Question about Daniel Carr offerings

Banksy's work seems to be unique. He isn't copying someone else's design and stamping a new date on it. Wouldn't Carr really like to set himself apart?

Also, he isn't the only producer of high quality imitation pieces. While some Chinese pieces are crude, others appear to be of much higher quality. Look at how proficient the Chinese have been in making counterfeit Trade Dollars. Sometimes these fool even the grading services. Where there is money to be made, Chinese imitators/counterfeiters are ogling over the potential financial gain. Since Carr is so renowned for his superior work, I am sure that Chinese have heard of it. In fact, Carr has conceded this (albeit from a less proficient imitator).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

His Overstrikes do not speak for themselves. He copied someone else's work.

 

Also, Carr has a website with "fakes" imitating his work. Carr says that he reports them, yet he has several photos of the pieces on his website. I certainly hope Mr. Carr isn't posting someone else's photos without permission. We all know how much Carr cares about his "intellectual property" and brand name, and I hope he would not be so hypocritical as to infringe on the intellectual property rights of others. I'm sure the others would object to their association with his brand name given his controversial role in this hobby. Not everyone sees his operation, which either violates the law or flirts with the borderline of violating the law, as a positive thing.

 

Hey, do you mind rephrasing that?

 

Oh really?...

http://numismatics.org/pocketchange/banksy/

https://www.amazon.co.uk/BANKSY-original-Di-faced-available-private/dp/B00KGEZ2WG

 

I don't follow the logic again. The market has been flooded with counterfeits over the years. Cast copies, spark erosion, Hennings nickels etc. Plus some may have actually enhanced and added to the hobby. Also the Chinese do not need to use Carr's argument, they have already flooded the market with cheap fakes.

Some who are burned as you say may leave, but you could counter that they may have left anyhow. You can also stifle the hobby by shutting down creative avenues which may appeal to a younger crowd. The hobby is changing and adapting to new technology, you can not legislate to stop it or you will kill the hobby. We could legislate that eBay can not sell coins, it would stop all coin fraud on eBay, but it would also do great harm to the hobby.

From a purely legal standpoint, I can see your arguments and maybe they are correct, time will tell.

From a long time coin collector standpoint, I do not agree with you.

 

I respect that and sincerely appreciate the discussion.

Ditto to @Paul M.

 

We have a voice and believe it should be heard. It's our right to beat our dead horse just as much as it is Cascade's right to gush head over hills, professing his love for Carr. lol

 

We are now discussing new issues. No is close to being green warranted yet.

 

I don't "profess my love." I just know Dan and know the great admiration and good will he has for this hobby so someone needs to counter the insanity of the viewpoints of you "forum few"

 

You know as well as I do that if you wholeheartedly believe everything you write on this forum, then you and your fellow naysayers are gonna continue to represent your beliefs. That's cool, no problem here. All I gotta say is life is way too short for me to be involved in a discussion on opinions. In fact I won't even discuss it. The only thing Daniel Carr has ever done is he mints coins that truly have not been issued by the US as the dates don't exist. Therefore, I agree to disagree with you.

 

You're a Carr sycophant. Admit it. Own it.

 

Oh god. You guys are truly nuts.

 

If you don't think that a in a nation of nearly 1.4 BILLION people, there's someone capable of doing a better job than or produce a higher quality product, you truly are delusional. Please... neck boots are no longer needed to wade through the BS, but a submarine.

Let's be honest here, shall we? You're no Warhol, sir. I understand he's your go-to guy, and you just love to compare yourself to him, but you're not in the same league, deserved or not, as he is, so give it up. Perhaps you will be one day, I don't know, but you're not now, especially considering how Warhol actually had the moral fortitude to signed his "work", even when he copied it.

"Engraved", huh"? With the talent in your hands, or could it be that a computer controlled CNC machine is actually the "engraver"?

That said, who cares? You've designed a couple state quarters and that's great, but if memory serves me, didn't you also design the "Freedom Tower" token that was used to scam countless innocent people? Yes, I get you supposedly distanced yourself from it, but I never hear you talk about that when patting yourself on the back or acting as if designing a couple of blah quarters has ANYTHING to do with your present copying.

Same with your press; so what? It may be good for marketing, but overall it doesn't mean squat. The government was done with it, wanted it gone, and you bought it at a price most certainly less than it would've cost to buy new. It lends no sort of legitimacy to your copying, it doesn't make you "authorized", and is simply more of the endless deflective fluff you always resort to.

The other two on your list aren't even worth addressing, but I'm sure they're perfectly capable of designing a very basic website, and it's very safe to say that the Chinese people as a whole have created much more substantial and artistically talented "numismatic works" than you. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but once you've injected Mustangs and Andy Warhol into a thread, it's time to drop the niceties.

 

It's true. He is arguing that others are stealing his intellectual property and brand name, yet he uses images others have sent him of "imitations of his work" (although truly imitations of U.S. Mint designs). If he wasn't given permission to the use the photo and he didn't take the photos (which he admitted he did not in another thread), then he has infringed on someone else's copyright. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.