Near Counterfeit?

[MarkFeld]

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?

 

It appears the question was asked of RWB and it was "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.

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?

It appears the question was asked of RWB and it was "Did the Langbords ask you to be a part of their appeal case going forward ?"

Yeah, that's all I saw. And I answered it. Even explained it after I answered it.

[RWB]

The case is active. I cannot answer due to Federal Court confidentiality rules. Any competent attorney will confirm that restriction.

[Afterword]

"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. "

 

Manufacturers of paring knives are not held accountable when someone injures or kills someone else with their product. The accountability lies with the individual that misused the product.

 

Any coin can be used to rip off someone unknowledgeable and unsuspecting. You cannot protect people from themselves. All you can do is make the knowledge accessible for their perusal.

[MarkFeld]

"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. "

 

Manufacturers of paring knives are not held accountable when someone injures or kills someone else with their product. The accountability lies with the individual that misused the product.

 

Any coin can be used to rip off someone unknowledgeable and unsuspecting. You cannot protect people from themselves. All you can do is make the knowledge accessible for their perusal.

 

Then that takes us back to....why would you have a problem with an 1886-CC "silver dollar" from China, struck over a genuine US silver dollar?

[Afterword]

"Then that takes us back to....why would you have a problem with an 1886-CC "silver dollar" from China, struck over a genuine US silver dollar?"

 

I do not recall stating that I did.

[dcarr]

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?

 

Legal ? Probably, so long as they are offered with full disclosure and not for any fraudulent purpose.

 

Collectible ? Everything and anything can be "collectible", even counterfeits. That is a choice to be made by each individual, however.

 

But there are many factors to consider here. Consider this analogy:

Andy Warhol made a large painting of a Campbell's tomato soup can label. Now that iconic painting is worth millions of dollars. If an unknown Chinese person came along and painted a Campell's chicken noodle soup label, would that painting have a similar value ? No. Why not ? Because it would not be a Warhol work.

 

Here are some of the important aspects of my over-strikes that Chinese producers do not offer:

 

1. My over-strikes are produced by a known person who designed two and a half coins for the US Mint.

2. My pieces are over-struck in the USA using a surplus US Denver Mint coin press.

3. Detailed production records, including charateristics, varieties, and mintages, are permanently posted in my production blogs.

4. Chinese makers tend to hide the truth about their coins, allowing buyers to assume they are genuine. I always provide full disclosure.

5. The quality of my over-strikes, due to my production process, is not something that other makers can equal, especially when over-striking existing coins. I have developed and utilize many special "trade secret" processes which would be very difficult to duplicate.

 

[dcarr]

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.

 

The two searches are entirely different (one is far more difficult to get meaningful results than the other).

 

Do we even know for sure that the Langbords didn't do such a search ? Maybe they did, but didn't get any meaningful search results (for the reasons outlined below).

 

The comments from the other forum that were written by RWB, the ones that the US Government's lawyer brought up during the trial, were previously made inaccessible. That Coin World article I cited earlier said so. I do not know when the comments were taken off line, but even if the Langbords had searched for them, they likely would not have found any. The government's lawyers probably utilized unconventional searches of little-known archival sites to find the comments.

 

Unless the Langbords already had some reservations about their expert witness, they probably wouldn't have searched for something like "controversial comments by RWB". And even if they had, at the time, there probably would not have been any significant meaningful results from that search.

 

Contrast that with a simple search for "1964 Peace Dollar". In this case, there is ample information readily available on the internet. I even maintain a production blog as permanent internet record for every over-strike coin that I do:

Over-Struck Fantasy Coins by Moonlight Mint & Daniel Carr

 

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.

 

Has anyone been defrauded by that Smithsonial $100 gold Union coin I posted earlier ?

 

Could a person be fooled into thinking one of those was a rare original 1876 issue ? Maybe. But here is the key question: Would they actually spend a lot of money for one (a lot more than it is worth) ?

 

We have all seen people who are disappointed to find out that an item they have is not worth as much as they thought. But it is one thing to inhert or be given such an item, or spend a few dollars for it. It is entirely different to actually spend a lot of money for one.

 

Let me take the 1964-D Peace Dollar as an example. A typical non-collector would probably think that one dated "1922" would be worth more than one dated "1964". For someone to be willing to spend a lot of money for a "1964" Peace silver dollar, they would first have to know something about the original 1964 Peace silver dollars. And if they did any research at all, they would have to come to the conclusion that the coin is either an original (in which case it would be illegal to own), or is a re-creation of some sort. Either way, the buyer would knowingly be taking a risk in buying it.

 

And all a novice collector has to do to avoid being taken is to seek out some professional advice, and/or stick to certified coins, and/or find out what they could actually sell a particular coin for before they commit to buying it.

 

And who is to say what the future value of one of my over-strikes will be. Even if someone did pay a lot for one, you should not automatically assume that it can't have any significant value.

[MarkFeld]

"Then that takes us back to....why would you have a problem with an 1886-CC "silver dollar" from China, struck over a genuine US silver dollar?"

 

I do not recall stating that I did.

 

You had posted:

 

"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. "

[Afterword]

"You had posted:

 

"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. "

 

 

You are mistaken. Research the thread to discover who actually made those statements.

[MarkFeld]

"You had posted:

 

"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. "

 

 

You are mistaken. Research the thread to discover who actually made those statements.

 

My apologies.

[Afterword]

"My apologies."

 

 

 

None are required.

[BillJones]

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.

 

I do not see any "desperation" in my comparison whatsoever. The Chinese make fake dies and use them strike counterfeit coins on base medal planchets which was not produced by the United States Government. Mr. Carr makes fake dies and uses them to over strike fantasy pieces on genuine United States coins. If the Chinese used genuine Morgan dollars as the host coins for their product, Mr. Carr and the Chinese would be on the same ethical plane.

 

If there is any "desperation" here, it has been generated by Mr. Carr and his defenders to justify why his products do not pose an opportunity to defraud uninformed people in the future.

 

Similar problems have cropped in the political button hobby. In these cases leftover materials from the manufacturing of campaign buttons have be used to make reproductions of the original pieces. Quite often the differences are subtle, such a slightly different shade of coloration or a different face piece or bezel. These items, when noted, are roundly frowned upon, and dealers who have marketed such pieces without marking them as such have been expelled from the American Political Items Club (a.k.a. APIC).

 

There are ethical issues here, and those turn a blind eye to them are delusional.

 

[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?

 

No desperation here, just a straight-forward question: If the maker of Chinese counterfeit 1888-CC dollars struck on magnetic planchets were to see the error of his ways and begin using the same dies to overstrike genuine 1921 Morgan dollars that he sold as privately-made overstrikes, would his overstrikes still be counterfeits?

[AHFreak]

there are ethical issues EVERYWHERE my friend. (do you also oppose guns, knives, bullets, pharmaceuticals, vehicles, air planes, computers, explosives, etc..?) Many/most "things" can be used negatively, to deceive, steal from, mislead, hurt, kill, terrorize, etc.. When these things Im talking about (things that their own place in this very big world) are used in ways in which they were not intended, do you call into question the makers/producers/peddlers/etc of such "things" with the logic that without such people, damage wouldn't have been caused, or been possible? Take a programmer, someone who writes a program that contributes to the betterment of mankind, when said program is used to lie, cheat, steal, deceive, etc... do you judge the programmer, or the guy who used the program for shady purposes?

 

At the ripe old age of 31, I have come to realize that when I "feel like" and/or "believe" that there is a moral/ethical issue, that I should then remind myself that what I feel is my own "opinion", and that it is likely that my opinion isn't shared by everyone. It helps me to reserve judgements and prevents me from acting out like a narcissist. I consciously recognize that I, in no way am in any position to cast judgement or determine who is good/bad, right/wrong, moral/imorral, ethical/unethical, etc... I realize that MY OWN OPINION likely varies from me to the next guy and that making it personal is extremely EGO-driven. Do you realize what an opinion is? Have you always had a narcissistic mentality? or is this more of a EGO thing- a personality trait that comes out when you are out enforcing your close-minded, one-dimensional belief system to any and all, regardless of what their own opinions/thoughts/experience/etc.. might be?

 

Obviously my opinion on this matter is not the popular one (either that or Im just more outspoken about mine) Regardless, I would argue (strongly) that any DELUSIONS happening here lie within those of you who can take your "OPINIONS" and believe that the world around you, and everyone in it is obliged to have the exact same one.....and when they don't, you question their character-their ethics, standards, and morals? Any delusions that are present in this situation seem very easy to recognize and identify.. . for me anyways... maybe its just my delusion... who's to know for sure?

[mark]

dcarr:

 

Let me make 3 quick points:

1) Your claim that your page on the Internet is "permanent" is almost laughable. Your heirs will maintain this page? Their heirs? Their heirs? Yeah, it's permanent...if you define permanent as 10 years or less.

 

2) Your claim that no one will spend a lot of money for your "coins" is equally almost laughable. You are asserting that no one will ever be scammed for anything because, after all, no one will ever spend "a lot of money" (your words) for something without doing due diligence. Perhaps you think the people who are scammed deserve what they get. I tend to disagree...

 

3) All the uproar could have been avoided if you had simply labeled each item you issued with the word "copy." But it's obvious why you did not: You think your sales would be less and, accordingly, your profit would be less. That's OK with me--you are putting your profit ahead of the possibility (certainty?) that someone along the line will be defrauded by your "coins." I can understand that attitude...

 

Mark

 

 

[BillJones]

You quite skilled in the use of the English language, AHFreak, but the gist of your essay is disturbing and disappointing. According to you there are no ethical principles, only "opinions." And then you have the audacity to write that those who stand up for ethical principles are "egotists." That argument is pathetic.

 

I'm 65 years old, I've been coin collector for 55 years and I was a dealer for over 10 years. Over that time I've seen a lot schemes that have been used to defraud, swindle and deceive people using "collector coins" as a medium. Most of the people who have used them in that manner had no scruples about what they were doing and didn't care who they damaged in the process. The worst of these perpetrators were arrested and convicted of fraud.

 

Those who were damaged by the activities of these individuals included collectors, ordinary citizens and honest dealers who ended up getting painted with the same broad brush. If you want your hobby or business to survive and thrive you have to stand up for what is right and what is wrong. If you don't, then you are letting the bad guys run the show.

 

[AHFreak]

You quite skilled in the use of the English language, AHFreak, but the gist of your essay is disturbing and disappointing. According to you there are no ethical principles, only "opinions." And then you have the audacity to write that those who stand up for ethical principles are "egotists." That argument is pathetic.

 

I'm 65 years old, I've been coin collector for 55 years and I was a dealer for over 10 years. Over that time I've seen a lot schemes that have been used to defraud, swindle and deceive people using "collector coins" as a medium. Most of the people who have used them in that manner had no scruples about what they were doing and didn't care who they damaged in the process. The worst of these perpetrators were arrested and convicted of fraud.

 

Those who were damaged by the activities of these individuals included collectors, ordinary citizens and honest dealers who ended up getting painted with the same broad brush. If you want your hobby or business to survive and thrive you have to stand up for what is right and what is wrong. If you don't, then you are letting the bad guys run the show.

 

Thanks. I appreciate the compliment. I want to throw this out there, as you are one of several people who have suggested that I have no sense of right/wrong, or that I don't see a problem with counterfeits, and/or criminals, whatever. Many have misconstrued what I have said and drawn the conclusion that I have no problems with someone getting hurt or taken advantage of in some sort of fashion... I would suggest, listen to what Im saying, instead of drawing conclusions based on what Im not saying...

 

Lets clarify for anyone who struggles with that.

 

-I Do not condone counterfeiting, nor do I believe for one second that there is a place for it in the hobby. (in regards to Chinese counterfeiters and the likes, I personally think they are scum (that's my "opinion"). I think they are criminals, and believe it or not, I empathize with collectors/buyers/whoever, that have been or may be taken advantage of, now or in the future, whether it happens via Chinese counterfeits, DC fantasy coins, doctored coins, etc... I do not think it is OK, or alright, nor do I condone it for one second. It sucks. I wish dishonesty wasn't so prevalent. In fact, I think to myself, what could this hobby be like if so many people weren't scared/terrified of buying coin/coins/etc, due to fear that they will get "taken". I cant even imagine what this hobby "could be like".

 

- If you read what I wrote here in this thread and concluded that I condone dishonestly, counterfeiting, lying, cheating, stealing, misrepresenting, etc... You misunderstood (or I did a poor job of getting my point across).

 

-to clearify in case it hasn't been made clear, I DO NOT THINK DC is a criminal, I DO NOT think he is a dishonest, immoral, unethical or otherwise shady individual for making, marketing, selling his fantasy coins the way he did... at all. I believe it is creative artistic expression, I believe it is healthy and has a solid respectable place in this very large hobby... I do not and could not compare him or what he does, or has done to Chinese counterfeiters. or any other "counterfeiter" who made/makes something to falsely represent something other than exactly what it is, in the pursuit of "profitability". He is perfectly honest and upfront about what his work is, and he never misleads it or falsely represents it.. from what I have seen and or read in this thread, or otherwise, (nobody has brought anything solid to this thread that proves otherwise-outside of your OPINOINS that what he does is deceitful, shady, immoral, unethical, etc...)

 

-So, I do think counterfeiters are bad..... I DO NOT think DC is or should be considered a counterfeiter, nor is he even in the same ballpark, league, (as far as im concerned, and that folks, is MY OPINION. I understand that many have different ones, and I am OK with that... MINE is clearly stated. )

 

BILLJONES,

 

You unfairly insinuate that I have this belief that -and Im going to quote you, quoting me here... you said, as you incorrectly quote me, that according to me, "there are no ethical principles, only opinions, and that anyone who stand up for ethical principles are egoists," and then tell me that this argument is pathetic.

 

First of all, I do not believe there are no, or should not be any sort of rules/guidelines/etc... Lets use the 10 commandments as example... I think they are solid, and mankind would be doing the right thing by living by and abiding by those suggestions/laws. (THAT IS MY OPINION, and I was simply pointing out that there is a good chance that someone else has a different view/opinion on the matter of ethical guidelines, standards, principles... Furthermore, I believe that IT IS EXTREMELY EGOTISTICAL/NARCISSISTIC if I were to declare myself the ultimate end all be all, and declare that anyone who's views, thoughts, opinions, beliefs, etc.. that didn't line up with mine, exactly how I saw fit, would then be "Delusional"...

 

you did that sir, not me. you very clearly stated that anyone who feels different about DC's fantasy pieces is delusional. I stated, that anyone who feels different is entitled to their own opinions. This is not an argument. I am not trying argue or prove anything, other than to point out that I think there is a problem in this hobby, and it is bigger and more destructive than 100 Dan Carrs could ever hope to be, if he were hoping to be a detrement to the hobby. I already mentioned it yesterday, so I wont get into what I think or see that problem to be unless u ask. Otherwise, I will stick with my initial statement that it is indicative of a NARCISSIST to call out, or question the morals/ethics/spirit/etc.. of someone just because they do not agree with your "OPINIONS" about the DC fantasy pieces, or anything else u have opinions about.

 

You say, "stand up for what you believe in"... I Agree, and I do, as often as possible...

 

to me, when you blatantly call myself and others "delusional" for thinking that Daniel Carr isn't a shady counterfeiter, you have clearly surpassed your duty and right to "stand up for what you believe in"... you are personally attacking someone who doesn't see something the same way you do, when regardless of whether or not you see it as such. I get it, I understand why you feel like this is open and shut.. I do not see it as such, and the fact that you so adamantly insist that I should, is a direct result of narcissistic traits. just sayin..

 

 

[MarkFeld]

dcarr:

 

Let me make 3 quick points:

1) Your claim that your page on the Internet is "permanent" is almost laughable. Your heirs will maintain this page? Their heirs? Their heirs? Yeah, it's permanent...if you define permanent as 10 years or less.

 

2) Your claim that no one will spend a lot of money for your "coins" is equally almost laughable. You are asserting that no one will ever be scammed for anything because, after all, no one will ever spend "a lot of money" (your words) for something without doing due diligence. Perhaps you think the people who are scammed deserve what they get. I tend to disagree...

 

3) All the uproar could have been avoided if you had simply labeled each item you issued with the word "copy." But it's obvious why you did not: You think your sales would be less and, accordingly, your profit would be less. That's OK with me--you are putting your profit ahead of the possibility (certainty?) that someone along the line will be defrauded by your "coins." I can understand that attitude...

 

Mark

 

1) Someone somewhere will certainly keep some record of it somehow.

And if there ever wasn't anything on the internet, somebody would probably publish a book about it. For example, the "Red Book" has been continuously maintained, by different people, since 1947. And even if my site wasn't available, there are lots of other places on the internet where there is information about my coins (such as this thread). Another example - Thomas Elder issues. There have been several books wtitten about them, and if you search the internet today you will find a lot of information about them, even though they were privately-minted over 100 years ago.

 

2) If someone on a street corner offered you a "Rolex" watch for $5,000, would you buy it ? Where and who are these mythical people who, without researching on the internet, spend thousands of dollars for a coin that isn't listed in a price guide ? They don't exist.

 

3) I don't put "COPY" on my over-strikes for a couple reasons, including:

A) I make a few for my own collection and I personally don't want "COPY" on them;

B) Because they are genuine coins altered to have dates that don't exist for that type, and so they are not "copies".

 

But here is an ironic situation to consider:

Several years ago the Gallery Mint made reproductions of early US Coins. They were all marked "COPY" becasue they weren't over-struck on genuine coins and they looked like the original issue (they had dates that were issued for the type). But somebody took one of their "1793" cent reproductions, filled in the "COPY" stamp, artificially circulated it, and sold it as a genuine original coin.

There has not been a single case of anyone being defrauded by one of my coins, even though they do not have "COPY", but a Gallery Mint piece with "COPY" was used to defraud someone.

 

The date is a focal point on a coin. For most coin types, where multiple dates exist for that type, you have to determine the date before you can possibly value it. In fact, the date itself is much more obvious and is noticed much more readily than many "COPY" stamps which are hidden in the various devices.

 

See pink section here:

 

PS: On a side note, note that one of my coins appears at the lower right of the page imaged above, mistakenly attributed to "Donald Carr".

 

Regarding your point 2 above - I have seen numerous people on Ebay bid three figures on counterfeit coins bearing dates which never appeared on genuine US coinage. Most often, it has been on counterfeit Seated, Trade and Morgan Dollars.

[dcarr]

dcarr:

 

Let me make 3 quick points:

1) Your claim that your page on the Internet is "permanent" is almost laughable. Your heirs will maintain this page? Their heirs? Their heirs? Yeah, it's permanent...if you define permanent as 10 years or less.

 

2) Your claim that no one will spend a lot of money for your "coins" is equally almost laughable. You are asserting that no one will ever be scammed for anything because, after all, no one will ever spend "a lot of money" (your words) for something without doing due diligence. Perhaps you think the people who are scammed deserve what they get. I tend to disagree...

 

3) All the uproar could have been avoided if you had simply labeled each item you issued with the word "copy." But it's obvious why you did not: You think your sales would be less and, accordingly, your profit would be less. That's OK with me--you are putting your profit ahead of the possibility (certainty?) that someone along the line will be defrauded by your "coins." I can understand that attitude... Mark

 

1) Someone somewhere will certainly keep some record of it somehow.

And if there ever wasn't anything on the internet, somebody would probably publish a book about it. For example, the "Red Book" has been continuously maintained, by different people, since 1947. And even if my site wasn't available, there are lots of other places on the internet where there is information about my coins (such as this thread). Another example - Thomas Elder issues. There have been several books wtitten about them, and if you search the internet today you will find a lot of information about them, even though they were privately-minted over 100 years ago.

 

2) If someone on a street corner offered you a "Rolex" watch for $5,000, would you buy it ? Where and who are these mythical people who, without researching on the internet, spend thousands of dollars for a coin that isn't listed in a price guide ? They don't exist.

 

3) I don't put "COPY" on my over-strikes for a couple reasons, including:

A) I make a few for my own collection and I personally don't want "COPY" on them;

B) Because they are genuine coins altered to have dates that don't exist for that type, and so they are "altered", not "copies".

 

But here is an ironic situation to consider:

Several years ago the Gallery Mint made reproductions of early US Coins. They were all marked "COPY" becasue they weren't over-struck on genuine coins and they looked like the original issue (they had dates that were issued for the type). But somebody took one of their "1793" cent reproductions, filled in the "COPY" stamp, artificially circulated it, and sold it as a genuine original coin.

There has not been a single case of anyone being defrauded by one of my coins, even though they do not have "COPY", but a Gallery Mint piece with "COPY" was used to defraud someone.

 

The date is a focal point on a coin. For most coin types, where multiple dates exist for that type, you have to determine the date before you can possibly value it. In fact, the date itself is much more obvious and is noticed much more readily than many "COPY" stamps which are hidden in the various devices.

 

See pink section here:

 

PS: On a side note, note that one of my coins appears at the lower right of the page imaged above, mistakenly attributed to "Donald Carr".

[coinman_23885]

 

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.

 

This is the example that really gets me as well; part of his defense that he has posted in the past is that he strikes dates that are non-existent. 1964 Denver Peace Dollars were in fact struck, and could have feasibly escaped the Mint. As such, without the word "COPY" or other mark, I don't know how one can reasonably call it anything other than a counterfeit in my opinion. There is ample room for deception even beyond his normal stuff.

 

And with regards to the argument that the pieces were struck on planchets from the Mint, I fail to see how this renders it acceptable. If I took cleaned or low grade Capped Bust Half Dollars and over struck the designs to be rare dates or varieties, would the numismatic community not deem them counterfeits? What if I melted the planchets, and made new coins. Would those be counterfeits? After all, they were struck on the original metal from contemporaneous genuine pieces. No? Exactly how much manipulation does it take to render an object so different that it becomes nothing more than a cheap imitation (I.e. a counterfeit)?

[dcarr]

Regarding your point 2 above - I have seen numerous people on Ebay bid three figures on counterfeit coins bearing dates which never appeared on genuine US coinage. Most often, it has been on counterfeit Seated, Trade and Morgan Dollars.

 

Maybe they were vintage counterfeits that are collected by some ?

I once bid $600 for a type of known (vintage) counterfeit 1900-O Morgan Silver Dollar.

 

Another possibility:

Do you know if these bidders actually paid for the item ?

It is one thing to bid a high price, but entirely different to actually pay it.

I have seen people bid up counterfeits to high prices with no intention of actually purchasing the item - for the purpose of preventing someone else from buying it.

 

[MarkFeld]

Regarding your point 2 above - I have seen numerous people on Ebay bid three figures on counterfeit coins bearing dates which never appeared on genuine US coinage. Most often, it has been on counterfeit Seated, Trade and Morgan Dollars.

 

Maybe they were vintage counterfeits that are collected by some ?

I once bid $600 for a type of known (vintage) counterfeit 1900-O Morgan Silver Dollar.

 

Another possibility:

Do you know if these bidders actually paid for the item ?

It is one thing to bid a high price, but entirely different to actually pay it.

I have seen people bid up counterfeits to high prices with no intention of actually purchasing the item - for the purpose of preventing someone else from buying it.

 

They were not vintage counterfeits.

 

And the listings I was speaking of did not appear to be ones where knowledgeable people were bidding in order to protect the unwary. I am well aware of many such situations.

 

Your reply looks like a stretch and an attempt to avoid the reality that your point 2 was invalid. Typically, your retorts sound more reasonable than that. Maybe some of us have finally worn you out.

[coinman_23885]

1. My over-strikes are produced by a known person who designed two and a half coins for the US Mint.

2. My pieces are over-struck in the USA using a surplus US Denver Mint coin press.

3. Detailed production records, including charateristics, varieties, and mintages, are permanently posted in my production blogs.

4. Chinese makers tend to hide the truth about their coins, allowing buyers to assume they are genuine. I always provide full disclosure.

5. The quality of my over-strikes, due to my production process, is not something that other makers can equal, especially when over-striking existing coins. I have developed and utilize many special "trade secret" processes which would be very difficult to duplicate.

 

1 - How is your first point even relevant? You designed a few coins, but not the ones you produce.

2 - I also don't see how this really matters. Whether you made the press, dies, and collars yourself or bought surplus from the Mint, you are not authorized to strike US coinage and anything that imitates official U.S. money should be clearly labeled as a replica or copy else it is a counterfeit (in my opinion).

3 - All of which helps the ill informed at pawn shops and flee markets who buy your stuff, probably without actual knowledge of your operation, right?

4 - Maybe to the initial buyer, but you have no way to verify what happens to the pieces when they are subsequently sold, presumably the reason that federal law mandates that replicas be marked as copies. In my opinion, you know or should know that there is ample room for deception and fraud using your items, and liability should be imputed to you. If you are ever pursued by the government, I wonder if they will adopt my position.

5 - Your pieces are high quality - I will concede that; however this makes them even more dangerous in my opinion.

 

If you object to including the word "COPY" on the obverse and reverse, why not put it on the edge?

 

Disclaimer: For legal purposes all statements are clearly meant as opinion.

[dcarr]

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.

 

Your premise "if (I) followed the law" is in error. It has never been established that I didn't follow the law when I altered genuine Peace Silver Dollars.

 

This is the example that really gets me as well; part of his defense that he has posted in the past is that he strikes dates that are non-existent. 1964 Denver Peace Dollars were in fact struck, and could have feasibly escaped the Mint. As such, without the word "COPY" or other mark, I don't know how one can reasonably call it anything other than a counterfeit in my opinion. There is ample room for deception even beyond his normal stuff.

 

According to the government (and they are the one that really counts), exactly zero original "1964" dollars exist. If somehow one from the origina did exist in private hands (in contradiction to the government's claim), it would be illegal to own (subject to immediate confiscation). A lot of people (including myself) wanted a legal-to-own, readily-identifiable, but accurate-looking "1964-D" Peace Silver Dollar.

 

And with regards to the argument that the pieces were struck on planchets from the Mint, I fail to see how this renders it acceptable. If I took cleaned or low grade Capped Bust Half Dollars and over struck the designs to be rare dates or varieties, would the numismatic community not deem them counterfeits? What if I melted the planchets, and made new coins. Would those be counterfeits? After all, they were struck on the original metal from contemporaneous genuine pieces. No? Exactly how much manipulation does it take to render an object so different that it becomes nothing more than a cheap imitation (I.e. a counterfeit)?

 

I'll ask your question in a different way:

How much altering can be done to a coin and have it still retain legal-tender status ? That has never been clearly answered. The US Mint will redeem current mutilated coins in bulk, by weight, for the estimated total face value. So, according to them, certain "mutilated" coins still retain legal-tender status.

 

But I never heat or melt the host coins, nor do I add or remove any metal.

 

And your example above of over-striking Bust Half dollars to put a rare date on them is NOT what I do. I only use dates that don't already exist for the type, and so they can be easily identified by the date alone.

 

PS: When I made some "1816" over-strike Capped Bust Half Dollars, one of the biggest buyers of them was a major dealer who specializes in Bust and Seated coins.

 

[dcarr]

Regarding your point 2 above - I have seen numerous people on Ebay bid three figures on counterfeit coins bearing dates which never appeared on genuine US coinage. Most often, it has been on counterfeit Seated, Trade and Morgan Dollars.

 

Maybe they were vintage counterfeits that are collected by some ?

I once bid $600 for a type of known (vintage) counterfeit 1900-O Morgan Silver Dollar.

 

Another possibility:

Do you know if these bidders actually paid for the item ?

It is one thing to bid a high price, but entirely different to actually pay it.

I have seen people bid up counterfeits to high prices with no intention of actually purchasing the item - for the purpose of preventing someone else from buying it.

 

They were not vintage counterfeits.

 

And the listings I was speaking of did not appear to be ones where knowledgeable people were bidding in order to protect the unwary. I am well aware of many such situations.

 

You don't know the motive(s) of the bidder(s) for sure.

Just because an item sold for only three figures doesn't prove that it was an actual purchase attempt.

Please point to examples of such completed auctions, if you can.

 

Your reply looks like a stretch and an attempt to avoid the reality that your point 2 was invalid. Typically, your retorts sound more reasonable than that. Maybe some of us have finally worn you out.

 

I never get tired of doing what I like

 

[coinman_23885]

Mow much altering can be done to a coin and have it still retain legal-tender status ? That has never been clearly answered. The US Mint will redeem current mutilated coins in bulk, by weight, for the estimated total face value. So, according to them, certain "mutilated" coins still retain legal-tender status.

 

The Mint buys them by weight and this is no different from a bullion or metal purchase. Given that wear and damage reduce the weight, the government is actually paying less than face value which doesn't sound as if the government is treating them as legal tender else they would buy them at face value, no?

 

And coins that are damaged through normal commerce are distinguishable from coins manipulated intentionally by private individuals to imitate something they aren't.

 

And regarding the 1964 Peace Dollars, the government's official position as to how many remain is not the point. The fact is that the coins did in fact exist and it is quite possible for genuine pieces to exist. Also as best I can tell, the records support that a number of silver were destroyed, but I don't think verification of the dates actually took place so it is possible that a handful or more exist. The point of all this is that there is ample opportunity for fraud and even if you are not directly defrauding someone, you know or should know that you could be facilitating fraud by the purchasers of your coins, and I absolutely think you bare responsibility for it.

[dcarr]

1. My over-strikes are produced by a known person who designed two and a half coins for the US Mint.

2. My pieces are over-struck in the USA using a surplus US Denver Mint coin press.

3. Detailed production records, including charateristics, varieties, and mintages, are permanently posted in my production blogs.

4. Chinese makers tend to hide the truth about their coins, allowing buyers to assume they are genuine. I always provide full disclosure.

5. The quality of my over-strikes, due to my production process, is not something that other makers can equal, especially when over-striking existing coins. I have developed and utilize many special "trade secret" processes which would be very difficult to duplicate.

 

1 - How is your first point even relevant? You designed a few coins, but not the ones you produce.

I guess you don't understand the fine art market very well. Often, it is all about who made the item. As per my previous example - a certain painting of a Campbell's tomato soup label is worth millions of dollars because Andy Warhol painted it. He didn't even design the thing originally - Campbell's Soup did.

 

2 - I also don't see how this really matters. Whether you made the press, dies, and collars yourself or bought surplus from the Mint, you are not authorized to strike US coinage and anything that imitates official U.S. money should be clearly labeled as a replica or copy else it is a counterfeit.

In addition to who made an item, it is also important how it was made. The Denver Mint surplus coin press is part of the "story". Everything and anything that contributes to the story of a coin can enhance the coin's appeal.

 

3 - All of which helps the ill informed at pawn shops and flee markets who buy your stuff, probably without actual knowledge of your operation, right?

I can't make any sense out of this comment. How would publishing information about my over-strikes be worse than not publishing anything at all (like the Chinese) ?

 

4 - Maybe to the initial buyer, but you have no way to verify what happens to the pieces when they are subsequently sold, presumably the reason that federal law mandates that replicas be marked as copies. In my opinion, you know or should know that there is ample room for deception and fraud using your items, and liability should be imputed to you. If you are ever pursued by the government, I wonder if they will adopt my position.

Almost every type of coin ever made has been used to scam someone at one time in one way or another. By your logic, the Gallery Mint would be the one at fault for that "1793" cent copy that somebody altered for (apparently) fraudulent purposes.

Please blame the person who actually perpetrates the fraud.

 

5 - Your pieces are high quality - I will concede that; however this makes them even more dangerous in my opinion.

In the numismatic world, more people have been taken with cleaned and whizzed coins than anythign else. It can be very difficult to visually detect this type of thing. In contrast, all you have to do is read the date on one of my over-strikes.

 

If you object to including the word "COPY" on the obverse and reverse, why not put it on the edge?

 

Edge lettering doesn't show up very well with a reeded edge. If someone doesn't care about the date on a coin, they aren't going to care (or even look for) any edge marking.

 

[coinman_23885]

"1 - How is your first point even relevant? You designed a few coins, but not the ones you produce."

 

I guess you don't understand the fine art market very well. Often, it is all about who made the item. As per my previous example - a certain painting of a Campbell's tomato soup label is worth millions of dollars because Andy Warhol painted it. He didn't even design the thing originally - Campbell's Soup did.

 

You're absolutely right; this is about who made it. You are not the government nor are you authorized to make these pieces which imitate genuine U.S. coins in design (changing the date doesn't make it any less of an imitation and I don't think this argument would hold for the 1964 Peace Dollars which contain the date of a coin actually produced even if supposedly destroyed).

 

And to analogize this to the art world is amusing. Let's see someone make convincing fakes and sell them without properly labeling them; I don't think the art world would take very kindly to it either. And most importantly, you are missing the key distinction. There is no licensing to create art; however only the federal government is permitted to strike US coinage or items with substantial similarity (unless labeled as a COPY or REPLICA per a statutory exception). Pieces which imitate actual coins are counterfeits.

 

"3 - All of which helps the ill informed at pawn shops and flee markets who buy your stuff, probably without actual knowledge of your operation, right?"

 

I can't make any sense out of this comment. How would publishing information about my over-strikes be worse than not publishing anything at all (like the Chinese) ?

 

What I am saying is that the population that would be duped by your wares - such as a causal buyer at a flee market or pawn shop - is unlikely to even be aware of your site and how would they know about your website? If they were scammed by someone using your creations then clearly that person wasn't aware of your operation. In other words, in terms of curbing fraud, I think your site is close to useless.

 

 

"4 - Maybe to the initial buyer, but you have no way to verify what happens to the pieces when they are subsequently sold, presumably the reason that federal law mandates that replicas be marked as copies. In my opinion, you know or should know that there is ample room for deception and fraud using your items, and liability should be imputed to you. If you are ever pursued by the government, I wonder if they will adopt my position."

 

Almost every type of coin ever made has been used to scam someone at one time in one way or another. By your logic, the Gallery Mint would be the one at fault for that "1793" cent copy that somebody altered for (apparently) fraudulent purposes.

Please blame the person who actually perpetrates the fraud.

 

The difference is that no further alteration is required from your products; there is an enormous difference there.

 

5 - "Your pieces are high quality - I will concede that; however this makes them even more dangerous in my opinion."

 

In the numismatic world, more people have been taken with cleaned and whizzed coins than anythign else. It can be very difficult to visually detect this type of thing. In contrast, all you have to do is read the date on one of my over-strikes.

 

That's not necessarily true with coins that did in fact exist and still could exist. See the discussion of the 1964 D Peace Dollars above.

 

[dcarr]

Mow much altering can be done to a coin and have it still retain legal-tender status ? That has never been clearly answered. The US Mint will redeem current mutilated coins in bulk, by weight, for the estimated total face value. So, according to them, certain "mutilated" coins still retain legal-tender status.

 

The Mint buys them by weight and this is no different from a bullion or metal purchase. Given that wear and damage reduce the weight, the government is actually paying less than face value which doesn't sound as if the government is treating them as legal tender else they would buy them at face value, no?

 

The US Mint is NOT paying by scrap metal value.

The Mint buys mutilated coins "by weight" because they are mutilated and won't go through a coin counter. They simply use the total weight as a way to estimate how many coins there are. If you had a pile of mutilated copper-nickel clad quarters, the Mint would end up paying you close to face value, which would be a lot more than the total scrap value of the copper and nickel.

 

And coins that are damaged through normal commerce are distinguishable from coins manipulated intentionally by private individuals to imitate something they aren't.

The US Mint would, for example, redeem coins that intentionally had holes drilled in them.

 

And regarding the 1964 Peace Dollars, the government's official position as to how many remain is not the point. The fact is that the coins did in fact exist and it is quite possible for genuine pieces to exist. Also as best I can tell, the records support that a number of silver were destroyed, but I don't think verification of the dates actually took place so it is possible that a handful or more exist. The point of all this is that there is ample opportunity for fraud and even if you are not directly defrauding someone, you know or should know that you could be facilitating fraud by the purchasers of your coins, and I absolutely think you bare responsibility for it.

 

>>>And regarding the 1964 Peace Dollars, the government's official position as to how many remain is not the point.

 

Yes it is the point. I'll repeat my previous contention:

 

Who is going to pay a lot of money for a "1964" silver dollar ? It would have to be someone who believes that it has a high value. Why would someone ever believe that it has a high value ? Because they know the story of the original 1964 Peace Silver Dollars. And if they know that story, then they also know that either the coin they are thinking of buying is illegal to own and subject to confiscation, or it is a re-creation of some sort. Either way, they would knowingly be taking a risk with their money if they bought it.

 

PS:

I do not believe any orignal 1964-D silver dollars escaped. The only credible witness (in my opinion) to the original minting was a Denver Mint employee who gave a talk at an ANA convention a few years ago. He was there working on the coins at the Denver Mint when they were struck in May of 1965. He says that NONE of the coins EVER left the secure annex where they were stamped (none ever reached the stage of being sent to the cashier). He says all were destroyed.

 

Now there have been rumors of people claiming to have seen one, as early as 1966. But even if these people had actually seen something, there is no guarantee that what they saw was a genuine coin. A year is plenty of time to make a counterfeit and show it around.