coinman_23885

I may be mistaken in this but I think I saw a Chinese knockoff of the real Carr overstrike 1964 peace dollar at a small show recently. The dealer had nothing but the coin; none of the original packaging materials that would indicate that it was a genuine Carr overstrike. It looked terrible, not like anything I had ever seen that was from the Moonlight Mint.

 

Counterfeits are out there. Beware.

 

Yes, there are low-quality Chinese-made "1964-D" Peace Dollars out there.

They were not struck over genuine Peace Dollars, and they are not made of silver. But I would not call them a "knockoff" of mine. The only part that is my own original design is the size, style, and placement of the "64" digits. The Chinese pieces have crudely-shaped "64" digits, unlike mine. And a few of the Chinese pieces were actually produced at the same time I first came out with mine in 2010 (but most came a little later in 2012).

Comparion of Chinese and Carr "1964-D" Peace

 

So most of the Chinese pieces are admittedly of lower quality and therefore less deceptive than your own pieces? I applaud your honesty.

 

The Chinese pieces are produced in a clandestine fashion. The maker of them does not publish diagnostics or other production details about them. They are often offered for sale without any information as to their source. In that regard, the Chinese pieces are more deceptive than mine.

 

In contrast, I provide a lot of information about mine. A couple years ago I was awarded the A. George Mallis (of "VAM" fame) Numismatic Literary Award for an article I wrote about the "1964-D" Peace Dollar over-strike project. That article appeared in a newsletter for the Society of Silver Dollar Collectors (SSDC).

 

Also, how can you say that the "size," "style," and placement of the "64" digits are your own? Realistically, didn't you just emulate the "6" from a 1926 Peace Dollar and a "4" from a 1924 or 1934 Peace Dollar and slap them together after "19" to create your "fantasy" date? And the Mint Mark is a copy of a "D" from either a 1922-D, 1923-D, 1926-D, 1927-D, or 1934-D Peace Dollar, no? Also it seems that the placement and size is restricted by other Peace Dollars or else your coins would not be sought after by collectors who want as close to the original as possible (or so they say and their defense why "COPY" shouldn't be placed on your coins)?

 

You obviously have not compared the "4" on a 1924 or 1934 to the one on my "1964". The Chinese pieces copy the style of the "4" from the 1924/1934 coins. Mine does not. I chose the style, size, and placement of the "6" and "4" to be complementary to the rest of the design.

 

The "D" does not match any earlier years of Peace Dollars in size or shape. I chose the parameters for the "D" based on what I thought would make sense for 1964. I also intentionally double-punched the "D" in a specific way, so as to function as an additional identifier.

 

So the people that buy from HSN, flea market, or estate sale (those most likely to fall prey) are going to be smart enough to check all of this online including your website? Moreover, you expect them to be experts in die diagnostics for Peace Dollars versus your pieces? With all due respect, that seems a bit far fetched to me. Nothing says that a piece must be an exact replica to be labeled a counterfeit. Courts have actually refuted that position multiple times.

I may be mistaken in this but I think I saw a Chinese knockoff of the real Carr overstrike 1964 peace dollar at a small show recently. The dealer had nothing but the coin; none of the original packaging materials that would indicate that it was a genuine Carr overstrike. It looked terrible, not like anything I had ever seen that was from the Moonlight Mint.

 

Counterfeits are out there. Beware.

 

Yes, there are low-quality Chinese-made "1964-D" Peace Dollars out there.

They were not struck over genuine Peace Dollars, and they are not made of silver. But I would not call them a "knockoff" of mine. The only part that is my own original design is the size, style, and placement of the "64" digits. The Chinese pieces have crudely-shaped "64" digits, unlike mine. And a few of the Chinese pieces were actually produced at the same time I first came out with mine in 2010 (but most came a little later in 2012).

Comparion of Chinese and Carr "1964-D" Peace

So most of the Chinese pieces are admittedly of lower quality and therefore less deceptive than your own pieces? I applaud your honesty.

Also, how can you say that the "size," "style," and placement of the "64" digits are your own? Realistically, didn't you just emulate the "6" from a 1926 Peace Dollar and a "4" from a 1924 or 1934 Peace Dollar and slap them together after "19" to create your "fantasy" date? And the Mint Mark is a copy of a "D" from either a 1922-D, 1923-D, 1926-D, 1927-D, or 1934-D Peace Dollar, no? Also it seems that the placement and size is restricted by other Peace Dollars or else your coins would not be sought after by collectors who want as close to the original as possible (or so they say and their defense why "COPY" shouldn't be placed on your coins)?

I may be mistaken in this but I think I saw a Chinese knockoff of the real Carr overstrike 1964 peace dollar at a small show recently. The dealer had nothing but the coin; none of the original packaging materials that would indicate that it was a genuine Carr overstrike. It looked terrible, not like anything I had ever seen that was from the Moonlight Mint.

 

Counterfeits are out there. Beware.

I agree: Carr's pieces are more deceptive than most of China's finest (1964-D Peace Dollar especially), which makes them that more dangerous IMHO.

Has the deceased equine not been flogged enough.

 

I don't like Ike dollars, so when I see a thread about ike dollars, I don't bother posting in it. It really is that simple.

Fair enough, but at least one poster (the original poster in fact) was clearly trying to start a debate or discussion related to the legitimacy of Carr's work and the implicit premise that PCGS slabbing these pieces would legitimize them. See below...

...is this the monthly D.Carr thread where the topic is foisted upon us to keep the fuel fed to the fires so we don't forget?

 

No. I think it's actually pretty relevant to both sides of the argument here. I think it's pretty telling that PCGS is grading these pieces. I find it amusing the haters are now sick of the topic or no longer discussing it. Sounds like sour grapes to me. I highly doubt PCGS would touch these if they felt in any way they were counterfeit. That to me is worth a discussion.

By publications who acknowledge his business as authentic, an in house operation that the public may tour, a following of collectors who respect his function, a private mint production that is documented and made public. This all done in the open for the past seven years without government intervention to stop his efforts...

 

Also, ANACS and ICG graders slab his fantasy tokens and private mint productions in recognition of his efforts for collectors who submit his work.

 

The difference to me is black and white with all due respect.

The problem I have with your argument is that the laws are written to protect the average American who has no specialized knowledge of numismatics or authentication and is unlikely to be aware of the materials. Think lowest common denominator here - the average flea market buyer, the type that buys overpriced junk on eBay, the type that fall prey to the TV hucksters - to them, how would his pieces be different in deceptiveness to the Alibaba special? There is nothing to keep someone from removing his pieces from its original packaging and throwing it in a 2x2 and misrepresenting the item. Even if the purchaser does not know about the full story of some of his coins or the rarity that a real piece would have (like the 1964-D Peace Dollar), and mistakes them for trial or experimental pieces?

If the PTB thought his livelihood was a threat to our hobby, or, monetary system they would have shut him down by now. Wouldn't you think?

The wheels of justice turn ever so slowly...

Personally, I don't see a problem with PCGS, or, NGC slabbing Dan Carr pieces. I respect the arguments for, and, against Carr productions.

 

However; I've stated in the past, and firmly believe that it isn't Carr fantasy productions this hobby has to worry about; but rather Chinese counterfeits which are done in the shadows and are sold to collectors on a daily basis. These illicit operations are refining activities to fool the best TPG's, and unfortunately have distributors in the U.S. that will feed the production so long as there is profit to be made.

 

I don't collect the fantasy pieces because it doesn't appeal to my collecting needs, but I do respect those that do appreciate Dan's work and see no problem as he's on the numismatic map, and not a threat to collectors. Realistically; I can't imagine a scenario where someone would be a victim of fraud in this digital age, or, in the future.

 

I do like Mr. Carr's Clark Gruber & Co. productions, his latest 1916 1oz. centennial issues, and his concept dollar all of which I own.

 

For those that don't know; In the May 23rd, 2016 issue of Coin World Weekly, Daniel Carr is featured on page 5 with his concept dollar the subject. Coin World even gives a plug where readers may purchase one, and directs hobbyist to his website.

 

As always, the threat is China...

How are his pieces materially and significantly distinguishable from China's finest?

I find it amusing the haters are now sick of the topic or no longer discussing it. Sounds like sour grapes to me. I highly doubt PCGS would touch these if they felt in any way they were counterfeit. That to me is worth a discussion.

What is the point of discussing what has already been discussed ad nauseum? Without reinventing the wheel, I refer you to my previous posts replete with case law finding that a genuine U.S. coin overstruck with a rare design made in the likelihood of official coinage by unauthorized dies is counterfeit (see post #9161211, http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=9161211&fpart=9). More importantly, how would arguing this topic relate to this thread? There is precedent for PCGS intentionally slabbing counterfeit coins. Here is an example:

http://www.coinweek.com/video-news/new-videos/video-1804-silver-dollar-electrotype-certified-by-pcgs/

Certifying his pieces would just be another obvious money grab by PCGS IMHO. Nothing would surprise me, but even if it does slab them, it does NOT legitimize them IMHO. Like Afterword, I do not think I will waste any more time with this thread, which it seems (in light of subsequent posts) was started to create a protracted argument.

This is interesting. I thought only ANACS and maybe ICG slabbed them. If PCGS does slab them, I wonder how recently they implemented this policy.

I have one or two of them, cannot remember. The one I know is a Victoria obverse with the Three Graces reverse in silver.

 

That would be the X-81 (see below).

 

Is the mintage of the gorgeous copper version you have on Collective Coin the same? How much do these sets run? I must admit that this thread (and Brandon's postings on CC) have piqued my interest in the sets.

John, I briefly viewed the coin when it arrived. My recollection is that I thought the obverse graded 68 and he reverse 67 (or perhaps 66+). Overall, I graded the coin 67+. For the record, I rarely agree with MS68 grades and I believe many coins which receive 68's these days would not have done so roughly two or more years ago.

With regards to the green specs on the reverse, if those are not artifacts, do you think it is PVC? Also some posters suggested that the marks on the torch were caused by strike throughs. Do you think this is the case or are those post strike hits on the torch?

I am assuming it would be preferable to determine whether a coin was or was not PVC contaminated before it was encapsulated. Could PVC be positively identified with a coin in hand and in a holder?

 

I would submit the coin to PCGS under the guarantee for the residue. PCGS would most likely bathe it in acetone and reholder it.

 

 

 

 

So you are positive the coin has PVC contamination from the image provided by the OP?

 

Could PVC be positively identified with a coin in hand and in a holder?

What I am seeing appears to be a residue sitting on the coin's surface and is not part of the surface (i.e. it does not look like toning). Given the blueish-green color of the residue (which is a textbook indicator of PVC), the odds are overwhelming that it is PVC given the popularity of the chemical in some coin holders.

An in hand inspection would only reveal what has already been described - that it is a residue sitting on top of the coin with textbook characteristics of PVC. If you wanted a scientific analysis (and even in science nothing is 100%), PCGS would need to remove the coin from the holder and use any number of analytical chemical techniques (e.g. Raman spectroscopy, x-ray spectrometry, FT-IR, etc.) to tell for sure. It is my understanding that the PCGS sniffer uses some of these technologies, so it should be able to determine the identity of the residue; however, this is overkill.

Regardless of whether we agree with the grade or not, conservation is warranted to prevent whatever residue is on the coin from potentially harming it. Assuming that is has not etched into the surfaces, the coin should clean up well in an acetone bath and would be reslabbed likely at the same grade.

Assuming that the coin is truly a MS68FB notwithstanding the hits/marks, it won't stay that way if the residue is corrosive (and if it is PVC, which it appears to be, it is).

I am assuming it would be preferable to determine whether a coin was or was not PVC contaminated before it was encapsulated. Could PVC be positively identified with a coin in hand and in a holder?

I would submit the coin to PCGS under the guarantee for the residue. PCGS would most likely bathe it in acetone and reholder it.

By all accounts, the only REAL problem that anyone has had in this entire thread are those marks. If Heritage acknowledges their existence, would you concede that their description is unbiased?

Don't forget the PVC.

P.S. This is the type of coin where I would describe the toning and conclude with "the images speak for themselves" or "please see the images to see the quality of the piece for yourself" without additional commentary on the grade or surfaces.

It's interesting CAC will sticker a clad Ike dollar yet not this silver dime.

I agree. I would have thought CAC would have taken all coins prior to 1964 before doing mint state Eisenhower Dollars.

One thing I wanted to mention .... many here repeatedly commented about whether the dime was worth $10,000 or was graded properly for a $10,000 coin, etc. The number "$10,000" continued to come up. But, keep in mind, I had a "best offer" on the coin on ebay. So, obviously, I was prepared to accept less for the coin (and on top of that pay ebay and paypal fees).

This is interesting to me, because I think most of the comments were focused on whether it belonged in a MS68 FB holder; that is, the grade rather than the price was the largest point of contention.

With regards to price, it is JHF's property and he is free to ask whatever he wants for it. I don't think most here would dispute that.

If you can get a green bean on it, then the ceiling is significantly higher.

 

Best, HT

 

Be very hard for that to happen as, if one knows CAC or bothers to look at their website...."Ten Cents (Dimes) 1796-1945 " is what they do.

 

No dimes after 1945 (ie...all Roosevelts)......

 

Now, one could go and try to QA it, but not sure what that would add....

I think HT's post was sarcasm.

"I still think the comparison is way off."

 

I guess we'll let the Roosie collectors determine if the comparison is "way off" or not. If my customer's dime fetches $300 or $400 in the no reserve auction, then perhaps the comparison was on point. If the coin fetches thousands upon thousands of dollars, then we know the comparison was, indeed, "way off".

 

Wondercoin

The coin is going to fetch more than $300 to $400 even if one agrees with me that it is over graded. If it is over graded, then the coin should be covered under the PCGS guarantee to make a fair pay out. In this scenario, the auction plays out as nothing more than a numismatic lottery ticket.

A proof 68 Rosie should have full clean smoking hot torch and maybe deep mirror surfaces. So the discussion should involve clean surfaces and heavy cameo contrast to quality for real eye appeal right ? Why spend 10 k for a highly contested unc grade when '64 Proof 69 Ultra Cameo coins are available for a couple hundred bucks.

 

It isn't a proof coin.

 

I do not think he is stating the coin in question is a proof. He is simply presenting an "eye appeal" example for collectors, a sort of what you see is what you get. He is not trying to make a point of rarity or comparison of rarity between an unc. and proof, or a quantitative issue.

You're right. I jumped to conclusions and stopped reading after the first sentence. I still think the comparison is way off.

Is there any chance that Heritage will attend the summer Baltimore convention, and if so, will this coin be available for viewing?

A proof 68 Rosie should have full clean smoking hot torch and maybe deep mirror surfaces. So the discussion should involve clean surfaces and heavy cameo contrast to quality for real eye appeal right ? Why spend 10 k for a highly contested unc grade when '64 Proof 69 Ultra Cameo coins are available for a couple hundred bucks.

It isn't a proof coin.

Let's remember that the title literally has the words "just having fun" in the title; let's not spoil it. Let's remember that this is a hobby and not worth fighting over.

"Time for a nice long break."

 

AHFreak: From a guy who has posted less than 50 posts in 14 years here (and less than 25 as of last week):

 

Would you mind stopping by this thread from time to time though. I have really enjoyed your comments.

 

Thank you.

 

Wondercoin

Bochiman ... Now, don't you go anywhere my friend!

 

Wondercoin

I feel so left out...

Can't we all just get along...

This coin could have been the property of 1,000 different board members here. I suspect the vast majority of those board members may have been quite upset to read these comments about their prized coin especially from virtually everyone here who has NEVER seen the coin in hand.

 

So, of course, I will defend the coin; however many hours of my time it takes to do so.

 

Wondercoin

I feel your consignor's pain Wondercoin. A few of my coins have inspired threads here, ATS, and elsewhere although it is usually due to asking prices and prices realized for monster toning.

On another note, I didn't attack anyone or anyone else's coin; I wrote what I did as a question. The coin just took me by surprise when you mentioned in the listing that it was in an older holder before rampant grade inflation. No offense was meant. I think the thread was educational; thanks for participating.