Daniel Carr

...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thank you for deleting your post.

 

Intent is the state of mind. How do we know the state of mind of the maker of any coin? By their word? I think not. Unless you're a mindreader. Haven't met any lately. Although Johnny Carson was quite good.

Also, the intent of the maker may not be to defraud someone. But if some wonderfully created product can be mistaken for something more valuable than it really is and the end result is someone is finacially hurt, that is a practice I do not condone. We all have our degrees of what we are comfortable doing. I would choose not to operate in a grey area where the operative words are "buyer beware" for some future buyer of my product.

 

"Intent" is part of the definition... it's not my wording. And again, the OP asked about Daniel Carr, and it is obvious he is NOT manufacturing coins for fradulent purposes. Geez... some of you guys just don't get it.

 

I have not been on CT in a while...Nice to see it has not changed!

 

What about a counter-stamp, or someone who imprinted their initials into the coin ? There is no law specifying a threshold as to how much of a modification constitutes a nullification the legal tender status. The only related laws involve lightening (the weight) of a coin.

The key word is "fraudulently". When the US Mint had this statute posted on their web site, the only word presented in bold type was "fraudulently". Obviously, they wanted to emphasise that component. Without a fraudulent action, this law does not apply.

Basically, all this law establishes is that the penalty for counterfeiting 1-cent and 5-cent coins is less severe than that for other higher-denomination coins.

A strict interpretation of that law would mean that anybody who ever made any reproduction of any US coin, even if clearly marked "COPY", would be in violation. There have only been two remotely-related court cases in recent times:

1) The US Mint sued (in civil court, not crimminal court) the Washington Mint for making giant silver Sacagawea medals. But this was a copyright infringement case - the Sacagawea obverse design is one of the very few US coin designs that is actually copyrighted.

2) The "Liberty Dollar" organization and Bernard Von Nothus were convicted of "counterfeiting" for attempting to pass their tokens as "legal tender".

My situation is quite different than both of those cases.

But the important point is, the "Hobby Protection Act", which was enacted AFTER 18 USC 487, specifically ALLOWS numismatic replicas to be made, and by implication, also allows molds or dies in the likeness of US Coins to be posessed and used (so long as not for FRAUDULENT purposes).

 

Oh, so you can speak for another persons state of mind. How telepathic of you. I must agree with you, some people just don't get it!

 

So... you believe Daniel Carr is manufacturing coins for fraudulent purposes. Interesting mentality....

 

So you can read my state of mind too? Can you read everyones state of mind on this board? What an amazing trait, to be able to read everyones state of mind. LOL.

 

Personally, I think that if Daniel created his own blanks and planchets out of junk metal and then minted up a bunch of coins which were subsequently used to purchase goods or pay some bills, that he'd be guilty of counterfeiting. Clearly, the intent there would have been to defraud unsuspecting merchants out of a valid form of payment.

However, since he is NOT doing that but is instead altering the design of existing coinage with the intent of "selling" these creations as "fantasy restrikes" (with full notification and admonitions that these are in fact "fantasy restrikes"), that he is not a counterfeiter.

How many folks collect Henning Nickels anyway?

 

Your posts speak for themselves.

 

But, But you don't need anyone to post, because you can read their mind.

btw I challenge you to point to where I said anything about Mr. Carr being a fraud.

 

Doesn't take much to read between the lines... you can sugarcoat it all you want. Regardless, the point of this entire thread is whether DC's coins are fantasy pieces or counterfeit.... and the poll results confirms that an overwhelming number of CT members have the knowledge to know the difference.

 

The only thing I have stated is " I would not personally produce something that is so perfect that some distant buyer (ie not the first buyer) could sell it to an unsuspecting third party who would suffer financial loss."

Now you with your mind reading super powers have incorrectly stated my position in a libelous manner. I do believe you owe me an apology.

 

Oh, give it a rest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law)

 

Interesting Thread. I read through the first 7-8 pages. Thought I would drop my "opinion" on this subject

First let me say that DC is very good at what he does, His work is fantastic! I think if he had stuck to his original works there would NEVER be any controversy about his items. Let me toss this out.. Mr. China makes a 1893S Morgan Dollar, we have all seen them and screamed FAKE, COUNTERFEIT etc.. (Yes I am guilty as well) Same person makes a 1903CC Morgan (HERE) we scream the same thing. EVEN though there was never one minted. Is this a fake or is it a fantasy piece?

Daniel has capitalized on a business opportunity not much different than the folks in China if you think about it. People are willing to purchase so why not supply!

I am NOT saying Daniel is a counterfeiter because I certainly dont see it that way, his intent is to make a fantasy piece, their intent is to defraud. We as collectors should know the difference in the coins. I see that Green (I think it was) mentioned 2-3 generations from now saying its a real 1964 Peace Dollar.. there is alot of truth in that statement because they are speaking what THEY feel is the truth. Much like the 1909SVDB's that I see ALOT that are fakes. Here is a question for a few of the folks here. What if....... Daniel made a fantasy coin of the 1909SVDB, Looks the same but for grins, he changes the VDB to BVD and advertises it as an underwear Lincoln Cent. Want to bet me that we would be seeing these things left and right with people saying they found an error?

There is a place for what Daniel does because people are buying them, but I have also seen people purchase weird stuff on ebay. If you like them, purchase them. If you dont, then dont purchase them. If the Guberment had an issue they would of jumped on him long ago.

Fake or Fantasy? (HERE)

 

First I'd like to say that something like a 1909 "BVD" is too insignificant a change for me to do. My own self-imposed policy is that I will, at a minimum, change the date, or at least two other obvious things. Since the date is one of the main focal points on a coin (and key to valuing it), if I change the date to one that was never issued, it is unlikely to ever be overlooked. A small "BVD" could be mistaken for a "VDB" by a casual observer.

Comparing a Chinese-made "1903-CC" Morgan "Dollar" (or similar) to what I do, here are some differences:

Chinese product:

A) Made in China by anonymous person(s).
B) Struck on anonymous "pot" metal - no actual silver content.
C) Often sold without disclosure of the origins of the coin. Mintage quantitites unknown.
D) Technically illegal.
E) Low-quality engravings.

My product:

A) Made in the USA by a known person (who also designed two state quarters for the US Mint).
B) Over-struck on genuine coins with proper metallic content for the type (no metal added or removed, no heating or melting).
C) Sold with full disclosure of the origins of the piece. Full diagnostics and mintage statistics also published.
D) Technically legal.
E) High-quality (accurate) engravings.
F) Over-struck using a surplus US Denver Mint coin press.