Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="krispy, post: 1414497, member: 19065"]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.[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches