Arrived today 1964-D Peace Dollar by Daniel Carr

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by dwhiz, Sep 29, 2010.


  1. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. rawbuyer

    rawbuyer Member

    you correct, to make money is the motivation behind making these "coins"....they serve no other purpose. i would NEVER own a fake such as this.
     
  4. coinman0456

    coinman0456 Coin Collector

    When you buy, collect and decide to sell, is not your motivation to make money? Of course. Nothing wrong with that. Trust me, I am one who thinks the " copy or replica " should have been added to the coin. It could have easily been stamped in as edge lettering, while not taking away from the coins " Eye Appeal " , eliminating this controversy within the Numismatic Community which gives Mr. Carr a livelihood . What one might do with these fantasy pieces is speculation at best. Personally, I have no inclination to run right out and buy one of these when they again become available, and I dare say the majority of card carrying collectors and Dealers, may feel the same way. After all is said and done, it's a blemish on the record of one of our great Artistic Talents in Numismatics for quite sometime.
     
  5. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    When you made the coin doesn't haven't anything to do with it in my opinion. Your opinion differs. No sense arguing about opinion as it cannot be resolved.



    So what. There were replicas made long before the Farouk coin came to light. What about them ?

    Again, so what. What you made it out of has nothing to do with the fact that you made it and did not comply with the act.



    I thought they did, but after checking you are correct, they do not. That however still does not preclude their existence. Some '64 Peace dollars were released to the public.

    Fern Miller, superintendent of the Denver Mint at the time, permitted Mint employees to ac-quire examples of the 1964 Peace dollar for face value, as was often the custom on new coins where it was struck. No thought was given that they would not be released. When it was determined that the issue would be melted, the superintendent requested that all pieces be returned. Whether or not any escaped has been a matter of debate ever since that time!

    As I said earlier - time will tell what happens as a result of your actions. Further debate of the issue is senseless as none of us can say definitively what will happen. We just have to wait and see.
     
  6. justafarmer

    justafarmer Senior Member

    Here is the code per uscode.house.gov

    15 USC Sec. 2106 02/01/2010

    -EXPCITE-

    TITLE 15 - COMMERCE AND TRADE

    CHAPTER 48 - HOBBY PROTECTION

    -HEAD-

    Sec. 2106. Definitions

    -STATUTE-

    For purposes of this chapter:

    (1) The term "original political item" means any political

    button, poster, literature, sticker, or any advertisement

    produced for use in any political cause.

    (2) The term "imitation political item" means an item which

    purports to be, but in fact is not, an original political item,

    or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original

    political item.

    (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.

    (5) The term "commerce" has the same meaning as such term has

    under the Federal Trade Commission Act [15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.].

    (6) The term "Commission" means the Federal Trade Commission.

    (7) The term "United States" means the States, the District of

    Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

    -SOURCE-

    (Pub. L. 93-167, Sec. 7, Nov. 29, 1973, 87 Stat. 687.)

    -REFTEXT-

    REFERENCES IN TEXT

    The Federal Trade Commission Act, referred to in par. (5), is act

    Sept. 26, 1914, ch. 311, 38 Stat. 717, as amended, which is

    classified generally to subchapter I (Sec. 41 et seq.) of chapter 2

    of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code,

    see section 58 of this title and Tables.
     
  7. coinman0456

    coinman0456 Coin Collector

    To further argue, or debate this issue is simply an exercise in futility. I think Mr. Carr fully knows by now, how many of the Numismatic Community feels about his actions in this regard. As in that Drug slogan " Just say No " , well just say NO to Mr. Carr by not buying this item. As I mentioned earlier, it is a blemish on the record of a very talented Numismatic Artist and probably in some small way I think Mr. Carr may have some regrets at this point as well, and than again perhaps not.
     
  8. coervi

    coervi Lincoln Collector

    then...dont buy one easy as that.
     
  9. desertgem

    desertgem Senior Errer Collecktor Supporter

    I agree, the monetary side is too strong.

    Hopefully, collectors will feel the way, eventually, towards these fakes like they do AT and altered coins ( such as the 1944D made into a 1914-D as in Dcarr's post #94). AT is the most legal and still is very unacceptable by most collectors. It is the original coin, no movement of metal, same chemical activity as natural toning, and as has been said many times, the intent is the difference. It all boils down to ethics, or lack thereof. It is out of our hands. People who would AT a coin or alter one will buy the coin readily IMO, although they will wave the "not for Fraudulent intent" flag.
     
  10. Jerms

    Jerms Member

    On a related note, I returned the 2009-DC proof ASE. It just doesn't do it really, plus supporting things like this is not good for the hobby. It was interesting seeing it in hand though. While it was done with quality, it's simply not right (and didn't feel right).
     
  11. rawbuyer

    rawbuyer Member

    why are we giving this fake coin any more time....lets stop giving the coin and the maker any more thought!
     
  12. mikenoodle

    mikenoodle The Village Idiot

    You bought one from HSN? That's the only way to get one that I know of, or is there another?

    Give us your review of the coin like it's a film. Tell us what it's like to see one in hand as I don't think I ever will, nor will anyone I know.
     
  13. OdedPaz

    OdedPaz Elongated Designer&Roller

    Well, one of these just sold on eBay for $129.

    See http://www.facebook.com/n/?mefroni%2Fposts%2F117277331670285&mid=3498b5fG28069ed3G7e1f300G37&n_m=paz%40sbcglobal.net

    In my view, these SHOULD be marked with the word COPY due to the extreme resemblance to existing coins.

    Just because miniscule details are different (year and mintmark), it does not make it legit to reproduce (or counterfeit, if you like) a coin that was previously made by the US Mint.

    If a Chinese counterfeit would "produce" a coin that has a slight difference to what was actually minted (such as a different mintmark that was not minted that specific year or an added star somewhere) - would that make it "legit" to sell it without a COPY on it, just because the U.S. Mint never officially made or released this specifically altered coin into the market? I don't think so...

    And the debate continues...

    Oded Paz
    From freezing cold Idaho
     
  14. dwhiz

    dwhiz Collector Supporter

    I see that ANACS is now slabbing these
     
  15. OdedPaz

    OdedPaz Elongated Designer&Roller

    ANACS and all the other "Grading" services will grade anything for money...:confused::rolleyes:
     
  16. rawbuyer

    rawbuyer Member

    as i stated a few months ago (and was told by some people "you should collect what makes you happy") these, i can't call them coins, are just junk. i can't believe a tpg would even look at these "things". a sad commentary on the state of the hobby if they do.
     
  17. BALD SPARTAN

    BALD SPARTAN Member

    I do not like replicas or copies and dont care to own one if I cant have the real coin. It kinda takes the fun out of a RARE coin to me. Unfortunatley copies and counterfits are a way of life in todays world. Technogolgy has made it far to easy for people to get something that looks like the real mccoy. This sadly makes it almost impossible to collect coins without doing your homework and buying certified coins. To me the studying and learning involved with the hobby makes owning the genuine coin all the more satisfying in the long run. IMO at least this item was never a genuine coin but steps should be made to protect any would be buyers.
     
  18. rawbuyer

    rawbuyer Member

    just like fake watches, handbags, etc..it is beyond the realm of my brain capacity as to who would want to own a 1964 peace dollar.
     
  19. dreamer94

    dreamer94 Coin Collector

    I bought one. It's not be a genuine US coin, but it is a genuine Daniel Carr creation that was made in limited quantities. Daniel Carr is not just any mass producer of coin replicas. I like the fact that it was pressed on a genuine Peace dollar. There are other fantasy coins made in the distant past that have significant collector value now. I agree that people should collect what they like. If people don't like fantasy coins, they don't have to buy them.
     
  20. General_Godlike

    General_Godlike Dept. of Transportation

    What was the original price of these 64 coins from carr just out of curiosity?
     
  21. LewR

    LewR Junior Member

    If fake/fantasy - they should be marked as such - and this goes for any type of repro, coin, stamp, currency or firearm.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page