Discussion Topic- Why are Carr "Fantasy Overstrikes" not considered Counterfeits?

So, part of the discussion Carr's are not counterfeit is the dates he strikes were not issued by the mint...

I believe most call Henning's nickels counterfeits although the mint did not strike examples like his, and the "Russian" '23-D and '30-D dimes have been considered counterfeits with no mint struck counterparts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Yes, people keep repeating that B.S. that making something with a non-existent date is not counterfeiting. The 1923-D and 1930-D dimes are counterfeits. The 1787 Flowing Hair half dollar is a counterfeit. They are just making excuses, not stating facts.

The difference with Carr's pieces is that he does start with a genuine coin and alters it in an artistic way. I am willing to accept that this is legal, with the afore-mentioned exception of the 1964-D Peace dollar. I still hold that they are imitation numismatic items subject to the terms of the Hobby Protection Act.

 

And the 1923-D and 1930-D dimes continue to fascinate me. What other coins did they do that never got noticed because their dates and mint marks were right?

 

Both Henning's nickels and the Russian fake dimes were passed in circulation. Uttering with fraudulent intent, undermining the national currency; those are the key points.

 

How do you prove intent? When I was working at a coin shop in CHicago we saw a number of counterfeit $100 bills that were printed on bleached out $5 bills. They had a security thread and a watermark of Abraham Lincoln, but you had to know where on the bill the security thread was supposed to be (it varied by denomination) and what watermark a $100 bill was supposed to have. Obviously fraudulent counterfeits, even though "struck" on a genuine piece of U.S. currency.

I used to work for Coin World in Sidney, O. At the time Sidney had two aluminum foundries. One of my colleagues had a friend who worked at one of them, and one day the guy showed my colleague a Kennedy half cast in aluminum. My colleague told the guy "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!" and the guy said "Don't worry, I just wanted to see if I could do it. I'm not going to spend it." Then an aluminum half showed up in the cash register of a local bar. The Secret Service visited the President of both companies, showed them the coin and said that when they found out which one of the two made it they were going to close it down.

 

I suppose folks on either side of the discussion will pull pieces of everything they feel together supports their viewpoint; your definition seems to me to describe contemporary counterfeits but not the recent deceptive struck numismatic fakes, which are indeed counterfeits but not intended to undermine the national currency...

I agree with @CaptHenway Carr's are "imitation numismatic items" and should be held to the rule of the Hobby Protection Act; I still struggle with it being OK to overstrike them on genuine US coins.

 

Dang...where's a lawyer when you need one...

 

That question gives me headaches, too -- but I'm just a psychology minor, not a lawyer.

 

A friend and instructor of counterfeit seminars replied to my FB post "A counterfeit need only be “in resemblance” or “in similitude” so that a reasonable person could mistake the coins as genuine".

 

It’s not that simple. You have to consider the wording and all the wording. This, plus there are no more reasonable persons left.

…..with fraudulent intent..

 

Not the same comparison, at all. It is not Case Law on the issues Mr. Young presents.

 

I've never had a problem with Dan Carr's work. He is not counterfeiting US coins. Based on his ability he could really easily strike counterfeit coins and likely get away with it. By using dates that never existed or that were struck but never released like the 1964 -D Peace dollar means they aren't legal tender. The problem is when someone tries to pass them off as real. It's very unlikely that any coin dealer with half a brain would buy them as real if he did then he shouldn't be dealing in coins. As far as collectors I'm sure some could think they were real but, chances are most collectors would know they're not.

I have a bigger concern with the Chinese counterfeit coins being sold on Ebay and on Facebook. On Facebook they use real coin images to sell their junk and it appears Facebook doesn't give a crap about the Chinese counterfeits being sold. These guys are producing coins with the intent of capital gain. They even have started to do it with common coins not just rare coins. These guys are the ones to worry about. They counterfeit anything to make a buck and have no problem claiming the coins are real when they're not.

 

I'm having some difficulty finding "Westminster Mint vs. FTC", but I found this discussion; is this what you had in mind?

https://forums.collectors.com/discu...ettlement-approved-by-court-my-muzzle-removed

Westminster Mint was striking items that resembled US coins starting with silver blanks, not overstriking legitimate coins. If Carr were striking his fantasy issues from raw metal, I think he would already have been shut down. He isn't, and he hasn't been.

I think the "overstriking on an existing coin of the same denomination" gives him bulletproof protection from the "attacking the money supply" aspect of counterfeit prosecution. As for Hobby Protection? It's still a gray area, based on the amount of heat it continues to generate.

 

.

That is not the issue.

That would be a step to far, and is VERY doubtful he would 'get away' with it.

Is Mr. Carr not producing with the intent of capital gain?

Again, that is not the issue.

GD, in his manner of relaying incorrect information, is, in a round-about and misunderstood reliance, referring to Tom Styczinski, Et Al. Settled Case Law or Case Law, it is not. The case was settled. Demarco is another interesting legal Proceeding.

Armen has written extensively about both of these. I don't know where GD gets his information from, but it is not fact or correct, nor was it an FTC issue, save for the reference of the Freedom Tower silver dollars.

It is noteworthy that Mr. Carr opined on both cases extensively, and conversed publicly with Armen and Tom.

The point: misinformation does not add to the discussion, regardless of the source (me included. I do that, but I am old and my mind wanders. It is not intentional).

 

Because it does not exist. It is bad Wikiing and Googling and misinterpretation.

Don't Smith me, Bro...I am just trying to help.

 

For those who believe Carr is damaging the hobby: would you be equally as unhappy if someone started doing a really really good job of, say, attaching S mintmarks to 1964 Kennedy dollars? Modifying 2017-P Lincolns to make them 2011-P's? Would it be OK if they marketed them as a hobo-nickel-style project?

One of the main arguments seems to be "but what happens when they fall into the hands of an innocent neophyte collector who thinks he's found a Major Rarity"? That's certainly a thing that can happen. Just look at the unending flow of new parking-lot finds in the Error Coins forum. I don't think it's grounds for prosecution or prohibition. (Well, if someone wants to use it as an argument for prohibiting the manufacture of Zincolns, I certainly won't stand in their way.)

 

.

That is oversimplifying the Proceeding. The root was imitation numismatic items, and brought under the HPA obligations of same, and failure to comply. It doesn't matter, though, since the Motion to Dismiss was denied and the Parties settled. Ian Clay and Mike Kott were also defendants.

 

You make a few points, but is sort of strawman. Steve Ellison addressed just such issues, as Counsel for Tom, Et Al.

 

Marriage. She will ALWAYS explain what it is, with footnotes, Case law, and Friend of The Court Briefs from her friends.
You WILL be guilty.