Daniel Carr

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Because I do not claim that they are legal tender. Their legal-tender status is not certain because there is no relevant law concerning this situation. This is new thing - there is no precedent for it.

I already wrote to the US Mint and Federal Trade Commission (twice) about this, outlining my potential scenario before I ever offered any over-strikes. The example scenario I outlined in my letters was the "1964" over-strike silver Franklin Half Dollars. They never replied. Coin World picked up the case and inquired directly to their contacts at the US Mint. The US Mint simply replied that it wasn't up to them, and that enforcement of related laws lies with the US Secrect Service, and that Coin World should contact them. So Coin World did. The Secret Service briefly looked at the issue and replied that they do not interpret the laws, they only enforce them as directed by the US Attorney's Office, and that Coin World should contact them. Coin World then discontinued their efforts, but I contacted a representative at the Denver US Attorney's Office. I explained the proposed situation and he just said that they do not interpret laws for the public, and that I would have to hire my own lawyer to look into it. So I contacted a very well-known numismatically-inclined lawer. He briefly studied the issue and said that he didn't know, but that he could research it further. I asked what that would cost, and his reply was "a pretty penny" (figuratively, not literally).

So, there you have it. Nobody knows. This is why I state on my web site not to use my over-strikes as legal tender - because nobody knows if they are or aren't. Either way, it is mostly a mute point since the issue price, market value, and scrap value are all higher than the face value.

See above. Been there. Done that.

If there was no law, it can't be "illegal". How do you think the government can enforce the "ban" on scrapping cents and nickels without a law ?
There is a law on the books that provides the Treasury Secretary with the power to make monetary regulations, enforceable as law. And one of those recent officialy-enacted regulations is a ban on large-scale scrapping of cents and nickels. So there is an indirect (but still valid) enforceable law probiting melting cents and nickels.

Here is just one example - a "1964" over-struck on a 1922 Peace Silver Dollar ("arrows" not needed). I can provide many more pictures, if necessary.

Sure it does. It is evidence of what people think. You claimed to know what "most people" think. Based on what evidence ?

Hey, I can always save money by using smaller and lighter planchets. I could use half dollars as blanks and save a bunch. But what really matters, is the per ounce metric. That is what I said: "per ounce".

 

I just want to personally thank both Doug and Daniel for presenting their sides in a rational, logical manner. I find the entire controversy extremely interesting, and it does peak my desire to purchase more of DC's fantasy pieces. By the way, I did receive the '31-S SLQ in a timely fashion... and I must say, it's a beautiful coin.

 

Mr Carr I think what you do is pretty cool. It is sorta along the same lines as quality hobo nickels.

I dont want to get into the whole argument of if its legal tender or not, because frankly it seems irrelevant. Mr Carr makes some nice looking pieces and I think its quite nice to see the work.

 

There is U. S. regulation specifying that all coin designs must be authorized. If someone provokes the overstrike of what appears to be Lady Liberty hooked on ketamine, then it is not legal tender in USD. This isn't naturalness of the species, where the possibility of "reverse evolution" can be valid in certain places.

The poll at the top of this thread simply exhibits the votes of less than 0.4 percent of CoinTalk accounts.
[HR][/HR]
Here are the most relevant definitions, to this thread, for the following words:
(Fifth edition of Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.)
coin, n. 2. A piece of metal marked and issued by governmental authority to be used as money.
replica, n. 1. A reproduction or copy.
counterfeit, n. 1. That which is made in imitation of something, with a view to deceive.
fake, n. [1.] A counterfeit or imitation presented as genuine with fraudulent intent.
In the dictionary, the definition for the word "fake" is presented in posteriority to the word "colloquial". Other dictionaries, however, define the substantive "fake" as something inauthentic.

Permit me to present a short supposition that isn't valid, but that it could help to visualize certain things:

 

I believe, Porsche2007, that Mr. Carr is stating that he doesn't know whether or not one could consider his pieces legal tender as this has been an argument within the thread. He does not advocate a position on this matter although he states that he has pursued the issue of finding out, but to no avail. I do not think that it really matters to Mr. Carr if they are or not with the exception of where that might be construed as matter of legality for the manufacture and sale of his pieces.

If people want to argue this point, I don't think we will come to any conclusion here. It's not been legally defined yet. The inaction of the government to this point would lead one to believe that what Mr. Carr does is within the law, but as we all know, they can (and sometimes do) change their minds about things particularly when the law is not clear.

BTW - LOVE that chart!!!

 

Sounds exciting!! I'll be in touch!! I look at your site all the time, I've missed out on too many coins not to.

 

I hate to even ask a question for fear of this thread never dying out. I've kept up with it, but don't think this question has been asked. Do the US fantasies by Carr have the complete design restruck? It looks like it based on looking at them. I would have thought that the US designs were copyrighted? If so, wouldn't the restrike of these same designs be a copyright infringement?

 

My feeling is that none of D. Carr's fantasy pieces are legal tender. And I don't believe they were struck for that purpose.

Besides a person would have to be some kind of a knuckle head to pay over $100 for one of these 1964-D Peace dollars and then go out and use it for a $1 pack of gum.

 

Now that I think about it: Legally, it would. If you wanted to, you could turn that very overstruck coin into the Mint for it to be replaced with a current dollar coin. The same goes for coins melted in house fires and other situations where they are mangled, but identifiable.

See: http://www.usmint.gov/about_the_mint/?action=coin_specifications

Now I'm curious.

 

Many types of "altered" coins retain their legal-tender status (plated, painted, counter-stamped, carved, etc.).

Not exactly. I'm not claiming that my over-strikes are legal-tender. I'm claiming that I don't know.
What we DO disagree on is you say that there is no difference between strking over existing coins and striking on virgin blanks.
I say there most definitely is a difference. And that difference may include a difference in legal tender status:

Striking over a legal-tender dollar:
A legal-tender dollar is "consumed" in the process. There is no net increase in the number of "dollars" in "circulation".

Striking a "dollar" over a virgin blank:
There is a net increase in the number of "dollars" in "circulation".

Based on past experience, I think they would just ignore what I send them and/or give the run-around. Because they don't know.

An "altered" coin can still be legal tender. You claim that my over-strikes are not genuine US coins. My over-strikes are extensively-altered coins. There is no law, statute, or specifications for what amount of alteration constitutes a nullification of legal-tender status. The Federal Reserve will accept for excange mutilated coins which are reckognizable. They don't specify how they determine what constitutes "recognizable". Weight ? Metallic composition ? Appearance (design imprint) ? That might be something that could be attempted - send one to the Federal Reserve Bank with a letter explaining the piece, and see if they "redeem" it.

Your claim was that the original design was "100%" obliterated. My photo is PROOF that the design is NOT 100% obliterated - it never is. I have many other examples which show more of the underlying design than that one.

I never claimed "readily identifiable". But the obliteration of the original design is NOT 100%. Also, there are other identification methods available, such as metallurgical analysis.

>>>"people have enough common sense to recognize that your pieces simply cannot be legal tender "

If the government doesn't know, I suspect many people would not know either.

 

Nearly all of the design is restruck (with the date being changed to one that previously didn't exist for that design type).

The vast majority of US coin designs are NOT copyrighted. By law, they can NOT be copyrighted if the designs were paid for by taxpayers. The only copyrighted US coin designs are some recent issues including some of the 1995-1996 Olympic commemorative coins, and the Sacagawea Dollar (obverse only - the reverse is not copyrighted since it was done by US Mint employee Thomas D. Rogers).

 

Daniel, I think this question by Mackwork is a significant point, so would you mind commenting.

Did you obtain copyright, trademark, or what ever the US government uses to protect their coin/currency/bonds, etc. designs , permission to use. It seems that the amount of change from the original dollar/planchet is very minor. On the Peace design it seems the "6" lets say in place of a "2" for a 1924 design, a secret mark, and an extra ray on the reverse. This seems to be less than 5% difference. Has you CAD program calculated the exact amount of difference? It would seem that Coca Cola (tm) would not allow someone to sell a similar cola labeled as "Coca-Colo" using their font and color,, so how can you use a design by DeFrancisci without being liable for action from the family for damages, and if the US Government owns the rights, without anticipating actions from them?

I enjoy your activity previously documented on the net about the press restoration and non-imitative fantasy designs, they both show great skill and artistic facilities, but as I have expressed before, I think these imitative coins are just exploitation of the similar great skills of previous designers. Thanks for the honest participation.

Jim

 

Thanks for the reply and explanation Daniel. Learn something new every day!

 

Hmm

I just want to point out that I have more likes then you now... just saying

 

You also appear to have many more personal problems that you foist on this forum soliciting sympathy for your plight. Take a break already, Ruben.

 

I own a "1964-D" Peace Silver Dollar fantasy issue, Individually Handled, MS-68+ I bought directly from Mr. Daniel Carr. I wish I could own a 1964 D Franklin to go with it and probably a 1970 or 1975 Ike that he made as well but for now I will be happy with having made a smart buy when the price of the 1964 D Peace dollar was lower.
I like those Indian UNA Gold coins.
I hope you don't mind me putting this picture of yours up here, as I see you are in the thread.
This Gold pattern coin you produced is a masterpiece in my opinion.

They are what they are, I am a fan. Hey, I even think your avatar rocks!

 

That pic rocks. Wow.