Question about Daniel Carr offerings

See Post #327. Insider, I think you just reached the first plateau.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

OK, now what?

 

Ok. Who here has read every word of every post in all 33 pages? There will be a test on this

 

So to summarize here at this juncture. There is division over whether Mr Carr's overstrikes are within the law. There is no case which is the same as his, although some points from other cases may be relevant. The only way to know for sure is if a case is brought in the future.

However, a deeper point has emerged. The HPA is it appears not protecting the hobby, rather it is protecting the ignorant and lazy from themselves.

Also, from my collecting point of view, it stifles and constrains the creative artistry aspect of any budding entrepreneur like Mr Carr.

The U.S. Mint has several edge lettered coins, yet we cannot put the word 'copy' on the edge for aesthetic reasons. The recent gold dime, quarter and half do not have 'copy' yet they are copies of earlier designs. I did not purchase them because they stamped AU 24K on them, which for me ruined the design.

So it seems to me that the coin community has no voice, they are told instead, do as we say, not as we do.

 

That's the real shame about this thread imho. Daniel Carr has been really good to ppl, coin clubs and just the public in general. All I gotta say is Daniel is a good guy and he doesn't make counterfeits at all. Sure everyone is entitled to their own opinion but look at the facts first. Number one, he's never hid what he's doing. And number two. he has always defended what he does. Maybe I'm alone here but I wish ppl would leave the man alone. He has his place in numismatics and he's earned it in my book.

 

I agree, he seems to me to care about the hobby, is very knowledgeable and has much experience. I believe his arguments are sound. Even supposing a court ruling were to find his pieces outside the law, it would seem to me that the court ruling is wrong or that the law should be changed. It would not be the first time such a travesty of justice has happened either.

To be able to take an ugly, polished, common date Morgan dollar and turn it into something special which is treasured.....should be applauded no?

 

Best and most truthful post on this thread

 

Fixed it for you.

 

How so? Legality aside, at best he walks a very thin line and creates pieces that will almost inevitably foment fraud and confusion in the secondary market. A Coin World columnist and senior ANACS authenticator has already published a counterfeit detection column discussing the several emails and phone calls he has received from people confused by Carr's works. When there is mass confusion, the opportunity and prospect for fraud is clear.

When confronted about the possible use of his pieces for fraud by others, Carr is indifferent and more or less opines that those who will be confused and/or scammed in the future deserve whatever happens to them. That is far from venerable to me, and for what? A quick buck? Does he get some visceral thrill from striking his own coinage or copying someone else's work (over some other entity's work) and slapping a new date on it? I am also perplexed by the vague claims of "artistry" when there is nothing remotely novel about it. He doesn't own the design. It is almost a carbon copy. He adds a new date. The overstriking concept has also been around for decades with the trinket machines that produce elongated cents at local establishments, and is also far from novel.

There is no doubt that Carr is a talented engineer and one who has produced medals and non-fantasy pieces that do have artistic merit; however, I am perplexed how anyone can defend his fantasy overstrikes regardless of legality as art or good for the hobby. He certainly does have a place in numismatics, but it isn't exactly how I would want to be remembered. I wouldn't want to have a legacy of creating pieces that will ultimately harm this hobby and be used to harm others (albeit in the secondary market by subsequent owners).

I'm sure this will end in a flame war, but it is what it is.

 

I fail to see this fraud and confusion in the secondary market, other than unusual circumstances. Coin world have also done several pieces which cover his work.

http://www.coinworld.com/news/us-co...ipwreck-metal-in-cob-commemoratives.all.html#

http://www.coinworld.com/news/us-co...roposes-circulating-astronaut-dollar.all.html

I also found this article..

http://www.numismaticnews.net/article/coin-clinic-artist-makes-dollars

It states..

"
On July 22, 1980. U.S. Mint Counsel Kenneth B. Gubin wrote to Vance Fowler on Department of the Treasury, Office of the Director of the Mint stationery. The letter has been since published in Fowler’s book Encyclopedia of the Modern Elongated. Within this letter Gubin states, “…[Title 18, USC sections 331] being a criminal statute, a fraudulent intent is required for violation. Thus, the mere act of compressing coins into souvenirs is not illegal, without other factors being present.”

How would I know if a coin is being used to make a souvenir rather than with the intent to defraud someone?

I’m not an attorney, but it appears as long as the resulting elongated or counterstamped item is advertised as a souvenir rather than as something of great value or legal tender it appears it is OK."

While some of the elongated coins may well be artistry, it is not appealing to me. The artistry is evident from the eye appeal of the Morgan's. As I have said before, it looks more like Carrs interpretation of what he believes the Morgan dollar should look like. His artistry is also apparent on his own designs.

To each his own, I do not doubt your feelings on the matter, nor that you have a strong opinion. Although I fail to grasp why, I do not see how these pieces harm the hobby? Or can be used to harm others? Please explain.

I see nothing uncivil or inflaming in your post, so I hope we will avoid the flame wars!

 

The letter (or at least the excerpted quote) is inapposite to Carr's pieces. The problem isn't that coinage is being destroyed or mutilated. Overstriking a genuine coin isn't in and of itself problematic. What is problematic is what he is imparting/overstriking onto the defaced coin. The emulation of U.S. coin designs and inscriptions is the problem, not the process of overstriking/mutilating the coin itself. Gubin is merely saying that defacement, in and of itself, "without other factors being present" isn't illegal. That is absolutely true. You can absolutely make elongated cents or overstrike cents with designs that look nothing circulating issues.

The critical distinction is when you begin to use unauthorized private dies to strike official U.S. coin designs and inscriptions onto the cent, you cross the line. When the latter is done, you go beyond 18 U.S.C. 331 and other statutes are implicated. Also, to be clear, Carr and I are in agreement that charges brought under 18 U.S.C. 331 would require an intent to defraud. That is not necessarily the case with the other Title 18 statutes and many of them (notably 18 U.S.C. 485* and 487) do not have intent elements for producing the pieces. If Dan were to overstrike his Morgan Dollars into a store token with his image and contact information that looked nothing like a U.S. coin, then it would be unquestionably legal and no one could complain.

Edited to add: *18 U.S.C. 485 applies to coins with a denomination higher than 5c. There is an analogous statute for minor coinage. The cent is mentioned only for continuity in the analogy, but it could be a silver dollar or any other higher denomination coin.

 

I slipped that in there because I did not know how that fits with your legal theory. It does mention intent also, so I did not know if you were aware of it.

I could not find the coin world article you referred to with the counterfeit detention column, do you have a link to it so I can read it?

 

Here is the Coin World Article from August of 2016:

http://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/2016/08/1922-d-half-dollar-struck-at-private-mint.all.html#

Also, insofar as some claiming that Carr's pieces wouldn't deceive anyone, here is an interesting news story where school cafeteria workers called the police after an 8th grader tried to pay for her lunch with a $2 bill. The police then traced the bill to the mother and the convenience store where the mother received it before finally taking it to a bank which confirmed authenticity. The police had also purportedly told the kid she was in "big trouble" for passing a counterfeit bill. This is the level of stupidity that Congress had in mind when it enacted the HPA. The standard for resemblance or similitude for the Title 18 statutes boils down to whether these "ordinary" people without specialized knowledge would believe the piece to be original.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyph...-tries-to-buy-lunch-with-2-bill/#775f6b50cde8

 

I think you are getting too caught up in minutia. You have to take a step back to get a broad view of what Congress intended. Take 18 USC 489, for example. It is so broad that it is unenforceable, except as an ancillary to fraudulent activity which would be covered by other statutes. A "plain meaning" interpretation of 18 USC 489, on the surface, would indicate that if someone made a brass washer and sold it or gave it away, they would be in violation. This is because the washer is a disk, and it has a color similar to current dollar coins. That is all it takes to violate 18 USC 489 on the surface. This is ridiculous, of course. But it is important to understand what Congress intended, and what they intended with 18 USC 489 was to outlaw the practice of making and using "slugs" as coins in vending machines and the like.

 

In our observable environment, there is a proven aspect of Physics called "conservation of mass". Unless a "black hole" is formed, the matter (elemental silver and copper) that makes up the host coin is conserved. And no new matter appears out of nowhere during the over-striking.

Forensic analysis always trumps eyewitness testimony in a court of law, because human memory, perception, and opinions are faulty. If the under-type of an over-struck coin can be determined by forensic analysis, that would be the BEST type of confirmation possible. The US Mint uses forensic analysis on bulk lots of coins submitted to their mutilated coin redemption program.

The difference between striking a new coin versus over-striking (altering) an existing coin is far from immaterial.

Note that even when a coin is over-struck, the essence of the original is still there.
When a coin is struck on a virgin blank, the metal is stressed in a certain way and these stress patterns will remain as long as the coin is not worn completely away or heated to near the melting point. These stress patterns on the surface show as mint luster. When a coin is over-struck with the same basic design it had originally, the original stress patterns are preserved and actually aid in the over-striking. Here is an over-struck Bust half dollar that was intentionally toned after being over-struck. The tarnish pattern clearly reveals the original details of the original coin, even where the original coin was totally flattened (note "50 C." on reverse, for example):


This effect is not unlike the forensic technique of applying acid to a firearm that had the serial number filed off, so as to reveal an image of the original serial number. This works because the steel was originally stressed from the imprinting of the serial number, and the acid etches the steel differently depending on how it was originally stressed. Also, "nick-a-date" will restore an image of the date on an Indian Head nickel, even when the original date was completely worn away.

So the essence (and matter) of an original coin remain after over-striking.

 

If someone is determined to commit fraud, they will easily find some coin to do it with, even if there were no over-strikes. The US Mint, for example, made it extremely easy for a scam to be carried out in 1995 and thereafter. They produced a rare 1995 proof Silver Eagle with a W mint mark that was only available in an expensive set with gold coins. They also produced a less-rare 1995 proof Silver Eagle with a "P" mint mark that could be purchased separately. This allowed scammers to remove the rare "W" coin from the set and replace it with the "P" coin, and then sell the whole set to unsuspecting buyers for the high premium that they were going for (when they included the W Silver Eagle).
The recent Coin World column illustrated a benign situation. How common is it for someone to have a coin that they are unfamiliar with ? Extremely. This illustrates someone with an unfamiliar coin doing what they should be doing - obtaining an opinion from an expert.

"Art" is in the eye of the artist and the beholder. It can not be defined. I'm sure there are a number of people who are perplexed that Andy Warhol would make a painting of a Campbell's Soup can label. And I'll bet those people are even more perplexed that the painting sold for millions of dollars.

I'm certainly satisfied with my "legacy". For example, I wrote an article about my "1964-D" Peace Dollar over-strike project for the Society of Silver Dollar Collectors (SSDC) club newsletter. That article was awarded the A George Mallis (of "VAM" fame) literary award.

A customer, who had never ordered from me before, recently sent along this note with their first order (I quote it here verbatim):

"Mr. Carr . . . you will hold a unique place in the history of American numismatics. There has been no one like you . . . and in all likelihood will never again be one doing what you have done. I only wish that I had been "on board" when some of your original conceptions (the "Ameros," in particular) were still available. I am a big admirer!"

The order was for three different fantasy-date over-strikes.

But I don't do this for accolades. As strange as it may seem to you, I do this because I really like coins. As noted, I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering. Art has been a hobby of mine for many years. Same for coin collecting. Put the three together and now I operate a mint. What coin collector hasn't imagined what it would be like to catch a freshly-struck 1964-D Peace Dollar, or some other coin, as it came off the press and before it fell into the bin ? I get to experience that sort of thing regularly, and so do my visitors (such as the ANA Summer Seminar students on the annual field trip to my facility).

 

Years ago I acquired a copy of that "Encyclopedia of the Modern Elongated" because I wanted a full hardcopy of that letter, to study it. I found that the book has an enormous amount of fascinating information in it, and much of it applies to numismatics outside the area of elongated coins.

In studying the letter from US Mint Counsel Gubin years ago, I noted this that he wrote:

As you are already aware, a federal statute in the criminal code of the United States (18 U.S.C. 331), indeed makes it illegal if one "fraudulently alters, defaces, scales or lightens" any U.S. coin. However, being a criminal statute, a fraudulent intent is required for violation. Thus, the mere act of impressing coins into souvenirs is not illegal, without other factors being present.

So U.S. Mint Counsel Kenneth B. Gubin wrote that fraudulent intent is required for there to be a violation of a criminal statute. 18 USC 485 is a criminal statute. According to Gubin's opinion, fraudulent intent is required for there to be a violation of 18 USC 485. This is in contrast to claims made in this thread.

 

Best and most truthful post on this thread.

 

Now nothing. It's up to the discretion of the prosecutor. In this case that would be the Criminal Division in the U.S. Department of Justice. And you boys thought it was up to the U.S. Mint, lol.

We have the opportunity, so let's be clear as a whistle. 18 USC 487: "Whoever, without lawful authority,..." There's the condition in that statute. When there's lawful authority, 487 doesn't apply. HPA is lawful authority to make one of the dies without COPY provided it's used in combination with the other die that has COPY. And that's that. You don't put COPY on one of the dies, the only thing saving your behind from prosecution under 487 is a prosecutor who has more in his docket than a dink troublemaker like you. Are we getting this?

 

I say thee naaaayyyyy.