Back to the Hobby Protection Act – Please.

[CascadeChris]

Where's all the outrage for gold plated state quarters that are not marked "not solid gold"? These pieces are a much bigger threat to some unknowledgeable collector losing big money on a scam sale than any Carr overstrike

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Where's all the outrage for gold plated state quarters that are not marked "not solid gold"? These pieces are a much bigger threat to some unknowledgeable collector losing big money on a scam sale than any Carr overstrike

 

and? Set aside the "threat" issue, if you can for just awhile, and consider that is not the thrust of the issue. Nobody is playing drama queen and screaming outrage.

 

I would be interested in your thoughts concerning my question to Mr. Feld, if you care to share.

[coinman_23885]

Where's all the outrage for gold plated state quarters that are not marked "not solid gold"? These pieces are a much bigger threat to some unknowledgeable collector losing big money on a scam sale than any Carr overstrike

 

My criticism isn't limited to Carr alone, and there are a number of other pieces that I have problems with. Carr is merely more brazen IMHO.

[Afterword]

I suspect that if you saw the dozens of ("what's my coin worth?") emails that I do each week, you might feel differently. It's amazing and disturbing, how little, so many people who buy coins, know so little about them. And that includes many laughable counterfeits. It can be difficult for knowledgeable collectors to remember back to the days when they knew virtually nothing about coins. And who, therefore, have little or no empathy for the uninformed.

 

Did any of the people that ask you about their coins ask about Dan's coins? While we've all heard stories of how people have been ripped off by coins, I haven't heard a single one for Dan's coins yet. As mentioned, Dan's coins generally do well on the secondary market so many collectors may be better off with Dan's coins. So while I understand the general concern, the concern doesn't seem to map to the reality that I've seen.

 

And, to be honest, I feel the collector without a lot of coin background would be better off buying Dan's coins directly and having them rise in the secondary market than buying slabbed/unslabbed classic coins where knowing about overgrading, retail vs. wholesale and widgets is very important. There are many stories of collectors having bad dealings with in coins when they are not knowledgable and paying a lot of "tuition." I wish it weren't true, but after learning about the industry on these forums and elsewhere, I'm very careful about which classic coins I buy due to the wholesale vs retail difference and the need to understanding grading for each series. I generally feel much more confident about buying one of Dan's coins than a classic coin that I haven't studied. With a general new issue from Dan, the price will often go up on the secondary market. With a general classic coin, who knows what will happen, you may even get ripped.

 

So while the strawman arguments against Dan's coins seem theoretical and not reflected in reality, the losses from buying classic coins often seem real from the stories from many collectors paying tuition.

 

None of the emails have mentioned Carr coins, as best I recall. But as noted elsewhere in this thread, others have received inquiries about them. And I'm confident that in time, I will, too.

 

One of the points of my post was to try to remind the informed collectors, how many uninformed buyers there are out there. And that even if long ago, at one time, each of us was equally uninformed.

 

In the capacity of fielding emails from others concerning coins that you are addressing, I have a question.

 

If, in time, your prediction comes about, that you receive an inquiry concerning a Moonlight Mint piece, what would you reply?

 

Keep in mind that the following statements are on the Moonlight Mint website:

 

"1964-D" Morgan Silver Dollar fantasy issue, High-Grade Finish"

 

"This modern fantasy is LEGAL and is not required to carry a "COPY" stamp for the following reasons:

 

1)These are not copies of Morgan silver dollars-they are privately over-struck on GENUINE government-issue silver dollars that were originally minted from 1878-1921.

2)According to the U.S. Treasury,no 1964 dollars were ever minted-so this can't be a copy of one since they don't exist.

3)Defacing of US coins is legal so long as the defacement isn't for fraudulent purposes.

 

By purchasing one or more of these coins, the buyer agrees to provided full disclosure of their origin when reselling them.Failure to provide potential buyers with complete and accurate information when offering these coins could result in criminal and/or civil fraud charges. In other words, don't even think about trying to sell these to unaware buyers as as original 1964-D Morgan silver dollars!"

 

Note that this was a random choice of listing, and selecting the particular date/type is not for any nefarious or tricky reason. All the listings have some format of the wording, some don't.

 

 

I would direct them to this thread and others addressing the issue and Carr's website and let them decide for themselves.

[Zoins]

One of the points of my post was to try to remind the informed collectors, how many uninformed buyers there are out there. And that even if long ago, at one time, each of us was equally uninformed.

 

This is an interesting point, but one that I've experienced much differently.

 

When I was uninformed, I made a purchase I later regretted. I came on the forums (here or ATS) and discussed my situation. Everyone (as I recall) told me I lost my money to the dealer, the dealer should not take the coin back, and to chalk it up to tuition. I don't think a single person thought I should be able to return the coin due to being uninformed.

 

Now compare that to working with Dan where I can return pieces and he takes them back without question.

 

So from my personal experience, and that of reading online, there seems to be a lot of concern about Dan's pieces when there is no actual loss, and what seems to be much less concern about other coins including US classic coins where people happily talk about all the tuition they paid which are real losses. It just seems strange to me.

 

Today, I'm much more confident about my areas of speciality. I'll jump in sight unseen for classics much higher in dollar value than my Dan Carr pieces, and I'll make these commitments within minutes. However, this is a very limited speciality that I built up over years. Dan's pieces are much different in that they are fun, simple and have no evidence of loss. Why remove that fun and enjoyment for others when there's no evidence of loss, and further restrict people to coins that are subjected to overgrading, retail markups, and more required study? Years of study to prevent loss isn't bad, it's just that if everything one collects is that way, then people tend to become very specialized to avoid losses, which reduces the fun of collecting.

[MarkFeld]

I suspect that if you saw the dozens of ("what's my coin worth?") emails that I do each week, you might feel differently. It's amazing and disturbing, how little, so many people who buy coins, know so little about them. And that includes many laughable counterfeits. It can be difficult for knowledgeable collectors to remember back to the days when they knew virtually nothing about coins. And who, therefore, have little or no empathy for the uninformed.

 

Did any of the people that ask you about their coins ask about Dan's coins? While we've all heard stories of how people have been ripped off by coins, I haven't heard a single one for Dan's coins yet. As mentioned, Dan's coins generally do well on the secondary market so many collectors may be better off with Dan's coins. So while I understand the general concern, the concern doesn't seem to map to the reality that I've seen.

 

And, to be honest, I feel the collector without a lot of coin background would be better off buying Dan's coins directly and having them rise in the secondary market than buying slabbed/unslabbed classic coins where knowing about overgrading, retail vs. wholesale and widgets is very important. There are many stories of collectors having bad dealings with in coins when they are not knowledgable and paying a lot of "tuition." I wish it weren't true, but after learning about the industry on these forums and elsewhere, I'm very careful about which classic coins I buy due to the wholesale vs retail difference and the need to understanding grading for each series. I generally feel much more confident about buying one of Dan's coins than a classic coin that I haven't studied. With a general new issue from Dan, the price will often go up on the secondary market. With a general classic coin, who knows what will happen, you may even get ripped.

 

So while the strawman arguments against Dan's coins seem theoretical and not reflected in reality, the losses from buying classic coins often seem real from the stories from many collectors paying tuition.

 

None of the emails have mentioned Carr coins, as best I recall. But as noted elsewhere in this thread, others have received inquiries about them. And I'm confident that in time, I will, too.

 

One of the points of my post was to try to remind the informed collectors, how many uninformed buyers there are out there. And that even if long ago, at one time, each of us was equally uninformed.

 

In the capacity of fielding emails from others concerning coins that you are addressing, I have a question.

 

If, in time, your prediction comes about, that you receive an inquiry concerning a Moonlight Mint piece, what would you reply?

 

Keep in mind that the following statements are on the Moonlight Mint website:

 

"1964-D" Morgan Silver Dollar fantasy issue, High-Grade Finish"

 

"This modern fantasy is LEGAL and is not required to carry a "COPY" stamp for the following reasons:

 

1)These are not copies of Morgan silver dollars-they are privately over-struck on GENUINE government-issue silver dollars that were originally minted from 1878-1921.

2)According to the U.S. Treasury,no 1964 dollars were ever minted-so this can't be a copy of one since they don't exist.

3)Defacing of US coins is legal so long as the defacement isn't for fraudulent purposes.

 

By purchasing one or more of these coins, the buyer agrees to provided full disclosure of their origin when reselling them.Failure to provide potential buyers with complete and accurate information when offering these coins could result in criminal and/or civil fraud charges. In other words, don't even think about trying to sell these to unaware buyers as as original 1964-D Morgan silver dollars!"

 

Note that this was a random choice of listing, and selecting the particular date/type is not for any nefarious or tricky reason. All the listings have some format of the wording, some don't.

 

My reply would be based upon the specifics of the email I received. Most of them pertain to questions about what coins are worth. So if I were to receive one about a Carr coin and I felt I could provide a value estimate, I would do so. If I didn't feel that I had a decent grasp of the value, I would provide whatever information I did have and//or state that I didn't have enough information with which to provide a meaningful value estimate.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I suspect that if you saw the dozens of ("what's my coin worth?") emails that I do each week, you might feel differently. It's amazing and disturbing, how little, so many people who buy coins, know so little about them. And that includes many laughable counterfeits. It can be difficult for knowledgeable collectors to remember back to the days when they knew virtually nothing about coins. And who, therefore, have little or no empathy for the uninformed.

 

Did any of the people that ask you about their coins ask about Dan's coins? While we've all heard stories of how people have been ripped off by coins, I haven't heard a single one for Dan's coins yet. As mentioned, Dan's coins generally do well on the secondary market so many collectors may be better off with Dan's coins. So while I understand the general concern, the concern doesn't seem to map to the reality that I've seen.

 

And, to be honest, I feel the collector without a lot of coin background would be better off buying Dan's coins directly and having them rise in the secondary market than buying slabbed/unslabbed classic coins where knowing about overgrading, retail vs. wholesale and widgets is very important. There are many stories of collectors having bad dealings with in coins when they are not knowledgable and paying a lot of "tuition." I wish it weren't true, but after learning about the industry on these forums and elsewhere, I'm very careful about which classic coins I buy due to the wholesale vs retail difference and the need to understanding grading for each series. I generally feel much more confident about buying one of Dan's coins than a classic coin that I haven't studied. With a general new issue from Dan, the price will often go up on the secondary market. With a general classic coin, who knows what will happen, you may even get ripped.

 

So while the strawman arguments against Dan's coins seem theoretical and not reflected in reality, the losses from buying classic coins often seem real from the stories from many collectors paying tuition.

 

None of the emails have mentioned Carr coins, as best I recall. But as noted elsewhere in this thread, others have received inquiries about them. And I'm confident that in time, I will, too.

 

One of the points of my post was to try to remind the informed collectors, how many uninformed buyers there are out there. And that even if long ago, at one time, each of us was equally uninformed.

 

In the capacity of fielding emails from others concerning coins that you are addressing, I have a question.

 

If, in time, your prediction comes about, that you receive an inquiry concerning a Moonlight Mint piece, what would you reply?

 

Keep in mind that the following statements are on the Moonlight Mint website:

 

"1964-D" Morgan Silver Dollar fantasy issue, High-Grade Finish"

 

"This modern fantasy is LEGAL and is not required to carry a "COPY" stamp for the following reasons:

 

1)These are not copies of Morgan silver dollars-they are privately over-struck on GENUINE government-issue silver dollars that were originally minted from 1878-1921.

2)According to the U.S. Treasury,no 1964 dollars were ever minted-so this can't be a copy of one since they don't exist.

3)Defacing of US coins is legal so long as the defacement isn't for fraudulent purposes.

 

By purchasing one or more of these coins, the buyer agrees to provided full disclosure of their origin when reselling them.Failure to provide potential buyers with complete and accurate information when offering these coins could result in criminal and/or civil fraud charges. In other words, don't even think about trying to sell these to unaware buyers as as original 1964-D Morgan silver dollars!"

 

Note that this was a random choice of listing, and selecting the particular date/type is not for any nefarious or tricky reason. All the listings have some format of the wording, some don't.

 

My reply would be based upon the specifics of the email I received. Most of them pertain to questions about what coins are worth. So if I were to receive one about a Carr coin and I felt I could provide a value estimate, I would do so. If I didn't feel that I had a decent grasp of the value, I would provide whatever information I did have and//or state that I didn't have enough information with which to provide a meaningful value estimate.

 

That is very interesting, to me. Your position would be that you would treat a question about the piece as you would any other numismatic item, and focus on the perceived or actual market value range.

 

If your thoughts are that the piece is counterfeit in your opinion, as you have mentioned, it does not seem logical that you would address the value of the piece.

[Zoins]

That is very interesting, to me. Your position would be that you would treat a question about the piece as you would any other numismatic item, and focus on the perceived or actual market value range.

 

If your thoughts are that the piece is counterfeit in your opinion, as you have mentioned, it does not seem logical that you would address the value of the piece.

 

NGC, ATS and HA will all provide values for certain counterfeits. NGC and ATS will slab them (as problem free) and HA will sell them, so I'm not sure why Mark's response would be surprising.

 

Furthermore, while NGC, ATS and HA will deal in certain counterfeits, Dan's pieces haven't even been established as being counterfeit by any government agency so any suggestion is speculation.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

That is very interesting, to me. Your position would be that you would treat a question about the piece as you would any other numismatic item, and focus on the perceived or actual market value range.

 

If your thoughts are that the piece is counterfeit in your opinion, as you have mentioned, it does not seem logical that you would address the value of the piece.

 

NGC, ATS and HA will all provide values for certain counterfeits. NGC and ATS will slab them (as problem free) and HA will sell them, so I'm not sure why Mark's response would be surprising.

 

Furthermore, while NGC, ATS and HA will deal in certain counterfeits, Dan's pieces haven't even been established as being counterfeit by any government agency so suggest so is speculation.

 

I see.

 

Then logically, your position is that since the pieces have been declared LEGAL on the website and the reasons stated as to why they are LEGAL are listed on the website, then the pieces are LEGAL, because they are declared to be, and the support of this logic is that because there is absence of any government agency making a declaration of not LEGAL, then the pieces are LEGAL. This logic is further supported because TPGs are involved in counterfeits. Have I got that right?

 

The response from Mr. Feld is a surprise, to me, because of his known previous statements.

[Zoins]

That is very interesting, to me. Your position would be that you would treat a question about the piece as you would any other numismatic item, and focus on the perceived or actual market value range.

 

If your thoughts are that the piece is counterfeit in your opinion, as you have mentioned, it does not seem logical that you would address the value of the piece.

 

NGC, ATS and HA will all provide values for certain counterfeits. NGC and ATS will slab them (as problem free) and HA will sell them, so I'm not sure why Mark's response would be surprising.

 

Furthermore, while NGC, ATS and HA will deal in certain counterfeits, Dan's pieces haven't even been established as being counterfeit by any government agency so suggest so is speculation.

 

I see.

 

Then logically, your position is that since the pieces have been declared LEGAL on the website and the reasons stated as to why they are LEGAL are listed on the website, then the pieces are LEGAL, because they are declared to be, and the support of this logic is that because there is absence of any government agency making a declaration of not LEGAL, then the pieces are LEGAL.

 

Incorrect. If you actually read my posts, you will see I suggest people take their disagreements to the proper decision making authorities, if they cannot abide with letting collectors enjoy these pieces. We seem to have a number of people without authority making statements and expecting action.

 

This logic is further supported because TPGs are involved in counterfeits. Have I got that right?

 

Also incorrect. There's no need to support non-counterfeits with counterfeits. This was only brought up to show that your counterfeit valuation scenario is accepted practice in the hobby and performed by the largest organizations.

[coinman_23885]

Incorrect. If you actually read my posts, you will see I suggest people take this up with the proper decision making authorities. We seem to have a number of people without authority making statements and expecting action.

 

It is sad that people cannot discuss things civilly and use logic and reason to persuade others and resolve differences rather than filing lawsuits or regulatory complaints. Must this literally turn into a federal case to stop him?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

That is very interesting, to me. Your position would be that you would treat a question about the piece as you would any other numismatic item, and focus on the perceived or actual market value range.

 

If your thoughts are that the piece is counterfeit in your opinion, as you have mentioned, it does not seem logical that you would address the value of the piece.

 

NGC, ATS and HA will all provide values for certain counterfeits. NGC and ATS will slab them (as problem free) and HA will sell them, so I'm not sure why Mark's response would be surprising.

 

Furthermore, while NGC, ATS and HA will deal in certain counterfeits, Dan's pieces haven't even been established as being counterfeit by any government agency so suggest so is speculation.

 

I see.

 

Then logically, your position is that since the pieces have been declared LEGAL on the website and the reasons stated as to why they are LEGAL are listed on the website, then the pieces are LEGAL, because they are declared to be, and the support of this logic is that because there is absence of any government agency making a declaration of not LEGAL, then the pieces are LEGAL.

 

If you actually read my posts, you will see I suggest people take this up with the proper decision making authorities.

 

This logic is further supported because TPGs are involved in counterfeits. Have I got that right?

 

Actually, no. There's no reason to support non-counterfeits with counterfeits. This was only brought up to help you be aware of how the industry treats certain counterfeits in your reasoning.

 

I actually did read your posts. I assume you accurately read mine, but maybe not (as an example, I stated "interested" not "surprised", but that is a minor issue and not important, except that words mean something). You are suggesting persons take "this" up with the proper decision making authorities. Why? The pieces are declared LEGAL on the website as are the reasons given as to why the pieces are LEGAL. You logically agree, since you have not taken "this" up with the proper decision making authorities. I assume that if you had, you would have shared the results.

 

As to the TPG part of your answer, you state that there is no reason to support non-counterfeits with counterfeits, and the only reason you brought it up is to educate others about how the industry treats certain counterfeits. Then why bring it up at all? It is your opinion the pieces are not counterfeit, so why opine concerning the state of the industry as it applies to counterfeits via TPG?? Your answer was in response to my presentation of a question to Mr. Feld concerning what his answer would be to someone making an inquiry about value. You interject that TPGs price counterfeits, and then when you are given a logic posit of your own making, you declare that there is no reason to support counterfeits with non-counterfeits. Illogical logic, in my opinion.

[Zoins]

Incorrect. If you actually read my posts, you will see I suggest people take this up with the proper decision making authorities. We seem to have a number of people without authority making statements and expecting action.

 

It is sad that people cannot discuss things civilly and use logic and reason to persuade others and resolve differences rather than filing lawsuits or regulatory complaints. Must this literally turn into a federal case to stop him?

 

It seems like it may be so. This is because there appears to be disagreement on interpretation. Also, many collectors enjoy collecting his pieces and your efforts are to deprive those collectors of their "pursuit of happiness" as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

[Zoins]

Then why bring it up at all?

 

Because you mentioned you were surprised by the response to your scenario. My hope was to provide some information so you would not be surprised in the future.

[MarkFeld]

I suspect that if you saw the dozens of ("what's my coin worth?") emails that I do each week, you might feel differently. It's amazing and disturbing, how little, so many people who buy coins, know so little about them. And that includes many laughable counterfeits. It can be difficult for knowledgeable collectors to remember back to the days when they knew virtually nothing about coins. And who, therefore, have little or no empathy for the uninformed.

 

Did any of the people that ask you about their coins ask about Dan's coins? While we've all heard stories of how people have been ripped off by coins, I haven't heard a single one for Dan's coins yet. As mentioned, Dan's coins generally do well on the secondary market so many collectors may be better off with Dan's coins. So while I understand the general concern, the concern doesn't seem to map to the reality that I've seen.

 

And, to be honest, I feel the collector without a lot of coin background would be better off buying Dan's coins directly and having them rise in the secondary market than buying slabbed/unslabbed classic coins where knowing about overgrading, retail vs. wholesale and widgets is very important. There are many stories of collectors having bad dealings with in coins when they are not knowledgable and paying a lot of "tuition." I wish it weren't true, but after learning about the industry on these forums and elsewhere, I'm very careful about which classic coins I buy due to the wholesale vs retail difference and the need to understanding grading for each series. I generally feel much more confident about buying one of Dan's coins than a classic coin that I haven't studied. With a general new issue from Dan, the price will often go up on the secondary market. With a general classic coin, who knows what will happen, you may even get ripped.

 

So while the strawman arguments against Dan's coins seem theoretical and not reflected in reality, the losses from buying classic coins often seem real from the stories from many collectors paying tuition.

 

None of the emails have mentioned Carr coins, as best I recall. But as noted elsewhere in this thread, others have received inquiries about them. And I'm confident that in time, I will, too.

 

One of the points of my post was to try to remind the informed collectors, how many uninformed buyers there are out there. And that even if long ago, at one time, each of us was equally uninformed.

 

In the capacity of fielding emails from others concerning coins that you are addressing, I have a question.

 

If, in time, your prediction comes about, that you receive an inquiry concerning a Moonlight Mint piece, what would you reply?

 

Keep in mind that the following statements are on the Moonlight Mint website:

 

"1964-D" Morgan Silver Dollar fantasy issue, High-Grade Finish"

 

"This modern fantasy is LEGAL and is not required to carry a "COPY" stamp for the following reasons:

 

1)These are not copies of Morgan silver dollars-they are privately over-struck on GENUINE government-issue silver dollars that were originally minted from 1878-1921.

2)According to the U.S. Treasury,no 1964 dollars were ever minted-so this can't be a copy of one since they don't exist.

3)Defacing of US coins is legal so long as the defacement isn't for fraudulent purposes.

 

By purchasing one or more of these coins, the buyer agrees to provided full disclosure of their origin when reselling them.Failure to provide potential buyers with complete and accurate information when offering these coins could result in criminal and/or civil fraud charges. In other words, don't even think about trying to sell these to unaware buyers as as original 1964-D Morgan silver dollars!"

 

Note that this was a random choice of listing, and selecting the particular date/type is not for any nefarious or tricky reason. All the listings have some format of the wording, some don't.

 

My reply would be based upon the specifics of the email I received. Most of them pertain to questions about what coins are worth. So if I were to receive one about a Carr coin and I felt I could provide a value estimate, I would do so. If I didn't feel that I had a decent grasp of the value, I would provide whatever information I did have and//or state that I didn't have enough information with which to provide a meaningful value estimate.

 

That is very interesting, to me. Your position would be that you would treat a question about the piece as you would any other numismatic item, and focus on the perceived or actual market value range.

 

If your thoughts are that the piece is counterfeit in your opinion, as you have mentioned, it does not seem logical that you would address the value of the piece.

 

My answer to an email would be different if, for example, someone asked me what I thought about the pieces and/or their investment potential. Likewise, there are many other coins trading at levels, which I think are much worse deals. But generally, I don't comment about things like that, either, unless asked.

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Incorrect. If you actually read my posts, you will see I suggest people take this up with the proper decision making authorities. We seem to have a number of people without authority making statements and expecting action.

 

It is sad that people cannot discuss things civilly and use logic and reason to persuade others and resolve differences rather than filing lawsuits or regulatory complaints. Must this literally turn into a federal case to stop him?

 

It seems so. This is because many collectors enjoy collecting his pieces and your efforts are to deprive those collectors of their "pursuit of happiness" as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

 

That seems a little drama queenish, since he never stated that he wants to deprive others from collecting or enjoying collecting what they want or that he thinks doing so is illegal, or that he wants to deprive collectors of the pursuit of happiness as described in the Declaration of Independence. Silly.

[Zoins]

Incorrect. If you actually read my posts, you will see I suggest people take this up with the proper decision making authorities. We seem to have a number of people without authority making statements and expecting action.

 

It is sad that people cannot discuss things civilly and use logic and reason to persuade others and resolve differences rather than filing lawsuits or regulatory complaints. Must this literally turn into a federal case to stop him?

 

It seems so. This is because many collectors enjoy collecting his pieces and your efforts are to deprive those collectors of their "pursuit of happiness" as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

 

That seems a little drama queenish, since he never stated that he wants to deprive others from collecting or enjoying collecting what they want or that he thinks doing so is illegal, or that he wants to deprive collectors of the pursuit of happiness as described in the Declaration of Independence. Silly.

 

That may not be his intent, but that may be the end result.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Then why bring it up at all?

 

Because you mentioned you were surprised by the response to your scenario. My hope was to provide some information so you would not be surprised in the future.

 

No. I mentioned it was interesting. There is a difference. I have hadmonetary interaction with mr. Carr. I again state so it is clear to you: HIS RELY WAS INTERESTING, TO ME.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Then why bring it up at all?

 

Because you mentioned you were surprised by the response to your scenario. My hope was to provide some information so you would not be surprised in the future.

 

No. I mentioned it was interesting. There is a difference. I have hadmonetary interaction with mr. Carr. I again state so it is clear to you: HIS RELY WAS INTERESTING, TO ME.

 

I am editing this post, because 1) it does not make sense, and 2) it is the wrong name, and 3) the spelling was hoorriblllllleeeeee!

 

So, try #2 :

 

No. I mentioned it was interesting. There is a difference. I have had monetary interaction with Mr. Feld. I again state my position so it is clear to you: HIS REPLY WAS INTERESTING, TO ME.

 

I apologize for thinking and typing at the same time.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Incorrect. If you actually read my posts, you will see I suggest people take this up with the proper decision making authorities. We seem to have a number of people without authority making statements and expecting action.

 

It is sad that people cannot discuss things civilly and use logic and reason to persuade others and resolve differences rather than filing lawsuits or regulatory complaints. Must this literally turn into a federal case to stop him?

 

It seems so. This is because many collectors enjoy collecting his pieces and your efforts are to deprive those collectors of their "pursuit of happiness" as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

 

That seems a little drama queenish, since he never stated that he wants to deprive others from collecting or enjoying collecting what they want or that he thinks doing so is illegal, or that he wants to deprive collectors of the pursuit of happiness as described in the Declaration of Independence. Silly.

 

That may not be his intent, but that may be the end result.

 

And if it is, so? It would be the actions of proper decision making authorities, would it not? Since you believe that the end result could be as you mention, depriving collectors of enjoying collecting the pieces, you seem to be stating there may be validity that the pieces would be found not LEGAL by the proper decision making authorities. So, why place the blame for possible actions of the proper decision making authorities on Mr. coinman? Why are you considering that the end result you have concern about will occur at all, if you believe the pieces are LEGAL?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I suspect that if you saw the dozens of ("what's my coin worth?") emails that I do each week, you might feel differently. It's amazing and disturbing, how little, so many people who buy coins, know so little about them. And that includes many laughable counterfeits. It can be difficult for knowledgeable collectors to remember back to the days when they knew virtually nothing about coins. And who, therefore, have little or no empathy for the uninformed.

 

Did any of the people that ask you about their coins ask about Dan's coins? While we've all heard stories of how people have been ripped off by coins, I haven't heard a single one for Dan's coins yet. As mentioned, Dan's coins generally do well on the secondary market so many collectors may be better off with Dan's coins. So while I understand the general concern, the concern doesn't seem to map to the reality that I've seen.

 

And, to be honest, I feel the collector without a lot of coin background would be better off buying Dan's coins directly and having them rise in the secondary market than buying slabbed/unslabbed classic coins where knowing about overgrading, retail vs. wholesale and widgets is very important. There are many stories of collectors having bad dealings with in coins when they are not knowledgable and paying a lot of "tuition." I wish it weren't true, but after learning about the industry on these forums and elsewhere, I'm very careful about which classic coins I buy due to the wholesale vs retail difference and the need to understanding grading for each series. I generally feel much more confident about buying one of Dan's coins than a classic coin that I haven't studied. With a general new issue from Dan, the price will often go up on the secondary market. With a general classic coin, who knows what will happen, you may even get ripped.

 

So while the strawman arguments against Dan's coins seem theoretical and not reflected in reality, the losses from buying classic coins often seem real from the stories from many collectors paying tuition.

 

None of the emails have mentioned Carr coins, as best I recall. But as noted elsewhere in this thread, others have received inquiries about them. And I'm confident that in time, I will, too.

 

One of the points of my post was to try to remind the informed collectors, how many uninformed buyers there are out there. And that even if long ago, at one time, each of us was equally uninformed.

 

In the capacity of fielding emails from others concerning coins that you are addressing, I have a question.

 

If, in time, your prediction comes about, that you receive an inquiry concerning a Moonlight Mint piece, what would you reply?

 

Keep in mind that the following statements are on the Moonlight Mint website:

 

"1964-D" Morgan Silver Dollar fantasy issue, High-Grade Finish"

 

"This modern fantasy is LEGAL and is not required to carry a "COPY" stamp for the following reasons:

 

1)These are not copies of Morgan silver dollars-they are privately over-struck on GENUINE government-issue silver dollars that were originally minted from 1878-1921.

2)According to the U.S. Treasury,no 1964 dollars were ever minted-so this can't be a copy of one since they don't exist.

3)Defacing of US coins is legal so long as the defacement isn't for fraudulent purposes.

 

By purchasing one or more of these coins, the buyer agrees to provided full disclosure of their origin when reselling them.Failure to provide potential buyers with complete and accurate information when offering these coins could result in criminal and/or civil fraud charges. In other words, don't even think about trying to sell these to unaware buyers as as original 1964-D Morgan silver dollars!"

 

Note that this was a random choice of listing, and selecting the particular date/type is not for any nefarious or tricky reason. All the listings have some format of the wording, some don't.

 

My reply would be based upon the specifics of the email I received. Most of them pertain to questions about what coins are worth. So if I were to receive one about a Carr coin and I felt I could provide a value estimate, I would do so. If I didn't feel that I had a decent grasp of the value, I would provide whatever information I did have and//or state that I didn't have enough information with which to provide a meaningful value estimate.

 

That is very interesting, to me. Your position would be that you would treat a question about the piece as you would any other numismatic item, and focus on the perceived or actual market value range.

 

If your thoughts are that the piece is counterfeit in your opinion, as you have mentioned, it does not seem logical that you would address the value of the piece.

 

My answer to an email would be different if, for example, someone asked me what I thought about the pieces and/or their investment potential. Likewise, there are many other coins trading at levels, which I think are much worse deals. But generally, I don't comment about things like that, either, unless asked.

 

 

Thank you Mark. That is a little clearer, to me. Still not what I thought but certainly clearer.

[coinman_23885]

It is sad that people cannot discuss things civilly and use logic and reason to persuade others and resolve differences rather than filing lawsuits or regulatory complaints. Must this literally turn into a federal case to stop him?

 

It seems like it may be so. This is because there appears to be disagreement on interpretation. Also, many collectors enjoy collecting his pieces and your efforts are to deprive those collectors of their "pursuit of happiness" as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

 

 

Yes, I'm sure that the right to counterfeit or otherwise emulate official coins, currency, or other government obligations was among the natural rights that the framers of the Declaration of Independence found unalienable. Of course, you also seem to overlook that our fundamental charter, the U.S. Constitution, expressly delegates Congress (and not DCarr, his supporters, or any other entity) the ability to coin money and to provide for punishment for counterfeiting. It has plainly done so.

 

This thread has gone beyond absurdity. My head/brain now hurts, and I think I need to leave to protect my sanity.

[Zoins]

Incorrect. If you actually read my posts, you will see I suggest people take this up with the proper decision making authorities. We seem to have a number of people without authority making statements and expecting action.

 

It is sad that people cannot discuss things civilly and use logic and reason to persuade others and resolve differences rather than filing lawsuits or regulatory complaints. Must this literally turn into a federal case to stop him?

 

It seems so. This is because many collectors enjoy collecting his pieces and your efforts are to deprive those collectors of their "pursuit of happiness" as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

 

That seems a little drama queenish, since he never stated that he wants to deprive others from collecting or enjoying collecting what they want or that he thinks doing so is illegal, or that he wants to deprive collectors of the pursuit of happiness as described in the Declaration of Independence. Silly.

 

That may not be his intent, but that may be the end result.

 

And if it is, so? It would be the actions of proper decision making authorities, would it not? Since you believe that the end result could be as you mention, depriving collectors of enjoying collecting the pieces, you seem to be stating there may be validity that the pieces would be found not LEGAL by the proper decision making authorities. So, why place the blame for possible actions of the proper decision making authorities on Mr. coinman? Why are you considering that the end result you have concern about will occur at all, if you believe the pieces are LEGAL?

 

The proper decision making authority is my approach and recommendation for resolution for people that cannot abide by these pieces. His approach appears to be to take action based on non-authoritative interpretation. When I've offered this as a solution, he's preferred alternatives, which were also explored on this thread.

[Zoins]

It is sad that people cannot discuss things civilly and use logic and reason to persuade others and resolve differences rather than filing lawsuits or regulatory complaints. Must this literally turn into a federal case to stop him?

 

It seems like it may be so. This is because there appears to be disagreement on interpretation. Also, many collectors enjoy collecting his pieces and your efforts are to deprive those collectors of their "pursuit of happiness" as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

 

 

Yes, I'm sure that the right to counterfeit or otherwise emulate official coins, currency, or other government obligations was among the natural rights that the framers of the Declaration of Independence found unalienable. Of course, you also seem to overlook that our fundamental charter, the U.S. Constitution, expressly delegates Congress (and not DCarr, his supporters, or any other entity) the ability to coin money and to provide for punishment for counterfeiting. It has plainly done so.

 

This thread has gone beyond absurdity. My head/brain now hurts, and I think I need to leave to protect my sanity.

 

Your opinion that these are counterfeit has not been established by a legal authority and does not seem to have the persuasive effect you appear to desire, which is the reasoning for the above.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Incorrect. If you actually read my posts, you will see I suggest people take this up with the proper decision making authorities. We seem to have a number of people without authority making statements and expecting action.

 

It is sad that people cannot discuss things civilly and use logic and reason to persuade others and resolve differences rather than filing lawsuits or regulatory complaints. Must this literally turn into a federal case to stop him?

 

It seems so. This is because many collectors enjoy collecting his pieces and your efforts are to deprive those collectors of their "pursuit of happiness" as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

 

That seems a little drama queenish, since he never stated that he wants to deprive others from collecting or enjoying collecting what they want or that he thinks doing so is illegal, or that he wants to deprive collectors of the pursuit of happiness as described in the Declaration of Independence. Silly.

 

That may not be his intent, but that may be the end result.

 

And if it is, so? It would be the actions of proper decision making authorities, would it not? Since you believe that the end result could be as you mention, depriving collectors of enjoying collecting the pieces, you seem to be stating there may be validity that the pieces would be found not LEGAL by the proper decision making authorities. So, why place the blame for possible actions of the proper decision making authorities on Mr. coinman? Why are you considering that the end result you have concern about will occur at all, if you believe the pieces are LEGAL?

 

The proper decision making authority is my approach and recommendation for resolution for people that cannot abide by these pieces. His approach appears to be to take action based on non-authoritative interpretation. When I've offered this as a solution, he's preferred alternatives, which were also explored on this thread.

 

That is a little bit of drama language, again. I have not read any comment from anyone that is negative concerning the talents and ability and artistic merit of the producer of the pieces. In fact, it has been quite the opposite.

 

Nobody is stating or has stated they cannot abide by these pieces.

 

You are also incorrect as to what Mr. coinman advocates. It certainly is not an approach to take action based on non-authoritative interpretation. He is and has and continues to advocate an authoritative solution, by encouraging the producer of the pieces to seek adjudiaction. The cost for the filing fee to do so is minor for Mr. Carr, $4-500. A bargain.

 

You have not offered a solution. You simply offered an opinion that is different from that offered by Mr. coinman, which is a solution in the interest of the hobby and the public.

 

The fact is, the "interpretation" by Mr. coinman is based on Case Law. Your opinion, unfortunately is not.

 

So, is it your opinion that the pieces are LEGAL, or not?

 

What would be your thoughts concerning the question I posed to Mr. Feld, with the understanding of the words on the website of Moonlight Mint? Do those words make the pieces LEGAL? If so, why? If not, why not?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

It is sad that people cannot discuss things civilly and use logic and reason to persuade others and resolve differences rather than filing lawsuits or regulatory complaints. Must this literally turn into a federal case to stop him?

 

It seems like it may be so. This is because there appears to be disagreement on interpretation. Also, many collectors enjoy collecting his pieces and your efforts are to deprive those collectors of their "pursuit of happiness" as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

 

 

Yes, I'm sure that the right to counterfeit or otherwise emulate official coins, currency, or other government obligations was among the natural rights that the framers of the Declaration of Independence found unalienable. Of course, you also seem to overlook that our fundamental charter, the U.S. Constitution, expressly delegates Congress (and not DCarr, his supporters, or any other entity) the ability to coin money and to provide for punishment for counterfeiting. It has plainly done so.

 

This thread has gone beyond absurdity. My head/brain now hurts, and I think I need to leave to protect my sanity.

 

Your opinion that these are counterfeit has not been established by a legal authority and does not seem to have the persuasive effect you appear to desire, which is the reasoning for the above.

 

then your position must be the pieces are LEGAL. WHAT makes the pieces LEGAL?

[Zoins]

then your position must be the pieces are LEGAL.

 

Incorrect. I said there are disagreements. As long as there are disagreements by non-authoritative persons, an opinion from an authority is useful.

 

WHAT makes the pieces LEGAL?

 

One disagreement is from Dan who has posted his reasoning on this thread.

[Zoins]

You are also incorrect as to what Mr. coinman advocates. It certainly is not an approach to take action based on non-authoritative interpretation. He is and has and continues to advocate an authoritative solution, by encouraging the producer of the pieces to seek adjudiaction. The cost for the filing fee to do so is minor for Mr. Carr, $4-500. A bargain.

 

He advocated both that and discussion. This is to address the discussion approach. I've already responded to why I do not believe his authoritative approach is advisable is a previous post.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

then your position must be the pieces are LEGAL.

 

Incorrect. I said there are disagreements. As long as there are disagreements by non-authoritative persons, an opinion from an authority is useful.

 

WHAT makes the pieces LEGAL?

 

One disagreement is from Dan who has posted his reasoning on this thread.

 

I see. Then his disagreement(opinion) makes the pieces LEGAL, but the disagreement(opinion) of Mr. coinman and others does not make it illegal?

 

Did you carefully read the question?

 

Again:

 

WHAT makes the pieces LEGAL?

Are you stating that the disagreement(opinion) of Mr. Carr makes the pieces and his activity LEGAL?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

then your position must be the pieces are LEGAL.

 

Incorrect. I said there are disagreements. As long as there are disagreements by non-authoritative persons, an opinion from an authority is useful.

 

WHAT makes the pieces LEGAL?

 

One disagreement is from Dan who has posted his reasoning on this thread.

 

I stand corrected. I am incorrect that you believe the pieces are LEGAL.

 

Your actual position is that you state there are disagreements, and as longg as there are disagreements by non-athoritative persons than an opinion from an authority is useful, meaning you believe that LEGAL adjudication will be useful in this matter. Accordingly, since there are disagreements, and there is no adjudication, then there remains a question of the status of LEGALITY concerning the pieces and the activities of Mr. Carr. Is that a correct statement of your position?