Question about Daniel Carr offerings

People keep starting threads about his works. This one specifically asked about his processes. Sometimes I think people start threads to see the resulting chaos.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Terrible to see snoopy saying that lol.

 

I think that is the argument. One side says they are counterfeit coins, the other side says they are Fantasy tokens.

 

I thought it was a general question/topic. If it was about the Morgan only, I would have limited the scope of what I wrote.

 

Bravo! Author, author!!!!

 

You may want to edit the quote to spare a fellow poster as I did with mine using ellipses.

 

You are right, the topic is about his offerings, I can only speak for the Morgan as I own no other.

 

The Peace Dollars that I over-struck as "1964-D" were flattened somewhat prior to over-striking. I eliminated that step in the process shortly after that in 2011. I have not performed the flattening since then. This flattening did not remove any metal. Even with that flattening, the original design was still readily discernible. And not only that, original design elements still showed after the over-strike.

This is not a good-quality picture, but you can still see it. Note extra line on the nose and on the front of the neck (those are the original outlines still showing through from the host coin). The over-strike was rotated a little bit in relation to the host coin:

 

Altering an existing genuine coin for novelty purposes is not "counterfeiting".

Therefor, the Kaye statement above does not apply to fantasy-date over-striking, and it reinforces the notion that in the context of 18 USC 485 the qualifier "falsely makes" is equivalent to "counterfeiting".

The Wilson "1955" dimes could arguably be described as "counterfeits" because they were not made for novelty purposes. They were made intentionally for fraudulent purposes.

 

I'm not interested in your post beyond what I copied of it acknowledging he produces the dies. I'm interested in what you make of this given that acknowledgment:

18 USC 487:
Whoever, without lawful authority, makes any die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, either of steel or plaster, or any other substance, in likeness or similitude, as to the design or the inscription thereon, of any die, hub, or mold designated for the coining or making of any of the genuine gold, silver, nickel, bronze, copper, or other coins coined at the mints of the United States; or

Whoever, without lawful authority, possesses any such die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, or permits the same to be used for or in aid of the counterfeiting of any such coins of the United States—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both.

 

Nice 64d Peace "DAM"... Yo Adrian

 

This point was addressed in Post 558. The statement "to be used or in aid of the counterfeiting of any such coins of the United States" does not apply, they are not counterfeit coins, nor are they a copy of a U.S. Coin.

Again, show me the 1964 D U.S. Morgan dollar that the design was copied from?

 

YES! Fortunately, Mr. Carr is not using COUNTERFEIT DIES. To make this a little more clear: MR. CARR IS NOT USING COUNTERFEIT DIES. Or look at it this way: Mr. Carr is not using counterfeit dies. Capeesh?

 

So... are you stating that Mr. Carr does not use counterfeit dies ? Very unclear.

 

This is easy to resolve: The two paragraphs are separate offenses. This is exactly what Kaye addressed - production and possession are separate offenses. Intent matters for the latter but not the former.

How does the first paragraph (the production offense) not apply? He is not using original U.S. Mint dies, but purely homemade paraphernalia?:

Whoever, without lawful authority, makes any die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, either of steel or plaster, or any other substance, in likeness or similitude, as to the design or the inscription thereon, of any die, hub, or mold designated for the coining or making of any of the genuine gold, silver, nickel, bronze, copper, or other coins coined at the mints of the United States; or

Are you going to argue that his dies, which resemble the design of U.S. Peace Dollars except for the date, don't qualify? I don't understand the reasoning behind that; could you elaborate? The date would seemingly be an inscription, and only emulation of the "design or inscription" (i.e. it is used in the disjunctive) is required.

 

I don't know, I think he was saying that he is using counterfeit dies...

 

I don't see how this interpretation is consistent with the HPA. If it's an offense to produce a die in likeness of a genuine coin, but legal to produce reproductions of coins as long as they're marked COPY on one face, how is it possible to legally produce an unmarked die to strike the other face?

Either the HPA is wasting time and resources to define the legal parameters of an activity that can never be legal, or these two paragraphs are not separate offenses -- making a die is legal if it isn't used for fraudulent purposes. At least, that's the way it appears to me.

 

OK. Take off that HPA stuff then.

Capiche?

 

Again, I can only answer for the Morgan dollar, the Morgan dollar design has significant differences to an actual Morgan dollar. As I stated earlier, it seems like Carr's own interpretation of a genuine Morgan. The strike, luster, surface detail and date are all significantly different from the original coins.

Here are some more designs which emulate some of the design, are you saying they also violate the HPA?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Lot-of-5-Mo...662332?hash=item1e88a6f67c:g:l6EAAOSwA4dWHSYo

 

The more I see the HPA interpretations on here, the more I believe that it may well damage the hobby more than help it. The intent of the HPA should surely be to protect the hobby, which is why it is named as it is.