Question about Daniel Carr offerings

I am not a metallurgist, however I have worked with them. The ROM piece looks like the word 'copy' is incuse, which would make it non compliant with the law correct?​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I have never said ROM or any other manufacturer was perfect. So far, there appear to be only three court/commission opinions addressing the HPA. Some aspects are crystal clear as applied to certain coins, some aspects become less clear as you move more and more toward coins that compare less favorably to U.S. coins in design or inscription.

 

Here are the requirements:

(3) An imitation numismatic item of incusable material shall be incused with the word “COPY” in sans-serif letters having a vertical dimension of not less than two millimeters (2.0 mm) or not less than one-sixth of the diameter of the reproduction, and a minimum depth of three-tenths of one millimeter (0.3 mm) or to one-half ( 1/2) the thickness of the reproduction, whichever is the lesser. The minimum total horizontal dimension of the word “COPY” shall be six millimeters (6.0 mm) or not less than one-half of the diameter of the reproduction.

(4) An imitation numismatic item composed of nonincusable material shall be imprinted with the word “COPY” in sans-serif letters having a vertical dimension of not less than two millimeters (2.0 mm) or not less than one-sixth of the diameter of the reproduction. The minimum total horizontal dimension of the word “COPY” shall be six millimeters (6.0 mm) or not less than one-half of the diameter of the reproduction.


Thanks for responding. I would like your opinion on whether the hypothetical presented by @-jeffB and @Paul M. and my response were practical from a die making perspective.

 

Not trolling at all, simply pointing out that a lawyer could have filed a complaint with half the effort you have put into these treads time and time again.

 

So you are not an expert in CAD/CAM or CNC. But you talk like you want us to think you are.

There are machines out there that are slightly better than my setup for certain things. But I do not "dream" about them and they are not something that I would bother to switch over to, even if the cost to do so was moderate.

If you don't like my products and/or how I package them, you can vote with your feet.

I sculpt using a digital sculpting program that I wrote myself. There were no off-the-shelf software packages that could do what I wanted. So I spent a couple years writing my own software. The computer is a tool, but free-form sculpting still has to be done by mouse-in-hand. Pushing "digital" clay around with a mouse is not any different than pushing physical clay around with a finger. Nobody is as good at free-hand engraving as a CNC machine. No major mints in the world engrave by hand, and it has been many years since any of them did. I only use hand engraving on occasion to touch up dies.

You seem obsessed as well.
The prices that knowledgeable people are willing to pay is the best measure of market acceptance.

This diatribe is a window to your personality in real life, I think.

The US Mint 1964 Morgan hubs (not dies) do not have a "D" mint mark. There is no indication that the Mint ever struck any 1964 Morgan Dollars, and they have not expressed any intention to do so. Even if they wanted to, they could not without Congressional legislation (and there is no indication of that either).

 

From a die making perspective i believe it would be easier to machine the die with the word 'copy' as a whole. It would be possible to leave a raised area and either machine or stamp it later. Stamping it would I believe leave the outline of the stamp along with the word 'copy' so would be inferior in the look of the final product.
However either does bring up the point that technically the dies would ne non compliant, before becoming compliant, in theory.

 

I never saw any post where he suggested that he was an expert in the field. This entire thread is beginning to sound like a group of teenage boys arguing about who has a larger member.

His point is that you are using computers to copy someone else's work and engrave dies substantially containing someone else's work and that this cheapens claims to artistry. Whether you agree with that or not, it is a valid opinion. It happens to be an opinion shared by a number posters here and elsewhere who choose not to vocally express their opinion in this thread because they are tired of the overstrike Gestapo.

 

My Morgan's bigger than your Morgan lol.

 

It is technically possible for a fully-engraved die to have a "COPY" stamp impressed into it in such a way that the "COPY" letters end up being incuse on the struck piece. As previously stated, such a "COPY" stamp applied to a die would be a rectangle with incuse "COPY" letters, just as they will appear on the final struck piece.

However, it might be difficult to stamp a die such that the "COPY" lettering is raised sufficiently on the die so as to be sufficiently incuse on the struck piece. Any existing engraved detail that the "COPY" is punched over on the die would likely remain somewhat visible within the area of the stamp, especially on the letters themselves.

It appears that the Royal Oak Mint "1964" Morgan reverse die has the "COPY" mark engraved as part of the design and not punched in after the engraving or on the struck piece.

In contrast, the Gallery Mint products had "COPY" stamped into the coins AFTER they were struck. Their dies did not have "COPY" on them. This can be proven because some of their pieces, struck from exactly the same die pair, have "COPY" on the obverse and some have it on the reverse.

PS:
Even a "COPY" stamp will not prevent an uninformed person from being taken if they refuse to do a minimal amount of due diligence. And the presence of a "COPY" stamp will not prevent someone from attempting to perpetrate a scam, as evidenced by this front-page Coin World article from 1998 about a Gallery Mint product (see pink shaded area - also note my original Astronaut dollar concept at lower right):

 

That's okay. Mine is "shinier."

 

Thank you for addressing the technical aspect for us. As for your last paragraph, isn't it possible that GM simply used multiple die pairs? I am not familiar with the exact pieces.

 

It's a better comparison than what your crush usually feeds us, I give you that. However, if you had walked, or even crawled like a "caveman" and gotten some fresh air, perhaps a sufficient amount of oxygen would have finally reached your brain and allowed you to see that no matter how many idiotic excuses you make, copying is copying. Now, once you, or if you, manage conquer this clearly monumental obstacle, perhaps then we can tackle pre-K level common sense. It'll be tough, but I've faith in you...

 

0.3mm deep (0.012 inches deep) is as deep as the maximum relief on a typical silver round. In fact, 0.012" is almost the same as the maximum relief height on the obverse of a Morgan Dollar (not counting the rim). It does not appear that the Royal Oak Mint "1964" Morgans have a "COPY" stamp which is that deep. In fact, there are very few reproduction coins which have the "COPY" stamp that deep.

 

That's the type of thing that should be brought up during the open comments period the FTC holds periodically in considering revisions of its regulations promulgated under the HPA. Maybe you can find a way to relax the standards so that compliance is less of a pain while still providing effect to Congress's intent. Ditto for your argument that marking "COPY" on a non-copy is incongruous. It absolutely is, but as written, that is literally what the statute and FTC regulations require.

 

Their dies were hand-engraved. Each can be individually identified because of that.
And the exact position of the "COPY" stamp can vary from one piece to the next.
Here are two 1794/1994 "dollars" on eBay, one with "COPY" stamp touching ribbon and one not touching ribbon:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/152342854147

http://www.ebay.com/itm/252676813196

 

On a fundamental level, all coins are copies. When they stated to churn out chain cents they copied the round shiny objects that have frequented Europe and Rome for millennia. I have read many numismatic articles over the years about presidents who wanted our coinage to be more French renaissance, roman or classic Spanish.
Wasn't it Reagan who started the silver eagle program because he wanted to compete with the Mexican libertad?

I do walk for fresh air each day with my dogs, sadly not today or yesterday. If I had I would have looked like Jack Nicholson at the end of The Shining.

 

"Donald Carr" huh. That's funny. Nobody's making that mistake today lol

 

I have only one coin with copy on it, it is a copy of a fugio that I received free with some other purchases. It occurred to me then that someone could easily wear the coin down and wear the copy stamp away, yet still have some of the design left. That would fool an unknowing person fairly easily. If it were a high value item like a chain cent, where well worn pieces sell for high prices, then the copy stamp does not ensure someone will be fooled by a fraudster.

 

It's better than nothing. You are making it easy.

 

Yea, and they did it twice on the front page, two weeks apart.
Here is the first time: