Near Counterfeit?

[dcarr]

So the prosecutor could tell the judge that he does not have to prove the items in question are counterfeit?

No he wouldn't. He just has to show that they violate the law, in this case Title 18 chapter 25 sections 487 and 489.

 

Section 487 has been conflicted by the HPA. So a defendant could show a long history of items that have been legally made using molds or dies in the likeness of US coins.

 

Section 489 is so vauge that it could be interpreted in such a way that a selling a blank copper disk is a violation because the "color" of the disk matches the color of US cents. Clearly that is not the intent of the statute. Regardless, this section has also been conflicted by the later HPA. So again, a defendant could show a long history of items in the likeness of US coins that have been legally sold.

 

But once the HPA was enacted it would be a fairly simple matter to have both in compliance by simply making the dies with the raised word COPY on it so that when the pieces are cast or struck they automatically have COPY on them and are in compliance as soon as they are created.

 

Putting "COPY" on the mold or die itself would still not satisfy the requirements of section 487 because that statute refers to all or PART of the design:

"Whoever, without lawful authority, makes any die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof..."

 

And only a very small percentage of the replica coins made since the enactment of the HPA have "COPY" as part of the mold or die. Most, if they have "COPY" on them, are stamped "COPY" on the item after it is molded or struck. The HPA does NOT stipulate that the mold or die itself must be marked "COPY".

 

To properly value a coin, the following things must be known:

1) What is it made of ?

2) What country is it from (if any) ?

3) What denomination is it (if any) ?

4) What condition is it in ?

5) What is the date and mint mark (if any) ?

Why do we have to "value" it (?)

Because that is the original purpose of coinage - that each piece be valued so as to facilitate exchange.

 

It is made of coppernickel clad material 75%cU and 25 % Ni bonded to a copper core. A coinage material only used by the US.

It says right on it that it is from the United States of America.

It has a denomination, quarter dollar.

It is in Mint State but that isn't important to what it is.

It has a 1975 date.

 

Sure seems to me that it is purporting to be a US Quarter dollar made in 1975.

So it is purporting to be something that it really isn't. What was that definition of imitation numismatic item again?

Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item.

 

The HPA and sections 487 and 489 say nothing about a numismatic item that purports to be something it isn't. The HPA only talks about an item that purports to be a different original numismatic item. There is no violation in altering a coin to purport to be something it wasn't originally, so long as it isn't for a fraudulent purpose. The US Mint web site makes that very clear by underlining that key word here:

(Text as of 2/19/02) 18 U.S.C. §331

 

Take a 1938 Indian Head nickel, carve the front to look like a "hobo" (but leave the "1938" date, "LIBERTY" and the entire reverse as they are). It now purports to be something it isn't - a legal-tender US 5-cent coin with a "Hobo" portrait on it - it even still has all the inscriptions of a regular US coin as required by law.

 

Even when an altered coin purports to be somethng it isn't (like a "1975" over-struck quarter), that doesn't automatically mean that it purports to be an "original numismatic item". Since no original 1975 quarters exist, an over-struck "1975" quarter can not purport to be an original numismatic item by date. And since it already was a Washington quarter type, it isn't purporting to be a Washington quarter type.

 

Sure seems to fit the definition of an imitation numismatic item, and

(a) An imitation numismatic item which is manufactured in the United States, or imported into the United States for introduction into or distribution in commerce, shall be plainly and permanently marked "COPY".

 

Take a look at this coin (below):

 

Privately minted.

 

Licensed and endorsed by the Smithsonian Institution.

 

Certified by NGC.

 

Has a design in similitude to US coins. In fact the design was created by a chief engraver of the US Mint.

 

Does NOT have "COPY" on it anywhere.

 

Has the legends on it that are required of a legal tender piece - date, "LIBERTY", "In God We Trust", and "UNITED STATES of AMERICA".

 

It also clearly has a "ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS" apparent face value.

 

The coin was NEVER legal tender and was NOT struck over a $100 legal tender item.

 

 

[CaptHenway]

You make a good case that that "Gold Union" piece, because of the legends, should be marked with the word "COPY."

[RWB]

If one applied the “logic” proposed by some posters, there could never be a counterfeit coin or anything else – the maker would simply claim it was “art,” or there was “no intent to defraud.”

 

This confused “logic” is, of course, nonsense. By US case law and English common law, the making or possession of anything “in the likeness or similitude” of legal tender is fraudulent in and of itself. The maker does not have the option of declaring “I am making these things that look like Gucci gloves and say ‘Gucci’ on them, but I am not intending to defraud anyone.”

 

The HPA gave producers of replicas a way of making numismatic items that looked like the real thing, but were distinguished by having the word “COPY” included on one face of the item. This avoided most (not all) future problems with “replicas” being offered as authentic.

 

Every maker in the US and Canada appears to comply with the HPA – and have done so for 20 years – except one (or is that two with the "gold union" pieces).

 

Absence of public knowledge of complaints or enforcement action, thereby claiming that counterfeits are “OK,” is a specious argument not worthy of those who make such a claim.

 

As noted before, greed and self-deception are powerful talismans.

[Afterword]

"If one applied the “logic” proposed by some posters, there could never be a counterfeit coin or anything else – the maker would simply claim it was “art,” or there was “no intent to defraud.”"

 

A disclaimer for all buyers to see is not the same as what you are portraying above.

 

Using your logic “in the likeness or similitude" would include a photograph of a coin. The written law concerning this matter has to be taken into consideration as a whole, and not using particular sections taken out of context.

 

"Absence of public knowledge of complaints or enforcement action, thereby claiming that counterfeits are “OK,” is a specious argument not worthy of those who make such a claim."

 

Only if they are indeed counterfeit.

 

[BillJones]

If one applied the “logic” proposed by some posters, there could never be a counterfeit coin or anything else – the maker would simply claim it was “art,” or there was “no intent to defraud.”

 

This confused “logic” is, of course, nonsense. By US case law and English common law, the making or possession of anything “in the likeness or similitude” of legal tender is fraudulent in and of itself. The maker does not have the option of declaring “I am making these things that look like Gucci gloves and say ‘Gucci’ on them, but I am not intending to defraud anyone.”

 

The HPA gave producers of replicas a way of making numismatic items that looked like the real thing, but were distinguished by having the word “COPY” included on one face of the item. This avoided most (not all) future problems with “replicas” being offered as authentic.

 

Every maker in the US and Canada appears to comply with the HPA – and have done so for 20 years – except one (or is that two with the "gold union" pieces).

 

Absence of public knowledge of complaints or enforcement action, thereby claiming that counterfeits are “OK,” is a specious argument not worthy of those who make such a claim.

 

As noted before, greed and self-deception are powerful talismans.

 

I thought about writing a post about how it has been illegal in the past to take genuine coins and paper money and turn them into to counterfeit pieces for personal gain. Then I considered the attitude of average "dcarr fan" and decided that was a waste time because it would fall on deaf ears.

 

It truly amazes me that people want to spend money on items that were never issued or were never minted when there is an endless list of genuine items, with great stories, that are out there to buy. Why buy manufactured, fantasy junk? If you don't like the "1929 half eagle replicas layered in 24K gold" that have been advertised on TV and in magazines, why do you like this stuff? Beyond that why support something that could be used for fraudulent promotions in the future, which could give the hobby a black eye? Search me.

[dcarr]

You make a good case that that "Gold Union" piece, because of the legends, should be marked with the word "COPY."

 

Actually, the point that I am making is this:

Perhaps the $100 Gold Union pieces does NOT actually purport to be an "original numismatic item" (because none like that were originally minted). And so that is how it came to be produced and widely marketed with no apparent legal repercussions.

 

[dcarr]

If one applied the “logic” proposed by some posters, there could never be a counterfeit coin or anything else – the maker would simply claim it was “art,” or there was “no intent to defraud.”

 

Boggs would hand-draw US currency and then attempt to spend it as "performance art". Whenever doing so, he would tell the intended recipient that he drew it. It was then up to them to accept it or not. Sometimes they did, sometimes they didn't. Was that "counterfeiting" ? There was no intent to defraud. The notes themselves could be considered "currency counterfeits" because they had an apparent face value but never had any legal-tender status. The US Secret Service eventually confiscated some of Boggs' work, but he was never charged for counterfeiting because the Feds considered the intent to be a major factor.

 

Now contrast that with what I do. I don't attempt to spend any of my work, nor do I suggest anyone else do that. And I am not creating any apparent legal-tender items out of something that didn't have the same legal tender status to start with. In other words, Boggs created apparent legal tender out of nothing but blank paper and ink, while I take a legal-tender item and modify it without changing the apperent face value.

 

By the way, Boggs' Bills are worth a hefty premium to collectors now.

 

This confused “logic” is, of course, nonsense. By US case law and English common law, the making or possession of anything “in the likeness or similitude” of legal tender is fraudulent in and of itself.

 

The Hobby Protection Act says otherwise. Was the Smithsonian piece I posted earlier "fraudulent" ? I think not.

 

The maker does not have the option of declaring “I am making these things that look like Gucci gloves and say ‘Gucci’ on them, but I am not intending to defraud anyone.”

 

If I buy a pair of genuine Gucci gloves, then dye them a fancy color and offer them for sale as a special "Carr" edition of modified Gucci gloves, that is perfectly ok. Or suppose I buy an old Chevrolet and restore it and put a type of engine in it that it never originally came with, I can legally sell it as a "Carr" restoration or whatever.

 

The HPA gave producers of replicas a way of making numismatic items that looked like the real thing, but were distinguished by having the word “COPY” included on one face of the item. This avoided most (not all) future problems with “replicas” being offered as authentic.

 

Every maker in the US and Canada appears to comply with the HPA – and have done so for 20 years – except one (or is that two with the "gold union" pieces).

 

First of all, Canada has different laws than the USA. No replicas of Canadian coins or currency are allowed by Canadian law. They do not have an equivalent to our HPA.

 

It all comes down to the interpretation of what constitutes an "original numismatic item" in the HPA. Apparently, the Smithsonian Institution did not think that a $100 Gold Union coin could purport to be an original numimatic item. So I ask yet again, what is your evidence of legal basis that a "1975" over-strike Washington quarter is not in compliance with the HPA ? Same for the $100 Gold Union piece.

 

Absence of public knowledge of complaints or enforcement action, thereby claiming that counterfeits are “OK,” is a specious argument not worthy of those who make such a claim.

 

Your tactic of attempting to shift the debate to your flawed premise isn't going to fly here. It has NOT been legally established that a "1975" over-strike quarter is a "counterfeit".

 

As noted before, greed and self-deception are powerful talismans.

 

You keep bringing this up (here and many times previously on another forum you were banned from). So I take it that you really want to debate it ? Let's go at it. I'll go straight to the "nuclear option" and be done with it.

 

I worked very hard for many years to be able to have a "dream job". I do what I do because I enjoy it. I like to make fantasy-date over-strike coins. It's fun. Making some money from doing so is a bonus. You are mistaken if you think anything nefarious is going on.

 

Your statement in red above implies that you think other people (specifically me) have fallen under the spell of greed and self-deception, but you yourself have not. If anything, I find the the opposite to be true.

 

My case in point:

You were chosen by the Langbords as their expert numismatic witness in their suit against the government to recover the 1933 Double Eagles. At that time did they know what you previously wrote on that other forum ? In a thread there about the 1933 Double Eagle situation, you wrote to the effect of mustering all the hearsay and innuendo required to obfuscate the facts; adding, “I’ll do it at $300 an hour.”. That is what Coin World reported in their article here: 1933 double eagle trial

When the government's layer brought up your previous posts, it apparently made a strong impression on the jury, quite possibly delivering a death-blow to the Langbord's case.

 

At one point, you were also on the CCAC (Citizens Coin Advisory Committee). The goverment stipulated that you could no longer serve on a government committee if at the same time you were going to be involved with plaintiffs in a suit against the government (the Langbord case). You petitioned the government to be allowed to do both. The goverment denied your request. And so, as I understand it, you had the option of staying on the CCAC or being the Langbords expert witness, but not both. So you chose the paying job (unfortunately for the Langbords).

 

Feel free to comment and flame away.

[dcarr]

I thought about writing a post about how it has been illegal in the past to take genuine coins and paper money and turn them into to counterfeit pieces for personal gain.

 

Well, yes, it is illegal to alter a coin or paper money for fraudulent purposes.

For example, it would be fraudulent to take a $1 bill and manipulate it in some way to make it look like a $100 bill and then attempt to pass it for $100 to an unsuspecting recipient.

 

It truly amazes me that people want to spend money on items that were never issued or were never minted when there is an endless list of genuine items, with great stores, that are out there to buy. Why buy manufactured, fantasy junk? If you don't like the "1929 half eagle replicas layered in 24K gold" that have been advertised on TV and in magazines, why do you like this stuff? Beyond that why support something that could be used for fraudulent promotions in the future, which could give the hobby a black eye? Search me.

 

If you think about it, it is rather odd that anyone would ever pay more than face value or scrap value for ANY coin.

 

[braddick]

 

As noted before, greed and self-deception are powerful talismans.

 

You keep bringing this up (here and many times previously on another forum you were banned from). So I take it that you really want to debate it ? Let's go at it. I'll go straight to the "nuclear option" and be done with it.

 

I worked very hard for many years to be able to have a "dream job". I do what I do because I enjoy it. I like to make fantasy-date over-strike coins. It's fun. Making some money from doing so is a bonus. You are mistaken if you think anything nefarious is going on.

 

Your statement in red above implies that you think other people (specifically me) have fallen under the spell of greed and self-deception, but you yourself have not. If anything, I find the the opposite to be true.

 

My case in point:

You were chosen by the Langbords as their expert numismatic witness in their suit against the government to recover the 1933 Double Eagles. At that time did they know what you previously wrote on that other forum ? In a thread there about the 1933 Double Eagle situation, you wrote to the effect of mustering all the hearsay and innuendo required to obfuscate the facts; adding, “I’ll do it at $300 an hour.”. That is what Coin World reported in their article here: 1933 double eagle trial

When the government's layer brought up your previous posts, it apparently made a strong impression on the jury, quite possibly delivering a death-blow to the Langbord's case.

 

At one point, you were also on the CCAC (Citizens Coin Advisory Committee). The goverment stipulated that you could no longer serve on a government committee if at the same time you were going to be involved with plaintiffs in a suit against the government (the Langbord case). You petitioned the government to be allowed to do both. The goverment denied your request. And so, as I understand it, you had the option of staying on the CCAC or being the Langbords expert witness, but not both. So you chose the paying job (unfortunately for the Langbords).

 

Feel free to comment and flame away.

 

Point. Set. Match.

[RWB]

Summary ---

 

“You can’t convince a believer that he or she is wrong.”

“Their faith-like approach is a closed system, and their social bonds with fellow believers are too tightly knit to admit any wiggle room.”

“You can point to any contradiction …and it just doesn’t matter. They will either find some way to reconcile it or say that even if they don’t understand it, it doesn’t matter.”

 

[Adapted from remarks by Dr. Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina.]

 

PS: To Bradick's personal insinuations. A trial witness has no knowledge of the lawyer's strategy and can only answer the questions asked and allowed by the Court.

Further, the resons for accepting the Langbord case have never been made public, and cannot be discussed until the case has been concluded.

[CaptHenway]

Taking a day off from the drama today. I suggest that everybody else do likewise.

[BillJones]

Taking a day off from the drama today. I suggest that everybody else do likewise.

 

I agree. No one is going to change anyone else's mind on this issue.

[RWB]

Good idea.

[dcarr]

This will be my last post here until after the holiday.

 

Summary ---

 

“You can’t convince a believer that he or she is wrong.”

“Their faith-like approach is a closed system, and their social bonds with fellow believers are too tightly knit to admit any wiggle room.”

“You can point to any contradiction …and it just doesn’t matter. They will either find some way to reconcile it or say that even if they don’t understand it, it doesn’t matter.”

 

[Adapted from remarks by Dr. Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina.]

 

This observation applies to a lot of situations, and sometimes both sides in a debate. It was probably originally written about peoples' religous beliefs.

 

My over-strikes have been called "counterfeits" by some. I have been called a "felon", "greedy", "egotistical", "delusional". On another forum a statement was made to the effect that I will soon be in a penitentiary. These statements are potentially libelous and possibly detrimental to my business. All these statements were made entirely based on the posters' beliefs and not on any actual legal precedent.

 

I have asked multiple times here if there is a legal precedent that a "1975" over-strike quarter is a "counterfeit". The opposing side in this debate has not cited one, nor admitted that it is simply their belief. I have cited many things that indicate a "1975" over-strike quarter is not a "counterfeit", but rather, a "defaced" or "altered" coin. A carved "hobo" nickel is a good analogy of a defaced (not counterfeit) coin.

 

PS: To Bradick's personal insinuations. A trial witness has no knowledge of the lawyer's strategy and can only answer the questions asked and allowed by the Court.

Further, the resons for accepting the Langbord case have never been made public, and cannot be discussed until the case has been concluded.

 

Did the Langbords ask you to be a part of their appeal case going forward ?

[Kurtdog]

Did the Langbords ask you to be a part of their appeal case going forward ?

I doubt it. He'd have to bring his own seat. There's no place for a witness to sit in that court.

[disme]

Did the Langbords ask you to be a part of their appeal case going forward ?

I doubt it. He'd have to bring his own seat. There's no place for a witness to sit in that court.

I note the comments by Messrs Carr & Kurtdog on the 1933 double

eagle matter.

 

Well . . .

 

1) My opinion is still that the 1964 and 1975 pieces are unethical

without the COPY stamp and should not have been made.

 

2) I was involved with the 1933 first round as a scheduled defense

witness for the aborted January 2001 trial. Perhaps Messrs Carr &

Kurtdog will let us know how my involvement with the earlier 1933

legal matter affects my view of the 1964 and 1975 productions.

 

I am sure that Kurtdog in particular will want to comment, considering

the tone of his remark. He is obviously an expert on the 1933 legal

trials.

 

 

[mark]

dcarr:

 

You have frequently said that no one can be harmed by your issues because the information showing that your "coins" were not issued by the U.S. government is available on the Internet. Yet you also say that the Langbords made an error by hiring RWB even though the previous chat board post you quote was available on the Internet. Frankly, I think you have just proven the point that in the future some buyers will be harmed by your work.

 

I appreciate the point that you are not defrauding anyone. But I believe that you are providing the means through which buyers in the future will be defrauded.

 

Mark

[BillJones]

It has been noted that the Chinese have made some date and mint mark combinations of Morgan dollars that never existed, like 1886-CC and 1888-CC. If the Chinese had struck those items over genuine Morgan dollars instead of the low grade steel planchets they used, would those pieces be legal and collectable?

[Kurtdog]

Did the Langbords ask you to be a part of their appeal case going forward ?

I doubt it. He'd have to bring his own seat. There's no place for a witness to sit in that court.

I am sure that Kurtdog in particular will want to comment, considering

the tone of his remark. He is obviously an expert on the 1933 legal

trials.

Messr Disme, there are no witness stands in courts of appeal. Went right over your head, didn't it?

[AHFreak]

It has been noted that the Chinese have made some date and mint mark combinations of Morgan dollars that never existed, like 1886-CC and 1888-CC. If the Chinese had struck those items over genuine Morgan dollars instead of the low grade steel planchets they used, would those piece be legal and collectable?

 

This seems like an easy one to me. (I know its really not easy and that I might be the only one who has my specific thoughts/beliefs/opinions on the matter-which the fact that someone or even anyone might have a different thought/opinion on the matter would be totally OK with me, but obviously there are many who believe it is NOT OK to have a belief/opinion that is different than their own-this is a very narcissistic way of thinking.

 

I think your question is a very obvious, yes, it would be in direct violation of the HPA. (the HPA specifically covers this kind of thing, this type of thing is why the HPA exists).

 

You have a metal disc being produced for the sole purpose of being misrepresented (portrayed/passed off/sold/etc).. as a genuine and legit coin that has "numismatic" value-when in reality, it is zero numismatic value.. Seems obvious and straightforward to me that it is and should be illegal. It should not be ok/accepted in any way.

 

With all that said, it seems just as obvious to me that comparing what Daniel Carr does, to the folks who take a cheap metal disc and turn it into a coin that is then represented as a coin with numismatic value is like comparing apples to oranges.... DC takes a legal U.S. coin, (one in which there is no shortage of, nor will there ever be..) and then alters the metal, to make it represent a fantasy piece...AND HE REPRESENTS, MARKETS, AND SELLS IT AS SUCH-being exactly what it is, how it was made, where it came from, etc...... people who make counterfeits start with nothing other than a cheap metal, (or I should say metal that has less intrinsic value than it does numismatic value once altered to represent a coin with a certain year/mint/denom/etc..). One takes a coin and alters it into a "fantasy coin", he is very open/honest/upfront about exactly what it is, before during and after... ... then he lets the market set whatever value it may or may not have... the other makes a fake coin, for the sole purpose of to lie, cheat, deceive, misrep, etc...

 

Two separate conversations, and to even suggest that they are comparable might be the craziest thing I have read so far in this entire thread...

 

-IMO.

[CaptHenway]

It has been noted that the Chinese have made some date and mint mark combinations of Morgan dollars that never existed, like 1886-CC and 1888-CC. If the Chinese had struck those items over genuine Morgan dollars instead of the low grade steel planchets they used, would those piece be legal and collectable?

 

According to some people they would be. I would not agree.

 

TD

[AHFreak]

dcarr:

 

You have frequently said that no one can be harmed by your issues because the information showing that your "coins" were not issued by the U.S. government is available on the Internet. Yet you also say that the Langbords made an error by hiring RWB even though the previous chat board post you quote was available on the Internet. Frankly, I think you have just proven the point that in the future some buyers will be harmed by your work.

 

I appreciate the point that you are not defrauding anyone. But I believe that you are providing the means through which buyers in the future will be defrauded.

 

Mark

 

I am relatively new to the world of coins. (5 years ago, I had no idea I was even interested in coins, and the only reason I had any was for intrinsic value). As I became obsessed with coins, and started buying, recklessly I might add, I came across a DC fantasy piece for sale... It was the 1964 Peace dollar. Point is, I was the guy who at the time was very easy to "take advantage of" in terms of buying a coin that was being represented as something other than exactly what it was.... When I saw DC's fantasy peace dollar, I remembered reading that some believed it was possible that a few 1964 peace dollars may have escaped before being melted/destroyed.... So when I saw one for sale, it was a "hey, wait a minute, I thought".... type of moment.

 

It took me all of about 30 seconds to know all about DC, his work, and exactly what it is/was. I truly believe that if there is a collector/buyer/hobbyist/investor/etc.. whatever, who is dumb enough, or reckless enough that they could be taken by a DC piece, that such a buyer at that point will be "taken" with or without, regardless of whether or not any DC piece were in existence.

 

I guess Im just sharing my own perspective, one that came from direct experience with being the new guy/ unknowing collector/buyer, who at one point may have been a prime target for someone who would take advantage by misrep'ing a DC piece.... If at any point that would have happened it would have been my own fault, nobody elses.

 

 

Quite frankly, I think you are reaching (high and unrealistically far I might add), grasping at straws so to speak, when you make a statement like the one you just made. There is nothing about it that points to DC "proving himself wrong/incorrect", or even contradicting himself in any way. Even if what you were saying made sense, and was applicable the point you are suggesting, it for sure wouldn't "prove" that someone will be defrauded someday by a DC fantasy piece..at least the way I am reading it..... Can you come up with anything better than that??? Or maybe elaborate on how you come to conclusion that somebody in the future will be defrauded by his work, just because of what he has said about the Langboard case, info on the internet, etc? I don't get it.

 

[CaptHenway]

It has been noted that the Chinese have made some date and mint mark combinations of Morgan dollars that never existed, like 1886-CC and 1888-CC. If the Chinese had struck those items over genuine Morgan dollars instead of the low grade steel planchets they used, would those piece be legal and collectable?

 

This seems like an easy one to me. (I know its really not easy and that I might be the only one who has my specific thoughts/beliefs/opinions on the matter-which the fact that someone or even anyone might have a different thought/opinion on the matter would be totally OK with me, but obviously there are many who believe it is NOT OK to have a belief/opinion that is different than their own-this is a very narcissistic way of thinking.

 

I think your question is a very obvious, yes, it would be in direct violation of the HPA. (the HPA specifically covers this kind of thing, this type of thing is why the HPA exists).

 

You have a metal disc being produced for the sole purpose of being misrepresented (portrayed/passed off/sold/etc).. as a genuine and legit coin that has "numismatic" value-when in reality, it is zero numismatic value.. Seems obvious and straightforward to me that it is and should be illegal. It should not be ok/accepted in any way.

 

With all that said, it seems just as obvious to me that comparing what Daniel Carr does, to the folks who take a cheap metal disc and turn it into a coin that is then represented as a coin with numismatic value is like comparing apples to oranges.... DC takes a legal U.S. coin, (one in which there is no shortage of, nor will there ever be..) and then alters the metal, to make it represent a fantasy piece...AND HE REPRESENTS, MARKETS, AND SELLS IT AS SUCH-being exactly what it is, how it was made, where it came from, etc...... people who make counterfeits start with nothing other than a cheap metal, (or I should say metal that has less intrinsic value than it does numismatic value once altered to represent a coin with a certain year/mint/denom/etc..). One takes a coin and alters it into a "fantasy coin", he is very open/honest/upfront about exactly what it is, before during and after... ... then he lets the market set whatever value it may or may not have... the other makes a fake coin, for the sole purpose of to lie, cheat, deceive, misrep, etc...

 

Two separate conversations, and to even suggest that they are comparable might be the craziest thing I have read so far in this entire thread...

 

-IMO.

 

I believe that the point of the question was, what if a distributor of Chinese counterfeits, such as an 1888-CC Morgan dollar, were to offer, for a higher price, the same 1888-CC Chinese counterfeits struck over genuine legal tender U.S. silver dollars? Would they still be Chinese counterfeits?

[AHFreak]

Sorry if I rambled, or made it confusing because my reply was too wordy....allow me to clarify:

 

I BELIEVE IT IS/WOULD BE A COUNTERFEIT... IN A VERY BLACK & WHITE, STRAIGHT-FORWARD SORT OF WAY...

 

to keep it simple, I think that comparing DC's work to a Chinese counterfeiter is a point made in desperation, a statement made only after all logic has been taken out of the conversation.

[MarkFeld]

Sorry if I rambled, or made it confusing because my reply was too wordy....allow me to clarify:

 

I BELIEVE IT IS/WOULD BE A COUNTERFEIT... IN A VERY BLACK & WHITE, STRAIGHT-FORWARD SORT OF WAY...

 

to keep it simple, I think that comparing DC's work to a Chinese counterfeiter is a point made in desperation, a statement made only after all logic has been taken out of the conversation.

 

Why would an 1886-CC dated dollar struck over a genuine Morgan silver dollar be considered a counterfeit, but a Carr creation (bearing a date for which no genuine examples were produced by the US Mint) struck over a genuine coin, not be? What is the difference between the two?

 

I do not ask that in an effort to make a point out of desperation. Nor do I think your above post was logical. On the contrary, it seems quite inconsistent and contradictory.

[mark]

AHFreak, I am definitely glad you looked up the status of the "coin" in the Internet because that is one less person who might be defrauded. But I think you will agree with me when I say that not 100% of potential buyers will be as wise and check before purchasing. Of course, you can say "Who cares?" but that's not an attitude I share. I guess I simply do not enjoy see someone being defrauded...

 

You questioned the purpose of my post. It is simple. Mr. Carr argued as you did, that the information about his issue is available on the Internet, so that anyone (everyone?) thinking of buying one of his "coins" would look up the necessary information. I merely pointed out that Mr. Carr suggested that the Langbord's attorneys did not look up RWB's posts (made, I believe, in jest) before hiring him even though the information was available on the Internet. My unwritten question to Mr. Carr was "Why do you believe everyone will look up information on the Internet about your "coins" when you posted a clear example of someone (the Langbord's attorneys) not doing so for another very important issue?"

 

Mark

[AHFreak]

Sorry if I rambled, or made it confusing because my reply was too wordy....allow me to clarify:

 

I BELIEVE IT IS/WOULD BE A COUNTERFEIT... IN A VERY BLACK & WHITE, STRAIGHT-FORWARD SORT OF WAY...

 

to keep it simple, I think that comparing DC's work to a Chinese counterfeiter is a point made in desperation, a statement made only after all logic has been taken out of the conversation.

 

Why would an 1886-CC dated dollar struck over a genuine Morgan silver dollar be considered a counterfeit, but a Carr creation (bearing a date for which no genuine examples were produced by the US Mint) struck over a genuine coin, not be? What is the difference between the two?

 

I do not ask that in an effort to make a point out of desperation. Nor do I think your above post was logical. On the contrary, it seems quite inconsistent and contradictory.

 

I understand completely, and I will point out, that I am no law expert, nor do I claim to be. Now if we are in a court of law, I am not sure what affect "one's intent" may or may not have on how their actions are perceived...But what I do know, and it is something that is very clear, and obvious (in my own mind) is that "INTENT" matters here, in this situation.

 

These are my OPINIONS Mark, and while I respect the value you bring to a conversation with your insight (very much so I might add), I see that you have a valid point in the question you ask me, and I see why you have developed the opinion that I am inconstant and contradictory. I get it, and its OK with me. I certainly respect your thoughts.

 

To me, the two are very different. one is being made for the sole purpose of deceiving, one is being made as a creative outlet, without any intentions on deceiving, lying, or taking advantage of etc.... Seems to me that the difference is clear, although I don't expect you or anyone else to agree.. It is OK with me if you don't. sorry if that sounds contradictory or inconsistent. I prefaced my statement by saying, that I may be the only one who feels this way...

 

 

The problem I think for me isn't so much whether or not DC pieces are right/wrong/imorral/legal/illegal/etc... But that you have so many here who are simply not OK with someone having a different opinion than they do.. in fact, not only are they not OK with a different opinion, but they belittle, disrespect, and personally attack others for having different OPINIONS and/or sharing different views.... As a new guy to the hobby, I truly feel like people who behave this way, are more detrimental to the hobby than a hundred Dan Carrs put together.... If I didn't have "thick" skin so to speak, Id have been turned off/turned away from this hobby no less than 10 times because of Heads in this business, guys who have become so lost in their what amazing experts they are in the world of coins, that they forget what makes this hobby that they love function. So many of the "experts" I hear being praised do nothing more than feed their own EGO's with all the greatness they acquire... What do they do to contribute to the longevity of the hobby??? (longevity as in, people who don't feel comfortable, wont participate in the hobby at all, and without people there is nothing)... What good is the coin elite status going to be if there is nobody there, or not enough people there to support what it is and can be? Its bigger than just the black and white image of what some of you think it should be whether u like it or not.

I think it is fine that someone opposes DC's work, I personally do not oppose it. I enjoy it, and feel there is a place for it in this amazing hobby.... But the fact that I am made to feel a certain way because of my "OPINION" by the same people I am supposed to be able to respect as "the greats" people I should be able look up to for advice, guidance, etc, as I am the "newbie"... seems to demonstrate just how much needs to change, and be changed about this hobby....

 

 

[MarkFeld]

Sorry if I rambled, or made it confusing because my reply was too wordy....allow me to clarify:

 

I BELIEVE IT IS/WOULD BE A COUNTERFEIT... IN A VERY BLACK & WHITE, STRAIGHT-FORWARD SORT OF WAY...

 

to keep it simple, I think that comparing DC's work to a Chinese counterfeiter is a point made in desperation, a statement made only after all logic has been taken out of the conversation.

 

Why would an 1886-CC dated dollar struck over a genuine Morgan silver dollar be considered a counterfeit, but a Carr creation (bearing a date for which no genuine examples were produced by the US Mint) struck over a genuine coin, not be? What is the difference between the two?

 

I do not ask that in an effort to make a point out of desperation. Nor do I think your above post was logical. On the contrary, it seems quite inconsistent and contradictory.

 

I understand completely, and I will point out, that I am no law expert, nor do I claim to be. Now if we are in a court of law, I am not sure what affect "one's intent" may or may not have on how their actions are perceived...But what I do know, and it is something that is very clear, and obvious (in my own mind) is that "INTENT" matters here, in this situation.

 

These are my OPINIONS Mark, and while I respect the value you bring to a conversation with your insight (very much so I might add), I see that you have a valid point in the question you ask me, and I see why you have developed the opinion that I am inconstant and contradictory. I get it, and its OK with me. I certainly respect your thoughts.

 

To me, the two are very different. one is being made for the sole purpose of deceiving, one is being made as a creative outlet, without any intentions on deceiving, lying, or taking advantage of etc.... Seems to me that the difference is clear, although I don't expect you or anyone else to agree.. It is OK with me if you don't. sorry if that sounds contradictory or inconsistent. I prefaced my statement by saying, that I may be the only one who feels this way...

 

 

The problem I think for me isn't so much whether or not DC pieces are right/wrong/imorral/legal/illegal/etc... But that you have so many here who are simply not OK with someone having a different opinion than they do.. in fact, not only are they not OK with a different opinion, but they belittle, disrespect, and personally attack others for having different OPINIONS and/or sharing different views.... As a new guy to the hobby, I truly feel like people who behave this way, are more detrimental to the hobby than a hundred Dan Carrs put together.... If I didn't have "thick" skin so to speak, Id have been turned off/turned away from this hobby no less than 10 times because of Heads in this business, guys who have become so lost in their what amazing experts they are in the world of coins, that they forget what makes this hobby that they love function. So many of the "experts" I hear being praised do nothing more than feed their own EGO's with all the greatness they acquire... What do they do to contribute to the longevity of the hobby??? (longevity as in, people who don't feel comfortable, wont participate in the hobby at all, and without people there is nothing)... What good is the coin elite status going to be if there is nobody there, or not enough people there to support what it is and can be? Its bigger than just the black and white image of what some of you think it should be whether u like it or not.

I think it is fine that someone opposes DC's work, I personally do not oppose it. I enjoy it, and feel there is a place for it in this amazing hobby.... But the fact that I am made to feel a certain way because of my "OPINION" by the same people I am supposed to be able to respect as "the greats" people I should be able look up to for advice, guidance, etc, as I am the "newbie"... seems to demonstrate just how much needs to change, and be changed about this hobby....

 

 

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

 

I was wondering if you would bring up "intent" and I give you credit for doing so. I also agree with you that it might be relevant with respect to differences between the two scenarios I compared.

 

However, part of the problem is that once the items are produced and introduced into the marketplace, the intent of the coiner becomes a moot point. And both types of items are susceptible to being used to rip off the unknowledgeable/unsuspecting.

[disme]

Did the Langbords ask you to be a part of their appeal case going forward ?

I doubt it. He'd have to bring his own seat. There's no place for a witness to sit in that court.

I am sure that Kurtdog in particular will want to comment, considering

the tone of his remark. He is obviously an expert on the 1933 legal

trials.

Messr Disme, there are no witness stands in courts of appeal. Went right over your head, didn't it?

Translation: Kurtdog can’t answer the question so he changed the subject.

 

 

 

[Kurtdog]

Did the Langbords ask you to be a part of their appeal case going forward ?

I doubt it. He'd have to bring his own seat. There's no place for a witness to sit in that court.

I am sure that Kurtdog in particular will want to comment, considering

the tone of his remark. He is obviously an expert on the 1933 legal

trials.

Messr Disme, there are no witness stands in courts of appeal. Went right over your head, didn't it?

Translation: Kurtdog can’t answer the question so he changed the subject.

And what question would that be, the question that occurred to you based on an answer that I gave to Mr. Carr that you didn't understand? Do you mean that question?