Topic: Daniel Carr's Fantasy Coinage. AKA: Bikeracks. After school.

Every single day on Ebay, a thousand times more damage occurs from counterfeiting than Dan Carr will ever have the reach to duplicate. It's against the law, there is specific statute under which Ebay can be prosecuted, and it won't happen until we collectors get off our asses and start agitating the FTC to enforce the laws they're responsible for.

Yet page after page of this pathetic arguing over one man all concede to be honest is how we "defend" numismatics.

That's my opinion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Keep this in mind.

Just because I have the capability of building bombs, doesnt make me a terrorist. Having knowledge on how things work should never be frowned upon.

 

Pathetic, perhaps, but no more so than, say, a certain someone who incessantly bleats on about and labels a "problem" almost anything on this forum he doesn't agree with. This individual has made is very clear that there is another forum, one clearly populated by numisgods with magical abilities, infinitely better than here, so with such an amazing place just waiting for him, one has to wonder why he would so lower himself to slumming with such "pathetic" fools? It must super special person to think so highly of his own opinion that it, by the sheer fact of being his, makes it the reality by which all must agree, lest they be deemed a "problem", or their views "pathetic", or whatever other poo du jour he finds fitting at that very moment.

The fact that eBay may present another, immeasurably larger problem, does not invalidate any of the opinions expressed here that you so thoughtfully have such problems with. Injecting ebay, in this manner, into the discussion is nothing more than deflection, and a lame attempt at shaming. If someone posted in a pro-Carr copies thread that those who enjoy them are "pathetic" forspeaking their minds, hell would be raised and rightly so. Those of us, or should I say the majority who are not fans of his copies take issue only with the copies themselves and not with those who enjoy collecting them. We question the PRODUCT and not the member purchasing them. I don't see any of us calling your views and/or your defense of them "pathetic", yet that's exactly what you're doing to us. Remember all that talk about the "problems" here and the lack of civil conduct? "You could do it like you're talking across the dinner table, or you could do it like you're anonymous on the Internet and don't have to answer for your actions." Funny how it is a "problem" only when it's someone else, isn't it? Like it or not, it works both ways... respect begets respect.


And this is, of course, just my most humble opinion..

 

You repeatedly state that the fantasy-date over-strikes are "copies". That is only your opinion, and it is highly debatable. There has been no legal ruling that they are "copies".

If you think the cat is just now getting out of the bag, you have a LOT of catching up to do.

High-quality counterfeits have been around for a long time, many before I was born. For example, rare "micro-o" Morgan Silver dollars were certified until 2005 when it was finally determined that they were WW1-era counterfeits. In the late 1950s and 1960s, high-quality counterfeits of small US gold coins were coming out of the Middle East. Quite a few of these were Indian Head $2.50 and $5. The "cat" is already "out of the bag", but this has not significantly deterred the coin market.

Why would a counterfeiter from China or elsewhere go to all the added expense and difficulty involved with making small runs of fantasy-date over-strikes when they can more easily produce (in quantity) actual un-marked copies of existing rare coins that aren't struck on anything other than an anonymous metal blank ?

I've been producing fantasy-date over-strikes since 2010. It is far more difficult than people realize. In these past five years, nobody else has done anything similar. The required investment in education, equipment, and skill is enormous.

Claiming that I will somehow be responsible for future counterfeiting by others is like blaming someone for global warming because they left their porch light on.

If anything, since my fantasy-date over-strikes are produced out in the open, the study of them will help people identify the characteristics of coins produced using modern technology.

 

DC's coins all sell at a premium, are pretty tightly held and quite bluntly are no threat to any sphere of the collecting realm other than the wallet.

 

I agree. They are pieces specifically sought out by collectors and held. Extraordinary unlikely to end up in uninformed hands and exchanged as genuine coins of the date.

 

The laws are written has it pertains to counterfeiting currency that adds to currency in circulation, not large cents or silver dollars that haven't been in circulation in over 100 years. The reason why you can't get a straight answer from any official is because ITS NOT THEIR BUSINESS OR CONCERN. They don't care if someone puts a S mintmark on a 1966 cent because it's still just a cent worth 1 cent. Now if someone added the word "hundred" between the words "one" and "cent" than that's another story.

The US government has never been in the business of protecting ignorant people paying premiums on anything. I would think if you've been on this planet for some time, you would have picked up on that

 

Believe me, if the government can make money from something than they care. Otherwise they don't.

 

Perhaps you should look into the Hobby Protection Act.

Much better....

 

16 CFR Part 304
RULE SUMMARY:
The Hobby Protection Act, passed by Congress in 1973, covers imitation political items (e.g., buttons, posters, stickers, etc.), as well as imitation numismatic items (e.g., various coins, tokens, paper money, commemorative medals) that are required to be marked with certain identifying information in an effort to flag them as imitations. The FTC’s Rule establishes the size of the required disclosures, their location, and the manner in which items may be marked.........

Tell me how a 1910-D IHC by dcarr needs to be tagged as an imitation. What is it imitating?

 

Answer:

Something that never existed before @dcarr created it

Bam!

 

Someone mentioned "what if a family member gets taken on a coin that will be your present" or something like that.....

When I started to getting into coin collecting, I made it very clear to my family that no one is to buy me coins. They might be fake or I might not like them......

So it's YOUR responsibility to protect your family members and request the same for them.

 

Keep reading....

 

Every time I see someone post a coin they got ripped off on its always for the exact same reasons.......

They didn't know better. They didn't do research first.

So who's fault is that? This crook or the victim?

 

And my rebuttal to that is that in 50yrs expect the highly limited edition carr overstrikes to be worth a pretty penny so it will be a windfall of sorts.

 

What, you think I didn't? Well here it is for you. So when you're done reading and if you choose to answer my question, I'm.all ears.....

(a) Act means the Hobby Protection Act (approved November 29, 1973; Pub. L. 93-167, 87 Stat. 686, (15 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.)).

(b) Commerce has the same meanings as such term has under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

(c) Commission means the Federal Trade Commission.

(d) Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified. The term shall not include any re-issue or re-strike of any original numismatic item by the United States or any foreign government.

(e) Imitation political item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original political item, or which is a reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an original item.

(f) Original numismatic item means anything which has been a part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person, object, place, or event. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals.

(g) Original political item means any political button, poster, literature, sticker, or any advertisement produced for use in any political cause.

(h) Person means any individual, group, association, partnership, or any other business entity.

(i) Regulations means any or all regulations prescribed by the Federal Trade Commission pursuant to the Act.

(j) United States means the States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

(k) Diameter of a reproduction means the length of the longest possible straight line connecting two points on the perimeter of the reproduction.

[40 FR 5496, Feb. 6, 1975, as amended at 53 FR 38942, Oct. 4, 1988]

Back to Top

§304.2 General requirement.
Imitation political or numismatic items subject to the Act shall be marked in conformity with the requirements of the Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Any violation of these regulations shall constitute a violation of the Act and of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Back to Top

§304.3 Applicability.
Any person engaged in the manufacturing, or importation into the United States for introduction into or distribution in commerce, of imitation political or imitation numismatic items shall be subject to the requirements of the Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

Back to Top

§304.4 Application of other law or regulation.
The provisions of these regulations are in addition to, and not in substitution for or limitation of, the provisions of any other law or regulation of the United States (including the existing statutes and regulations prohibiting the reproduction of genuine currency) or of the law or regulation of any State.

Back to Top

§304.5 Marking requirements for imitation political items.
(a) An imitation political item which is manufactured in the United States, or imported into the United States for introduction into or distribution in commerce, shall be plainly and permanently marked with the calendar year in which such item was manufactured.

(b) The calendar year shall be marked upon the item legibly, conspicuously and nondeceptively, and in accordance with the further requirements of these regulations.

(1) The calendar year shall appear in arabic numerals, shall be based upon the Gregorian calendar and shall consist of four digits.

(2) The calendar year shall be marked on either the obverse or the reverse surface of the item. It shall not be marked on the edge of the item.

(3) An imitation political item of incusable material shall be incused with the calendar year in sans-serif numerals. Each numeral shall have a vertical dimension of not less than two millimeters (2.0 mm) and a minimum depth of three-tenths of one millimeter (0.3 mm) or one-half ( 1⁄2 ) the thickness of the reproduction, whichever is the lesser. The minimum total horizontal dimension for the four numerals composing the calendar year shall be six millimeters (6.0 mm).

(4) An imitation political button, poster, literature, sticker, or advertisement composed of nonincusable material shall be imprinted with the calendar year in sans-serif numerals. Each numeral shall have a vertical dimension of not less than two millimeters (2.0 mm). The minimum total horizontal dimension of the four numerals composing the calendar year shall be six millimeters (6.0 mm).

Back to Top

§304.6 Marking requirements for imitation numismatic items.
(a) An imitation numismatic item which is manufactured in the United States, or imported into the United States for introduction into or distribution in commerce, shall be plainly and permanently marked “COPY”.

(b) The word “COPY” shall be marked upon the item legibly, conspicuously, and nondeceptively, and in accordance with the further requirements of these regulations.

(1) The word “COPY” shall appear in capital letters, in the English language.

(2) The word “COPY” shall be marked on either the obverse or the reverse surface of the item. It shall not be marked on the edge of the item.

(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.

[40 FR 5496, Feb. 6, 1975, as amended at 53 FR 38942, Oct. 4, 1988]

 

An interesting upshot to all this is, although my support for Carr's work will not waver, I've seen enough of judicial precedent to believe they probably could nail him to the wall if they wished. Unfortunately, that's because of bench opinions I do not agree with.

 

Very good. Now, let's revisit what you originally said (and to which I responded)....

It seems to me that there, in fact, are laws dealing with "large cents or silver dollars not in circulation for over 100 years". Hence my original response.

 

But nothing that dcarr is producing is a copy of anything. They are fantasy pieces. They did not exist before dcarr started producing them, so he is not making imitation of any coins that require COPY to be put on them. He is not in the counterfeiting business (that I'm aware of )

And just because a drunk driver plows into a family of 4 and kills them, it doesn't make BMW responsible for their deaths. BMW is inthe car manufactruring business, not in the killing family business.