Daniel Carr

Guess you will somehow have to tone down that "I'm just a gold-digger" persona you exude.

JK. I don't even know you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You'd really like me if you took the time to get to know me. How much money do you have?

Chris

 

More than I'm willing to share. LOL.

 

I'm not sure how you and I see this differently at this point, weather we think it means one thing or imagine it to mean many possibilities. A 'like' really lends nothing helpful to the conversation in such case as this threads disagreements, though there are instances where it can mean nothing but, I agree, and clearly is used as a short cut to typing out, I agree plus any more descriptive terms to identify what specifically you 'like' about another persons posts. I am referring to this under the context of such a situation as disagreements or arguments where the application of the 'like' is decisive and can be shown to identify all those on one side of an argument who pile on the 'likes' of a particularly pointed comment aimed at the opposite view. I am not making this comment in application to a zillion other reasons one might use the like button: to bookmark a thought, link, image, idea, etc. We can discern when others apply the 'like' to mean they agree in full with a statement. But if they are employing the 'like' and not intending full agreement, it will do them a disservice of miscommunicating to others since the 'like' is visible and open to interpretation. Words and sentences are the only things that have emerged once the intention was revealed that the 'like' was misinterpreted and the 'liker' comes forth posting in an offended or otherwise self-righteous manner. So words and sentences would have been the best way to indicate what they 'liked' in specific, from the beginning, as would avoiding careless application of the like in the first place.

 

Sometimes I carelessly apply the like button, and the only person I care that sees or appreciates it, other than myself, is the person whose post I used the like button. If others in the world misinterpret it or even have any interest in my meaning or what I might mean or might not mean by liking something, it's really not my concern when I hit the like button. I don't like something or not like something because someone other than me or the person whose post I've read and have the opportunity to like or pass up on liking is possibly going to determine that I agree with the person. Maybe you should take away that all the posts I've read and not liked means that I am in complete disagreement with. (Yes, I ended a sentence a preposition with -- oh well). I don't look at posts and see that the ones that have no "likes" on them have around 35,000 people (possibly more) absolutely and totally disagreeing with the post. That's insane.

 

My point is specific to an applicaiton and it is that, since the 'like' is visible to all, the 'like' button does often serve as a communication device to more than just the 'liker' and 'likee'. In those cases, if a 'liker' does not wish to me misinterpreted they would be better off explaining what they 'liked' in words and sentences expressed to all clearly, rather than leaving it open for interpretation and later finding their 'like' intent misunderstood by others, such that they feel it their duty later to return and finally explain their initial intentions, at which point they are usually doing so to correct someone and often feeling offended at the same time. It results in much wasted effort.

 

In the case of a the DC coins, can these even be called coins? The usual definition of coin is something authorized by a government for use as money/legal tender. I don't believe any of these were ever authorized by a government, so should they more properly be called medals or medallions?

 

If you read through my posts, you will see that I do not refer to them as coins. You will also notice the language DC uses on his web site to describe them, "Fantasy Over-Struck Coins" for they are indeed actual legal tender coins he has over struck with fantasy dates and occassionall other features such as his initials as hallmarks.

 

Then I suggest you train your brain to ignore the " (heart) (so and so) and (someone else) like this" when you see it. Because I don't see too many people wasting their time to explain to you and others who see agreement in every like why they liked a post or what about it they agreed with or anything else. If you expect others to do that on a regular basis because you read things into it, then I think you are wasting your time. But it's your time to waste. Everyone wastes time, it's what they choose to waste it on that differs.

But your statement about the problem with the like button being visible and you evidently wanting it not visible or something is you are putting your expectations on the masses to conform to your own interpretation. I won't get into politics or religion here (although some cases from those arenas would totally fit into being analogous as to why we and others shouldn't buy into one person's opinion when that person wants to change things to fit their beliefs, mainly because it infringes on the other person's ability to use something as they see fit), but basically I'm saying that just because you have your opinion on the usefulness of this like button and it's apparent inability to conform to your ideal standard of how it should be used, so that you and others can infer a clone mentality of two like-minded individuals, doesn't mean that it should be made invisible to all but the user and the person whose post was liked. Basically, I'm taking away that you want people to stop using the like button unless they are agreeing completely with that post as well as all posts from that person leading up to the post that was liked, so there is clarity as to why a post is liked by a person. With the corollary that if someone doesn't completely agree, as stated by me just now, then to not use the like, but instead write words and sentences outlining what about a post they agree with, and where their ideas diverge. All for the sake of clarity for one or a few people who seem to need this in a public forum. I think that's an insane idea, and you will be better off either starting your own forum where you can write and apply all the rules you like, or as I said at the beginning of this long and tedious post, to just ignore when someone likes something.

 

As I said, it becomes such a wasted effort... and this too now is far too tedious, well beyond the topic of this thread... I digress, as it's just become utter confusion about the 'like' button. What I've been saying about it isn't making it's point and what you're replying back to me about it has begun to baffle me to the extent of hypothetical situations this is being drawn out to. Let's stay on topic as I have implored previously in this thread.

 

You read too much into a like. When I like a post, it is to inform the poster that for some reason I liked the post. It serves as a convenient shorthand.
Perhaps you would be better served by just ignoring likes that aren't attached to your posts and not expect everyone to have to explain in excruciating detail what they meant by their like and why it doesn't apply to you.

 

All, Stop the discussions of Likes-Don't Like. It is not constructive at all. The software allows Likes and Peter has implemented it after staff discussions. the only alternative is to eliminate it~ there is no altering it~.

Also stop the aggresive banter between personalities. If it doesn't stop, the thread will be closed and infractions dispersed!

Go hunt eggs or something! Take a nice walk in the park like I am going to do!

Jim

 

The original topic is whether Daniel Carr is considered by people here on CT to be a fantasy artist with his coins or if he is a counterfeiter. Or if you have no opinion or can't decide. I actually see no value in discussing Daniel Carr in particular as what people's opinions are, but I do see a value in discussing what a fantasy piece is, and where lines are or should be drawn, as to what constitutes a counterfeit piece. It also might be appropriate to discuss why you or someone might want to buy and own this kind of product. But aside from some people's posts explaining why they voted as they did, this thread doesn't purport to want to identify that or to find out why people want or don't want fantasy pieces in their collections of coins. It only wants to identify, by poll, what people think of one person's work. And in the process, have about 12 percent label it as counterfeiting. Now, is that productive? I think it's kind of beating up on a person who is not even involved in this thread so far to do anything about it.

I think a better thread would have been if a poll had been created to ask if modern fantasy coins that are based on current or modern coinage (like over-strikes) rise to the level of counterfeiting, and why or why not.

 

The poll is there in addition to the OP, which solely solicited 'opinions', though when those opinions expressed clearly were based on certain fallacies that facts could be presented to the contrary disproving 'opinions' the whole thread went haywire to the point it's at. As I said before, DC is a member of this forum and just because he's not chimed in doesn't suppose he won't come along at some point or could be reading some of what has been written under his name and about his operation.

We have discussed the topics you feel are additionally worthy threads to have on this topic. There have been plenty of them in the last couple years alone. You can certainly open new threads on the same subject and I'm sure we will run through the same issues over and over on this one. But more power to you.

 

The matter of intent is very important. I have the Davignon book about contemporary counterfeit capped bust halves. Those half dollars were produced for pennies, and were sold to agents who would pass them off in various towns and villages. The intent was to defraud merchants and others by using coins with debased metals as legal tender.

There are some examples of them that are pretty bad, 10 or 12 stars, mispelt (haha) words, Had there been early collectors of the issues they would have had little or no problem identifying them as counterfeits made to defraud the general public.

Mr. Carr does not produce these issues for pennies, and then pass them into the general commerce, thus he is not attempting to defraud the general public. Nor does he claim that these are patterns. He is upfront that these coins are overstrikes and thus is not attempting to defraud collectors.

Now if it was found that Mr. Carr had purchased or made millions of blank planchets and was passing to agents millions of state quarters, that would show intent to defraud, if Mr. Carr was to advertise his coins as being patterns found in some obscure hoards, and was representing them as being mint made coins that he was acting as an agent to sell that could show an attempt to defraud collectors.

The thing I have though and I am not sure I understand it, maybe others do, is when you look at such coins as the 1913 V nickels which were not supposed to have been made.

Or when you look at the 1933 double eagles, that were known to be made, yet were demonetized, were the 1964 Peace dollars also not made and then demonetized?

If some collector had a smuggled 1964 Peace Dollar and was waiting for some day long in the future Mr. Carr certainly would have ruined his prospects.

I am unsure how to phrase this lingering question I have, maybe it is my just not seeing consistency in some phases that I do not understand the finer points of.

I will iterate, I do think Mr. Carrs work is a fun part of the hobby.

 

Actually, I was referring to some of his other fantasy "coins" and the links in your post #5. The DC site lists some pieces like the Amero as "coins", when they don't fit the definition of being authorized by any country, as well as the fake Amero "coins" on the market.

I don't think things like the Amero were struck over other coins?

http://www.dc-coin.com/unaameropatterncoins.aspx

http://designscomputed.com/coins/fakes.htm

 

I have coin references rather far back. Looking at some 1960 era Numismatic Scrapbook issues, I find Deller's Darkener ( still advertised today ) with their sulfur compound, compounds to clean all sorts of coins,guaranteed to cause no damage even to proofs (no longer sold to my knowledge) and one ad from a copper plating firm offering to plate your 1943 Lincolns so you could have a rare copper one ( or a PDS set) also. They escaped problems by making you send in your own cents, so if problems came, you were the originator. How many threads have we had where the owner ( some with long membership) explained that theirs must be real, or not AT, or not darkened after cleaning, as the great grandfather had it in his collection. The intent today may be correct, to not sell cleaned coins or artificially toned coin or plated coins, but my personal feeling is that it is not good for numismatics, But each to their own.

 

I like the hard time tokens. Generics as art. Why not certify them? I don't feel they should be called coins - maybe rounds.

 

Or a walk on the moon :thumb:

 

I believe they certainly can be called coins. When the first gold discoveries were made in the USA, Charlotte, NC & Dalton, GA, the mined gold could not be easily transported to Philly to be coined by the government. And the government was often very slow to establish local mints. (The Charlotte Mint was opened 30+ years after gold was discovered there).

So the issue was dealt with by private mints. One of the earliest and one of the most successful was the Bechtler Mint, in NC which produced over a million gold coins. Today those coins are very rare and are never referred to as tokens, rounds, etc. They are considered coins. The precident was set then in the USA. Thus I would certainly call Mr. Carr's products, coins.