Daniel Carr's 2009 Proof ASE

Yes, but my argument is the 1964-D Peace dollar is not an "original numismatic item". Look again at the wording:

I don't argue the overstruck coins are "genuine numismatic items", they are, but they are reasonably purporting to be a 1964-D Peace Dollar (Which under section f of the terms defined, doesn't meet the requirements for a "original numismatic item").
​

I agree the wording is up to interpretation. My main point to Medoraman was the Hobby Protection Act was the problem, because the wording has created a loophole (at least you could see the reasonable argument for one).

I did consider the broader interpretation of the second definition, but if they intend for a broad definition why did they include "which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person, object, place, or event."? It could have simply been left as

Original numismatic item means anything which has been a part of a coinage or issue. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals.

If that was the definition, then the Peace dollars would fall under the requirement, but the 2009 Proof ASE, would not.

Because we're dealing with specific cases, I decided to use them in the definition of an "original numismatic item" and see if they met the criteria.

Was the 1964-D Peace Dollar "part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person, object, place, or event. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals."

Was the 2009 Proof ASE "part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person, object, place, or event. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals."

In both cases (with my interpretation of the wording), the coins do not fit the definition. I understand you could argue on a broad scale that Peace Dollars and ASE fall under the definition, and therefore any coin, no matter the date/mm, would require the copy stamp.

In the case of the 1895-P Proof dollar, I believe it would meet the requirement for used in exchange, because it was exchanged (sold) by the mint. This would be the same for all Proof versions of coinage.

So for everyone arguing against there legality, I'm not saying your wrong and I'm right; I'm saying your right and I'm right, and that is because the wording of the Hobby Protection Act is flawed.





​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

In case anyone wants one of DC's 1964-D Peace Dollars ... (which are sold out by DC ... mintage around 3,000 i think?)

One is going off on ebay around 6pm EDT Saturday 3/19

Bid is up over $300 already

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270706709357&ssPageName=ADME:B:WNA:US:1123

 

Based on Mr Carr's reasoning, he or anyone else could also produce.....Copper Cents with the same design from 1983 on, as well as the new 2010 shield. He states that there were no real 2009 Silver Eagle proofs made, so it is not a counterfeit. Personally, I would love to have real copper 1983 on Lincolns, as the zinc are.....well, not copper. His coins are splendid, and he could start a series of yearly denomination coins of practically any design, and they would be brisk sellers. Such is the quality. Some of the 2009 do have ghost traces of the host coins as the coins are actually uncirculated eagles overstruck with a proof supplemental die finish. Still, that hole in the Eagle series is UGLY. So for a hundred bucks, fill the hole. One day Carr's coins will command a premium and sell out. Wait, they already do. That 64 Peace- what an exquisite thing to see. And didn't the mint do pretty much the same minting a 1999 SB Anthony.

 

I think the "DC" mint mark he is putting on the coin should lay to rest any argument that what he is doing is wrong. It's not a copy of any Mint design, released or not.

 

My problem with the ASE proof is the fact that the mint did make ASE's in '09, the only difference being the finish on the coin. If we accept these do we then have to accept it if someone were to come along and make a burnished finish one? After all the mint didn't make any of those in '09 either.
I think we're going down the wrong path in this hobby if we start accepting things that are on the outer fringes and shady areas of the law, arguing and rationalizing minor tecnicalities to justify an acceptance of these coins. It just opens up a crack for the next joker to come along and push the envelop even more, in the name of having something "neat" or "different".
I know on one of these DC threads that someone mentioned that if these came from China would we still feel the same way about them. I don't remember anyone responding to that question. If any of you defenders would like to address this I'd like to hear your honest opinion.

 

Brain Fart# I lost count

:foot-mouth: well said Mike

 

Why not Canada, United Kingdom or other country? It seems to me the question is another attempt to equate Carr to the Chinese counterfeiters (or their reputation for being counterfeiters). i.e. If one accepts the premise of this question, then one accepts the premise that Carr is no better than the Chinese counterfeiters. It doesn't matter the answer.

Now if the question was, "if there was a private Mint in China, that had the same reputation as the Moonlight Mint, and the coin could be traced back to that mint, and they advertized it without deception as Carr is doing, would you have a problem?" Then this would be acceptable. I would have no issue with it. To my knowledge there isn't a reputable private mint in China that is selling coins in the USA.

 

I appreciate everyone's viewpoints on this issue.

My main reason for making the "1964-D" over-struck Peace Silver dollars is simply that I always wanted one. I grew up around Denver and always heard the talk about them at coin shops and shows. I wanted to experience what it would have been like to hold one of these coins, just at it had come off the press, before falling into the bin. And when I finally obtained and restored a surplus Denver Mint coin press, along with perfecting various production methods, I was finally able to realize that dream (as close as will ever be possible, anyway).

Had the US Treasury not released an official document stating that none survived, I never would have made them.

I will not be making anything like an 1895 Morgan dollar because genuine examples exist in the market place. I also will not be making anything like an "1888-CC" Morgan dollar because changing only the mint mark is not a significant-enough change. Changing the date of a coin to something that US Mint records show was never produced is fair game, in my opinion (so long as the item isn't misrepresented when sold).

I do have plans to make a fantasy over-struck Morgan dollar, but it will be a "1909-o" micro-o.

 

Interesting, any particular reason for 1909 micro o? Also, any ideas on when it be available?

Thank you.

 

D.Carr, Thank you so much for making the 1964-D Peace fantasy coin. It's my favorite coin purchase so far this year. Honestly you made my whole decade. I also remember the talk of the 64-D Peace when it was first struck. Your workmanship blows me away. Keep up the great work ... and keep thinking up more fantasy coins to produce.

 

I bought one, and it fits nicely in with my other SAE proofs! I applaud Carr; he saw a collector need and a "void" and was smart and talented enough to fill our needs/wants while making a nice profit for himself. I believe he advertises that the coin is not legal tender, and I am certain that he checked with his attorneys before ever attempting this overstrike to assure its legality. I would have bought one of his overstruck 1964 Peace Dollars, but he was sold out. Those are now on ebay for over $400!!

 

I received my 2009-DC ASE proof yesterday from the Moonlight mint. Here are a couple of pics.

 

Beautiful coins all. I wholeheartily support DC and applaud his work.

 

Sounds great!!!
I for one really like the coins you have been doing & hope you come up with many more!!
:thumb:

 

Suppose the New Orleans Mint, during their last year of operation, decided to make silver dollars one last time.
And also there is that whole thing regarding the genuine 1899-0 micro-o dollars and the vintage conterfeit 1896-o, 1900-o, and 1902-o micro-o dollars (which were thought to be authentic for over 100 years and then were discovered to be cointerfeit a few years ago).

 

Hey Daniel, I knew you would show up sooner or later. :thumb: Have you noticed how much resellers are getting for those 64 Peace Dollars on ebay? It's amazing!! I understand from your website that you have some new stuff coming out really soon. I'll have to get back there to check it out. Check out this idea I have and it's yours for free if you want it. Why don't you make a 1963 Kennedy Half Dollar? I'd like to see that happen!! You can just buy some 1964 and re-proof them or whatever the process is called. Heck, you could even do it with the 40% if you wanted. I really liked the Zapata coin you made however I wish you could have made them a bit smaller, like maybe on a half dollar size. Still in .999 but less in price, that's what I'm talking about. :kewl: :thumb:

 

Thanks, yes I have seen a few of the auctions.

Kennedy half dollars dated "1963" and "1975" are "possibilities", as are "1964" Franklin half dollars.
But I'm going to be careful and not make too many different fantasy over-struck coins.

 

Well I've read all the pros and cons and if you're not doing anything against the law then you can do what you want. I wish I would have known the 64 Peace Dollars were gonna be selling for crazy money I would have picked up a few. That could have taken care of my Xmas money or something.

I got another idea, you could make 200 more and sell them only to us here on CT and we could all be happy$$!! :devil: Just kidding with you

 

franchise opportunities? Please?

 

I like the 64 Franklin idea. Kennedy's assassination in November may have meant that the dies were either prepared or were in the process of being prepared. They'd be great in proof!