Just got the elusive 1916 Barber Half....

Mine arrived Yesterday. Scanned today.





Typical Moonlight Mint Quality with grainy fields and devices. No way any collector would be fooled by these. Especially if they are sold while in the flips or in an ANACS Holder.

Of course, if somebody steals my stash and tried to pawn these outside of the flip, no pawn shop would be fooled into thinking these were authentic either.

The "loupe" tells potential buyers everything they need to know.

Of course, if some fool walks along and decides to invest $100,000 into one of these (like that First Graded Gold Kennedy?) without doing $100,000 worth of research, there's not much of anything can be done. HPA or no HPA.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I know who drove the bus for the HPA updates. It was Barry Stuppler and the ICTA after Barry failed to get the ANA to violate its charter and get involved in political issues and advocacy to the point of supporting candidates for office. What can we expect from Barry? Not much is what. Not one of the great intellects, dear Barry. One would hope a former President would know, but alas...

 

Are the reverse die cracks so bad that no one wants to show the reverse?

 

Yes, but the key word is "If", and according to the record, the "if" is false, and therefore so is the "then", for Langbord and anyone holding a 1964-P Peace dollar.

 

No. The finding of fact for the Langbord coins applies only to the pieces before the court in Langbord; it says nothing about other coins, including other 1933 Double Eagles. "If" means that it is a question of fact and not purely a legal question. As such, it is not accurate to claim that the pieces are "unambiguously illegal" to own as it would depend on how the coin that was the subject of controversy was allegedly obtained and whether it could be proven in court. Going back to the Langbords, if some one was able to prove that they obtained a 1933 double eagle from the cashier, the owner of the newly discovered coins could (or at least should if the statutes are given their plain meaning) prevail in court. Ditto for the 1964-D Peace Dollar.

 

Those Chinese have real good quality.

 

Why in the hell are you collecting something like that, anyway? Did you ever ask yourself that? I could never understand why some people like to collect fake coins. But they do. Or maybe I'm missing something. This is a fantasy coin, not a fake one. Yeah. That makes a difference.

 

Do you ever suppose that, somewhere in the world, there might be someone who doesn't understand why anyone would collect "real" coins?

 

No. That's a first for me.

 

It may be that you've never encountered the glazed look non-collectors give when you start expounding about coins. More likely, though, like many of the rest of us, you simply haven't noticed it.

 

I notice that all the time. I just look at it like the poor fools don't know what they're missing.

 

I'm pretty much done with this subject which has been beaten and kicked to death by both sides of the legal/illegal camps.

Nothing I can say will ever make sense to the other guys and I'm tired of responding to some of the ridiculous fantasy scenarios that keep getting presented.

I like the products of the Moonlight Mint.
ANACS will slab them.
Collectors will collect them.
And Dan will continue to make them.

However, there are some which I don't necessarily care for since they are out of my realm of collectability.

I did not order any of the Roosevelts simply because I do not collect dimes.
I did not bother with the Indian Head Cents for the same reason.
Same with the 1816 Capped Bust and the Oregon Trail.
Standing Liberty Quarters and Morgans didn't interest me either.

So, they you have it.

My mind is made up and I'll not budge from my "opinion".

 

You are perhaps unaware of a key part of the story. The later 1970s reports of a few more 1964 dollars being destroyed do NOT contradict the earlier Denver Mint employee account. This is because the few coins that were reported to be destroyed in the 1970s were NOT Denver Mint products. There were test pieces that had been produced at the Philadelphia Mint. Those were held for evaluation for a longer time, and then destroyed in the mid-1970s.

Reading things into the statutes that aren't there goes both ways.

 

I sent two separate letters a few months apart, with tracking, to the FTC. One via Express Mail marked "urgent". I have the tracking that shows the letters were delivered and signed for. They never responded. When I first came out with the "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollars in 2010, Coin World wrote an article about them and Coin World contacted the US Mint and the Secret Service. Coin World asked both of them point-blank about my over-strikes. Neither had any sort of meaningful reply.

 

Credible reports from persons who were present at the time indicate that some 1933 Double Eagles did reach the cashier and so some of those could have gotten out. In contrast, persons who worked on the 1964-D Peace Dollars report that those coins never even got close to the cashier. In fact, they never left the segregated and secure annex where they were struck.

 

@dcarr Even though I don't necessarily agree with you on your not marking the over strikes with 'copy' or similar. I'd just like to say that I appreciate you taking the time to at least hold a respectful discourse on the matter. I actually think your incredibly talented and really enjoy the artistry of some of your original design work. I also find the over strikes themselves quite attractive the other issue aside. Have you ever considered doing gold coin over strikes or do you think the cost would be prohibitive?

 

I like the 1964 Franklin overstrike idea. I know Mr. Carr said he did a couple, but none for release.

 

Weren't these pieces struck around the time of the mint mark freeze?

 

Then why does Hernandez (PCGS Board of Experts) mention that Mint employees were allowed to purchase these at face value and "asked" after the fact to return them? I am sure he has a source from somewhere and didn't pull it out of his magic hat. Moreover, there is a difference between "asking" someone to do something and legally compelling someone to do something. You can ask me to do anything you want, and I will likely tell you no. If the pieces were obtained by employees via this method, I do not think the government has any legal claim to them, and the pieces cannot be said to be stolen government property since these were taken with consent initially. That negates the intent required to sustain theft. And if these were not stolen, then there is nothing to my knowledge that would make them illegal notwithstanding the Treasury's department claims. That would mean that they cannot be seized or a forfeiture filed against them, which is tantamount to saying that these pieces would be de facto legal.