Question about Daniel Carr offerings

Absolutely none.

A planchet is a planchet, is a planchet. It makes no difference what the planchet is or used to be because the moment it is struck it ceases to be what it used to be. It doesn't matter if the planchet is a fresh, newly made planchet, or if it is an old and worn coin. In both cases, upon striking it becomes what it is, not what it was.

Over-striking, using old coins as planchets, even the coins of other countries, is a practice that has been used by mints for centuries. It has been done for several reasons, but primarily for two. 1 - because it was cheaper, it obviated the labor cost of producing new planchets. And 2 - because it allowed the minting authority to assign a new and completely different value to the newly minted coin even though it contained the same amount of precious metal the old coin did.

And in every single case, and I do mean every single one and in every single country, when an old or previously existing coin was used as a planchet for a new coin, at the moment that new coin was struck that old coin ceased to exist, and often, as did its previous value.

And of course, when Daniel Carr does this today, these very same things happen. Nothing has changed.

Now there was one caveat in all of this, and it was the same caveat in every single country over the course of all those centuries. In order to do this, to use old coins as planchets for striking new coins, you had to have the minting authority issued by the local government. For if you did not you were declared a counterfeiter and punished accordingly.

Now you can use any excuse you want, any explanation you want, but what I have related above are facts, cold hard facts - not opinions.

 

Well yeah "you claim" that is a difference, but the reality is - it isn't, for the reason I explained above - because once struck the planchet, of whatever form, ceases to exist.

Exactly the same design ? No, they haven't, but then neither have you. With one possible exception - your '64 Peace. And if your using the idea that they (other countries) didn't copy the same design as your defense, then you are countering your own defense with that example.

But that isn't what you are doing Daniel. You are taking old, worn out coins whose value is only that of their metal content, using them as planchets and striking new "coins", and then selling them for many multiples of their true value. And then you claim that it's not illegal because you tell people what you are doing.

Your argument doesn't hold water Daniel.

 

Please point out the things I said in that post that are not factual ?

 

I have done so several times. The Westminster Mint did exactly what Daniel is doing, they minted copies of genuine US coins, but changed the dates. And it was determined that what they were doing was illegal.

Daniel claims that what he is using as planchet makes what he is doing different from what they did. But since a planchet ceases to exist the moment it is struck, there is no difference for there can be no difference.

Now you can continue to beat the horse if you want - but that's it in a nutshell.

 

No it isn't contradicted at all. That was the point of my original post in this thread. You can also see bits and pieces of the original coin design on the over-struck issues produced by various countries for centuries. But every single one of them became a completely new and different coin the moment it was struck.

They were using old worn out coins as planchets, and Daniel is using old worn coins as planchets. Their old worn out coins ceased to exist and became new coins, and Daniel's old worn coins cease to exist and become new coins.

Now if all of those countries used blank planchets and struck new coins on them, those new coins were no different in any way than the ones they struck on old worn out coins. They were exactly the same. Point being - what you use as planchet makes no difference at all. Because the planchet ceases to exist the moment it is struck.

 

Here's the difference Jeff, and it is the same difference determined in the Westminster Mint case.

If you take an old worn out Buffalo nickel to a store, you can spend that nickel, use it to buy something. But if you turn that Buffalo nickel into a Hobo nickel - you can no longer spend it. If you take an old worn out penny to store, you can spend that penny. But if you put a penny into a press and turn it into a souvenir, you can no longer spend it.

However, if you took that old worn out Buffalo, and restruck it with the same design only a date of say 1940, and you took it into a store - you could still spend that Buffalo nickel. Or if you took a worn out wheat cent, and restruck it with a date of 1960, you spend that in a store too.

The FTC determined in the West Minster Mint case that changing the date to that of one that never existed was still illegal. And with that same reasoning. Because while you may know the difference between a 1938 Buff and 1940 Buff, and I would know the difference - John Q Public would not.