Just got the elusive 1916 Barber Half....

You don't have to directly inspect the edge. If you roll a coin around to see luster or wear you get a look at the edge as well. Plus if inspecting it out of a holder you would feel the copy stamp with your fingers.

This particular discussion about stamping CC's is probably pointless anyway. I can't think of any serious CC collector actually getting on board with this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Daniel, I am sorry that this argument comes up every time one of your coin purchases are made. I was originally in the camp that they were cheap fakes, and did my due diligence--I purchased one of the 1965D Peace dollars. Upon receiving it, I found it to be the highest quality, and very artistic. It represented not a counterfeit of what a 1964D nonexistent Peace Dollar could be, but what a "fantasy issue" of said date would look like. I made a public apology to you, as I saw the art in what you were doing, and have subsequently purchased many of your issues. Anybody but the most novice collector would know that the coin is a "token," and as such, is not legal tender. If one doesn't know that--they SHOULD NOT be buying coins in the first place without doing their research.

We always use the old maxim--"books before coins." So, anybody with a modicum of knowledge would realize that the coins are issued as token pieces and collectibles, and NOT to replace or pass as legal tender. The disclaimers are clear on the website, and I like the work--or I WOULD NOT buy it. Lots of people collect tokens, and other curiosity pieces, and it is a bit presumptuous for anybody to tell others what is acceptable to collect, and what not to collect. Therefore, please accept my praise for doing a good job of what you are doing, and know that I am a collector of non-token high end Morgan Dollars, and other large Silver coins. I am happy to add your issues to my collection, as they represent the best work in the area of restrikes, fantasy coins, and tokens. My 1964D resides in an ANACS holder with a grade of MS 69, and is clearly labeled "TOKEN" on it. Others that I have purchased have been graded by ANACS as well, and received grades of MS 67-69. So, I am quite happy with my purchases, having done my due diligence as a collector.

 

I'm speaking about the novices who come here only to learn that their prior purchase was a big mistake. If you read these forums on a regular basis, you would know that.

I bought a pair of the Matte Kennedy's in the early days when PCGS was grading them MS rather than SP, and I'm not ashamed to say that I paid way too much for them. In my opinion, it is the prettiest coin in the entire series.

However, this has nothing to do with the real issue about your fantasy coins. They are no better than an accident waiting to happen, and you will not always be around to do anything about it. But, that isn't your concern. Is it!

Chris

 

I find it a bit comical that Mr. Carr doubts that the equipment was from the Philly Mint, but he claims not to have read the article.

Chris

 

I guess it is OK for me to print some 1935 $1,000 bills since none were made.

 

I guess the lesson here is... print - no. Stamp over previously existing bills - yes. Now if you try to spend one or deposit it at a bank... different story.

 

If you overprint 1934 $1,000 bills and make no claim the Federal Reserve issued it as a series of 1935.

 

C'mon, do you really equate the two? As a newbie, you're making some really inflammatory and poorly thought out analogies and comparisons. Do tokens and home brew" type of mintages exist? Of course--if you would bother to acknowledge that part of the hobby. Does anybody in their right mind, who has experience in coins equate a "Hard Times" token with regular coinage of the US Mint? A bit of common sense is necessary in evaluating non-circulating coinage and currency, and the judgement of intent of coinage is the relevant aspect. It it created with intent to deceive, or with intent to create a fantasy issue? Please, let us not be so rigid so as to dismiss an entire area of collectibles as counterfeiting.

 

More profitable using a $1 bill...

 

Yes, but that IS illegal. The other isn't.

 

As I thought would happen, did. Usually when Mr. Carr releases a new over strike, he comes to these forums and joins in on the discussion. And every time it's the same discussion. He is nice enough to actually respond to people's comments and inquiries. As I said, his coins are not ones I collect, however I bought his 2003 D Sacagawea prototype, and now his Barber Halves. I like them. I like the Barber design. We should put her on the 20!

 

For all those here who are worried about "what happens when these fantasy restrikes/fakes/whatever fall into the hands of an unscrupulous dealer or a naive buyer":

What is your take on acid-restored Buffalo Nickels?

Go to eBay, and you can find plenty of acid-dated key Buffalos. Some clearly state that they're restored; some don't. eBay's policy requires sellers to disclose acid treatment, but enforcement is spotty.

I assume we'd all agree that selling an acid-dated Buffalo key as a good coin is unethical. So, what do we do about it?

Do we teach people about what acid-restored coins look like? Do we encourage them to learn about the series before they spend serious money? Sure.

Do we say "acid restoration is illegal, or if it isn't, it should be"? Do we castigate people who admit to acid-dating coins? Not that I've seen. We just say "well, if you don't mind the appearance, enjoy your coins -- but don't try to sell them to someone who doesn't know better."

Why is the discussion around these restrikes so different?

 

Hobo nickels, cleaned coins, acid-restored (a subset of cleaned?), re-struck, altered mint marks, counter-stamped. All the same in my mind - they are all still legal tender at face value (IMHO), but are all subject to being misrepresented by unscrupulous people trying to make a buck selling a, say, possible rarity. I think they are all commonly yet incorrectly lumped into the "counterfeit" category, which is too broad of a category to accurately define what the actual coin is.

 

Altered date/MM coins are just exactly that--altered date/MM coins. Nothing about them is counterfeit. Take a real 1909 VDB cent. Add an S mintmark. Do you have a counterfeit coin? No, you have an altered genuine 1909 VDB--not a copy of a 1909-S VDB. There is no reason whatsoever why one would need to stamp COPY on the coin.

Would it be illegal to knowingly sell it as a genuine 1909-S VDB? Yes, but that would be FRAUD--not counterfeiting.

Another example (not my coin, but since it is currently for sale I won't credit the owner)


There were no capped bust halves minted in 1803. This is an altered 1808. Doesn't mean that it is counterfeit, though. It is exactly what it purports to be--a genuine 1808 that someone has defaced.

 

Really neat item.

 

Only if you print them over an existing note

 

Of the same denomination, of course.

 

I know who is selling this coin. I like them. But their asking price is a little ridiculous for a damaged/altered coin IMO. Still, I guess the reasoning behind it is that it is (or used to be) a better date 1807 or 1808.

 

Not very good reasoning on their part if you ask me!

 

Thanks for the post. Yes it does seem that the same topics are rehashed each time. But I don't mind discussing it on a periodic basis.