Question about Daniel Carr offerings

If you want, you can read all about it below. Daniel Carr hides nothing.

http://www.designscomputed.com/coins/ftsd.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The Delmarco court took issue with the inscription of "ONE DOLLAR" and "IN GOD WE TRUST" on the coin. Carr admits to designing the coin. I have asked in other threads whether he was responsible for the addition of the inscriptions that the court found problematic. He never responded to the question. He certainly hasn't strayed away from using SAME inscriptions on his other pieces.

Carr's article points to other sleazy things his former associates putatively did. It doesn't change that a court has already passed judgment on one of his designs and found it to violate the law. Did his associates do other things too? Absolutely.

 

I respect your opinion also and it has been interesting to try to see your viewpoint. The legal discussion makes me think it would be a good thing if things were clarified with a ruling.

 

Agreed

 

While I have no axe to grind with the Chinese, your love in fest with them seems to contradict your statements. You are arguing that Carrs few tokens are as bad or worse than the millions of cheap, deceptive counterfeits? That's what it seems to me.

 

He's just picking a fight from his dislike of Carr. Every other thread he harps buyer responsibility, education and free markets ect ect but when it comes to Carr all of a sudden people are victims who need protection

 

To nobody in particular and everyone in general:

 

Well that's what the law says so...

 

I think this whole argument is over whether they are legal or not. Whether anyone is taltented enough, or whether they are only doing it for money, is a issue that is coincidental and not related to legality. Remember, legality has different perimeters outside the United States. We are all going to learn about globalization when very few listen to us or our standards. We will need to adapt or influence others to adapt. It will not be pleasant for the society that lives here. We will not get our way nor might we be in charge. We are critical of anything we don't agree with and then we try to replace it. However, it may remove us instead. No government has lived through four centuries. In the rapid space of time, even our demise is inevitable. Let's not worry about Daniel, he isn't a real problem.

 

The legal angle is one thing, the moral road is another. Whether it is good for the hobby is my primary concern. The political angle you border on is not one that can de discussed here I believe.

The parameters outside the the United States are not my concern, I collect coins within the U.S.

 

It seems crazy to me to attack Carr and defend the Chinese.

 

I don't think anyone is defending the Chinese. I think many are of the opinion that Carr is just as problematic as Chinese counterfeiters. The latter are almost universally condemned. Carr is a heroic figure of some sort to some. Those two positions seem to contradict each other. If fantasy dates are enough, then many of what I see routinely trashed on coin forums are really "fantasy" coins to Carr supporters if they are holding others to the same standard.

 

Fantasy dates overstruck on host coins of the same type. Done on a surplus actual US mint press by an accomplished numismatic artist. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

 

Someplace recently I seem to remember Dcarr saying that only the date and the "D" was original intellectual property, the rest being by others ( public domain or not), so is less than maybe 1% original art demonstrating new art?
Like adding a second hand on Dali's Clock and calling it original art?
As you say "Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?"

 

If the Chinese overstruck a business strike 1895 Morgan Dollar over a common date, all hell would break lose here. Like 1964-D Peace Dollars, pieces were struck but none are thought to exist with the 1895 date. Carr could do the same thing and would be described as an "artist." Ditto for a Chinese 1894-CC, 1897-CC, etc. I believe I have seen some of these dates used by the Chinese.

Also, despite what you claim, not all of the overstrikes are of the same type. Look at his 1964 Franklin Half Dollars struck over Kennedy Half Dollar blanks.

 

It's an authentic, non-fraudulently altered Peace dollar. That makes it an "original numismatic item" under this framework.

 

A Morgan overstruck as an 1895 "business strike" dollar would be far more questionable than a 1964-D Peace dollar, as records exist of business strike dollars being struck in 1895, yet these pieces are unaccounted for. The 1964-D Peace dollars were struck and officially accounted for (melted), never issued, and would be illegal to own if a genuine piece surfaced.

I would welcome a non-existent CC date overstruck dollar, whether done by the Chinese or whomever, provided the same level of quality that Mr. Carr uses is maintained, and the pieces are overstruck on genuine, common-date, low-value pieces.

I don't know where you get that the 1964-D Franklins are overstruck on Kennedy halves. According to his web site, they are overstruck on 1948-1963 Franklins.

 

You are ignoring the language defining an "imitation numismatic item" to include "an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified."

To be sure, it is an altered Peace Dollar. It is not a 1964-D Peace Dollar, which was in fact part of the Peace Dollar series (and therefore an issue or part of the coinage of the United States) despite all supposedly having been destroyed; therefore, it purports to be a different original numismatic item than the one issued. Both 1922 and 1964-D Peace Dollars are distinct issues and both are original numismatic items. Carr's pieces are therefore imitation numismatic items and not original numismatic items. Put another way, an imitation numismatic item cannot be an original numismatic item. The former includes copies, reproductions, and counterfeits of the latter.

Your reliance on records of the putative destruction is also misplaced. (1) Nothing in the HPA requires that extant copies exist and (2) at least two pieces surfaced after the supposed "melt" or destruction of the coins that were subsequently destroyed around 1970. The records have already proven to be unreliable. PCGS even has a reward out to certify one, but there is no real chance of that ever coming to fruition after the Langbord case.

 

Sorry, but no. A 1964-D Peace dollar is not a an "original numismatic item" under the HPA/CCPA, precisely because it officially doesn't exist. The coins were never officially released, and were all officially destroyed. The definition of an "original numismatic item" does require they be "a part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange -or [have] been used to commemorate a person or event." They were not "part of a coinage" because they weren't officially issued, and they certainly don't commemorate anything or anyone.

Plain and simple, you can't 'COPY' something that doesn't exist.

Furthermore, your position seems counter to In re: Gold Bullion Int'l, Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196 (1978), 223, which says:

What distinguishes a genuine 1964-D Peace dollar (should one hypothetically exist) from a genuine 1922 Peace dollar to the "ignorant, the unthinking and the credulous", if not the date? This seems to imply that a 1964-D Peace dollar and a 1922 Peace dollar are not, in fact, different numismatic items at all, in a legal sense! And, if a Peace dollar is a Peace dollar is a Peace dollar, then a 1922 Peace dollar overstruck into a Peace dollar is not an imitation of anything!

Quite honestly, I hope this latter argument is a load of cow pies, but I don't really see any way around it.