Question about Daniel Carr offerings

I would substitute the word "actual" with "Chinese."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

In order to deflect, you have to be deflecting from something, in your bluster you failed to realize I had nothing to deflect from, nor was I deflecting, nor do I deflect. I have no problem applying the same logic across the board, Carr himself has also said so.

Again, show me a high quality Chinese overstrikes with Carrs provenance and equipment, overstriking a genuine U.S. mint coin similar to what Carr is doing? My Xmas shopping is not over.

Is it really so hard for you to understand that I have answered your question multiple times? At the risk of repeating myself...

Again, show me a high quality Chinese overstrikes with Carrs provenance and equipment, overstriking a genuine U.S. mint coin similar to what Carr is doing? My Xmas shopping is not over.

Other than anecdotal evidence that out of 1.4 billion Chinese there must be a 'better than Carr' Chinese craftsman out there, you have nothing. As I said once before...and repeat myself again here, while the Chinese throughout history have been some of the leaders in craftsmanship, including ceramics. The present day manufacturing base of the Chinese is synonymous with cheap, low quality goods, per demand. As such, I don't understand why you seem to have a love affair with them.

So Carrs piece is one, what is the very similar product I am comparing it with?

So the facts I gave you are in your opinion "ridiculous little excuses and lame attempts to justify"? Again, where are your high quality Chinese products similar to Carrs?

It would seem that it is not me deflecting but you. I have asked for the links to these high quality, similar products to Carrs pieces many times now. Can you actualy provide some this time?

 

The HPA states that an Original Numismatic Item must be "part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange". 1964-D Peace Dollars were never issued, nor were they ever used in exchange.

 

According to US Mint Counsel, fraudulent intent is required for there to be a violation of criminal statutes.

The Hobby Protection act allows dies and molds in the likeness of US coins to be made and used. And the HPA does not require that those dies and molds be marked "COPY".

 

You're entire argument throughout this thread has been nothing but deflection (as evidenced below), you most certainly are not applying the same logic across the board (as evidenced below), and Carr saying otherwise is meaningless (as evidenced, well, in pretty much every thread he participates in that centers on his copying).

Here's a fine example of your deflection. You're taking one small aspect of Carr's copies that you can use to separate them from the pack and running with it, not because it makes any real difference, but because it suits your infinitely one-sided and selfish position. This is also the same damn thing most fans resort to in order to justify their preferences, yet these very same people will immediately reject the same logic if applied to the Chinese fantasy pieces. Unless you wish to define "fantasy" in a way it fits Carr and only Carr (which is exactly what you're doing), that's fine on a personal level, but doesn't make it right or the logical approach. If it's a "fantasy", it's a "FANTASY", and just as the fanhood is so quick to remind everyone, the real thing doesn't or didn't exist, so it matters not what material they're made from, or who they're made by, or even the quality for that very reason. This isn't rocket science. If you want to come up with some fluffy and flattering name to call Carr's copies pieces, that's fine, but "fantasy", by definition, doesn't fit when all sorts of inconsequential ifs, ands, or buts are necessary to set them apart from the others.

Again, personal preference in no way changes the fact that a "fantasy" is a "FANTASY". Once you manage to grasp this very simple concept, perhaps we can move on. I've not said the Chinese presently do produce a "fantasy" copy as exacting as Carr's, but only pointed out the obvious fact that they're perfectly capable. You people act as if this man has accomplished the impossible even though he's simply copying, with the help of modern technology, what was produced at a time when it wasn't quite as easy. Just because you may not wish to buy/own one of a quality less than or made by anyone other than Carr is meaningless.

Oh, no... you don't deflect at all (roll eyes here).

Tell me, do you honestly believe that China as a whole is incapable of producing what some guy in his rec room can simply because he's an American and you like him? No disrespect intended, but this has overtaken the last and is now the most asinine position taken in this thread. By even saying what you have, I can only assume you're living in a bubble where you refuse to see the reality of what has happened in that country. Yes, it was much different when I was young, and perhaps the same can be said for you, but things change and they're no longer a backassed third world nation capable of producing only cheap junk regardless of if that's what you choose to believe. Something tells me if you took a look around your own home, you'd find many things produced in China that are every bit the (if not higher) quality than it would be had it been made here. I don't like it, and will go out of my way to buy from and support American businesses, but it's unavoidable in today's world. Deal with it.

That said, did you know that American made products were once synonymous with junk? The same goes for the Germans and Japanese too, and do you know why? To make a very complex situation very simple, the Chinese, as the Japanese before them, had to start somewhere and this often means producing the "cheap, low quality" goods mentioned by you. Germany did it and we did it as well. It's a means to an end, and just like the aforementioned countries who are no longer viewed as the source of "cheap and low quality" goods, China has and is upping it's game, and if history suggests anything, we'll soon be seeing another presently third world country, in their quest to become industrialized, do the same as so many before it. When this happens (and it will), we'll then be labeling theirs products as junk while viewing most from China in a different light. Again, history repeats itself and this isn't rocket science yet you're treating it as if it was.

You also need to understand that while coins may be very important on this board, the same cannot be said for them, as anything other than money, for the rest of society as a whole. They're a niche business and hobby, and that's it. If there was more money to be made by producing higher quality copies, they'd be more plentiful than they are at present, but give it time. A fine example has been set, so sit back and wait for the fireworks. I very much look forward to the day when some enterprising young (perhaps even Chinese) fellow, after seeing what Carr has done, follows his lead and starts producing copies every bit the quality at a fraction of the price. After all, that's business, plus it'll be fun to see what lengths the fanhood will then go to in order to continue justifying why one guy copying is good and the other guy, doing the same damn thing, is bad.

 

The coins are unequivocally part of the Peace Dollar series. The pieces were purportedly melted because of the Coinage Act of 1965. The language that it be "part of a coinage or issue" encompasses the pieces regardless of whether formally released as it is part of the coinage of the United States and the Peace Dollar series. It is undisputed that Peace Dollars circulated and retain legal tender status under the Coinage Act of 1965. Also note the difference between the conjunctive operator "and" and the disjunctive operator "or." If someone struck St. Gaudens 1933 Double Eagles, would you seriously contend that those pieces would not be covered by the HPA? As for the issuance/monetization argument as it applies to other statutes, we have discussed this in other threads.

Of course, the only relevant issue is that the term "imitation numismatic items" encompasses "counterfeits." Courts have acknowledged that counterfeits need not be exact in all respects to violate those statutes. In the GBI case, the HPA looked to case law interpreting the federal criminal counterfeiting statutes, and found that changing the date is not enough to deprive a coin of its counterfeit, reproduction, or copy status for purposes of the HPA. In response to public comments specifically referencing "fantasy" coins, the FTC specifically noted that the pieces were already considered imitation numismatic items for purposes of the HPA. Your pieces are imitation numismatic items and therefore cannot logically be original numismatic items. The HPA does not protect fakes. You cannot make a fake of a fake - both are fakes of the original U.S. Mint design. The terms "imitation numismatic item" and "original numismatic item" are logically mutually exclusive.

 

I have a solution to the issue at hand. Everyone who owns one of Mr. Carr's restrikes, ( all types ) simply send them to me for safe keeping. I am willing to accept all responsibility from that point on. I will glue the plastic flips together, forever insuring none will be mistaken for the real 1964 peace/Morgan dollars.
Sheesh, the steps I have to take to save the human race from this global catastrophe. Maybe I'll get a medal for this. I'll ask Mr. Carr.to design, and produce it.

 

Or the pieces could be confiscated and melted using the relevant forfeiture statute.

 

The intent required in 487 is the intent to make the die. It's not some flowery little thing. Read the statute instead of reading into it what you want.

 

If he does, tell him for us, he doesn't have to put COPY on it. He gets confused about that sometimes.

 

So to summarize, you don't know any good Chinese manufacturers who produce anything like Carr's pieces? Is that what you are saying?

 

I have seen unmarked pieces that purport to be fantasy strikes not made by Carr before on eBay.

 

U.S. Mint counsel said that alteration itself was not illegal absent intent or some other factor. That is a correct statement of the law. The "other factor" here is overstriking with private unauthorized dies to produce items in resemblance or similitude of U.S. coinage. This runs afoul of 18 U.S.C. 485, 487, and 489 (the latter as an alternative to section 485). The Hobby Protection Act and its regulations did not repeal the other statutes, and expressly state that the statutes are in addition to and NOT in substitution or limitation of any other federal or state law.

 

Thought I would share this token with you. It is a 1998 Original Hobo Nickel Society token. Ron Landis made the dies and used a Jefferson nickel for his planchet.

Note: The photos are upside down; yet sharp eyed members can see the cupola of Jefferson's home on the reverse above the steam dome on the engine. Parts of the building's roof are visible on the smoke stack.

 

The dies and resulting piece are not made in the resemblance or similitude of U.S. coinage. Cf. 18 U.S.C. 485, 487. Absent fraudulent intent, mere alteration itself is not illegal absent some other factor.

The Landis piece is legit.

 

Lookie here. This is another Gallery Mint token. Note that the obverse of the "token die" is a very close copy of a Buffalo nickel! Except it is dated 2003. Not marked copy.

After skillfully setting the trap; Insider, esq. "springs" it: GUESS THIS PIECE IS 1/2 "legit" counselor.

 

Then consider someone who, in an effort to comply in full with the HPA, creates a die and then stamps it with COPY. How are they not violating 487, under your interpretation?

 

I am considering Mr Carr's proof strike now, but will consider a good Chinese equivalent. Must be an overstruck Morgan, high quality, 1964 D, preferably struck on an ex U.S. Mint press, well known Chinese artist....can anyone direct me?

 

I don't think the piece violates either the coin counterfeiting statute, 18 U.S.C. 485, or the Hobby Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 2101, et seq.

The counterfeiting statutes have been interpreted the same way for more than a century. The question of whether a coin, token, disk, etc., is a counterfeit is whether it is made in the resemblance or similitude of the design or inscription of U.S. coins such that an ordinary person with no special knowledge of money c/would be deceived/confused. I think the word "token" and major changes to the reverse devices notably apprise someone that it is not a government issue or official money. I think that is enough for 18 U.S.C. 485.

As for the HPA, it becomes more interesting. An imitation numismatic item is one that purports to be but is not in fact an original numismatic item or is a "counterfeit," "copy," or "reproduction." Delmarco notwithstanding, I think inclusion of the word "hobo token" and the design elements are distinguishable from that case sufficiently that the piece does not purport to be an original numismatic item. I also think it is distinguishable from the GBI case which relies heavily on the definition of "counterfeit." A counterfeit need not be exact; thus, the commission held (and I believe correctly) that changing the date is not enough. I do think the additional inscriptions means that it is not a counterfeit, and I certainly wouldn't call it anywhere close to a copy or reproduction. I would argue that the piece isn't required to be marked with the word "COPY."

The obverse die is a problem. Do I think it would result in prosecution? No. Do I think it is arguably a violation as the case law exists now? Yes. With that said, Congressional intent and legislative history show that 18 U.S.C. 487 was enacted to punish those that make dies to produce counterfeits or coins that have a reasonable chance of being confused as real money. Could I see a new line of cases/precedent? Yes. Do I think Carr would be a beneficiary of those? No.