Curious what people think about these? (1964 Morgan dollar "silver medals")

I stumbled across these on Ebay and although I'm not surprised others are getting into the 'fantasy date game'. I am surprised that these apparently don't have a copy stamp anywhere at least that I can see. For all intents and purposes they would probably fool the average person, they also are not over strikes but struck from fresh blanks. Wonder what the reasoning on these not being counterfeits or requiring the stamp is and who produced them?




http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-DISCOV...462551?hash=item2cc2205f97:g:zNEAAOSwyWZZRQ3d

Also found 1964 D's

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1964-d-Proo...789346?hash=item3ae814efa2:g:TbEAAOSwSypY-PaX

And another seller with 1964's

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1964-Proof-...275678?hash=item3d3a3ff75e:g:R~4AAOSwjL5ZDdQx

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Well it is NOT https://www.ngccoin.com/

aka

Numismatic Guaranty Corporation (NGC) [not NCG]

So I'm guessing this is a "novelty" item without researching...

 

In assessments like this I have two categories...

Carr or Crap

...Can you guess which this one is filed under

 

They are also a LLC - Limited Liability Company ... not a Corporation. That way they can keep their house(s) when someone finally calls them on their bull excrement.

 

Their letter cited being a different size and different silver composition as the main reason for why they are legal which is good enough for me. Didn't see anything about who made them skimming through the letter though.

Though putting anything in one of those slabs makes it look cheap in my opinion.

 

Wow, what lies people tell just to make $$$.. sadly people fall for this stuff! (IMHO)
Quote - "Researchers accidentally stumbled and found models, hubs and master dies for this (RARE) 1964 Morgan Dollar during a July 2015 visit to the Philadelphia Mint. I've included in my illustration of the coins a copy of the original published article written in the Coin World Magazine about this discovery. It was in their 8/29/16 publication. There's (5) coins available for sale.(These coin are not to be mistaken for the 1964 D, Daniel Carr rendition)." closed quote

 

Ah yes I see the letter now and the justification is totally wrong as per the HPA and the allowed sizes for reproduction of U.S. coinage or likenesses which the mint has commented on before. Imo as much as I think Carr's pieces should be marked he at least has an actual defense while these people do not.

 

I'm not impressed as it's just another gimmick to over price silver.

 

$16 in silver to me.

 

It looks chachee.

 

Doesn't seem like they put a whole lot of time in coming up with their justification.

 

Why not? It worked for a certain someone and a precedent has been set. Plus, that's exactly where the "idea" for his "1964 Morgans" came from...

I don't know.... it in part reads very similarly to Carr's and/or the usual fan justifications imo. They appear to be fully disclosing what their product really is, which has long been a crutch used to justify someone else's and to laud him for his integrity. What's good for the goose...

If a change to one of two digits of the date on one side is enough to differentiate or identify a "fantasy piece" as not being the real thing, even when minted using a genuine coin as a convenient choice of planchet material, using a larger and heavier blank of a different composition, along with the fact that the design is less exacting should only help to make them more obvious, right?

"These are not copies of Morgan silver dollars" and "this can't be a copy of one since they don't exist".... sounds very familiar, doesn't it?

I am not a fan of the copying no matter who does it, but if the greater hobby wishes to accept, or in some cases embrace it, it needs to be across the board and regardless of who produced it. The all too often cited justifications and convenient excuses for why copies made by one person are okay, while a very similar product made by someone else is "crap" is simple hypocrisy, especially considering how often the "art" argument is made.

There's an old saying that really goes to the heart of the matter here, and is "one man's trash is another man's treasure". One has the choice to drive an econo-box or a Porsche, or to live in a stone and timber frame house or a mobile home. In this very hobby one has a choice to collect only the most original rarities, or they can collect whatever comes out of their pocket and catches the eye; all depends on what they like and can afford, so why should it be any different with "fantasy" copies? Those who take endless offense to others who do not share their appreciation, are willing to voice an opinion on, or god forbid criticize something they like and enjoy really should take a long look in the mirror before doing the very same thing to what someone else may like or enjoy. It works both ways.