Daniel Carr's 2009 Proof ASE

If you think that the 'proofed' '09 ASE's are fetching big $$, look at the D. Carr 1964-D Peace dollar overstrikes. Many have made some GOOD $$ flipping these (myself included), especially for something that's still, basically, fresh off the press. Though, I do have to agree with jlorings last sentence in this statement.....

Also, in regard to those '64-D Peace $, there's some monkey business.....as evidenced in this thread from 'around the block'... http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=806191 Looks like, without the proper proof, the company mentioned could be facing their own lawsuit, because, as jloring puts it, "Daniel is a very sharp dude and knows exactly what he's doing...."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I don't think there were any 2009 Proof ASE's made.....correct me if I'm wrong, though.

 

You are correct. As long as Carr sticks to simply filling the "voids" of the coin collecting world, I don't have a problem with what he's doing.

 

As someone who ACTUALLY KNOWS Mr. Carr I'm a little taken back by the comments some people have said about him. He's an ethical man with a great mind that comes up with really cool things. He doesn't force anyone to buy anything nor does he falsely advertise anything.

 

I suppose then that all who support that idea, also supports ATing of coins, since the coin is real, only a surface is put on it that the mint didn't, and it can sell for more than the untoned coin for the person who does it, Let's be fair. What difference is there?

And it could be done by an ethical person, no one has to buy it.

 

The difference is that he isn't doing this in some back room hoping to con people. He has publicized this item and anyone that does a minute's worth of research can find enough info to know what this is. He even put his initials on each piece. Show me an AT'er that does that.

Richars

 

I agree these coins are easily distinguished as Mr. Carr's pieces. I see them as novelty pieces and as he mentioned in the interview the government is well aware of these pieces and has yet to do anything about them. I recommend that if you haven't listened to his interview you should, it is very interesting and informative and this topic is discussed fully with Mr. Carr.

 

Yeah, Thats not the reason the feds went after them at all. It was more about creating a pseudo currency to be used as an alternative to the US dollar... and selling them for REAL US dollars and then supposedly laundering the money. I recommend reading the government affidavits about that group. It's a good read.

That was the issue.... it had nothing to do with using the word dollar or a dollar sign. It also has nothing to do with Mr. Carr's coin designs.

 

If someone artificially toned coins in such a way that their work was trivially easy to identify -- indeed, impossible to misattribute -- then marketed those coins AS altered coins, I might find their work to be in poor taste, but I wouldn't consider it to be either fraudulent or illegal in any sense. Sorry, but I think that analogy fails.

 

No problem with me that others disagree, but I still feel the analogy holds, JMO.

 

The difference, Jim, is that what Mr. Carr is doing is all above board and clear to the buyer. there is no deception, no back-room operation, or any of that. he is taking genuine coins and altering the surfaces then selling them as an altered surfaces coin.

An AT seller is trying to mis-represent the coin as genuine. Mr. Carr clearly does not.

Not to blow our own horn, but you should listen to the interview. I don't think anyone can address it better than Mr. Carr does himself.

I agree with PFCBEGA, Daniel is a very personable guy. He was nothing but kind to us and very generous with his time.

 

I am sorry if this upsets me, but I have delat with things like this in the hobby a long time. Let me ask a couple of questions to Mr. Carr supporters:

You say that since the mint never struck a PROOF coin of that year, its ok for DC to strike one. How did he produce it, altering a real coin or striking from scratch? If overstruck, are you saying any unknown coins to numismatists can be overstruck as long as the overstruck date doesn't exist and are overstruck on real coins? If from scratch, how is this not forging legal US currency?

If its the former, as I believe I have read here it is, is everyone ok with piles of US coins being overstruck with fantasy dates on them? What about the overstrike, does it "improve" the grade of the underlying coin? Is it ok for me to make a business strike 1895 from a 1881 morgan? If it is, how good can I make it, can it be undetectable?

I just have a real, real problem with people in the US striking forgeries without the word COPY on them when we are begging our Congressmen to stop the flood of Chinese counterfeits to try to save this hobby. I don't think people appreciate how much the Hobby Protection Law has benefitted this hobby, and how much of a financial hit everyone will take when people stop collecting coins because of all of the unmarked fakes.

This is why I hate these items so much. If our hobby embraces them, then we deserved to be wiped out with Chinese fakes. Its our fault then, since we ignored our own laws trying to help us. ALL fakes have to be marked with the word COPY stamped in them, or I don't blame the Chinese as labelling all of us hypocrites.

 

In the case of the 2009 Proof Eagles, they are struck on non-proof 2009 ASE. The 1964-D Peace dollars are stuck over genuine Peace dollars.

As for the 1895, that would require copy, because technically (according to mint records) 12,000 were struck, and the mint has never officially announced that none exist, or none were minted. The 2009 Proof ASE and '64-D are a totally different story. The mint officially announced that no 2009 Proof ASE were struck, and the mint announced that all 1964-D Peace Dollars were destroyed, so in both cases no coins exist (according to the mint).

 

It is very interesting to read everyone's thought's on my thread. Thanks for your input. I had never heard of Daniel Carr (DC) until I heard him on the Coin Show. I was extremely depressed last year when the mint decided to not make the 2009 proof ASE. In my opinion, it is the best coin manufactured by the US mint. I've expressed my depression several times on this forum. When I heard that DC had made the coin, I was extremely interested in purchasing the coin. Heck, the mint missed the boat and DC filled the void. It seems like DC has done the American thing, found the void and filled it. It isn't deceiving since he places his mark right on the coin and it is clearly evident in his advertisement on his web page that it is not a coin from the US mint. You've filled a void for me DC and I'm thankful to you for that. Keep up the good stuff.

 

I just checked Carr's site- $100 is the new price.

 

It is $100 for the thin mint mark and $130 for the thick one. I liked the thick one better.

 

So how about just a random creation? Forty years ago a 1873s half dime appeared, with no mint record to show it struck. There still isn't a 1873s quarter known I believe, but again no records of the mint striking them. Can Daniel Carr strike these without the word COPY on them? How about any other US coin only known in proof for the year, can he alter coins to make business strikes of those years? This is the reason the companies who in the past have done replicas have abided by the law and done the right thing, since this is such a slippery slope.

 

Yes, As long as the mint says there are no surviving examples you are free to create one on an existing piece without having to mark it copy because according to the mint they do not exist and since they are struck on existing one dollar pieces he is allowed to print the words one dollar on them because they are in fact dollar pieces.

We talked with him about that and he very easily could have turned up the pressures to completely obliterate the original designs.... he did not. He also made it VERY easy to detect these coins.

You can't make a counterfeit of something that doesn't exist.

I will agree that this treads a very fine line and this is why there is so much division about the subject. Daniel has done his homework on these pieces. Why would he want to make something that is illegal and then freely and openly talk it in such places as Coin World, this forum, and our little podcast?

 

+1

Can't compare ATers to what D.Carr is doing and honestly, I think D.Carr is doing absolutely nothing wrong and I wish he designed and minted ALL of our coins.

 

First, there is an even better way to make things like this detectable, its called following the Hobby Protection Act and marking them COPY. You say he make these easy to spot, but that is to an experienced dealer, how about to a novice. How much bad feelings and negative press stories will these things cause our hobby in the future. I have delat with literally hundreds of people who think all coin collectors are crooks because of old cereal box pieces they inherited and think we are not lying and trying to rip them off. Daniel Carr pieces are much better than those pieces, and this is WHY WE coin collectors ASKED Congress to pass this law.

Second, the 1873s half dime "didn't" exist. Since the quarter hasn't shown up yet, can he strike that one too?