Just got the elusive 1916 Barber Half....

Because it is actually informative and on important legal aspects that affect the hobby. We have the right to criticize Dan, and he absolutely has the right to defend himself and offer his legal perspective. We obviously disagree, but I think the rich dialogue makes for an educational experience. What exactly is wrong with that? If you don't like it, with all due respect, you can unfollow the thread.

Edited to add: And this thread is actually pretty tame to the 37 page monster we had on the NGC forums. In a weird, and very ironic way, it was entertaining and educational.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I tend to agree to some extent. But I also agree with Numismat in that just about everything to say has already been said, and not a lot of new insights are coming out at this point.

But if this thread continues, I will endeavor to keep it civil.

 

I just got my two D.C. 1916 Barber pieces, and on the reverse of both coins, between the A and the T in STATES, is a very prominent die crack. I am not upset at all, but I know some collectors like die cracks. Does anyone have the same die crack on their pieces? Not the best pictures, but you can sure see that die crack. I see D.C. has the same on his website. Kinda neat, I didn't think about the die crack.

 

My pieces have that same die crack as well as through the Eagle.

 

no for mine, and its at ANACS now

 

Why is it listed in US.Coins? As it's not.....it was ....now defaced it's only worth melt.... should be listed in exonumia,and stamped copy on it.

 

Would die crack impact grade at ANACS on a coin adverised as MS67+?

 

Die cracks should NOT affect the grade, although they might make it harder to get an MS-70 grade.

 

No. But you can "overstrike" an existing barber quarter with a non-existent date.
It's called "altering" an existing coin which is technically legal.

 

Complete with motto's and official US coinage nomenclature.

 

You mean like perhaps painting the "Mona Lisa" say with blonde hair?
Or maybe, same pose, same mystical smile but in a Raggety Ann Costume?

 

By giving Mr. Carr a copyright the government is saying that they have no problem with his actions. They would not condone an illegal act.

His reply:

It did exist? In your mind?
his reply:

Per the government? Please advise, I truly wish to purchase one.
In fact, I'll put my money where my mouth is and will (depending on the grade) pay up to $1,000 for the piece. Possibly more!
Apparently you are wiser than:
The Red Book
Walter Breen (The Encyclopedia)
David Lawrence (Complete Guide to Barber Half Dollars)
The Barber Coin Collectors Society
The Universe.

All of the above do not state that the 1916 Barber Half Dollar was struck.

I commend Mr. Carr and his desire to keep this civil.
In his shoes I certainly would not have been.

 

Technically, as in loophole?

So, if the copy is an over-strike, would the copied die be considered an under-strike?

Chris

 

No! It would be more like signing the Mona Lisa..........L. Da Vinci

Chris

 

Why?

I mean, why is it the prettiest coin in the series since it has exactly the same design as the 1997 and the 1999. From a design standpoint, you really couldn't tell the 1998 apart from either of the other two is high grade.

So why is it the prettiest?

 

ditto.

They all look alike to me.

 

No.

Your "analogy" would ONLY apply to this scenario if you painted your theoretical Picasso over the original Picasso.

Daniel Carr is not "making" Barber Half Dollars, he "using" Barber Half Dollars to make a Barber Half Dollar which was never made.

 

No, its not his problem. It's the con mans problem because he's only using what was created. Kinda like the 1964 Kennedy Half Dollar scam that was used in the "Better Call Saul" show where the two con men convinced an onlooker that the Kennedy Half Dollar they had in their possession was facing to the left and all other Kennedy Halfs face to the right! Its called taking advantage of peoples greed through their own ignorance.

 

This has probably already been asked but what is this "loophole" you keep referring to??