Just got the elusive 1916 Barber Half....

Please document some examples if you can.

Whose fault was that ?

It is one of the nicer looking issues, although I prefer the 2014-D silver myself.

Coin books, coin web sites, and all sorts of other information will still be around even if I'm not.

Are Boggs' Bills an "accident waiting to happen" ? :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._S._G._Boggs

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/secret-life-of-money/videos/boggs-bills-money-as-art/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

These threads probably help sales, as its a great advertisement. I know i bought a couple because of this thread.

 

This is getting a bit silly. What are my responsibilities, today, to make sure that nobody pays original-skin money for my cleaned or damaged coins after I'm gone?

 

This isn't relevant to the issue. Even if you were selling cleaned or damaged coins claiming that they were problem-free, it still isn't relevant to the issue.

Chris

 

Then perhaps I've lost sight of what the issue is.

Your point, as best I can understand it, is that these fantasy restrikes -- even though they're carefully advertised as fantasy restrikes, even though they're sold at high prices in limited numbers, even though they represent a coin that never existed -- might somehow, someday, be sold as actual coins to someone who doesn't know better. And that, since that might possibly happen, no one should make or buy such restrikes.

My point is that there are billions of ways for a buyer to be deceived, and this issue is in no way more dangerous than an acid-dated nickel or an improperly cleaned coin. Both of those could also be sold to someone who thinks they have a higher value, if the buyer fails to recognize the signs of restoration or cleaning. In fact, I would argue that a "1916 Barber half" is far less likely to deceive anyone than a cleaned or restored coin, because anyone collecting higher-grade Barber halves must know that there was never any such coin.

So, where am I missing the point?

 

Can you say with 100% certainty that these fantasy pieces will not be pawned off as real when Mr. Carr is no longer around? What will happen when the people who bought these pass away? Will their heirs know what the heck they are or even care who buys them? Maybe Mr. Carr will offer a buy-back program to ensure they don't fall into the wrong hands. We have enough problems with fake coins being hawked on the internet as it is. Do we really need more?

These issues are not that far from the realm of reality, but you don't find me making the ridiculous claim that there are "billions of ways to be deceived". Do you have a book listing all of the ways? Where did you find this information? Do you even know how many people don't collect Barbers? That is the bigger issue!

Chris

 

My point is that these same arguments apply to impaired coins. Or overgraded coins. Yes, people die, or leave the hobby for other reasons. Yes, their coins -- good coins, bad coins, fantasy coins, counterfeits -- can lose provenance information.

The bad side of this is that a naive buyer can overpay for a coin without realizing that it's cleaned, or damaged, or a fantasy issue. (The good side, of course, is that a knowledgeable buyer can cherry-pick.)

I still fail to see how Mr. Carr's products pose a danger different in kind or degree from these other things that we all implicitly accept.

 

The simple answer would be for Mr. Carr to autograph his work on the rim of the coin as a part of the re-strike.

 

It is you who is harping on the issue of cleaned and/or problem coins, and as I said before, this is not the issue I brought up. The fact that you continue to rehash things that are currently happening to the detriment of the hobby is not a justification for allowing fantasy pieces to make their way into the marketplace.

Nevertheless, every time someone posts a thread about these fantasy pieces here or on any of the other forums where I participate, I will always voice my opinion that they should not be allowed as long as they don't have the word "COPY" incorporated (not stamped) into the design.

Chris

 

I, for one, see no problems, past, present, or future. The coins are no different than an antique table that somewhere within it's lifespan someone painted it, or a 100 year old Ford that someone decided to put a crate 350 Chevy in. They both are desirable for what they are and where they've been.

 

If all comes down to personal responsibility (which I personally agree with), then all the whinning about actual counterfeits and every other problem, real or imagined, that the lowly collector must deal with needs to stop. It can't, or at least shouldn't, go both ways with excuses made for a certain novelty that some like/enjoy.

 

That is not a good debate form.
You should do the "work" because, in a debate such as this, the party that claims to have evidence supporting their case has to either present that evidence, or withdraw the claims. You would be laughed out of the courtroom if you claimed to have evidence supporting your case and then told your opposition that they had to go find it. Besides, I haven't visited here that much so I don't know of any such novice situations that were discussed. If you've seen it on a regular basis as you claim, then it should be easy for you to reference some here.

If you feel that nobody was at fault, then you could have just answered that it was "nobody's" fault, or that there was no "fault".

We all advocate to novices that they should "buy the book" (do the research) before buying the coin. That advice also applies to investing in stocks, buying cars, etc.

Information about my over-strikes is readily available. In contrast to actual counterfeiters who hide their tracks, I've made sure that information about my over-strikes is widely disseminated.

One of the "web sites" that I mention is my own, which documents all the diagnostics of the various fantasy-date over-strikes that I've done:
http://www.moonlightmint.com/dc-coin_over-struck_list.htm

A recent "Google" search showed this web page as one of the top 10 results. This web page functions continuously, 24 hours a day, even when I'm not around.

 

The edge of the piece is reeded, so it would not be practical to put a "signature" there. Yes, some small marker could be placed on the front or back. My web page does document such markers in detail. But my "signature" is essentially the non-issued date "1916", which is of course clearly visible.

 

It's still possible to interrupt the reeding for a tiny "DC".

 

It is a typical practice for heirs to get a qualified appraisal of an estate prior to distributing it. With all the information out there, a qualified coin appraiser can easily determine the nature of the piece.

And what is "real" ? A "1916" over-strike Barber half dollar is a numismatic item in its own right, like a Boggs Bill. The notoriety of these over-strikes adds to the general awareness of them.

Suppose a collector buys one of these over-strikes from me at the issue price ($80). It ends up in their estate. Later, the heirs wonder if maybe it is worth thousands of dollars. They might also think that about grandpa's "Rolex" watch. But then after a little research and/or an appraisal, they found out the "1916" Barber over-strike is only worth $200. There is no harm done because the heirs didn't pay anything for it, and the original buyer paid less than $200 for it. As an example, my "1964-D" over-strike Peace dollars were originally sold for about $140 on average, and recent internet sales have been in the $250-$550 range.

PS:
Do you know how many Barber collectors wanted me to produce this piece ? At least a couple of the top Barber coin dealers have bought some.

 

Perhaps. But I think the "1916" date is much more obvious than a tiny "DC" would be.

 

I realize it would cost you money and time to do such a thing, which you must factor into your costs... But it's a thought.

 

There has been only one instance when I over-struck a coin and used a date that was actually issued for that type. That was the 2009 "proofed" Silver Eagles. The US Mint produced 2009 Silver Eagles (with no mint mark). But they never produced 2009 PROOF Silver Eagles. So I over-struck genuine US Mint 2009 Silver Eagles to give them the appearance of a proof finish. I consider a fantasy date to be a sufficient marker. But this particular over-strike didn't have a fantasy date. So I added a large "DC" mint mark as part of the over-strike for positive identification.

 

Doing something similar to all your pieces would eliminate the headaches of having to defend your work to individuals and government alike. But if that's not an issue for you, then keep on keeping on.