HSN and the 2009 "Proof ASE"

Ladies and gentlemen,

I watch every coin show on television that airs on my cable system. I DVR them and watch them to see what's new and it sometimes affords me the opportunity to see coins on "live" television vs renderings from the Mint website or other drawings or pictures.

But tonight when I turned on my television, I was surprised, no shocked is more like it to see a "remanufactured" US Mint product to create one where there was none before.

For those who are not aware, Mike Mezack has joined forces with Daniel Carr (a former US Mint engraver) to create a "proofed" 2009 Silver Eagle.

According to the show, Carr has engraved dies to be exact replicas of ASE proof dies, dated them 2009, and is striking these dies onto genuine US Mint ASEs obliterating the original design.

Due to Carr's skill at engraving the dies, the coin looks to be a legitimate 2009 Proof SAE as it has the frosted devices and the mirrored fields. It also includes all of the mottoes and denomination as required by law had it been struck by the US Mint.

The difference between these and legitimate ASEs is that these have a small privy mark with DC (for Daniel Carr) instead of the word "copy" as the Hobby Protection Act requires of all copies.

This is NOT a US Mint release and so to issue it with "United States of America" and "One Dollar" as if it is a real US coin is highly confusing to those who don't know that this is a fantasy piece.

We have all lamented the recent commercials that have brought us the $50 Half Union replicas, or the Proof gold-plated replicas of the Indian Head gold coins. To even a seasoned professional, these can cause one to pause and ponder if it is a legitimate issue or not. For the amateur, it's not even fair.

People are continually trying to find ways to skirt around the Hobby Protection Act with their replicas and supposed copies, and this is an example of just how close to the line they are trying to get.

This coin bears a country of origin (USA) and a denomination (one dollar) and truthfully, it is neither. The original coin was indeed monetized, but has been altered and the design has been obliterated. The legality of "overstriking" these coins bears debate.

Would it be ok if we took 1943 Walking Liberty Halves and overstruck them to create fantasy proof versions? Would it be ok if we took a couple of million 1939 Jefferson Nickels and overstruck them as 1939 buffalo nickels?

It is my opinion that the Hobby Protection Act is there to eliminate confusion between what is a genuine US Mint product and what is made by others. This new piece attempts to blur that line even further, and although I see an entrepreneur trying to fill a niche in a market for something that doesn't exist legitimately, it endangers the hobby by making it easier to deceive potential hobbyists with other similar pieces in the future.

We are facing a gigantic threat from China in the way of unmarked "fantasy" pieces (I'll call them counterfeits as I believe that is the true intent) and in allowing these fantasy pieces, have weakened the government's ability to protect hobbyists from them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

This is also being discussed here:

http://www.cointalk.com/t130186/

What gets me is also how deceptive HSN's wording is regarding it.

 

That's their wording; not mine.

 

You hit the nail on the head. What once was a legal tender coin has been defaced and struck technically with a third party die that acts as legal tender US money. I honestly don't see how you can get around that law, in which it outlines that only the US Mint is allowed to strike legal tender coins (especially in this day and age).

Pretty much shows you how far ANACS has fallen if that is true.

 

Just a " Hawkers" means of making some think they are buying something RARE , Limited and going to double or better, in value . Fools are easily parted from their money.

 

here's a link to their "coin" image:

http://www.hsn.com/collectibles/2009-silver-eagle-overstruck-proof-coin_p-6194282_xp.aspx


and if they are overstruck by a private company, then how can ANACS certify them as Mint State???

 

Didn't know Mercanti was part of this as well. But if he didn't have authorization from the government to create those dies (And I'm sure he didn't) he broke the law. From the other thread

Title 18 Chapter 25 Sec 487

Whoever, without lawful authority, makes any die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, either of steel or plaster, or any other substance, in likeness or similitude, as to the design or the inscription thereon, of any die, hub, or mold designated for the coining or making of any of the genuine gold, silver, nickel, bronze, copper, or other coins coined at the mints of the United States; or
Whoever, without lawful authority, possesses any such die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, or permits the same to be used for or in aid of the counterfeiting of any such coins of the United States—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both.

Because they have no wear which is the defining characteristic of Mint State.

 

Here is a definite point of disagreement between you and I conder. Mint State says (to me) that the state of the coin is as it was when it left the Mint. Not unworn, but in the state given it by the Mint, therefore Mint State.

 

and he did not make the dies for the purpose of counterfeiting, so he has not violated the quoted statute.

 

Mercanti is not part of this as only Daniel Carr and the Moonlight Mint. The OP has his information mixed up.

It's John Mercanti anyway.

 

Well he is running a mint of his own, no? It's not like the mint state grade is owned by a particular mint.

 

They are in the state in which they left the mint, Daniel Carr's Mint. Mint State has no reference to WHICH mint they left.

Has nothing to do with whether or not the dies were to be used for counterfeiting. The Statute has an OR in there The second part after the OR refers to counterfieting, but the first section does not The creation of the dies violates that first section even if they are never used.

 

Much ado about nothing folks.

These are novelty coins and are no different that if you took and polished a 2009 Silver Eagle with your Dremel tool. The process has simply been shortened by using a die set.

The coins are overstruck on authentic Silver Eagles to simulate a proof finish. The over struck portions are readily visible and the coin only "looks" like a proof. Side by side comparisons show it to not even compare with an actual proof.











It's a One oz of fine Silver 2009 Silver Eagle parent coin which has been overstruck with a die to simulate a proof finish.

Proof coins for 2009 were NOT minted so its not a representation of a US Coin. Only a representation of a coin the "could" have existed had the US Mint made them.

 

But isn't it the government that allows it? I don't think their ability has been weakened but rather their willingness. Good post and thanks for all the info.

 

I am sorry for the mis-statement. I went back and changed the references to Daniel Carr whom I originlly meant when I published. I did state his name correctly when speaking of the privy mark, but I mistakenly mentioned John Mercanti's name for some unknown reason. I apologize for the error and I stand corrected.

 

I disagree. The coin is re-struck with a second pair of dies. Yes, the parent coin is a US coin and legal tender, the altered coin is not. Yet it states that it is a US coin and by virtue of it's having a denomination, claims of legal tender status.

All legaleze aside, this is an attempt to create a fantasy piece that the US Mint chose not mint. Only to the educated collector, is this coin going to be judged for what it is. The rest of the world will be duped into thinking that it is something that it is not. In that way I feel that it is being misrepresented. The date, devices and mottoes on this coin were not placed there by US Mint dies and polished to look like a proof, this coin was struck to look like something that doesn't exist.

Could you over-strike Peace Dollars with 1964-D dies and sell them without marking them copy? How about making a few 1922 Double Eagles into 1933s?

just a thought...

 

Well as far as I know, the US Mint claims that it doesn't exist from what I've read (though there are arguments against that). It's funny you mention the 1964-D though, because he offers them.

http://www.dc-coin.com/1grabenercoinpressmedallionsaleprice-1.aspx