Just got the elusive 1916 Barber Half....

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by Morgandude11, May 18, 2015.

  1. That sounds great to me...no mintmark of course. I am sure many others including HepKitty will be happy too.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2015
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. V. Kurt Bellman

    V. Kurt Bellman Yes, I'm blunt! Get over your "feeeeelings".

    Am I noticing a "special" level of venom directed at Mr. Carr's 1964-D Peace dollar? If I'm correct in that, I'm left wondering why that is. The current piece is the Barber half. The Peace is past tense. Is there perhaps a resistance borne of the belief there are "real" ones out there in the wild, and Carr's pieces could make diagnosis of real ones slightly harder (since the weight and composition would match)?

    If so, here's the key - the "real" ones are unambiguously illegal. And if you disagree with that, then who's the one counting on tortured legalisms?
     
  4. BooksB4Coins

    BooksB4Coins Newbieus Sempiterna

    Daniel,

    Of course you would leave the B on the neck; it is part of the COPIED design, so please... don't pat yourself on the back with this nonsense about you not taking credit. Your steadfast refusal to admit that what you do is, in fact, copy the original design, while going off on your deflective tangents about white hobos, collector prices, and the gem of the bunch - restored Mustangs (or even just with different wheels) - is tantamount to claiming them as your own. You simply cannot have it both ways; either your overstrikes are copies of the originals or they're not, and all the excuses you can muster will not change this. Anyone with eyes who's willing to be honest with himself/herself can see the truth; of course, allowing themselves to believe it may be a different story altogether.
     
  5. Blissskr

    Blissskr Well-Known Member

    Lol an advisory opinion clearly stating it's a simple non binding opinion from 1978, when there was an actual case of legislation decided later that year via the FTC referenced earlier in the thread. Why don't you send a letter to the department of the treasury yourself and get an updated response regarding what your doing? There's a quite a difference between stamping a symbol into a penny or elongating one at a amusement park versus what you do. Yet even with those counter stamped clearly not U.S. mint altered coins, do you know how many threads get created for coins like that 'laypeople' think are rare valuable errors? If you did send a letter and get a similar response it would pretty much put the issue completely to rest right? You could include pictures, maybe even an over strike or two and ask them yourself if it's legal to duplicate United States coinage in likeness and design sans labeling as a 'copy'? Unless of course like your public comments on the HPA suggest it's just your opinion and interpretation that it's legal or that it should be. I don't think anyone would argue against a current letter addressed to yourself from the treasury giving even a simple opinion that what you do is legal. Why not put the issue to rest and contact them regarding it?
     
  6. Coinchemistry 2012

    Coinchemistry 2012 Well-Known Member

    The 1964-D Peace Dollar is targeted for good reason. His argument about using non-existent dates goes out of the window for those. Whether they still exist is questionable, but even if they don't, then the statute still applies.

    I also do not agree with your conclusion that the genuine ones are "unambiguously illegal." To be sure, the government may seize them and might very well be correct in doing so, but there is no guarantee that it will be upheld in court. If a Mint employee can prove that the piece was purchased lawfully (and per Hernandez, PCGS Board of Experts member who wrote the article I linked to before states that this happened legally), then the government has no forfeiture or seizure claim under the only statutes that allows it to seize property. So I would argue that the legal status is ambiguous at best. Illegal? Quite possibly, but there is also a chance that it might be declared legal (none of which would matter anyway under the plain meaning of the statutory schemes discussed).
     
  7. dcarr

    dcarr Mint-Master

    The case cited earlier in this thread was about producing, marketing, and selling an entirely new piece, struck on virgin blanks. The references I cited have to do with altering and defacing an existing genuine coin (which is what I do). That is a huge difference. While both the Treasury statement and the FTC action you speak of were from 1978, the US Mint web page that I referenced is newer than that. http://www.usmint.gov/consumer/18USC331.cfm

    >>>do you know how many threads get created for coins like that 'laypeople' think are rare valuable errors?

    Can you cite an instance where a layperson actually paid a lot of money for such a coin ?
     
  8. dcarr

    dcarr Mint-Master

    In the case of the "1964-D" Peace Dollar over-strikes, I am using a date which was never issued for that type. And, like I've pointed out, the government states that none exist.

    The Hernandez article has no credibility - it has been contradicted by people who were actually there at the Denver Mint when the 1964-D Peace Dollars were struck. The coins that Denver Mint employees were allowed to purchase were 1964-D Kennedy Half Dollars, not 1964-D Peace Dollars.
     
    V. Kurt Bellman likes this.
  9. V. Kurt Bellman

    V. Kurt Bellman Yes, I'm blunt! Get over your "feeeeelings".

    Well, color me one of those who believe A WHOLE BUNCH of unreleased material should be illegal, including the 10+ 1933 Double Eagles. Remember, Judge Midge Rendell did NOT rule in favor of the family on the merits, but rather on the government's failure to file a timely civil forfeiture action. On the merits, the coins are still the property of the U.S. Government, as would, and should, be any 1964-D Peace dollars.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2015
  10. Numismania

    Numismania You hockey puck!!

    This I'd LOVE to see. I don't believe I've EVER seen even ONE (let alone 'many') thread started by a poster, who had one of Mr. Carr's FANTASY OVERSTRIKES and thought it to be an authentic U.S. coin that would be worth lot's o' dough, and I've been on various coin forums for a number of years (on CT, 4 years as this handle, another for a few more...don't worry, I got the OK to change handles from the top, due to certain circumstances...on CU for 9 years or so, NGC forums almost 9 years, so....).

    So, let 'er rip..... now that you've made this statement, link even ONE thread that actually shows this. Hey, though I've perused the forums I belong to daily, there just MIGHT be an instance, but I strongly doubt it, as I'm always reading these threads about Mr. Carr, they all wind up having many multiple pages (take this one for instance.....40 pages and there'll be more), and they ALL wind up being close to the exact same content, the only thing that really changes are the series/dates of his FANTASY OVERSTRIKES. And Mr. Carr DOES come to answer/defend his pieces (and himself, ultimately), so at least he ain't hiding from the issues. Takes a lot to enter the fray, knowing that there are going to be at least a FEW who want to see him just about castrated, or worse.
     
    Morgandude11 and robec like this.
  11. dcarr

    dcarr Mint-Master

    My over-strikes are genuine US Mint coins that have been re-faced to have the same design they had originally (except for one or two date digits). As such, they are considered a "restored" and "modified" piece. Some people might even consider them to be "doctored" coins. But they are not a "copy". I stand by my automotive restoration analogy.

    Since you seem to want to be on a first-name basis, perhaps you could tell us your name ?
     
  12. Blissskr

    Blissskr Well-Known Member

    I assume you meant to reply to me and not dcarr? Did you read what I actually wrote before commenting? Or just the part you took out of context based off the quoted portion of my statement by dcarr. Quoted that way it certainly could be taken out of context and low and behold it happened. However, if you reread the exact statement I made, here I'll even quote it for you below.

    It has an entirely different meaning when taken in context. And I've seen plenty of threads with people posting those novelty counter stamped cents for instance and thinking they have something special. The point being it wouldn't be a stretch to think at some point someone somewhere will end up with a dcarr over strike and assume they've found some type of valuable error. It happens all the time with other coins it'd be naive to think it will never occur with a Carr piece. Now that may not be dcarr's intention and I'm not in anyway saying it is. But does anyone really believe the possibility of it occurring doesn't exist? And our laws are designed to protect the laypeople among us who don't know any better not the collectors who have the knowledge to know better.
     
  13. 19Lyds

    19Lyds Member of the United States of Confusion

    Boulder DAM, I like you!! "Ignition Source of Ignorance"! ThumbsUp.gif
     
  14. dcarr

    dcarr Mint-Master

    It is one thing to find or receive in change an odd coin and "think" (actually more like "hope") the thing is valuable. These laypeople that are posting, they don't know or think it is valuable, they HOPE it is valuable because they don't know what to think (yet).

    Do you have a link to a thread where a layperson actually paid a lot of money for such a thing ?
     
  15. Blissskr

    Blissskr Well-Known Member

    No and I never stated they did. Could you please answer my question why you haven't sent the treasury a letter much like the one you've shared multiple times from 1978 in regards to your overstrikes? Seems like would clarify the issue entirely wouldn't it? I don't see why if your 100% certain that what you do is completely legal you wouldn't do so and end all the debate surrounding it?
     
  16. 19Lyds

    19Lyds Member of the United States of Confusion

    I laugh! Exactly Right!

    Lets see now, who do you suppose was the impetus behind the 1st run through on the HPA? Could it have possibly been ...........coin dealers? Dealers with enough money to get congresses attention?

    And who do you suppose was the impetus behind the 2nd run through on the HPA?
    Could it possibly have been big money TPG's and Coin Dealers that have enough resources to get congressed attention?

    I mean. it's not like eBay went to the FTC and its not like any ordinary citizen can go running to the FTC and expect responses. It takes money and standing in the business world.

    Of course, the HPA itself only says that its ok to sue these guys but you've got to make the initial suit which requires searching for an attorney willing to take the case on a contingency that they would win or at least get their $110,000 for fees and filing.

    It's not like some Federal Officer is going to come out and start arresting folks.

    As for the inheriting coins and then joining one of the many collectors clubs to submit the coins? Sure, there are threads out there of folks doing this but only after they've gotten opinions from the forum participants.

    For that matter, there are folks out there that submit stuff which makes one wonder what the heck they are thinking submitting an XF-45 1969-S Lincoln? (Hopefully they didn't get scammed into buying one of the MDD coins thinking it was the elusive 1969-S DDO.)
     
  17. 19Lyds

    19Lyds Member of the United States of Confusion

    Yes. There are some failry dumb ones out there but NOTHING can be done to protect them from themselves.

    I bo8ught 2 bags of Kennedy Half Dollars from a local bank where the lady simply wanted to deposit them for face value. I asked the teller if she'd told this depositor that there was obviously silver in each bag since the bags were clear plastic and you could see 1964-1969 coins in it.

    She said the depositor knew that but just wanted to deposit the coins and get them out of here hair.

    It was dumb since I pulled $1,000 worth of silver out but then, the depositor wanted to be dumb and there was nothing that the teller nor I could do about it.
     
    geekpryde likes this.
  18. Coinchemistry 2012

    Coinchemistry 2012 Well-Known Member

    And the people at the Denver Mint are contradicted by later confirmed reports that more showed up in the 1970s. Of course these were destroyed, but it raises questions about the possibility of more. And of course, none of this is relevant to the plain meaning of the statutes that people tend to ignore or read stuff into that isn't there.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2015
  19. Numismania

    Numismania You hockey puck!!


    Yes, blssskr, I freely admit that I only responded to Mr. Carr's quoted version, and had I taken the time to read YOUR post, then yes, I obviously did take it out of context, and offer up an apology to you, sir.
     
    Blissskr likes this.
  20. Coinchemistry 2012

    Coinchemistry 2012 Well-Known Member

    The Langboard case is distinguishable because of the CAFRA claim and the deadline issue. Anything else is meaningless dicta and has no precedential value. If the government authorized the release to employees through the cashier (either the 1933 Double Eagle or the 1964-D Peace Dollar), then the pieces were released and the government has no claim to the property. And the statutes concerning seizure and forfeiture (read as those that the government could use to take back the property and deny title to the current owner) would be inapplicable. So again, the question is one that is highly fact dependent and one for a fact finder, which means that it is not "unambiguously illegal" as you contended.
     
  21. Coinchemistry 2012

    Coinchemistry 2012 Well-Known Member

    You are not reading my posts closely. I never claimed that the HPA was a criminal statute. It is very clearly a civil statute; however, it necessarily abrogates the Title 18 (criminal) statutes insofar as it authorizes certain pieces. All of the rest of your post is pretty much irrelevant. Whether the HPA is wise or not is not relevant (like many of the arguments here) to whether the statute is perfectly enforceable and applicable to the person here.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page