Daniel Carr's 2009 Proof ASE

How would we know if we had a Chinese counterfeit Daniel Carr counterfeit???

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Simple... D.C.'s fantasy pieces aren't counterfeit.

 

I believe you but where are you seeing these priced at $165? The cheapest I've seen on line is $385 but most are north of $500.

 

The definition does not make that limitation. It says nothing about the who makes it.

But they LOOK like 1964-D peace dollars, something that they are not. That satisfies the definition of an imitation numismatic item. They purport to be a numismatic item that they are not.

 

I see it like this... and you folks can argue it any way you want but this is how I see it.

These pieces have been out for well over a year. They have been shown on television and in all of the major numismatic publications. The person who makes them is very available... you know who he is, you know where he works, and I'm sure with a little law enforcement work you could find out where he lives. If these pieces were deemed illegal by the secret service or whoever... don't you think he would have gotten a letter, phone call, or agents at his home or place of work by now??

And those if you that say "well they might be building a case against him"...that's baloney. If what he was doing was considered illegal by the people who write and enforce our laws there is a mountian of evidence of who is making them, who is selling them, and where they are.

Something surely would have happened by now.

 

Apparently, his initials are on the 64 Peace Dollars. So, if a real one does surface in the future, I'd pay very careful attention to the spot where a DC might be...

 

?

Daniel Carr is SIMPLY altering the coins? This makes it ok? To change dates and add mintmarks on coins are ok, but striking completely new ones is what you think the HPA protects us from? Again, is it ok for me to add an S to a 1870 quarter? You would be ok with that Mike?

Regarding the presumption that the US Secret Service is "clearly aware" of what Daniel Carr is doing and the fact that he has not been stopped proves nothing. What about the importers of Chinese fakes coming in by the boatload? Since they haven't been stopped, does your logic hold that they clearly are legal as well? I don't see how DC being public about what he is doing makes it legal. If he wrote to the Counsel of the Secret Service and asked them for a formal ruling on his procedures and received a written response that it was, then I would buy this argument. Short of this, absence of action does not prove anything.

As to the morality and health of this hobby aspect of altering coins to change its date to a date THAT WAS STRUCK LEGALLY BY THE US MINT, well I think everyone knows my position there.

Chris

Edit: Btw Mike, I know you are a great guy, do great things for this hobby, are a great contributor here and a font of rational thought. I know we disagree on this issue, and I hope you don't take it personally. My only concern is what is best long term for this hobby, I am not trying to wage an internet flamefest or anything stupid like that.

 

I have never any offense taken medoraman. This is good healthy debate and it has never gotten personal.

The date may have been legally struck, but it is Mr. Carr's contention that the US Government has released statements that the 64-D Peace Dollars don't exist, that they were all melted. This is one of the bases of his argument.

The 1933 $20 was never purported by the US Government to be non-existent outside of the Mint, it was merely illegal to own one and subject to confiscation. To date, no 64-D Peace Dollar has ever surfaced further substantiating Carr's claim. This makes any genuine 64-D illegal to own.

Carr is not taking an 1895-S Morgan and striking it as a Philadelphia coin, they exist. He has been careful to choose a coin that will not surface, that is illegal to own and that if it surfaced, would be confiscated.

I will also add that Mr. Carr has hi-resolution pictures on his web site of his coins and the identification diagnostics of his coins. Authenticating one of these fantasy pieces as one of Mr. Carr's is simple with the high resolution pictures.As I had said in the interview, "anyone who does any due diligence to research this coin finds almost immediately that these coins exist and checking the Carr web site can be traced to their manufacturer." It's on the first page of a google search under 64-D Peace Dollar.

Admittedly, I started out on your side of the fence, but after listening and talking to Daniel personally, I have come to see the light in what he is asserting.

 

:thumb:Well said Dutch.

 

I see what you are saying Mike, but to me smacks of legal twisting of facts to suit his use. Let me put it this way, how do we respond when the Chinese come back and say, "well, you are allowing a private mint in the US to produce fakes of US coinage without any markings, so why are you trying to make us stop?"

A four page commentary and background on the specifics of the case is not going to fly in the court of public opinion. We will look like hypocrites trying to pick on a foreign nation with different rules than we ourselves live by. This is why I think there has to be an ABSOLUTE rule that ANY "item" that falsely appears to be a collectible coin MUST have the word COPY stamped in it. Anything else and we as a hobby lose any public sympathy we may have gotten. If public opinion considers us hypocrites, then we lose the war because why then should Congress try to help anymore?

 

who is Dutch?

 

<-----

 

I used the "They might be building a case against him" simply as an explaination for a reason why law enforcement doesn't always respond immediately. Do I really think they are building a case? No. Do I think it is because they are legal? No again. I think they simply see him as small fry and not worth their time to bother with. They see the importation of Chinese counterfeits the same way. To them, not big enough to bother with. But that doen't make them any less in violation of the HPA, and their non-response agianst Carr doesn't make his pieces any less in violation. There are a TON of laws in this country that are not enforced. That doesn't meen it is legal to break them.

I would say that it is unlikely the government would expend resourses on him unless someone who is willing to fund it actually filed suit against him. And even then it might get tossed out because the court may take the position that only the government could be the offended party. Unless someone buy one as real, then they might have grounds against him.

 

but he was quoting me in the text, Matt

 

agree 101% :yes:

 

i 'll place a special order for one 1964-S dollar.

 

Yes, fair enough, but then your problem should be with the Hobby Protection Act, not Daniel Carr's coins.

To look at the wording of the Hobby Protection Act again, there are two important sections in the terms defined; d and f.

Section f then defines an "original numismatic item":

The bold in both quotes is mine.

So in the case of the 2009 Proof ASE, were they ever a part of a coinage/issue? No, the mint officially announced that none were made. So, under the definition of the Hobby Protection Act, they are not "original numismatic item(s)". Therefore a altered ASE that was made to look like a 2009 Proof ASE would not fall under the requirements of the Hobby Protection Act.

In the case of the 1964-D Peace Dollars, where they a part of a coinage? Yes, BUT, were they " used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person, object, place, or event? No, according to the mint the coins were never issued and ALL were destroyed. Therefore, they also do not fall under the requirements of the Hobby Protection Act.

 

for the record, the Proof Silver eagles, are privy marked so as not to be mistaken for a genuine coin. They have a DC stylized mint mark. Obviously not a US Mint mark.

Raider your second argument falls short. he takes actual Peace Dollars (something that HAS been used in exchange) and makes his 64-Ds (alters the surfaces). The fact that they were used in commerce makes them genuine numismatic items and therefore under the act do not require the word "COPY"

 

This definition has a problem. Exactly what is meant by "part of a coinage/issue"? Are they referring to each an specific date/mintmark combination? Or are they taking a broader view where coinage/issue refers to the entire series?

I believe they intend the broader interpretation. In that case the 1964-D peace dollar was part of the series of peace dollars, or part of the coinage of peace dollars so the 1964-D dollar was an "original numismatic item". The 2009 proof ASE appears to be a coin that would be part of the SERIES or coinage of American Silver Eagles so it does appear to be an original numismatic item.

I think you have to take the broader view because if you don't you run into the absurdity that say an 1895-O or S dollar is an original numismatic item, but a 1895-P proof dollar, since it is not used in exchange or to commemorate a person, object , place, or event, is NOT an original numismatic item. No proof only coinage would be numismatic items. No pattern coins would be numismatic items. (The silver eagles would also not appear to meet the definition of numismatic items, but in their authorizing legislation they were declared to be numismatic items.)

Taking the broader view also gives coverage to dates and mints that were never produced by the mint, thereby including under the law fantasy date and mint combinations that appear to be part of a coin series but which never really existed. So if I made a 1905 Morgan the HPA would require it to be marked because it appeared to be part of the Morgan dollar coinage. And then to be consistant, a proof 2009 silver eagle, because it appeared to be part of the ASE coinage, would also be covered by the HPA.

 

It depends. If you made the 1905 Morgan out of an 1878 Morgan, it is not an imitation numismatic item and therefore doesn't require that it be marked.