You wrote that I stated my process was to attempt to "destroy" the host coin as much as possible prior to the over-strike. That is false. What flattening I did perform in the early days was done prior to the over-strike and it was not to "destroy" the coin. It was to flatten out rim nicks and the like. Early over-strikes from 2010 were over-struck four times to "eradicate" the ghosting as much as possible. If the host coins were completely flat before the over-strike, there would be no need to "eradicate" any existing design, there would be no need to over-strike multiple times, and there would be no remnants of it after the over-strike(s). But there is.
If this is the case, then they wouldn't pay any more for a Carr over-strike than a common ordinary Morgan Dollar. So no harm done to the buyer if they get one at that price.
It could still be sold as a high grade (MS67?) Morgan while the seller/buyer are not even talking about the date or mm.
Crap. I finished one page and two more were posted before I was done. As an old person, I slowed down on everything I do, including my reading speed. How about we all band together and make counterfeit Chinese coins to be sold over there? :>)
How's your family doing Sam ? Hope you had a good holiday with everything that happen . I think about you and your family all the time and may god bless you and your love ones too.
Fine it is a combination of pre-strike processes and the striking itself. I acknowledged as much in my response to your reply. It changes nothing about my point and that of the other poster. Your ghosting argument made earlier in the thread is one of convenience as @C-B-D pointed out since your announced goal was to eradicate as much of the host coin as possible whether that was through the labor intensive flattening processes (described in the same 6+ year old thread as the eradication quote) prior to striking or repeatedly overstriking the coin itself. Your intent was to eradicate the design of the host coin in toto.
As long as it fairly presented both sides and acknowledged that there hasn't been an adjudication, I wouldn't care if it was a joint effort or if another poster (instead of me) collaborated with Carr/Cascade. It would go a long way to dispelling the notion that the issues have been all resolved and the pieces are legitimate. At best, it is a murky issue.
If someone mistakes your pieces even for a common date and pays MS66, MS67, or even MS68 money (which some of your pieces would grade that high if authentic, original coins), then the person is being screwed over royally. Ditto for your 1915 half dollars, dimes, and quarters and all of your other "fantasy" creations. Your ability to replicate official U.S. coins with a high level of accuracy and precision also undermines faith in the integrity of government obligations/currency. If an engineer in Colorado can produce coins of this quality with some incidental ghosting from an original coin, then it is not a stretch to imagine that he (or anyone else for that matter) can do the same over virgin planchets. There is a reason that Congress used its Article I, Section 8 constitutional powers to grant it an exclusive monopoly over producing disks, tokens, coins, etc., in the resemblance or similitude of U.S. money. It doesn't matter what your intent is and whether your believe there is any harm or not, the law provides that the pieces must not be made.
I was never successful in totally "eradicating" the original host design, so I quit trying to do that. I decided years ago that it really wasn't necessary. Technically, I could have melted the host coins and formed them into new blanks if I wanted to. But that didn't meet the criteria I had decided upon, so I never did that. No adding or removing of metal, and no heating or melting. That was, and still is, the process.
Doesn't matter - the Carr sees and knows all, even when he doesn't. As is evidenced by this (and every other thread) his word is law, or at least many accept it as such. It is, of course, nothing but an utterly ridiculous self-serving claim, no less ludicrous than saying no American would ever pay more for any European coin than its most "common" and "ordinary" cousin. If anything should be clear to all is that no matter how reasonable one's concern or issue may be, it don't matter, not because of fact or reality, but because the Carr and his products deserve unquestioned special treatment that absolutely no one else, under any circumstance, does. Case in point: "If, at some point in the future somebody pulls off a scam using some coin, how about we blame the person actually perpetrating that fraud?" Posted earlier in this thread by Mr. Carr, and in itself a perfectly logical and reasonable statement - of course the individual perpetrating the fraud should receive the lion's share of the blame - but when someone knowingly and intentionally gives them the tools to do so, said individual cannot rightfully or morally wash their hands of it and pretend to be blameless. Just imagine the reaction if, say, an Asian "fantasy" producer came here and posted the above. This forum, with the fanhood leading the way, would erupt with outrage and disgust, ready and willing to hang them from the nearest tree. Double standard? Indeed...
If I remember correctly, someone did send a few to NGC or PCGS and they came back as "ineligible type"
Have you even attempted, on your own, to disprove anything the gentleman has said or claimed? I'm guessing not or else you'd realize how ridiculous an assertion this is.... You don't have to, on a personal level, like or agree with what he says, but precious few here actually take the time or make the effort he does in order to back up and clarify his positions, and for this alone he deserves a little respect.
Someone could potentially pay way too much for a lightly-circulated coin that has been "whizzed" (artificial luster applied). That used to happen quite often, actually. At least a fantasy date would provide an indicator that a normal-date whizzed coin would not have. Maybe we should outlaw desktop printers because they make it easy to print counterfeit currency, thereby undermining faith in US Government currency ? Too late. Faith in US Government currency has already been undermined. Every time I spend a higher-denomination note, the cashier tests it with a pen. A few over-struck silver coins possibly ending up in circulation is not going to undermine any confidence, but it might make someone's day. If a "coin doctor" were to take a Barber half dollar (for example) and re-engrave the details, smooth out the bag marks, and add luster by "whizzing", the result could be an apparent high-grade coin no different than an over-strike. There is nothing illegal about doing that, so long as no fraud is attempted.
Every foreign coin could be sold as a rarity or ultra rarity to a buyer who doesn't know better, should we ban all of those? Anyone who buys a coin without talking about or checking the date and mint mark gets will have several bridges sold to them in their life time. I believe it was Cardinal who has been trying to get them to slab them for a while and had posted about it on the CU forum.
According to this logic, the manufacturers of desktop printers are partially to blame for counterfeit currency. So you are claiming that if an Asian person did exactly what I did (fantasy-date over-strikes) the "fanhood" would be outraged and disgusted and looking to hang that Asian person ?
The fact that fraud still takes place in light of legal safe guards doesn't mean that we should repeal all prohibitions and open the flood gates.
I don't know about lynching, but every time I see a Chinese made counterfeit, even with a fictitious date, all I hear is complaining and criticism.
