has a date on it that makes it very rare, and it was made by Mr. Carr, and is going up in value, because he only made so many. It is LEGAL, because he used to work at the Mint, and he even states non his website that it is LEGAL. It is a very valuable fantasy piece, but it is also a U.S. coin. What are you going to do about it?

     

    Misrepresentation of an item with fraudulent intent is a crime. I am advising purchases of said items to not break the law.

     

    ........How is it misrepresentation? You are not reading and you are not answering the questions.........

     

     

     

    Misrepresentation of a perfectly genuine coin is also a crime if done with fraudulent intent. For example, if a person buffed a Morgan Dollar and knew it was a damaged coin but then persuaded a person to spend a lot of money on the "high-grade mint-state" piece, that would be a crime. If I was selling polished and/or plated Morgan dollars (for example) I would also advise buyers not to misrepresent them upon resale, just like I do with fantasy-date over-strikes.

     

     

    .......Where is and what is the fraudulent intent? Again, you are not reading and not answering the question. In my example, how I'd it different from what you do?...........

     

    If I see anyone misrepresenting an item I produced (whether it be an over-strike or not), I will contact the person(s) involved and set the record straight.

     

     

     

    .......Again, what is being misrepresented, and what record would need to be set straight? Is it not your piece produced by you?.....…...

     

    So, what the heck are you warning everyone about on your website? Why do you state on the website not to try to spend it. Why not? If I go into a mom and pop store and say I want 2 of those R2D2 thingys and I am paying with this silver dollar with a fantasy date on it and silver is worth x dollars right now and your R2D2 thingys are less than that, what is not LEGAL about that?

     

    I make no claims as to the legal tender status of the fantasy-date over-strikes, only that I advise people not to attempt to use them as legal tender. If the toy store owner wanted to take the over-struck silver dollar as barter in trade for the toy, that would be up to them.

     

    ........Why should it not be legal tender? Who are you to decide? Bit coin? Barter? If you make no claims, why advise not to? You already declare your piece is legal. It is silver is it not? It is an original U.S. coin over struck by you, it it not? If I take a $1 Bill and doodle on it and change the date on it, are you stating it is not legal tender? Exactly what would be wrong with that?........

     

    If someone of similar talent as yours decides to buy your pieces, and change the design in some fashion, and then sell them as a one of a kind modified Carr piece and sells it for a lot more money than the market is selling a Carr piece for, do you have a legal problem with that?

     

    So long as they market the piece with an appropriate description then I would have no problem with that. Several years ago, a "hobo" nickel carver took one of my "1933" fantasy-date over-strike Indian Head nickels and made a Hobo carving of it, leaving the "1933" date in place. They sold it for quite a bit more than I originally sold the "1933" over-strikes for. I had no problem with that at all, because they advertised it as a carved fantasy-date piece.

     

    ....What is and what is not appropriate? It is an original U.S. coin is it not?.......

     

    If that same talented person decided to replicate your work and uses the same process and the same designs and sells them as Carr pieces and does not mark them as copies in any manner, do you have a legal problem with that?

     

    I would not allow anyone to market something as a "Carr" piece if I did not make it. This would apply to fantasy-date over-strikes and original design tokens and medals. There have been a few instances on eBay where sellers of Chinese-made "1964-D" Peace dollar replicas (that were not over-strikes and were not marked "COPY") were selling them as the "Carr" piece. In those cases I contacted eBay and the auctions were quickly cancelled. I have not filed any complaints with eBay concerning the numerous auctions of Chinese "1964-D" Peace Dollars when those auctions do not attribute them as "Carr" pieces.

     

    ....Are you stating that my example would not be legal? Why not? How are you not going to allow it? Why would my example have to have the word copy on it? Because of the HPA? Because of some other law?......

     

    Are not both examples I have used non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins? is it non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude?

     

    If you are declaring the absolute legality of your position as the only correct legal position and all other positions wrong, why not have your Attorney proceed to a forum of legal adjudication and be done with all other opinions? Wouldn't that help your business grow? Or, is it better from a business standpoint to have the present atmosphere of possibly numismatic naughtiness, sort of an any press is good press thing (no play on words intended, but now that I think about it, it was pretty good :banana:)?

     

    It has been said that there is no such thing as "bad press".

    In the very unlikely event that there was ever a court case involving these fantasy-date over-strikes, that could actually be a boon to my business.

    But that could also result in more people getting into doing this.

     

    My business has not been, and is not currently, "growing". It is staying the same. I do not have plans to grow it. This is not the type of business where growing equates to more revenue. The reason is that the prices that can be obtained for collectible items is dependent on how many are produced. Growing and producing more has the effect of lowering the price that the items can be sold for, thus negating any benefits of said growth (and this isn't even taking into account the added expenses of a larger operation).

     

     

    .......That is a reasonable business model. However, you did not address my other question, reference non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude, and what that actually means..........

     

     

     

    BTW, I did check the legislative histories of the laws stated in this thread, and your name does not appear in any capacity in the legislative record.

     

    I am not sure what you mean by this.

     

    .......Simple. Your adamant declarations that you know what Congress thought, intended, interpreted and what they would and would not act on, and all other opinions and positions are wrong. I must conclude that the only way you could absolutely know the correct congressional intent and interpretation of the laws being discussed. Is if you were in some manner a part of the legislative decision process, maybe as staff, expert, congressional liaison, etc. As such, your name would be part of the legislative record, as would any papers you presented. Nothing shows up. So. It would appear all you have is an opinion, and your opinion is no less right or wrong than anyone else. But unfortunately, case law does not seem to favor your opinion. I would think you would want to correct that, and proceed to an adjudication forum. As you stated. It would also be good for your business.........

     

     

    .....I think you have a number of illogical logic posits in your positions, and it is a little confusing as to how you arrive at a point of singular correctness of position.

     

    As a sideline question, do you see any corporate slander issues in the opinions that have been stated about your endeavors?.............

     

    Good morning Mr. Carr.

     

    As a reminder, this hieroglyphic (?) is called a question mark, and is a symbol that alerts the reader that the words that were specifically directed to the reader, that came before the symbol, are formed to express to the reader that information is requested from the reader and possibly the reader can assist by providing some information of value, although it is implicitly understood that many times the reader does not provide information of value, either deliberately or because of lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

     

    This symbol was developed in order to avoid confusion and to solve the mystery of the intent of words grouped together and whether or not an action was required by the person trying to comprehend the purpose of the words being grouped together.

     

    With this explanation in mind, does anything strike you as to the use of the symbol...many times....in the above words that are grouped together and specifically directed to you?

     

    When we examine issues closely, a mystery can easily be understood.

     

     

    You sir are a complete j.a.c.k.a.s.s. Dan goes out of his way to answer almost every question he's asked in these threads and he misses a couple of yours and you throw a tantrum. You are without a doubt the exact definition of pretentious.

     

    I'm at 73% now after his last couple of posts.

     

    mark

    Dcarr over strike question.

    in US, World, and Ancient Coins

    Posted

    I have come to the conclusion that you deliberately obfuscate and try to confuse, as in your explanation of why you are correct and congressional responsibilities. Of course you know what I stated.That explanation and word fest was one of the more clever avoidance replies you have penned.

     

    Be that as it may, you again avoided answering my original questions, 1) re. misrepresentation, 2) setting the record straight, 3) why it should not be legal tender, 4),what is and is not appropriate, 5), whether or not my examples are legal or not and if not then why, 6)non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude..... and 7) what that actually means to you.

     

    These 7 questions have now been asked 3 times. You avoid 3 times. I am sure sooner or later you will decide if any answers you may give are detrimental to your position or not, or are somehow going to further enforce the logic posit busts that seem prevalent in your replies.

     

    You might want to ask your attorney the definition of corporate slander. Hint: I was not referring to Mr. Physics nor was I opining if his comments are or are not defamation, or whether you have good cause to sue or not. That is not the thrust of any post I have ever made about this subject and I am not interested in such conversations. They take you and everyone else down a hateful path that has nothing to do with the legality of the pieces you produce.

     

    I looked but I did not see these 7 questions you speak of. If you can repost them again here in a concise manner I will address them.

     

    All you have to do is read my post, posted 2 times by me and 1 time by you. A hint: there are question marks at the end of the questions. Your original answering post did not address the questions. Either you can not understand or you don't want to answer, or your choice of reply was intended to obfuscate. No problem. Another hint though, your present post is in reply to my 7 short version references describing the questions and indeed the short version uses in part the terminology of the original questions. I suppose you may view your earlier post as being answers, and your follow on reply would be along the lines of copying your original reply and implying you already answered. It is the bard talent you possess.

     

    If you are referring to your post #9551211 and my reply #9551271, then I did answer your questions as I understood them.

     

    If that is not good enough for you then you will have to rephrase your unanswered questions and try asking again.

     

    It appears I am correct as to how you would answer.

    The questions will not be rephrased. The questions are clear and have not been answered. I will not aid you in your obfuscation talent. The questions and the lack of answers by you speak for themselves.

     

    I too read Pliny the Elder and Adams.

     

    I will mention that answering the very clear questions would be excellent mock trial practice for you.

     

    Accordingly, I will re-post the post containing the original questions from time to time as a reminder to you that you have not answered yet, for your re-consideration, once you figure out whether answering the questions place you in an uncomfortable position that compromises your claim of absolute correctness of your stated position of legality of your endeavors, or, in the alternative, emphasizes the illogical logic posit of your correctness, which I suspect is the quagmire that you continue to avoid. I also would not willingly walk into quicksand.

     

     

     

    So let me get this straight.

    You claim to have asked some mystery questions and complain that I won't answer them. But you refuse to reiterate them. So they remain a mystery. And I'm supposed to answer mystery questions ? Ok, I'll give it a shot:

     

    17

     

    Is that right ?

     

     

    If it makes you feel any better I don't understand 71% of his posts

     

    mark

    Dcarr over strike question.

    in US, World, and Ancient Coins

    Posted · Edited by MJ

     

    PhysicsFan3.14 blatantly called me a "counterfeiter" in this thread.

    I have very good grounds to sue for defamation if I want to. And I might want to.

     

     

    If he did call you that, he stated his opinion on an open forum among informed numismatists who are debating, and stating their opinions, on a topic of high interest. His opinion is likely not to change any minds or affect your buisness. Lawsuit? Really? Yikes. (tsk)

     

    Best, HT

    Reason for edit: Corrected after the post by Robec below

     

    The problem with physics and RWBs opinions is that both have published numismatic books and to some may appear to be "experts" in the coin community, their opinions differ greatly from Joe Schmoe running his mouth on a coin forum. RWB is pretty cautious, he uses vague name calling and innuendo but physics is much more to the point, he proclaimed Carr IS a counterfeiter, stated as fact not opinion. I don't believe Carr would ever win a defamation lawsuit but

     

    Oh and I'm pretty sure it's safe to say "informed numismatists" debating their opinion is a bit of a stretch for some on here ? (Myself included)

     

    RWB indeed needs to be careful. His flippant and careless remarks in an online forum have already cost him and others in the past. Now he just incites and stirs the pot. Whatever floats your boat. I find that it tarnishes his star.

     

    mark

    Dcarr over strike question.

    in US, World, and Ancient Coins

    Posted

    According to your strict interpretation of this statute, the Chuck-E- Cheese pizza chain (for example) is guilty of counterfeiting because their tokens are similar in color (brassy) to the current US "Golden" dollar coins. Clearly, that was not the intent of Congress when legislating this law. And it is also clearly evident that the authorities and the courts do not view the minting of tokens or medals, or non-fraudulent defacement of coins, as a crime.

     

    I never liked Chuck-E- Cheese anyway. I knew the rat was trouble. :devil::grin:

     

    I hold Whack-A-Mole records in eight states

     

    mark

    Dcarr over strike question.

    in US, World, and Ancient Coins

    Posted · Edited by MJ

    Great info RWB. Unfortunately it doesn't apply to these fantasy pieces since they are in fact legal tender to start with. The host coin is the same denomination and type. Only the dates/ MM are changed to that of dates and mint marks that don't exist.

     

    If he was striking these on blank planchets and using dates that exist then that's when the Frd's start knocking on doors.

     

    Tunnel vision abound

     

    mark

     

     

    The information has been presented many times on this subject along with many legal presentations.

     

    It is a little silly to state the creations are legal tender to start with. That position I have not seen or heard or read before. Innovative it might be, and wordsmith talent at its finest. However, it is not the righteous position I would use as a first line supportive response of legal justification. It has a little bit of a flim flam feel to it. That is just me, of course.

     

    "There are 8 million stories in the Naked City. This is one of them.Only the dates and names have been changed."

     

    What is the tunnel vision, other than the producer of the pieces not asking the U.S. Attorney General for, at the least, an opinion? Why is this not a sound business practice, if a person wants to make certain their position is in accordance with U.S. law? It may be tunnel vision not to do so.

     

    Every fantasy coin starts out as legal tender. If he makes a fantasy date SLQ it starts out as a SLQ. You can actually see the host coin under the new strike. If he makes a fantasy date Peace dollar it starts out as a genuine Peace dollar.

     

    mark

     

    I am sure you are aware of the fallacy of the position. You are relying on the term "host coin" as support for and as an interchangeable definition of legal tender and fantasy piece, via modification. Not to make a big deal of it, but no, all fantasy coins do not start out as a host coin. Host coin/fantasy piece/legal tender are not synonymous or interchangeable in the meaning of the law concerning the creations under discussion. I applaud the the effort of presenting a unique theory and certainly realize the talent to be able to do so. It is what a good attorney should do; use every possible presentation that supports the position of client.

     

    It would be so much easier to contact the U.S. Attorney General, I think. That is just me, though.

     

    All of HIS fantasy pieces indeed start off as an actual US coins of the same EXACT type.

     

    You contact the AG. You will not be the first., second or third on these boards to do so.

     

    mark

    Dcarr over strike question.

    in US, World, and Ancient Coins

    Posted · Edited by MJ

    Great info RWB. Unfortunately it doesn't apply to these fantasy pieces since they are in fact legal tender to start with. The host coin is the same denomination and type. Only the dates/ MM are changed to that of dates and mint marks that don't exist.

     

    If he was striking these on blank planchets and using dates that exist then that's when the Frd's start knocking on doors.

     

    Tunnel vision abound

     

    mark

     

     

    The information has been presented many times on this subject along with many legal presentations.

     

    It is a little silly to state the creations are legal tender to start with. That position I have not seen or heard or read before. Innovative it might be, and wordsmith talent at its finest. However, it is not the righteous position I would use as a first line supportive response of legal justification. It has a little bit of a flim flam feel to it. That is just me, of course.

     

    "There are 8 million stories in the Naked City. This is one of them.Only the dates and names have been changed."

     

    What is the tunnel vision, other than the producer of the pieces not asking the U.S. Attorney General for, at the least, an opinion? Why is this not a sound business practice, if a person wants to make certain their position is in accordance with U.S. law? It may be tunnel vision not to do so.

     

    Every fantasy coin starts out as legal tender. If he makes a fantasy date SLQ it starts out as a SLQ. You can actually see the host coin under the new strike. If he makes a fantasy date Peace dollar it starts out as a genuine Peace dollar.

     

    mark

    Dcarr over strike question.

    in US, World, and Ancient Coins

    Posted · Edited by MJ

    Great info RWB. Unfortunately it doesn't apply to these fantasy pieces since they are in fact legal tender to start with. The host coin is the same denomination and type. Only the dates/ MM are changed to that of dates and mint marks that don't exist.

     

    If he was striking these on blank planchets and using dates that exist then that's when the Frd's start knocking on doors.

     

    Tunnel vision abound

     

    mark

     

     

    That is the most ludicrous claim. I know it's what Dcarr keeps spouting, but it is absurd.

     

    So if I take Chanel Number 5 and add a few ingredients of my own, it is ok?

    If I take a genuine Louis Vuitton bag and cut it up and resow it into my own design, its ok?

    If I disassemble a genuine '65 Mustang and make a new car out of the parts, its ok?

     

    Do you see how ridiculous this claim sounds?

     

    All air balls Jason. I've been in a number of depositions regarding trade dress and TM infringements. My last was with Adidas. I'm kind of the go to guy.

     

    I'm a designer and I have my original works copied all the time I'll say yes to all of the above.

     

    Take your perfume example. It's done all the time. That's how you can come up with other fragrances. You can not call the fragrance Chanel 5 . D Carr doesn't call his fantasy coins anything else but fantasy coins.

     

    You can take a LV bag cut it up and change it. LV may or may not take the time to come after you for TM infringement or trade dress. However, 100% this is a poor counterfeit example unless it is represented as an original LV piece. It's called street art.

     

    Your Mustang example is down me all the time. Watch some car auctions. They are just not represented as original Mustangs

     

     

    mark

     

    Dcarr over strike question.

    in US, World, and Ancient Coins

    Posted

    Great info RWB. Unfortunately it doesn't apply to these fantasy pieces since they are in fact legal tender to start with. The host coin is the same denomination and type. Only the dates/ MM are changed to that of dates and mint marks that don't exist.

     

    If he was striking these on blank planchets and using dates that exist then that's when the Frd's start knocking on doors.

     

    Tunnel vision abound

     

    mark