Just got the elusive 1916 Barber Half....

No, that is NOT what it says. It says:
"3) The term “original numismatic item” means anything which has been a part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person or event."

Whether an item is "part of a coinage" or the item is an "issue", either way it must have been used in exchange to qualify as an Original Numismatic Item.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Right, the Peace Dollar (1921-1935) was a part of commerce. And you are taking a genuine U.S. Peace Dollar (i.e. an original numismatic item) and making it appear to be a 1964-D Peace Dollar. Even if the 1964-D coins were never released, these are still part of the Peace Dollar series and the Peace Dollar series is "part of a coinage...which has been used in exchange...."

 

1964-D Peace Dollars were never used in exchange. They weren't issued to commemorate a person or event (in fact, they were never issued at all). According to the US Government, all were destroyed and none exist.

A Peace Dollar type is a coinage, and a part of that coinage would be a specific date Peace Dollar. So a 1964-D Peace Dollar is not a part of that coinage because that date does not exist (according to the US Government).

 

I don't own one...nor have I ever in the past. For that matter, I have never owned a hobo nickel, either. As for liking or disliking his work I have no basis for an opinion--I've never actually seen an example in hand.

However, I DO accept his reasoning that altering an existing coin is exactly that--altering an existing coin...no different than altering a buffalo nickel or creating a love token out of a seated quarter.

 

One of the funniest books, ever!

That said, I read it many, many years ago, when I was young.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Horse-Dead-Robert-Klane/dp/0345249186

The Horse Is Dead Mass Market Paperback – March 12, 1976
by Robert Klane (Author)

 

Thank you!

 

Perhaps you should take your position to court?

 

Ah, well, now we may have an issue, Dan, as Guido's buddy does the same thing, it's just with paper currency, i.e., "notes," and in any denomination his customers may request. He buys the blank notes from his suppliers in the network and makes them into fantasy silver certificates, red seal notes, Depression era, brown seal bank notes, etc., but with fantasy dates on them, of course, so as not to run afoul of the Code. Maybe I'm a little slow but I fail to perceive any appreciable difference between what he's doing, i.e., manufacturing fantasy notes off note-blanks, and what you're doing, i.e., manufacturing fantasy coins off coin-blanks.

 

Let's boil this down to basics, and stop the hypercritical stuff that is going on:

A) The "tokens" are legal. If you feel it is a loophole, or technicality--don't buy them. Daniel Carr's lawyers will deal with the Hobby Act, and appropriate governmental issues.
B) They are Art or counterfeits. Once again, the individual has their own strong opinions, and obviously won't change them. I feel that they are very artistic--others don't. To try and convince someone else that they are wrong, and that you are right is virtually impossible.
C) They aren't cheap. Nor are they equivalent price wise to the parent coin--the Barber Half. So, deal with that as your finances allow.
D) Daniel Carr's work is not produced with intent to deceive, so it isn't counterfeiting. There isn't a comparison with Chinese fakes, as those are intended to fool inexperienced collectors. It is virtually impossible, unless one is illiterate, to buy one of the fantasy coins from Mr. Carr's website, and not read the disclaimer that it is not legal tender American coinage.
E) Daniel Carr has produced other collectible tokens and medallions. They're either artistic (I think so, as I collect them) or not, as your collecting tastes go. So, deal with that also. Some people go crazy over Lincoln Cents--to me, I have no interest in them. Likewise, I am sure that folks don't necessarily all love my Morgan dollars.
F) One should not deface an existing coin. Why not? It is done all the time. Ever see coin jewelry?
G) The only way to collect Barber halves is to get the genuine, original Barber half. Not necessarily--I have some very nice high grade US Barber non-defaced halves. I have also seen some people go crazy over "good date" extremely worn and overpriced Barbers that look like slugs. It is a matter of taste--as a collector, I would rather have one of Daniel's tokens in MS 69, than a well-circulated original--my taste, not yours.

I hope this simplifies and addresses some of the issues.

 

I think "changing a $1 into a $100" is appreciably different from "changing a half-dollar into a half-dollar that was never actually issued".

From the legal activity I've seen reported on both sides, the government appreciates that difference, too. Deeply and sincerely, in fact.

 

I'd love to see those!

 

I do, too, but I didn't say that in the reply you referenced and replied to, did I? I said he manufactures them off note-blanks. Here it is. Read it, again. Don't read too fast, this time...

 

My goal is not to start litigation or attempt to create problems for someone else. It was my sincere hope that maybe he would "see the light" on his own that his position is far from clearly established legally speaking. Why not add his initials somewhere on the piece at least? A "DC" mintmark at least?

 

I don't own any of his pieces, though I do like them, and will hopefully own one some someday. I have held one in hand and wish I could have owned that one but it just wasn't in the cards that day.

 

Doug,

What page of this FTC document you linked above can I find the language that you quoted in your post? It starts on page 350 and goes to page 433. That's 83 pages of legal text. I didn't see it.

 

Okay, where DID you get the text from?

 

Okay, here goes: Hey Daniel! Doug isn't sharing with me what text (volume, issue) or online reference from which he got the following quote from:

“a deviation of one digit in the date on a coin is not likely to distinguish it sufficiently from the original to alert an ‘unsuspecting person of ordinary observation and care’ whom the criminal counterfeit law protects, let alone the ‘ignorant, unthinking and credulous’ who are not excluded from the protection of civil consumer law.” The Commission went on to find “a purchaser lacking access to a manual…listing the precise dates of issue of the coins in question, might be fooled as to the authenticity of a coin identical in all respects but the date of the original issue”.

He says you know, and that you know it's "100% genuine".

BTW Doug, I have no reason to doubt your quote's authenticity (yet), I just want to see the original text with my own eyes.

If none of you mind, that is.

But if this is simply a flame war between you two, I'll just shut up now.