2009 Proof A.S.E. now on sale

desertgem & mikenoodle,

You both make similar (valid) points. Judging by the private feedback I've received from buyers of my "1964-D" fantasy coin, I've made quite a few collectors very happy. They always wanted a 1964-D Peace Dollar like I did, and now we have the closest thing to the official issue that will ever exist. It makes me smile just thinking about the whole thing. Is there the potential for someone to lose money ? Of course. In 1995 the US Mint issued limited-production high-priced 1995-W proof Silver Eagles as part of a gold set. They also issued higher-production lower-priced 1995-P proof Silver Eagles. That opened the door for unscrupulous individuals to take the ($2,000+) 1995-W coin from the set and replace it with a similar looking ($50) 1995-P coin. These faked sets were then sold to unwary buyers for the premium prices attached to sets with the 1995-W coins. Was the US Mint to blame for this ? Of course not. What about the set buyers ? Well, they should have checked the sets more closely, but no. The individuals comitting the bait and switch were ultimately to blame.

Now think of a novice walking into a coin show with a wad of cash to spend. There are literally millions of pitfalls they could fall into. If they fail to educate themselves and/or seek professional advice, they themselves are significantly to blame.

But I have, and will continue to, provide information about these coins and how to identify them. The 2009-DC "proofed" Silver Eagles have a permanent and prominent "DC" mint mark. Buyers of my fantasy over-struck "1964-D" Peace Dollars wanted them to look as authentic as possible (several told me that before I even made them). But I still wanted them to have a permanent identifying mark, so I intentionally punched the "D" mint mark far to the left, then corrected to the right:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That would be legal (to make an "1889-CC" out of a genuine 1889). By that I mean the act of defacing the coin to make it look like something else is perfectly legal. You can take a 1944-D penny, cut off parts of the "4" to make it look like a "1914-D". You can even sell it for a profit. "Hobo" nickels are defaced US coins sold for big premiums. Now if you took that faked 1889-CC or 1914-D and tried to pass it off as a genuine, then that would be fraud. If you provide full disclosure of what it is when you sell it, then no problem. But note that these two are examples of modifying (altering) a coin to make it look like a known (existing) numismatic rarity worth more money. I'm only modifying coins to look like numismatic items THAT DON'T EXIST.

The issue is the terminology used in the HPA - "original numismatic item". Is a 1964-D Peace Dollar an original numismatic item subject to "copy" regulations ? According to the US government, they don't exist. So I say no. Same for 2009-DC (proof) Silver Eagles.

Is a Peace Dollar an original numismatic item ? In general, yes. Is my "1964-D" fantasy over-struck Peace Dollar a copy of a Peace Dollar ? No, it is a genuine Peace Dollar (now defaced).

 

It is nice that you have made yourself and some collectors happy to have such a fantasy piece. The right to do something is not always the right thing to do, but that is something each person has to decide.
​

 

I think it would be more accurate to say it was a Peace dollar. It is a fantasy Peace Dollar because it is now mutilated beyond recognition.

That said, what next for you to make, Reverse Proof 1997 silver Eagles? Or will you take two genuine 1/2 ounce gold planchets and create a 1933 High Relief?

My problem (I can't speak to other's objections) is that your "coins" are made to fulfill a demand in the marketplace left void by the US Mint. The only entity that has the constitutional authority to coin United States Mint products is the US Mint. Therefore the only entity entitled to legally fill that void is the US Mint. Your products do not differentiate themselves enough from the genuine articles to be assumed anything but genuine.

I can't manufacture my own pair of Nike Air Jordan gym shoes in a color that is unavailable simply because there is a demand for them in the marketplace. Even if I make them out of genuine Air Jordans I am still fashioning my product using someone else's copyrighted design.

If you changed the legends on the coin to something other than United States of America, I support your right to make a living, but your coins as they are violate my sensibilities if not the coinage laws.

 

I would say defaced beyond recognition of the original, but the new image is the same (except the date, mint mark, and some very small details).

"Reverse proof" Silver Eagles, of dates other than those issued by the US Mint as reverse proofs, have already been produced and sold in quantity some time ago (not by me). You don't hear much about those now.

In a way, mine are genuine because they are stamped over a genuine example. But on mine the date and mint mark alone POSITIVELY differentiate them from any US Mint issues.

Absolutely YOU CAN do that. If you buy the shoes, they are yours to do with as you please. You can change the color and re-sell them at a profit. You can call them your own special edition. If you called them a rare (unmodified) factory Air Jodan issue, then that would be lying and Nike would have an issue with that. You can buy a new Chevy, paint it fancy colors, put different wheels & tires on it, and sell it as a special "MikeNoodle" edition.

 

You can't say "mine" and say "genuine" at the same time. They are either yours or the Mint's, but not both. It is this blurring of whose manufacture the coins are that supports my whole argument as to whether or not this is legal.

The designs imparted on the coin came from your dies and not the Mint's. That makes the coins yours IMHO. The law states that you cannot Mint a replica US Mint product without marking it "copy", and only the US Mint can make genuine US Mint products. So choose one or the other. The coins are either yours or the US Mint's, but if they're yours then you can't make them say United States of America no matter how faithful the reproduction, and the parent coin makes no difference whatsoever once the design has been obliterated.

 

They can be both. Is a legal-tender instrument, once defaced, still legal tender for the original face value ?
Is a "hobo" nickel (with little or nothing from the original design showing) still legal-tender for five cents ?
I think it is. A hobo nickel is the product of the US Mint AND a coin carver.

The designs on "my" coins are a product of the Mint's original stamping, AND my over-stamping. According to the US Mint, 1964-D Peace Dollars do not exist. So I can't be making a "replica" of one if they don't exist. A "re-creation" of one is a better term, perhaps.

The "parent coin" does make a huge difference - the difference between altering an existing legal-tender instrument, vs. creating a legal-tender instrument out of something that wasn't to begin with (the latter is the traditional meaning of "counterfeit" in currency terms).

I realize we are going around and around in circles here. The same thing happened (on a much larger scale) when this was discussed over on the PCGS CU coin forum.

I don't know if you are familiar with the artist JSG Boggs (of "Bogg's Bills" fame). He drew currency on scraps of paper by hand (with pen and straight-edge). But that was only part of the "art". The other part of the art was a "performance" where he would attempt to spend the note at face value in exchange for something. He would tell the intended recipient that he drew the note himself. Many of the bills looked very much like legal-tender US currency. Sometimes they were accepted and saved by the recipient as a piece of art. Sometimes they were flatly refused. It was all part of the "performance".

One of the "art" aspects of my "1964-D" fantasy Peace Dollars (and one of the reasons people are so intersted in them), is the legal grounds which seemingly allow them and disallow them at the same time. The original laws were not written with the idea in mind that someone would take a genuine coin and alter it to make it look like another version of that same coin type (but one that was never issued), and then sell it as such with full disclosure of the alterations.

Obviously, from my point of view, the law allows it. Those privately-modified "reverse proof" Silver Eagles from a couple years ago were legal.

 

The lowest mintage Silver Eagle is the 1995-W proof, with about 30,000 minted. The production of the 2009-DC "proofed" Silver Eagles will be less than one-third of that. There are, or course, no guarantees of any kind on future values.

Daniel: Are you saying that you will create no more then 10,000 of these even if demand was to spike? Thanks, TC

 

I must agree that the Daniel Carr-minted 1964 Peace Dollars (and the 2009 Proof ASE) are legal. Since they never offically existed in the first place, you can't "copy" something that never even existed. They're altered coins and Daniel is not trying to pass them off as anything BUT altered coins. I think it's a brilliant tactic, perfectly legal and wonder why I didn't think of it first! If someone in the future buys one of these thinking it's the real deal, well, that's his problem. It's no one's obligation to protect him from making stupid mistakes.

This situation brings to mind the "Gold Plated V-Nickel" episode. As you may recall, a guy plated V-nickels in gold and passed them off as real $5 gold pieces. That was his downfall. Had he passed them off as novelties or souvenirs, it would have been fine. If someone today offered you a gold-plated V-nickel would you buy it thinking it was a real $5 gold piece? If you do, that's your mistake.

Daniel, as soon as I get some extra cash, I'm going to buy one!

 

so, you're saying that it's ok to dupe the unsuspecting? Buyer beware?

1st, let's correct your facts.

1 - The 1964-D Peace Dollar was Minted by the US Mint. It was never released, but like the 1933 Double Eagle specimens do allegedly exist. The US Secret Service is actively searching for them and will confiscate them if found. Rumor has it, that they are held mostly outside of this country.

2 - 2009 Proof SAE dies were indeed cut and ready for service, the Mint just never coined them. Had someone clandestinely coined them (ala the 1913 V nickels) they would indeed be more difficult to re-claim by the US Government due to the doubt that any reported genuine piece could actually be one of Mr. Carr's creations.

I have stated all along, that I have no problem if Mr. Carr wants to distinguish his coins from the US Mint coins in some major and obvious way. It is the almost duplication of a US Mint product that I object to.

Logically, Mr. Carr states that he makes his coins for collectors, people that should know that this is a fantasy piece and not a Mint product. He claims being faithful to the designs is essential to create a coin that will be desirable by those collectors. He is obscuring the evidence that this is NOT a US Mint product from the wrong people! People who KNOW that this is a fantasy piece can ignore the obvious "COPY" or change of denomination (or lack thereof) or even country of origin that differentiates it from the genuine article. Those who wouldn't be able to readily see the difference will NEVER see the difference in MR. Carr's creations.

If you hide the evidence from the unknowing claiming that the product will be more desirable to the knowing, then that sounds more like an excuse to make something that is misleading or at least desires to capitalize on the fact that it is confusing to the public at large. Lack of knowledge and greed drive a lot of bad purchases in this hobby. To take advantage of that idea is one thing, to foster it is quite another.

 

No, I'm not saying it is ok to dupe anyone. I'm certainly not duping anyone. I make it very clear what these pieces are when I sell them.
If someone buys one from me, and uses it to dupe someone else, that person doing the duping is to blame.

My facts are already correct as stated.
I seriously doubt that the Secret Service is actively looking for them. If one was handed to them on a silver platter, they'd likely hold on to it.

But, according to the government (and that's what counts !) NO 1964-D Peace Dollars exist. And here is proof of the government's position on these:

Again, I state that NO 2009 Proof Silver Eagles exist, and the US Mint confirms that. Not to mention that no coins or dies ever made by the US Mint carry a "DC" mint mark. In the hypothetical scenario that the Mint would have more difficulty confiscating unreleased 2009-W proof Silver Eagles, all I can say is that the people who (hypothetically) smuggled such a coin out of the Mint would be the ones to blame.

Think about who would buy a "1964-D" Peace silver dollar ? More precisely, who would pay more than, say, $200 for one ? Someone not familiar with the original 1964-D Peace Silver Dollars is not going to spend that kind of money for a "1964" coin when they could get and older (1922-1935) coin for $20. Somebody who is familiar with the original 1964-D Peace silver dollars would have to realize one of two things: 1) The coin is some sort of recreation; or 2) The coin is genuine but illegal to own and subject to confiscation.

In simpler terms:

Potential novice buyer:
Wouldn't spend a lot for one without even knowing the story. If they spent a little money on one then no harm done - they will likely have some collector & bullion value.

Potential expert buyer:
Might spend a lot for one, but would be knowingly taking a risk that either the coin is a recreation, or it is subject to confiscation.

 

Before your posts seemed to indicate that you were certain it was legal and genuine. SO will you be offering buyback guarantees if the Federal government rules conversely and uses your sale records to confiscate the coins from purchasers, or are you offering them on an "as-is", tough luck policy, as it seems towards novice buyers? I must have missed the confiscation concern earlier.
​

 

What I'm saying is, according to the government, no original 1964-D Peace Dollars exist. But if they did, they would be subject to confiscation (illegal to own). That applies only to the ones originally minted by the US Mint in 1965. My fantasy over-struck "1964-D" Peace silver dollars would NOT be subject to any such government confiscation (because they are legal to own)

 

I have always had the impression that the fellow with the gold plated V Nickels would stop into a store, buy something worth a cent and then drop the plated nickel on the counter. The clerk either gave him change for a nickel or change for $5.00 but the plater said nothing and simply accepted his change. As far as I know, nobody using this technique could be prosecuted.

When I stop in at the local convenience store, buy a $1.00 item, pay with a five only to have the clerk give me change for a fifty, I can;t be prosecuted for not saying something. I'm a bit sleazy for NOT saying anything should I notice, but it's not illegal. (Yes, I said something.)

As for Daniel's fantasy pieces, most of today's collecting community knows about or will know about them before the year is out and the fact that they are fantasy pieces fashioned to "look" like coins which were never made or that do NOT exist could possibnly end up in the courts. As Mike Nodle pointed out, there is a reasonable expectation that its a copyrighted infringement on a design originally coined by the US Mint. However, it's not the US Mints design. It's Anthony De Francisci's design. As near as I can tell, both obverse and reverse so it in no way infringes on a US Mint "copyright" per se. As far as I know, Anthony de Francisci didn't get royalties on each dollar coined (for a profit) by the US Mint so I don't think the de Francisci family is getting cheated here or would have a basis for a suit. BUT, given the US Mint's recent "trademark" cease and desist orders which were published in Coin world, I suppose it's possible that when they catch wind of this they may have something to say.

BTW, if you painted those Air Jordans with fabric paint, could you sell them provided you state that they were "altered" examples of legitimate Air Jordan's?

Whatever. I think the legality and the terms "legal" and illegal" are being defined and used from two different entities. US Law and the law of the Coin Collector. What may seem illegal to the coin collector may in fact be legal according to US Law.

Laws are funny things in that they can be read and interpreted differently by every person that reads them. If that were not the case, then there wouldn't be such hot debate over current election items.

In the case of these two coins, only time will tell.

 

I noticed that they sold out (at least on the HSN website). Any idea on how many HSN sold?

 

Different shows will have different allocations of coins. I estimate that the final mitnage of the 2009-DC "proofed" Silver Eagles will be around 10,000 when everything is done. More will be available on future shows during the latter part of this year.

 

I've had a change of heart. Even though it is a fantasy coin per se, it still looks like a quality piece that would fit nicely in an American Silver Eagle collection. I ended up buying one last night because I've become so intrigued to see it in hand now. I still haven't bought a single item from the US mint this year. There are simply not enough decent offerings for collectors (though I probably will be buying a gold eagle proof in a few weeks). The annual proof sets are the same thing as every year, full of politics and dead presidents (boring). I'd take a 2009-DC over their sets ANYDAY. In a way, it feels good to own this just to stick it to the US Mint and the government for making such a big deal out of offering a freakin' proof coin.

 

In November,1921 ,the Federal Commission of Fine Arts selected a design from offerings rendered by eight private artists who had been invited to submit designs. Well-known sculptor Anthony de Francisci's designs were chosen and he was awarded the competition prize of $100.

Usually by accepting the award, a winner turns over all related rights. I am sure the Feds ( Treasury/Mint) have the rights.

 

I am not a legalist, so those issues aside, still Daniel Carr and the kings of coin sleaze, gold plated state quarters for 400 bucks and the red oak presentation box boys.

Dan, I hope that the bucks you get from them enables you to do those things you really want to do, to fulfill your artistic vision, whatever that may be. Still I cant hardly get over it.

Daniel Carr and HSN.

 

Only a few of the US Mint's coin designs are copyrighted, and they're all modern commemoratives and the Sacagawea dollar obverse. Also, the Peace dollar design is public domain (introduced almost 90 years ago). And, I'm only modifying existing Peace dollars, not creating new ones.