Eisenhower question

Of course the Mint didn't release coins stamped with those dates but that's not the point that I countered you on from your previous words. Likewise, DC isn't a counterfeiter, he hasn't been stopped from his business nor posed a threat to be shut down by the Secret Service and tried for such crimes, hence you are woefully wrong and slandering someone at your own peril. Dance around it all you like but by your comments we know you choose to remain ignorant of the facts. You have a nice day too, same to you Geezer.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

IMO DC is walking a fine line.
Some argue they are fantasy pieces, some say counterfeits.
I don't know but I do know that when Chinese counterfeiters make a 1901 CC Morgan, 99% of the people here would say it is a counterfeit, not a fantasy piece.

 

I've been trying to build NGC registry set from mint sets. I'll tell you what you have to look through a lot of sets to get high grade coins than you are still at the mercy of some grader who may or may not agree. Just to clarify I'm not trying to get the top set, just a good looking high grade set. I've found that on some of the years its just better to go buy the coin, but with that said if you can look through a lot of sets you can cherry pick out some very nice coins for cheap just be patient.

 

People are known to be xenophobic too*, which goes part of the way to explain their intolerance of things coming from China. There are myriad distorted reasons why US collectors might disdain Asians and Chinese when it comes to copies of US coins, perhaps based on other political differences, frustration at current economic and employment issues, lingering cold war politics, human rights issues, and so on. I think it's rather unfortunate that much of what is called counterfeiting anymore is almost synonymous with latent anti-China sentiment. Sadly, many comments on coin collecting forums approach this.

Many fakes thought to be found selling on eBay are immediately judged 'origin of China' and with the slightest of proof of such origin in a lot of cases. Of course there is a growing and recognized problem with such an issue coming from that nation, but it shouldn't extend to xenophobia as it seems to be veering evermore towards.

Still the difference between Chinese and other origin counterfeits is the way they are inserted into the marketplace with an attempt to deceive and in the mass numbers that they appear, whereas Carr's pieces are expressly disclaimed from this, called out by himself as 'fantasy issues' and of nominal mintage all to the contrary of what most consider counterfeits to be. Furthermore, as stated earlier, Carr's pieces do not threaten to subvert the currency of the United States, and could not with so few minted. The NORFED dollars were perceived as such a threat and the operation seized and the operator convicted for such crimes. These are the differences that many fail to see when we discuss DC's work.

* I'm not saying you are being xenophobic geezer. Just wanted to be clear about that.

 

To inject xenophobia into a discussion of Chinese counterfeits is, at best, unwarranted, IMO.

 

Perhaps you're not so 'perspicacious' after all of the depth of the issue. It's quite evident that xenophobia is at play in many comments made in regards to China and counterfeiting or the creating of deceptive copies of coins for resale into the collector markets.

Another thing that I wanted to add earlier in this thread, is that even Daniel Carr's own creations have become the victim of fakes, which he posts about on his Alerts page. Why is it a problem, because DCs work is avidly collected and commands a premium when resold. Those who seek to profit from fakes usually target products which they seek to make greater profit off imitation or cheaper versions. We see it all the time with knock off brands and other merchandise like concert and sports wear and memorabilia, et al.

 

The fact remains that China has turned a blind eye toward the problem of counterfeiting and Chinese made counterfeits are a big problem. Xenophobia has nothing to do with it.

 

1976 Bicentennial Franklin Mint did 10-15 coin sterling silver set that has a Ike coin in it, but all the coins in that set are about size of a Kennedy half dollar

 

I'm not talking about the Chinese approach to what US collectors see as a problem. Different cultures have different views on copyrights, plagarism and enterprise. I am talking about, i.e. my having been using the word xenophobia, to expose an equally disappointing problem that complaining US collectors have let themselves become accustomed to stereotyping the Chinese over counterfeiting. Not all counterfeit coins or notes originate in nor by the hands of the Chinese. China has been portrayed in the west as more of threat to numerous positions that western countries have long held, and while vilifying them over other things, it has set the stage for people to quickly blame anything remotely similar to counterfeit coins coming from China to spill over to blatant xenophobic generalizations. Such comments have been present in coin forums in the last several years and I think it's a shame for collectors, who tend to pride themselves on knowledge about coins and history, to so easily stereotype in this manner.

 

The Chinese coin is counterfeit, in that it was made to deceive, and it is supposed to be taken for an actual coin.
The Daniel Carr pieces do not represent actual coins. They have fantasy dates and mintmarks, etc. So they aren't counterfeits, as they aren't meant to deceive and don't have the same date/type/mintmark as actual coins.
However, with that said, I don't think there's any point in putting them in your sets. Buy 'em if you want, but they aren't part of the series.

 

That's fits me---somewhat. My set is MS62 to MS65 (IMHO) and PF63 to PF66 (IMHO). Yes I am including the proofs
and all the varieties listed in Red Book. So it is costing more than just Mint State Ikes but that's just me. Crazy zeke!

 

If you read the laws, Daniel Carr is not a counterfeiter, since he's not trying to use his pieces as actual legal tender. It's a huge difference between actual counterfeiters who pass off their pieces as actual coinage or legal tender.

Would I want to include his stuff in my collections? Heck no. I have no idea why anyone would put Daniel Carr's "Fantasy Pieces" into their U.S. issued type sets though. What Daniel Carr produces is over priced novelty gift shop items at most. Sure they're cool, but in the end, they're not real.

 

HIGHJACK.. LOL how did my thread about one thing turn into a ****ing match about something not related?

 

The 72 Type II MS64 is going for $350 or so. My idea would be to get that first, then build the set around it. It's value is probably equal to the entire rest of the set.

 

Those who read this post, please note, that since I am drafting a post again on this subject, it will likely draw critics in some manner. I am stating this here and now since I don't write with feelings in mind, should I be in disagreement with others on this topic, but more so, I seek to delve into the concept of the whole matter. This then is a somewhat rhetorical line of questioning, a lengthy stream of thought in a discourse towards an overall direction of questions that ask about some ideas gleaned from Rodeoclown's post, and more generally, from several other repetitive comments that have come before. Rodeoclown, this is not a criticism of your words nor your person. I state this because people later complain that my questions are interrogational, so be it, but they are wrong to assume I intended any "ad hominem attacks." Some are want to call my posts just that in attempt to discredit them rather than discuss the topic. So...

What is real? DC's over-strikes are done on "real coins", altered to become 'fantasy pieces'. Are they not real 'fantasy pieces'? They are just as real and aptly termed as real as are unaltered coins. Are DC's works not collectible? They most certainly are collected. People can decide to collect just about anything and buy/sell/trade DC's work just like they do with all the rest of real numismatic material, which is a very real hobby with very real choices being made by very real discerning collectors of individual thought and decision making skills.

In many areas of antiques, art and decorative items, even later replicas of work command collector premiums. For some areas of collectible rare pieces, replica and copied work is the closest some people afford to the 'real thing' and those copies manage to hold premium values. They may be bought and sold amongst collectors again and again. Whether its a fraud comes down to how it was traded or entered the collectibles field. It comes down to intentions, which is what the arguments over counterfeiting and DC's 'fantasy pieces' often has to be reiterated is a key differential, intention. Acknowledgement of the facts of what each thing is, an original, a replica/copy, an altered original, hence in this case, DC's over-struck coins (fantasy pieces), all set the stage for a spectrum of values and sectors of collectors who choose their position and follow their budgets according to those market values on where they can collect within the spectrum of a given collectible.

If an individual goes on stage with Antiques Roadhouse (using a common TV show example as subject matter here for broader familiarity) and presents an antique piece of American Federalist period furniture to the Appraiser, the owner may come to learn that their piece is not authentic, but made from other authentic pieces, cobbled together or altered in some manner over the years, thus being reworked from salvage, stripped of original finish, resurfaced, or maybe even just built as a darned good, yet dated and old copy of an original known to exist elsewhere. Depending on the market acceptability and other factors, the replica may have it's own niche value in a sector of collectors and so may those altered originals have yet other collector values for a similar but differenr thing. Attribution must be accurate to separate the original from any derivative. Collectors of DC's work know when reselling/buying in secondary markets (like eBay auctions) what they are buying, and often are buying DC's work at even more of a premium than he originally sold them for himself.

If 'real' is the line some draw, then how more could it be defined to explain how those of you who keep DC's "cool" work out of your collections arrive at these positions? Liking something but intentionally neglecting it, is an odd reaction. Reading your comments Rodeoclown, I take note of your critique of the asking price for DC's work. Money seems key in so many of these battles among those who reject or renounce DCs sale of his work.

Further, I wonder how those against DC's counter-strike fantasy pieces feel about counter-stamped coins? I'm talking about the sort of store cards and advertisements punched onto coins in the past and recirculated, in real commerce? They too are really collected and attributed by real collectors and real numismatist, but never have I seen a thread criticize some little know shopkeeper from the 19th century who altered coins which are now traded at significant premiums amongst coin collectors. That shopkeeper intended to use preexisting material for his profitable benefit. He intended the public to see his initials as advertisement and hoped they may come into his shop, buy merchandise or services and help him raise a successful business. That's an entrepreneurial action often prided in the U.S. and lauded for how the individual with the creativity and strategy managed to excel.

Should we not call these counter-stamped coins 'fantasy pieces' too, as they have been knowingly altered by a third parties impression? Counter-stamped coins were not foisted fraudulently on the public. They served other reasons, just as do alterations to modern paper money tracked by the Where's George enthusiasts, among them, collectors of WG notes. Defacing coin and currency is legal within a certain tolerance that permit its continued usage as currency. DC withdraws coins from circulation that he intends to work with, some of them at values not cheap for source materials needed to create counter-strikes on older issues of collectible coins. DC intends to inform his customers to maintain that his altered coins, fantasy pieces, are to be kept out of circulation, that they are not to be misrepresented if resold and as thus, they exist in the realm of the collectors. Do those opposed to DC's work feel that counter-stamped coins (not DC's) are not real coins?

As I started to say above, it seems that when DC's work is brought to question, nearby is the notion/mention/excuse about the price he asks for his work. It seems that money is what offends and causes self-segregating battle lines to form. Money. If not for the amount of money asked, might there be less of an uproar, and if cheaper, would DC's 'fantasy pieces' be easier to ignore for some, easier for others to accept and even collect? This I wonder how might the tables turn. I suspect most people who criticize the prices he asks for his works, haven't fully considered the costs of overhead, labor, maintaining a website, keeping abreast of legal issues to ensure he's not in violation of current laws, paying his business taxes, and so on. All that cost ahead of what goes into works of such limited mintage that are all a single man at the helm can turn out, to meet his collector's demand and still take in some profit. That, if it exists, is a profit which none who criticism DC can possibly know what amount of return he actually manged to pocket from his effort. And is there a profit for him? It may be closer to break-even if not for his own passion of designing and minting such things for himself and others, that self-satisfying feeling of personal pride and accomplishment in self expression one receives as payback when just enough collectors buy his wares.

To end this thesis, I state, that money is elemental to the divisive nature of this perpetual argument.

If folks have read this far, thank you.

 

Sorry about that, there was a hot button here that people love to debate.

I still like Ikes! :thumb:

 

When I say his fantasy coins are not real, what I'm saying is, they are not real in the sense of actual U.S. legal tender or coinage. Sure they're real, I can touch, feel and see them. I have no problems with some guy making fantasy coins and making money from people who choose to buy such things. Would I buy them to put in my collection? Simply put, no. It's not my sort of thing. Sure they're cool but to me, they're also cheesy in a sense.

But perhaps let's get back on topic. I only wanted to point out that they aren't counterfeits and why would anyone suggest putting them into an official type set? The mint did not produce these, they are altered and are not legal tender, most collectors wouldn't throw these into a mix of the real authentic coins they're trying to collect.

Wheeee!

 

I was thrilled to find a 1973 mint set at a uard sale for 10 bucks. May not be the pretriest examples but at least i have the 73 P and D outta tge way. Unless of course there are varieties of them as well
Waltee

 

Agreed, back on point:

You can easily get RAW ms63/64 Eisenhowers at a reasonable price. If you're looking for graded/slabbed, there are some MS64's that will cost you........most notably the aforementioned 1972 Type 2. But most are CHEAP even graded at 63/64.

The silver 40% Ike's are VERY reasonably priced ungraded. MS/PR 66 examples are even reasonable. The 1971 business strike and 1973 proof being the only two exceptions, but even if you obtain them raw, they are relatively cheap.

 

With just a little patience, you should be able to assemble a set for under $150. The biggest obstacle will be the Silver Clad coins (both Proof and Uncirculated) which currently have a melt value of $10. They are readily available but count on spending at least melt money for those 10 coins.

My Dansco Sets consist of:

1971, 1971-D, 1971-S, 1971-S Proof (Serifed R)
1972 T1, 1971-D, 1972-S, 1972-S Proof
1973, 1973-D, 1973-S, 1973-S Proof, 1973-S CnClad Proof
1974, 1974-D, 1974-S, 1974-S Proof, 1974-S CnClad Proof
1976 T1, 1976 T2, 1976-D T1, 1976-D T2, 1976-S, 1976-S Silver Proof, 1976-S T1 CnClad Proof, 1976-S T2 CnClad Proof
1977, 1977-D 1977-S
1978, 1978-D, 1978-S
1972 T2, 1972 T3, 1971-S Proof (non-Serifed R), 1971-D Type 2 (RDV-006)

These sets cover all the readily available varieties and conveniently fills all the holes in a 4 page Dansco set.

The traditional Complete Eisenhower Set consists of 32 coins but the series is simply loaded with different varieties. Finding 1 of each of the different varieties can literally drive you crazy. But it's a pleasant kind of crazy. Muuuhahahahaha! :devil: