dan carr oregon commem and new 2oz hologram

[physics-fan3.14]

If the 27-D Oregon isn't a fake because it didn't exist then if the Chinese make a wrong date or mint mark for a Trade Dollar that did exist why are they considered counterfeits?

 

Chinese trade dollar (and other) fakes are:

 

1) Often sold as genuine by the original maker.

 

2) Struck on anonymous cheap "pot metal" blanks - not even real silver.

 

3) Appear to be legal tender dollars, but aren't.

 

 

My "1927-D" Oregon Trail fantasy coins are:

 

1) Always advertised with full disclosure.

 

4) Of obvious origin due to the use of dates which were never originally issued for the coin type.

 

PS:

eBay has banned all sales of Chinese copies. However, eBay continues to allow my over-strikes to be sold as "fantasy" coins.

 

Since when is Ebay the arbiter of anything? They are an auction site, their opinion carries little to no weight and has no place in attempting to validate your viewpoint.

 

In response to your post: many of the Chinese counterfeits are now being struck on silver planchets of correct weight and fineness, in an attempt to further fool people. Also, you may sell your coins with full disclosure, but what about in a couple of years and someone finds one in their attic after grandpa passes away? I'll bet that one isn't sold with any sort of disclosure at all.

 

As for your last point, I'm really curious about your response to Roger's post above, which seems to seriously debunk it. Why do you think you are above the law? Because you are an "artist"?

[dcarr]

Since when is Ebay the arbiter of anything? They are an auction site, their opinion carries little to no weight and has no place in attempting to validate your viewpoint.

 

>>> Since when is Ebay the arbiter of anything?

 

Since eBay decided to regulate what is sold on eBay.

 

The fact that eBay allows "fantasy" coins, but not "replica" or "copy" coins, means that the over-strikes I produced are tradeable on eBay - just like "love" tokens, "hobo" nickels, and other counter-stamped coins.

 

In response to your post: many of the Chinese counterfeits are now being struck on silver planchets of correct weight and fineness, in an attempt to further fool people. Also, you may sell your coins with full disclosure, but what about in a couple of years and someone finds one in their attic after grandpa passes away? I'll bet that one isn't sold with any sort of disclosure at all.

 

There is nothing new about counterfeits of the correct weight fineness. They have been produced for centuries.

 

In your hypothetical scenario, the finder has no financial stake at risk. You are asking the wrong question. The question should be, who would pay a lot of money for such a coin - a coin with a date that isn't listed in coin books or price guides ? All it would take for a potential buyer to fully understand what the coin is, is to spend a minute on the internet. Complete information is readily accessible. If such a person refuses to even do the slightest amount of research before laying out a substantial amount of money, who is to blame ?

 

Suppose in your hypothetical scenario, the coin in question was instead a cleaned & whizzed 1893-S Morgan Dollar. Suppose the finder of that coin found a buyer who was willing to pay gem uncirculated money for it. Who would be at fault here ?

 

Ultimately, if someone is intent on committing numismatic fraud, they will always be able to find some coin to do it with.

 

As for your last point, I'm really curious about your response to Roger's post above, which seems to seriously debunk it. Why do you think you are above the law? Because you are an "artist"?

 

Are you a judge or a lawyer ? Your implication that I am breaking the law is unfounded and potentially libelous.

 

Date & mint-mark aside, the Chinese-made "1878-O" Morgan Dollar "purports" to be a coin of the original Morgan Dollar type. It can not purport to be an original 1878-O Morgan Dollar, since those never existed originally. But It does purport to be a Morgan Dollar type.

 

However, when I over-strike a coin, I use an original coin of the SAME type. So, for example, date aside, my "1927-D" over-strike Oregon Trail coin is NOT a copy of an Oregon Trail half dollar - it is an (extensively altered) Oregon Trail coin.

 

But it can not be a copy of a "1927-D" Oregon Trail half dollar since those were never issued originally.

 

To use another example - take an original 1937-D Oregon Trail half dollar. Use an engraving tool and change the "3" to a "2", and sell it as an altered-date "1927-D" Oregon Trail half dollar. That is what I have done, except on a more-sophisticated level, without removing any metal from the coin (or adding any metal).

 

[dcarr]

“Even Chinese-made replicas of coins that never existed — such as 1878-O Morgan dollars, which were freely available on eBay until recently, would be covered by the act, based on a June 2005 federal court decision in New York that interprets the act as applying to “any item that ‘purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item.’ ”

 

[source: “Protecting the hobby.Hobby Protection Act does part” by Armen Vartian | March 09, 2012 9:58 a.m. Article first published in 2012-03-19, Expert Advice section of Coin World. ]

 

What is or isn't "an original numismatic item" is not clearly defined in the Hobby Protection Act.

 

Is an original numismatic item, that has been altered to have the appearance of a date that clearly was never issued for that type, in violation of the act ?

 

There are no court rulings that say that such a thing is a violation.

 

[physics-fan3.14]

To use another example - take an original 1937-D Oregon Trail half dollar. Use an engraving tool and change the "3" to a "2", and sell it as an altered-date "1927-D" Oregon Trail half dollar. That is what I have done, except on a more-sophisticated level, without removing any metal from the coin (or adding any metal).

 

You just proved my point! Altered dates have long been a tool of numismatic forgers and counterfeiters! Who cares if the date never existed? That's just like the counterfeit 1923D Mercury Dimes that were made decades ago by the Soviets. No such coin existed, but they were struck on silver of the correct weight and fineness.

 

I don't see how you can make the distinction that you do. Love tokens and hobo nickels are clearly altered and there is absolutely no possibility of confusing them with a genuine coin. Your forgeries are indistinguishable, or nearly so, from authentic coins, with the exception of a different date - made with a clear intent to replicate the original as closely as possible. I just don't see how you can justify not marking these in some way to avoid future confusion.

[dcarr]

You just proved my point! Altered dates have long been a tool of numismatic forgers and counterfeiters! Who cares if the date never existed? That's just like the counterfeit 1923D Mercury Dimes that were made decades ago by the Soviets. No such coin existed, but they were struck on silver of the correct weight and fineness.

 

Uh, coin collectors DO care if the date exists or not. The date is one of the first steps in determining the value of a coin, along with the design type and condition.

 

Your "1923-D" dime example is totally different. Those were NOT made out of legal-tender coins. They were made to cheat the recipient out of the difference between the scrap silver value and the face value (about 7 cents each at the time). They were spent into commerce without disclosing their origin. This is the classic definition of a currency counterfeit. The net effect of this activity is that it dilutes the value of all legal tender in curculation.

 

I don't see how you can make the distinction that you do. Love tokens and hobo nickels are clearly altered and there is absolutely no possibility of confusing them with a genuine coin. Your forgeries are indistinguishable, or nearly so, from authentic coins, with the exception of a different date - made with a clear intent to replicate the original as closely as possible. I just don't see how you can justify not marking these in some way to avoid future confusion.

 

From a legal perspective, the difference between striking on a blank piece of metal, vs. striking over and existing legal-tender coin, is substantial. That is the "distinction".

 

The date IS the "marking". They are clearly altered coins to anyone that does a minute of research on the internet. They are clearly marketed as over-strike "fantasy-date" coins.

 

Again, I ask: show me this mythologoical person would would pay a lot of money for a fantasy-date coin they know nothing about ? Give an actual example.

 

What about a coin like this (below) ? By your logic, this coin will eventually fall into the hands of a scammer and be used to commit fraud (I doubt that, but if it did ever happen, fault would lie with the person committing the fraud):

Note that there are no "copy" markings on it, or anything to indicate that it isn't a rare vintage US pattern coin of some sort. But the Smithsonian Institution endorsed it, and NGC certified it:

 

And look here:

Smithsonian Store - America's Lost Masterpiece Coin

As a member of the Smithsonian, you can go to the Smithsonian Store and buy the "$100" silver Union coin for $89.10. If you take one down to your local quickie-mart, and convince the cashier to accept it at "face value", you'll make $10.90 ! (if you don't get arrested first).

 

[physics-fan3.14]

What about a coin like this (below) ? By your logic, this coin will eventually fall into the hands of a scammer and be used to commit fraud (I doubt that, but if it did ever happen, fault would lie with the person committing the fraud):

Note that there are no "copy" markings on it, or anything to indicate that it isn't a rare vintage US pattern coin of some sort. But the Smithsonian Institution endorsed it, and NGC certified it:

 

 

The key difference here is that this is clearly a fantasy piece - no coin that even closely resembled this was ever struck. If you want to create fantasy pieces, go right ahead. I won't buy them because I don't collect that sort of stuff, but there's nothing wrong with it if people like it. Do I think NGC should slab it? No, its not worth it. That's like slabbing silver art bars (I don't want to give anyone any ideas). The slab is marketing and a money grab by NGC, but hey, its their brand and they can do what they want with it. As for the Smithsonian, well, museums like to sell trinkets and stuff in their stores, it brings in some money and its often gimmickry. That thing is worth its silver content, and maybe a slight bit more, and that's it - certainly not the $100 they are charging.

[dcarr]

What about a coin like this (below) ? By your logic, this coin will eventually fall into the hands of a scammer and be used to commit fraud (I doubt that, but if it did ever happen, fault would lie with the person committing the fraud):

Note that there are no "copy" markings on it, or anything to indicate that it isn't a rare vintage US pattern coin of some sort. But the Smithsonian Institution endorsed it, and NGC certified it:

 

 

The key difference here is that this is clearly a fantasy piece - no coin that even closely resembled this was ever struck. If you want to create fantasy pieces, go right ahead. I won't buy them because I don't collect that sort of stuff, but there's nothing wrong with it if people like it. Do I think NGC should slab it? No, its not worth it. That's like slabbing silver art bars (I don't want to give anyone any ideas). The slab is marketing and a money grab by NGC, but hey, its their brand and they can do what they want with it. As for the Smithsonian, well, museums like to sell trinkets and stuff in their stores, it brings in some money and its often gimmickry. That thing is worth its silver content, and maybe a slight bit more, and that's it - certainly not the $100 they are charging.

 

It is clearly a fantasy piece, as are my over-strikes. But how would someone know that it is a fantasy coin ? Out of the holder, they would have to do some research and/or look in a coin book. As with all types of things, knowledge is necessary to make wise purchases. Anyone laying out lots of mony for something they know little about is asking for trouble. The Smithsonian and NGC both decidied it was ok to mint, market, certify, and sell that coin. ANACS will certifiy anything in my "catalog", including the fantasy over-strikes.

 

PS:

The item in question is not worth $100 to you. But somebody else might have a different opinion. Ultimately, the value will be determined by the "market", not one person's opinion.

[robec1347]

I believe Dan Car is an Artist and a very good one at that. I think his work is fabulous and would purchase some of his work. I did purchase the 1964-D peace dollar and I think it's very nice & interesting at the same time. Do folks think it's real? Not even close. Just an interesting piece of art......Joe

 

Yes. Yes. Yes, yes, and yes. A thousand times, yes. It is made from a genuine Peace dollar, and looks, feels, sounds, smells, and tastes just like a "real" coin.

 

You're speaking from the benefit of knowledge. "No one" here would think this is "real."

 

But the majority of people are NOT coin collectors, and would have no idea. If the "creation" happened to fall into the hands of someone who doesn't know...a VERY easy prospect....it would be a wild assumption to even think they'd do any research...and if they did, they'd likely only see "1964-D Peace dollar made, but all melted, and none exist, or so it is assumed" and think they have a fabulous rarity.

 

Harm could be done before knowledge was obtained. Substantial harm.

 

Since authentic 1964-D Peace dollars are illegal to own, he would be committing a crime in buying a real one.

[RWB]

“Even Chinese-made replicas of coins that never existed — such as 1878-O Morgan dollars, which were freely available on eBay until recently, would be covered by the act, based on a June 2005 federal court decision in New York that interprets the act as applying to “any item that ‘purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item.’ ”

 

[source: “Protecting the hobby.Hobby Protection Act does part” by Armen Vartian | March 09, 2012 9:58 a.m. Article first published in 2012-03-19, Expert Advice section of Coin World. ]

 

Hmmmm...the meaning of plain language must have been lost amidst the Colorado altitude --- maybe repetition will work.

[physics-fan3.14]

“Even Chinese-made replicas of coins that never existed — such as 1878-O Morgan dollars, which were freely available on eBay until recently, would be covered by the act, based on a June 2005 federal court decision in New York that interprets the act as applying to “any item that ‘purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item.’ ”

 

[source: “Protecting the hobby.Hobby Protection Act does part” by Armen Vartian | March 09, 2012 9:58 a.m. Article first published in 2012-03-19, Expert Advice section of Coin World. ]

 

Hmmmm...the meaning of plain language must have been lost amidst the Colorado altitude --- maybe repetition will work.

 

I think we are wasting our time, Roger. There is too much money in it for him to see sense.

[nk1nk]

“Even Chinese-made replicas of coins that never existed — such as 1878-O Morgan dollars, which were freely available on eBay until recently, would be covered by the act, based on a June 2005 federal court decision in New York that interprets the act as applying to “any item that ‘purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item.’ ”

 

[source: “Protecting the hobby.Hobby Protection Act does part” by Armen Vartian | March 09, 2012 9:58 a.m. Article first published in 2012-03-19, Expert Advice section of Coin World. ]

 

Hmmmm...the meaning of plain language must have been lost amidst the Colorado altitude --- maybe repetition will work.

 

Hmmmm, sounds like if the chinese took an "original numismatic item" and altered it they would be just fine. If you take silver and create "new" money then your in trouble. It's all about actual money produced by the government. The government could give a mess less if you rub off the mint mark off of a 1922 penny, its still a penny to them.

 

Nick

[RWB]

This could be fun:

 

“The act is enforceable through civil actions in federal district court by “any interested person” (15 U.S.C. §2102), through enforcement actions by the FTC (15 U.S.C. §2103), and “seizure and forfeiture” of nonconforming items by the U.S. Customs Service (15 U.S.C. §2104).

 

Is the ANA an "interested person?"

[indiananationals-migration]

why is it of ur concern if u feel it is wrong then dont buy them im pretty sure dan has his butt covered ...if the goverment really didnt like him making them im sure they would have let him know by now ...obviously u are not a fan of his work so just move along u know if u post a coin and i dont like it do u think it is fair for me to come bash on it ..or should i just mind my own business and move along ...u know i have found in life some people are not happy unles they have something to complain about ......

[RockMyAmadeus]

why is it of ur concern if u feel it is wrong then dont buy them im pretty sure dan has his butt covered ...if the goverment really didnt like him making them im sure they would have let him know by now ...obviously u are not a fan of his work so just move along u know if u post a coin and i dont like it do u think it is fair for me to come bash on it ..or should i just mind my own business and move along ...u know i have found in life some people are not happy unles they have something to complain about ......

 

I do not intend any offense...but if you wish to be taken seriously, you will go a lot farther if you type out the word "you", rather than "u", which is not a word.

 

As for the "gov't" letting him know by now...1. I'm not sure about that, and 2. politics is the art of compromise. If someone with enough clout were to raise the issue, I'm quite sure it would be addressed.

[RockMyAmadeus]

4) Of obvious origin due to the use of dates which were never originally issued for the coin type.

 

Obvious...? To whom.....? The number of people who would know that this "item" isn't real likely numbers in the thousands, while there are 300+ million people in the United States.

 

I've been collecting coins for 30 years, but I wouldn't know off the top of my head that 1927 wasn't one of the myriad dates made of the Oregon Trail, because classic commems aren't my niche. In fact, the best I could do, without looking, is 26, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39? That's off the top of my head, and I bet a few of them are wrong...

 

(RMA goes to check...)

 

Yep. Missed 28 and 34.

 

PS:

eBay has banned all sales of Chinese copies. However, eBay continues to allow my over-strikes to be sold as "fantasy" coins.

 

 

As others have said, eBay is *hardly* the final word on the legality of anything.

 

 

And while you are very good at defending why you *can* make these, you've said very little about whether or not you *should*...after all, you know as well as anybody else that someone, somewhere, will mistake these for genuine items someday, and your attitude seems to be "well, that's too bad for them. If they're too stupid to do a little research first, that's on them" while at the same time purposely creating something that is made to look as close to "real" as possible...

 

You don't see the disconnect there....?

[RockMyAmadeus]

All it would take for a potential buyer to fully understand what the coin is, is to spend a minute on the internet. Complete information is readily accessible.

 

True...if one knows precisely what they are...and are not...looking for. Otherwise, to the uninformed, it may prove quite the task. After all...there are no websites titled "All 1927-D Oregon Trail halves are fake!"

 

There IS your site, when someone googles 1927-D Oregon Trail, but why should someone assume theirs is a "fantasy piece" ("whatever that means", they might think) when the coin they have looks, feels, sounds, tastes and smells like a REAL coin..?

 

If such a person refuses to even do the slightest amount of research before laying out a substantial amount of money, who is to blame ?

 

Right. Ignore the man behind the curtain, nothing to see here....

 

 

 

[dcarr]

“Even Chinese-made replicas of coins that never existed — such as 1878-O Morgan dollars, which were freely available on eBay until recently, would be covered by the act, based on a June 2005 federal court decision in New York that interprets the act as applying to “any item that ‘purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item.’ ”

 

[source: “Protecting the hobby.Hobby Protection Act does part” by Armen Vartian | March 09, 2012 9:58 a.m. Article first published in 2012-03-19, Expert Advice section of Coin World. ]

 

Hmmmm...the meaning of plain language must have been lost amidst the Colorado altitude --- maybe repetition will work.

 

You totally fail to comprehend the difference between stamping an "1878-O" Morgan Dollar design on a blank piece of metal, vs. taking an original Morgan Dollar and altering the date to one that was never issued (such as "1909", for example).

 

[coinman_23885]

This could be fun:

 

“The act is enforceable through civil actions in federal district court by “any interested person” (15 U.S.C. §2102), through enforcement actions by the FTC (15 U.S.C. §2103), and “seizure and forfeiture” of nonconforming items by the U.S. Customs Service (15 U.S.C. §2104).

 

Is the ANA an "interested person?"

 

Generally corporations are treated as people within the law, so it wouldn't be a stretch, given previous case law, for the ANA to be a person within the meaning of the statutory provisions provided. With regards to the interested portion, they would presumably need some sort of direct damages, pecuniary or otherwise to qualify as "interested."

[RockMyAmadeus]

Even Chinese-made replicas of coins that never existed such as 1878-O Morgan dollars, which were freely available on eBay until recently, would be covered by the act, based on a June 2005 federal court decision in New York that interprets the act as applying to any item that purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item.

 

[source: Protecting the hobby.Hobby Protection Act does part by Armen Vartian | March 09, 2012 9:58 a.m. Article first published in 2012-03-19, Expert Advice section of Coin World. ]

 

Hmmmm...the meaning of plain language must have been lost amidst the Colorado altitude --- maybe repetition will work.

 

You totally fail to comprehend the difference between stamping an "1878-O" Morgan Dollar design on a blank piece of metal, vs. taking an original Morgan Dollar and altering the date to one that was never issued (such as "1909", for example).

 

And you're totally failing to comprehend that both items purport to be, but in fact are not, original numismatic items.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Try as you might, you will never, ever convince a jury that a coin with nothing altered but the date, but which otherwise looks, feels, sounds, tastes, and smells like a real coin is doing anything but purpoting to be a real coin.

 

And if you try the "hobo nickel" and "love token" defense, you will sink your case. These things look obviously different from the originals, in a way that anyone can tell.

 

Your "fantasy pieces"....? No, not so much....

[dcarr]

4) Of obvious origin due to the use of dates which were never originally issued for the coin type.

 

Obvious...? To whom.....? The number of people who would know that this "item" isn't real likely numbers in the thousands, while there are 300+ million people in the United States.

 

I've been collecting coins for 30 years, but I wouldn't know off the top of my head that 1927 wasn't one of the myriad dates made of the Oregon Trail, because classic commems aren't my niche. In fact, the best I could do, without looking, is 26, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39? That's off the top of my head, and I bet a few of them are wrong...

 

(RMA goes to check...)

 

Yep. Missed 28 and 34.

 

This mythological person who would be willing to pay much more than face value or silver scrap value, without knowing anything about it, doesn't exist. How many non-collectors are going to pay $300 for a "1927-D" Oregon Trail half dollar ? None. How many knowledgeable people would be willing to spend $300 for one ? Based on sales so far, less than 100. But suppose years from now, somebody sees one for sale and thinks it is worth the same as other Oregon Trail half dollars in uncirculated condition. They don't bother to look it up in a coin book and they pay $300 for it. Who is to say that they wouldn't actually be getting a good deal on it ? The "1964-D" Peace Dollars that I over-struck sell for $250-$350 on eBay now. My issue price was about $140 to $160.

 

PS:

eBay has banned all sales of Chinese copies. However, eBay continues to allow my over-strikes to be sold as "fantasy" coins.

 

 

As others have said, eBay is *hardly* the final word on the legality of anything.

 

 

I never said eBay was a legal authority. But they make the rules on what can and can not be sold on eBay. That they do not allow "copy" coins, but do allow "fantasy" coins, is an important consideration.

 

And while you are very good at defending why you *can* make these, you've said very little about whether or not you *should*...after all, you know as well as anybody else that someone, somewhere, will mistake these for genuine items someday, and your attitude seems to be "well, that's too bad for them. If they're too stupid to do a little research first, that's on them" while at the same time purposely creating something that is made to look as close to "real" as possible...

 

You don't see the disconnect there....?

 

If I wanted to make something that looked "as real as possible", I wouldn't put a date on the coin that was never issued for that type. To determine the value of a coin, you have to look at the date.

 

My "attitude" is that nobody can predict future values for things. But I produce the over-strikes to high-quality standards, and in very limited numbers, such that they have the potential to be worth as much or more than other original coins of the same type (but different date).

 

Looking at the lists of who has purchased my over-strike coins in the past, it is an impressive array of major numismatic players.

 

[dcarr]

Even Chinese-made replicas of coins that never existed such as 1878-O Morgan dollars, which were freely available on eBay until recently, would be covered by the act, based on a June 2005 federal court decision in New York that interprets the act as applying to any item that purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item.

 

[source: Protecting the hobby.Hobby Protection Act does part by Armen Vartian | March 09, 2012 9:58 a.m. Article first published in 2012-03-19, Expert Advice section of Coin World. ]

 

Hmmmm...the meaning of plain language must have been lost amidst the Colorado altitude --- maybe repetition will work.

 

You totally fail to comprehend the difference between stamping an "1878-O" Morgan Dollar design on a blank piece of metal, vs. taking an original Morgan Dollar and altering the date to one that was never issued (such as "1909", for example).

 

And you're totally failing to comprehend that both items purport to be, but in fact are not, original numismatic items.

 

No, that is not correct. An "1878-O" Morgan Dollar, struck on a blank piece of metal, purports to be a Morgan Dollar type, but is not. An genuine Morgan Dollar with a date changed to "1909" is still a Morgan Dollar (albeit altered).

 

The Hobby Protection act does not sufficiently define the term "original numismatic item". So it could be argued that an altered "1909-o" Morgan Dollar can not purport to be an original 1909-o Morgan Dollar since none of those were ever issued.

 

The Smithsonian "$100" coin I showed previously purports to be an "1876" $100 pattern coin. But the Smithsonian and NGC both thought it ok.

[dcarr]

Try as you might, you will never, ever convince a jury that a coin with nothing altered but the date, but which otherwise looks, feels, sounds, tastes, and smells like a real coin is doing anything but purpoting to be a real coin.

 

And if you try the "hobo nickel" and "love token" defense, you will sink your case. These things look obviously different from the originals, in a way that anyone can tell.

 

Your "fantasy pieces"....? No, not so much....

 

Your speculation about what a jury might decide is totally without standing.

 

The fact is, altering coins is completely legal, except for fraudulent purposes.

I provide full disclosure when I market and sell the items, and I also publish diagnostics on them. Every buyer from me knows exactly and accurately what they are getting prior to purchase.

 

The US Mint web site underlines the key word:

US Mint - 18 U.S.C. 331

 

[PerryHall]

Dan Carr---Before you started making the 1964 Peace Dollar, you sent letters to the Secret Service and other government agencies letting them know what you were planning to do and to get their ruling as to whether you were breaking any laws. Did you ever get any responses?

[dcarr]

Dan Carr---Before you started making the 1964 Peace Dollar, you sent letters to the Secret Service and other government agencies letting them know what you were planning to do and to get their ruling as to whether you were breaking any laws. Did you ever get any responses?

 

Yes, I sent letters. No, I never got a response.

 

Coin World picked up the case. One of their reporters got a run-around between the US Mint, Secret Service, and the US Attorney's Office. They never got any answers either.

 

Changing the date on a coin by over-striking it is something new. But using hand tools to change the date on a coin into a date that was never issued, is NOT new. It has been done before. And, in at least one case, the altered coin was sold at a major numismatic auction, at a substantial premium, even with full disclosure.

See lot number 541 here:

"1805" Bust Dollar - 2002 auction, Lot 541

[RockMyAmadeus]

This mythological person who would be willing to pay much more than face value or silver scrap value, without knowing anything about it, doesn't exist.

 

Nonsense.

 

That "mythological person" is what PT Barnum (and many, many others) built his fortune on.

 

All it takes is a slick product (done) and a slick salesman.

 

The world is filled with people who are willing to believe anything, and you've made it very easy for them to do so in these cases.

 

How many non-collectors are going to pay $300 for a "1927-D" Oregon Trail half dollar ? None.

 

That is a claim you cannot possibly prove.

 

And I'll counter it with something you CAN prove...how many people, collectors or not, are willing to pay hundreds and even thousands of dollars on counterfeit coins that they obviously do not know are counterfeit? Lots, clearly.

 

How many knowledgeable people would be willing to spend $300 for one ? Based on sales so far, less than 100. But suppose years from now, somebody sees one for sale and thinks it is worth the same as other Oregon Trail half dollars in uncirculated condition. They don't bother to look it up in a coin book and they pay $300 for it. Who is to say that they wouldn't actually be getting a good deal on it ? The "1964-D" Peace Dollars that I over-struck sell for $250-$350 on eBay now. My issue price was about $140 to $160.

 

None of this is relevant to the argument. Whether or not someone (and I can't believe I'm saying this on this side of the board) "got a good deal" means nothing. That's the line used by hucksters for centuries who have overstated their items. The fact is, they didn't get what they THOUGHT they were getting, and that's all that matters.

 

PS:

eBay has banned all sales of Chinese copies. However, eBay continues to allow my over-strikes to be sold as "fantasy" coins.

 

 

As others have said, eBay is *hardly* the final word on the legality of anything.

 

 

I never said eBay was a legal authority.

 

The context of the conversation was legality.

 

But they make the rules on what can and can not be sold on eBay. That they do not allow "copy" coins, but do allow "fantasy" coins, is an important consideration.

 

Not to anyone but eBay and folks like you.

 

And while you are very good at defending why you *can* make these, you've said very little about whether or not you *should*...after all, you know as well as anybody else that someone, somewhere, will mistake these for genuine items someday, and your attitude seems to be "well, that's too bad for them. If they're too stupid to do a little research first, that's on them" while at the same time purposely creating something that is made to look as close to "real" as possible...

 

You don't see the disconnect there....?

 

If I wanted to make something that looked "as real as possible", I wouldn't put a date on the coin that was never issued for that type. To determine the value of a coin, you have to look at the date.

 

Your entire argument rests on what you think should be obvious to everyone, and if it's not, oh well, too bad...if they're too stupid to figure it out, that's on them.

 

My "attitude" is that nobody can predict future values for things. But I produce the over-strikes to high-quality standards, and in very limited numbers, such that they have the potential to be worth as much or more than other original coins of the same type (but different date).

 

Looking at the lists of who has purchased my over-strike coins in the past, it is an impressive array of major numismatic players.

 

So...?

[RockMyAmadeus]

Try as you might, you will never, ever convince a jury that a coin with nothing altered but the date, but which otherwise looks, feels, sounds, tastes, and smells like a real coin is doing anything but purpoting to be a real coin.

 

And if you try the "hobo nickel" and "love token" defense, you will sink your case. These things look obviously different from the originals, in a way that anyone can tell.

 

Your "fantasy pieces"....? No, not so much....

 

Your speculation about what a jury might decide is totally without standing.

 

Not at all. And I would be thrilled to have the opportunity to prove it, too.

 

The fact is, altering coins is completely legal, except for fraudulent purposes.

I provide full disclosure when I market and sell the items, and I also publish diagnostics on them. Every buyer from me knows exactly and accurately what they are getting prior to purchase.

 

The US Mint web site underlines the key word:

US Mint - 18 U.S.C. 331

 

Yes, yes, as I said before, you're very good at defending why you *can* make these...but pay little attention to whether or not you *should*, or any ramifications down the road.

 

"Not my problem."

 

Convenient.

[RockMyAmadeus]

An genuine Morgan Dollar with a date changed to "1909" is still a Morgan Dollar (albeit altered).

 

Which means it is no longer an original numismatic item, and in no clear way to the casual observer is it obvious that it is not.

 

[dcarr]

This mythological person who would be willing to pay much more than face value or silver scrap value, without knowing anything about it, doesn't exist.

 

Nonsense.

 

That "mythological person" is what PT Barnum (and many, many others) built his fortune on.

 

All it takes is a slick product (done) and a slick salesman.

 

The world is filled with people who are willing to believe anything, and you've made it very easy for them to do so in these cases.

 

Show an actual case where a fantasy date (non-existant date) coin was mis-represented as original and somebody paid way more than market value for it.

 

How many non-collectors are going to pay $300 for a "1927-D" Oregon Trail half dollar ? None.

 

That is a claim you cannot possibly prove.

 

So far EVERY purchaser of EVERY over-strike coin from me has been a knowledgeable collector. You can not prove that a non-collector will pay more than market value for a fantasy-date coin.

 

And I'll counter it with something you CAN prove...how many people, collectors or not, are willing to pay hundreds and even thousands of dollars on counterfeit coins that they obviously do not know are counterfeit? Lots, clearly.

 

These counterfeit coins in question, closely match KNOWN dates and mint marks for the series. These coins were originally sold deceptively into the marketplace, without disclosing their origin. My over-strikes are clearly marketed as fantasy-date pieces, from the beginning. Again, you have to look at the date to determine the value. The date alone tells the story.

 

How many knowledgeable people would be willing to spend $300 for one ? Based on sales so far, less than 100. But suppose years from now, somebody sees one for sale and thinks it is worth the same as other Oregon Trail half dollars in uncirculated condition. They don't bother to look it up in a coin book and they pay $300 for it. Who is to say that they wouldn't actually be getting a good deal on it ? The "1964-D" Peace Dollars that I over-struck sell for $250-$350 on eBay now. My issue price was about $140 to $160.

 

None of this is relevant to the argument. Whether or not someone (and I can't believe I'm saying this on this side of the board) "got a good deal" means nothing. That's the line used by hucksters for centuries who have overstated their items. The fact is, they didn't get what they THOUGHT they were getting, and that's all that matters.

 

It is very relevant, in answering the question who, if anyone, is harmed.

Nobody who has purchased one of the coins from me has been harmed. If the owner decides they don't like the coin anymore, they can always send it back to me for a full refund. Occasionally, I buy them back, paying the owner more than the issue price. The US Government is not harmed either, since no new apparent legal tender is placed into circulation.

 

PS:

eBay has banned all sales of Chinese copies. However, eBay continues to allow my over-strikes to be sold as "fantasy" coins.

 

 

As others have said, eBay is *hardly* the final word on the legality of anything.

 

 

I never said eBay was a legal authority.

 

The context of the conversation was legality.

 

But they make the rules on what can and can not be sold on eBay. That they do not allow "copy" coins, but do allow "fantasy" coins, is an important consideration.

 

Not to anyone but eBay and folks like you.

 

That eBay allows fantasy-overstrike coins to be sold, is important to some buyers of the coins. Having them on eBay also spreads general awareness about them. I have yet to see an eBay listing that mis-represented one of the over-strike coins. But if I ever do, I will report it to eBay and/or the seller.

 

And while you are very good at defending why you *can* make these, you've said very little about whether or not you *should*...after all, you know as well as anybody else that someone, somewhere, will mistake these for genuine items someday, and your attitude seems to be "well, that's too bad for them. If they're too stupid to do a little research first, that's on them" while at the same time purposely creating something that is made to look as close to "real" as possible...

 

You don't see the disconnect there....?

 

If I wanted to make something that looked "as real as possible", I wouldn't put a date on the coin that was never issued for that type. To determine the value of a coin, you have to look at the date.

 

Your entire argument rests on what you think should be obvious to everyone, and if it's not, oh well, too bad...if they're too stupid to figure it out, that's on them.

 

My "attitude" is that nobody can predict future values for things. But I produce the over-strikes to high-quality standards, and in very limited numbers, such that they have the potential to be worth as much or more than other original coins of the same type (but different date).

 

Looking at the lists of who has purchased my over-strike coins in the past, it is an impressive array of major numismatic players.

 

So...?

 

So, people like them. Even top numismatists like them. I like making them.

 

>>>Your entire argument rests on what you think should be obvious to

>>>everyone, and if it's not, oh well, too bad...if they're too stupid to figure it out,

>>>that's on them.

 

No, my argument is that nobody is going to pay a large amount of money for something they know nothing about. For example, would you, out of the blue, go to an estate sale and pay $20,000 for a quilt without doing some research and checking it out first ?

 

[physics-fan3.14]

How many non-collectors are going to pay $300 for a "1927-D" Oregon Trail half dollar ? None.

 

That is a claim you cannot possibly prove.

 

So far EVERY purchaser of EVERY over-strike coin from me has been a knowledgeable collector. You can not prove that a non-collector will pay more than market value for a fantasy-date coin.

 

You cannot prove that they won't. You, as the creator these things, have the burden of proof and the responsibility. You have no way to track every sale on every website to every person.