Question about Daniel Carr offerings

Yes people have faked his pieces before saying they were his. There is a section on his web page about it

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

There were a few cases of non-silver Chinese "1964-D" Peace Dollars being advertised as "Daniel Carr" products. This was apparently done so that the seller could possibly obtain the much higher premium ($250 at the time) that the Carr version was selling for compared to the Chinese version (which typically sold for less than $20 at the time). I reported those auctions via the eBay Intellectual Property Rights ("VeRO") program and the auctions were quickly cancelled.

This illustrates that the Carr "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollar has become a sort of "Original Numismatic Item" in its own right.

In some other cases, there were somewhat-crude Chinese copies of some of my earlier Amero coins. Those designs are my original artwork and are copyrighted. I reported those to eBay VeRO as well, and those auctions were also cancelled.

 

This is impossible. 16 C.F.R. 304.1 (f) defines "original numismatic item" as "anything which has been part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person, object, place, or event." Your coin meets none of the requisite criteria. Your pieces are not part of a government issue made as either commemorative coins or for circulation. If your coins do portend to be original numismatic items, then your pieces are "reproduction(s), cop(ies), or counterfeit(s)" and are imitation numismatic items within the meaning of 16 C.F.R. 304.1 (d). See also 15 U.S.C. 2106.

16 C.F.R. 304.1 (d) and (f):
(d) Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an an original numismatic item. Such term includes an an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified. The term shall not include any re-issue or re-strike of any an original numismatic item by the United States or any foreign government.

(f) 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, object, place, or event. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals.

15 U.S.C. 2106:

(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. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals.
(4) The term “imitation numismatic item” means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item.

To address the rest of your post, I can definitely see the intellectual property issue with the Ameros. I was unaware (unless I forgot) that someone represented one of his/her wares with one of yours as opposed to merely stating the pieces were overstruck similar to yours.

 

[ QUOTE="Coinchemistry 2012, post: 2592204, member: 28107"]This is impossible. 16 C.F.R. 304.1 (f) defines "original numismatic item" as "anything which has been part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person, object, place, or event." Your coin meets none of the requisite criteria. Your pieces are not part of a government issue made as either commemorative coins or for circulation. If your coins do portend to be original numismatic items, then your pieces are "reproduction, cop[ies], or counterfeit" and are imitation numismatic items within the meaning of 16 C.F.R. 304.1 (d). See also 15 U.S.C. 2106.

16 C.F.R. 304.1 (d) and (f):
(d) Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an an original numismatic item. Such term includes an an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified. The term shall not include any re-issue or re-strike of any an original numismatic item by the United States or any foreign government.

(f) 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, object, place, or event. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals.

15 U.S.C. 2106:

(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. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals.
(4) The term “imitation numismatic item” means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item.

To address the rest of your post, I can definitely see the intellectual property issue with the Ameros. I was unaware (unless I forgot) that someone represented one of his/her wares with one of yours as opposed to merely stating the pieces were overstruck similar to yours.[/QUOTE]

I am still trying to grasp why you do not like what he does so much. I notice in your posts, stronger language when it comes to him making profits, is this the reason you dislike his work? Is it the profits he makes that you object to?

Also I have to ask, what do you collect? I have not seen you mention what it is you like in the coin realm.

 

My God. You're more rigid than @V. Kurt Bellman. Life is not always black & white. I guess there's a good reason for all those lawyer jokes.

 

Are you prepared to prove with rigor that there is no "person, object, place, or event" that a 1964-D Peace Dollar restrike could "commemorate"? No significant event, perhaps having something to do with the Peace Dollar design, that might have happened around that date?

 

But when @V. Kurt Bellman isn't threatening to trip RWB, he can be a lot of fun.

 

It is merely an imitation of a government issued coin with a date alteration. Imitations of an imitation numismatic item aren't original numismatic items. If someone would like to test the theory, sue some of the eBay producers and see what a court says.

 

I would still take exception to the pieces even if he distributed them for free. I do think the profiteering from ignoring the HPA is annoying, and I think it is unfair to those entities that are producing fantasy overstrikes that comply with the HPA. I have no affiliation with any company or organization producing novelty or imitation coins as was alleged in another thread.

My interests are all over the place, but mainly pre-WWII U.S. coinage.

 

So would it be fair to say, that you are more against the legal aspect rather than the damaging the hobby aspect? I am looking at this from a collectors view, not so much the legal view.

It seems odd to me that you are a collector, yet you seem to set the legal aspect above the hobby aspect. Perhaps that is why I am not understanding your logic.

 

From a collector standpoint, I think the ultimate health of the hobby is at stake. When the market is flooded with Chinese and domestically produced pieces from individuals parroting Carr's arguments, the probability of fraud increases exponentially. Carr's pieces themselves can be instruments of fraud when the coins are separated from the flips/labels in the future to those who have never heard of Carr. When people are burned in numismatics, regardless of whether it is their fault or not, that tends to sour their interest in numismatics and kill what may have become a collector. It isn't true for all people that have been screwed over in this hobby, but it happens to many.

From a legal standpoint, the discussions are relevant to those who wish to purchase the pieces. While the pieces are not illegal to own, provisions that were added in 2014 and that have yet to be tested in court could make it more difficult to sell his works in the future (especially in large venues like eBay). Each collector deserves to understand all sides of the issue and make an informed decision regarding the risk. Controversy and attention is a good thing in this context.

 

What's the difference between a carp and a lawyer ?

 

Ones a bottom feeding mud dweller, the others a fish.

 

I have a serious question. In almost every thread about his pieces, Carr analogizes himself to Andy Warhol who is a world renowned artist. Don't all famous artists sign their work? Warhol did using a signature, printing it, or silk-screening it. Since Carr sees himself as being at the same level as Andy Warhol, why doesn't he simply sign his work? I thought all the "greats" signed their work. Wouldn't he want to distinguish his highly prized artwork from the Chinese "perversions" that he seems to loathe (and disavows association of his name with even it only says "similar to Carr" or uses similar language)?

 

He does sign his work. The fantasy date and unparalleled high quality are his signatures.

 

Oh and another artist I tend to liken Dan to is Banksy. He used to sign his work but stopped as his art spoke for itself. Read this...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2007/mar/14/art.simonhattenstone

 

Ugh. No

 

Uh, yes

 

But it would seem that the fantasy date signature is being used by others. Why not sign his name to it? He is proud of his work.

 

Because his work speaks for itself. How does this not compute?