nk1nk

Save yourself a huge headache and send them to great collections. They have the lowest fees and the prices realized there very good, I say this even if they are 20 dollar coins or 2,000 dollar coins. If you are asking here I can almost guarantee great collections is your best bet. Good luck with your sale!

Flawless transaction! And beautiful coins!

Want to buy any coin in a glow in the dark holder. These are only available with bulk submission and trying to find one using key words is difficult because it pulls up massive amounts of glow in the dark coins. I’d prefer it has a glow in the dark coin but I’d take any coin. Let me know if you have one for sale. Thanks 

Flawless transaction and beautiful coins! Thanks again. 
 

nick 

Preferably a glow in the dark coin but any coin will be fine as long as it’s in a glow in the dark NGC holder. Thanks 

On 4/24/2017 at 7:20 PM, physics-fan3.14 said:

Ok, I think I understand what you are asking now. 

The picture that Wooden Jefferson posted is satirical, and not actually real. 

Let me make sure I understand: you are asking "Can coins which have been previously certified be designated by mint, if you submitted them in the monster box?" 

I'm almost certain the answer is No. 

The information in the recent press release is brand new info. Any coins you submitted in years past would have been taken out of the mint boxes. These boxes would have been disposed of, and the info would have been destroyed. They may have been from P mint boxes, but there is no proof of that now. It is impossible to verify that your coins are actually P-mint, and not another mint. 

The picture is not satirical, those green slabs and labels really exist.

Also mcknowitall, I'd like to point out you violated your own rant about ignoring posters. We had an agreement we would ignore each other here

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=2&Number=9555479&Searchpage=1&Main=414458&Words=&topic=0&Search=true#Post9555479

But yet you went contrary to that declaration and commented on my first post in this thread. Go away already!!

Sad to see you go, HT I will miss your posts. I think leaving based on the actions of one administrator (right or wrong) is a little extreme but, that is your choice.

 

It is not just the administrator. The environment of these boards is growing increasingly toxic, and a couple of posters in particular are driving this place into the ground (for example, any time "MrMcKnowitall" shows up in a thread, you can guarantee it is going to be a miserable and unfortunate experience). The recent decisions by NGC won't help, of course, but the NGC forums have been doing their best Hindenburg impression for a while now.

 

I can understand your perspective.

 

I was always curious that there is an ignore function that can be used by members that are not pleased by the posts of others, yet when a member publicly states they have initiated the function for a certain member, darn if the person that initiated the function can still opine about the posts of the member they have initiated the ignore function for.

 

As an example, and not that it is important at all, but just an observation, I recall that many many months ago, you publicly stated you had initiated the function as a preference toward my posts. I did a little checking, and I had not remembered that you publicly stated this action 4 times, and 2 times in the last 2 months. You state in the post I am responding to, and I am only quoting for the purpose of illustration of my thoughts:

 

"....(for example, any time "MrMcKnowitall" shows up in a thread, you can guarantee it is going to be a miserable and unfortunate experience)..."

 

It appears that you are not really ignoring me, because if you were, then you would not know that which you stated, if you were in fact ignoring my posts. There is the issue, because as we all know, it is not really ignoring, because the ignore function does not "hide" the post when a member is off line, and when the member is on line, the member can reverse the ignore function and read in real time. Your posts over the last few months prove this, as indeed the post I am responding to does, when you refer to me or my posts. I think it would be very helpful to members like you, if when the ignore function is used, it can not be cancelled once initiated. This would prevent the human nature response of peeking, and lack of self restraint to truly ignore the member that caused you to initiate an ignore function. It is sort of a lack of self dignity and self discipline to peek, similar to cheating yourself. We all do it, though, and then profess loudly and repeatedly and publicly about the member we original had on ignore. This in turn usually causes the cheating member (as it applies to peeking even though the ignore function is on) to not be able to control themselves and to continue to foment a strange hatred and disgust and anger, and it soon starts effecting the same type of attitude toward many other aspects and people and situations. That is no way to live. There are many other important aspects of life a person can enjoy, rather than be obsessed with another member, or the host or the business choices of the host, or a person that disagrees with you, to the point that you feel the only tool at your disposal that helps to relieve your obsession is to attempt to belittle and be discourteous.

 

So, I agree with you that the host could help improve the boards a little for the members lacking in self restraint and self dignity and courtesy, by making the ignore function permanent in all situations and eliminate peeking, once the member initiates the action. I would not want to be the cause of any member being irate because they can not control their self harming human tendencies.

You just proved Jason's point perfectly. Chalk this thread up in the miserable and unfortunate column.

So what you're saying is you need a safe place. Bye Felicia!

I think it may help you to understand the purpose of the "tutorial". It was specifically designed to address the post of Mr. Carr, who had stated an inability to detect the questions (even though he had re-posted the post that asked the questions) and declared a mystery existed. Of course he was being slightly snarky, in what I choose to interpret as a humorous reply and not personal. I chose to follow in that vein in my reply, and I am sure he is quite cognizant that was the intention. It is a little like a chess encounter, and his verbal challenges are worthy of respect, by moving the chess pieces in equal level of response.

 

Your posts, as a comparative, are spiteful and designed to be demeaning and personal and attempting to belittle without cause, as you do so now, and frankly as you have done as recently as your reply to Capt. Henway. For that reason, I do not take your choice of replies as only reserved for me. It is just your nature.

 

Are you now initiating a game of "I know I am but what are you", or possibly "My daddy is bigger than your daddy"?

 

I do thank you though, for defining my post as "eloquent". I didn't particularly think so, and I suspect your labeling it as such is because the chosen use of the English language and the logic posits confused you and prevented you from exercising the ability to comprehend.

 

I will refer to my earlier suggestion as to how to assuage your ire, and that is to ignore my posts.

It's a two lane highway, feel free to ignore my posts as well.

“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 )?

 

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.

 

Your choice of physical description and definition of my psyche, while most likely correct in the opinion of many, does not move to a conclusion of the quest to have the questions answered.

 

I appreciate that you feel the need to resort to childish school yard behavior and name calling in an attempt to belittle the person you have allowed to disturb your day when you disagree with the opinions of others on a public chat board, in order to vent your frustrations. I sometimes have the passing thought to do the same, but maturity takes control, Thank God, and I am able to function without the need of an adult version of nanananana.

 

There is an alternative. Simply ignore my posts. It is that easy.

Oh and your eloquent tutorial on the question mark isn't childish school yard behavior? Yeah thank God your maturity shined thru there.

“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 )?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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)

...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.

 

Actually, from the thread ATS, it appears that PCGS is refusing to encapsulate Carr overstrikes at all. Do you still think the decision to slab or not is "telling"?

I absolutely do. Even though I don't agree with PCGS, it does matter. That's the whole reason I started this thread. If PCGS would have slabbed these I felt it would have been a huge plus for DCarr and those who collect his pieces. Since PCGS decided not to slab these my opinion is that from a collector stand point it's a blow to DCarr and those who collect his pieces. From a legal standpoint my opinion has not changed.

Nick

Then why not state this clearly, instead of implying your singular Righteousness and all other opinions are incorrect and misleading. Your reply is deflection.

 

Back to the legality: did you and have you continued to produce your pieces with the Blessings of your Attorney and his advisory opinion that it is legal to do so?

 

The essence of having an opinion:

"Contrasting opinions are wrong."

This applies to everyone and everything.

 

You imply that I am the only one that has an opinion in contrast to yours. That is clearly not the case, as evidenced by the demand and resale value of the fantasy-date over-strikes. So your use of the term "singular" does not fit.

 

From the Random House Dictionary, the definition of "righteous":

"Slang. absolutely genuine or wonderful."

That's cool.

 

My private discussions with attorneys are just that: private.

 

Thanks.

Finally an answer. You have an Attorney. That is a good thing.

 

As to the rest of your professorial musings, I don't mean this to be harsh, but I do not have any idea what the point is that you are attempting to convey. I do understand the deflection, though.

If you ever fall off your high horse that's going to be one hell of a fall!

We have no right to interpret law and use our interpretation of said law as an excuse to harass and condemn. If someone believes a law has been or is being violated report it to the proper authority, whose job it is to interpret law and they will act or not act accordingly.

Well said

Not to beat on a dead horse too long, but the linked CoinWorld article points out the real problem with these fantasy coins:

 

https://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/2016/08/1922-d-half-dollar-struck-at-private-mint.html

 

To quote from the article:

 

"Unfortunately, every now and then one of these overstrikes ends up in the possession of someone who is not familiar with them. The phone call I received concerning the 1922-D Walking Liberty half dollar began with the following message: “I may have a really rare coin — it is not listed in any of the price guides.” It did not take too long for me to identify the piece as a Dan Carr overstrike, although the disappointed caller probably contacted a few more people before accepting what I told him."

 

Simply, the noninformed person running across these can be swindled. Most of the world has no idea these 'fantasy' pieces exist. Those that don't call and are influenced by someone with apparent 'expertise' that has unsavory intentions can be convinced that these are a real and a rare US mint product. Since these pieces don't have the word 'Copy' or 'Fantasy' or something on them, these people can be had by the unscrupulous. It is just a matter of time until we hear about some senior citizen that was convinced to pay alot of money for one or more of these only to find out later they were had. Hence for consumer protection reasons, I am not sure why the feds haven't stepped in on this - I guess they have bigger fish to fry but it is only a matter of time probably.

 

Best, HT

 

 

Bigger fish to fry? Like who? You guys act like Dcarr is satan himself. You can garaun damn T there are members on this board that have called, written, emailed, sent carrier pigeon messages, smoke signals and every other possible form of communication to the Feds, they haven't done anything because there is nothing to be done, trust me he would have been notified by now. As the saying goes, put up or shut up! Until the government says he's producing counterfeits then all the anti Carr noise is just a bunch of blah blah cry baby titty mouth tantrum throwing none sense.

 

Making exaggerations and name calling of those who disagree, doesn't do anything to validate your differing point of view. Nor does jumping to conclusions about the fact that Mr. Carr hasn't "been notified by now".

So you are implying that he has been notified? He contributes to these threads regularly, I'm sure if he's been notified he would have mentioned it. I don't want to "jump to any conclusions" so I'll ask you straightforward are you saying he has been notified and continues to sell and produce strikes that he shouldn't? For the record I didn't call anyone names just interpreted the noise that comes from the anti Carr camp. Was it a bit immature? Sure. It's just amusing and a bit annoying to listen to all the arm chair lawyers and the hypothetical scenarios.

As to Mcknowitalls comments you any validate even more to me that this is all much ado about nothing. You listed several things that are occupying the governments time and you position this issue in its rightful place very far down on the who gives a list. If it takes a very slow year to address this its for good reason it's not worth the effort and resources to address and we can continue to interprete the law ourselves. The bottom line is you are assuming your interpretation of the laws are correct. We will just continue to disagree until a slow year comes to pass, hopefully in our lifetimes we can settle this once and for all.

Nick

Not to beat on a dead horse too long, but the linked CoinWorld article points out the real problem with these fantasy coins:

 

https://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/2016/08/1922-d-half-dollar-struck-at-private-mint.html

 

To quote from the article:

 

"Unfortunately, every now and then one of these overstrikes ends up in the possession of someone who is not familiar with them. The phone call I received concerning the 1922-D Walking Liberty half dollar began with the following message: “I may have a really rare coin — it is not listed in any of the price guides.” It did not take too long for me to identify the piece as a Dan Carr overstrike, although the disappointed caller probably contacted a few more people before accepting what I told him."

 

Simply, the noninformed person running across these can be swindled. Most of the world has no idea these 'fantasy' pieces exist. Those that don't call and are influenced by someone with apparent 'expertise' that has unsavory intentions can be convinced that these are a real and a rare US mint product. Since these pieces don't have the word 'Copy' or 'Fantasy' or something on them, these people can be had by the unscrupulous. It is just a matter of time until we hear about some senior citizen that was convinced to pay alot of money for one or more of these only to find out later they were had. Hence for consumer protection reasons, I am not sure why the feds haven't stepped in on this - I guess they have bigger fish to fry but it is only a matter of time probably.

 

Best, HT

 

Bigger fish to fry? Like who? You guys act like Dcarr is satan himself. You can garaun damn T there are members on this board that have called, written, emailed, sent carrier pigeon messages, smoke signals and every other possible form of communication to the Feds, they haven't done anything because there is nothing to be done, trust me he would have been notified by now. As the saying goes, put up or shut up! Until the government says he's producing counterfeits then all the anti Carr noise is just a bunch of blah blah cry baby titty mouth tantrum throwing none sense.

http://www.pcgs.com/top100/reward.aspx

This completely contradicts your other post that the supposed person being ripped off (hypothetically at a flea market) wouldn't be smart enough or have access to the Internet, so how is this poor innocent victim going to know about the $10,000 award to view the coin? I haven't been to a flea market so forgive me if PCGS has fliers set up at random flea markets looking for the elusive 1964 peace dollar.

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.

This is the weakest argument ever! So this imaginary person is going to run to his double wide and pull 10 grand out of his sofa cushions to buy a coin some huckster is selling him at the flea market! ! Have you ever been to a flea market? on top of that the guy doing the swindling would need to pony up a good chunk of change to get a real Dcarr '64! And even if he did, He's not going to a flea market to sell it. You're grasping at straws here!

...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.

Ugh. I wish this topic and person and his counterfeits would just go away.

, I wish Susan B Anthony dollars and the entire presidential dollar series would go away! As mentioned across the street it's an upstream swim, you'll soon tire of it. I can imagine PCGS stabbing these is just another swift current for the Dcarr haters to stroke through. I commend PCGS for making the change, I hope NGC follows in their footsteps.

Ok I'm sure this won't end well but I am curious. ATS a thread was started asking if anybody had a Dcarr peace dollar slabbed by PCGS. It sounds like they will now grade these. My question is will NGC also slab these currently or in the near future? Does anyone on these boards have one in PCGS plastic?

Nick

Here's the link ATS for those interested.

https://forums.collectors.com/messageview.aspx?catid=26&threadid=966937&enterthread=y

I think this thread has turned to a new topic and should probably start fresh with a new thread. I would like to see a picture of these supposed PL designated PCGS slabs, that would be something to see. I would also like to see the PL Ike's.

I'm not a huge sticker guy but I've always wondered why someone like Jason or another proof like expert hasn't started a CAC type approval sticker service for coins slabbed but not designated PL that meet the criteria. I know MAC stickers coins with a PL sticker but only on modern coins. Along with the sticker service you could also approve already labeled PL coins as PQ. If there is already something like this let me know. Thanks

Nick

The Heritage Photo accentuates the blue. At the correct angle, it is very close in hue. I was very happy to have won this recently. The luster on the obverse is very strong and enhances the toning nicely.

 

Very nice color. Any info on the aurora orban collection?