My new Carr :)

So where are the foaming-at-the-mouth haters of Hobo Nickels? It's unfair for you to attract all the irrational hate when criminals are defacing Buffalos every day.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

At least hobo nickel carvers change the design into something different , in other words they are not copying the designs of some other artist to the "T" .

 

True in a small way . The big difference is if they were doing what Mr. Carr is doing with his copies , every movie would be the same ,sort of a Ground Hog Day of movies . But in truth most artists make original art , sure borrowing a technique here and there but always coming up with something new . Thus we have many types of art some fall in the same class as the others but all are different in their unique way . Like Dan's original works , some of which I am quite fond of .

 

Numismatics as you will agree is a hobby where fine details matter. Alot. So that argument with all due respect plays against you. What @dcarr does in that respect is perfectly suited to this hobby. He does change the design, ever so subtly, which is what we love about the overstrikes

 

Anyone own one of these?

 

Sure, I own a bunch of 2015 walking liberty half's Dave

 

I guess it is nothing like any other US design? lol Talk about hypocrisy!! "stealing a design."

 

I love Dan Carr's work. I don't know how he makes the dies. I also have a 1931-S Standing Liberty Quarter done by him as well as a 1964 Peace Dollar.

 

No use as even arguing this any further as most can't see the forest from the trees .

And with a whole different reverse , size and weight this proves what ? Plus it is minted bt the US Mint . Same with Buffalo Gold and Silver pieces .Even Daves Cambell Soup can painting is a whole different ball of wax , it's a painting of a soup can not an actual copy of a soup can .

 

A original mint design on another original mint product... great example! Oh, wait... no, it's not. A better one would be Mr. Carr reusing one of his OWN designs, decades after he initially stopped using it, on a new release of a complete different size, different composition, and, oh... with a totally different reverse design too. Of course no one would have a problem with it short of, perhaps, personal dislike, and rightly so. If anyone could rightly reuse and/or copy an old US design, it's the US mint.

 

The same artist designed the ASE that designed the Walker? Or are we calling the US mint the artist now?

Carr using his own design again is not the same as Mercanti using Weinman's design.

How about Winter using Morgans design for the San Fransisco mint commemorative wheres the outrage for that?

There is absolutely no consistency with the outrage of the overstrikes. If Carr over strikes its the end of the hobby and hes stealing designs, if a US mint designer does it its fine because apparently the Mint is the designer now.

 

Give me a break.... who was the design originally made for?

 

So basically what you're saying is its okay when you say it is.

You just exposed the entire problem with standing on the soap box of the moral high horse rather nicely. The entirely history of art and even coins is littered with examples of recreated work, but Carr is the one whose going to destroy the hobby......

 

That is exactly what he's saying--it is okay, when one of Daniel Carr's critics say it is okay. If it isn't his work, that is fine, but if it is his work--Red Light!! Notice the double standards abounding, inasmuch as design inspiration is a worldwide practice and an artistic standard. Were it not for Rembrandt, a lot of other of the Dutch School, and for that matter the Parisian school would not be painting. Utilization of someone else's design in a creative and artistic manner (which is exactly what the fantasy tokens do) is normal creative process. As long as no attempt to deceive or falsify, there is no harm, no foul. Once again, if one doesn't like it, they don't have to hit the "checkout" button, and pay with Paypal.

 

Yeah. The haters arguments are all rebutted with logic then they try to find a way to squirm around it. I don't get it but I don't personally hold it against them either.

 

First, I have NEVER said he's "the one whose going to destroy the hobby". I do NOT call his copies "counterfeits" or imply that they are of "low quality"; in fact I have repeated given credit for their quality and make it abundantly clear my issue is only with the exact copying of the design, yet that's the strawman arguement presented time and time again by those refusing to address what actually was said. If you wish to discuss your views, feel free, but at least have the decency to not place words in my mouth in a desperate attempt to further your narrative.

The only problem exposed, sir, is the refusal some have to address the issue at hand. Personally, I don't like the fact the design was reused for part of the ASE, but this doesn't change the FACT that Daniel Carr is not the US mint, nor are his copies simply inspired by the originals.

 

That's how he rolls.

 

If you have something to say, Dave, how about you just say it.

 

That's fantastic (for the past owner) and I know you like to use this example, but let's at least compare apples to apples... no idiot is capable of confusing Warhol's "Campbell's Soup Can" to an actual can of Campbell's Soup.

A better comparion would be to take a can of actual Campbell's soup, carefully remove the label and scan to photoshop, change some small element of it (perhaps the "m" in "Campbell's" to an "n"), reprint the slightly altered label on top of the original, then slap it back on the can and claim it to be one's own work. Would Campbell's soup look upon such a thing and think it perfectly fine since they're "Campbell's" and the label says "Canpbell's"? If one was marketing "their" creations, it's a pretty safe bet to assume they'd hear from Campbell's attorneys in short order.

 

My apologizes for lumping you into that generalization of the argument.

Okay well how would you justify those examples I gave above? The Mint is not a designer. They are clearly okay with artists borrowing work (I am as well when its not copy righted I have no intention of destroying half the art in the world by saying no copying) but you cannot argue it against Carr then turn a blind eye to those other productions. They were not the original artist using them period.

Which doesn't change the fact that the US Mint isnt Morgan or Weinman or many other examples which could be found. Your objection is an artist copying work. If Merchanti and Winter can Carr certainly can as long as he keeps it within regulations