Daniel Carr and the Moonshine Mint

I fail to understand how any of the Daniel Carr issues can be considered as "in compliance" with the Hobby Protection Act of 1973. It's all garbage, meant to deceive on some level. The FTC has specifically included fantasy date restrikes as requiring the word COPY in order to be in compliance with the 1973 law. Their conclusion occurred in a case they heard in 1978.

Carr can claim it's art, but it isn't art. Art is original and doesn't copy other artist's work, what he is producing are called COUNTERFEITS -- and any nefarious argument suggesting otherwise is an accomplice in the scam.

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Gold-Bullion-International.pdf

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

This will be an interesting thread.

 

The government does not care. They have no problem with what Carr is doing.

 

Let's see what AI says....

While they occupy a highly controversial niche within the numismatic community, they comply with federal laws due to the specific ways they are manufactured and marketed:

No Fraudulent Intent: Under U.S. law (18 U.S.C. § 331), defacing or altering U.S. currency is only illegal if it is done with "fraudulent intent"—such as trying to pass an altered coin off as genuine legal tender. Daniel Carr’s Moonlight Mint explicitly sells these pieces as private mint novelty items and collectible tokens, not as legal tender.


The "Fantasy Date" Exception: Many of Carr's most famous pieces utilize genuine, circulated U.S. coins as blanks (planchets) but overstrike them with combinations that never legally existed—such as a 1964-D Peace Silver Dollar or a 1915 Standing Liberty Quarter. Because the U.S. government never officially released these coin and date combinations to the public, the items technically do not replicate an official, existing government issue.


The Hobby Protection Act: Critics often argue that his coins violate the Hobby Protection Act because they lack an incused "COPY" stamp. However, Carr argues that since he is altering already-genuine government coins rather than manufacturing complete counterfeits from scratch, the requirement does not apply to his overstrikes. To date, neither the U.S. Mint nor federal law enforcement has taken legal action against him.

 

It doesn't matter one wit what Carr's intentions are when selling these fakes, once they are in the marketplace ANYONE can misrepresent them as authentic, hence the exposure to the hobby. Besides, the law you quote pre-dates the 1973 Hobby Protection Act by 8 years, and no where in it does it mention anything about "intent" when it was written in 1965.

 

I rather like his pieces and have a few in my cabinet. Keep looking for one of his buffalo pieces, I forget what the year is, but I don’t see them come up much.

The pieces being made and sold are marketed/advertised for exactly what they are. Everybody knows what they are.

I’ve seen a plethora of threads on his work go off the rails and I just don’t understand why. Some people like them, some people don’t. Take it or leave it. Live and let live.

I’m reminded of the Gestalt Prayer;

“I do my thing and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you, and I am I,
And if by chance we find each other, it's beautiful.

If not, it can't be helped."

 

Totally NOT TRUE, your AI is hallucinating again. In a decision siding with the FTC in 1978, an administrative judge ruled SPECIFICALLY that there was no exemption to the Hobby Protection Act for coins with spurious or fantasy dates. Read the decision below. The hearing included testimony from the highly esteemable numismatist Harvey Stack. Nothing in this decision supporting the FTC, nor changes to the original 1973 Act, has ever been made to allow such a thing.

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Gold-Bullion-International.pdf

 

Not true, everyone DOESN'T know about these pieces. I encountered my first one today, and assumed it was a product of Chinese counterfeiting. Imagine my surprise to learn they are being openly marketed in direct violation of the 1973 Hobby Protection Act. Guys like Joe Rust and Ron Landis from the Gallery Mint (who arguably produced better product than Carr) never found it necessary to make restrikes without the required COPY on it. It's something they did less out of adherence to the law, than out of RESPECT for the hobby.

 

Who cares what AI says. It's riddled with errors.

 

de jure vs de facto vs de novo

 

Let's start with Dan has 2 US quarter designs in circulation as us state quarters. And as far as DC/MM is concerned they produce a much finer product then Gallery Mint ever did and produced no "copies" of US coins in dates that ever existed. In the end the keyword is "Intent" as Dan and Moonlight mint never had any intent to market the pieces as original coinage. I have over 20 of Dans pieces in my collection so far and plan and look forward to getting more (if he ever completes his current commission) As for the legal side of it, well Dan is a member here and can answer for himself if he wants to.

 

Exactly and the ANA loves him as well! I don't have a problem and they're not counterfeits at all as he isn't trying to pass them off as anything other than what they are. We've had these kinds of threads before and I find them to be completely unproductive, just sayin'.

 

Maybe some of this energy could go to getting actual counterfeits of of eBay and the like.

 

You’ve been a member of this site for ~16 years and TODAY was your first encounter with a Daniel Carr piece?

 

I've had a few of his pieces in the past but have sold them on.

This topic was discussed ad nauseam before .. Discussion Topic- Why are Carr "Fantasy Overstrikes" not considered Counterfeits? | Coin Talk

 

If you don't like them, nobody's forcing you to buy them. He's not selling anything under the pretense that they're something that they're not, so there's no fraudulent intent. The government knows very well what he does, and they clearly don't care, or they would have done something about it by now. I honestly don't understand the motives in trying to convince anyone otherwise. Someone makes a movie I don't like, I just don't go see it, and for me that's the end of it.

 

By the way it is the Moonlight mint, in 2014 Roger BUrdette tried to get Dan removed from the ANA. After all was said and done, the ANA sided with Dan. DC is still a good standing member.
By the way I enjoy owning his pieces.
Fantasy




and original

 

Hey Pickin'.... Does the reverse of that astronaut dollar say "One Roller"?