Afterword

“After seeing the dramatic changes at other grading services over the last few years, however, I am no longer confident that their current standards are equal to their former standards or to those that NGC has maintained for nearly 30 years.”

If what he says here is true, is he not doing what is honorable? Should he condone the awarding of what he believes does not warrant the recognition?

Considering the fact that PCGS coins regularly demand a premium over NGC coins, which he must be aware is true, is he not doing what is honorable despite the likelihood that many collectors might be reluctant, at best, to cross their PCGS coins over to NGC holders, and, instead, might actually do the opposite and cross their NGC coins over to PCGS holders, given the choice between the two options?

So is what he states above true? Which of the two TPGs has maintained their standards the most consistently?

A healthy message board should be a place of diverse opinions and personalities. However, tolerance is also a necessary ingredient. Without it diversity could not exist. Without it you would have nothing more than like minded people living in a closed minded bubble.

Passion is also necessary. It drives us forward, but at times it can drive us too fast and too far as well. We are all susceptible - some more so than others. We sometimes say or do things we will later regret.

When this happens to someone, we sometimes forget we ourselves have been there and done that. We also sometimes forget the positive contributions of that someone.

"The tone and topic of the post were not in keeping with the friendly atmosphere that we try to foster on the boards."

 

 

 

What is friendly about insinuating or outright calling DCarr a fraudster or counterfeiter? What is appropriate about members taking it upon themselves to determine what is or is not illegal and then attempting to enforce the law themselves via repeated intimidation and harassment?

 

Discussing politics is not appropriate, but repeated intimidation and harassment is?

 

I have not responded to your posts in some time, and I wouldn't on this occasion, except I thought you may be asking the question of me. It may also be that you are simply posting after my post, and that is why your post references mine.

 

I did not post the words you have quoted.

 

But, just in the off chance you were responding to my post for some reason, I have never called Mr. Carr a fraudster or a counterfeiter and have not been discourteous toward Mr. Carr in my posts or attempted to belittle him. He has resorted on occasion to posting in that manner, but I assume it is due to frustration. I freely admit I have been repetitive in my commentary and opinion of his use of the word LEGAL, and only because Mr. Carr has a tendency to obfuscate and misdirect the conversation concerning same. As an example, his opinions of the subject of using the word LEGAL on his websites without a statement that the endeavors have not been adjudicated is "that is all you are going to get".

 

My opinion of the endeavors of Mr. Carr is and has been very clear. His pieces have not been adjudicated as legal, and it is my opinion that any language that describes the pieces as legal in any manner on his websites can be misleading, and he has never opined why he won't pursue adjudication, which may very well be a very good approach for his business.

 

I did not declare the pieces legal or not legal or determine same. That is the function of the government to do so. It is not out of bounds to publicly declare such an opinion, nor is it a political discussion. Reading the thread of what is or is not political clarifies how the host views the subject.

 

I do agree that there has been discourteous posts and name calling toward Mr. Carr, which are in my opinion not necessary to make a point.

 

I of course can not answer for other members or their choice of words. Nor is it my place to determine an intent of intimidation or harassment via the posts of other members, but I know it when I see it, and to that degree I concur it has happened in my opinion.

 

My opinions are my own, and as such are not important at all. It is just chat board opinions.

No, my post was not directed at you specifically - but your replies are always interesting.

"The tone and topic of the post were not in keeping with the friendly atmosphere that we try to foster on the boards."

What is friendly about insinuating or outright calling DCarr a fraudster or counterfeiter? What is appropriate about members taking it upon themselves to determine what is or is not illegal and then attempting to enforce the law themselves via repeated intimidation and harassment?

Discussing politics is not appropriate, but repeated intimidation and harassment is?

There is some projecting going on as well. It is always a good sign when your opponent accuses you of faltering or being desperate, when that is obviously not the case.

Conversely, when someone blatantly makes comparisons that stretch credibility to the breaking point, accusations of desperation (for example) are tenable.

“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? There must be factors involved like the number of pieces produced, whether said pieces resemble coins presently in circulation, whether they represent coins that have been produced by the United States, etc, that determine the level of threat to the government monetary system.

The government’s concern is not with numismatic interests, but with the concerns quoted above.

“…but it does not require intent for the production of the prohibited items.”

The fact that it does not require intent does not mean that intent cannot or is not considered.

Is Carr’s fantasy pieces truly a threat to our government, or is it just a perceived threat to some in the numismatic community?

Try putting the legality of the matter aside for a minute and consider instead the best way to make coin collectors aware of Carr's pieces. Conmen are powerless against knowledge.

 

At least in this instance, knowledge is much more effective than laws, lawyers and judges will ever be.

 

 

Fair enough, but if Carr would comply with the law, then his fantasy pieces would not exist (in my opinion, of course ) so there would be no need to make collectors aware of anything.

Yes, in your opinion.

Acceptance of Carr’s work by the two top grading services would go a long way toward this end. Using these message boards as a means to make collectors aware of Carr’s pieces, in such a negative and slanderous fashion, does not. It achieves very little good when weighed against the ill-will, contempt and not-founded-in-fact accusations that it creates.

 

It is not slander or libel; it's not even close.

 

(1) Truth is a good and absolute defense. If it is true, it is not slander or libel by definition.

(2) Sincerely held opinions are protected; note the distinction between representation of fact and expression of opinion.

(3) Even if wrong, voicing concern over questionable behavior that is of interest to the hobby lacks actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth (especially in light of all of the case law) and Carr has placed himself in the numismatic lime light by producing the pieces...

 

I could go on, but why bore every one?

 

 

P.S. Here is another interesting legal question: Do Carr pieces infringe upon the copyrighted designs imparted on the planchets especially given the commercial use of the designs? Of course government works generally are in the public domain, but what if the Mint is only licensed to use the image and does not own the copyright? What other designs has Carr produced other than the Peace Dollars (the latter of which would be in the public domain)?

Try putting the legality of the matter aside for a minute and consider instead the best way to make coin collectors aware of Carr's pieces. Conmen are powerless against knowledge.

At least in this instance, knowledge is much more effective than laws, lawyers and judges will ever be.

...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"?

The stance by PCGS to not grade and encapsulate Carr’s pieces is unfortunate. By doing so, they have missed an opportunity to make Carr’s pieces even less likely than they already are to be used as a means to defraud unsuspecting and gullible coin collectors.

If the attorney general does nothing, as has been the case so far, and with little reason to believe this will change any time soon, if ever, perhaps it is time for concerned and responsible collectors to recognize Carr’s work as legitimate collectibles - if for no other reason than to make more coin collectors aware of their existence and thereby less likely to fall for such a scam.

Acceptance of Carr’s work by the two top grading services would go a long way toward this end. Using these message boards as a means to make collectors aware of Carr’s pieces, in such a negative and slanderous fashion, does not. It achieves very little good when weighed against the ill-will, contempt and not-founded-in-fact accusations that it creates.

Considering the apparent lack of interest in the matter by the government, I see no other constructive and responsible avenue to pursue.

In this situation, the technical details render DC's fantasy products outside the purview of those statutes, provisions, and precedents, as already very carefully explained by DC himself in a variety of postings.

 

A series of federal court decisions undermines his arguments, and when read together, the cases logically refute his arguments completely. It is true enough that decisions are reversed and precedent abandoned; however, there is no difference among circuits and the interpretations and cases discussed do not appear to be controversial.

 

So far, there have been a number of cases cited (spanning more than a century of precedent) that are on point that work against Carr. I have yet to see any case law from the pro-fantasy strike side to support their arguments. So far, all I have seen are the subjective and selective interpretations of the self interested producer of the coins. Does your side have anything else?

 

P.S. Vague web pages of the U.S. Mint which are silent on his productions are not legally binding or even remotely persuasive legal resources. I would like to see stuff from the U.S. Code, Code of Federal Regulations, precedent from the U .S. Supreme Court and circuit courts of appeal, etc. Also, the public can freely search Google Scholar for case law so lack of a West Law or Lexis Nexis account doesn't preclude the ability to do legal research.

Have you found case law that exactly addresses Carr’s fantasies pieces? Created by someone who has been open about what they do and why they do it, both on their website and through their actions? Someone who has been in business for years creating such pieces?

Short of this, any case law presented would be less than compelling. Circumstances matter.

The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. You, RWB and others are the accusers, and bear that burden. However, there is no way you can prove what the verdict would be in a hypothetical trial punctuated by unknowns.

This leaves us with nothing but speculation on both sides of the argument, which is fine, has long as it is civil.

Just to be honest. The majority of posts in this thread are speculative in nature, even the opening post, and several are less than courteous.

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

A straw horse might be more appropriate, but Mr.Mcknowitall is one of the more interesting posters on these message boards - although I do miss the dancing hotdogs.

Coinman:

 

“So I did and I talked to the US Attorney at the Denver office. I explained the situation and potential scenarios. He then stated that the US Attorney does not interpret such laws or scenarios for the public and that I should consult with my own lawyer.”

 

If Carr provided enough information regarding his ’64 D Peace Dollars for them to determine the legality of same, and they determined it to be illegal, why would they not investigate and prosecute? Or could it be that they did investigate and found no grounds for prosecution?

 

“The Attorney General is the government's lawyer, and solely represents the government's interest.”

 

If Carr related sufficient information concerning his fantasy pieces, I find it hard to believe that they would not make a determination of legality and act accordingly.

 

(Only Carr knows for certain whether he gave them sufficient information, but let us assume he did.)

 

This is interesting, but there are too many variables to speculate. When? Where? What was said? You get the idea.

 

Edited to add: Looking back, it looks like this exchange was based on hypotheticals. The US Attorney was merely refusing to act as his counsel about hypothetical situations and emphasizing that the government is his client. I would not make any assumptions.

 

At the time, I had already distributed some of the "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollars. That is why Coin World initiated the article on them. Also prior to my conversation with the US Attorney, my 2009-DC "proofed" Silver Eagles were already being offered as well. When I talked to him, I relayed the specific scenario of over-striking existing coins to give them non-existent fantasy dates and selling them as novelty items. After discussing and contemplating the situation for a couple minutes, the US Attorney stated that they would not provide an opinion on that.

 

 

Did you give him information about your website or Moonlight Press or any other means he could use to follow up on the matter? Did he ask for any of this information?

 

Not that you should disclose it here on this forum, but do you retain the name of this US Attorney in the unlikely event you should someday need proof of your attempt to determine the legality of your enterprise?

 

I'd have to look through my old notes to see if I wrote anything down.

He did not ask for any specific information beyond the scenarios I relayed to him. But I did provide my contact information.

Your name and contact information would be sufficient to conduct an investigation if it were determined that there was a need to do so.

Take from that what you will.

The longevity and success of your enterprise, combined with the support of many, if not most of the numismatic community, and the full disclosure of exactly what it is that you do, and the fact that there has been not one reported instance of fraud related to your products in all of this time....

You can also take that for what it is worth.

As for me, if I were you, I would not give the time of day to a few detractors on a message board.

Coinman:

 

“So I did and I talked to the US Attorney at the Denver office. I explained the situation and potential scenarios. He then stated that the US Attorney does not interpret such laws or scenarios for the public and that I should consult with my own lawyer.”

 

If Carr provided enough information regarding his ’64 D Peace Dollars for them to determine the legality of same, and they determined it to be illegal, why would they not investigate and prosecute? Or could it be that they did investigate and found no grounds for prosecution?

 

“The Attorney General is the government's lawyer, and solely represents the government's interest.”

 

If Carr related sufficient information concerning his fantasy pieces, I find it hard to believe that they would not make a determination of legality and act accordingly.

 

(Only Carr knows for certain whether he gave them sufficient information, but let us assume he did.)

 

This is interesting, but there are too many variables to speculate. When? Where? What was said? You get the idea.

 

Edited to add: Looking back, it looks like this exchange was based on hypotheticals. The US Attorney was merely refusing to act as his counsel about hypothetical situations and emphasizing that the government is his client. I would not make any assumptions.

 

At the time, I had already distributed some of the "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollars. That is why Coin World initiated the article on them. Also prior to my conversation with the US Attorney, my 2009-DC "proofed" Silver Eagles were already being offered as well. When I talked to him, I relayed the specific scenario of over-striking existing coins to give them non-existent fantasy dates and selling them as novelty items. After discussing and contemplating the situation for a couple minutes, the US Attorney stated that they would not provide an opinion on that.

Did you give him information about your website or Moonlight Mint or any other means he could use to follow up on the matter? Did he ask for any of this information?

Not that you should disclose it here on this forum, but do you retain the name of this US Attorney in the unlikely event you should someday need proof of your attempt to determine the legality of your enterprise?

Coinman:

“So I did and I talked to the US Attorney at the Denver office. I explained the situation and potential scenarios. He then stated that the US Attorney does not interpret such laws or scenarios for the public and that I should consult with my own lawyer.”

If Carr provided enough information regarding his ’64 D Peace Dollars for them to determine the legality of same, and they determined it to be illegal, why would they not investigate and prosecute? Or could it be that they did investigate and found no grounds for prosecution?

“The Attorney General is the government's lawyer, and solely represents the government's interest.”

If Carr related sufficient information concerning his fantasy pieces, I find it hard to believe that they would not make a determination of legality and act accordingly.

(Only Carr knows for certain whether he gave them sufficient information, but let us assume he did.)

I would think it likely that the Attorney General would not wish to answers questions regarding the legality of anything that would require a full investigation in order to make a comprehensive determination of same. I doubt very seriously that the Attorney General would offer a declaration of legal or illegal based on the information provided by Carr or one of his detractors.

However, he/she might initiate an investigation in to the matter based on said information, but the answer to the question of legality would likely not be forthcoming until after an official investigation was conducted, if indeed the information provided justified such action.

Mr. Carr, it is my judgment that there is no crime more heinous than that of having no intention of breaking the law. Countless law enforcement officers and prison staff, not to mention judicial positions such as my own, and administrative staff that support the legal system would lose their jobs if everyone were as thoughtlessly reckless as you have been proven to be in this courtroom today.

Life in prison with no hope of parole is too good for you, but unfortunately it is all the law will allow.

May God have mercy on your soul.

"You made a mistake about who you were replying to, and did not have the courtesy to correct your assumption."

I was obviously replying to the person who made the statement I quoted. I have done so in this fashion many times on this message board, as you are fully aware.

A mistake was made but it was not on my part, as evidenced by your obvious attempt to redeem yourself by means of obfuscation and misdirection that is aptly illustrated by the quote presented above.

You engaged me in this thread with a contrived excuse, indicating a motive that is less than honorable or honest on your part. I can think of no reason not to discontinue said engagement, which you will no doubt find objectionable and more than just a little aggravating.

"Nor were you accused of doing so, in either of your paragraphs above."

Too bad you did not make this clear in your original post. It would have saved us both some unnecessary typing.

"I take note of your lack of response concerning who you intended to reply to."

Just as you say yourself, "As to the rest, I cannot comment on any self righteous crusade you may be interpreting from the member that did state what you are commenting on."

"This is well known, and should not be used as an example of all other responses, in my opinion."

I made no such broad claim.

"Once the pieces are sold to the public, questioning the legal validity of the pieces under the current laws is certainly understandable and is proper for the owners of such pieces, for the hobby and for future purchasers."

I did not say otherwise.

"No one is harassing him."

So no one has called him a counterfeiter on this public forum based on their interpretation of law? No one has been calling him the "Colorado Counterfeiter" at every given opportunity? Accusing someone of being a criminal based solely on your interpretation of law repeatedly on a public forum does not constitute harassment?

It is like your neighbor accusing you of stealing his rake, though he admits to not actually witnessing the act, and he and his buddies standing in your front yard shouting for all to hear that you are a theft. You have no more proof of wrong doing on Carr’s part than your hypothetical neighbor does on your part. All you have is your interpretation of the law and all he has is the fact that your rake looks an awfully lot like his.

Educating people is admiral, but doing so at the expense of a man who has not been proven guilty of any crime is not. Would the actions of those hypothetical men in your front yard be justified simply because they were showing their children how to handle a thief?

I will say nothing further on the subject. Continue your self-righteous crusade if you must.

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.

"I find it amusing the haters are now sick of the topic or no longer discussing it."

To clarify, I am not a dcarr hater.

I will not waste my time on this topic anymore.

Thanks for answering my questions.