Daniel Carr ?

Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by schepys_coins, Jan 17, 2019.

  1. BooksB4Coins

    BooksB4Coins Newbieus Sempiterna

    Good point. Photoshop to the rescue.

    I also agree that sooner or later an enterprising individual will follow his lead, especially since he’s effectively provided a blueprint for anyone interested in such copying (or actual counterfeiting) with access to the necessary equipment. Of course we will then hear all about how his citizenship, or supposed craftsmanship, or how the equipment he uses is what sets his apart. Hell, this has already been argued on threads past.

    Oh, what a tangled web we weave...
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest

    to hide this ad.
  3. desertgem

    desertgem Senior Errer Collecktor Supporter

    It is interesting that to make copies or alterations of paper money it has to be different by 50% in size either 150% of original or 75% of original, as people might be uneducated and think a smaller difference bill was real, but it seems metal coins are not "real money" ( sorry stackers) or not protected against alteration any more since the prohibition era. The artist S.G. Boggs caused quite a stir with the law, but the US arrested him 3 times but never prosecuted him, just took his 1300 bills and kept them.......as usual, follow the money.

  4. okbustchaser

    okbustchaser I may be old but I still appreciate a pretty bust Supporter

    Is this a counterfeit?
    How about this?

    No, neither one is. They are simply altered coins...just like this one.
  5. BooksB4Coins

    BooksB4Coins Newbieus Sempiterna

    No offense, sir, but this is an exceptionally weak and deflective argument. Do notice I did NOT nor have I ever referred to his copies as counterfeits.
  6. -jeffB

    -jeffB Greshams LEO Supporter

    If the question is "is it edible", it's perfectly reasonable to compare apples and oranges.

    If the question is "is it legal", it's perfectly reasonable to compare Carr's work and other altered coins.
  7. EyeAppealingCoins

    EyeAppealingCoins Well-Known Member

    Did the producer of the Hobo nickel or the other item alter a U.S. coin (i.e. an original numismatic item) to make it imitate another numismatic item other than the one struck? No.
  8. baseball21

    baseball21 Well-Known Member

    They made it imitate a numismatic item that does not exist, same thing as the overstrikes.
    -jeffB likes this.
  9. EyeAppealingCoins

    EyeAppealingCoins Well-Known Member

    There is no requirement that the piece imitated remain extant. And a 1922-P Peace Dollar over struck using false dies to look like a 1964 dated Peace Dollar is an original numismatic item "which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified." 16 CFR 304.1(d). It is now a 1922 problem coin modified to look like a 1964- D Peace Dollar rather than the 1922 Peace Dollar it was struck as. The definition goes on to contemplate restrikes by governmental entities, exempting those from the definition of imitation numismatic item.

    As for "fantasy dates" the issue has already been addressed by the FTC. See In re Gold Bullion Int'l Ltd., 92 F.T.C. 196, 223 (1977) ("[M]inor variations in dates between an original and its alleged 'copy' are insufficient to deprive the latter of its status as a 'reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an 'original numismatic item' and do not eliminate the requirement that the latter be marked with the word 'Copy.'"). The overstrike issue is a red herring. He is effectively striking an imitation numismatic item over an original numismatic item which does not change the calculus under the plain meaning of any of the relevant statutory or administrative regulations.
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2019
  10. baseball21

    baseball21 Well-Known Member

    You can't fake something that never existed and it is perfectly legal to alter coinage
  11. EyeAppealingCoins

    EyeAppealingCoins Well-Known Member

    It is legal to alter coinage so as long as there is no fraudulent intent AND there is no other statute or administrative regulation that prohibits the alteration. In this case, the Hobby Protection Act applies and controls. Notably, even if we disagree as to whether his pieces are counterfeits, the HPA covers more than just counterfeits but all imitation numismatic items. That term has a very specific meaning defined in the statute and in the Code of Federal Regulations that may differ from a lay meaning of those terms.
  12. baseball21

    baseball21 Well-Known Member

    You are certainly entitled to think what you want. Your feelings will not change the overwhelming evidence that you are wrong. He has been operating for about a decade no charges. The ANA legal counsel specifically responded dismissing the complaint against him by Rodger, so another failed effort. People have been reporting him for years, no action.

    So we have actual facts and evidence showing that it is fine, the rest is just peoples feelings for what they wish it was
  13. EyeAppealingCoins

    EyeAppealingCoins Well-Known Member

    What "facts" do you speak of? The facts (as opposed to conclusions) are not seriously disputed. Carr takes genuine U.S. coins and overstrikes them using homemade dies. Those homemade dies are made in the likeness and similitude to official U.S. coin designs, but he changes the date. There is nothing to suggest that the government and specifically the Department of Treasury has authorized him to produce, maintain, and use the said dies. What part do you dispute?

    As for the conclusions, the statutes and binding FTC opinions are entitled to the force of law. The FTC has said that it is possible to alter an original numismatic item to violate the "copy" marking requirement. 16 CFR 304.1(d). The FTC has also handed down an opinion that found (1) the intent of the producer is not relevant for purposes of the HPA and (2) using fictitious dates does not save a coin from being considered a "counterfeit, copy or reproduction". It is the FTC's opinion and not mine or yours that matters.
  14. Nathan401

    Nathan401 Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    Just don’t buy them. You’re welcome.
    Santinidollar and Kasia like this.
  15. EyeAppealingCoins

    EyeAppealingCoins Well-Known Member

    That's fine. But when people specifically ask about them, then these discussions logically ensue.
  16. Nathan401

    Nathan401 Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    Ad nauseam.
  17. EyeAppealingCoins

    EyeAppealingCoins Well-Known Member

    I agree. There should be an neutrally written description written by a mod stickied to the top. Whenever someone posts a thread asking about him, people could nonchalantly post the links. There is nothing new to say. All points have been thoroughly explored.

    @paddyman98 and @TopCat both had succinct posts that really answer his question and are probably the best posts to the thread. Links do wonders.
  18. baseball21

    baseball21 Well-Known Member

    @V. Kurt Bellman

    1. Rodger submitted an ANA claim, the ANA dismissed it which was responded to by the ANA legal counsel.


    2. This is year 8 or 9 now and despite people reporting him no action has been taken by the government.

    Thats all that matters period.

    If you want another 3. ANACS certifies the pieces.

    Write up a new complaint if you want and be sure to post it here for us all to be able to read. Your credentials would be helpful as well for why we should care about what you say over what not only the ANA has decided, ANACS has decided, and what the federal prosecutors have decided over the last decade as well
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2019
  19. EyeAppealingCoins

    EyeAppealingCoins Well-Known Member


    1. Yes. RWB submitted a poorly written ANA complaint based on the ANA Code of Ethics. It was dismissed based on the grounds that there had not been a legal adjudication. The ANA Code of Ethics is not the United States Code or the Code of Federal Regulations. It is an opinion of a private hobbyist group interpreting its own charter. Some people apparently value its opinion. That too is fine. Some opinions are more persuasive and even have the binding force of law like the FTC.

    2. Fair enough. It is reasonable to argue whether an adverse action will ever occur against him, and it may not. That is a different issue than whether an adverse action is possible. As we have established, not every prohibited or criminal action is prosecuted. I think I'll take the word of the Department of Justice manual for prosecutors on this over yours or anyone else on this forum: https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-270 00-principles-federal-prosecution#9-27.270.

    Some may even argue that arguing about the point is frivolous and that the discussion has become academic. Perhaps it has become academic, but it is still very relevant to the hobby insofar as the HPA and other statutes are amended and the regulations reviewed every few years. Thinking through the implications of existing laws and regulations can be useful in making any changes that are necessary or desirable. I think that is a healthy discussion.

    3. ANACS calls them tokens. Tokens are not exempted from the HPA or the other statutes discussed. The word "token" is explicitly listed. I don't see how this is a legal opinion and more importantly why I should care about its legal opinion when the FTC has already addressed the fantasy date and intent issues.

    Overstrikes are fun, but if mere alteration of an original coin can trigger the marking requirements of the HPA as it does under the cited CFR section, then the overstrike issue is seemingly irrelevant to the discussion.
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2019
  20. Nathan401

    Nathan401 Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    Good grief, Charlie Brown
    EyeAppealingCoins likes this.
  21. EyeAppealingCoins

    EyeAppealingCoins Well-Known Member

Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page