Another Daniel Carr token for me

Go stand in the corner......

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Or go to jail...

 

Ah, but Kenny has a point, as the volume would play into this. If Dan, in other words, turned out his "fantasy" coins at the volume that my friend Guido turns out his um "fantasy" $100 notes, that'd catch the federal prosecutors' attention. Guido, by the way, only manufactures his off genuine $100 notes, just ask him. The fact that he only sells them at $50 a note is only credit to his burning philanthropic passion to serve the interests of hobby above and apart from his own.

 

You know my lifelong friend, Guido? LOL In all seriousness, at what point does it become counterfeiting, and when does it remain hobby issue? There is definitely a distinction, but what is the line? I don't feel that Daniel Carr crosses the line, inasmuch as there is no felonious intent.

 

Then they would be fantasy issues, Doug. If they were sold without fraudulent intent, and issued with a disclaimer, what exactly would be the legal problem with that? We have all seen the bills with Alfred E. Neuman on them. Are those illegal? I would say not, as there is no attempt to duplicate legitimate US currency.

 

Here is another DC token from my collection that I feel was wonderfully executed ... I'm still working on my photography skills as it appears that lighting is my main issue at this point .
Enjoy....

2006 Denver Mint Centennial Token
Brass 39mm

 

Oh how cool, never knew that made that. I was there at the front gates and it looks exactly like that.

 

I have no problem with that coin. I don't think the mint ever made one that looked like it. I only have a problem with those that look just like a real US Mint coin with a date that was never made.

 

Dude, that's right. And Daniel is testing that line. Take this, supposing our dear friend Guido sells his fantasy $100 notes at $200 a note. Throw out the consumer protection laws, as those aren't getting into the economy. Call them "fakes," "counterfeit," what one will, they're not harming the consumer.

Ah, the "Moonlight Mint." Minting by the light of the Moon. Catch him if you can...

 

Doug, I think the key to the hobby law is INTENT. Does one intend to defraud, or does one intend to create a creative piece that is in no way attempting to deceive or defraud? Obviously, this has been tested, and found to be in compliance with the hobby law. Otherwise, any token created for a coin club, or collector, or group of collectors that bears any resemblance to US coinage would be illegal, and we all know that they exist freely out there.

 

His subjective state of mind is irrelevant. It's his conduct that gets him on state of mind. I'll bet I can pick anybody off the street who can add two and two together and they'll tell you these pieces are deceptive. Reasonable inference, he knows it, too.

 

The situation is NOT the same. We went over this issue previously in the "Just got the elusive 1916 Barber Half...." thread. Remember that ?

The referenced FTC text was from a case where Gold Bullion International (GBI) was minting gold coins on anonymous blanks. They were using dates that were never issued for that coin type. But the pieces they produced were NOT over-struck on original coins, and so they could not be considered altered original coins.

Here is my post of note from the other thread:

1)
GBI marketed their pieces as "restrikes", which is a common term applied to official government re-issues of previous coins. GBI did not sufficiently indicate that their pieces were privately and recently minted. This had the effect of leading some potential buyers to believe the pieces were government minted.

2)
GBI's coins were NOT over-struck on genuine pieces. They were not defaced or altered original coins. They were freshly-struck on virgin blanks. As such, they are not unlike Chinese "1872" US Trade Dollars, for example. (The first year for genuine US Trade Dollars was 1873).


The Administrative Law Judge ruled that because these coins [the Gold Bullion International's German gold coins] were not copies of any actual “original numismatic items” the HPA did not require them to be marked “COPY”. The Commission reversed on this point. Admitting that the replicas were neither “reproductions” nor “copies” under the HPA’s definition of “imitation numismatic items”, the Commission found that they were “counterfeits”, because “courts construing the criminal counterfeit statutes have recognized that the alleged counterfeit need only be ‘sufficiently complete to be an imitation of and to resemble the genuine article.’

Note that the original ruling by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was that the GBI pieces were not copies of any "original numismatic item". The FTC also agreed that they were not copies or reproductions as defined by the HPA. The FTC did contradict the ALJ, not on the basis of the HPA, but rather on the basis of U.S.C. Title 18 criminal counterfeiting statutes. However, U.S.C. Title 18 does not apply to my fantasy-date over-strike coins because they are not counterfeits, but rather altered/defaced genuine coins that are not produced for fraudulent purposes.

 

Here is another beautiful token from my DC collection.. This one was the first issue in his new Clark Gruber line after purchasing the rights to the name and the .com website..
I love the simplicity of this first issue as the obverse gives me the feeling of an old gold piece ..
The gold used to mint these came from a small mining operation located in Colorado and when the supply ended, so did the mintage production . The total mintage was 150 pieces ..
The fineness was an usual .825 due to some silver content in the mined gold. All of these factors, in my opinion, added another coolness factor to the piece.

2013 Clark Gruber & Co.
Half Eagle
Satin finish with a reeded edge

 

My favorite DC piece. Sent about a dozen pieces to ANACS, not so much for the grades but for better protection.

 

I love that piece too and it was one of the first five pieces I purchased as I only discovered DC the fall of 2011, which was just prior to that issue. I wish I had the money at that time to get the gold version too, but hopefully one day I can acquire one ..
I emailed Dan at one time suggesting more pieces related to the Confederacy as it was extremely popular and is what I would call a cross-collecting item in that it appeals to CW collectors that do not even collect coins or tokens. It sold out on his website within a week .
I agree about the protection and attribution of the ANACS holders and one day will try and get most of them slabbed .Great piece ! Enjoy !!

 

Yep, I came close to getting the gold version but gold was too high at the time. I'd buy at todays prices all day long.

 

This should have said UNUSUAL AND NOT USUAL like a .999 gold coin.