Question about Daniel Carr offerings

You are making policy arguments about what the law should be. Those are worthy of discussion and should be directed to legislators. What matters is what the law actually is. The legal arguments were relevant to the OP's question as to why Carr thinks overstriking genuine coins (as opposed to a blank planchet created de novo) is important. The answer revealed in this thread: Carr believes that it legitimates his pieces and exempts them from the HPA and counterfeiting statutes. There is enormous disagreement about whether Carr's assertion is correct. Those two sentences summarize the entire thread and answer the OP's question.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Govmint.......'shudder'.....restrain yourself!

 

I remember that one, I got a good chuckle reading that

 

This is a great example. IMO, these silver-, gold- or platinum-plated SQ's seem much more likely to be used to deceive someone than any of Carr's overstrikes. What does the HPA do to protect the masses here? The producers of these novelties do not place the word COPY or PLATED or anything else on them, correct? Most people don't know to look for 999, carry around a digital scale, etc.

 

I agree, however there is more. I believe Mr Carr also strikes over Morgans as it gives the fantasy piece the correct weight and composition. Plus the 'provenance' of being an overstruck genuine Morgan dollar.

 

Yes, that is true, but only for differential testing of metals. It was used on the gold plated /tungsten bars. But it only 'slightly' detects differences in reflections, doppler type of shift , and velocity of ultrasound. It could not see any remaining surface details of one metal object ( original) after a second similar pattern was pressed on it.

Here is an example of such instrument. I read that the unit was used for testing the US gold reserves.
http://www.olympus-ims.com/en/applications/ut-testing-gold-bars/

 

Yes, that is the technology I referred to, a different application with precious metals but the same thing. I remember thinking of it as a kind of ground penetrating radar for metals. Perhaps it works better on steel.

 

So everything else, including the very points you've argued, go out the door due to what is factually nothing more than his convenient choice of planchet material? If that's what it all comes down to for you, I can respect that, but do tell me if you will be equally as accepting if (when) someone, perhaps the horrid Chinese, follows his lead?

It most certainly was in your post, and was directly quoted. You were attempting to justify Carr's copies, at least in part, using the "intent" argument, so it's only fair and reasonable to apply the same to copies made by others. We simply don't know, as a blanket fact, the "intent" of the people responsible for "Chinese" fantasy pieces, yet they're almost always conveniently portrayed as being produced for the sole purpose of fooling poor innocent collectors. So many wish to blame the producers instead of those actually using them to deceive, yet they refuse to even consider applying the same standard to Carr, who like the Chinese, is simply making something due to demand and passing off all responsibility when one of his copies is used to screw someone else. Logic, fairness, and common sense dictate the same standard should apply to both, but many fans, in their need to defend what they like, instead resort to blatant hypocrisy as repeatedly evidenced in this very thread. If you believe the law shouldn't apply to Carr, that's fine, but also means that it rightfully shouldn't apply to anyone else either.

While I can respect the "to me (you)" part, the oft-repeated notion that anything produced in China or by the Chinese is of low quality is wholly ridiculous. This isn't to say they haven't made tons of junk, but a country with over a billion people, is capable of space flight or building massive islands (just as examples) sure as hell is capable of a quality Mr. Carr and his computer/CNC machine could only dream of. Let's be realistic here...

The true difference, sir, is that you're making excuses for what you like, nothing more and nothing less. Again, if a Chinese producer (or even an American) started to "overstrike" genuine coins to a quality on par or greater than Carr's, would you so vehemently defend them? I'd like to think you would, but something tells me that would not be the case. Please, when the time comes, show me I'm wrong.

 

I like this...perhaps we've made some headway.

 

A matter that the Constitution, that wonderful document, has left to our courts to decide.

 

I have nothing against a quality Chinese overstrike. For years I have purchased a Chinese panda 1oz silver bullion coins for my sister at Xmas. I also gave her a Dansco generic album to keep them in, along with cotton gloves for handling. She likes Pandas and has a good collection now.
The coins are well struck and I have not had any quality issues.

Provided they took the care Mr Carr takes, I would have no problem with purchasing a Chinese overstrike fantasy piece. As a craftsman I can appreciate anything well made with care, Chinese vases and such are one of the standards for quality in that field. However the majority of Chinese products these days focus on cheap with little quality, such is the demand.

Show me a Chinese producer who has high quality pieces with a fully informative website such as Mr Carrs?

The fact that Mr Carr struck my Morgan overstrike on an actual Morgan was importaint in my decision to purchase. As I stated earlier, I did not purchase the gold U.S. Mint dime, quarter and half, because of the 24K AU markings. At the time I looked at the Morgan, I also noted he had produced his own version on blank silver planchets. I considered them but decided against them because they were not overstruck.

Just to add, I have been particularly tempted by these Chinese coins lately..

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2016-China-...694715?hash=item2a754e56bb:g:esIAAOSwZVlXj-kY

I would have already purchased one, other than self restraint due to having too many coins already.

 

If the silver coin was toned prior to the date being worn off, artificial re-toning of the coin might reveal the date. That was illustrated by my prior post where the original "50 C." became visible as a tarnish shadow.

 

I doubt that. But regardless, if the Chinese were to start producing high-quality pieces (if they aren't already), it would actually be preferable if those were fantasy dates because that would make them easy to spot.

If someone else came along and started doing art works similar to Andy Warhol, they would not have the same cachet or value.

If some Chinese person or company were to start producing fantasy-date over-strikes, they would not have the name recognition. For examples, the Chinese would not be able to rightfully claim any of the following:

1) Engraved and minted by a person who designed two state quarters for the US Mint, and who has submitted numerous other coin designs.
2) Over-struck using a surplus US Denver Mint coin press.
3) Produced in the USA.
4) Extensive website with production details and mintages for everything produced, going back to the beginning in 2005.
5) Established history and recognition for creating original numismatic art works in addition to over-strikes.

But for now, due to the laws in China, they can produce fantasy dates or actual rare dates without having to go through the added expense and difficulty of over-striking original coins.

 

@dcarr I doubt that the ANA "Modern Minting" summer seminar class will be going on a field trip to China instead of the Moonlight Mint anytime soon.

 

It depends on how broadly the HPA is interpreted. There are NOT enough decisions IMHO to say for sure. There certainly are other things than can be done. To be sure, the HPA is not exhaustive in scope. It is but one tool.

 

Absolutely and precedential opinions trump our own.

 

Is that why you report those pieces through eBay (i.e. because they could potentially undercut your market share)?

 

We have been over this before and you KNOW what the answer is.

I report anything being advertised on eBay as my work when it is not actually my work.

 

People have explicitly represented one of your pieces as their own with language to the effect of "made by Carr/Moonlight Mint?"

 

I believe this is concerning the eBay search and browse violation policy? I fell foul of this myself when I advertised an item as 'like' another brand. I was not aware of it before that, it concerns all items on eBay, not just Mr Carr's pieces or numismatic items.