Daniel Carr

Yeah, I wish I could afford more than one myself. I got mine yesterday and there's already one on ebay. All you really gotta do is have one in hand to realize that these are truly fantasy pieces and they aren't meant to be a copy or "counterfeit." In fact I think Daniel has toned it down a bit b/c of all the mis-understood ignoramouses and comments on these coin forums. He's really good and could easily counterfeit if that's what he was about but he's a collector too. :thumb: Now, back to the Krispy and Geezer show.


http://www.ebay.com/itm/1931-S-STANDING-LIBERTY-QUARTER-DANIEL-CARR-OVERSTRIKE-DIE-PAIR-1-HIGH-LUSTER-/320883900300?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4ab62bbf8c

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

These are pure fantasy coins, and I happen to love his work. His designs are beautiful and attention to detail is remarkable. And the fact that he uses the same presses that made the coins to begin with is something that nobody else does and it shows in the quality of pieces that he makes.

 

Please everyone! This is not meant to be about personalities, it has greatly segwayed from the OP. Perhaps the discussion is done for the time being, but the last thing I want to be mired in, is something that isn't about the topic of numismatics. This has gone on for too long, where opinions and personalities have to be sorted and interpreted rather than sticking to what we know, for fact, about the fantasy vs. counterfeit debate related to Mr. Carr's works. I adore you all for the attention you lavish in return for my posts and I hope you all know I do not possess any ill thoughts to any of you in the course of our impassioned discourse, but please lets talk coins and numismatic issues shall we...

 

My only comment would be:

If I am holding two coins made a couple of years ago by Bulgarians, both City Commemorative Urbs Roma, wolf and twins reverse, one with the mint of Arles and the second the mint of Constantinople, with a Chi Ro on the reverse.

Is either or these counterfeits? You may say, "well its common knowledge no Ikes were made in 75, and its not common knowledge that Chi Ro city commemoratives were only struck in Arles." Well, to 99.9% of the world, they are equally not known.

By your logic, most ancient reproductions are not counterfeits, since we can usually tell something different about them versus originals. Therefor are you calling all of them fantasy pieces? Should they freely be allowed to be produced and sold?

Just trying to see where this line is.

Chris

 

Nobody rode any segways (segwayed) here. But we might have segued based on certain posts about likes.

 

I like his work

 

Thank you for the corrections.

 

I don't say that Daniel Carr's over-strikes of Ikes with a 1970 or 1975 date are fantasy pieces (other than as an allowed answer to the poll, and distinguishing it from counterfeit), as to me a fantasy piece is a different design, based on original ideas. An over-strike with a different date is simply creating a similar coin with a date that wasn't originally used. So....based on that......are the 1815 large cents (basically known as counterfeit, since none were minted in 1815) fantasy pieces or are they counterfeits? Is it the intent of a same design coin with a non-existent date, based on US mint coins, that determines whether it is counterfeit or fantasy? Meaning the 1815 coins may have been minted just to pass off as real cents in a society, but the DC Ikes over-strikes at 80.00 or more each never going to qualify as counterfeit, based solely on them not being passed off as real 1.00 pieces due to the cost and likelihood that people purchasing them will keep them safely out of the money stream? (Not too many Ikes are used as cash money now, and only a stolen one that is passed may enter at some point, but does no harm because the original coin was issued by the mint, so no intent to defraud someone of the original dollar is there).

 

I think you are differentiating between contemporary counterfeits, (meant to be passed as money), and collectible counterfiets, (meant to fool collectors).

 

Just so everyone knows, krispy and I have communicated privately and have reached an accord, as all rational people should.

Peter, please accept my apology. I hope we didn't cause you too much worry.

Chris

 

It's less about the physical design and more about that word, intent that defines a counterfeit. The appearance of the coin, it's design and execution, for a legitimate piece is to thwart counterfeiters while a fake is crafted with such appearance replicated with intention to deceive, hence the subversive and illegality of the issue. The point about DC's work is that he goes out of his way to protect his name, his reputation and remain in business by telling you his intent up-front, that is, his intent is NOT to deceive, and therefore not a counterfeit.

 

Krispy,

I agree with you. To be a counterfeit, the intent has to be there to deceive, i.e. pass the object as if it were the original. Whether by the original issuer/alterer, or by a seller down the road. For instances, there are counterfeit Morgans, as well as other coins where the intent is to pass them along as the real deal, gaining the same amount of money for them as if they were real. Daniel Carr does not do this, so he is not counterfeiting. DC actually aims to get more for his designs and over-strikes than the real object would get. So in that, and as a stand-alone, his coins fail the counterfeit 'test'. But, aside from his coins that use the CARRter Dollar and Altered States of America, along with his image instead of Washington, he actually does replicate the 'feel' and 'design' of the originals. So are those fantasy pieces? I don't think they really should qualify as 'fantasy' as they are too close to the original to do that. More of a humorous Comedy piece or Satire coinage instead (mocking the state quarters --- like calling Wyoming the rectangle state). Fantasy should be reserved for those that offer original interpretations of coinage, which I don't see him doing that much of.

 

The thing about fantasy is we can make it anything we want to. Some may fantasize DC's pieces are counterfeits while others discriminate over the degree of design difference or originality a piece has from legal tender. Fantasy is a wide open term.

 

After reading up to this point, I still voted "not sure".

 

A person is, of course, free to "like" a post for any reason they choose.
Apparently you feel it means "I am in complete agreement with the sentiments expressed in this post".
If that's how you want to use it, that's fine but other posters have myriad reasons for using the "like" function and you are setting yourself up for aggravation and exasperation by applying your narrow definition to their actions.

 

I agree with you about this. My point was to try to say that the application of the "like" doesn't indicate the users intention and ends up miscommunicating to others, in the context of the greater thread discussion, what was meant by the "like". That rather than indicate what the user liked, they are generalized to mean they liked and agreed with all sentiment and information posted in that post, particularly when it's a comment directed at someone your opinion or argument may be in opposition of. If all the "likes" do is end up misinforming others and don't serve to communicates anything, they'd be better left invisible to others. What is their purpose then that they are seen by others if they are not communicating something to all who notice them. Words and sentences work much better than ambiguous buttons that can't be discerned as to their meanings.

 

The bad thing about the "like" button is that there is no analogous "don't like" button.

 

I think that is only one person's opinion. I certainly don't agree with what you have said. But you have the right to have your opinion about it.

Besides, lots of words and sentences have already been written on this and other posts and we are still in disagreement with this. I'd say that communication has not been enhanced by words and sentences. The like button has it's uses, and if you want to take away complete agreement based on likes, then, by all means do so. But that doesn't mean that you have found the truth in that decision of yours, for other people are seeing different things in the like button. I think you are doing yourself a disfavor to be so concrete and unwavering in your opinion, but you have that choice, as I do when someone likes what I say. I don't take that to mean they have completely agreed with what I've said. Perhaps I've simply amused them or gobsmacked them with my audacity at the moment. I like to think, simply, it's a way of reaching out and acknowledging the humans behind the posts. Mostly, I am encouraged when I am "liked" that I have some sort of virtual soul-mate out in the cloud that in some way approves of me or something I've said, or has simply been uplifted or whatever by my words. It's simply another way of connecting.

 

I've gotten lots of "Likes", but I still get turned down for dates with rich women.

Chris

 

I consider them fantasy pieces. Some are really cool, just pricey.