dcarr suggestion

[mark]

mumu:

 

My ethics did not go out the window. I had not thought of someone knowingly and fraudulently passing off a, say, silver dc 2016 Mercury dime as a mint error resulting from a silver dime planchet somehow (how???) being mixed in with the gold planchets for the US gold 2016 dime. I was thinking only of the regular series of Mercury dimes and figuring no one could mistake a 2016 dc silver Mercury dime for a US-mint Mercury dime since they ended in 1945, 61 years previously. If I had thought of the possibility I outlined above, I would not have started this thread. So, my ethics remain firmly in place. It's just my imagination that is lacking...probably because I am too ethically honest.

 

Mark

[mumu]

mumu:

 

My ethics did not go out the window. I had not thought of someone knowingly and fraudulently passing off a, say, silver dc 2016 Mercury dime as a mint error resulting from a silver dime planchet somehow (how???) being mixed in with the gold planchets for the US gold 2016 dime. I was thinking only of the regular series of Mercury dimes and figuring no one could mistake a 2016 dc silver Mercury dime for a US-mint Mercury dime since they ended in 1945, 61 years previously. If I had thought of the possibility I outlined above, I would not have started this thread. So, my ethics remain firmly in place. It's just my imagination that is lacking...probably because I am too ethically honest.

 

Mark

 

Well I respect that. I think your point is valid. And I have conceded the possibility for fraud is there. But we cannot brace ourselves for the possibility of future uninformed folks in everything we do. Just about anything can be spun into fraud in the future if you find someone stupid enough. This actually takes on a very similar argument to the guns debate. Do guns kill people, or do people with guns kill people? Do fantasy coins deceive people or do people with fantasy coins deceive people?

[comicdonna]

I can see many new collectors being deceived sometime down the road. Surely, most here would be honest in disclosing, when selling. I worry about the ones that end up in the wrong hands. I think dcarr's work is good, and looks nice. I am not sure if some of his pieces are legal, though.

[dcarr]

Making a counterfeit coin (or paper currency) is a fraudulent act from the instant the false dies or plates are made. Nothing else has to occur. The US Code is very clear.

 

This is totally false, and ignorant of the legal definition of "fraudulent".

 

A "fraudulent act", by legal definition, MUST involve fraudulent intent. If there is no fraudulent intent, then at worst, it would be a "negligent act".

 

You're cherry picking your citations again. "Fraudulent" means "characterized by, based on, or done by fraud." Courts recognize plain vanilla fraud (requiring scienter) and constructive fraud in civil cases. Constructive fraud does NOT require scienter (i.e. intent).

 

As for the other legal arguments, I made my thoughts clear in my post at the bottom of page 9 in this thread .

 

"Constructive Fraud" still requires an element of misrepresentation.

 

Ever hear of the currency artist "Boggs?"

 

You mean the Boggs that was discussed here? The same Boggs that had works confiscated by the Secret Service and who filed a declaratory judgment action in federal court asking federal judges to declare his works to not be counterfeits (an invitation which the courts plainly refused and found such works could fall within the purview of those statutes)? Yeah, we discussed him.

 

Boggs is an interesting case.

But he didn't draw altered $20 bills over genuine $20 bills.

He drew $20 bills (for example) on blank pieces of paper, and then tried to pass them at face value as "art".

 

Regardless, his works are generally worth far in excess of face value today to collectors.

 

 

[dcarr]

 

Thank you Mr. Carr. However you continue to misdirect. You interpreted that which wasn't and treat your interpretation as truth and build on the issue by misdirecting via turning it into a demand of customers.

You saw disparity where there was none, but the messenger is not to your liking, and you again obfuscate and respond in a condescending manner.you simply choose to shoot the messenger. I am not your antagonist. That is the purview of others. Please go back to the beginning of the Thread. Read it. One of the first things you will discover is my thoughts concerning your endeavors, and a definition that is logical and reasonable and supports an interpretation of fantasy. There is no need to continue to use caps as if you are offended. You were not accused of that which you protest against.

 

We are all touchy. You are simply a person that misinterprets others by perception more than reality frequently.

 

Whether you intended it or not, your question (in regards to why I still show older unavailable items on web site) came across to me as having an accusatory tone: "Is it to capture mailing list information or future customer information?". This interpretation was bolstered in my view by your statement that the different terminology applied to unavailable items "seems very misleading", as if you were implying an intentional deception was going on.

 

Had you instead stated "seems very confusing", that would have changed my entire overall perception of your intent in bringing this up. Was the choice of the word "misleading" a calculation on your part ?

 

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

 

Thank you Mr. Carr. However you continue to misdirect. You interpreted that which wasn't and treat your interpretation as truth and build on the issue by misdirecting via turning it into a demand of customers.

You saw disparity where there was none, but the messenger is not to your liking, and you again obfuscate and respond in a condescending manner.you simply choose to shoot the messenger. I am not your antagonist. That is the purview of others. Please go back to the beginning of the Thread. Read it. One of the first things you will discover is my thoughts concerning your endeavors, and a definition that is logical and reasonable and supports an interpretation of fantasy. There is no need to continue to use caps as if you are offended. You were not accused of that which you protest against.

 

We are all touchy. You are simply a person that misinterprets others by perception more than reality frequently.

 

Whether you intended it or not, your question (in regards to why I still show older unavailable items on web site) came across to me as having an accusatory tone: "Is it to capture mailing list information or future customer information?". This interpretation was bolstered in my view by your statement that the different terminology applied to unavailable items "seems very misleading", as if you were implying an intentional deception was going on.

 

Had you instead stated "seems very confusing", that would have changed my entire overall perception of your intent in bringing this up. Was the choice of the word "misleading" a calculation on your part ?

 

 

 

As I stated you interpret insult. That is your nature. You continue to misdirect and obfuscate.

 

As to your question, the answer is no. The English language is what it is.

[dcarr]

As I stated you interpret insult.

In this instance, yes I did. And what I wrote agreed with that.

 

That is your nature.

 

I disagree.

 

You continue to misdirect and obfuscate.

 

Obfuscate what ?

This exchange is already off the intended track of this thread. Focusing on certain words being capitalized (for example) is not the original point or topic of this thread.

 

As to your question, the answer is no. The English language is what it is.

 

You chose the word "misleading" when "confusing" could have sufficed.

As per the English Dictionary, "misleading" is generally construed as having an element of [intentional] deception.

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

As I stated you interpret insult.

In this instance, yes I did. And what I wrote agreed with that.

 

That is your nature.

 

I disagree.

 

You continue to misdirect and obfuscate.

 

Obfuscate what ?

This exchange is already off the intended track of this thread. Focusing on certain words being capitalized (for example) is not the original point or topic of this thread.

 

As to your question, the answer is no. The English language is what it is.

 

You chose the word "misleading" when "confusing" could have sufficed.

As per the English Dictionary, "misleading" is generally construed as having an element of [intentional] deception.

 

 

Thank you.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I too have a recommendation for Dcarr. Currently your out of stock items range from saying, discontinued, sold out, and currently unavailable. Pick 1 of the 3!

 

All three basically mean the same thing - that the item is not available for purchase.

 

"Discontinued" means that I stopped making that particular item prematurely, but started offering a new item that was very similar (such as a new die pair with subtle changes).

 

"Sold Out" means all available inventory is sold and no more will be made.

 

"Currently Unavailable" means that the item is not currently available, but might become available again, depending on additional production.

 

"Ordering Period Expired" means that the item was advertised as being available for a specific time duration (until a specific date), and that time period has passed.

 

 

Would it not be easier and customer friendly to not list times that are not available for purchase? It is a bit confusing to have items listed as out of stock if the items are not being made, especially when you state the 3 descriptions (you listed 4) mean the same thing, that the item is not available for purchase. Is it to capture mailing list information or future customer information? If Ford does not have a 1957 model available for purchase, it certainly is not going to list the auto as out of stock or discontinued or sold out or currently unavailable or ordering period expired. It seems very misleading. When I see such wording on an internet store, I pass.

 

I don't do anything with mailing lists and I certainly DO NOT sell, loan, or give out, any of my customers' information. My customers do have the option of signing up for a "Newsletter". I may, at some point, occasionally send out newsletters to people that have specifically signed up for it. But I have not utilized that yet.

 

The way the site is structured, items that are permanently sold out are still shown for historical purposes, but such items are always shown in the product lists AFTER currently-available products are listed.

 

Nobody stated anything about disclosing customer information or implied a nefarious intent to use customer information in a questionable manner. That is your interpretation and without cause.As usual, you are very touchy and defensive to the extreme. I appreciate the reply, but it is somewhat double talk. The way the site is structured is completely in your hands. Just create a previous products no longer available page with some classy write ups for info, instead of misleading gobbledygook. Try to stop shouting (caps) for no reason, as if you are being accused. Sheesh, try Zanax. Not everybody is a boogeyman out to get you. A scent of misleading confusion in marketing is death to a company. Wharton advice.

 

He seems to be doing fine. In case you didn't notice all of his coins sell out. All of them. Seriously like all of them sell out. Strangest thing. Give the people what they want and look what happens. You have turned being picayune into an art form.

 

One more thing speaking from experience Wharton is over rated. Harvard too.

 

mark

I am not certain what your point is, other than you seem to think I am disparaging Mr. Carr. Do not confuse me with others. I have always responded to Mr. Carr with courtesy. Mr. Carr tends to assume insult when none is intended, and obfuscates and takes offense, and responds condescendingly. He assigns an interpretation of evil to posts that do not agree with him, as he did with my posts and has done many times before.

 

I understand your support of his products and there is reason to so. However, when your support smarmy, you encourage that which you attempt to defend against.

 

Mr. Carr invited my response because of his manner of reply. I will respond in kind. It is not my nature to do so, but will always do so when a person is condescending toward me.

 

As to your thoughts about Wharton, I do not disagree. It does have its' moments, though.

 

Fair enough on the points directed at me. I read your dialog with Dan differently. Anyways over beers it all might read even direct.

 

Reporting someone to the mods in a passionate thread. Not cool. Hope you were kidding

 

mark

 

Thank you.

 

In answer to your observation concerning reporting, no I was not kidding. Politics is not allowed. Ever. It is a very touchy subject with moderators. Time and again threads are pulled, locked, and/or politics posts and all follow-on posts are poofed. It is no secret. There are other boards our host manages. Some are very aware of the no politics, such as WC, and CG, where politics is choosing death to a thread. The Rules are clear. It has nothing to do with vindictiveness or being cool or uncool.

 

Why risk locking or moving this Thread? A political post could escalate quickly.

Of course the post in question was political, however innocently done or not.

 

I always declare when I notify on a post. I see no reason not to do so openly. That is just me.

 

I am surprised the Thread has lasted this long without being locked, given some of the very rude discourtesy, though.

[coinman_23885]

i am looking at a "constructive fraud legal definition" "constructive fraud is a legal fiction describing a situation where a person or entity gained an unfair advantage over another by deceitful or unfair methods. Intent does not need to be shown as in the case of actual fraud."

 

There is nothing in this thread that has shown any evidence of any constructive fraud, much less actual fraud, which requires evidence of intent.

 

No, and I did not mean to suggest that Carr committed constructive fraud. I apologize if anyone interpreted my post as suggesting so. I was challenging Carr's narrow definition of the word "fraudulent" or at least suggesting, that there is a basis for a definition that does not require an intent to deceive to be labeled as "fraudulent". Something that is resulting from constructive fraud is often referred to as being "fraudulent" and no intent to deceive/nefariousness is required. That's all I meant. If my presentation was flawed, again, I apologize.

[World Colonial]

In answer to your observation concerning reporting, no I was not kidding. Politics is not allowed. Ever. It is a very touchy subject with moderators. Time and again threads are pulled, locked, and/or politics posts and all follow-on posts are poofed. It is no secret. There are other boards our host manages. Some are very aware of the no politics, such as WC, and CG, where politics is choosing death to a thread. The Rules are clear. It has nothing to do with vindictiveness or being cool or uncool.

 

Why risk locking or moving this Thread? A political post could escalate quickly.

Of course the post in question was political, however innocently done or not.

 

I always declare when I notify on a post. I see no reason not to do so openly. That is just me.

 

I am surprised the Thread has lasted this long without being locked, given some of the very rude discourtesy, though.

 

If you are referring to my post from last night which I see has been removed, no it was not intended to be political.

 

I am aware that the first scenario I used as a point of comparison can and apparently was interpreted the way you state. I used it and the other one because they are the only two I could think of which were remotely comparable since I don't consider Mr. Carr's pieces to have any similarity with traditional counterfeits.

 

Since that didn't work, I'll now express my opinion of this subject directly.

 

I don't buy Mr. Carr's creations and have no "skin" in this dispute either way. However, having said this, I don't see why anyone considers them counterfeits, though apparently going by other posts here and in the past the law can be interpreted this way.

 

The reason I don't agree with it is because I am not aware of any intent to deceive and I expect people to exercise a minimum level of intelligence and common sense though once again going by other posts here, apparently that is also too much to expect.

 

Some of the concerns expressed here remind me of a prior bidder I had on eBay. They bought a 1793 Gallery Mint Museum flowing hair "cent" from me for something like $10 and then gave me a "neutral" feedback because they were "disappointed" it wasn't the real thing. This even though I specifically stated it was a replica or copy.

 

Yes, I know this isn't an exact comparison either but in my opinion, this bidder was clueless and as far as I am concerned, so is any buyer who is fooled by Mr. Carr's creations and thinks they are buying something other than what they are actually getting. I'm not worried about what they might do because I can't help them.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

 

It was not remotely connected to your posts. Go back a little in the thread and it will become clear.

 

I did not even know about your post being removed until I just read it. I can't fathom why. Well, I can but that is not helpful as to the reason.

[World Colonial]

 

It was not remotely connected to your posts. Go back a little in the thread and it will become clear.

 

I did not even know about your post being removed until I just read it. I can't fathom why. Well, I can but that is not helpful as to the reason.

 

I wasn't sure. Anyway, I probably should have left it out and just stated it directly.

[Afterword]

They do not PM you stating the reason for the removal of the post?

[World Colonial]

They do not PM you stating the reason for the removal of the post?

 

I could not find it, so I presume it must have been removed. But no, I didn't receive a notification.

[comicdonna]

Are you sure your post wasn't in the other (spinoff) thread?

[World Colonial]

Are you sure your post wasn't in the other (spinoff) thread?

 

User error. It still is on the other one. I got the two confused and meant to post my subsequent reply over there.

[PocketArt]

Well, there may be some good arguments against Mr. Carr for the legitimacy of his art, I however, don't see the necessity to passionately debate his efforts. This I feel is a diversion to what portends to be a very serious, and ongoing problem with Chinese counterfeits that are increasing and encroaching our hobby for future generations. I believe the Secret Service and governing/enforcing authorities get this...

 

Mr. Carr's efforts are well documented, ongoing, and gaining in recognition. This is done all the while in the plain view, and with every intent to operate with open doors. His pieces are marketed as "fantasy," AND we live in an age that is evolving with access to information; so, wouldn't one think the chances of someone being "swindled" be quite slim in our distant future? How has the access to information through the internet changed your world view in any endeavor?

 

Don't you think if someone stumbled across one of these by accident, it may be fortunate for him, or, her. Are not the "fantasy" pieces quite few in number?

 

I could be wrong; but I believe Mr. Carr's work isn't an act of counterfeiting. So, you better hope I'm not chosen for the jury skeptics! Good heavens; what is the threat to our hobby? Maybe China? C-H-I-N-A. Enjoyed all arguments into this matter, and respect all of your opinions; but, come on you intelligent lawyer folks!

 

The threat is China!!!!!!!!

 

Rich

 

 

[mumu]

Well, there may be some good arguments against Mr. Carr for the legitimacy of his art, I however, don't see the necessity to passionately debate his efforts. This I feel is a diversion to what portends to be a very serious, and ongoing problem with Chinese counterfeits that are increasing and encroaching our hobby for future generations. I believe the Secret Service and governing/enforcing authorities get this...

 

Mr. Carr's efforts are well documented, ongoing, and gaining in recognition. This is done all the while in the plain view, and with every intent to operate with open doors. His pieces are marketed as "fantasy," AND we live in an age that is evolving with access to information; so, wouldn't one think the chances of someone being "swindled" be quite slim in our distant future? How has the access to information through the internet changed your world view in any endeavor?

 

Don't you think if someone stumbled across one of these by accident, it may be fortunate for him, or, her. Are not the "fantasy" pieces quite few in number?

 

I could be wrong; but I believe Mr. Carr's work isn't an act of counterfeiting. So, you better hope I'm not chosen for the jury skeptics! Good heavens; what is the threat to our hobby? Maybe China? C-H-I-N-A. Enjoyed all arguments into this matter, and respect all of your opinions; but, come on you intelligent lawyer folks!

 

The threat is China!!!!!!!!

 

Rich

 

 

These lazy lawyers have refused to learn the laws and language of the Chinese. So they demonized Dcarr instead.

[numisport]

I want high grade Peace Dollars. Since very few U.S. Mint produced coins exist in high grade and are way overpriced I will look elsewhere. I wait for Mr. Carr to regroup.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Well, there may be some good arguments against Mr. Carr for the legitimacy of his art, I however, don't see the necessity to passionately debate his efforts. This I feel is a diversion to what portends to be a very serious, and ongoing problem with Chinese counterfeits that are increasing and encroaching our hobby for future generations. I believe the Secret Service and governing/enforcing authorities get this...

 

Mr. Carr's efforts are well documented, ongoing, and gaining in recognition. This is done all the while in the plain view, and with every intent to operate with open doors. His pieces are marketed as "fantasy," AND we live in an age that is evolving with access to information; so, wouldn't one think the chances of someone being "swindled" be quite slim in our distant future? How has the access to information through the internet changed your world view in any endeavor?

 

Don't you think if someone stumbled across one of these by accident, it may be fortunate for him, or, her. Are not the "fantasy" pieces quite few in number?

 

I could be wrong; but I believe Mr. Carr's work isn't an act of counterfeiting. So, you better hope I'm not chosen for the jury skeptics! Good heavens; what is the threat to our hobby? Maybe China? C-H-I-N-A. Enjoyed all arguments into this matter, and respect all of your opinions; but, come on you intelligent lawyer folks!

 

The threat is China!!!!!!!!

 

Rich

 

 

Given the public post, I can without hesitation assure you that you will not be selected for jury duty.

 

What the heck. I don't see why there should be any debate or discussion on any established laws about this subject. All a person has to do in this situation is have their attorney approach the proper authority in the U.S. Government, say the Attorney General's office, about the matter. I think that may have been suggested by a few persons.

 

If a person respects the opinions of others, I would have a little more faith if the person did not add a caveat to the respect declaration.

[Insider]

I have heard that there is no such thing as "Bad" Press...Keep this thread going. With all this free advertising, I cannot wait for D. Carr to issue his next project!

[mumu]

So if the law states that you cannot reproduce a coin that was released, but coins not released are OK, what would happen if you minted a 2017 coin with current design? Not yet minted, so technically a fantasy. But once they get minted then what? It's like time traveling rules of some sort.

[dcarr]

So if the law states that you cannot reproduce a coin that was released, but coins not released are OK, what would happen if you minted a 2017 coin with current design? Not yet minted, so technically a fantasy. But once they get minted then what? It's like time traveling rules of some sort.

 

If the "2017" coin was NOT struck over a regular legal tender coin, then it might be considered a false piece mimicking legal tender.

 

If the "2017" coin was struck over a regular legal tender coin, then it could be a gray area.

 

But there is a reasonable expectation that "2017"-dated cents will be produced. So I personally wouldn't do it.

 

[coinman_23885]

Well, there may be some good arguments against Mr. Carr for the legitimacy of his art, I however, don't see the necessity to passionately debate his efforts. This I feel is a diversion to what portends to be a very serious, and ongoing problem with Chinese counterfeits that are increasing and encroaching our hobby for future generations. I believe the Secret Service and governing/enforcing authorities get this...

 

The threat is China!!!!!!!!

 

I see no meaningful difference between Mr. Carr's "fantasy" strikes and the pieces produced by the Chinese.

 

What's more, Carr has even admitted in other threads on other forums that he reports Chinese produced 1964-D Peace Dollars on eBay as "counterfeits." And the only distinction between those pieces and his is that he overstrikes his on existing U.S. coinage. Federal appeals courts have already ruled that overstriking new coins over pre-existing genuine U.S. coinage does not remove the newly minted coins from the purview of the counterfeiting statutes. United States v. Wilson, 451 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1971). So by his own logic, doesn't it follow that these "fantasy" coins are counterfeit too?

 

Mr. Carr's efforts are well documented, ongoing, and gaining in recognition. This is done all the while in the plain view, and with every intent to operate with open doors. His pieces are marketed as "fantasy," AND we live in an age that is evolving with access to information; so, wouldn't one think the chances of someone being "swindled" be quite slim in our distant future? How has the access to information through the internet changed your world view in any endeavor?

 

Don't you think if someone stumbled across one of these by accident, it may be fortunate for him, or, her. Are not the "fantasy" pieces quite few in number?

 

Laws of this nature (i.e. consumer protection laws) are meant to protect the uninformed, naïve, and flat out stupid.

[comicdonna]

Well, I showed my wife the Kennedy sample posted. She couldn't see anything odd about it. Also, she is very bright. Just not a coin collector.

 

Everyone posting here was a rookie at one point. My worry is, when these get in the hands of dishonest people, it will be the new collectors just starting out, that will have to pay.

[dcarr]

Well, there may be some good arguments against Mr. Carr for the legitimacy of his art, I however, don't see the necessity to passionately debate his efforts. This I feel is a diversion to what portends to be a very serious, and ongoing problem with Chinese counterfeits that are increasing and encroaching our hobby for future generations. I believe the Secret Service and governing/enforcing authorities get this...

 

The threat is China!!!!!!!!

 

I see no meaningful difference between Mr. Carr's "fantasy" strikes and the pieces produced by the Chinese.

 

What's more, Carr has even admitted in other threads on other forums that he reports Chinese produced 1964-D Peace Dollars on eBay as "counterfeits."

 

That is FALSE !

Please get it straight.

 

I report auctions for Chinese-made "1964-D" Peace Dollars to eBay when the person listing it uses my copyrighted text or my pictures in their description and/or implies that I am the one that produced it.

 

And the only distinction between those pieces and his is that he overstrikes his on existing U.S. coinage. Federal appeals courts have already ruled that overstriking new coins over pre-existing genuine U.S. coinage does not remove the newly minted coins from the purview of the counterfeiting statutes. United States v. Wilson, 451 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1971). So by his own logic, doesn't it follow that these "fantasy" coins are counterfeit too?

 

First you say that there is "no meaningful difference" and then you point out that there is a difference (over-striking on legal-tender coins of the same type vs striking on anonymous junk metal blanks).

 

And you omit one other crucial difference: about $350 on average (see below).

 

Wilson took common-date Roosevelt dimes and re-stamped them to have "1955" dates. This was done at a time when 1955 dimes had already been issued by the US Treasury, they already existed in circulation and in the numismatic marketplace, and those dimes had a premium value to collectors. Furthermore, Wilson intentionally did not disclose those facts when selling them at a premium to unsuspecting buyers, letting those buyers assume the coins were minted by the US Mint as original "1955" dimes.

 

Had Wilson re-stamped them with a date that was never issued for the Roosevelt type (such as "1945") and then sold them as novelties with full disclosure, the results would have been significantly different.

 

Also, the Wilson case ruling was prior to the enactment of the Hobby Protection Act, which contradicts some related laws which were written prior to that.

 

Mr. Carr's efforts are well documented, ongoing, and gaining in recognition. This is done all the while in the plain view, and with every intent to operate with open doors. His pieces are marketed as "fantasy," AND we live in an age that is evolving with access to information; so, wouldn't one think the chances of someone being "swindled" be quite slim in our distant future? How has the access to information through the internet changed your world view in any endeavor?

 

Don't you think if someone stumbled across one of these by accident, it may be fortunate for him, or, her. Are not the "fantasy" pieces quite few in number?

 

Laws of this nature (i.e. consumer protection laws) are meant to protect the uninformed, naïve, and flat out stupid.

 

Well, I showed my wife the Kennedy sample posted. She couldn't see anything odd about it. Also, she is very bright. Just not a coin collector.

 

Everyone posting here was a rookie at one point. My worry is, when these get in the hands of dishonest people, it will be the new collectors just starting out, that will have to pay.

 

A five-coin set of the different varieties of the Carr "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollars just sold on eBay for $2,000 (not my auction and I don't know the seller). It was clearly and correctly advertised as a "Daniel Carr" set and the rigid holder for the coin set also says "The Peace Dollars of Daniel Carr" right on it.

 

The Ultimate Daniel Carr Peace Dollar Collection

 

Several other Carr "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollars have also recently sold individually in the $300 to $500 range. So the price for the whole set was reasonable. And this is why I object to Chinese pieces being sold as genuine "Carr" issues. When advertised as a non-silver "1964-D" Peace Dollar of Chinese (or similar) origin, they will typically sell for less than $10. Or maybe as much as $25 if there is no mention of the Chinese origin. Either way, certainly not $300 like a Carr piece.

 

My point is this:

There are no guarantees as to the future value of anything.

But if the Carr "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollars maintain this sort of price level, they will remain out of the reach of most new collectors anyway. And even if a novice were to somehow pay $2,000 for one without fully knowing what it was, it might be worth that amount anyway as a "Carr" item.

 

[coinman_23885]

 

I see no meaningful difference between Mr. Carr's "fantasy" strikes and the pieces produced by the Chinese.

 

What's more, Carr has even admitted in other threads on other forums that he reports Chinese produced 1964-D Peace Dollars on eBay as "counterfeits."

 

That is FALSE !

Please get it straight...

 

In a post on Coin Talk, you posted the following:

 

I'm not sure what legal recourse there is, but there have already been various Chinese fakes of some of my original-design coins. I have been able to get eBay to cancel such auctions when I see them, however. Here is my webpage where I document the Chinese fakes:

http://www.moonlightmint.com/fakes.htm

 

The linked web page takes us straight to a discussion of the 1964-D Peace Dollars. "Fake" is a synonym for "counterfeit." If the Chinese 1964-D Peace Dollars are "fake" (i.e. counterfeit) then so are yours. The only difference is that your fantasy pieces are struck over U.S Peace Dollars, but again, Wilson stands for the proposition that overstriking a genuine coin does not de jure remove it from the purview of the counterfeiting statutes if the other elements of the statute are met. I don't see how else (other than overstriking them on a Peace Dollar) you can legally distinguish your coins. Do you claim to know Alibaba's intent? Or is it that you know deep down that your critics are correct: The only intent relevant is that you intended to strike coins that strongly resemble original coin designs?

 

Screenshot of post in question.

[clarkbar04]

[mumu]

Well, there may be some good arguments against Mr. Carr for the legitimacy of his art, I however, don't see the necessity to passionately debate his efforts. This I feel is a diversion to what portends to be a very serious, and ongoing problem with Chinese counterfeits that are increasing and encroaching our hobby for future generations. I believe the Secret Service and governing/enforcing authorities get this...

 

The threat is China!!!!!!!!

 

I see no meaningful difference between Mr. Carr's "fantasy" strikes and the pieces produced by the Chinese.

 

What's more, Carr has even admitted in other threads on other forums that he reports Chinese produced 1964-D Peace Dollars on eBay as "counterfeits."

 

That is FALSE !

Please get it straight.

 

I report auctions for Chinese-made "1964-D" Peace Dollars to eBay when the person listing it uses my copyrighted text or my pictures in their description and/or implies that I am the one that produced it.

 

And the only distinction between those pieces and his is that he overstrikes his on existing U.S. coinage. Federal appeals courts have already ruled that overstriking new coins over pre-existing genuine U.S. coinage does not remove the newly minted coins from the purview of the counterfeiting statutes. United States v. Wilson, 451 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1971). So by his own logic, doesn't it follow that these "fantasy" coins are counterfeit too?

 

First you say that there is "no meaningful difference" and then you point out that there is a difference (over-striking on legal-tender coins of the same type vs striking on anonymous junk metal blanks).

 

And you omit one other crucial difference: about $350 on average (see below).

 

Wilson took common-date Roosevelt dimes and re-stamped them to have "1955" dates. This was done at a time when 1955 dimes had already been issued by the US Treasury, they already existed in circulation and in the numismatic marketplace, and those dimes had a premium value to collectors. Furthermore, Wilson intentionally did not disclose those facts when selling them at a premium to unsuspecting buyers, letting those buyers assume the coins were minted by the US Mint as original "1955" dimes.

 

Had Wilson re-stamped them with a date that was never issued for the Roosevelt type (such as "1945") and then sold them as novelties with full disclosure, the results would have been significantly different.

 

Also, the Wilson case ruling was prior to the enactment of the Hobby Protection Act, which contradicts some related laws which were written prior to that.

 

Mr. Carr's efforts are well documented, ongoing, and gaining in recognition. This is done all the while in the plain view, and with every intent to operate with open doors. His pieces are marketed as "fantasy," AND we live in an age that is evolving with access to information; so, wouldn't one think the chances of someone being "swindled" be quite slim in our distant future? How has the access to information through the internet changed your world view in any endeavor?

 

Don't you think if someone stumbled across one of these by accident, it may be fortunate for him, or, her. Are not the "fantasy" pieces quite few in number?

 

Laws of this nature (i.e. consumer protection laws) are meant to protect the uninformed, naïve, and flat out stupid.

 

Well, I showed my wife the Kennedy sample posted. She couldn't see anything odd about it. Also, she is very bright. Just not a coin collector.

 

Everyone posting here was a rookie at one point. My worry is, when these get in the hands of dishonest people, it will be the new collectors just starting out, that will have to pay.

 

A five-coin set of the different varieties of the Carr "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollars just sold on eBay for $2,000 (not my auction and I don't know the seller). It was clearly and correctly advertised as a "Daniel Carr" set and the rigid holder for the coin set also says "The Peace Dollars of Daniel Carr" right on it.

 

The Ultimate Daniel Carr Peace Dollar Collection

 

Several other Carr "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollars have also recently sold individually in the $300 to $500 range. So the price for the whole set was reasonable. And this is why I object to Chinese pieces being sold as genuine "Carr" issues. When advertised as a non-silver "1964-D" Peace Dollar of Chinese (or similar) origin, they will typically sell for less than $10. Or maybe as much as $25 if there is no mention of the Chinese origin. Either way, certainly not $300 like a Carr piece.

 

My point is this:

There are no guarantees as to the future value of anything.

But if the Carr "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollars maintain this sort of price level, they will remain out of the reach of most new collectors anyway. And even if a novice were to somehow pay $2,000 for one without fully knowing what it was, it might be worth that amount anyway as a "Carr" item.

 

I just paid $437 to replace my PL 64 I sold a ways back. And would pay strong money to replace the satin proof at some point as well.