Question about Daniel Carr offerings

Facts are not "impossible", except for some to comprehend.

As evidence, I present the Krause Publications "Unusual World Coins" Catalog, 6th Edition, "United States" section, "Daniel Carr Prototype Dollars" subsection, page 696, far right column at bottom:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I use Warhol as an example of someone who doesn't follow the "norm" in regards to art.

If someone is attributing work to me that I didn't do, or if someone uses one of my copyrighted designs without permission, I will take action. This applies whether the other party is Chinese, American, Canadian, or whatever.

"Perversions" is a word that you quoted as if I had used it to describe Chinese wares. I have not.

 

The Chinese do not have computer/CNC machines that I "could only dream of".

If you want a signed Carr piece, buy one that is encased in an ANACS holder - all of those are hand-signed.

I don't care what type of artist you think I am.

There aren't any major mints in the world that still do hand engraving. The US Mint has created all their designs in the last 100 years from plasters on reduction machines.

Don't blame me because you don't have any talent related to art or numismatics.

The "Freedom Tower" dollar is not a bad design. I didn't like the marketing campaign that they engaged in, however. But note that the same basic design was minted as a legal tender One Dollar coin of the Cook Islands from 2005 to 2010.

My coin press is super cool. No, you can not come over and play with it.

You never had any "niceties" to begin with. So what's the difference ?

 

You apparently remember that other thread where the pictures of the Chinese pieces on my website were discussed.

I said that I found some of those pictures on the internet.

Then for several days there was much sensationalizing about how I was hypocritical, plagiarizing, etc.

What you failed to consider is that, even though I found some of the pictures on the internet, I asked for and received permission to use them. And I stated this on that forum. You don't remember that ?

 

.

 

Apples and oranges. Persistence of memory is a one of a kind and worth millions of dollars. No one in their right mind would add a second hand to the clock. Creating a fantasy coin with a date and/or MM that never existed on a worn out, worth only melt coin is something totally different. Many of these junk coins are melted every day. In a way, Daniel Carr is saving them from the smelter. Thanks for posting the image though. I'll have to head over to the MoMA soon to see the work in person again. Very cool piece with lots of history.

 

Did you ever hear of rules of evidence? They're exclusionary, they exclude evidence from juror's little brains. Now I wonder if you can comprehend the reason for that.

 

True That

 

What about you, counselor? Do you want to tell us how you double-talk your way around this, or is that work product?

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.

 

Super cool for sure. Do you think they could be suffering from press envy?

 

I believe the point of Dali's art and many other art pieces, is to make you think differently, to kind of break the chains or rules. This has been demonstrated many times in many art forms, it often meets with resistance too. Many artists were considered very controversial in their day.
Art is often an interpretation of an original....

http://coinpaintings.us/portfolio.html

 

Where is your evidence of juror's little brains? Neigh.

If I am selected as a juror at Mr Carr's trial, I will educate my fellow jurors about this....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Is that the sound of hornets buzzing I hear?

 

Objection, Asked and answered...

...Sustained

 

Well, it just follows. If they were big, why would we have to keep evidence out?

 

You mean Asked and Dodged. Overruled. Besides, I want to hear his answer.

 

Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people.

W. C. Fields

 

Lol! Andy, I love W.C. And Maye West, she's got some great lines too.

 

No where in the text of the HPA is there a requirement that the coin still exist. The language states that an original numismatic item is "part of a coinage or issue." Even if melted, I do not see how you can contend that duly struck pieces from the United States Mint were not part of the coinage of the United States. The reading is constrained and does not comport with either the legislative history or purpose of the Hobby Protection Act which was to supposedly fill in any potential gaps left by the counterfeiting statutes although the HPA itself also includes counterfeits. You consistently state that no 1964-D Peace Dollars exist relying on the melt records from the Mint; however, these records have already proven to be wrong as at least two additional coins were discovered later. The facts undermine your argument and the Mint's original statement that all were melted. If that were the case, there wouldn't have been two discovery pieces later that were subsequently destroyed. Are the extant pieces? Plausibly, but it is doubtful we will ever see one in our life times after the way the Langbords were screwed over with their 1933 Double Eagles. Either way, it doesn't matter whether the pieces still exist or not.

As for your reliance on the GBI case, it does not define an original numismatic item in the way you suggest. It states that changing the date is not enough to deprive a coin of its status as an imitation numismatic item. It is completely silent on the definition of an original numismatic item. In fact, it defines an imitation numismatic item in the context of the case law concerning counterfeit coins and notes. Consistent with existing case law, the FTC found that merely changing the date is insufficient to deprive a coin of its counterfeit (and/or reproduction/copy) status merely by changing the date. The counterfeiting laws and existing case law, which the FTC relied on heavily in crafting the GBI decision, notably do not require that a coin be exact in all respects to run afoul of the counterfeiting statutes, which is why the entire "fantasy" date concept is baseless and does not deprive the resulting pieces' status as counterfeits much less as reproductions or copies.

 

On March 21, 2016, the following exchange took place in a now locked Coin Talk thread:

Q. Did you photograph each and every one of these "fakes"?
A. No. But I document every type of copy of any coin that I've made, as well as any item that someone claims is my product but isn't. To do that, I use pictures that people send me or that I find on the internet.

If your fans randomly send you pictures from the Internet, then it doesn't matter whether they give you consent or not to use the photos if they do not retain the copyright to the images. The original photographer has those unless specifically assigned (in writing) to your sources.

 

No, I'm not, nor am I surprised you've resorted to deflection. After all, it's par for the course among the fans who refuse to apply logic or the same standards across the board.

Not ONCE have I ever said nor even implied Carr is, was, or could be anywhere near the problem caused by actual counterfeits. In fact, I have repeatedly agreed that problems caused by his copying will be minimal compared to other issues facing this hobby, but this doesn't mean, as is so often promoted by the fans, that no one could ever be taken by and/or be confused by them. There's a big difference between saying it "could not happen" and accepting the fact that it can and already has happened, at least the confused part. Just because there are greater concerns does not mean lesser concerns should be ignored, yet this is the very argument so often put forth by the fans, and is beyond ludicrous. On the other hand, my approach is very simple, really: if it's okay for Carr, it rightfully is okay for anyone and EVERYONE else, and if it's not okay for everyone else, is it not okay for Carr. Is this really so hard for you to understand? If Carr's copies are okay, that's great and I can certainly accept that, but the same must then go for all "fantasy" dates regardless of where they came from or who made them. Again, this is a VERY SIMPLE concept.

There's no "love affair" with the Chinese, and even suggesting as much was a display of rank stupidity on the part of someone whose participation in this thread amounts to applying a double standard to two very similar products. The only "love affair" I've thus far seen has come from the fans, including yourself, and is evidenced by all the ridiculous little excuses given in lame attempts to justify products made by someone they like while condemning those made by people they don't. Dates not used on actual coinage are either "fantasy" or they're not. Take your pick.

I've never said that, and you know it. The very first interaction we had on this board was you accusing me of calling Carr's copies "counterfeits", which I do not do, and since then you've taken it upon yourself to place words in my mouth maybe 10-15 different times in childish attempts to fit your little narrative. I feel no differently about Carr pieces than I do anything else that could be used to take advantage of another in this business/hobby: if one buys what they do not know or understand, it's their own fault, yet you still conveniently ignore this. You see, unlike you, I will not make special excuses for what I like and do so while painting what I don't with widest and most negative brush possible.