Dcarr over strike question.

1 1

nk1nk · September 10, 2016

PhysicsFan3.14 blatantly called me a "counterfeiter" in this thread.

I have very good grounds to sue for defamation if I want to. And I might want to.

If he did call you that, he stated his opinion on an open forum among informed numismatists who are debating, and stating their opinions, on a topic of high interest. His opinion is likely not to change any minds or affect your buisness. Lawsuit? Really? Yikes.

Best, HT

Reason for edit: Corrected after the post by Robec below

The problem with physics and RWBs opinions is that both have published numismatic books and to some may appear to be "experts" in the coin community, their opinions differ greatly from Joe Schmoe running his mouth on a coin forum. RWB is pretty cautious, he uses vague name calling and innuendo but physics is much more to the point, he proclaimed Carr IS a counterfeiter, stated as fact not opinion. I don't believe Carr would ever win a defamation lawsuit but

Oh and I'm pretty sure it's safe to say "informed numismatists" debating their opinion is a bit of a stretch for some on here ? (Myself included)

Edited September 10, 2016 by nk1nk

MJ · September 10, 2016

PhysicsFan3.14 blatantly called me a "counterfeiter" in this thread.

I have very good grounds to sue for defamation if I want to. And I might want to.

If he did call you that, he stated his opinion on an open forum among informed numismatists who are debating, and stating their opinions, on a topic of high interest. His opinion is likely not to change any minds or affect your buisness. Lawsuit? Really? Yikes.

Best, HT

Reason for edit: Corrected after the post by Robec below

The problem with physics and RWBs opinions is that both have published numismatic books and to some may appear to be "experts" in the coin community, their opinions differ greatly from Joe Schmoe running his mouth on a coin forum. RWB is pretty cautious, he uses vague name calling and innuendo but physics is much more to the point, he proclaimed Carr IS a counterfeiter, stated as fact not opinion. I don't believe Carr would ever win a defamation lawsuit but

Oh and I'm pretty sure it's safe to say "informed numismatists" debating their opinion is a bit of a stretch for some on here ? (Myself included)

RWB indeed needs to be careful. His flippant and careless remarks in an online forum have already cost him and others in the past. Now he just incites and stirs the pot. Whatever floats your boat. I find that it tarnishes his star.

mark

Edited September 10, 2016 by MJ

MJ · September 10, 2016

DP

Edited September 10, 2016 by MJ

coinman_23885 · September 11, 2016

Oh and I'm pretty sure it's safe to say "informed numismatists" debating their opinion is a bit of a stretch for some on here ? (Myself included)

"Informed numismatist" or collector does not mean an expert as used in this context. It means someone that has some basic understanding of U.S. coin issues (i.e. anyone who has spent more than an hour reading the Red Book/coin books or that actively participates in a coin forum, etc.) as opposed to the general public who does not collect and has limited exposure to numismatics.

For the record, I also do not remember identifying you or any specific poster as an informed numismatist or collector. For all I know, you may very well be in the target demographic that the HPA was enacted to protect. With this said, I suspect that most of the members here on the U.S. forum are familiar with Peace Dollars, design elements, the 1964-D pieces, and DCarr's work and meet the very broad/general definition that I intended.

physics-fan3.14 · September 11, 2016

stated as fact not opinion

If you read my signature below, it clearly states "All posts are the opinions of the author." I have had this disclaimer up for many years, specifically because of posts and threads like this. It should be understood that everything I post is my opinion, even when stated as fact.

dcarr · September 11, 2016

PhysicsFan3.14 blatantly called me a "counterfeiter" in this thread.
I have very good grounds to sue for defamation if I want to. And I might want to.

This is exactly the type of post that made me start posting to DCarr threads, and it certainly explains why I do so fervently even though I may look foolish to keep posting replies to the same fallacies posted over and over again. In fact, when you made threats, express or implied, to RWB and others in the past, it pushed me to actually do the research that would arm any would be defendant.

As for a defamation/libel suit, I do not think you have a case. In fact, I think an intelligent defendant would countersue you for malicious prosecution. As for the law (1) truth is an absolute and good defense, so a lawsuit by you would absolutely involve an adjudication of your pieces which has the potential to burn you very badly; if a judge agrees with the defendant on the civil case concerning the legality of your pieces, you open Pandora's box and have pissed off someone who will make sure that it goes well beyond a civil case; (2) honest expression of opinions are protected (this is a general comment and not geared towards any one post or poster); and (3) you put yourself in the numismatic lime light so absent actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth (and given the coin case law - even if unsuccessful in a HPA, Title 18 context, it would certainly undermine your claims), you are basically out of luck.

So you don't see a problem with someone making a "counterfeiting" claim against a person who has never been convicted or even charged with that offense ?

What if a member of this forum made a post wrongfully claiming that another member was a pedophile or something ? Would that be ok with you ?

Regardless, I have not had, and do not currently have, any plans to file any lawsuits. But my previous post was an indication that I will keep my options open.

>>> "Posting replies to the same fallacies over and over".

Perhaps your contentions are the fallacy.

I previously showed how my activities do not impugn the integrity of the Federal Government. It would be a burden of the prosecution to prove otherwise.

Threats ?

That is a very ill-fitting descriptor. Warnings maybe. Besides RWB and recently PhysicsFan3.14, who are these "others" that you speak of ?

PS:

Regarding RWB specifically, this will explain the background behind our "feud":

Roger W Burdette ANA complaint and rebuttal by Daniel Carr

Edited September 11, 2016 by dcarr

Hard Times · September 11, 2016

What if a member of this forum made a post wrongfully claiming that another member was a pedophile or something ? Would that be ok with you ?

Regardless, I have not had, and do not currently have, any plans to file any lawsuits. But my previous post was an indication that I will keep my options open.

>>> "Posting replies to the same fallacies over and over".

Perhaps your contentions are the fallacy.

I previously showed how my activities do not impugn the integrity of the Federal Government. It would be a burden of the prosecution to prove otherwise.

Observations on your comments above:

1. You have not 'previously showed how my activities do not impugn the integrity of the Federal Government', you have made a case that they do not, but no legal ruling has been made support your opinion.

2. The analogy of you striking US coin copies that may or may not be violating the HPA with that of someone accusing one to be a pedophile is ridiculous, out of context, and trying to deflect the debate away from the real issue. Yikes again.

3. Me thinks that if you did sue somebody for name calling, it would be as coinman said, you would open yourself up to countersuits that would bring forth an investigation into your practice of making fantasy coins that could be mistaken for legal tender US coinage. So maybe this is a good thing and would finally resolve the issue of this thread and many others?

Best, HT

Hard Times · September 11, 2016

PhysicsFan3.14 blatantly called me a "counterfeiter" in this thread.

I have very good grounds to sue for defamation if I want to. And I might want to.

If he did call you that, he stated his opinion on an open forum among informed numismatists who are debating, and stating their opinions, on a topic of high interest. His opinion is likely not to change any minds or affect your buisness. Lawsuit? Really? Yikes.

Best, HT

Reason for edit: Corrected after the post by Robec below

The problem with physics and RWBs opinions is that both have published numismatic books and to some may appear to be "experts" in the coin community, their opinions differ greatly from Joe Schmoe running his mouth on a coin forum. RWB is pretty cautious, he uses vague name calling and innuendo but physics is much more to the point, he proclaimed Carr IS a counterfeiter, stated as fact not opinion. I don't believe Carr would ever win a defamation lawsuit but

Oh and I'm pretty sure it's safe to say "informed numismatists" debating their opinion is a bit of a stretch for some on here ? (Myself included)

I guess since my post is quoted above that this post must at least in part be directed to me - and honestly, I don't know what you are saying here - I don't understand at all why RWB and Physics publishing books make them only appear to be 'experts' and how this has any relation to Joe Schmoe running his mouth, that sentence makes no sense so could you clarify? You left a sentence half written that ends in 'but'. I also am not sure what the point of your last sentence is about 'informed numismatists' in relation to this thread.

Look forward to your clarifications and thanks for posting, all opinions are welcome here, as it should be as the boards were made to discuss topics just like this.

Best, HT

Edited September 11, 2016 by Hard Times

coinman_23885 · September 11, 2016

So you don't see a problem with someone making a "counterfeiting" claim against a person who has never been convicted or even charged with that offense ?

What if a member of this forum made a post wrongfully claiming that another member was a pedophile or something ? Would that be ok with you ?

First, this is an issue of interest to the hobby (it relates to the Hobby Protection Act and counterfeiting after all, the latter of which is a threat to this hobby especially with the influx of material from China), and we are discussing laws that apply well beyond this set of facts. By producing these pieces, you have turned yourself into a public figure within the numismatic community, and criticism is to be expected. Why do you think the libel/slander standard is so high for issues of public importance or against public figures? It is because there is a genuine public interest that and the chilling effect on free speech necessitates a very strict standard.

Second, if you think the criticism is limited to you, you are wrong. I myself have also sloppily referred to the issue as Pro-fantasy strike/pro-Carr or Anti-fantasy strike/anti-Carr; however, this also misses the larger picture. You may be unique in the level and degree to which you overstrike the coins or imitate official designs, but you are hardly the only one that is imitating U.S. coins and currency. As you like to point out (and correctly I might add), there are a number of bullion round producers producing pieces that also seem problematic under the plain meaning of the statutory language cited in these threads. As a hobby, these issues should be confronted. You even allege an HPA conflict; are you telling me that you do not think that is an issue of interest to the hobby? Assuming arguendo that you are correct, this is something that requires discussion and legal clarification whether it is through legislative changes or case law. The intersection between the HPA and Title 18 statutes is one worthy of discussion.

Third, I am not commenting on any specific poster or post/comment, but the vast majority of the posts I have seen are the honest expression of opinion.

Fourth, I would be opposed to wrongly labeling a forum member with a pejorative term; however, your question assumes that it is wrongful. As you admit, no one has adjudicated your specific case. There are also more than enough resources to reasonably argue that your pieces are prohibited.

Fifth, the legal stuff aside, no one compared you to a pedophile nor would anyone classify you in the same realm. I don't think anyone here thinks you are a bad person, have nefarious intent, etc. I also think the vast majority of the criticism is targeted towards your pieces and not you as a person. I see a talented engineer who, in my opinion, has tunnel vision and fails to appreciate the consequences of his productions (just like the plaintiff in the Boggs case I frequently reference). I think you also believe that you are acting within the confounds of the law, but we will have to disagree on that point. While I do believe that your pieces are contrary to law, I would not place you in the same category as people intentionally committing fraud or violent crimes.

Sixth: As for your adjudication point, generally it depends on whether there is enough evidence to support the claim in the absence of an adjudication. To go back to your pedophilia analogy (and no extrapolation or implication is meant towards you), but it would depend on the circumstances. Calling a person a pedophile without evidence would be problematic. If there is strong evidence (witnesses coming forward, pictures, etc.), then that would change the calculus and the label may be accurate even in the absence of an adjudication. Those are two VERY different scenarios.

MJ · September 11, 2016

It's funny. I think it's the naysayers that have the tunnel vision and total lack of imagination. I think it's occupational hazard for most. I find lack of imagination common amongst coin collectors.

mark

Mr.Mcknowitall · September 11, 2016

It's funny. I think it's the naysayers that have the tunnel vision and total lack of imagination. I think it's occupational hazard for most. I find lack of imagination common amongst coin collectors.

mark

Interesting. What is a coin collecting naysayer, and how does one collect coins without vision? Is that done by having another person describing their opinion to another person without vision? Is that why some collectors get fooled about what they are really buying?

dcarr · September 11, 2016

I have come to the conclusion that you deliberately obfuscate and try to confuse, as in your explanation of why you are correct and congressional responsibilities. Of course you know what I stated.That explanation and word fest was one of the more clever avoidance replies you have penned.

Be that as it may, you again avoided answering my original questions, 1) re. misrepresentation, 2) setting the record straight, 3) why it should not be legal tender, 4),what is and is not appropriate, 5), whether or not my examples are legal or not and if not then why, 6)non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude..... and 7) what that actually means to you.

These 7 questions have now been asked 3 times. You avoid 3 times. I am sure sooner or later you will decide if any answers you may give are detrimental to your position or not, or are somehow going to further enforce the logic posit busts that seem prevalent in your replies.

You might want to ask your attorney the definition of corporate slander. Hint: I was not referring to Mr. Physics nor was I opining if his comments are or are not defamation, or whether you have good cause to sue or not. That is not the thrust of any post I have ever made about this subject and I am not interested in such conversations. They take you and everyone else down a hateful path that has nothing to do with the legality of the pieces you produce.

I looked but I did not see these 7 questions you speak of. If you can repost them again here in a concise manner I will address them.

Mr.Mcknowitall · September 11, 2016

I have come to the conclusion that you deliberately obfuscate and try to confuse, as in your explanation of why you are correct and congressional responsibilities. Of course you know what I stated.That explanation and word fest was one of the more clever avoidance replies you have penned.

Be that as it may, you again avoided answering my original questions, 1) re. misrepresentation, 2) setting the record straight, 3) why it should not be legal tender, 4),what is and is not appropriate, 5), whether or not my examples are legal or not and if not then why, 6)non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude..... and 7) what that actually means to you.

These 7 questions have now been asked 3 times. You avoid 3 times. I am sure sooner or later you will decide if any answers you may give are detrimental to your position or not, or are somehow going to further enforce the logic posit busts that seem prevalent in your replies.

You might want to ask your attorney the definition of corporate slander. Hint: I was not referring to Mr. Physics nor was I opining if his comments are or are not defamation, or whether you have good cause to sue or not. That is not the thrust of any post I have ever made about this subject and I am not interested in such conversations. They take you and everyone else down a hateful path that has nothing to do with the legality of the pieces you produce.

I looked but I did not see these 7 questions you speak of. If you can repost them again here in a concise manner I will address them.

All you have to do is read my post, posted 2 times by me and 1 time by you. A hint: there are question marks at the end of the questions. Your original answering post did not address the questions. Either you can not understand or you don't want to answer, or your choice of reply was intended to obfuscate. No problem. Another hint though, your present post is in reply to my 7 short version references describing the questions and indeed the short version uses in part the terminology of the original questions. I suppose you may view your earlier post as being answers, and your follow on reply would be along the lines of copying your original reply and implying you already answered. It is the bard talent you possess.

dcarr · September 11, 2016

So you don't see a problem with someone making a "counterfeiting" claim against a person who has never been convicted or even charged with that offense ?

What if a member of this forum made a post wrongfully claiming that another member was a pedophile or something ? Would that be ok with you ?

First, this is an issue of interest to the hobby (it relates to the Hobby Protection Act and counterfeiting after all, the latter of which is a threat to this hobby especially with the influx of material from China), and we are discussing laws that apply well beyond this set of facts. By producing these pieces, you have turned yourself into a public figure within the numismatic community, and criticism is to be expected. Why do you think the libel/slander standard is so high for issues of public importance or against public figures? It is because there is a genuine public interest that and the chilling effect on free speech necessitates a very strict standard.

Yes, counterfeiting is a serious issue, especially in numismatics and other fields of collecting. So making accusations of "counterfeiting" are also quite serious, especially for those people who make a living in this field. But yes, I do expect to receive some criticism. Every important artist has. If they haven't, then they are probably doing something wrong by not being daring enough.

Second, if you think the criticism is limited to you, you are wrong. I myself have also sloppily referred to the issue as Pro-fantasy strike/pro-Carr or Anti-fantasy strike/anti-Carr; however, this also misses the larger picture. You may be unique in the level and degree to which you overstrike the coins or imitate official designs, but you are hardly the only one that is imitating U.S. coins and currency. As you like to point out (and correctly I might add), there are a number of bullion round producers producing pieces that also seem problematic under the plain meaning of the statutory language cited in these threads. As a hobby, these issues should be confronted. You even allege an HPA conflict; are you telling me that you do not think that is an issue of interest to the hobby? Assuming arguendo that you are correct, this is something that requires discussion and legal clarification whether it is through legislative changes or case law. The intersection between the HPA and Title 18 statutes is one worthy of discussion.

We could argue, of course, that over-striking an existing coin with the same design is not really "imitating" the coin. It is altering the coin.

Numismatics should be concerned with the HPA. I have not intentionally stated otherwise. Some time ago I provided my comments to the Federal Trade Commission when they solicited comments from the hobby. Specifically, my comments were in regards to pointing out the conflicting statutes and that they should be resolved.

Third, I am not commenting on any specific poster or post/comment, but the vast majority of the posts I have seen are the honest expression of opinion.

I generally agree. But some go a ways too far even after being rebuffed by the opinion rendered by an authority (as illustrated by this: ANA complaint by Roger W Burdette and rebuttal by Daniel Carr ). If many of those RWB quotes are actually his "honest opinion", then there is a problem there.

Fourth, I would be opposed to wrongly labeling a forum member with a pejorative term; however, your question assumes that it is wrongful. As you admit, no one has adjudicated your specific case. There are also more than enough resources to reasonably argue that your pieces are prohibited.

Fifth, the legal stuff aside, no one compared you to a pedophile nor would anyone classify you in the same realm. I don't think anyone here thinks you are a bad person, have nefarious intent, etc. I also think the vast majority of the criticism is targeted towards your pieces and not you as a person. I see a talented engineer who, in my opinion, has tunnel vision and fails to appreciate the consequences of his productions (just like the plaintiff in the Boggs case I frequently reference). I think you also believe that you are acting within the confounds of the law, but we will have to disagree on that point. While I do believe that your pieces are contrary to law, I would not place you in the same category as people intentionally committing fraud or violent crimes.

PhysicsFan3.14's "a spade is a spade counterfeiter" statement seems rather personal in contrast to your take on it. There most definitely have been people that falsely accused me of serious things. Although (not counting RWB and PhysicsFan3.14) the worst of it occurred outside this forum. For example, I received actual death threats from two different individuals for making my first Union of North America "Amero" coins in 2006. I've made Amero coins every year since.

Sixth: As for your adjudication point, generally it depends on whether there is enough evidence to support the claim in the absence of an adjudication. To go back to your pedophilia analogy (and no extrapolation or implication is meant towards you), but it would depend on the circumstances. Calling a person a pedophile without evidence would be problematic. If there is strong evidence (witnesses coming forward, pictures, etc.), then that would change the calculus and the label may be accurate even in the absence of an adjudication. Those are two VERY different scenarios.

I can agree on that.

Edited September 11, 2016 by dcarr

dcarr · September 11, 2016

I have come to the conclusion that you deliberately obfuscate and try to confuse, as in your explanation of why you are correct and congressional responsibilities. Of course you know what I stated.That explanation and word fest was one of the more clever avoidance replies you have penned.

Be that as it may, you again avoided answering my original questions, 1) re. misrepresentation, 2) setting the record straight, 3) why it should not be legal tender, 4),what is and is not appropriate, 5), whether or not my examples are legal or not and if not then why, 6)non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude..... and 7) what that actually means to you.

These 7 questions have now been asked 3 times. You avoid 3 times. I am sure sooner or later you will decide if any answers you may give are detrimental to your position or not, or are somehow going to further enforce the logic posit busts that seem prevalent in your replies.

You might want to ask your attorney the definition of corporate slander. Hint: I was not referring to Mr. Physics nor was I opining if his comments are or are not defamation, or whether you have good cause to sue or not. That is not the thrust of any post I have ever made about this subject and I am not interested in such conversations. They take you and everyone else down a hateful path that has nothing to do with the legality of the pieces you produce.

I looked but I did not see these 7 questions you speak of. If you can repost them again here in a concise manner I will address them.

All you have to do is read my post, posted 2 times by me and 1 time by you. A hint: there are question marks at the end of the questions. Your original answering post did not address the questions. Either you can not understand or you don't want to answer, or your choice of reply was intended to obfuscate. No problem. Another hint though, your present post is in reply to my 7 short version references describing the questions and indeed the short version uses in part the terminology of the original questions. I suppose you may view your earlier post as being answers, and your follow on reply would be along the lines of copying your original reply and implying you already answered. It is the bard talent you possess.

If you are referring to your post #9551211 and my reply #9551271, then I did answer your questions as I understood them.

If that is not good enough for you then you will have to rephrase your unanswered questions and try asking again.

dcarr · September 11, 2016

What if a member of this forum made a post wrongfully claiming that another member was a pedophile or something ? Would that be ok with you ?

Regardless, I have not had, and do not currently have, any plans to file any lawsuits. But my previous post was an indication that I will keep my options open.

>>> "Posting replies to the same fallacies over and over".

Perhaps your contentions are the fallacy.

I previously showed how my activities do not impugn the integrity of the Federal Government. It would be a burden of the prosecution to prove otherwise.

Observations on your comments above:

1. You have not 'previously showed how my activities do not impugn the integrity of the Federal Government', you have made a case that they do not, but no legal ruling has been made support your opinion.

2. The analogy of you striking US coin copies that may or may not be violating the HPA with that of someone accusing one to be a pedophile is ridiculous, out of context, and trying to deflect the debate away from the real issue. Yikes again.

3. Me thinks that if you did sue somebody for name calling, it would be as coinman said, you would open yourself up to countersuits that would bring forth an investigation into your practice of making fantasy coins that could be mistaken for legal tender US coinage. So maybe this is a good thing and would finally resolve the issue of this thread and many others?

Best, HT

1) Fair enough.

2) My analogy was meant to point out the potential seriousness of "counterfeiting" allegations in a way that would make an impact. It was not any implication of any particular wrongdoing by anybody.

3) Judges and juries are not infallible. So yes, any legal action can backfire. This goes both ways. If someone were to sue me for "counterfeiting", it could open them up to a countersuit.

Mr.Mcknowitall · September 11, 2016

I have come to the conclusion that you deliberately obfuscate and try to confuse, as in your explanation of why you are correct and congressional responsibilities. Of course you know what I stated.That explanation and word fest was one of the more clever avoidance replies you have penned.

Be that as it may, you again avoided answering my original questions, 1) re. misrepresentation, 2) setting the record straight, 3) why it should not be legal tender, 4),what is and is not appropriate, 5), whether or not my examples are legal or not and if not then why, 6)non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude..... and 7) what that actually means to you.

These 7 questions have now been asked 3 times. You avoid 3 times. I am sure sooner or later you will decide if any answers you may give are detrimental to your position or not, or are somehow going to further enforce the logic posit busts that seem prevalent in your replies.

You might want to ask your attorney the definition of corporate slander. Hint: I was not referring to Mr. Physics nor was I opining if his comments are or are not defamation, or whether you have good cause to sue or not. That is not the thrust of any post I have ever made about this subject and I am not interested in such conversations. They take you and everyone else down a hateful path that has nothing to do with the legality of the pieces you produce.

I looked but I did not see these 7 questions you speak of. If you can repost them again here in a concise manner I will address them.

All you have to do is read my post, posted 2 times by me and 1 time by you. A hint: there are question marks at the end of the questions. Your original answering post did not address the questions. Either you can not understand or you don't want to answer, or your choice of reply was intended to obfuscate. No problem. Another hint though, your present post is in reply to my 7 short version references describing the questions and indeed the short version uses in part the terminology of the original questions. I suppose you may view your earlier post as being answers, and your follow on reply would be along the lines of copying your original reply and implying you already answered. It is the bard talent you possess.

If you are referring to your post #9551211 and my reply #9551271, then I did answer your questions as I understood them.

If that is not good enough for you then you will have to rephrase your unanswered questions and try asking again.

It appears I am correct as to how you would answer.

The questions will not be rephrased. The questions are clear and have not been answered. I will not aid you in your obfuscation talent. The questions and the lack of answers by you speak for themselves.

I too read Pliny the Elder and Adams.

I will mention that answering the very clear questions would be excellent mock trial practice for you.

Accordingly, I will re-post the post containing the original questions from time to time as a reminder to you that you have not answered yet, for your re-consideration, once you figure out whether answering the questions place you in an uncomfortable position that compromises your claim of absolute correctness of your stated position of legality of your endeavors, or, in the alternative, emphasizes the illogical logic posit of your correctness, which I suspect is the quagmire that you continue to avoid. I also would not willingly walk into quicksand.

dcarr · September 12, 2016

I have come to the conclusion that you deliberately obfuscate and try to confuse, as in your explanation of why you are correct and congressional responsibilities. Of course you know what I stated.That explanation and word fest was one of the more clever avoidance replies you have penned.

Be that as it may, you again avoided answering my original questions, 1) re. misrepresentation, 2) setting the record straight, 3) why it should not be legal tender, 4),what is and is not appropriate, 5), whether or not my examples are legal or not and if not then why, 6)non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude..... and 7) what that actually means to you.

These 7 questions have now been asked 3 times. You avoid 3 times. I am sure sooner or later you will decide if any answers you may give are detrimental to your position or not, or are somehow going to further enforce the logic posit busts that seem prevalent in your replies.

You might want to ask your attorney the definition of corporate slander. Hint: I was not referring to Mr. Physics nor was I opining if his comments are or are not defamation, or whether you have good cause to sue or not. That is not the thrust of any post I have ever made about this subject and I am not interested in such conversations. They take you and everyone else down a hateful path that has nothing to do with the legality of the pieces you produce.

I looked but I did not see these 7 questions you speak of. If you can repost them again here in a concise manner I will address them.

All you have to do is read my post, posted 2 times by me and 1 time by you. A hint: there are question marks at the end of the questions. Your original answering post did not address the questions. Either you can not understand or you don't want to answer, or your choice of reply was intended to obfuscate. No problem. Another hint though, your present post is in reply to my 7 short version references describing the questions and indeed the short version uses in part the terminology of the original questions. I suppose you may view your earlier post as being answers, and your follow on reply would be along the lines of copying your original reply and implying you already answered. It is the bard talent you possess.

If you are referring to your post #9551211 and my reply #9551271, then I did answer your questions as I understood them.

If that is not good enough for you then you will have to rephrase your unanswered questions and try asking again.

It appears I am correct as to how you would answer.

The questions will not be rephrased. The questions are clear and have not been answered. I will not aid you in your obfuscation talent. The questions and the lack of answers by you speak for themselves.

I too read Pliny the Elder and Adams.

I will mention that answering the very clear questions would be excellent mock trial practice for you.

Accordingly, I will re-post the post containing the original questions from time to time as a reminder to you that you have not answered yet, for your re-consideration, once you figure out whether answering the questions place you in an uncomfortable position that compromises your claim of absolute correctness of your stated position of legality of your endeavors, or, in the alternative, emphasizes the illogical logic posit of your correctness, which I suspect is the quagmire that you continue to avoid. I also would not willingly walk into quicksand.

So let me get this straight.

You claim to have asked some mystery questions and complain that I won't answer them. But you refuse to reiterate them. So they remain a mystery. And I'm supposed to answer mystery questions ? Ok, I'll give it a shot:

17

Is that right ?

coinman_23885 · September 12, 2016

...[T]he worst of it occurred outside this forum. For example, I received actual death threats from two different individuals for making my first Union of North America "Amero" coins in 2006. I've made Amero coins every year since.

The death threats are insane. You should absolutely report those to the authorities. I knew your pieces generate criticism and disdain, but I had no idea that some took the matter that seriously. That is beyond crazy.

physics-fan3.14 · September 12, 2016

...[T]he worst of it occurred outside this forum. For example, I received actual death threats from two different individuals for making my first Union of North America "Amero" coins in 2006. I've made Amero coins every year since.

The death threats are insane. You should absolutely report those to the authorities. I knew your pieces generate criticism and disdain, but I had no idea that some took the matter that seriously. That is beyond crazy.

I strongly disagree with the pieces under discussion here, but I absolutely have nothing personal against you. Just to make that clear. In fact, I really think you are quite talented - your original artwork and non-counterfeit pieces are well executed and often attractive. You have skill - I just wish you would direct it towards original work and not counterfeiting. And I would never wish death upon you.... just a different direction.

coinman_23885 · September 12, 2016

Re: ANA Complaint

I am curious as to why RWB fixates on your one silver eagle issue as opposed to some of your other issues. Although I am not saying that I agree with you in any way, that piece seemed like the least questionable of the batch to me for some reason.

MJ · September 12, 2016

I have come to the conclusion that you deliberately obfuscate and try to confuse, as in your explanation of why you are correct and congressional responsibilities. Of course you know what I stated.That explanation and word fest was one of the more clever avoidance replies you have penned.

Be that as it may, you again avoided answering my original questions, 1) re. misrepresentation, 2) setting the record straight, 3) why it should not be legal tender, 4),what is and is not appropriate, 5), whether or not my examples are legal or not and if not then why, 6)non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude..... and 7) what that actually means to you.

These 7 questions have now been asked 3 times. You avoid 3 times. I am sure sooner or later you will decide if any answers you may give are detrimental to your position or not, or are somehow going to further enforce the logic posit busts that seem prevalent in your replies.

You might want to ask your attorney the definition of corporate slander. Hint: I was not referring to Mr. Physics nor was I opining if his comments are or are not defamation, or whether you have good cause to sue or not. That is not the thrust of any post I have ever made about this subject and I am not interested in such conversations. They take you and everyone else down a hateful path that has nothing to do with the legality of the pieces you produce.

I looked but I did not see these 7 questions you speak of. If you can repost them again here in a concise manner I will address them.

All you have to do is read my post, posted 2 times by me and 1 time by you. A hint: there are question marks at the end of the questions. Your original answering post did not address the questions. Either you can not understand or you don't want to answer, or your choice of reply was intended to obfuscate. No problem. Another hint though, your present post is in reply to my 7 short version references describing the questions and indeed the short version uses in part the terminology of the original questions. I suppose you may view your earlier post as being answers, and your follow on reply would be along the lines of copying your original reply and implying you already answered. It is the bard talent you possess.

If you are referring to your post #9551211 and my reply #9551271, then I did answer your questions as I understood them.

If that is not good enough for you then you will have to rephrase your unanswered questions and try asking again.

It appears I am correct as to how you would answer.

The questions will not be rephrased. The questions are clear and have not been answered. I will not aid you in your obfuscation talent. The questions and the lack of answers by you speak for themselves.

I too read Pliny the Elder and Adams.

I will mention that answering the very clear questions would be excellent mock trial practice for you.

Accordingly, I will re-post the post containing the original questions from time to time as a reminder to you that you have not answered yet, for your re-consideration, once you figure out whether answering the questions place you in an uncomfortable position that compromises your claim of absolute correctness of your stated position of legality of your endeavors, or, in the alternative, emphasizes the illogical logic posit of your correctness, which I suspect is the quagmire that you continue to avoid. I also would not willingly walk into quicksand.

So let me get this straight.

You claim to have asked some mystery questions and complain that I won't answer them. But you refuse to reiterate them. So they remain a mystery. And I'm supposed to answer mystery questions ? Ok, I'll give it a shot:

17

Is that right ?

If it makes you feel any better I don't understand 71% of his posts

mark

Mr.Mcknowitall · September 12, 2016

I have come to the conclusion that you deliberately obfuscate and try to confuse, as in your explanation of why you are correct and congressional responsibilities. Of course you know what I stated.That explanation and word fest was one of the more clever avoidance replies you have penned.

Be that as it may, you again avoided answering my original questions, 1) re. misrepresentation, 2) setting the record straight, 3) why it should not be legal tender, 4),what is and is not appropriate, 5), whether or not my examples are legal or not and if not then why, 6)non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude..... and 7) what that actually means to you.

These 7 questions have now been asked 3 times. You avoid 3 times. I am sure sooner or later you will decide if any answers you may give are detrimental to your position or not, or are somehow going to further enforce the logic posit busts that seem prevalent in your replies.

You might want to ask your attorney the definition of corporate slander. Hint: I was not referring to Mr. Physics nor was I opining if his comments are or are not defamation, or whether you have good cause to sue or not. That is not the thrust of any post I have ever made about this subject and I am not interested in such conversations. They take you and everyone else down a hateful path that has nothing to do with the legality of the pieces you produce.

I looked but I did not see these 7 questions you speak of. If you can repost them again here in a concise manner I will address them.

All you have to do is read my post, posted 2 times by me and 1 time by you. A hint: there are question marks at the end of the questions. Your original answering post did not address the questions. Either you can not understand or you don't want to answer, or your choice of reply was intended to obfuscate. No problem. Another hint though, your present post is in reply to my 7 short version references describing the questions and indeed the short version uses in part the terminology of the original questions. I suppose you may view your earlier post as being answers, and your follow on reply would be along the lines of copying your original reply and implying you already answered. It is the bard talent you possess.

If you are referring to your post #9551211 and my reply #9551271, then I did answer your questions as I understood them.

If that is not good enough for you then you will have to rephrase your unanswered questions and try asking again.

It appears I am correct as to how you would answer.

The questions will not be rephrased. The questions are clear and have not been answered. I will not aid you in your obfuscation talent. The questions and the lack of answers by you speak for themselves.

I too read Pliny the Elder and Adams.

I will mention that answering the very clear questions would be excellent mock trial practice for you.

Accordingly, I will re-post the post containing the original questions from time to time as a reminder to you that you have not answered yet, for your re-consideration, once you figure out whether answering the questions place you in an uncomfortable position that compromises your claim of absolute correctness of your stated position of legality of your endeavors, or, in the alternative, emphasizes the illogical logic posit of your correctness, which I suspect is the quagmire that you continue to avoid. I also would not willingly walk into quicksand.

So let me get this straight.

You claim to have asked some mystery questions and complain that I won't answer them. But you refuse to reiterate them. So they remain a mystery. And I'm supposed to answer mystery questions ? Ok, I'll give it a shot:

17

Is that right ?

If it makes you feel any better I don't understand 71% of his posts

mark

Comprehension is an acquired skill. Anybody can achieve a level of normalcy by applying yourself and studying and practicing and setting daily goals. I can not promise you that you personally will ever be superlative, but based on what I have observed in the past when reading your statements, there is hope for being able to improve. (thumbs u

Mr.Mcknowitall · September 12, 2016

I have come to the conclusion that you deliberately obfuscate and try to confuse, as in your explanation of why you are correct and congressional responsibilities. Of course you know what I stated.That explanation and word fest was one of the more clever avoidance replies you have penned.

Be that as it may, you again avoided answering my original questions, 1) re. misrepresentation, 2) setting the record straight, 3) why it should not be legal tender, 4),what is and is not appropriate, 5), whether or not my examples are legal or not and if not then why, 6)non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude..... and 7) what that actually means to you.

These 7 questions have now been asked 3 times. You avoid 3 times. I am sure sooner or later you will decide if any answers you may give are detrimental to your position or not, or are somehow going to further enforce the logic posit busts that seem prevalent in your replies.

You might want to ask your attorney the definition of corporate slander. Hint: I was not referring to Mr. Physics nor was I opining if his comments are or are not defamation, or whether you have good cause to sue or not. That is not the thrust of any post I have ever made about this subject and I am not interested in such conversations. They take you and everyone else down a hateful path that has nothing to do with the legality of the pieces you produce.

I looked but I did not see these 7 questions you speak of. If you can repost them again here in a concise manner I will address them.

All you have to do is read my post, posted 2 times by me and 1 time by you. A hint: there are question marks at the end of the questions. Your original answering post did not address the questions. Either you can not understand or you don't want to answer, or your choice of reply was intended to obfuscate. No problem. Another hint though, your present post is in reply to my 7 short version references describing the questions and indeed the short version uses in part the terminology of the original questions. I suppose you may view your earlier post as being answers, and your follow on reply would be along the lines of copying your original reply and implying you already answered. It is the bard talent you possess.

If you are referring to your post #9551211 and my reply #9551271, then I did answer your questions as I understood them.

If that is not good enough for you then you will have to rephrase your unanswered questions and try asking again.

It appears I am correct as to how you would answer.

The questions will not be rephrased. The questions are clear and have not been answered. I will not aid you in your obfuscation talent. The questions and the lack of answers by you speak for themselves.

I too read Pliny the Elder and Adams.

I will mention that answering the very clear questions would be excellent mock trial practice for you.

Accordingly, I will re-post the post containing the original questions from time to time as a reminder to you that you have not answered yet, for your re-consideration, once you figure out whether answering the questions place you in an uncomfortable position that compromises your claim of absolute correctness of your stated position of legality of your endeavors, or, in the alternative, emphasizes the illogical logic posit of your correctness, which I suspect is the quagmire that you continue to avoid. I also would not willingly walk into quicksand.

So let me get this straight.

You claim to have asked some mystery questions and complain that I won't answer them. But you refuse to reiterate them. So they remain a mystery. And I'm supposed to answer mystery questions ? Ok, I'll give it a shot:

17

Is that right ?

Continued avoidance and feigned confusion are normal human responses when we are confronted with uncomfortable situations that we comprehend can be detrimental to our stated position. Only the person confronted can arrive at a conclusion of what is supposed to be the response that applies to the person as an individual. One simply makes choices. the choices are not always logical and do not always exhibit a correct choice, but as humans it is normal to do something. Fright or flight manifests itself whenever a choice is made.

As to the 17, that is an example. I read that book also.

Multiple choice questions are helpful when a person is uncomfortable. so as an example, what is the correct answer:

A) 17

B) 42

C) 43

Bonus hint: the answer is not 17.

Mr.Mcknowitall · September 12, 2016

“Allowing others to produce imitation pieces that approximate official coin designs or inscriptions can undermine public confidence in U.S. coin and currency, and threaten the reputation of a government obligation/issue.”

Yet they do allow such coins and production of same to exist, do they not? ...

The Hobby Protection Act (HPA) specifically allows anyone to produce replicas of United States coins (with some restrictions). If Congress was concerned with the non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude to US Coins, they would have not enacted the HPA in the form that they did.

In other words, Congress does not view the non-fraudulent minting of replicas of US Coins as impugning the integrity of the Federal Government. Neither do they think that of non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins.

Curiosity only....you certainly can have an opinion, the same as anyone. I simply don't understand your adamant declarations, not only in the above 2 replies but in most of your replies, and indeed on your website that the activities and pieces are LEGAL (you did the capitalization on your website) that your interpretation is absolutely correct. An example is your above posts. You do not know what Congress views, or what Congress does not view. You do not know what Congress thinks or what they do not think. You do not know what Congress was or is concerned about or not concerned about. You do not know what Congress would or would not have enacted, and you do not know what the Congressional view of "non-fraudulent minting" is or was, and indeed that term does not exist in the legislative record. yet you constantly declare all other thoughts that are not aligned with your opinion as wrong, wrong, wrong, and you change and finesse your wording of your position, and the wording of any particular document or existing law, and declare you are right, right, right. Fair enough.

The courts make rulings based on their perception of what Congress intended when passing various laws. Those rulings can be used to infer Congressional intent on what is (and what is not) in the law.

If there is noting that is remotely wrong with the pieces, why declare on your website that persons that purchase should not try to sell the pieces to others as a true coin? Why declare on your website that the person that has a piece has to tell anybody it is a fantasy piece? If it is LEGAL to produce the piece, wht does it suddenly become not legal by virtue of it being sold to someone else? The person that bought it from you and sold it to somebody else is not selling a counterfeit or fraudulent coin that harms the Government, are they? The person may be a con artist, but that is of no consequence. Then again, why would the person be a con artist? He bought the coin from you with your assurances that the piece is LEGAL. He bought the piece from you that the piece is over-struck on a genuine U.S. coin, and that is LEGAL. He bought the piece from you at a price you set. If he sells it for more, regardless of the story used to sell it, and states, this is a genuine U.S. coin that has a date on it that makes it very rare, and it was made by Mr. Carr, and is going up in value, because he only made so many. It is LEGAL, because he used to work at the Mint, and he even states non his website that it is LEGAL. It is a very valuable fantasy piece, but it is also a U.S. coin. What are you going to do about it?

Misrepresentation of an item with fraudulent intent is a crime. I am advising purchases of said items to not break the law.

........How is it misrepresentation? You are not reading and you are not answering the questions.........

Misrepresentation of a perfectly genuine coin is also a crime if done with fraudulent intent. For example, if a person buffed a Morgan Dollar and knew it was a damaged coin but then persuaded a person to spend a lot of money on the "high-grade mint-state" piece, that would be a crime. If I was selling polished and/or plated Morgan dollars (for example) I would also advise buyers not to misrepresent them upon resale, just like I do with fantasy-date over-strikes.

.......Where is and what is the fraudulent intent? Again, you are not reading and not answering the question. In my example, how I'd it different from what you do?...........

If I see anyone misrepresenting an item I produced (whether it be an over-strike or not), I will contact the person(s) involved and set the record straight.

.......Again, what is being misrepresented, and what record would need to be set straight? Is it not your piece produced by you?.....…...

So, what the heck are you warning everyone about on your website? Why do you state on the website not to try to spend it. Why not? If I go into a mom and pop store and say I want 2 of those R2D2 thingys and I am paying with this silver dollar with a fantasy date on it and silver is worth x dollars right now and your R2D2 thingys are less than that, what is not LEGAL about that?

I make no claims as to the legal tender status of the fantasy-date over-strikes, only that I advise people not to attempt to use them as legal tender. If the toy store owner wanted to take the over-struck silver dollar as barter in trade for the toy, that would be up to them.

........Why should it not be legal tender? Who are you to decide? Bit coin? Barter? If you make no claims, why advise not to? You already declare your piece is legal. It is silver is it not? It is an original U.S. coin over struck by you, it it not? If I take a $1 Bill and doodle on it and change the date on it, are you stating it is not legal tender? Exactly what would be wrong with that?........

If someone of similar talent as yours decides to buy your pieces, and change the design in some fashion, and then sell them as a one of a kind modified Carr piece and sells it for a lot more money than the market is selling a Carr piece for, do you have a legal problem with that?

So long as they market the piece with an appropriate description then I would have no problem with that. Several years ago, a "hobo" nickel carver took one of my "1933" fantasy-date over-strike Indian Head nickels and made a Hobo carving of it, leaving the "1933" date in place. They sold it for quite a bit more than I originally sold the "1933" over-strikes for. I had no problem with that at all, because they advertised it as a carved fantasy-date piece.

....What is and what is not appropriate? It is an original U.S. coin is it not?.......

If that same talented person decided to replicate your work and uses the same process and the same designs and sells them as Carr pieces and does not mark them as copies in any manner, do you have a legal problem with that?

I would not allow anyone to market something as a "Carr" piece if I did not make it. This would apply to fantasy-date over-strikes and original design tokens and medals. There have been a few instances on eBay where sellers of Chinese-made "1964-D" Peace dollar replicas (that were not over-strikes and were not marked "COPY") were selling them as the "Carr" piece. In those cases I contacted eBay and the auctions were quickly cancelled. I have not filed any complaints with eBay concerning the numerous auctions of Chinese "1964-D" Peace Dollars when those auctions do not attribute them as "Carr" pieces.

....Are you stating that my example would not be legal? Why not? How are you not going to allow it? Why would my example have to have the word copy on it? Because of the HPA? Because of some other law?......

Are not both examples I have used non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins? is it non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude?

If you are declaring the absolute legality of your position as the only correct legal position and all other positions wrong, why not have your Attorney proceed to a forum of legal adjudication and be done with all other opinions? Wouldn't that help your business grow? Or, is it better from a business standpoint to have the present atmosphere of possibly numismatic naughtiness, sort of an any press is good press thing (no play on words intended, but now that I think about it, it was pretty good )?

It has been said that there is no such thing as "bad press".

In the very unlikely event that there was ever a court case involving these fantasy-date over-strikes, that could actually be a boon to my business.

But that could also result in more people getting into doing this.

My business has not been, and is not currently, "growing". It is staying the same. I do not have plans to grow it. This is not the type of business where growing equates to more revenue. The reason is that the prices that can be obtained for collectible items is dependent on how many are produced. Growing and producing more has the effect of lowering the price that the items can be sold for, thus negating any benefits of said growth (and this isn't even taking into account the added expenses of a larger operation).

.......That is a reasonable business model. However, you did not address my other question, reference non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude, and what that actually means..........

BTW, I did check the legislative histories of the laws stated in this thread, and your name does not appear in any capacity in the legislative record.

I am not sure what you mean by this.

.......Simple. Your adamant declarations that you know what Congress thought, intended, interpreted and what they would and would not act on, and all other opinions and positions are wrong. I must conclude that the only way you could absolutely know the correct congressional intent and interpretation of the laws being discussed. Is if you were in some manner a part of the legislative decision process, maybe as staff, expert, congressional liaison, etc. As such, your name would be part of the legislative record, as would any papers you presented. Nothing shows up. So. It would appear all you have is an opinion, and your opinion is no less right or wrong than anyone else. But unfortunately, case law does not seem to favor your opinion. I would think you would want to correct that, and proceed to an adjudication forum. As you stated. It would also be good for your business.........

.....I think you have a number of illogical logic posits in your positions, and it is a little confusing as to how you arrive at a point of singular correctness of position.

As a sideline question, do you see any corporate slander issues in the opinions that have been stated about your endeavors?.............

Good morning Mr. Carr.

As a reminder, this hieroglyphic (?) is called a question mark, and is a symbol that alerts the reader that the words that were specifically directed to the reader, that came before the symbol, are formed to express to the reader that information is requested from the reader and possibly the reader can assist by providing some information of value, although it is implicitly understood that many times the reader does not provide information of value, either deliberately or because of lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

This symbol was developed in order to avoid confusion and to solve the mystery of the intent of words grouped together and whether or not an action was required by the person trying to comprehend the purpose of the words being grouped together.

With this explanation in mind, does anything strike you as to the use of the symbol...many times....in the above words that are grouped together and specifically directed to you?

When we examine issues closely, a mystery can easily be understood.

nk1nk · September 12, 2016

“Allowing others to produce imitation pieces that approximate official coin designs or inscriptions can undermine public confidence in U.S. coin and currency, and threaten the reputation of a government obligation/issue.”

Yet they do allow such coins and production of same to exist, do they not? ...

The Hobby Protection Act (HPA) specifically allows anyone to produce replicas of United States coins (with some restrictions). If Congress was concerned with the non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude to US Coins, they would have not enacted the HPA in the form that they did.

In other words, Congress does not view the non-fraudulent minting of replicas of US Coins as impugning the integrity of the Federal Government. Neither do they think that of non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins.

Curiosity only....you certainly can have an opinion, the same as anyone. I simply don't understand your adamant declarations, not only in the above 2 replies but in most of your replies, and indeed on your website that the activities and pieces are LEGAL (you did the capitalization on your website) that your interpretation is absolutely correct. An example is your above posts. You do not know what Congress views, or what Congress does not view. You do not know what Congress thinks or what they do not think. You do not know what Congress was or is concerned about or not concerned about. You do not know what Congress would or would not have enacted, and you do not know what the Congressional view of "non-fraudulent minting" is or was, and indeed that term does not exist in the legislative record. yet you constantly declare all other thoughts that are not aligned with your opinion as wrong, wrong, wrong, and you change and finesse your wording of your position, and the wording of any particular document or existing law, and declare you are right, right, right. Fair enough.

The courts make rulings based on their perception of what Congress intended when passing various laws. Those rulings can be used to infer Congressional intent on what is (and what is not) in the law.

If there is noting that is remotely wrong with the pieces, why declare on your website that persons that purchase should not try to sell the pieces to others as a true coin? Why declare on your website that the person that has a piece has to tell anybody it is a fantasy piece? If it is LEGAL to produce the piece, wht does it suddenly become not legal by virtue of it being sold to someone else? The person that bought it from you and sold it to somebody else is not selling a counterfeit or fraudulent coin that harms the Government, are they? The person may be a con artist, but that is of no consequence. Then again, why would the person be a con artist? He bought the coin from you with your assurances that the piece is LEGAL. He bought the piece from you that the piece is over-struck on a genuine U.S. coin, and that is LEGAL. He bought the piece from you at a price you set. If he sells it for more, regardless of the story used to sell it, and states, this is a genuine U.S. coin that has a date on it that makes it very rare, and it was made by Mr. Carr, and is going up in value, because he only made so many. It is LEGAL, because he used to work at the Mint, and he even states non his website that it is LEGAL. It is a very valuable fantasy piece, but it is also a U.S. coin. What are you going to do about it?

Misrepresentation of an item with fraudulent intent is a crime. I am advising purchases of said items to not break the law.

........How is it misrepresentation? You are not reading and you are not answering the questions.........

Misrepresentation of a perfectly genuine coin is also a crime if done with fraudulent intent. For example, if a person buffed a Morgan Dollar and knew it was a damaged coin but then persuaded a person to spend a lot of money on the "high-grade mint-state" piece, that would be a crime. If I was selling polished and/or plated Morgan dollars (for example) I would also advise buyers not to misrepresent them upon resale, just like I do with fantasy-date over-strikes.

.......Where is and what is the fraudulent intent? Again, you are not reading and not answering the question. In my example, how I'd it different from what you do?...........

If I see anyone misrepresenting an item I produced (whether it be an over-strike or not), I will contact the person(s) involved and set the record straight.

.......Again, what is being misrepresented, and what record would need to be set straight? Is it not your piece produced by you?.....…...

So, what the heck are you warning everyone about on your website? Why do you state on the website not to try to spend it. Why not? If I go into a mom and pop store and say I want 2 of those R2D2 thingys and I am paying with this silver dollar with a fantasy date on it and silver is worth x dollars right now and your R2D2 thingys are less than that, what is not LEGAL about that?

I make no claims as to the legal tender status of the fantasy-date over-strikes, only that I advise people not to attempt to use them as legal tender. If the toy store owner wanted to take the over-struck silver dollar as barter in trade for the toy, that would be up to them.

........Why should it not be legal tender? Who are you to decide? Bit coin? Barter? If you make no claims, why advise not to? You already declare your piece is legal. It is silver is it not? It is an original U.S. coin over struck by you, it it not? If I take a $1 Bill and doodle on it and change the date on it, are you stating it is not legal tender? Exactly what would be wrong with that?........

If someone of similar talent as yours decides to buy your pieces, and change the design in some fashion, and then sell them as a one of a kind modified Carr piece and sells it for a lot more money than the market is selling a Carr piece for, do you have a legal problem with that?

So long as they market the piece with an appropriate description then I would have no problem with that. Several years ago, a "hobo" nickel carver took one of my "1933" fantasy-date over-strike Indian Head nickels and made a Hobo carving of it, leaving the "1933" date in place. They sold it for quite a bit more than I originally sold the "1933" over-strikes for. I had no problem with that at all, because they advertised it as a carved fantasy-date piece.

....What is and what is not appropriate? It is an original U.S. coin is it not?.......

If that same talented person decided to replicate your work and uses the same process and the same designs and sells them as Carr pieces and does not mark them as copies in any manner, do you have a legal problem with that?

I would not allow anyone to market something as a "Carr" piece if I did not make it. This would apply to fantasy-date over-strikes and original design tokens and medals. There have been a few instances on eBay where sellers of Chinese-made "1964-D" Peace dollar replicas (that were not over-strikes and were not marked "COPY") were selling them as the "Carr" piece. In those cases I contacted eBay and the auctions were quickly cancelled. I have not filed any complaints with eBay concerning the numerous auctions of Chinese "1964-D" Peace Dollars when those auctions do not attribute them as "Carr" pieces.

....Are you stating that my example would not be legal? Why not? How are you not going to allow it? Why would my example have to have the word copy on it? Because of the HPA? Because of some other law?......

Are not both examples I have used non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins? is it non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude?

If you are declaring the absolute legality of your position as the only correct legal position and all other positions wrong, why not have your Attorney proceed to a forum of legal adjudication and be done with all other opinions? Wouldn't that help your business grow? Or, is it better from a business standpoint to have the present atmosphere of possibly numismatic naughtiness, sort of an any press is good press thing (no play on words intended, but now that I think about it, it was pretty good )?

It has been said that there is no such thing as "bad press".

In the very unlikely event that there was ever a court case involving these fantasy-date over-strikes, that could actually be a boon to my business.

But that could also result in more people getting into doing this.

My business has not been, and is not currently, "growing". It is staying the same. I do not have plans to grow it. This is not the type of business where growing equates to more revenue. The reason is that the prices that can be obtained for collectible items is dependent on how many are produced. Growing and producing more has the effect of lowering the price that the items can be sold for, thus negating any benefits of said growth (and this isn't even taking into account the added expenses of a larger operation).

.......That is a reasonable business model. However, you did not address my other question, reference non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude, and what that actually means..........

BTW, I did check the legislative histories of the laws stated in this thread, and your name does not appear in any capacity in the legislative record.

I am not sure what you mean by this.

.......Simple. Your adamant declarations that you know what Congress thought, intended, interpreted and what they would and would not act on, and all other opinions and positions are wrong. I must conclude that the only way you could absolutely know the correct congressional intent and interpretation of the laws being discussed. Is if you were in some manner a part of the legislative decision process, maybe as staff, expert, congressional liaison, etc. As such, your name would be part of the legislative record, as would any papers you presented. Nothing shows up. So. It would appear all you have is an opinion, and your opinion is no less right or wrong than anyone else. But unfortunately, case law does not seem to favor your opinion. I would think you would want to correct that, and proceed to an adjudication forum. As you stated. It would also be good for your business.........

.....I think you have a number of illogical logic posits in your positions, and it is a little confusing as to how you arrive at a point of singular correctness of position.

As a sideline question, do you see any corporate slander issues in the opinions that have been stated about your endeavors?.............

Good morning Mr. Carr.

As a reminder, this hieroglyphic (?) is called a question mark, and is a symbol that alerts the reader that the words that were specifically directed to the reader, that came before the symbol, are formed to express to the reader that information is requested from the reader and possibly the reader can assist by providing some information of value, although it is implicitly understood that many times the reader does not provide information of value, either deliberately or because of lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

This symbol was developed in order to avoid confusion and to solve the mystery of the intent of words grouped together and whether or not an action was required by the person trying to comprehend the purpose of the words being grouped together.

With this explanation in mind, does anything strike you as to the use of the symbol...many times....in the above words that are grouped together and specifically directed to you?

When we examine issues closely, a mystery can easily be understood.

You sir are a complete j.a.c.k.a.s.s. Dan goes out of his way to answer almost every question he's asked in these threads and he misses a couple of yours and you throw a tantrum. You are without a doubt the exact definition of pretentious.

MJ · September 12, 2016

“Allowing others to produce imitation pieces that approximate official coin designs or inscriptions can undermine public confidence in U.S. coin and currency, and threaten the reputation of a government obligation/issue.”

Yet they do allow such coins and production of same to exist, do they not? ...

The Hobby Protection Act (HPA) specifically allows anyone to produce replicas of United States coins (with some restrictions). If Congress was concerned with the non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude to US Coins, they would have not enacted the HPA in the form that they did.

In other words, Congress does not view the non-fraudulent minting of replicas of US Coins as impugning the integrity of the Federal Government. Neither do they think that of non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins.

Curiosity only....you certainly can have an opinion, the same as anyone. I simply don't understand your adamant declarations, not only in the above 2 replies but in most of your replies, and indeed on your website that the activities and pieces are LEGAL (you did the capitalization on your website) that your interpretation is absolutely correct. An example is your above posts. You do not know what Congress views, or what Congress does not view. You do not know what Congress thinks or what they do not think. You do not know what Congress was or is concerned about or not concerned about. You do not know what Congress would or would not have enacted, and you do not know what the Congressional view of "non-fraudulent minting" is or was, and indeed that term does not exist in the legislative record. yet you constantly declare all other thoughts that are not aligned with your opinion as wrong, wrong, wrong, and you change and finesse your wording of your position, and the wording of any particular document or existing law, and declare you are right, right, right. Fair enough.

The courts make rulings based on their perception of what Congress intended when passing various laws. Those rulings can be used to infer Congressional intent on what is (and what is not) in the law.

If there is noting that is remotely wrong with the pieces, why declare on your website that persons that purchase should not try to sell the pieces to others as a true coin? Why declare on your website that the person that has a piece has to tell anybody it is a fantasy piece? If it is LEGAL to produce the piece, wht does it suddenly become not legal by virtue of it being sold to someone else? The person that bought it from you and sold it to somebody else is not selling a counterfeit or fraudulent coin that harms the Government, are they? The person may be a con artist, but that is of no consequence. Then again, why would the person be a con artist? He bought the coin from you with your assurances that the piece is LEGAL. He bought the piece from you that the piece is over-struck on a genuine U.S. coin, and that is LEGAL. He bought the piece from you at a price you set. If he sells it for more, regardless of the story used to sell it, and states, this is a genuine U.S. coin that has a date on it that makes it very rare, and it was made by Mr. Carr, and is going up in value, because he only made so many. It is LEGAL, because he used to work at the Mint, and he even states non his website that it is LEGAL. It is a very valuable fantasy piece, but it is also a U.S. coin. What are you going to do about it?

Misrepresentation of an item with fraudulent intent is a crime. I am advising purchases of said items to not break the law.

........How is it misrepresentation? You are not reading and you are not answering the questions.........

Misrepresentation of a perfectly genuine coin is also a crime if done with fraudulent intent. For example, if a person buffed a Morgan Dollar and knew it was a damaged coin but then persuaded a person to spend a lot of money on the "high-grade mint-state" piece, that would be a crime. If I was selling polished and/or plated Morgan dollars (for example) I would also advise buyers not to misrepresent them upon resale, just like I do with fantasy-date over-strikes.

.......Where is and what is the fraudulent intent? Again, you are not reading and not answering the question. In my example, how I'd it different from what you do?...........

If I see anyone misrepresenting an item I produced (whether it be an over-strike or not), I will contact the person(s) involved and set the record straight.

.......Again, what is being misrepresented, and what record would need to be set straight? Is it not your piece produced by you?.....…...

So, what the heck are you warning everyone about on your website? Why do you state on the website not to try to spend it. Why not? If I go into a mom and pop store and say I want 2 of those R2D2 thingys and I am paying with this silver dollar with a fantasy date on it and silver is worth x dollars right now and your R2D2 thingys are less than that, what is not LEGAL about that?

I make no claims as to the legal tender status of the fantasy-date over-strikes, only that I advise people not to attempt to use them as legal tender. If the toy store owner wanted to take the over-struck silver dollar as barter in trade for the toy, that would be up to them.

........Why should it not be legal tender? Who are you to decide? Bit coin? Barter? If you make no claims, why advise not to? You already declare your piece is legal. It is silver is it not? It is an original U.S. coin over struck by you, it it not? If I take a $1 Bill and doodle on it and change the date on it, are you stating it is not legal tender? Exactly what would be wrong with that?........

If someone of similar talent as yours decides to buy your pieces, and change the design in some fashion, and then sell them as a one of a kind modified Carr piece and sells it for a lot more money than the market is selling a Carr piece for, do you have a legal problem with that?

So long as they market the piece with an appropriate description then I would have no problem with that. Several years ago, a "hobo" nickel carver took one of my "1933" fantasy-date over-strike Indian Head nickels and made a Hobo carving of it, leaving the "1933" date in place. They sold it for quite a bit more than I originally sold the "1933" over-strikes for. I had no problem with that at all, because they advertised it as a carved fantasy-date piece.

....What is and what is not appropriate? It is an original U.S. coin is it not?.......

If that same talented person decided to replicate your work and uses the same process and the same designs and sells them as Carr pieces and does not mark them as copies in any manner, do you have a legal problem with that?

I would not allow anyone to market something as a "Carr" piece if I did not make it. This would apply to fantasy-date over-strikes and original design tokens and medals. There have been a few instances on eBay where sellers of Chinese-made "1964-D" Peace dollar replicas (that were not over-strikes and were not marked "COPY") were selling them as the "Carr" piece. In those cases I contacted eBay and the auctions were quickly cancelled. I have not filed any complaints with eBay concerning the numerous auctions of Chinese "1964-D" Peace Dollars when those auctions do not attribute them as "Carr" pieces.

....Are you stating that my example would not be legal? Why not? How are you not going to allow it? Why would my example have to have the word copy on it? Because of the HPA? Because of some other law?......

Are not both examples I have used non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins? is it non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude?

If you are declaring the absolute legality of your position as the only correct legal position and all other positions wrong, why not have your Attorney proceed to a forum of legal adjudication and be done with all other opinions? Wouldn't that help your business grow? Or, is it better from a business standpoint to have the present atmosphere of possibly numismatic naughtiness, sort of an any press is good press thing (no play on words intended, but now that I think about it, it was pretty good )?

It has been said that there is no such thing as "bad press".

In the very unlikely event that there was ever a court case involving these fantasy-date over-strikes, that could actually be a boon to my business.

But that could also result in more people getting into doing this.

My business has not been, and is not currently, "growing". It is staying the same. I do not have plans to grow it. This is not the type of business where growing equates to more revenue. The reason is that the prices that can be obtained for collectible items is dependent on how many are produced. Growing and producing more has the effect of lowering the price that the items can be sold for, thus negating any benefits of said growth (and this isn't even taking into account the added expenses of a larger operation).

.......That is a reasonable business model. However, you did not address my other question, reference non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude, and what that actually means..........

BTW, I did check the legislative histories of the laws stated in this thread, and your name does not appear in any capacity in the legislative record.

I am not sure what you mean by this.

.......Simple. Your adamant declarations that you know what Congress thought, intended, interpreted and what they would and would not act on, and all other opinions and positions are wrong. I must conclude that the only way you could absolutely know the correct congressional intent and interpretation of the laws being discussed. Is if you were in some manner a part of the legislative decision process, maybe as staff, expert, congressional liaison, etc. As such, your name would be part of the legislative record, as would any papers you presented. Nothing shows up. So. It would appear all you have is an opinion, and your opinion is no less right or wrong than anyone else. But unfortunately, case law does not seem to favor your opinion. I would think you would want to correct that, and proceed to an adjudication forum. As you stated. It would also be good for your business.........

.....I think you have a number of illogical logic posits in your positions, and it is a little confusing as to how you arrive at a point of singular correctness of position.

As a sideline question, do you see any corporate slander issues in the opinions that have been stated about your endeavors?.............

Good morning Mr. Carr.

As a reminder, this hieroglyphic (?) is called a question mark, and is a symbol that alerts the reader that the words that were specifically directed to the reader, that came before the symbol, are formed to express to the reader that information is requested from the reader and possibly the reader can assist by providing some information of value, although it is implicitly understood that many times the reader does not provide information of value, either deliberately or because of lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

This symbol was developed in order to avoid confusion and to solve the mystery of the intent of words grouped together and whether or not an action was required by the person trying to comprehend the purpose of the words being grouped together.

With this explanation in mind, does anything strike you as to the use of the symbol...many times....in the above words that are grouped together and specifically directed to you?

When we examine issues closely, a mystery can easily be understood.

You sir are a complete j.a.c.k.a.s.s. Dan goes out of his way to answer almost every question he's asked in these threads and he misses a couple of yours and you throw a tantrum. You are without a doubt the exact definition of pretentious.

I'm at 73% now after his last couple of posts.

mark

Mr.Mcknowitall · September 12, 2016

“Allowing others to produce imitation pieces that approximate official coin designs or inscriptions can undermine public confidence in U.S. coin and currency, and threaten the reputation of a government obligation/issue.”

Yet they do allow such coins and production of same to exist, do they not? ...

The Hobby Protection Act (HPA) specifically allows anyone to produce replicas of United States coins (with some restrictions). If Congress was concerned with the non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude to US Coins, they would have not enacted the HPA in the form that they did.

In other words, Congress does not view the non-fraudulent minting of replicas of US Coins as impugning the integrity of the Federal Government. Neither do they think that of non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins.

Curiosity only....you certainly can have an opinion, the same as anyone. I simply don't understand your adamant declarations, not only in the above 2 replies but in most of your replies, and indeed on your website that the activities and pieces are LEGAL (you did the capitalization on your website) that your interpretation is absolutely correct. An example is your above posts. You do not know what Congress views, or what Congress does not view. You do not know what Congress thinks or what they do not think. You do not know what Congress was or is concerned about or not concerned about. You do not know what Congress would or would not have enacted, and you do not know what the Congressional view of "non-fraudulent minting" is or was, and indeed that term does not exist in the legislative record. yet you constantly declare all other thoughts that are not aligned with your opinion as wrong, wrong, wrong, and you change and finesse your wording of your position, and the wording of any particular document or existing law, and declare you are right, right, right. Fair enough.

The courts make rulings based on their perception of what Congress intended when passing various laws. Those rulings can be used to infer Congressional intent on what is (and what is not) in the law.

If there is noting that is remotely wrong with the pieces, why declare on your website that persons that purchase should not try to sell the pieces to others as a true coin? Why declare on your website that the person that has a piece has to tell anybody it is a fantasy piece? If it is LEGAL to produce the piece, wht does it suddenly become not legal by virtue of it being sold to someone else? The person that bought it from you and sold it to somebody else is not selling a counterfeit or fraudulent coin that harms the Government, are they? The person may be a con artist, but that is of no consequence. Then again, why would the person be a con artist? He bought the coin from you with your assurances that the piece is LEGAL. He bought the piece from you that the piece is over-struck on a genuine U.S. coin, and that is LEGAL. He bought the piece from you at a price you set. If he sells it for more, regardless of the story used to sell it, and states, this is a genuine U.S. coin that has a date on it that makes it very rare, and it was made by Mr. Carr, and is going up in value, because he only made so many. It is LEGAL, because he used to work at the Mint, and he even states non his website that it is LEGAL. It is a very valuable fantasy piece, but it is also a U.S. coin. What are you going to do about it?

Misrepresentation of an item with fraudulent intent is a crime. I am advising purchases of said items to not break the law.

........How is it misrepresentation? You are not reading and you are not answering the questions.........

Misrepresentation of a perfectly genuine coin is also a crime if done with fraudulent intent. For example, if a person buffed a Morgan Dollar and knew it was a damaged coin but then persuaded a person to spend a lot of money on the "high-grade mint-state" piece, that would be a crime. If I was selling polished and/or plated Morgan dollars (for example) I would also advise buyers not to misrepresent them upon resale, just like I do with fantasy-date over-strikes.

.......Where is and what is the fraudulent intent? Again, you are not reading and not answering the question. In my example, how I'd it different from what you do?...........

If I see anyone misrepresenting an item I produced (whether it be an over-strike or not), I will contact the person(s) involved and set the record straight.

.......Again, what is being misrepresented, and what record would need to be set straight? Is it not your piece produced by you?.....…...

So, what the heck are you warning everyone about on your website? Why do you state on the website not to try to spend it. Why not? If I go into a mom and pop store and say I want 2 of those R2D2 thingys and I am paying with this silver dollar with a fantasy date on it and silver is worth x dollars right now and your R2D2 thingys are less than that, what is not LEGAL about that?

I make no claims as to the legal tender status of the fantasy-date over-strikes, only that I advise people not to attempt to use them as legal tender. If the toy store owner wanted to take the over-struck silver dollar as barter in trade for the toy, that would be up to them.

........Why should it not be legal tender? Who are you to decide? Bit coin? Barter? If you make no claims, why advise not to? You already declare your piece is legal. It is silver is it not? It is an original U.S. coin over struck by you, it it not? If I take a $1 Bill and doodle on it and change the date on it, are you stating it is not legal tender? Exactly what would be wrong with that?........

If someone of similar talent as yours decides to buy your pieces, and change the design in some fashion, and then sell them as a one of a kind modified Carr piece and sells it for a lot more money than the market is selling a Carr piece for, do you have a legal problem with that?

So long as they market the piece with an appropriate description then I would have no problem with that. Several years ago, a "hobo" nickel carver took one of my "1933" fantasy-date over-strike Indian Head nickels and made a Hobo carving of it, leaving the "1933" date in place. They sold it for quite a bit more than I originally sold the "1933" over-strikes for. I had no problem with that at all, because they advertised it as a carved fantasy-date piece.

....What is and what is not appropriate? It is an original U.S. coin is it not?.......

If that same talented person decided to replicate your work and uses the same process and the same designs and sells them as Carr pieces and does not mark them as copies in any manner, do you have a legal problem with that?

I would not allow anyone to market something as a "Carr" piece if I did not make it. This would apply to fantasy-date over-strikes and original design tokens and medals. There have been a few instances on eBay where sellers of Chinese-made "1964-D" Peace dollar replicas (that were not over-strikes and were not marked "COPY") were selling them as the "Carr" piece. In those cases I contacted eBay and the auctions were quickly cancelled. I have not filed any complaints with eBay concerning the numerous auctions of Chinese "1964-D" Peace Dollars when those auctions do not attribute them as "Carr" pieces.

....Are you stating that my example would not be legal? Why not? How are you not going to allow it? Why would my example have to have the word copy on it? Because of the HPA? Because of some other law?......

Are not both examples I have used non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins? is it non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude?

If you are declaring the absolute legality of your position as the only correct legal position and all other positions wrong, why not have your Attorney proceed to a forum of legal adjudication and be done with all other opinions? Wouldn't that help your business grow? Or, is it better from a business standpoint to have the present atmosphere of possibly numismatic naughtiness, sort of an any press is good press thing (no play on words intended, but now that I think about it, it was pretty good )?

It has been said that there is no such thing as "bad press".

In the very unlikely event that there was ever a court case involving these fantasy-date over-strikes, that could actually be a boon to my business.

But that could also result in more people getting into doing this.

My business has not been, and is not currently, "growing". It is staying the same. I do not have plans to grow it. This is not the type of business where growing equates to more revenue. The reason is that the prices that can be obtained for collectible items is dependent on how many are produced. Growing and producing more has the effect of lowering the price that the items can be sold for, thus negating any benefits of said growth (and this isn't even taking into account the added expenses of a larger operation).

.......That is a reasonable business model. However, you did not address my other question, reference non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude, and what that actually means..........

BTW, I did check the legislative histories of the laws stated in this thread, and your name does not appear in any capacity in the legislative record.

I am not sure what you mean by this.

.......Simple. Your adamant declarations that you know what Congress thought, intended, interpreted and what they would and would not act on, and all other opinions and positions are wrong. I must conclude that the only way you could absolutely know the correct congressional intent and interpretation of the laws being discussed. Is if you were in some manner a part of the legislative decision process, maybe as staff, expert, congressional liaison, etc. As such, your name would be part of the legislative record, as would any papers you presented. Nothing shows up. So. It would appear all you have is an opinion, and your opinion is no less right or wrong than anyone else. But unfortunately, case law does not seem to favor your opinion. I would think you would want to correct that, and proceed to an adjudication forum. As you stated. It would also be good for your business.........

.....I think you have a number of illogical logic posits in your positions, and it is a little confusing as to how you arrive at a point of singular correctness of position.

As a sideline question, do you see any corporate slander issues in the opinions that have been stated about your endeavors?.............

Good morning Mr. Carr.

As a reminder, this hieroglyphic (?) is called a question mark, and is a symbol that alerts the reader that the words that were specifically directed to the reader, that came before the symbol, are formed to express to the reader that information is requested from the reader and possibly the reader can assist by providing some information of value, although it is implicitly understood that many times the reader does not provide information of value, either deliberately or because of lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

This symbol was developed in order to avoid confusion and to solve the mystery of the intent of words grouped together and whether or not an action was required by the person trying to comprehend the purpose of the words being grouped together.

With this explanation in mind, does anything strike you as to the use of the symbol...many times....in the above words that are grouped together and specifically directed to you?

When we examine issues closely, a mystery can easily be understood.

You sir are a complete j.a.c.k.a.s.s. Dan goes out of his way to answer almost every question he's asked in these threads and he misses a couple of yours and you throw a tantrum. You are without a doubt the exact definition of pretentious.

I'm at 73% now after his last couple of posts.

mark

Keep practicing (thumbs u

Mr.Mcknowitall · September 12, 2016

“Allowing others to produce imitation pieces that approximate official coin designs or inscriptions can undermine public confidence in U.S. coin and currency, and threaten the reputation of a government obligation/issue.”

Yet they do allow such coins and production of same to exist, do they not? ...

The Hobby Protection Act (HPA) specifically allows anyone to produce replicas of United States coins (with some restrictions). If Congress was concerned with the non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude to US Coins, they would have not enacted the HPA in the form that they did.

In other words, Congress does not view the non-fraudulent minting of replicas of US Coins as impugning the integrity of the Federal Government. Neither do they think that of non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins.

Curiosity only....you certainly can have an opinion, the same as anyone. I simply don't understand your adamant declarations, not only in the above 2 replies but in most of your replies, and indeed on your website that the activities and pieces are LEGAL (you did the capitalization on your website) that your interpretation is absolutely correct. An example is your above posts. You do not know what Congress views, or what Congress does not view. You do not know what Congress thinks or what they do not think. You do not know what Congress was or is concerned about or not concerned about. You do not know what Congress would or would not have enacted, and you do not know what the Congressional view of "non-fraudulent minting" is or was, and indeed that term does not exist in the legislative record. yet you constantly declare all other thoughts that are not aligned with your opinion as wrong, wrong, wrong, and you change and finesse your wording of your position, and the wording of any particular document or existing law, and declare you are right, right, right. Fair enough.

The courts make rulings based on their perception of what Congress intended when passing various laws. Those rulings can be used to infer Congressional intent on what is (and what is not) in the law.

If there is noting that is remotely wrong with the pieces, why declare on your website that persons that purchase should not try to sell the pieces to others as a true coin? Why declare on your website that the person that has a piece has to tell anybody it is a fantasy piece? If it is LEGAL to produce the piece, wht does it suddenly become not legal by virtue of it being sold to someone else? The person that bought it from you and sold it to somebody else is not selling a counterfeit or fraudulent coin that harms the Government, are they? The person may be a con artist, but that is of no consequence. Then again, why would the person be a con artist? He bought the coin from you with your assurances that the piece is LEGAL. He bought the piece from you that the piece is over-struck on a genuine U.S. coin, and that is LEGAL. He bought the piece from you at a price you set. If he sells it for more, regardless of the story used to sell it, and states, this is a genuine U.S. coin that has a date on it that makes it very rare, and it was made by Mr. Carr, and is going up in value, because he only made so many. It is LEGAL, because he used to work at the Mint, and he even states non his website that it is LEGAL. It is a very valuable fantasy piece, but it is also a U.S. coin. What are you going to do about it?

Misrepresentation of an item with fraudulent intent is a crime. I am advising purchases of said items to not break the law.

........How is it misrepresentation? You are not reading and you are not answering the questions.........

Misrepresentation of a perfectly genuine coin is also a crime if done with fraudulent intent. For example, if a person buffed a Morgan Dollar and knew it was a damaged coin but then persuaded a person to spend a lot of money on the "high-grade mint-state" piece, that would be a crime. If I was selling polished and/or plated Morgan dollars (for example) I would also advise buyers not to misrepresent them upon resale, just like I do with fantasy-date over-strikes.

.......Where is and what is the fraudulent intent? Again, you are not reading and not answering the question. In my example, how I'd it different from what you do?...........

If I see anyone misrepresenting an item I produced (whether it be an over-strike or not), I will contact the person(s) involved and set the record straight.

.......Again, what is being misrepresented, and what record would need to be set straight? Is it not your piece produced by you?.....…...

So, what the heck are you warning everyone about on your website? Why do you state on the website not to try to spend it. Why not? If I go into a mom and pop store and say I want 2 of those R2D2 thingys and I am paying with this silver dollar with a fantasy date on it and silver is worth x dollars right now and your R2D2 thingys are less than that, what is not LEGAL about that?

I make no claims as to the legal tender status of the fantasy-date over-strikes, only that I advise people not to attempt to use them as legal tender. If the toy store owner wanted to take the over-struck silver dollar as barter in trade for the toy, that would be up to them.

........Why should it not be legal tender? Who are you to decide? Bit coin? Barter? If you make no claims, why advise not to? You already declare your piece is legal. It is silver is it not? It is an original U.S. coin over struck by you, it it not? If I take a $1 Bill and doodle on it and change the date on it, are you stating it is not legal tender? Exactly what would be wrong with that?........

If someone of similar talent as yours decides to buy your pieces, and change the design in some fashion, and then sell them as a one of a kind modified Carr piece and sells it for a lot more money than the market is selling a Carr piece for, do you have a legal problem with that?

So long as they market the piece with an appropriate description then I would have no problem with that. Several years ago, a "hobo" nickel carver took one of my "1933" fantasy-date over-strike Indian Head nickels and made a Hobo carving of it, leaving the "1933" date in place. They sold it for quite a bit more than I originally sold the "1933" over-strikes for. I had no problem with that at all, because they advertised it as a carved fantasy-date piece.

....What is and what is not appropriate? It is an original U.S. coin is it not?.......

If that same talented person decided to replicate your work and uses the same process and the same designs and sells them as Carr pieces and does not mark them as copies in any manner, do you have a legal problem with that?

I would not allow anyone to market something as a "Carr" piece if I did not make it. This would apply to fantasy-date over-strikes and original design tokens and medals. There have been a few instances on eBay where sellers of Chinese-made "1964-D" Peace dollar replicas (that were not over-strikes and were not marked "COPY") were selling them as the "Carr" piece. In those cases I contacted eBay and the auctions were quickly cancelled. I have not filed any complaints with eBay concerning the numerous auctions of Chinese "1964-D" Peace Dollars when those auctions do not attribute them as "Carr" pieces.

....Are you stating that my example would not be legal? Why not? How are you not going to allow it? Why would my example have to have the word copy on it? Because of the HPA? Because of some other law?......

Are not both examples I have used non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins? is it non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude?

If you are declaring the absolute legality of your position as the only correct legal position and all other positions wrong, why not have your Attorney proceed to a forum of legal adjudication and be done with all other opinions? Wouldn't that help your business grow? Or, is it better from a business standpoint to have the present atmosphere of possibly numismatic naughtiness, sort of an any press is good press thing (no play on words intended, but now that I think about it, it was pretty good )?

It has been said that there is no such thing as "bad press".

In the very unlikely event that there was ever a court case involving these fantasy-date over-strikes, that could actually be a boon to my business.

But that could also result in more people getting into doing this.

My business has not been, and is not currently, "growing". It is staying the same. I do not have plans to grow it. This is not the type of business where growing equates to more revenue. The reason is that the prices that can be obtained for collectible items is dependent on how many are produced. Growing and producing more has the effect of lowering the price that the items can be sold for, thus negating any benefits of said growth (and this isn't even taking into account the added expenses of a larger operation).

.......That is a reasonable business model. However, you did not address my other question, reference non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude, and what that actually means..........

BTW, I did check the legislative histories of the laws stated in this thread, and your name does not appear in any capacity in the legislative record.

I am not sure what you mean by this.

.......Simple. Your adamant declarations that you know what Congress thought, intended, interpreted and what they would and would not act on, and all other opinions and positions are wrong. I must conclude that the only way you could absolutely know the correct congressional intent and interpretation of the laws being discussed. Is if you were in some manner a part of the legislative decision process, maybe as staff, expert, congressional liaison, etc. As such, your name would be part of the legislative record, as would any papers you presented. Nothing shows up. So. It would appear all you have is an opinion, and your opinion is no less right or wrong than anyone else. But unfortunately, case law does not seem to favor your opinion. I would think you would want to correct that, and proceed to an adjudication forum. As you stated. It would also be good for your business.........

.....I think you have a number of illogical logic posits in your positions, and it is a little confusing as to how you arrive at a point of singular correctness of position.

As a sideline question, do you see any corporate slander issues in the opinions that have been stated about your endeavors?.............

Good morning Mr. Carr.

As a reminder, this hieroglyphic (?) is called a question mark, and is a symbol that alerts the reader that the words that were specifically directed to the reader, that came before the symbol, are formed to express to the reader that information is requested from the reader and possibly the reader can assist by providing some information of value, although it is implicitly understood that many times the reader does not provide information of value, either deliberately or because of lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

This symbol was developed in order to avoid confusion and to solve the mystery of the intent of words grouped together and whether or not an action was required by the person trying to comprehend the purpose of the words being grouped together.

With this explanation in mind, does anything strike you as to the use of the symbol...many times....in the above words that are grouped together and specifically directed to you?

When we examine issues closely, a mystery can easily be understood.

You sir are a complete j.a.c.k.a.s.s. Dan goes out of his way to answer almost every question he's asked in these threads and he misses a couple of yours and you throw a tantrum. You are without a doubt the exact definition of pretentious.

Your choice of physical description and definition of my psyche, while most likely correct in the opinion of many, does not move to a conclusion of the quest to have the questions answered.

I appreciate that you feel the need to resort to childish school yard behavior and name calling in an attempt to belittle the person you have allowed to disturb your day when you disagree with the opinions of others on a public chat board, in order to vent your frustrations. I sometimes have the passing thought to do the same, but maturity takes control, Thank God, and I am able to function without the need of an adult version of nanananana.

There is an alternative. Simply ignore my posts. It is that easy.

nk1nk · September 12, 2016

“Allowing others to produce imitation pieces that approximate official coin designs or inscriptions can undermine public confidence in U.S. coin and currency, and threaten the reputation of a government obligation/issue.”

Yet they do allow such coins and production of same to exist, do they not? ...

The Hobby Protection Act (HPA) specifically allows anyone to produce replicas of United States coins (with some restrictions). If Congress was concerned with the non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude to US Coins, they would have not enacted the HPA in the form that they did.

In other words, Congress does not view the non-fraudulent minting of replicas of US Coins as impugning the integrity of the Federal Government. Neither do they think that of non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins.

Curiosity only....you certainly can have an opinion, the same as anyone. I simply don't understand your adamant declarations, not only in the above 2 replies but in most of your replies, and indeed on your website that the activities and pieces are LEGAL (you did the capitalization on your website) that your interpretation is absolutely correct. An example is your above posts. You do not know what Congress views, or what Congress does not view. You do not know what Congress thinks or what they do not think. You do not know what Congress was or is concerned about or not concerned about. You do not know what Congress would or would not have enacted, and you do not know what the Congressional view of "non-fraudulent minting" is or was, and indeed that term does not exist in the legislative record. yet you constantly declare all other thoughts that are not aligned with your opinion as wrong, wrong, wrong, and you change and finesse your wording of your position, and the wording of any particular document or existing law, and declare you are right, right, right. Fair enough.

The courts make rulings based on their perception of what Congress intended when passing various laws. Those rulings can be used to infer Congressional intent on what is (and what is not) in the law.

If there is noting that is remotely wrong with the pieces, why declare on your website that persons that purchase should not try to sell the pieces to others as a true coin? Why declare on your website that the person that has a piece has to tell anybody it is a fantasy piece? If it is LEGAL to produce the piece, wht does it suddenly become not legal by virtue of it being sold to someone else? The person that bought it from you and sold it to somebody else is not selling a counterfeit or fraudulent coin that harms the Government, are they? The person may be a con artist, but that is of no consequence. Then again, why would the person be a con artist? He bought the coin from you with your assurances that the piece is LEGAL. He bought the piece from you that the piece is over-struck on a genuine U.S. coin, and that is LEGAL. He bought the piece from you at a price you set. If he sells it for more, regardless of the story used to sell it, and states, this is a genuine U.S. coin that has a date on it that makes it very rare, and it was made by Mr. Carr, and is going up in value, because he only made so many. It is LEGAL, because he used to work at the Mint, and he even states non his website that it is LEGAL. It is a very valuable fantasy piece, but it is also a U.S. coin. What are you going to do about it?

Misrepresentation of an item with fraudulent intent is a crime. I am advising purchases of said items to not break the law.

........How is it misrepresentation? You are not reading and you are not answering the questions.........

Misrepresentation of a perfectly genuine coin is also a crime if done with fraudulent intent. For example, if a person buffed a Morgan Dollar and knew it was a damaged coin but then persuaded a person to spend a lot of money on the "high-grade mint-state" piece, that would be a crime. If I was selling polished and/or plated Morgan dollars (for example) I would also advise buyers not to misrepresent them upon resale, just like I do with fantasy-date over-strikes.

.......Where is and what is the fraudulent intent? Again, you are not reading and not answering the question. In my example, how I'd it different from what you do?...........

If I see anyone misrepresenting an item I produced (whether it be an over-strike or not), I will contact the person(s) involved and set the record straight.

.......Again, what is being misrepresented, and what record would need to be set straight? Is it not your piece produced by you?.....…...

So, what the heck are you warning everyone about on your website? Why do you state on the website not to try to spend it. Why not? If I go into a mom and pop store and say I want 2 of those R2D2 thingys and I am paying with this silver dollar with a fantasy date on it and silver is worth x dollars right now and your R2D2 thingys are less than that, what is not LEGAL about that?

I make no claims as to the legal tender status of the fantasy-date over-strikes, only that I advise people not to attempt to use them as legal tender. If the toy store owner wanted to take the over-struck silver dollar as barter in trade for the toy, that would be up to them.

........Why should it not be legal tender? Who are you to decide? Bit coin? Barter? If you make no claims, why advise not to? You already declare your piece is legal. It is silver is it not? It is an original U.S. coin over struck by you, it it not? If I take a $1 Bill and doodle on it and change the date on it, are you stating it is not legal tender? Exactly what would be wrong with that?........

If someone of similar talent as yours decides to buy your pieces, and change the design in some fashion, and then sell them as a one of a kind modified Carr piece and sells it for a lot more money than the market is selling a Carr piece for, do you have a legal problem with that?

So long as they market the piece with an appropriate description then I would have no problem with that. Several years ago, a "hobo" nickel carver took one of my "1933" fantasy-date over-strike Indian Head nickels and made a Hobo carving of it, leaving the "1933" date in place. They sold it for quite a bit more than I originally sold the "1933" over-strikes for. I had no problem with that at all, because they advertised it as a carved fantasy-date piece.

....What is and what is not appropriate? It is an original U.S. coin is it not?.......

If that same talented person decided to replicate your work and uses the same process and the same designs and sells them as Carr pieces and does not mark them as copies in any manner, do you have a legal problem with that?

I would not allow anyone to market something as a "Carr" piece if I did not make it. This would apply to fantasy-date over-strikes and original design tokens and medals. There have been a few instances on eBay where sellers of Chinese-made "1964-D" Peace dollar replicas (that were not over-strikes and were not marked "COPY") were selling them as the "Carr" piece. In those cases I contacted eBay and the auctions were quickly cancelled. I have not filed any complaints with eBay concerning the numerous auctions of Chinese "1964-D" Peace Dollars when those auctions do not attribute them as "Carr" pieces.

....Are you stating that my example would not be legal? Why not? How are you not going to allow it? Why would my example have to have the word copy on it? Because of the HPA? Because of some other law?......

Are not both examples I have used non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins? is it non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude?

If you are declaring the absolute legality of your position as the only correct legal position and all other positions wrong, why not have your Attorney proceed to a forum of legal adjudication and be done with all other opinions? Wouldn't that help your business grow? Or, is it better from a business standpoint to have the present atmosphere of possibly numismatic naughtiness, sort of an any press is good press thing (no play on words intended, but now that I think about it, it was pretty good )?

It has been said that there is no such thing as "bad press".

In the very unlikely event that there was ever a court case involving these fantasy-date over-strikes, that could actually be a boon to my business.

But that could also result in more people getting into doing this.

My business has not been, and is not currently, "growing". It is staying the same. I do not have plans to grow it. This is not the type of business where growing equates to more revenue. The reason is that the prices that can be obtained for collectible items is dependent on how many are produced. Growing and producing more has the effect of lowering the price that the items can be sold for, thus negating any benefits of said growth (and this isn't even taking into account the added expenses of a larger operation).

.......That is a reasonable business model. However, you did not address my other question, reference non-fraudulent minting of things in similitude, and what that actually means..........

BTW, I did check the legislative histories of the laws stated in this thread, and your name does not appear in any capacity in the legislative record.

I am not sure what you mean by this.

.......Simple. Your adamant declarations that you know what Congress thought, intended, interpreted and what they would and would not act on, and all other opinions and positions are wrong. I must conclude that the only way you could absolutely know the correct congressional intent and interpretation of the laws being discussed. Is if you were in some manner a part of the legislative decision process, maybe as staff, expert, congressional liaison, etc. As such, your name would be part of the legislative record, as would any papers you presented. Nothing shows up. So. It would appear all you have is an opinion, and your opinion is no less right or wrong than anyone else. But unfortunately, case law does not seem to favor your opinion. I would think you would want to correct that, and proceed to an adjudication forum. As you stated. It would also be good for your business.........

.....I think you have a number of illogical logic posits in your positions, and it is a little confusing as to how you arrive at a point of singular correctness of position.

As a sideline question, do you see any corporate slander issues in the opinions that have been stated about your endeavors?.............

Good morning Mr. Carr.

As a reminder, this hieroglyphic (?) is called a question mark, and is a symbol that alerts the reader that the words that were specifically directed to the reader, that came before the symbol, are formed to express to the reader that information is requested from the reader and possibly the reader can assist by providing some information of value, although it is implicitly understood that many times the reader does not provide information of value, either deliberately or because of lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

This symbol was developed in order to avoid confusion and to solve the mystery of the intent of words grouped together and whether or not an action was required by the person trying to comprehend the purpose of the words being grouped together.

With this explanation in mind, does anything strike you as to the use of the symbol...many times....in the above words that are grouped together and specifically directed to you?

When we examine issues closely, a mystery can easily be understood.

You sir are a complete j.a.c.k.a.s.s. Dan goes out of his way to answer almost every question he's asked in these threads and he misses a couple of yours and you throw a tantrum. You are without a doubt the exact definition of pretentious.

Your choice of physical description and definition of my psyche, while most likely correct in the opinion of many, does not move to a conclusion of the quest to have the questions answered.

I appreciate that you feel the need to resort to childish school yard behavior and name calling in an attempt to belittle the person you have allowed to disturb your day when you disagree with the opinions of others on a public chat board, in order to vent your frustrations. I sometimes have the passing thought to do the same, but maturity takes control, Thank God, and I am able to function without the need of an adult version of nanananana.

There is an alternative. Simply ignore my posts. It is that easy.

Oh and your eloquent tutorial on the question mark isn't childish school yard behavior? Yeah thank God your maturity shined thru there.

Edited September 12, 2016 by nk1nk

Dcarr over strike question. 1 1

322 posts in this topic

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Dcarr over strike question.

1 1