Daniel Carr

[delete please]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

My apologies, I got the name wrong. I'm from NC and the only thing we know about GA is that it's either Atlanta or its not, and to watch for the speed traps on the way to Fla.

 

Not offended, but puzzled.

I suppose we have different opinions about professional "wrestling".

 

Very true, but I stated my case for believing it. There is a difference between citing examples of history, coinage law, and precedent over just stating an opinion.

 

fatima - I'll concede that by some of the definitions that even the Amero can be called a coin. It's not the definition that I myself go by, but that's my choice to make. In the case of the Bechtler gold, I think of them more as similar to the civil war tokens than coins (by the definition that I prefer), as they weren't government issued. That's also my choice. As far as I know this is still a free country, and we can have different opinions, and make different choices. Your opinion and choices are different than mine, and I don't think that either of us incorrect. Anyway, I'll not be commenting on this subject anymore.

 

I don't agree, as you neglected to get the entire definition. Dictionary.com states that they use multiple sources to pull definitions. You can check further down for their source on a particular word. On your link you will see the complete definition of the world "coin" at the bottom of the page.

coin (kɔɪn)
— n

1. a metal disc or piece used as money
2. metal currency, as opposed to securities, paper currency, etcRelated: nummary

Furthermore the definitive source for American English is Websters which gives this additional definition

• b : metal money

And the definitive source for English, Oxford's dictionary states this:

• noun : a flat, typically round piece of metal with an official stamp, used as money.

So I don't think that you have proved your case that it is a misuse of English. Now I suppose the next argument that could be made that only government can issue money, but that isn't correct either but I won't get into the semantics of what constitutes money or not.

So if the Dictionary is now the standard on how we can refer to Mr. Carr's work, then I see nothing in the dictionary that would preclude using the word "coin".

 

Sorry Doug, but if 99% of the world would call it a coin, I'm going to go with the flow and not be obstinate.

 

Private banks issue "money" through fraction reserve banking and they are not part of the government. There apparently isn't an official definition of money from the USA or the IRS. Maybe it exists. But no matter, it's a difference of opinion and I can respect this.

However your qualification of Carr's work, i.e. it's not money and thus it's not a coin raises an interesting issue.

If it is not possible either to call Daniel Carr's pieces coins, because it lacks the intrinsic property that you have deemed that a coins must have, then it is also not possible to call it a counterfeit coin. They are absolutely not counterfeits by this logic and by that logic, there should be absolutely no objection at all to Daniel Carr's work.

 

This is the best, most absolute counterfeit logic I have ever read in my life.

 

I am going to go back to the origins of coinage.

Gold, silver, and copper were used for centuries as barter items. The problem with them for barter is that they need to be reverified and reweighed at each transaction. This was inefficient and slowed down trade. The key to the increase in commerce was when these pieces of metal were standardized in weight into the prevailing currency system, and STAMPED BY THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY so that the weights and fineness were guaranteed.

Any piece of metal, therefor, from the time to Lydia to current times, is not a coin unless stamped by the government authority issuing it.

If a private entity issues metal disks, they are properly called medals/tokens. All privately issued gold rush gold were medal/token until the US government struck them. Then they became coins.

Numismatically, a coin has the following identity:

1. Weight tolerance within accepted deviations
2. Stamp of government authority issuing and guaranteeing it
3. Unit of measure
4. Used as a form of money

The fact that common usage now calls anything a coin that is round and metallic does not factor into the true numismatic definition. I can list 100 different ways people erroneously call something a coin. That they are using the word improperly does not change its original, correct, definition.

I know I am old school, but that is how coins were created, and how they transformed the world. Until the piece of metal had a government authority marking them, they were still just lumps of metal that had to be weighed and checked for purity at each transaction.

I will grant you that for periods of time privately issued gold medals/tokens were close to coins in that they traded like them. This was only due, however, to the fact that there was a shortage of real coinage to use instead. In every single case once adequate real coinage was in circulation, the private gold medals/tokens ceased to be used in commerce regularly.

 

Indeed. At this point I was really referring to the earlier discussion of the counterfeit coins and the question asked in the OP.

I agree you that people can call them what they want, but in many cases the logic behind some of the standards applied to Mr. Carr's work doesn't hold up.

 

If we decide to ignore Bechtler's private minted coins which every modern numismatic description that I have ever seen refers to as a coin, then we have this instead.

The definition that a coins is not a coin unless issued by the government fails when any kind of test is put to it. Here is a glaring modern example. When the US Justice Department went after Bernard von NotHaus, the 2nd time, for producing the Norfed Liberty Dollar, he was indicted for selling "coins" that competed with US currency. If, as you say, the definition of "coin" is that it must contain a government stamp, then this would not be possible. The Treasury department, the FBI, the Justice Department and the US Mint all defined the Liberty Dollar to be a coin. This is from the FBI.gov concerning the matter.

STATESVILLE, NC—Bernard von NotHaus, 67, was convicted today by a federal jury of making, possessing, and selling his own coins, announced Anne M. Tompkins, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina. Following an eight-day trial and less than two hours of deliberation,...was found guilty by a jury in Statesville, North Carolina, of making coins resembling and similar to United States coins; of issuing, passing, selling, and possessing Liberty Dollar coins; ...... Entire article is here. ​

Obviously if the US Mint, the US Treasury, the FBI, and the Justice Department did not believe that for coin to be a coin it must come from the government. Else they would not have charged him with "making his own coins". IMO, the trial was a sham, but it is what it is and it disproves that a coin has to come only from the government since the government certainly doesn't feel this way about it.

 

This has sure been an interesting and informative thread. I appreciate that so many, such as Fatima and GDJMSP and others have been willing to explain their thinking so well. The topic that sprung from the OP question is a worth while one to presue. I am also learning a little bit of history also.

 

Fatima, you're very good at quoting Wikipedia and other websites, but fail to apply your own thoughts and common sense to those articles. Doug has already said MOST people misuse the word "coin". But even your own article says NotHaus was arrested for counterfeiting. He counterfeited a competing currency, thus forged COINS. It would be a counterfeit coin, an anti-coin if you will. Thus he was selling his own COUNTERFEIT COINS.

You're driving me crazy not comprehending such a simple concept as counterfeit and forgery then realizing a "counterfeit coin" is not a "coin" just like a forgery of the Mona Lisa is not the Mona Lisa.

 

Don't accuse me of being stupid and being a copy & paste troll.

If you actually read that statement that I posted and subsequent follow-up, you will note that the authorities were very careful about their charges. It was their contention that he was illegally trying to compete against US currency by producing his own coin and not that he was trying to produce forged US currency. There was an earlier trial in '07 where the Justice dept. basically lost, and thus they could not try him again for those charges. I suggest that you go back and read ALL my posts in this topic.

I've clearly said what "I" think about the matter. If you can't accept it and it's giving you emotional issues such as going crazy, that is really your issue. If you would rather address what I've posted, without accusing me of being derelict in my thinking and being too stupid to understand what counterfeit means then I will be glad to have the discussion. Otherwise, an argument where you attempt to shoot the messenger instead of addressing the message, means that you don't have, IMO, a logical argument for your position. It's disappointing to me that these kinds of tactics get constantly tossed into these discussions.