In honor of Jason I present the Carr Peace dollar in 68+

[MJ]

 

I'm about to take off to Amsterdam so he reverse will have to wait until tomorrow when I land.

 

Cheers Jason

 

I LOVE this fantasy coin. I even know hard core Peace collectors who railed against this DC work but low and behold they bought one and LOVED them . I know this to be a fact because as I sold them to them.

 

mark

[mumu]

Peace dollars are my favorite series and I consider myself a purist in most walks of life. Ive owned each of Dcarrs 64 P$s. Had to sell them all at one point, currently own 1 of his PL pieces(just added). I'd like to add the satin one again if I can track one down. I don't see his work anything like the Chinese counterfeits who strike coins of actual circulating dates and mintmarks with the INTENT to deceive.

 

Jason hurry up and respond so we can change the agenda of this thread to convinging Dan to strike so hologram peace dollars.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Somewhat silly to add another board member name to the title of the thread. It would have been appropriate to simply post the nice piece and let it stand. The thread name was not a courteous salutation to a fellow board member. It was designed to disparage. Of course I understand why you did so, but it accomplishes nothing. He is allowed his opinion and you are allowed yours.

[comicdonna]

I agree. Jason doesn't deserve that for stating his opinion. One I happen to agree with.

[ldhair]

I also share the same opinion as Jason and have posted it in the past. There are many more with this same opinion.

This thread is nothing but a cheap and insulting shot at one of our best members.

[brg5658]

[WoodenJefferson]

100 years from now some little old lady (your daughters, daughter or your son's daughter's, daughter) is going to be duped out if a huge investment with the life insurance and savings her hard working husband diligently put away for her care and well being...only to find out it's only worth a few hundred dollars.

 

Now then, don't you feel bad?

[RWB]

Counterfeit coin. Listen to it quack, quack, quack.

[Afterword]

I could be wrong, but I think Jason's response to the OP will be more thoughtful and less defensive than most of these posts. I am as close to being certain as I can be that he will not quack like a duck.

[Afterword]

100 years from now some little old lady (your daughters, daughter or your son's daughter's, daughter) is going to be duped out if a huge investment with the life insurance and savings her hard working husband diligently put away for her care and well being...only to find out it's only worth a few hundred dollars.

 

Now then, don't you feel bad?

 

 

 

Yes, I would feel bad. Much as I would feel bad if someone shot somebody with a gun. But I would not place the blame at the feet of the manufacturer of the gun or the creator of the coin.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I could be wrong, but I think Jason's response to the OP will be more thoughtful and less defensive than most of these posts. I am as close to being certain as I can be that he will not quack like a duck.

 

How can a person conclude that most (the majority is implied by the word "most) of the posts in this thread are not thoughtful and are defensive? The replies indicate a disappointment in the lack of courtesy of the OP. This is a dismissal of other board members and their Right to an opinion. There is no popularity contest taking place. What was taking place and was intended to be so, is discourtesy of another board member

 

Do you think using the name of another member in the thread title in a somewhat belittling manner is helpful? I do not interpret "most" replies as quacking like a duck. I don't even understand what that phrasing is supposed to mean in the context of the thread, and is of no value to the subject.

[Afterword]

I could be wrong, but I think Jason's response to the OP will be more thoughtful and less defensive than most of these posts. I am as close to being certain as I can be that he will not quack like a duck.

 

How can a person conclude that most (the majority is implied by the word "most) of the posts in this thread are not thoughtful and are defensive? The replies indicate a disappointment in the lack of courtesy of the OP. This is a dismissal of other board members and their Right to an opinion. There is no popularity contest taking place. What was taking place and was intended to be so, is discourtesy of another board member

 

Do you think using the name of another member in the thread title in a somewhat belittling manner is helpful? I do not interpret "most" replies as quacking like a duck. I don't even understand what that phrasing is supposed to mean in the context of the thread, and is of no value to the subject.

 

 

 

You may be right and Jason will be offended. However, the opening post implies that Jason disapproves of Mr. Carr's fantasy pieces. Unless this is not true, what is there to be offended by?

 

Now, if Jason’s only problem with the fantasy pieces is that he believes them to be illegal, he might object to his position on the matter being portrayed improperly. I doubt that even then he would be offended, when he could simply correct the misconception.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I could be wrong, but I think Jason's response to the OP will be more thoughtful and less defensive than most of these posts. I am as close to being certain as I can be that he will not quack like a duck.

 

How can a person conclude that most (the majority is implied by the word "most) of the posts in this thread are not thoughtful and are defensive? The replies indicate a disappointment in the lack of courtesy of the OP. This is a dismissal of other board members and their Right to an opinion. There is no popularity contest taking place. What was taking place and was intended to be so, is discourtesy of another board member

 

Do you think using the name of another member in the thread title in a somewhat belittling manner is helpful? I do not interpret "most" replies as quacking like a duck. I don't even understand what that phrasing is supposed to mean in the context of the thread, and is of no value to the subject.

 

 

 

You may be right and Jason will be offended. However, the opening post implies that Jason disapproves of Mr. Carr's fantasy pieces. Unless this is not true, what is there to be offended by?

 

Now, if Jason’s only problem with the fantasy pieces is that he believes them to be illegal, he might object to his position on the matter being portrayed improperly. I doubt that even then he would be offended, when he could simply correct the misconception.

 

You are deliberately misinterpreting the intent of my post and other posts in an attempt to be provocative. I have stated my opinion. Misdirect as you like. I am not debating and certainly not interested in supporting your intent to assign a meaning to posts that was never stated. You are quite aware the OP position was to belittle another member. It was silly and served no purpose in my opinion. The OP can clarify his intent by himself. Your illogical logic does not bring clarity to the thread. You avoided the aspect of your "most" members comment but understandably so, because you can't support your interpretation. You have the same Right of opinion as all members, but try to stay within context and not attempt to misdirect and confuse the subject.

I do thank you for your reply, however non-substantive. We are who we are.

[Afterword]

"The OP can clarify his intent by himself."

 

 

 

The OP's intent does not alter the content of the opening post. What do you believe it implies, if not that Jason disapproves of Mr. Carr's fantasy pieces?

 

 

 

"You avoided the aspect of your "most" members comment but understandably so, because you can't support your interpretation."

 

 

 

I did no such thing. They were offended on Jason's behalf, when there was nothing to be offended by, unless Jason does not disapprove of Mr. Carr's fantasy pieces but is only concerned about the illegality of the same.

 

I can see the opening post as a 'calling-out' of Jason on the subject, but, again, why would he find this offensive? This is exactly what you have done to me, but offended I am not. A 'calling out' is nothing more than an invitation.

 

 

 

 

[mumu]

I would rather have a post started about me with my name in the title poking fun of something I have myself said, than to be called a criminal publicly for doing something that has been deemed legal by the US government

 

Unless Jason has some kind of expertise or authority to judge the legality of coinage that I am not aware of. It is one thing to be a purist, it is another to call someone a counterfeiter and potentially affect their commerce.

 

I consider one more libelous than the other. Which one is worse, the post, or the public calls of criminality?

[MJ]

Whether you agree with Jason's opinion or not that isn't the point. We all have our opinions. But , if he is going to call out someone I'm friendly with and someone I respect and call him a forger/ counterfeiter/ net criminal you bet I'm going to defend that person. Anyone worth their salt would. Heck, even if Dan wasn't someone I liked I would probably defend him against an attack like that. I found Physics comments disturbing and inciting. I reacted to them.

 

I stated that I would post a D Carr coin every time someone went out of their way to attack him. Jason did and I kept my word.

 

As for Jason being offended? I don't think he will be nor do I care if he was. Honesty I hope he took notice and maybe will turn in down a notch.

 

mark

[coinman_23885]

Jason hurry up and respond so we can change the agenda of this thread to convinging Dan to strike so hologram peace dollars.

 

Since we are having coins custom struck to order... I would like the following:

 

(1) 1793 chain cent struck over a common date Braided Hair cent;

 

(2) 1933 Saint Double Eagles - at least a couple dozen - struck over 1923 Double Eagles. (Since these were never issued and not legal to own and were supposedly all melted, these would seemingly be on the same footing as the 1964-D coins, so why not?). I would like to sell T-shirts with the inscription ("More '33 Saints than Izzy Swift").

 

(3) 1913 Liberty Head Nickels over a 1912 Liberty Nickel in PF68 - no PF69 - DCAM. (These supposedly were never issued or monetized so I think these would fall in the same group as 1933 Saints and 1964-D Peace Dollars);

 

Extra kudos if you can get any of these into PCGS plastic with a CAC sticker. And please no fantasy plastic.....

 

Sorry I couldn't resist...

[Afterword]

"Constructive fraud does NOT require scienter (i.e. intent)."

 

 

 

What does constitute constructive fraud, as it applies to the topic of D Carr fantasy pieces?

[coinman_23885]

"Constructive fraud does NOT require scienter (i.e. intent)."

 

What does constitute constructive fraud, as it applies to the topic of D Carr fantasy pieces?

 

My comments were not meant to suggest that he had committed constructive fraud. Rather, he was trying to define the term "fraudulent" which necessarily requires a discussion of fraud (fraudulent is derived from fraud).

 

I was trying to use it as an example to suggest that something made could be labeled as "fraudulent" even if it was not created with a nefarious intent. That's it - you're reading too much into my comment.

[Afterword]

"I was trying to use it as an example to suggest that something made could be labeled as "fraudulent" even if it was not created with a nefarious intent."

 

 

 

Ok, I must have misunderstood his statement as well. I thought he was referring to the topic of his fantasy pieces.

[physics-fan3.14]

than to be called a criminal publicly for doing something that has been deemed legal by the US government

 

Let's be extremely clear here. It has NOT been deemed legal by any form of government. Is has simply not yet been deemed illegal - which are very different things. As coinman has clearly and eloquently elaborated in other threads, the legal case against Dcarr would be extremely damning, if court action were ever to be taken up.

 

Jason hurry up and respond so we can change the agenda of this thread to convinging Dan to strike so hologram peace dollars.

 

I have absolutely no idea what the agenda of this thread is. But I will not ever encourage counterfeits. Dcarr is quite talented, and when he creates his original bullion rounds they are often quite attractive. His counterfeits are another story.

 

Counterfeit coin. Listen to it quack, quack, quack.

I could be wrong, but I think Jason's response to the OP will be more thoughtful and less defensive than most of these posts. I am as close to being certain as I can be that he will not quack like a duck.

 

At this point, no thread about, involving, or concerning the Colorado counterfeiter will produce any positive result, change anyone's mind, or result in anything but acrimonious mudslinging.

 

So, quack, quack, quack.

 

Do you think using the name of another member in the thread title in a somewhat belittling manner is helpful? I do not interpret "most" replies as quacking like a duck. I don't even understand what that phrasing is supposed to mean in the context of the thread, and is of no value to the subject.

 

 

 

You may be right and Jason will be offended. However, the opening post implies that Jason disapproves of Mr. Carr's fantasy pieces. Unless this is not true, what is there to be offended by?

 

Now, if Jason’s only problem with the fantasy pieces is that he believes them to be illegal, he might object to his position on the matter being portrayed improperly. I doubt that even then he would be offended, when he could simply correct the misconception.

 

As I understand it, the intention of the OP was to ridicule my position (and the position of many others) that these pieces are counterfeits, and detrimental to the hobby. It is intended to be ridicule. Dcarr's fans are not trying to be helpful - they are trying to justify their knowing purchases of counterfeits.

 

Yes, the pieces are illegal. Yes, the counterfeits are an abomination. I'm concerned with that (and the precedent it sets for the Chinese and other counterfeiters). I can order up any date I want from Beijing (including dates that were never made). I see very little real difference between them and Dcarr. For some reason, however, Dcarr and his merry band of customers fiercely defend his counterfeits - even though they all decry the forgeries of the Chinese.

 

Am I offended by this thread? No. Disappointed, exasperated, and frustrated perhaps. I think the OP is more offended by my comments, and he is lashing out. After all, he has a financial investment in the counterfeits, and me calling them what they are, by extension, denigrates him.

 

It is one thing to be a purist, it is another to call someone a counterfeiter and potentially affect their commerce.

 

When I see someone dealing crack cocaine, I call it what it is - illegal and harmful. When I see someone making and selling counterfeits, I call it what it is - illegal and harmful. Affecting their commerce is immaterial if what they are doing is illegal.

 

As for Jason being offended? I don't think he will be nor do I care if he was. Honesty I hope he took notice and maybe will turn in down a notch.

 

mark

 

I'm not offended. If you want to buy counterfeits, go ahead. Just don't you get offended when I call them counterfeits.

 

And consider this me not turning it down a notch.

[comicdonna]

[Afterword]

"At this point, no thread about, involving, or concerning the Colorado counterfeiter will produce any positive result, change anyone's mind, or result in anything but acrimonious mudslinging.

 

So, quack, quack, quack."

 

 

 

 

This is why I am never completely certain of anything. I thought Jason was coinman23885.

 

 

[Afterword]

"It has NOT been deemed legal by any form of government. Is has simply not yet been deemed illegal - which are very different things."

 

 

 

So you believe Mr. Carr's fantasy pieces are not illegal, but you call them counterfeits because you think they may someday be deemed so? You also call him a counterfeiter because you think he may someday be deemed so?

 

You are obviously not alone in this kind of thinking that passes judgment on a man based solely on an assumption. You people are his judge and his jury. It is a good thing it is not a hanging offence.

 

[mumu]

Jason hurry up and respond so we can change the agenda of this thread to convinging Dan to strike so hologram peace dollars.

 

Since we are having coins custom struck to order... I would like the following:

 

(1) 1793 chain cent struck over a common date Braided Hair cent;

 

(2) 1933 Saint Double Eagles - at least a couple dozen - struck over 1923 Double Eagles. (Since these were never issued and not legal to own and were supposedly all melted, these would seemingly be on the same footing as the 1964-D coins, so why not?). I would like to sell T-shirts with the inscription ("More '33 Saints than Izzy Swift").

 

(3) 1913 Liberty Head Nickels over a 1912 Liberty Nickel in PF68 - no PF69 - DCAM. (These supposedly were never issued or monetized so I think these would fall in the same group as 1933 Saints and 1964-D Peace Dollars);

 

Extra kudos if you can get any of these into PCGS plastic with a CAC sticker. And please no fantasy plastic.....

 

Sorry I couldn't resist...

 

With or without the hologram effect?

[mumu]

IMO Jason has taken a strong enough stance against DCarr that he should be prepared for any backlash. He has indicted him as guilty of fraud, he has bashed his work as counterfeit, and he has given him a slanderous nickname. Again it is one thing to be against someone's decisions based on ethics and have an opinion, but Jason is sounding crusade-like.

 

I don't think the drug dealing example quite works. And your own statements about not being deemed "illegal yet" proves my point on this. Selling crack has been deemed illegal in absolute terms. And assuming your fantasy drug dealer is in fact selling crack, then there is no grey line. What Dcarr is more metaphorically doing is selling Kratom or Salvia. May one day be illegal, but it isn't illegal TODAY.

[coinman_23885]

This is why I am never completely certain of anything. I thought Jason was coinman23885.

 

 

No, Physics-fan3.14 is Jason.

[coinman_23885]

May one day be illegal, but it isn't illegal TODAY.

 

You state this as fact. It is a point of contention, which is Jason's point. The statues say what they say. The pieces are what they are. If an adjudication ever does occur, it doesn't change the legality of the pieces or what they are; it merely declares what the pieces were all along. Your analogy to future laws is analogous to comparing apples and oranges.

[dcarr]

May one day be illegal, but it isn't illegal TODAY.

 

You state this as fact. It is a point of contention, which is Jason's point. The statues say what they say. The pieces are what they are. If an adjudication ever does occur, it doesn't change the legality of the pieces or what they are; it merely declares what the pieces were all along. Your analogy to future laws is analogous to comparing apples and oranges.

 

The whole point of this thread is this:

 

It is one thing to call the police and accuse someone of dealing drugs (for example), so long as you honestly think that is the case. Reporting a suspected crime to police is not a public declaration, so no problem in doing that.

 

But it is entirely a different thing to publicly declare someone to be a felon, when that person has never been charged with any such thing. Such accusations are not wise and could be successfully litigated in civil court as libel.

 

[dcarr]

Jason hurry up and respond so we can change the agenda of this thread to convinging Dan to strike so hologram peace dollars.

 

Since we are having coins custom struck to order... I would like the following:

 

(1) 1793 chain cent struck over a common date Braided Hair cent;

 

(2) 1933 Saint Double Eagles - at least a couple dozen - struck over 1923 Double Eagles. (Since these were never issued and not legal to own and were supposedly all melted, these would seemingly be on the same footing as the 1964-D coins, so why not?). I would like to sell T-shirts with the inscription ("More '33 Saints than Izzy Swift").

 

(3) 1913 Liberty Head Nickels over a 1912 Liberty Nickel in PF68 - no PF69 - DCAM. (These supposedly were never issued or monetized so I think these would fall in the same group as 1933 Saints and 1964-D Peace Dollars);

 

Extra kudos if you can get any of these into PCGS plastic with a CAC sticker. And please no fantasy plastic.....

 

Sorry I couldn't resist...

 

With or without the hologram effect?

 

Good one

 

I wouldn't do any of those listed (with or without hologram) because all those items already exist and have recognized values in the numismatic marketplace.

But I do like the idea #2, especially the t-shirt part