2009 Proof A.S.E. now on sale

To say that the Langbord coins should have been destroyed is absurd. It is now seemingly likely that they were legitimately obtained through the cashier's window. Your flippant dismissal of the Langbord coins as illegal to own shows a disregard for examining the facts before delivering your opinions.

In neither the case of the 64-Ds nor the 33 $20s do we have all of the facts. I suggest that we temper our judgements until we do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

+1. In my opinion, the '33 $20s should be legal to own since they were, as Langbord states, given through the cashier window. They were illegal to own before they were given to the cashier, because when the coins were given to Langbord, they were used as legal tender currency, which removed it's illegal status if you think about it.

 

Two already exist in the Smithsonian. How many more do they really need? Besides, the intent of FDR's order was that the coins would be melted back into gold bullion to protect the countries wealth.

I totally agree. It has already been proven through documentation pulled from the National Archives that the coins were produced prior to the order and that at least 40 were traded for other double eagles prior to FDR's order. (Refer to Coin World Sept 6th, 2010 issue.)

 

"Flippant Dismissal"?

What the hell are you reading or did you even bother to read it? I said the 64-D's would not be destroyed just like they didn't destroy the 1933's even though they should have meaning the coins were "thought" to be illegal and as such the government should have destroyed them. But they didn't.

I certainly did not "dismiss" them.

 

Given the current documentation, I fully agree. But............what happened to the 8 or so that the Secret Service confiscated in the 40's and 50's? Ask yourself that.

 

http://www.dc-coin.com/unaameropatterncoins.aspx
BTW Daniel, how many of them 1964's are you gonna mint or did you already mention that?

 

Government-made 2009 PROOF Silver Eagles do not exist, nor do ANY Silver Eagles with a "DC" mint mark. So a 2009-DC "proofed" Silver Eagle is a harmless novelty item, made from a genuine 2009 Silver Eagle and altrered to look like a coin that was never issued. Anybody that is going to spend "big bucks" on one will know what it is. A novice, who doesn't know what it is, is unlikely to spend a lot of money for one. And who's to say that these won't be worth more later on ?

The general public, who aren't coin collectors, would most certainly be confused by a "hobo" nickel and many might think one was minted that way. Most coin collectors would know the difference.

Your argument regarding increasing the apparent face value of a bill and trying to pass it does not compare here. That is outright currency fraud (currency counterfeiting). I'm not increasing the face value of anything, and I make full disclosure.

 

No metal is added, no metal is removed. The existing metal is just pushed around. So is it still a Silver Eagle and still a legal-tender dollar ? I say yes, but altered.

 

For the record, here's a good example of how to do it right. Note the "copy" stamp on the Eagle's wing. The work is not as good as Mr. Carr's however. (thus the $25 price tag)



photo from themarylandmint.com

 

No more than 2,000 (of all types and dies combined).

 

That definitely is a "Copy" of a Peace dollar (it did not start out as a Peace Dollar and was never legally "monetized" as a legal-tender dollar). The ones I produced ARE (defaced) Peace Dollars.

But, to get to the point, here is a quote from a well-known (advanced) numismatist, about why he likes my fantasy over-struck "1964-D" Peace Dollars, and why he thinks some other people like them as well:

Now imagine that, not only are you a Denver Mint employee in 1965, but you are the one actually stamping out the things. That was my daydream as a kid collector (now somewhat realized).

 

Mr. Carr, though I might not agree with all that you have stated in this thread, I'm quite impressed with your answers and your willingness to post your side of the story.

 

I agree with green 18. The debate has been on point, and non-confrontational. Mr. Carr has been very forthright and the discussion has been debate rather than argument.

That said, it is exactly that difference that you describe above. The dreamer reference. The lack of ability to discern readily. The "COPY doesn't work for me" mentality. That "small difference" is what I think most object to. Unfortunately, you weren't a US Mint employee in 1965 nor were you Israel Switt with the 1933 $20 golds. We can't be those individuals and we can't stand in their shoes, the coins don't exist. The mere fact that your coin was at one time what you are professing it to be is not enough and just plain wrong. Next time you want to know what a Mint employee felt like looking over the coining chamber in 1965, imagine it was 1935 and look at a legal to own Peace Dollar. The feeling is the same except without the disregard for the law.

The coin is NOT what it used to be, it is now defaced and mutilated. You are not selling what the coin was, you are selling what the coin now is, which is NOT what you are advertising it as. You are NOT the US Mint and if the United States gives you the authority to do this, then they will open the floodgates for people of both honest and not so honest intentions. Regardless of your intent, Mr. Carr, (and I don't believe that you're trying to counterfeit coins), but instead make an interesting and unique collectible for the world as well as a living for yourself at the same time.

Unfortunately the road to ruin is paved with good intentions and even if (and I say if because I don't know you or your motivation) your intentions are pure, the window that it opens for the unscrupulous and devious is far too dangerous to allow. If you can't see that, then no amount of explaining will do so. If you can and you're doing it anyway, then you should be prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent of the law.

 

I claim that my 1964-D Peace Dollar fantasy over-strikes started out as genuine 1922-1935 Peace Silver Dollars, with no metal added or removed. It is no different than a hobo nickel carver claiming that their host coin is a genuine Buffalo Nickel. In both cases, the claims are accurate. It is not illegal to deface money.

Looking at a 1935 coin just isn't the same. That isn't "forbidden fruit", and no 1921-1935 Peace Dollar looks like it just came off the coin press having never touched anything else. The high-grade aspect of a pristine Peace Silver Dollar (that otherwise wouldn't exist) is part of the allure.

I don't follow your contention here. I make it very clear that these are modern fantasy over-strikes on genuine circa 1922-1935 Peace Silver Dollars. My "advertisements" make that perfectly clear - they even include the word "defacement".

It seems that the "floodgates" are already open with respect to Chinese counterfeits (and those really are unmaked non-monetized fakes of legal-tender US coins with dates and mint-marks that were originally issued). My pieces are easily recognizable due to the date alone. A potential buyer of one is going to fall into one of two categories:

1) Novice - If they don't know anything about the 1964 story, then they are not going to pay much for one, especially when they could get an older 1922-1935 coin for $20.

2) Average or Advanced Collector - They will likely know the story of the 1964-D Peace Dollars (if not, they fall into the "novice" category). When looking at one of the fantasy over-strikes, they will have to assume one of two things: either it is a fantasy recreation; or it is a genuine coin. They will also realize that, if the latter, the coin would be subject to confiscation (illegal to own). So if they pay a lot of money for one, they will know the risks.

No laws have been broken here !

My motivation has been stated previously. Ultimately, I wanted my own "forbidden fruit". Unscrupulous and devious behavior already exists to a considerable extent in the world of collectibles. The law allows money to be defaced, so long as coins aren't lightened (as in silver/gold shaving), and so long as commercial advertising isn't applied. The law allows coins to be altered, to look like something else, so long as it isn't for FRAUDULENT purposes. And "fraudulent" is the key word. You can take a 1944-D cent, cut off parts of the "4", and make it look like a valuable "1914-D" cent. You can even sell it for a profit. All of that is legal. However, if you try and pass it off as something it isn't (a genuine original 1914-D cent), then that is definitely illegal. The current laws regarding fraudulent activity, when enforced, are what holds back the "floodgates". Nothing I've done changes that.

 

Yes I'm familiar with Boggs. i also know he has been arrested for this several times and has had much of his art confiscated and never returned.

And it doesn't matter one bit whether or not the 2009 proof ASE or the 1964-D dollars still esist or even if they ever existed. The law states that you can't make them SIMILAR to a US coin. Your productions are most definitely SIMILAR to real US coins. And sometime they can really go out on a limb with their interpretation of similar. They have confiscated hooked rugs with the design of dollar bills. They confiscated gingersnap cookies that had the design of indianhead cents and threatened the baker with counterfeiting charges. They have conficated matchbooks that has the Washington portrait from the dollar bill on them. The government never made anything like those products but they were all confiscated because their designs were similar to design found on US coins and currency. Those are examples of extreme silliness on the governments part. Yours strikes much closer to home.

Maybe you could sue the government for making copies of your 2012 ASE?

Frankly you would still have the problem that your 2012 ASE that you make this year is "in likeness or similitude" to a US coin. Because if you can admit that a 2008 ASE is LIKE a 2009 ASE even though they are not completely the same, then your 2012 ASE is LIKE their 2010 ASE even though the dates are different.

 

It is obvious that your mind is set, and any arguments form others will not affect that. I see you no different from a Chinese counterfeiter who claims that he is functioning within Chinese law ( which he is). If they were sold only in China, and didn't make it to the secondary markets, who in the US would care. But of course they do make it to the secondary market, and end up here to the detriment of novices and experienced alike. I respected you as a medalist and a design artist, but I do not respect you as a numismatist. Your 1964-D creations will make it to the secondary market here and abroad, and will impact many. However, I respect your right to challenge the government, although I must say I hope you lose big. Nothing personal, just my outlook on the effect to novices. How would putting "COPY" on the reverse of your coin, change your "vision"? Most would just look at the obverse. I suspect it would only sell for the normal "copy coin" rate for silver bullion. IMO.

Also what surprises me more is that ATing coins is more legal IMO, than your operation, as the coin remains the same coin. No metal "shoved" around at all. So I guess my opinion based on you, is that selling AT coins for whatever the market will permit, as long as the seller does not opinion as to whether the color is AT or NT is a "visioning" process also. Numismatics is becoming like the gem business, synthetics are "real" if you can't tell the difference. Anyway, thanks for reading my opinions, but I have said what I felt I had to say.

Jim

 

My pieces are easily recognizable due to the date alone. A potential buyer of one is going to fall into one of two categories:

1) Novice - If they don't know anything about the 1964 story, then they are not going to pay much for one, especially when they could get an older 1922-1935 coin for $20.

2) Average or Advanced Collector - They will likely know the story of the 1964-D Peace Dollars (if not, they fall into the "novice" category). When looking at one of the fantasy over-strikes, they will have to assume one of two things: either it is a fantasy recreation; or it is a genuine coin. They will also realize that, if the latter, the coin would be subject to confiscation (illegal to own). So if they pay a lot of money for one, they will know the risks.



No laws have been broken here !


I think you are missing the third, and most important, category, the novice with more money than sense, or the novice who doesnt know any better and thinks they are rare and getting a steal (as most people who buy off HSN IMO are), and are making an investment that will be worth something down the road. I compare these to the NASCAR collector plates and the people who collect them. They usually end up feeling burned and have a bad opinion of all people involved.

 

Yes, his art was confiscated because he took blank pieces of ordinary paper and made them look too much like real US currency. If he had done elaborate drawings on top of existing legal-tender bills, he would not have had anything confiscated. Note however, that Boggs is in jail because of a drug-related conviction - his jail sentence had nothing to do with his "art".

If I were to make a "1964-D" Peace Dollar out of an anonymous piece of metal (and without a "COPY" stamp), that would be counterfeiting (creating what looks like a legal-tender dollar out of something that wasn't). But taking existing legal-tender coins and changing the date and/or surface finish (without removing metal) is a different story and is completely legal. Making an entire coin vs altering an existing coin: these are two very different things when it comes to currency laws.

All of those things have something in common. In all cases the people made something that looked like legal tender out of something that wasn't. If you used an actual dollar bill to make that matchbook cover, then no problem. I should add that I've never heard of any of those specific incidents you listed.

Again it seems that perhaps you are not considering that creating a legal-tender fake from scratch is vastly different than modifying an existing legal-tender instrument (so long as the modifications are not for fraudulent purposes).

 

Suppose a "novice with more money than sense" (a rare commoddity sought out by Nigerian and other scammers worldwide) did pay a "lot" for one of these fantasy coins. The person mis-representing the coin to them, and charging way over the market value, would be the one mainly to blame (in addition to the buyer himself).
The 1964-D fantasy over-struck Peace Silver Dollars are already an infamous coin - and they've only been out for a week or so. Coin World has an article about them in their upcoming issue. So who knows what the market value for them will be. Once I sell out of the 2,000 pieces, will they go up or down ??

 

I'll leave you with the last word on most of that, except to say there is a difference between selling an artificailly-toned coin without saying anything, compared to selling the same coin but explicitly telling the buyer that the toning is artificial. And if you tell the buyer, and he goes and sells the coin to someone else and fails to disclose that the toning is artificial (while knowing that it is), then that middleman is to blame.