• 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.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

dan carr oregon commem and new 2oz hologram

249 posts in this topic

well then this is your chance if you feel he is so wrong try and get it on the news ...all that will do is drive prices even higher after u make a fool out of yourself

 

Is it not possible for you to disagree with someone without insulting them....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in many respects it is just another Morgan silver dollar (but altered). Is this uninformed person going to buy it ? Why would an uninformed person buy something they have no interest in or knowledge of ?

 

You are either being naive here or willfully ignorant. An entire industry thrives on this sort of person. Maybe you've heard of QVC, the Home Shopping Network, Telemarketers, and a host of similar operations? The only reason they are in business is because people pay large sums of money for things they have no knowledge of.

 

That is incorrect. For television marketers and the like, in general, their model is not to get a few individuals to spend large amounts of money. Their goal is to get a large number of people to spend a small amount of money. $19.95 seems to be a magic price for that purpose.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well then this is your chance if you feel he is so wrong try and get it on the news ...all that will do is drive prices even higher after u make a fool out of yourself

 

Is it not possible for you to disagree with someone without insulting them....?

 

Why don't you ever complain about PhysicsFan being rude and insulting ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DC, your last sentence is a bingo. However since some people don't collect your work it is their mission in life to tell the others what is actually collectable and what is not. What is legal and what is not. What is worthy and what is not. The same as it ever was.

 

This is being disagreeable for disagreeableness' sake. No one said anything of the sort that you're claiming. No one is "telling" anyone anything, unless EVERYONE (including yourself) is "telling" it. Disagreement isn't "telling" people what to do. Questioning decisions isn't "telling" people what to do.

 

While I respect others opinions I have not heard one salient point from your naysayers in these couple of current threads to cause me to rethink or to reexamine my position.I see a lot of reaching and spinning . MJ

 

None? Not a single one...?

 

Drat.

 

And I've been working on my projection all week.

 

Well, it's always nice to have supporters. :)

 

I think you may want to go back in read this thread and the other in it's entirety.I did before I responded.

 

Probably not, since I pretty much took part in it from the get go, so I'm pretty familiar with what everyone said. :)

 

Let's see he's been called a counterfeiter, a law breaker for starters. Maybe I misread that?

 

This is different than what you originally wrote. Other than "what is legal", nothing that you said had occurred. No one was "telling" anyone anything. And the "counterfeiter" comment came only from one person.

 

But that's never stopped hyperbole before. ;)

 

I have no problem with disagreement. It's just no one has brought many tangible facts to the game on the dissenting side of the debate.

 

If you believe that, then nothing that can be said will change your mind. Many, many "tangible facts" have been "brought to the game", the most important one being "there's no obvious way that these are marked to tell that they are not "real""

 

And there's not. Folks can bring up the "date" issue over and over, but to the uninformed, that date looks precisely like the rest of the dates that already exist...and it's MEANT to look precisely that way.

 

Are you just ignoring that?

 

I'm not ignoring that. You just happen to be wrong.

 

Hyperbole? Ha! Pot, kettle, black.

 

MJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in many respects it is just another Morgan silver dollar (but altered). Is this uninformed person going to buy it ? Why would an uninformed person buy something they have no interest in or knowledge of ?

 

You are either being naive here or willfully ignorant. An entire industry thrives on this sort of person. Maybe you've heard of QVC, the Home Shopping Network, Telemarketers, and a host of similar operations? The only reason they are in business is because people pay large sums of money for things they have no knowledge of.

 

You should be spending your time trying to protect these people, as they are being scrued far worse than by Dans products.

 

The argument isn't about protecting people from their ignorance, and never has been. The argument is "should people be making something that looks, sounds, feels, smells, tastes precisely like the originals from which they are made, but which has no obvious marking to show that it is not?"

 

If you gathered 10 John Q. Publics, put 9 original Oregon commens and 1 "fantasy piece" on a table, and told them to pick out the one that wasn't "real", how many of them would pick the right one...?

 

All 10 on the table are Oregon Trail half dollars. One is altered. "John Q. Public" is not going to care. Anybody willing to spend, say, $100 or more for one of the coins, is going to know something.

 

>>>The argument isn't about protecting people from their ignorance,

>>>and never has been.

 

Your comments in this thread stongly indicate otherwise, that your entire motivation seems to be about protecting people from their own ignorance. Why bring up implausible hypothetical scenarios about disinterested "John Q. Public", who wouldn't pay more than $20 for anything, let alone a useless (to them) coin ?

 

>>>The argument is "should people be making something that looks, sounds,

>>>feels, smells, tastes precisely like the originals from which they are made,

>>>but which has no obvious marking to show that it is not?"

 

No, that is not what the argument is. The date is an obvious marking, especially to coin collectors. The real question is, is that date sufficient to identify the nature of the coin ? Since you have to look at the date to determine the value, to anyone who would pay much more than scrap value or face value for a coin, the date alone is an obvious marking.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right...it was circulating as a quarter...ie, no premium over face.

 

Not quite. It is not legal tender - never was. It was circulating as legal tender. But the "face value" is void.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in many respects it is just another Morgan silver dollar (but altered). Is this uninformed person going to buy it ? Why would an uninformed person buy something they have no interest in or knowledge of ?

 

You are either being naive here or willfully ignorant. An entire industry thrives on this sort of person. Maybe you've heard of QVC, the Home Shopping Network, Telemarketers, and a host of similar operations? The only reason they are in business is because people pay large sums of money for things they have no knowledge of.

 

You should be spending your time trying to protect these people, as they are being scrued far worse than by Dans products.

 

The argument isn't about protecting people from their ignorance, and never has been. The argument is "should people be making something that looks, sounds, feels, smells, tastes precisely like the originals from which they are made, but which has no obvious marking to show that it is not?"

 

If you gathered 10 John Q. Publics, put 9 original Oregon commens and 1 "fantasy piece" on a table, and told them to pick out the one that wasn't "real", how many of them would pick the right one...?

 

All 10 on the table are Oregon Trail half dollars. One is altered. "John Q. Public" is not going to care. Anybody willing to spend, say, $100 or more for one of the coins, is going to know something.

 

>>>The argument isn't about protecting people from their ignorance,

>>>and never has been.

 

Your comments in this thread stongly indicate otherwise, that your entire motivation seems to be about protecting people from their own ignorance. Why bring up implausible hypothetical scenarios about disinterested "John Q. Public", who wouldn't pay more than $20 for anything, let alone a useless (to them) coin ?

 

>>>The argument is "should people be making something that looks, sounds,

>>>feels, smells, tastes precisely like the originals from which they are made,

>>>but which has no obvious marking to show that it is not?"

 

No, that is not what the argument is. The date is an obvious marking, especially to coin collectors. The real question is, is that date sufficient to identify the nature of the coin ? Since you have to look at the date to determine the value, to anyone who would pay much more than scrap value or face value for a coin (and ultimately, that is who really matters here), the date alone is an obvious marking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan, one major point you have made, repeatedly, and which I take strong issue with, is "Anybody willing to spend, say, $100 or more for one of the coins, is going to know something."

 

Sadly, while such people might know "something", often they don't know nearly enough to avoid getting taken advantage of. For example, I have seen countless instances in which people on Ebay bid far more than the bullion content value on poorly produced counterfeits or fantasy pieces. Some of the listings don't even have the same design as a genuine coin would, and some of them bear dates that genuine examples never bore. Surely you are aware of this.

 

So, while I think you are acting ethically and possibly or probably legally, I think it is disingenuous to act as if the uninformed wont spend significant amounts of money on something they know little or nothing about. Quite the contrary, sadly, it probably happens every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan, one major point you have made, repeatedly, and which I take strong issue with, is "Anybody willing to spend, say, $100 or more for one of the coins, is going to know something."

 

Sadly, while such people might know "something", often they don't know nearly enough to avoid getting taken advantage of. For example, I have seen countless instances in which people on Ebay bid far more than the bullion content value on poorly produced counterfeits or fantasy pieces. Some of the listings don't even have the same design as a genuine coin would, and some of them bear dates that genuine examples never bore. Surely you are aware of this.

 

So, while I think you are acting ethically and possibly or probably legally, I think it is disingenuous to act as if the uninformed wont spend significant amounts of money on something they know little or nothing about. Quite the contrary, sadly, it probably happens every day.

 

Do you have links to any eBay auctions for such an items that were bid way too high, expecially ones that "don't even have the same design as a genuine coin would" ? I would honestly like to see these listings.

 

I started offering fantasy-date over-stuck coins in 2009. So they have been out there for 3 years. Many of the individual coins have already traded hands several times on eBay and elsewhere. I have yet to receive any complaint, or report of, someone paying more than free market value for one.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan, one major point you have made, repeatedly, and which I take strong issue with, is "Anybody willing to spend, say, $100 or more for one of the coins, is going to know something."

 

Sadly, while such people might know "something", often they don't know nearly enough to avoid getting taken advantage of. For example, I have seen countless instances in which people on Ebay bid far more than the bullion content value on poorly produced counterfeits or fantasy pieces. Some of the listings don't even have the same design as a genuine coin would, and some of them bear dates that genuine examples never bore. Surely you are aware of this.

 

So, while I think you are acting ethically and possibly or probably legally, I think it is disingenuous to act as if the uninformed wont spend significant amounts of money on something they know little or nothing about. Quite the contrary, sadly, it probably happens every day.

 

Do you have links to any eBay auctions for such an items that were bid way too high, expecially ones that "don't even have the same design as a genuine coin would" ? I would honestly like to see these listings.

 

I started offering fantasy-date over-stuck coins in 2009. So they have been out there for 3 years. Many of the individual coins have already traded hands several times on eBay and elsewhere. I have yet to receive any complaint, or report of, someone paying more than free market value for one.

 

 

I wasn't speaking of your creations, and have no current Ebay links for you. But next time I see one, I will try to remember to point you to it.

 

Haven't you seen Ebay bidders pursue laughable 1804 Dollar copies to the tune of hundreds of Dollars? And ditto for counterfeit Trade, Bust and Seated Dollars, as well as Patterns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, one word "profiteering"

 

Every company in existence has that as their primary goal.

Are you saying we should go to a communist economy ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, one word "profiteering"

 

Every company in existence has that as their primary goal.

Are you saying we should go to a communist economy ?

 

Apparently you do not understand the meaning, here's a helpful definition.

 

prof·it·eer (prf-tîr)

n.

One who makes excessive profits on goods in short supply.

intr.v. prof·it·eered, prof·it·eer·ing, prof·it·eers

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where does one come up with a 100 or so lowgrade or dateless Oregons to stamp over especially if they are being sold for scrap. I certainly would like to have a chance to buy some at that price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well then this is your chance if you feel he is so wrong try and get it on the news ...all that will do is drive prices even higher after u make a fool out of yourself

 

Is it not possible for you to disagree with someone without insulting them....?

 

Why don't you ever complain about PhysicsFan being rude and insulting ?

 

Because he's not responding to me, and because he hasn't been rude and insulting. Calling someone a "counterfeiter" because he believes you are making counterfeit products is not the same league as "get a life" or "this is total idiocy", or "after u make a fool out of yourself."

 

Quite different.

 

Why don't you ever complain about indiananationals being rude and insulting?

 

Aren't we a little old to be playing these games...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DC, your last sentence is a bingo. However since some people don't collect your work it is their mission in life to tell the others what is actually collectable and what is not. What is legal and what is not. What is worthy and what is not. The same as it ever was.

 

This is being disagreeable for disagreeableness' sake. No one said anything of the sort that you're claiming. No one is "telling" anyone anything, unless EVERYONE (including yourself) is "telling" it. Disagreement isn't "telling" people what to do. Questioning decisions isn't "telling" people what to do.

 

While I respect others opinions I have not heard one salient point from your naysayers in these couple of current threads to cause me to rethink or to reexamine my position.I see a lot of reaching and spinning . MJ

 

None? Not a single one...?

 

Drat.

 

And I've been working on my projection all week.

 

Well, it's always nice to have supporters. :)

 

I think you may want to go back in read this thread and the other in it's entirety.I did before I responded.

 

Probably not, since I pretty much took part in it from the get go, so I'm pretty familiar with what everyone said. :)

 

Let's see he's been called a counterfeiter, a law breaker for starters. Maybe I misread that?

 

This is different than what you originally wrote. Other than "what is legal", nothing that you said had occurred. No one was "telling" anyone anything. And the "counterfeiter" comment came only from one person.

 

But that's never stopped hyperbole before. ;)

 

I have no problem with disagreement. It's just no one has brought many tangible facts to the game on the dissenting side of the debate.

 

If you believe that, then nothing that can be said will change your mind. Many, many "tangible facts" have been "brought to the game", the most important one being "there's no obvious way that these are marked to tell that they are not "real""

 

And there's not. Folks can bring up the "date" issue over and over, but to the uninformed, that date looks precisely like the rest of the dates that already exist...and it's MEANT to look precisely that way.

 

Are you just ignoring that?

 

I'm not ignoring that. You just happen to be wrong.

 

Hyperbole? Ha! Pot, kettle, black.

 

MJ

 

If you honestly, sincerely believe that the date of a piece....a date made to look precisely as it might have looked had it come from the mint...on a piece that looks precisely...in every single way....exactly as it might have come from the mint....if you believe that the date is "the obvious difference", then there's really no point in further discussing it with you, because you have made up your mind.

 

Best wishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in many respects it is just another Morgan silver dollar (but altered). Is this uninformed person going to buy it ? Why would an uninformed person buy something they have no interest in or knowledge of ?

 

You are either being naive here or willfully ignorant. An entire industry thrives on this sort of person. Maybe you've heard of QVC, the Home Shopping Network, Telemarketers, and a host of similar operations? The only reason they are in business is because people pay large sums of money for things they have no knowledge of.

 

You should be spending your time trying to protect these people, as they are being scrued far worse than by Dans products.

 

The argument isn't about protecting people from their ignorance, and never has been. The argument is "should people be making something that looks, sounds, feels, smells, tastes precisely like the originals from which they are made, but which has no obvious marking to show that it is not?"

 

If you gathered 10 John Q. Publics, put 9 original Oregon commens and 1 "fantasy piece" on a table, and told them to pick out the one that wasn't "real", how many of them would pick the right one...?

 

All 10 on the table are Oregon Trail half dollars. One is altered. "John Q. Public" is not going to care. Anybody willing to spend, say, $100 or more for one of the coins, is going to know something.

 

Of course they're going to care! People don't want to buy something they think is something that it is not. And your assumption is not valid. As Mark has said, and I have said, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

You have made it exceptionally more difficult by making something that looks exactly like something the mint would have made.

 

>>>The argument isn't about protecting people from their ignorance,

>>>and never has been.

 

Your comments in this thread stongly indicate otherwise, that your entire motivation seems to be about protecting people from their own ignorance. Why bring up implausible hypothetical scenarios about disinterested "John Q. Public", who wouldn't pay more than $20 for anything, let alone a useless (to them) coin ?

 

I'm sure you believe this, but as I have already told you that's not the case, on multiple occasions, I'm not quite sure why you can't pick up on that.

 

So let me say it one more time, as clearly as I can: the issue is not...and forgive me for being redundant, but the point is continuing to be lost...the issue is not about protecting anyone from anything.

 

The issue, as clearly as I can make it, is whether or not anybody SHOULD be making something that looks, sounds, feels, smells, and tastes like a genuine mint product, and in no obvious way (to the untrained, or even the partly trained, eye) is distinguishable in any way from a genuine mint product.

 

All clear? It's not about whether they will...it's about whether you should.

 

>>>The argument is "should people be making something that looks, sounds,

>>>feels, smells, tastes precisely like the originals from which they are made,

>>>but which has no obvious marking to show that it is not?"

 

No, that is not what the argument is. The date is an obvious marking, especially to coin collectors. The real question is, is that date sufficient to identify the nature of the coin ? Since you have to look at the date to determine the value, to anyone who would pay much more than scrap value or face value for a coin, the date alone is an obvious marking.

 

Like I said...send me 9 genuine Oregon trails, and 1 "altered" piece, and I will conduct a focus group, to see whether or not the date is an "obvious" marking.

 

And no, you do not "have" to look at the date to determine the value. There are plenty of US coins which have value far beyond their intrinsic worth identifiable solely by type.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, one word "profiteering"

 

Every company in existence has that as their primary goal.

Are you saying we should go to a communist economy ?

 

38197-spam.jpgmrs_spam_sign7.gifmrs_spam_sign7.gifmrs_spam_sign7.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DC, your last sentence is a bingo. However since some people don't collect your work it is their mission in life to tell the others what is actually collectable and what is not. What is legal and what is not. What is worthy and what is not. The same as it ever was.

 

This is being disagreeable for disagreeableness' sake. No one said anything of the sort that you're claiming. No one is "telling" anyone anything, unless EVERYONE (including yourself) is "telling" it. Disagreement isn't "telling" people what to do. Questioning decisions isn't "telling" people what to do.

 

While I respect others opinions I have not heard one salient point from your naysayers in these couple of current threads to cause me to rethink or to reexamine my position.I see a lot of reaching and spinning . MJ

 

None? Not a single one...?

 

Drat.

 

And I've been working on my projection all week.

 

Well, it's always nice to have supporters. :)

 

I think you may want to go back in read this thread and the other in it's entirety.I did before I responded.

 

Probably not, since I pretty much took part in it from the get go, so I'm pretty familiar with what everyone said. :)

 

Let's see he's been called a counterfeiter, a law breaker for starters. Maybe I misread that?

 

This is different than what you originally wrote. Other than "what is legal", nothing that you said had occurred. No one was "telling" anyone anything. And the "counterfeiter" comment came only from one person.

 

But that's never stopped hyperbole before. ;)

 

I have no problem with disagreement. It's just no one has brought many tangible facts to the game on the dissenting side of the debate.

 

If you believe that, then nothing that can be said will change your mind. Many, many "tangible facts" have been "brought to the game", the most important one being "there's no obvious way that these are marked to tell that they are not "real""

 

And there's not. Folks can bring up the "date" issue over and over, but to the uninformed, that date looks precisely like the rest of the dates that already exist...and it's MEANT to look precisely that way.

 

Are you just ignoring that?

 

I'm not ignoring that. You just happen to be wrong.

 

Hyperbole? Ha! Pot, kettle, black.

 

MJ

 

If you honestly, sincerely believe that the date of a piece....a date made to look precisely as it might have looked had it come from the mint...on a piece that looks precisely...in every single way....exactly as it might have come from the mint....if you believe that the date is "the obvious difference", then there's really no point in further discussing it with you, because you have made up your mind.

 

Best wishes.

 

Exactly. If you can't get past the fact that date/mintmark is the obvious difference maker then there is no point discussing it further as your mind is set in stone. Personally I like that every single Fantasy coin from DC has evident doubling from the host coin.

 

Sincere well wishes right back at you........MJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, one word "profiteering"

 

Every company in existence has that as their primary goal.

Are you saying we should go to a communist economy ?

 

Apparently you do not understand the meaning, here's a helpful definition.

 

prof·it·eer (prf-tîr)

n.

One who makes excessive profits on goods in short supply.

intr.v. prof·it·eered, prof·it·eer·ing, prof·it·eers

 

So you are saying that marketing of coins is "profiteering" ?

 

If you want to use a definition that is essentially the same thing as "price gouging", then "profiteering" would apply to somebody that, for example, sold gasoline after a natural disaster at a hugely-inflated price.

 

Collector coins are a totally non-essential, totally discretionary purchase, not really suited for the practice of price gouging.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where does one come up with a 100 or so lowgrade or dateless Oregons to stamp over especially if they are being sold for scrap. I certainly would like to have a chance to buy some at that price.

 

I have yet to see one below VF or so. The ones I've overstruck have been generally cleaned AU specimens. I've had to pay about $100 to $125 each for them, and it has been difficult to get any decent quantity at any one time.

 

One example I acquired was a damage-free F-VF piece with nice original evenly-colored gray patina. So I kept that one and didn't over-strike it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DC, your last sentence is a bingo. However since some people don't collect your work it is their mission in life to tell the others what is actually collectable and what is not. What is legal and what is not. What is worthy and what is not. The same as it ever was.

 

This is being disagreeable for disagreeableness' sake. No one said anything of the sort that you're claiming. No one is "telling" anyone anything, unless EVERYONE (including yourself) is "telling" it. Disagreement isn't "telling" people what to do. Questioning decisions isn't "telling" people what to do.

 

While I respect others opinions I have not heard one salient point from your naysayers in these couple of current threads to cause me to rethink or to reexamine my position.I see a lot of reaching and spinning . MJ

 

None? Not a single one...?

 

Drat.

 

And I've been working on my projection all week.

 

Well, it's always nice to have supporters. :)

 

I think you may want to go back in read this thread and the other in it's entirety.I did before I responded.

 

Probably not, since I pretty much took part in it from the get go, so I'm pretty familiar with what everyone said. :)

 

Let's see he's been called a counterfeiter, a law breaker for starters. Maybe I misread that?

 

This is different than what you originally wrote. Other than "what is legal", nothing that you said had occurred. No one was "telling" anyone anything. And the "counterfeiter" comment came only from one person.

 

But that's never stopped hyperbole before. ;)

 

I have no problem with disagreement. It's just no one has brought many tangible facts to the game on the dissenting side of the debate.

 

If you believe that, then nothing that can be said will change your mind. Many, many "tangible facts" have been "brought to the game", the most important one being "there's no obvious way that these are marked to tell that they are not "real""

 

And there's not. Folks can bring up the "date" issue over and over, but to the uninformed, that date looks precisely like the rest of the dates that already exist...and it's MEANT to look precisely that way.

 

Are you just ignoring that?

 

I'm not ignoring that. You just happen to be wrong.

 

Hyperbole? Ha! Pot, kettle, black.

 

MJ

 

If you honestly, sincerely believe that the date of a piece....a date made to look precisely as it might have looked had it come from the mint...on a piece that looks precisely...in every single way....exactly as it might have come from the mint....if you believe that the date is "the obvious difference", then there's really no point in further discussing it with you, because you have made up your mind.

 

Best wishes.

 

Exactly. If you can't get past the fact that date/mintmark is the obvious difference maker then there is no point discussing it further as your mind is set in stone. Personally I like that every single Fantasy coin from DC has evident doubling from the host coin.

 

Sincere well wishes right back at you........MJ

 

Sigh.

 

Precisely the same...in every possible way...no difference that is obvious to anyone who doesn't already know better.

 

Not that hard. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think "profiteering" really fits well in Carr's case. If it were true he is not doing a very good job at it. A lot of his stuff sells for 2X to 3X list price in the secondary market shortly after it sells out. He is actually leaving a lot on the table. If he were trying to be excessive he could charge a lot more on the initial offerring. Now the Facebook IPO was fully priced. The market felt it was excessive judging by the price action today. The Team FB fully profited.

 

MJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DC, your last sentence is a bingo. However since some people don't collect your work it is their mission in life to tell the others what is actually collectable and what is not. What is legal and what is not. What is worthy and what is not. The same as it ever was.

 

This is being disagreeable for disagreeableness' sake. No one said anything of the sort that you're claiming. No one is "telling" anyone anything, unless EVERYONE (including yourself) is "telling" it. Disagreement isn't "telling" people what to do. Questioning decisions isn't "telling" people what to do.

 

While I respect others opinions I have not heard one salient point from your naysayers in these couple of current threads to cause me to rethink or to reexamine my position.I see a lot of reaching and spinning . MJ

 

None? Not a single one...?

 

Drat.

 

And I've been working on my projection all week.

 

Well, it's always nice to have supporters. :)

 

I think you may want to go back in read this thread and the other in it's entirety.I did before I responded.

 

Probably not, since I pretty much took part in it from the get go, so I'm pretty familiar with what everyone said. :)

 

Let's see he's been called a counterfeiter, a law breaker for starters. Maybe I misread that?

 

This is different than what you originally wrote. Other than "what is legal", nothing that you said had occurred. No one was "telling" anyone anything. And the "counterfeiter" comment came only from one person.

 

But that's never stopped hyperbole before. ;)

 

I have no problem with disagreement. It's just no one has brought many tangible facts to the game on the dissenting side of the debate.

 

If you believe that, then nothing that can be said will change your mind. Many, many "tangible facts" have been "brought to the game", the most important one being "there's no obvious way that these are marked to tell that they are not "real""

 

And there's not. Folks can bring up the "date" issue over and over, but to the uninformed, that date looks precisely like the rest of the dates that already exist...and it's MEANT to look precisely that way.

 

Are you just ignoring that?

 

I'm not ignoring that. You just happen to be wrong.

 

Hyperbole? Ha! Pot, kettle, black.

 

MJ

 

If you honestly, sincerely believe that the date of a piece....a date made to look precisely as it might have looked had it come from the mint...on a piece that looks precisely...in every single way....exactly as it might have come from the mint....if you believe that the date is "the obvious difference", then there's really no point in further discussing it with you, because you have made up your mind.

 

Best wishes.

 

Exactly. If you can't get past the fact that date/mintmark is the obvious difference maker then there is no point discussing it further as your mind is set in stone. Personally I like that every single Fantasy coin from DC has evident doubling from the host coin.

 

Sincere well wishes right back at you........MJ

 

Sigh.

 

Precisely the same...in every possible way...no difference that is obvious to anyone who doesn't already know better.

 

Not that hard. :)

 

I know. It really isn't that hard and that's what is frustrating me about you and you seem like a rather bright guy (: ..............the date is the Scarlett Letter

 

We will just have to be on opposite sides on the fence on this one.

 

MJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said...send me 9 genuine Oregon trails, and 1 "altered" piece, and I will conduct a focus group, to see whether or not the date is an "obvious" marking.

 

You, as a coin collector, claiming that the date is not an obvious marking is disingenuous. I find it even ridiculous.

 

The date is obvious. Anybody who can read can see the date on it. Every literate person in such a focus group, who has even mediocre visual perception, could tell that one of the coins has a "1927" date on it. The real question is, would a person who is willing to spend money on such a coin know the difference.

 

But, this is all hypothetical scenarios again.

 

And no, you do not "have" to look at the date to determine the value. There are plenty of US coins which have value far beyond their intrinsic worth identifiable solely by type.

 

For every coin type I've over-struck, knowing the date is KEY to determining the value. Even coins with no visible date, a person valuing the coin is going to look and see if a date is still there. But I'm not producing any dateless over-strikes, so your argument is not applicable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, guys.

 

"Obvious" means that it can be noticed on sight, without any previous or special knowledge.

 

"the date" requires previous or special knowledge.

 

It is thus not obvious.

 

That's really what it boils down to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, guys.

 

"Obvious" means that it can be noticed on sight, without any previous or special knowledge.

 

"the date" requires previous or special knowledge.

 

It is thus not obvious.

 

That's really what it boils down to.

 

Is that your own personal definition of "obvious"?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Daniel Carr's Over stuck Coins. If you dont like them dont buy them .

Daniel Carr is a US Mint award winning Designer. He's selling Fantasy Overstike Coins, Not cheap Intended Fakes. He clearly states all the facts on his site. So why are we running his work down , when in fact he is a part of US Coin History (designer) . Shouldnt we feel fortunate to have meet or interacted with some of such stature, Like feel about the other Great Coin Designer-Artist. As coin person I think its a Honor to Meet the artist of our great Coins.

Thanks KP

Ps Mr. Carr isnt the only Artist Ive had dealing with so no favortism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@dcarr,

 

I don't know if you are taking suggestions for any future fantasy pieces or not but if you are, here is my recommendation.

 

A 1923-D or 1930-D Mercury Dime

 

I always wanted a Soviet dime but could never find one. Having a fantasy piece of a well known counterfeit would be very cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites