• 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.

Near Counterfeit?

Started by Mr. Smith Guesser,

361 posts in this topic

Mr. Smith Guesser

Mr. Smith Guesser

Posted
Posted

I've seen a few of these "Fantasy Struck" coins in the past. But I think this takes it a bit too far:

 

2uxu2y0.jpg

 

The seller's webpage: http://www.dc-coin.com/1grabenercoinpressmedallionsaleprice-1-4-4-1-2-2-2-3-2-1.aspx

 

The seller says, "Defacing of US coins is legal so long as the defacement isn't for fraudulent purposes." I don't even know if that's true. But, in my opinion, a hobo nickel is one thing. The coin above is a whole other ball of wax.

 

The seller goes on to say, "By purchasing one or more of these coins, the buyer agrees to provide full disclosure of their origin when reselling them. Failure to provide potential buyers with complete and accurate information when offering these coins could result in criminal and/or civil fraud charges. In other words, don't even think about trying to sell these to unaware buyers as original 1975 Washington quarters!"

 

I don't think the seller is doing anything fraudulent, since they are disclosing the fact that the coin is not genuine. But, in my opinion, this kind of thing is just bad for the numismatic community in general, and just shouldn't be allowed.

 

The definition of "counterfeit" (here I go again with the semantics) implies an intent to defraud. And while there doesn't seem to be any direct intent to defraud, the seller is, in a way, providing an opportunity for the buyer to defraud someone else. Yeah, the seller says that by purchasing this coin, the buyer agrees to provide full disclosure when re-selling. But I'm really surprised that they're actually getting away with this.

 

I don't like it. What say you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BillJones

BillJones

Posted
Posted

This guy posts all the time ATS, and he's got a bunch of fans over there. His excuse is that he makes "coins" that never existed, and in that way he gets around the Hobby Protection Act that would require him to put "COPY" on his work. Frankly I really dislike what he makes because I could see scenarios where unscrupulous sellers could stick ignorant people with high priced "recently discovered rarities."

 

One of his most popular creations is a 1964-D Peace Dollar. If he followed the law and put "COPY" on his work, I would have no problem with it. But as it is I'd like see the Secret Service hassle him.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mark

mark

Posted
Posted

Mr. Smith Guesser:

 

If you want to start a thread with an almost guaranteed minimum of 100 posts, go ATS with your original post.

 

By the way, I definitely agree with your opinions. I think future collectors will not be happy these coins exist.

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WoodenJefferson

WoodenJefferson

Posted
Posted

Lifted straight from Wiki....I swear, I can't make this stuff up.

 

Ad nauseam is a Latin term for something unpleasurable that has continued "to [the point of] nausea".For example, the sentence, "This topic has been discussed ad nauseam," signifies that the topic in question has been discussed extensively, and that those involved in the discussion have grown tired of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
disme

disme

Posted
Posted
Way back 30 years ago when I was the Senior Authenticator for the ANA I would have called this a counterfeit coin, but I no longer speak for the ANA.

Well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
copper toning

copper toning

Posted
Posted

 

 

By the way, I definitely agree with your opinions. I think future collectors will not be happy these coins exist.

 

Mark

 

I agree with your opinions also.

 

However with all the hoopla around these pieces it all depends as to how future collectors view this.

 

I would say that if a few more persons begin doing this I believe the SS would take more notice.

 

Right now they can go after Dan, or focus on the Chinese. Which would you choose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CaptHenway

CaptHenway

Posted
Posted
do they not have a 1975-quarter??? i don't get it

 

The U.S. Mint skipped the 1975 date for quarters, halves and dollars so that they could get an early start on the 1776-1976 dated Bicentennial coins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PerryHall

PerryHall

Posted
Posted
do they not have a 1975-quarter??? i don't get it

 

The U.S. Mint skipped the 1975 date for quarters, halves and dollars so that they could get an early start on the 1776-1976 dated Bicentennial coins.

Agree. Since the 1975 US quarter does not exist, the one Dan Carr produced is technically a fantasy coin and not a counterfeit of any existing US coin. If anyone here gets one in change, I'll be happy to buy it from you for 10X face value. Before Dan started producing his series of fantasy coins, he sent letters to the Secret Service, the US Treasury, and other government agencies letting them know what he planned to do and asked them if he was in violation of any laws. They never responded. Considering his products sell for well over face value, I doubt the Secret Service is too concerned. Suggest that those who consider these to be counterfeits send the Secret Service a letter notifying them of this situation so they can shut Dan down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
copper toning

copper toning

Posted
Posted
Right now they can go after Dan, or focus on the Chinese. Which would you choose?

 

Does the Secret Service have jurisdiction in China?

 

Do you think the US has any political ties to China which may help them garner Chinese help?

 

I would imagine there are persons within the US borders which are recieving the Chinese fakes. Not just ebay.

 

Besides I think you should have gotten my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CaptHenway

CaptHenway

Posted
Posted
do they not have a 1975-quarter??? i don't get it

 

The U.S. Mint skipped the 1975 date for quarters, halves and dollars so that they could get an early start on the 1776-1976 dated Bicentennial coins.

Agree. Since the 1975 US quarter does not exist, the one Dan Carr produced is technically a fantasy coin and not a counterfeit of any existing US coin. .

 

That is an opinion, not a fact based upon any legal precedent.

 

Back when I was still working we had a person come into the coin shop with a 1798-CC Trade Dollar. It was a counterfeit U.S. coin, even though no genuine 1798-CC Trade Dollars exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PerryHall

PerryHall

Posted
Posted
do they not have a 1975-quarter??? i don't get it

 

The U.S. Mint skipped the 1975 date for quarters, halves and dollars so that they could get an early start on the 1776-1976 dated Bicentennial coins.

Agree. Since the 1975 US quarter does not exist, the one Dan Carr produced is technically a fantasy coin and not a counterfeit of any existing US coin. .

 

That is an opinion, not a fact based upon any legal precedent.

 

Back when I was still working we had a person come into the coin shop with a 1798-CC Trade Dollar. It was a counterfeit U.S. coin, even though no genuine 1798-CC Trade Dollars exist.

 

You seem to have very strong feelings about this issue. Have you reported Dan Carr to the Secret Service? If not, why haven't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bsshog40

bsshog40

Posted
Posted
do they not have a 1975-quarter??? i don't get it

 

The U.S. Mint skipped the 1975 date for quarters, halves and dollars so that they could get an early start on the 1776-1976 dated Bicentennial coins.

Agree. Since the 1975 US quarter does not exist, the one Dan Carr produced is technically a fantasy coin and not a counterfeit of any existing US coin. .

 

That is an opinion, not a fact based upon any legal precedent.

 

Back when I was still working we had a person come into the coin shop with a 1798-CC Trade Dollar. It was a counterfeit U.S. coin, even though no genuine 1798-CC Trade Dollars exist.

 

You seem to have very strong feelings about this issue. Have you reported Dan Carr to the Secret Service? If not, why haven't you?

As my personal opinion of these think they are not good for the numismatic community and could also be a little fraudulent towards unknowing persons, I still don't think they are counterfeit. A counterfeit is a copy of an existing known coin or note. This is merely a fantasy piece as Perry stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CyberspaceVoid

CyberspaceVoid

Posted
Posted
This guy posts all the time ATS, and he's got a bunch of fans over there. His excuse is that he makes "coins" that never existed, and in that way he gets around the Hobby Protection Act that would require him to put "COPY" on his work. Frankly I really dislike what he makes because I could see scenarios where unscrupulous sellers could stick ignorant people with high priced "recently discovered rarities."

 

One of his most popular creations is a 1964-D Peace Dollar. If he followed the law and put "COPY" on his work, I would have no problem with it. But as it is I'd like see the Secret Service hassle him.

 

 

What Carr did was overstrike legally issued, common date Peace Dollars .... they were still legal, just altered. (As I am kind of a rebel I would love to own one of the 64-Ds myself to compliment my NORFED .... if I had one :whistle: .) Perhaps Carr used real quarters in this fantasy coin as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CaptHenway

CaptHenway

Posted
Posted
do they not have a 1975-quarter??? i don't get it

 

The U.S. Mint skipped the 1975 date for quarters, halves and dollars so that they could get an early start on the 1776-1976 dated Bicentennial coins.

Agree. Since the 1975 US quarter does not exist, the one Dan Carr produced is technically a fantasy coin and not a counterfeit of any existing US coin. .

 

That is an opinion, not a fact based upon any legal precedent.

 

Back when I was still working we had a person come into the coin shop with a 1798-CC Trade Dollar. It was a counterfeit U.S. coin, even though no genuine 1798-CC Trade Dollars exist.

 

You seem to have very strong feelings about this issue. Have you reported Dan Carr to the Secret Service? If not, why haven't you?

 

No I have not, nor do I intend to. However, if you have such strong feelings that these are legal, why don't you send one to the Secret Service and ask their opinion of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Conder101

Conder101

Posted
Posted
A counterfeit is a copy of an existing known coin or note.

So a Henning nickel isn't a counterfeit, because the US mint never made a 1944 nickel that didn't have a mintmark.

 

Even if it isn't a counterfeit it is still in violation of the HPA because it requires a piece to be marked COPY if it PURPORTS to be a genuine item, and that piece definitely purports to be a 1975 quarter dollar even though none were made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CaptHenway

CaptHenway

Posted
Posted
A counterfeit is a copy of an existing known coin or note.

So a Henning nickel isn't a counterfeit, because the US mint never made a 1944 nickel that didn't have a mintmark.

 

Even if it isn't a counterfeit it is still in violation of the HPA because it requires a piece to be marked COPY if it PURPORTS to be a genuine item, and that piece definitely purports to be a 1975 quarter dollar even though none were made.

 

Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bsshog40

bsshog40

Posted
Posted
A counterfeit is a copy of an existing known coin or note.

So a Henning nickel isn't a counterfeit, because the US mint never made a 1944 nickel that didn't have a mintmark.

 

Even if it isn't a counterfeit it is still in violation of the HPA because it requires a piece to be marked COPY if it PURPORTS to be a genuine item, and that piece definitely purports to be a 1975 quarter dollar even though none were made.

I don't know much about the Henning Conder. My statement just refers to the normal persons thinking. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing