Another Daniel Carr token for me

There's a difference between not agreeing and beating a dead horse. We know you don't agree with what Daniel Carr produces. You don't need to insert it in every thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Why don't you deal with it, and stop being immature? You were positively rude to Daniel Carr. That is really quite childish. Your response to me is equally rude. This is a hobby board, where collectors share their passions for various types and varieties of coins. It seems as if anybody who doesn't agree with your assessment of Daniel Carr's work is inaccurate. That is simply a massive generalization. I don't have any nickel in this dime in terms of constructive criticism--you are just being way out of line in playing "seek and destroy" with any Daniel Carr thread. It is time to act like an adult, Eddie. Nobody jumps all over you for your choice of coin, or assessment therein. You are way over any sense of propriety with Daniel Carr in your accusatory and hostile responses to him and about him. What it comes down to is--you don't like his creations--DON'T BUY THEM!!!

 

They are sold out - 2014 issue. I did get mine on eBay. They were offered in three grades - standard, high grade (MS66+/-), and proof. Like the Morgan varieties, they are stamped on genuine Indian cents.

 

Daniel Carr is, first of all, an amazing person, who makes amazing designs of wonderful coins/tokens/medals.

Personally, I much rather have his unique designs, like the AMEROs and other "rebellion" style coins/medals than his overstrikes, but that is, most probably, because I do not collect U.S. coins at all.

Before bashing anyone's work, look at it and appreciate what it is, what it stands for and why it was made.

You go, Daniel, and continue to make additional amazing designs!!!

 

I don't understand what motivates a person to open a thread on a subject they clearly detest.

They certainly have the option of ignoring such threads.

 

Yes, the hardness of the original coin has something to do with why the original date on the over-strike Liberty Nickels shows more readily than other over-struck coins.

There is also an additional reason. Liberty Head Nickels minted in 1906 and before have a large date. Those minted from 1907 to 1913 have a small date, as do the "1914" fantasy-date over-strikes. So when a pre-1906 host coin is over-struck, the new "1914" date isn't big enough to completely cover the original date.

I use well-worn common-date Liberty Nickels. Most of those still have strong dates. Barber half dollars are softer and have shallower dates.

 

Here are some details from the us Hobby protection act for these "imitation Numasmatic items" If you feel like making an issue, it provides recourse for you to do so.

If any person violates section 2101(a) or (b) of this title or a
rule under section 2101(c) of this title, any interested person may
commence a civil action for injunctive relief restraining such
violation, and for damages, in any United States District Court for
a district in which the defendant resides or has an agent. In any
such action, the court may award the costs of the suit, including
reasonable attorneys' fees.

3) The term ''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 or event. Such
term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative
medals.
(4) The term ''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.

 

I don't think Daniel 'purports' it be nothing more than a fantasy piece. It never happened so it ain't real, it's fantasy. Could you fool somebody with it? Yeah, sure you could but Daniel's not trying to fool anyone........

 

I got my Indian yesterday. Lovely coin, and stuck on a 1908 Indian Cent. Crisp details, and will be a loved addition to the collection. I pay no heed to what it is or what it means. I like it.

 

Ken, it's the item that "purports," not the person. That's what you're missing. What Daniel purports is irrelevant for purposes of this statute.

 

I'm jumping in to this a bit late, but Carr has a pretty specific disclaimer on his website about these coins and the relative legislation. He also notes that the same points should be made in any subsequent transaction.

 

Who said that you are reading the statute correctly? There is a lot of latitude from what I read of the hobby law, you're misreading it as regards Daniel Carr's work. Then again, you will disagree, preferring to go on the attack on any Daniel Carr thread. Broken record--don't like his work, don't buy it.

 

This: "(4) The term 'imitation numismatic item' means an item which
purports..." [emphasis supplied].

Perhaps English isn't your first language...

 

Once again, an insult. That is what you are best at on this board. If you have nothing decent to say, why bother being antagonistic. You resort to racial/ethnic slurs????? I reported this for being an ethnic slur, because it is. You have no idea of my ethnicity, nor my language capability. I was discussing coins, and the appropriateness of applying the hobby law to Daniel Carr's work, and you defamed me.

 

Perhaps you're a narcissist then who can't admit when he's reading a statute wrong when it's put right in front of his face. I mean, if your English is fine.

 

Now, you're calling me a narcissist? This is a coin board, not an insult forum. Reporting this one again.

 

Date aside, an over-struck (or otherwise altered) coin is still the same basic coin type that it was originally. Market valuations and opinions on such items can vary widely, of course.

A genuine coin which has been altered so as to have a date which was not officially issued for that coin type does not itself "purport" to be an original numismatic item because the thing that it is purporting to be does not exist as an original numismatic item.

The type of thing that the HPA statutes were designed to address would be, for example, the practice of taking a 1944-D cent and cutting off parts of the 4 to make it look like a rare "1914-D" cent. Such a coin could purport to be an original numismatic item because genuine original 1914-D cents exist, and they are traded in the marketplace and listed in valuation guides at prices far in excess of those for 1944-D cents.

The HPA was not intended to prevent non-fraudulent coin alterations such as jewelry, "love" tokens, "hobo" nickels, plating/colorizing, etc.

 

Whatever interpretation one chooses to apply to the hobby statute, notwithstanding, I shall continue to buy your tokens and other issues, Daniel. I do believe you have artistic intent in making them, and no intent to deceive. Originally, as many recall, I was critical of your work. However, I reserved judgement until I purchased the 1965D Peace Dollar. I was so impressed with the quality that I have become a regular collector of Daniel's work. To see the work, and its quality in hand obviates the criticism of any fraudulent intent. Only somebody completely uninformed about coins, and who failed by their own negligence to read your website would be self- deceived. Your work sits alongside my my vast collection of US coins very comfortably.