Daniel Carr's 2009 Proof ASE

Very nice!, it will be interesting to see if the prices on these go thru the roof as well. :thumb:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Very Nice Work! A Fantasy Dansco/Whitman Album to house these fantasy pieces would be cool as well!!
Steve

 

Since I'm a collector and not a seller, I don't really care if it increases in value. I love the proof ASE's. DC has done us collectors a real service with the 2009 proof ASE. It had left a huge hole in my collection. I now consider it filled. By the way, I also like DC's comment about making the coin in the first place. He wanted to fill his collection too. It came home to me.

 

You have already made too many IMO!!

 

Well thanks for being the one lone brave one to attemt an answer. So it's not necessarily the deed but the person doing it that makes it acceptable? So by your reasoning Mother Threresa could commit murder and that would be OK?

 

This "murder" analogay doesn't apply because, in the case of the 1964-D over-strikes, nothing illegal is involved. So the question is not "acceptable", but rather "market acceptable". If people didn't like the coins, they would only be selling for scrap value.

For someone else to replicate what I did, at the same level, they would have to:

1) Have previously designed coins for the US Mint.
2) Create high-quality over-striking dies.
3) Strike only on 1922-1935 Peace dollars.
4) Process the host coins using a special process that involves no heating or melting, and no adding or removing of metal.
5) Use a surplus Denver Mint coin press for the over-striking.
6) Perform the over-striking in Colorado, about an hour drive from the Denver Mint.

Someone in China could potentially do #3 and #4. #2 is extremely difficult due to the technology, equipment, and knowledge needed, as evident by the relatively low-quality of the Chinese pieces. #1, #5, and #6 is not possible for anyone in China.

 

As an engineer and a person who has been to China and somewhat understands the level of their ability, I will have to ask a few questions on DC's last post. China is extremely good at reverse engineering. They have a very skilled and educated workforce. Their capital investments for machining are often top notch and well financed. They are already manufacturing high technology items purchased by many of us everyday. It may help to have designed a coin for the US Mint but it certainly isn't a necessity. They have plenty of time to practice that art until they can hone their skills. The black market Chinese Coin Shops are already faking coins to a degree that fools many of us. If China can make a stealth bomber and a nuclear weapon, I think that a high quality over-stirking die isn't out of the question. The Denver Mint coin press isn't the latest and greatest technology for over-striking coins. It can be copied as-is although the Chinese would probably make it better. As far as over-striking a coin near Denver, I don't see why that makes any difference at all. Heck, half the stuff in my home comes from China.

 

The fact that my over-strikes were produced near Denver, using a surplus Denver Mint coin press, by a person who was born near the Denver Mint and has designed coins for the US Mint adds a certain "cachet" to these "1964-D" over-strikes that can not really be duplicatated by anyone else.

Chinese quality has been improving, but their top-notch equipment and talent is (fortunately) not being devoted to making coins. Any company with a substantial investment in equipment and technology is not going to use it for a somewhat risky venture that has a relatively-low payback. So the entities making fake coins in China are 3rd-rate "back-alley" operations. And even with top-of-the-line equipment, making high-quality "copies" is much harder than you think.

I have a degree in mechanical engineering and I wrote my own digital sculpting program. It took me years to get all the necessary aspects of producing these coins perfected.

Here is a picture of the current Chinese "1964-D" dollar (crude, no silver content, not struck on a legal-tender dollar, already looks beat-up right off the press):


Compared to:

 

You can see the difference, of course, but don't the Chinese counterfeiters sometimes create beat-up pieces to make them look like they were authentic and actually circulated as a "rare, newly discovered U.S. Coin"?

 

Oh woe is freakin' me. The mint didn't produce a 2009 ASE proof. Oh gosh dang. I don't think I'll ever get over it. I now will never have a complete set of proof ASE's Oh woe is me. A hole is left unfilled. Oh woe is me. I'm gonna dump my whole collection of ASE proofs because the mint failed to produce the 2009's. Oh woe is me.

But wait. There is light. A fantasy piece has been created by a private individual. Someone who is not from the orient. Someone who resides right here in the good ol' USA! Someone who lives in a far off land known as "Colorado". My collection of proof ASE's has been saved! Oh dear lordy, thank you......thank you.

 

I wanna see a Frank Zappa coin......

 

Frank Vincent Zappa

 

So it's been done? Even in elongated? Ya gotta let Jim know Mike.....

 

Me too buddy .:smile
Rusty:hail:

 

Remember also that this kind of thinking prohibits the collecting of Walking Liberty Halves, Mercury Dimes, and Washington Quarters as the mint didn't make any of these coins in 1933.

 

Between 1928 & 1934 there were no Peace Dollars struck.......oh woe is me.

 

I am sorry Mr. Carr but I believe your argument fails on many levels. Your arguments posted are either untrue technologically, (the Chinese are very good as others have posted at reverse engineering and technology), or don't matter, (who really cares it is struck on an "authentic" silver dollar, or you strike it on old mint equipment or live near Denver?). Your creations are giving an extremely strong argument for the Chinese to use when our State Department tries to get them to shut down their forgery operations. When they can point to your mint and show how the US is allowing forgery production here, it makes it very easy for them to completely ignore any requests we make.

I will not post any more about this, but I hope all collectors who support and buy these products remember this the next time they come face to face with a dangerous Chinese fake. You show a low grade product Mr. Carr with your coins, but are you saying all Chinese fakes are such low quality? I know most of us here know that to be false. With you refusing to follow the Hobby Protection Act and simply punch COPY into the coin, I cannot support anything you produce Mr. Carr, and to be honest an extremely disappointed and sad with numismatists here who do.

 

Agree 100%
He can be "above board" with his counterfieting all he wants to the original buyer... but after that, all bets are off.
Be it a month, a year, a decade, or even a century from now, the following buyers are open to all sorts of trickery.
And don't say... "buyer beware" or anything like that. If that was the case, we wouldn't have ANY laws against fake coins because everyone would be an expert in coins, and if they weren't, then they deserved to be ripped off. Maybe you can say that to someone, but I can't.

 

I, for one, support Mr. Carr one-hundred percent. His products are far from low grade, in fact the quality meets or exceeds U.S. mint standards. And I don't care if you are disappointed and sad that I support him.

 

Remember that laws are not only followed by the wording, but also the spirit... "original numismatic item" may be twisted to suit an end by pointing out that it doesn't specify coins dated by year that certain coins were not made in that particular year, but the verbal gymnastics to twist it that way are as astounding as the statement "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is..."!
To twist a law like that insults the intelligence of the common man, and is certainly NOT the spirit of the law.