Question about Daniel Carr offerings

Where is your interpretation or supporting arguments/citations Cascade? So far the only argument I have seen you make is that an item overstruck over a genuine coin cannot be a counterfeit. That is false. It can be a counterfeit and charged under the counterfeiting statute. Whether the requisite intent (if any) is there or the dates used are significant is a separate issue.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The court opinion said that fraudulent alteration "probably" occurred when the coin was flattened with a blank die under 18 U.S.C. 331. The court then states that counterfeiting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 485, occurred when the coin was overstruck with counterfeit dies.

Wilson was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 485. Wilson tried to argue that the proper statute to charge him (and his co-defendants) would be the fraudulent alteration statute, 18 U.S.C. 331. The court rejected that argument.

 

The important question is why are you still reading this thread? Why do you continually post to it? It seems nothing more than an attempt to troll. The legal issues are relevant.

The original poster asked about the importance of the overstrike concept and whether it was meaningful. Carr overstrikes the coins because he believes that it exempts him from the Hobby Protection Act and the counterfeiting statutes. The next question was whether the overstrike concept was meaningful. It is not. That is the entire purpose of this thread. If you don't like it, move on.

 

The real issue is that certain posters want to whine when someone posts a comment against Carr counter to their personal opinions. Most of these posters haven't in any way answered the question posed in the original post or elsewhere. Most haven't even set forth an argument or keep repeating one that is at odds with primary resources. When this is pointed out, the response is more along the lines of "la, la, la, I can't hear you." There is no discussion. If that isn't trolling, I don't know what constitutes trolling. It is also self-serving since the vocal few also have an inherent pecuniary interest in the topic.

 

You're deliberately misreading the opinion. The relevant section says:

Regardless of whether a violation of 18 USC 331 occurred or not, they are saying that a violation of 18 USC 485 did occur when the piece of metal that used to be a coin was restruck. That is why they call it a "blank" and not a "coin" at that point.

 

It was my futile attempt to water it down for you. Most people are capable of holding more than one concept/argument in memory at a time, but you seem not to have that ability.

 

I have posted several questions to you and shown you to contradict your own statements. You have answered none of them. You need to look up the definition of trolling evidently.

 

You are omitting the citations that follow the statement which provide the court's rationale. Immediately after that language, the court cites U.S. v. Lissner, 12 F. 840 (C.C. Mass. 1882) and another case. In Lissner, a federal appeals court wrote that "so long as a genuine silver coin is worn only by natural abrasion, is not appreciably diminished in weight, and retains the appearance of a coin duly issued from the mint, it is a legal tender for its original value." Id. at 840. Carr's overstrikes substantially destroy the original coin and its design, and he noted in this thread that he specifically engaged in processes to flatten Peace Dollars before overstriking them with his 1964-D Peace Dollars. He wrote on the PCGS forums previously that he tried to destroy as much of the host design as possible. I don't think the processes used by Carr are meaningfully different. In fact, I don't think Carr specifically divulged what he did to flatten the coins. It doesn't matter whether he used a die or another mechanism - the end result is the same.

 

What post numbers? It is possible that it was lost among all of the other posts.

 

18 USC 487:
Whoever, without lawful authority, makes any die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, either of steel or plaster, or any other substance, in likeness or similitude, as to the design or the inscription thereon, of any die, hub, or mold designated for the coining or making of any of the genuine gold, silver, nickel, bronze, copper, or other coins coined at the mints of the United States; or

Whoever, without lawful authority, possesses any such die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, or permits the same to be used for or in aid of the counterfeiting of any such coins of the United States—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both.

 

Legal tenderness is not at issue. These tokens are clearly noted as not legal tender. Not one person has claimed that they are. It was a coin that was altered, non-fradulantly, into a token. Lissner does not apply for this reason and because no metal was added or removed from the host coin before being overstruck to restore the original design.

Likewise, Hermann does not apply in this case, either, as that case pertained to coins with reeded edges that were filed down and then had new reeding fradulently added to them. This being an English case, it does not really map exactly to US counterfeiting statutes. In this case, the applicable charge would be 18 USC 331 (fraudulent alteration). I would certainly agree that a filed-down precious metal coin altered in such a way was a fraudulently altered genuine coin, but not a counterfeit under USC 485.

As to the flattening process, I would argue that such would clearly constitute altering the coin, but if the coin is still recognizable as such afterward (i.e. enough of the design remains to identify the coin, similar to a coin naturally circulated to PO-01), then the coin is still a coin, and the die strike that restores the design is then a further alteration of a coin.

 

I'm sure the others will try to read an intent to defraud element into 18 U.S.C. 487 for the production of the dies and molds too, but this idea has been rejected. Kaye v. United States, 177 F. 147 (7th Cir. 1910). In that case the defendant made dies in the likeness of U.S. coins that he claimed were experiments to see if he could become a proficient caster of medals. Although there was counter evidence presented by the government, the court held that no evidence of intent to defraud was required to convict him of producing dies under 18 U.S.C. 487, but there was for the separate crime of possession.


Interestingly, the Kaye court also looked to the counterfeiting statute (now 18 U.S.C. 485) and discusses the language that Carr addressed earlier:

The adverb "falsely" in the opening line qualifies only the verb "makes," because the verbs "forges" and "counterfeits" carry in themselves the idea of falsity. So the purpose or intent with which counterfeit coins are made is of no concern. Simply, they must not be made. U.S. v. Russell (C.C.) 22 Fed. 390; U.S. v. Otey (C.C.) 31 Fed. 68.
​

Id. at 177 F. 151. Yes it's dicta, but it's interesting dicta.

 

You chopped my post.

"I do not know exactly what his methods are when he produces the dies? How can he copy the design? No 1964 D Morgan's were ever produced, so where did he copy the coin from?"

Please go ahead and show me the U.S. Minted 1964 D Morgan which he copied the design off?

 

No metal was added or taken away in Wilson either. The rationale of the court was that defendants substantially destroyed the host coin. Carr also destroys the host coin. He has stated that in the past he used process to flatten his pieces without elaboration.

I appreciate you taking the time to actual put forth a cogent argument even though we may disagree. I respect that you actually are taking the time to put forth effort to read and interpret even when we differ.

 

Post 403
Post 404
Post 406
Post 408
Post 410
Post 412
Post 413
Post 414

 

As we are discussing the Morgan in this tread, Carr does not destroy the host coin, the original coin design elements are still to a variable extent visible. He has stated that he does not flatten the coin prior to the re strike.

 

I think you might be relying on facts not in evidence here. I haven't seen where Mr. Carr has said that any flattening process completely obliterates the design of the coin. And, if it does not, as I state in my previous post, the result of such flattening is a damaged coin, but a coin nonetheless, which is then altered again by being struck with his dies.

Thank you. I believe you feel strongly about what you're saying, and you've definitely got a prima facie argument. I don't think it's good enough to get a verdict against him on counterfeiting, fraudulent alteration, or violating the HPA/CCPA, but definitely enough that I don't think the defense would win a motion to dismiss. And, like I said, I have no idea how to handle the dies themselves.

That said, even if he is damaging the hobby, I think there are far, far bigger fish to fry, such as:

• Indisputable counterfeiters and fake sellers
• Those who pass off cleaned or otherwise problem coins as problem-free
• eBay, for willfully ignoring the previous two
• Those who systematically overgrade their coins
• News stories that popularize things like the "1968 no S dime" or the "1943 copper cent" that are out there, making people think they can strike it rich, but nobody will ever actually find in circulation.

and so on down the line. Dan Carr wouldn't even make my top 10 of issues I would tackle in the hobby, even if I believed he was in the wrong.

 

"The court then states that counterfeiting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 485, occurred when the coin was overstruck with counterfeit dies."

That is not what the appellate court opinion stated.

What that judge actually wrote was:
"counterfeiting within the meaning of Sec. 485 took place when the blank was restruck with the counterfeit dies."

In contrast, I over-strike on coins with visible detail remaining, not blanks.

Dies are not "counterfeit" unless they are used for fraudulent purposes.
The HPA was enacted after the Wilson case and it allows molds and dies in the likeness of US coins to me made and used. Also, the HPA does not stipulate that replica numismatic items be marked "COPY" on both sides. Such items need only be marked on one side. I've never seen any replica that has "COPY" on both sides. That means that for every replica of a US coin out there, the maker of it had at least one die in the likeness and similitude to US coin, and WITHOUT "COPY" on it. And the HPA does not stipulate that "COPY" be part of the mold or die. It only states that the final product have "COPY" on one side. This means that the maker could have dies for both sides and neither die has "COPY" on it. Replicas of Original Numismatic Items could have "COPY" stamped on them after being struck by dies.

And, as previously stated, a fantasy-date over-strike is not a reproduction of an Original Numismatic Item.

 

DCarr's creations aren't coins. Why [...] are we talking about them so [...] much? Exonumia at best.

Just my 2 cents.

 

I'd edit that post if you don't want to get a warning. :/