Just got the elusive 1916 Barber Half....

Beautiful. I hope the pair that I am going to have (one arrived, the other on its way) will also be MS 69s. Great tokens, and if the myriad naysayers don't like them, so be it. I love the look of your token.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

One thing that I get out of these pieces is that if it weren't for them, I would probably never know how one of these type coins looked new. No toning, dipping, or doctoring. Nice.

 

Unbelieveable! It is certainly a good thing your fans are willing to swallow this nonsense wholesale as they would otherwise need hipboots to wade through it. Hell, the rest of us already do. Now, the problem here is less with what you said, but your claim to not have copied the originals. Just think, slowly if needed, about what you've written above, and then come back and tell us (again) how you've not copied the work of the original designers. By your own words, you ARE copying their "signatures".

Also, if a fantasy date is a (your) "signature", does this mean you're claiming ownership of each "fantasy" date you've produced? If, as an example, another private minter were to make "fantasies" of the same type,designs, and dates, would you cry foul? If offered on eBay would you go whining that someone is copying your "work"? How about the copyright issue you believe should both protect your supposedly original work and also allow you to, well, copy others - should it protect you here as well?

 

Oh Lordy, this thread is still heated eh? Here's some more heat.

 

Once again you show considerable disdain for your fellow collectors who happen to like the fantasy-date over-strikes. Fortunately, you do not get to dictate to them what they should like and collect.

The original designs are not copyrighted (they are public domain by law). I do not claim a copyright for my over-strikes, nor do I claim any sort of ownership over the fantasy dates. I do claim a copyright on photographs that I take of any coin, whether it is one of my over-strikes or not.

At present, eBay is full of Chinese-made non-silver non-over-struck "1964-D" Peace Dollars. There are 13 of them on there as of this moment. None of my "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollars are listed by anyone at present.

If, however, someone lists one of the Chinese pieces and attributes it as one of my over-strikes, I will report that auction and ask the seller to cease using that attribution. That has happened several times.

The point is, my "1964-D" Peace Dollar over-strikes have their own unique characteristics which make them identifiable as my work and differentiates them from those with different origins.

 

Mr Carr had a great point.

Anyone who 'finds' one of his pieces and then believes that it is worth a lot (because of the date, design, whatever) has some knowledge about coins and coin collecting.
Otherwise it would just be a coin to them.

With that knowledge, they (the investor/purchaser/about to be ripped off individual) is looking to make a profit, not keep the 'rare'/unknown piece for his or her collection.

With that knowledge, knowing that the 1964 D Peace dollar is a true rarity (if it does exist) he should know that it is also illegal to own. As such, they are simply placing themselves in a position where their investment may be lost in its entirety by the reclamation of the coin by the US Treasury since the piece is illegal to possess.

Therefore, they have to have some knowledge of its rarity and as such are knowingly purchasing something for $X that is knowingly less than its true value.
The purchaser is buying with the intent to make a major profit, off someone else's loss.

So, who loses? The seller? Not likely. the buyer who is (he believes) about to make a killing on a rare coin? Surely.
But, they had intended to rip off the seller anyway.

Sorry, but a totally unknowing buyer would simply say, "hey, looks nice" and would not pay a lot of his money for something that means nothing to him.

My final word on the subject.

Now I have to go find a dead horse to beat.

 

My disdain? Please... need I repeat myself on every page to counter your repeated deflection? I've said both in this thread, at least once, and others as well that my issue has NOTHING to do with collector preference, but here we are again, and this coming from the same man who shamelessly implied that I must have no problem with hobo nickels, without having previously discussed the issue, for the sole reason an Indian is often altered to show, in your eye, a white man. If anyone here has shown unwarranted disdain, sir, it is you with nonsense like this. I may personally dislike your "overstrikes" but not once have I EVER negatively ripped into anyone's liking of or enjoyment gained from collecting them.

 

There is no "if" as you candidly admitted on the NGC forums that one of your wares did in fact circulate. If one circulates, why not the others?

 

Sure Johnny is an idiot. But there is a difference between situations such as that and being defrauded or potentially defrauded by someone using one of your wares. The difference is that there is no statute that imposes a legal duty on quick mart to take measures to protect him. The same cannot be said about replica coins, counterfeit coins, and/or fantasy pieces. Congress sought to protect idiots like Johnny from people that make deceptive replicas, counterfeits, fantasy coins, etc. It created a strict liability statutory regime (the HPA especially) to protect Johnny. So whether Johnny and all the other morons of the world deserve it or not, you are legally culpable if you violate the statute. That is the part that you all seem to have difficulty grasping. Congress has broad plenary powers in the subject matter, and it has exercised them. If you have violated the laws of the land, whether they are wise or actually protect people deserving of protection or not is immaterial to the discussion.

 

It is unlikely (but not impossible) that one of my "1975" over-strike quarters could end up in circulation. The reason is that the issue price was about $40, so a person who owns one is unlikely to spend it.

But to clarify, the piece that did end up in circulation was one of these (I did the graphic design for one side, but I did NOT do the concept, sculpting, engraving, minting, marketing, or selling of it):



No matter what markings you put on something, people will ignore it. The large "COPY" stamp on Washington's head did not prevent it from entering circulation.

 

I'm proud of you; this one actually has copy marked on it. You failed to mention that, but regardless I am glad to hear it. My point still stands. If this circulated, there is reason to believe that other pieces would as well.

Edited: And the non-existent 51st state part should also be more obvious and thus distinguishable from your 1975 quarters, 1964 Franklins, 1916 Barber Halves, and 1964-D Peace Dollars, etc. Even without the word copy on it, I would buy your defacement argument more for this piece as it is made to look less like an original numismatic item.

 

You just said a few posts ago:
"It is certainly a good thing your fans are willing to swallow this nonsense wholesale as they would otherwise need hipboots to wade through it...".

That sounds like "disdain" to me. But perhaps some of these collectors that you say you didn't "rip" on will comment as to how they perceived your comment.

 

I did mention the "COPY" stamp in my first post about it (see # 656).
The 2005 novelty Washington quarter is NOT a defacement or over-strike. I was hired to do the graphic art (illustration) for the Capitol side. Beyond that, I had nothing to do with it.

So this was an item that was NEVER legally monetized in any way, but still circulated (briefly). Many foreign coins and tokens also pose as US legal tender in circulation. Nothing new about that.

At least my over-strikes are made out of a legal-tender coin of the same denomination.

 

You wrote that my over-strikes were "robbing the legacy" of the original designers.

I pointed out that you never wrote anything criticizing the carving of "hobo" nickels, which often involves the alteration of the portrait that Fraser designed. And that alteration sometimes has the appearance of a Caucasian rather than the Native American as original. My statement is that I personally like carved "hobo" nickels, but that practice is far more disrespectful to the original designer than any over-strike which keeps the design the same as it was.

In a previous post, about a 1905 Indian Head cent that was "hobo" carved to look like a cartoon character, you said it was "well done". What about "robbing the legacy" of the designer James Longacre on that one ? https://www.cointalk.com/threads/1905-%E2%80%9Cwho-is-this-indian%E2%80%9D-cent.223874/#post-1656529

 

I'm saying that I have not violated statutes.

And I'm also saying that it is futile to try and protect idiots from themselves.

 

Are you truly incapable of understanding that there is a night-and-day difference between respecting the collecting choices of others and buying into the nonsense you spew? Must I agree with your every word out of the fear of offending your fans? If anyone cannot respect the fact that this has only to do with you and not their personal preferences, that is, with all due respect, their problem. If anyone here choses to collect your offerings, Chinese counterfeits, or dog .... collected at the park, I couldn't care less. It has no place in the issues at hand and exists only as part of your incessant deflection.

 

You could have disagreed, even stringently, without referencing other people or my "fans".

What coin collector hasn't dreamed of being able to run a coin press and make neat things ? I get to actually live that dream. It has been (and still is) a lot of work. But a lot of fun as well. You're not invited.

 

I am sorry for this thread, folks. A few people hijacked it into their own forum for what is genuine and what isn't, and used it as their own personal soapbox for non-numismatic debates. I was sharing what I will always think of as beautiful numismatic art--tokens of great beauty and skill in production and end product. I never intended this thread to get so out of hand with personalized debate as to the veracity of an individual's work. It seems a if some folks insist in pressing the same, non-numismatic point. I will reiterate for the umpteenth time--if you don't like Daniel Carr's work (I DO), then don't buy it.

 

The discussions were very much related to numismatics.

 

It seems that people who work near the fringes of the law always point out they have not violated it. (Especially the politicians and their friends). But they all work that gray area because of the weakness of the law itself, not because it creates a better world for it. When I hear this argument they loose my respect they might have had until then. You should take it upon yourself to distance your work from this interpretation, rather than seduce substance from it. But it does show one's character and moral side no matter how it's defended. Those who side for it, are likely candidates to promote its abuse. IMHO