1964-D Peace Dollar

[bigred33-migration]

I bought one and would totally love to get the 'visit by the secret service', that folks over there were thinking will happen, trying to take away my work of art. Worth a hundred bucks all day long.

 

No different than a hobo nickel, fugio, etc etc.

[Zoins]

no matter what any of us think, it does/will come down to interpretation of that HPA language.

More specifically, it comes down to the interpretation by one or more US courts. Then it may come down to what Congress wants to do about it, if anything.

[bigred33-migration]

And oh, somebody was asking about D Carr's other stuff. Here's 3 other pieces I've picked up.

 

[MarkFeld]

I bought one and would totally love to get the 'visit by the secret service', that folks over there were thinking will happen, trying to take away my work of art. Worth a hundred bucks all day long.

 

No different than a hobo nickel, fugio, etc etc.

I doubt that many people believe Hobo nickels "reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item".

 

[Zoins]

I bought one and would totally love to get the 'visit by the secret service', that folks over there were thinking will happen, trying to take away my work of art. Worth a hundred bucks all day long.

 

No different than a hobo nickel, fugio, etc etc.

I doubt that many people believe Hobo nickels "reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item".

This is a subjective judgement call and is generally for a judge or jury to decide. Many people seem to doubt that a Carr 1964-D Peace dollar could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item. I think a judge or jury would need to see the evidence to make a determination, hearsay not withstanding.

 

Using this line of reasoning, however, it does seem like the New Haven Fugios could be in the same category with respect to the likeness, except for the fact they are complete fabrications from the planchet up. However, the New Haven counterfeits seem to be revered in the numismatic community and slabbed by the top TPGs. Using this precedent, perhaps the TPGs should also slab the Carr dollars given they have a greater claim to legitimacy.

[bigred33-migration]

I bought one and would totally love to get the 'visit by the secret service', that folks over there were thinking will happen, trying to take away my work of art. Worth a hundred bucks all day long.

 

No different than a hobo nickel, fugio, etc etc.

I doubt that many people believe Hobo nickels "reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item".

 

But it falls under the same category of an altered coin and is thus protected. My interpretation anyway as a fellow artist.

 

 

[edix]

Tell me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the issues that the Mint-produced 1964-D is a coin that is not a coin. I mean it is not a pattern, and not a real coin at the same time. The Mint produced 1964-D is in a gray area itself. Is there another instance in US numismatics where a president had a design coined, then ordered destroyed since there was no legislation to back it up? (Maybe the whole Martha Washington silver story, but I don't know.)

And in terms of what someone else said about coinage types: if it would be wrong to strike a 64-D as a Peace dollar type, then would it also be wrong to strike a 1968-D dated Peace dollar (how about overstruck on a 40% silver Ike!)

[Zoins]

The 1964-D Peace dollars are:

• officially classified as "trial strikes"
  
• officially all destroyed according to Government records
  
• officially, and specifically, identified as illegal to possess and
  
• officially under a US Government destruction order

I'm not aware of any pieces under a similar situation.

[physics-fan3.14]

What is unclear to me from the HPA's langauage, however, is whether there is a requirement that the "imitation" must be of the same date as an "original" which did or does exist.

My thinking on this is that, if you take the date change off the table, the HPA does not apply because the pieces in question are actual Peace dollars struck by the US Mint

 

This does not make any sense to me: Carr said he eliminated all traces of the original peace dollar from the blanks, and used only the metal. Sounds like this was simply easier than melting them down and re-forming blanks. So if I take a bag of silver roosies, melt them down, and make something out of them, they are still actual dimes struck by the US mint? No, they are a block of 90% silver.

[Zoins]

What is unclear to me from the HPA's langauage, however, is whether there is a requirement that the "imitation" must be of the same date as an "original" which did or does exist.

My thinking on this is that, if you take the date change off the table, the HPA does not apply because the pieces in question are actual Peace dollars struck by the US Mint

This does not make any sense to me: Carr said he eliminated all traces of the original peace dollar from the blanks, and used only the metal.

I don't recall Dan saying that. Additionally, third-party photos show and written reports say that this is not true. They are true overstrikes and evidence of the underlying design can be seen. Third-parties have said there is no way a reasonable collector or TPG would be fooled into thinking these were original.

So if I take a bag of silver roosies, melt them down, and make something out of them, they are still actual dimes struck by the US mint? No, they are a block of 90% silver.

This is true, but it is not true of the Peace dollars.

[JIM F.]

But altered to a date which was produced and which could still exist, in which case it would be worth a fortune.

Not to nitpick, but wouldn't a genuine 1964-D be worth nothing if it did exist, since it is not legal to own it, and therefore cannot be marketed?

 

Flawed argument - stolen artwork can not be marketed, yet it is worth a fortune on the black market.

 

Illegal drugs can not be marketed, yet the market amounts to billions of dollars.

 

Just because something is illegal to sell or own does not make it worthless.

[Zoins]

But altered to a date which was produced and which could still exist, in which case it would be worth a fortune.

Not to nitpick, but wouldn't a genuine 1964-D be worth nothing if it did exist, since it is not legal to own it, and therefore cannot be marketed?

Flawed argument - stolen artwork can not be marketed, yet it is worth a fortune on the black market.

 

Illegal drugs can not be marketed, yet the market amounts to billions of dollars.

 

Just because something is illegal to sell or own does not make it worthless.

It would seem to me that the US did not intend or design its laws to uphold the black market value of (allegedly) stolen US government property.

 

An item may have value on the black market, but the value of that item may not be protected by US law. Would you use US laws to protect the value of illegal drugs?

[19Lyds]

, since Carr, as a designer, was a finalist for the reverse design of the golden dollar, successfully designed two state quarters and was in the running for several other state quarter designs.

 

So does that give Mr. Carr leave to alter genuine Mint coinage and to profit from the alteration?

 

Mr Carr is at liberty to use any 90% silver piece to produce anything he wants as long as it's not a real coin.

 

He could use that planchet stock for the production of Amero's for example.

 

He could NOT use that planchet stock to make 1934-S Peace Dollars though since they are real coins.

 

The 1964-D Peace Dollar does not exist which is the basis for Mr. Carr's production.

 

However, altering the date of a Peace dollar to an non-existant date in the manner he has, and selling it is akin to chinese fake trade dollars flooding the numismatic market.

 

Not!

[James_OldeTowne]

Using this line of reasoning, however, it does seem like the New Haven Fugios could be in the same category with respect to the likeness, except for the fact they are complete fabrications from the planchet up. However, the New Haven counterfeits seem to be revered in the numismatic community and slabbed by the top TPGs. Using this precedent, perhaps the TPGs should also slab the Carr dollars given they have a greater claim to legitimacy.

The difference is that the New Haven restrikes were manufactured long before the Hobby Act, and thus are not required to state "COPY" on them. The same is true of 1804 and 1823 "restrike" large-cents.

 

[19Lyds]

What is unclear to me from the HPA's langauage, however, is whether there is a requirement that the "imitation" must be of the same date as an "original" which did or does exist.

My thinking on this is that, if you take the date change off the table, the HPA does not apply because the pieces in question are actual Peace dollars struck by the US Mint

 

This does not make any sense to me: Carr said he eliminated all traces of the original peace dollar from the blanks, and used only the metal. Sounds like this was simply easier than melting them down and re-forming blanks. So if I take a bag of silver roosies, melt them down, and make something out of them, they are still actual dimes struck by the US mint? No, they are a block of 90% silver.

He never claimed to have removed all traces of the parent coin nor said he removed all traces of the parent coin. He claimed that the parent coins were processed for striking and would not reveal that process.

Some examples actually show portions of the originally struck coin.

 

 

[James_OldeTowne]

On the other hand, here's another argument that would cast Carr's 1964-D in unfavorable light.

 

Suppose I bleach a bunch of one-dollar bills. Then, I create dies that look exactly like $100 bill dies, except I put a weird date on them -- a date that for which $100 bills were never issued (1964, for example ). I stamp the bleached one-dollar bill paper with the new dies.

 

Would those be deemed illegal ? I suspect so !

[adm-migration]

Peace dollars exist as original numismatic items.

The Carr copies are replicas of them.

This is not true.

 

The Carr coins are Peace dollars, albeit ones that have been altered.

I see nothing in the Hobby Protection Act that is date-specific.

If you remove the date from consideration, the HPA is also not applicable because the pieces would be Peace dollars purporting to be Peace dollars.

 

 

These are interesting arguements. I will consider them in shaping my opinion on this issue. Even though I may try to rationalize in favor of the side I want to be correct, I am on the fence and could see a court deciding either way.

 

If the intentional alteration of the date is not enough change to justify the Carr $, then I would think thousands (?millions?) of bullion rounds are violating the HPA as well. It is unfortunate the amount of change necessary to fall outside HPA is not defined. Many silver rounds depict the Morgan $ design with some text altered, but I've never heard any complaints about this, related to the HPA or otherwise.

[19Lyds]

On the other hand, here's another argument that would cast Carr's 1964-D in unfavorable light.

 

Suppose I bleach a bunch of one-dollar bills. Then, I create dies that look exactly like $100 bill dies, except I put a weird date on them -- a date that for which $100 bills were never issued (1964, for example ). I stamp the bleached one-dollar bill paper with the new dies.

 

Would those be deemed illegal ? I suspect so !

This has been presented many times.

 

Turning One Dollar Bills into One Hundred Dollar Bills amounts to changing the denomination. Daniel Carr is not CHANGING the denomination. It is STILL a One Dollar piece based upon it's 90% Silver content at the time of it's original mintage.

[Zoins]

Using this line of reasoning, however, it does seem like the New Haven Fugios could be in the same category with respect to the likeness, except for the fact they are complete fabrications from the planchet up. However, the New Haven counterfeits seem to be revered in the numismatic community and slabbed by the top TPGs. Using this precedent, perhaps the TPGs should also slab the Carr dollars given they have a greater claim to legitimacy.

The difference is that the New Haven restrikes were manufactured long before the Hobby Act, and thus are not required to state "COPY" on them. The same is true of 1804 and 1823 "restrike" large-cents.

I use the New Haven Fugio counterfeits not as an HPA argument as I think there are enough arguments for that, but as an example of a counterfeit that is accepted by the numismatic community and slabbed by the TPGs. As I mentioned, I think the Carr dollars have more legitimacy than the New Haven Fugio counterfeits and thus perhaps should be more accepted than those pieces and be slabbed by the TPGs.

[adm-migration]

Some general points:

 

1) I do not know if any 1964–D silver dollars exist but they were definitely struck.

 

2) That they were not delivered as coins is irrelevant.

 

According to HPA being struck is not enough, they must be used in exchange or as commemoratives. It is not clear to me if the Fenton 1933 Saint case set precedence that would affect the 64-D Peace or not, since they were not "monetized."

 

3) Pattern coins of the 19th century were never delivered as coins yet they are clearly numismatic items struck by a United States mint.

 

4) Even if they were all destroyed, which is doubtful, the 1964–D dollar is still a numismatic item because it was struck in a mint.

 

Numismatic Items, Yes. Original Numismatic Items as defined by HPA, No.

 

5) The Carr piece, therefore, ought to carry the word COPY according to law.

 

Disme

 

Maybe. It will be interesting to see if this is resolved in court.

 

 

[adm-migration]

There has also been some question about whether you can have a COPY if no original exists. Back in 1995 when I wrote my Index of English Conder Token Legends there was just the original manuscript. A dealer who saw it liked it so much I ran him off a copy of the manuscript. In 1997 my apartment burned and the original manuscript was destroyed. When that happened did the dealers photocopy become an original? Or was it still a copy of an original that no longer exists?

 

To me this is very different from the Carr Fantasy overstike.

 

Without an original to compare it to, or even a photo of an original, there is no way to know what the Mint's 64-D Peace looked like. I imagine they did not look like overstruck peace dollars, like the Carr offering does.

 

I can think of two examples where the Mint stopped making a design for a long period of time, then when they made them again the designs had changed substantially. The 1921 Morgan dollars and the 1999 SBA dollars exhibit many differences from their respective earlier dies.

 

Similarly, the 64-D may have had very different hair detail, font type, rays, etc. If an original does exist and were compared to the Carr overstrike, his may look like a very bad imitation.

[adm-migration]

On the other hand, here's another argument that would cast Carr's 1964-D in unfavorable light.

 

Suppose I bleach a bunch of one-dollar bills. Then, I create dies that look exactly like $100 bill dies, except I put a weird date on them -- a date that for which $100 bills were never issued (1964, for example ). I stamp the bleached one-dollar bill paper with the new dies.

 

Would those be deemed illegal ? I suspect so !

 

I don't think this applies here, Carr made no attempt to alter the stated monetary value.

One Peace Dollar In -> One Peace Dollar Overstrike Out.

[DC Dawg]

On the other hand, here's another argument that would cast Carr's 1964-D in unfavorable light.

 

Suppose I bleach a bunch of one-dollar bills. Then, I create dies that look exactly like $100 bill dies, except I put a weird date on them -- a date that for which $100 bills were never issued (1964, for example ). I stamp the bleached one-dollar bill paper with the new dies.

 

Would those be deemed illegal ? I suspect so !

Historically, coins and currency have been treated differently in the US. They have different laws and the jurisdictions for enforcing those laws are different. Altering currency falls under the counterfeiting laws while altering coins fall under the Hobby Protection Act. One is viewed as a threat to commerce (counterfeiting) and the other is seen as a more limited threat to hobbyists, a smaller population of people.

 

Before anyone says anything, I do not agree that the split is a good idea, but that is the history of the law here in the US. I also know that one pound coins have been heavily counterfeited in England over the last year.

 

BTW: One of the reasons the $5 note was changed was because of counterfeiters bleaching the note and using the paper to print $100 notes. The security elements older notes were not significantly different than the new $100s. That was changed.

 

Scott

[James_OldeTowne]

On the other hand, here's another argument that would cast Carr's 1964-D in unfavorable light.

 

Suppose I bleach a bunch of one-dollar bills. Then, I create dies that look exactly like $100 bill dies, except I put a weird date on them -- a date that for which $100 bills were never issued (1964, for example ). I stamp the bleached one-dollar bill paper with the new dies.

 

Would those be deemed illegal ? I suspect so !

 

I don't think this applies here, Carr made no attempt to alter the stated monetary value.

One Peace Dollar In -> One Peace Dollar Overstrike Out.

But, one might argue that I didn't change the denomination of the paper money either, since no 1964 $100-bill has ever existed. In other words, how can I be accused of turning a piece of paper money into another piece of paper money if the latter has never existed? There's nothing wrong with that, right? if I create something new that didn't previously exist?

 

Yet I feel certain the Secret Service would be on it in a hurry.

[Schatzy]

[19Lyds]

On the other hand, here's another argument that would cast Carr's 1964-D in unfavorable light.

 

Suppose I bleach a bunch of one-dollar bills. Then, I create dies that look exactly like $100 bill dies, except I put a weird date on them -- a date that for which $100 bills were never issued (1964, for example ). I stamp the bleached one-dollar bill paper with the new dies.

 

Would those be deemed illegal ? I suspect so !

 

I don't think this applies here, Carr made no attempt to alter the stated monetary value.

One Peace Dollar In -> One Peace Dollar Overstrike Out.

But, one might argue that I didn't change the denomination of the paper money either, since no 1964 $100-bill has ever existed. In other words, how can I be accused of turning a piece of paper money into another piece of paper money if the latter has never existed? There's nothing wrong with that, right, if I create something new that didn't exist previously?

 

Yet I feel certain the Secret Service would be on it in a hurry.

Personally, I think you've missed the point and are now trying to confuse the arguments with unrelated possibilities.

 

If Carr had changed the denomination to $100 coins then perhaps your supposition might be related, but since he did not, it isn't.

 

Thousands of different schema's could be applied to present an "illegal" point of view such as 1964 Franklin Half Dollars the size of a Peace Dollar but they are totally irrelavent to what Daniel Carr did.

 

I guess what I am suggesting is that if comparison discussions are to occur, then they should be "equal" comparisons. Not simply one point in a comparison.

[dcarr]

... Lower quality than the better Chinese fakes...

 

RWB,

Post a picture of your best-quality Chinese fake Peace dollar (of any date). I want to see it. I think everyone else would like to see it also.

 

[dcarr]

I'd like to post a quote from Charles Danek that he posted ATS, but was not seen by very many folks since many of the threads were locked and/or had short life spans. I think it captures much of the essence of the whole thing:

 

>>>

"Regarding the recurring criticism on these boards that what Daniel has done is not a true work of art... well, yes, the design is a facsimile of a pre-existing work, but I think this misses the point... in 1917, The Society of Independent Artists held a show for which they claimed "all works would be accepted"... so member Marcel Duchamp, bought a ready-made ceramic urinal, and submitted it as an original work of art to test the rules... of course controversy followed, but the fact is that the piece is still discussed today as a relevant turning point in Western artistic consciousness. The point is that in Duchamp's case, (like Daniel Carr's,) the originality of the design was never the issue, but rather it was the use of a pre-existing (and in both cases, very loaded...) design in new & different context that constituted the work of art. Art is not always pretty pictures & relaxing music... at its core, I believe good art is that which recognizes our collective common understandings & challenges our collective common assumptions... and probably close to 3,000 posts later & counting, I'd say this is something Daniel's Peace Dollar project has done & continues to do, possibly to a greater degree than much of his other, original-design based work.

 

(Personally,) I love the coin! I like the connection it makes to the concept of a real 1964-D Peace Dollar, both in terms of its tangibility (the coin is, after all, exquisitely & lovingly rendered...) and also in terms of ownership (in that like the original, these coins seem to exist within a gray area of the law.) But moreover I just think they are just hysterically funny! Consider that the U.S. Mint made 1964-D Peace Dollars, and then destroyed them all without saving one for posterity or for the benefit of the numismatic community, in a scenario that unfortunately echoes the illogic of countless other actions the Mint has rendered in its history... I, for one, recognize the satire & the tongue-in-cheek protest nature of these coins... and best of all, they are real U.S. coins!

 

 

IMHO, some controversy is GOOD for the hobby of collecting U.S. COINS and the dialogues & debates that pertain to such. I think a almost unanimous sentiment of this forum, is that the whimsical & fanciful designs of the past are superior to homogenous design-by-committee coins of the present day, and I also think that part of the appeal of these older coins is that the environment they stemmed forth from, was one that prized expressions of Liberty above appeasing all facets controversy (unlike today's) and so in this spirit, my hope is that this discussion is allowed to continue.

 

Sincerely & Respectfully,

 

Charles Danek / Master Designer United States Mint, Artistic Infusion Program, 2004-2006"

<<<

[dcarr]

Another post of mine from a locked thread ATS:

 

>>>

 

A couple years ago my local coin club arranged a VIP "floor tour" of the Denver Mint for the membership. This is the tour where you get to see stuff up close, hold dies in your hand, etc. You have to apply ahead of time and go through a background check long before you can get in. In other words, this is not the ordinary public tour. You have to go through strict security screening on the way in and out.

 

On the day of the tour, I had forgotten that I was carrying a pocket piece "1964-D" overstruck Peace Dollar (Die Pair 2) in a compartment in my wallet. On the way in, visitors are told to leave coins and such behind, and they are screened for large metallic objects (weapons). My coin didn't register on those detectors. Once inside, I remembered. Oops, what should I do now !? I knew that on the way out, the security screening is different and will detect any coins attempting to leave. So my options were: 1) ditch the coin somewhere inside the mint; 2) walk out with it and have some explaining to do ! I chose the latter. Shoes, wallets, etc are all x-rayed on the way out (like at the airport). Anything that looks like a coin is inspected. The security guard says "let me see what's in your wallet". I pull out the pocket piece. He looks at it. "Ah, 1964, ok". He gives it back and I leave. Whew !

 

<<<

 

 

[dcarr]

One more:

 

A funny quote from a grading service employee heard at the recent Long Beach Coin Show (he was being serious):

 

"Maybe we should slab the Carr Peace Dollars so people will know they aren't real ?"