New Daniel Carr Morgan Dollar

Don't know if this has been mentioned or not but...

If the U.S. government didn't want DC to be able to create such things, they shouldn't have sold him the Grabener coin press in the first place.

Right? I guess comparable machinery is available elsewhere <China> <cough> <cough>, but still, the point seems valid.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

What are you talking about? There are plenty of valid uses for a coin press that don't involve producing items in the similitude of official U.S. coinage, including things that Carr himself uses it for. For instance, he makes medals.

 

Since the government so closely monitors the sale of the material used to manufacture paper money, I thought they would also monitor the sale of such machinery. I guess you're right that there are other valid uses. My fault.

 

Yeah of course there is. Strap a chain to it and it could be a ship's anchor. Or it could sit in a warehouse and collect dust- oh wait it already did that.

Im not sure how good business is for him with the tokens he makes but honestly im not a big fan of tokens. The fantasy pieces however I like, and im only guessing, but im gonna say those are his top selling pieces. Could be wrong though.

 

Interestingly, ANACS considers his fantasy pieces to be "tokens." I don't think I agree, but I thought it was an interesting aside.

As for the other stuff, he must be doing quite well since the fantasy mintages are relatively small. From his website, it looks like the press needed a lot of repair/ modernization/ upgrades, so he must not be doing but so poorly (assuming that he has reimbursed himself for all of his costs).

 

Evan, quite eloquently, has explained the conundrum.......

 

But Evan has not explained away the law. Just because you can google it and find the information doesn't make it illegal, according to the laws enumerated in the linked threads.

Perhaps the law should be changed. That's not for me to say. The law as currently written, and as described here and on the NGC forums, makes no exception for "things which are found on the internet."

 

The secret service, so it seems, has larger fish to fry then.......

 

Re: "You can look it up on the internet..."

@green18 @Evan8

The FTC addressed the 1970s version of the "look it up" argument in the case excerpted earlier (In re Gold Bullion Int'l):

It is very plausible that the pieces have not yet come to their attention (especially without with copies of the corresponding case law). I wouldn't hold my breath on USSS senescence.

 

O_V_E_R_S_T_R_U_C_K on genuine coins. Alterations of genuine US coins without the intent to defraud. That is the crux. To wit making all arguments moot.

 

How many times do we have to refer you to the law? This nonsensical argument that Carr likes to repeat has absolutely zero basis in the law. Just because he used silver from a real dollar doesn't suddenly make all of the problems go away. Read the law. It's quite clear.

 

Repeating yourself over and over again doesn't make it true. The case law already contradicts what you wrote. Of course you can continue to ignore fact and logic and continue with your cult like recitation of Carr dogma.

 

And this is what annoys me more than anything. He says the same crap over and over again to the point that people begin to believe it. As a result, others may follow in his foot steps. He is wrong to produce to the pieces and wrong to popularize blatantly barred practices. I hope what they say about karma is true.

 

it strikes me that until there is a definitive ruling on the Carr overstrikes by the FTC, or another empowered agency -- if they choose to do so -- interpretations on both side of the question both carry some validity.

 

What more could you want? The FTC described fantasy coins as genuine coins altered to have novel date variations not found on original coinage. The FTC opined that those were required to be marked under the HPA. Congress, through the HPA, gives the FTC the power to interpret and administer the statute. The overstruck argument has also been refuted. Not all items overstruck over genuine coins are counterfeits, but some of them certainly are as demonstrated in the material pasted from ATS.

 

The overwhelming mountain of law and case history says otherwise.

 

At this point, the issue goes well beyond Carr. Other people are doing the same stuff. I'm sure these people have heard Carr's fallacious arguments and will parrot those too. It is time to correct the misinformation.

Case and point: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1964-D-PEAC...703753?hash=item25c52ac249:g:brYAAOSw~1FUXo5J

 

2 An imitation numismatic item is ‘‘an item
which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original
numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy,
or counterfeit of an original numismatic item.’’ 15
U.S.C. 2106(4). The Act defines original numismatic
items to include coins, tokens, paper money, and
commemorative medals that have been part of a
coinage or issue used in exchange or used to
commemorate a person or event. Id. at 2106( https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/federal_register_notices/2004/03/040303frnhobbyact.pdf just my 2 cents

 

I would suggest that everyone read this register notice from stem to stern.