-
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.
Mr.Mcknowitall
-
Posts
14,297 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
NGC Journals
Gallery
Events
Store
Downloads
Posts posted by Mr.Mcknowitall
-
-
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.
-
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 Roger. 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.
Since 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 dome me all the time. Watch some car auctions. They are just not represented as original Mustangs
mark
I would be very interested in the legal tender position you have espoused. Could you elaborate? I assume it is more than precious metal content. I hope so.
-
Jason, I think I can still see that horse breathing. We better make sure it's dead
mark
It is the wrong horse being beaten. Until such time the correct horse, legality, is adjudicated, there is no need for a medical consult.
-
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.
-
I know dan personally and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt he is a bastion of truly ethical numismatics. His high morals and values while walking a fine line should be applauded not scorned. But I get it. Most don't know the man or truly understand the o/s processes and choose to just dig in on one or two specific possibilities of "what if this or that happens" or "you're destroying our hobby" blah blah blah ad naseum. At first I fought you guys tooth and nail because I didn't think all the unwarranted vitriol against him was fair or right. Now though, I just laugh every naysayer off. These threads are highly entertaining now. And ya know what, all you guys are doing is helping him. And that I like. Long live the moonlight mint and all the wonderfull creations coming forth. His overstrikes are nothing more than hobo nickes of the highest order and his original stuff is great. If I could find Banksy I'd commission him to do the walls of the press room. Two similar artists in their respective fields coming together. Too bad I can't also get Andy Warhol to turn his front door into a Campbell's soup can too.
Carry on guys and help the cause. My popcorn is popping
You have assumed any person in the hobby that questions the legality/status of the work is in some manner belittling the person or questioning his morals or integrity and ethic(both work and personal).
I have not seen heard or read where one person did so. Nor have I seen or heard or read a condemnation of the artistic talent and skill.
What is the unwarranted vitriol that offends you? Hobbyists are questioning the legality of the pieces. This is not unwarranted vitriol, in my opinion.
You use the term over strike. Fair enough. What, in your opinion,supports and anchors the over strikes to be in compliance with the language of the present laws that exist? There must be some thought that gives you confidence to declare the legitimacy of the pieces. For all I know, and I freely admit I don't know much, the producer of the pieces and/or you have received assurances from the U.S. Attorney General. However, at this particular point in time I have not seen heard or read of any such instance.
If this has not happened, I would think the producer would do so. Why not present the situation to the U.S. Attorney General? We are all as good citizens interested in compliance, are we not?
After all, using the term "while walking a fine line" would indicate you personally recognize the not so clear aspect of the question of legality, does it not?
What would be your position if a similarly talented person copied the original pieces with a slight modification and manufactured them in large quantities at a reduced price? What would the producer of the original pieces think? What would be his reaction? What would you think? Would it not just be another talented person taking hobo nickels to a higher order, in that there would be more availability at a lower price? What if another talented person then did the same to that producer's work?
-
Saw this on Facebook, from Coin World, about the 1922-D halves:
http://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/2016/08/1922-d-half-dollar-struck-at-private-mint.1.html
It was mentioned and posted a few pages back.
-
By contrast, D koan Carr's exonumia are a boost to numismatics, in their small way they are adding to the interest, popularity and collectibility of coins, and he should receive appreciation for his considerable efforts and craftsmanship.
This has always been my stance as well. I know a few collectors who got intiated into US coins by first collecting Carr coins. It was their gateway. Conversely I know several HEAVYWEIGHTS ( and I don't mean in pounds Roger) of the coin world who collect these as well.
mark
I certainly appreciate this position.
However, regardless of personal likes or dislikes or perceived benefit to the hobby or not, it does not address the legal issues. This is all the more reason to contact the U.S. Attorney General. After all, I would think it would be in the interest of persons that have the pieces to determine the pieces are legal and not against the law. The only confidence of legality a present owner has is the word of the producer of the pieces. That is not legal assurance, to me and foes not give me confidence that I would not have to forfeit the piece in the future. But I realize that is just my own opinion.
I might. If I indeed questioned their legality. Since I don't, I won't. Why would I?
mark
I believe there was a recent numismatic legal situation in which the question of why would someone do so was answered.
Not questioning legality has been a foolish position that many have determined after the fact was indeed a foolish position, due to the consequences of the head in sand defense.
-
By contrast, D koan Carr's exonumia are a boost to numismatics, in their small way they are adding to the interest, popularity and collectibility of coins, and he should receive appreciation for his considerable efforts and craftsmanship.
This has always been my stance as well. I know a few collectors who got intiated into US coins by first collecting Carr coins. It was their gateway. Conversely I know several HEAVYWEIGHTS ( and I don't mean in pounds Roger) of the coin world who collect these as well.
mark
I certainly appreciate this position.
However, regardless of personal likes or dislikes or perceived benefit to the hobby or not, it does not address the legal issues. This is all the more reason to contact the U.S. Attorney General. After all, I would think it would be in the interest of persons that have the pieces to determine the pieces are legal and not against the law. The only confidence of legality a present owner has is the word of the producer of the pieces. That is not legal assurance, to me and foes not give me confidence that I would not have to forfeit the piece in the future. But I realize that is just my own opinion.
-
There may be a simple path to determine the interpretation of the laws. Directly contact the U.S. Attorney General. Not a person at the U.S. Mint. Not a person at the Treasury.
State all the positions of why the pieces are within the definition of the law and are legal under the present language of the law.
As I recall, this was previously suggested.
-
Safe to say yet another DCarr thread where nothing is learned and no minds were changed. If anything people are just digging in their heels even more.
Mark
isn't the issue a matter of law?
.It is not, to me, an I like Mr. Carr or not, or I like his work or not issue.
-
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.
ATTICA ATTICA ATTICA!!!!!
But, unfortunately, the laws are what they are. Inaction by the Government does not translate into innocence of the person not in compliance with the laws, nor does it translate into elimination or change of the existing laws, until Congress declares otherwise.
As to the bigger fish, there is the problem of cyber theft, terrorists, drug cartels, money laundering, as a starting point. There are only so many U.S. Attorneys and LEOs available. Wait until a slow year, when there is time to address the matter.
-
I saw that movie. I didn't know he was in it. I liked the slam bang punch your face guy, though. He NEVER falls down. NEVER.
-
I won my own "time to response" bet.
I kill me 
-
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?
As a clarification only, are you asking the questions from a point of view of the FB designation? I note Mark did not use an opinion description of 67+FB, or actually, FB at all.
-
As I recall the 60s when I started collecting, Coin collecting used to be more fun, back when whizzed coins were common, counterfeits were everywhere, and the same coin was BU when purchased and EF when sold. Yeah, I can see the response to this comment now: People should learn to recognize whizzed coins, detect counterfeits, and how to grade. What a great hobby...I have to study, study, study rather than simply relax and enjoy.
These are the golden days of collecting. Encapsulated coins are (virtually) never whizzed nor counterfeit. With the ever-increasing sophistication of counterfeits, that last fact is very reassuring. Plus the encapsulation means that when my kids were much younger, I could let them look at my coins with no fear of harm coming to the coins. Grading remains an issue, but much less so with the big 2 (or 3) grading companies.
Plus, no one tells me that I have to chase "grade rarities" (such as the coin featured in this thread way back at the start) and pay a hefty price to acquire them. I can do so if I want or I can choose to pass. Moreover, if others want to collect these sorts of coins because they enjoy doing so, more power to them. Let them have a good time because their good times have no effect on me.
Mark
You said it in the true spirit of collecting for the joy of it. No negativity here!
Part of the fun being a serious collector at least for me, is the learning process by educating myself. In the end, I make the decisions, not a dealer or a slab!!
Here is a Roosie that tied for the second finest known example of a 1964 D.
Strategically anticipating some expert analytical comparisons to "Just Having Fun"
That 67+ is a much better looking coin based on the pics. Highest grade does not always equal better. I would hope that is universally known
Mark
Mark, I was going to post something very similar to that, but you beat me to it. "Highest graded" can be ascertained, but the same can't necessarily be said of "finest known". And one doesn't necessarily equate to the other.
Mark (Mr Feld), have you seen and reviewed the wondercoin Roosie? What is your opinion, given that he gave you permission to share the opinion. Was there any Heritage discussion concerning the description to use? The wording seems to be a tad tilted toward Registry Set participants, as opposed to any intererested rarity collector, which I can understand.
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.
I did not have any discussion with any catalogers, nor will I.That is their department, not mine.
I can also understand the Registry Set tilting you mentioned with respect to the wording in the description.That is usually the case with top pop coins.
Thank you Mark.
-
As I recall the 60s when I started collecting, Coin collecting used to be more fun, back when whizzed coins were common, counterfeits were everywhere, and the same coin was BU when purchased and EF when sold. Yeah, I can see the response to this comment now: People should learn to recognize whizzed coins, detect counterfeits, and how to grade. What a great hobby...I have to study, study, study rather than simply relax and enjoy.
These are the golden days of collecting. Encapsulated coins are (virtually) never whizzed nor counterfeit. With the ever-increasing sophistication of counterfeits, that last fact is very reassuring. Plus the encapsulation means that when my kids were much younger, I could let them look at my coins with no fear of harm coming to the coins. Grading remains an issue, but much less so with the big 2 (or 3) grading companies.
Plus, no one tells me that I have to chase "grade rarities" (such as the coin featured in this thread way back at the start) and pay a hefty price to acquire them. I can do so if I want or I can choose to pass. Moreover, if others want to collect these sorts of coins because they enjoy doing so, more power to them. Let them have a good time because their good times have no effect on me.
Mark
You said it in the true spirit of collecting for the joy of it. No negativity here!
Part of the fun being a serious collector at least for me, is the learning process by educating myself. In the end, I make the decisions, not a dealer or a slab!!
Here is a Roosie that tied for the second finest known example of a 1964 D.
Strategically anticipating some expert analytical comparisons to "Just Having Fun"
That 67+ is a much better looking coin based on the pics. Highest grade does not always equal better. I would hope that is universally known
Mark
Mark, I was going to post something very similar to that, but you beat me to it. "Highest graded" can be ascertained, but the same can't necessarily be said of "finest known". And one doesn't necessarily equate to the other.
Mark (Mr Feld), have you seen and reviewed the wondercoin Roosie? What is your opinion, given that he gave you permission to share the opinion. Was there any Heritage discussion concerning the description to use? The wording seems to be a tad tilted toward Registry Set participants, as opposed to any intererested rarity collector, which I can understand.
-
Well, the coin has posted to the Heritage ANA Auction in August. I guess we'll see what the "market" thinks this coin is worth (assuming there is truly no reserve on the coin).
The Heritage Description:
1964-D 10C MS68 Full Bands PCGS. Ex: Just Having Fun. This is the sole finest 1964-D Roosevelt dime certified with Full Bands (6/16). The luster is satiny and vibrant, and rich russet-orange, sun-yellow, and forest-green toning surrounds the margins. The centers remain brilliant. The Registry Set collector should not let this top-grade coin pass by. (NGC ID# 23M3, PCGS# 85129)
Heritage Auctions images:
=================================
Interestingly, the very prominent green spots on the reverse under "UNITED STATES" visible in the Wondercoin provided images on eBay are no longer visible on the Heritage Auctions images...
Wondercoin eBay auction images:
My guess is that once the sale is posted, there will also be an image of the coin in the holder. And, since such images are typically darker than the non-holder images, the "very prominent green spots on the reverse under "UNITED STATES" visible in the Wondercoin provided images on eBay" will be visible.
I am sure the listing states the bands are fine, and that Mr. Wondercoin looked at the coin and gave his opinion of the coin as promised. I recall he gave you open permission to do so also, some time ago.
Maybe the listing should include a link to this Thread.
I am still trying to understand what the bands are fine means and what a grade of the bands are fine means. It must mean something.
This picture is quite different from the picture his son took, and as I recall, he thought the picture taken by his son was quite good. Maybe that picture should be used in the listing? It certainly shows the marks better.
-
Sea green...ocean foam...? Geeeeezzzzz.
It is not my fault if you are a couch potato that doesn't go to the beach
-
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 re-holder it.
Makes sense. I doubt the op coin went thru that process originally and considering when it was encapsulated, It would not surprise me if there was the slight beginning of pvc that would have been very hard, if possible at all, to detect especially with the sea green/ocean foam shades of toning. Who knows if it is or isn't without exam. But if they do so, The grading could possibly be impacted. Maybe not. I guess that is what gambling is.
-
The assumption to be answered correctly would first have to eliminate the possibility that it did not occur after encapsulation.
-
I assume the op coin has reached Heritage by now. I am interested in how the coin will be described by Heritage.
Mr. Feld, did you formally agree with the agent/owner of the coin to review this coin and did the agreement allow publicly comment here, as was suggested earlier in the thread?
Another question is how the auction description is born. Does a team review the coin, or just one grader, or just a talented writer describing appearance of the coin?
-
I'll see if there is a nice dupe I can let go.
Wondercoin
Dupes are normally '2nds' and not the highest quality in the set. My years of experience with physics is that he wants the top quality, not next to top. He is also one of the top graders not hired to grade professionally (he wrote a book on it), so he will have a critical eye - I showed him a stunner at the last FUN show with a 'hidden' and subtle mark and within 10 seconds of a full perusal of the coin he was able to point it out, where the majority would have missed it......... So you might want to offer him your top examples instead.
Best, HT
I would think Mr. Wondercoin uses the word "dupes" in a somewhat different manner. I would think given his experience and obvious enjoyment of the hobby, that dupes in his vernacular means equal, at least as he views the coins. I for one would not assume he means lesser quality in that regard, and would hope not after our recent exchange concerning the word "fine".
I am also of the opinion that there are many top graders that are not hired professionally, and are unknown in general circles, including many on this board.
-
The differences between the image of the 1957 D presented at Heritage and the image presented on Ebay are striking.
"...unless they are indeed post mint marks...."
-
My eyes popped when I spotted this outrageous coin. When I saw the slab,
my jaws dropped in disbelief. Could this by the only slab in the world to have
a non sequitur written on it?
That adds a grand to the value of the dime!
.
I kill me 
Dcarr over strike question.
in US, World, and Ancient Coins
Posted
I see. The original legal U.S. Tender is altered to create non-legal U.S. Tender. I understand the novel position of justification. I think it may cause a slight pause by the U.S. Attorney General. Nothing wrong with delaying a decision. It is the American way.
Those pieces sold are no longer HIS (don't shout-not necessary), once sold. That creates a question of public interest, does it not? While I recognize the reason for the emphasis of HIS, that was a very bad chess move.
As to your last sentence, I recognize when a person prefers to abandon the conversation when the questions asked are not comfortable, and no answers that support the position espoused are viable.