Question about Daniel Carr offerings

The token is such bad quality that it looks more like something you would win in a cereal box.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

If they could make it not ugly, I might. I have considered Gallery Mint Museum tokens before, and they are marked COPY. I'd love to have the whole set of them. They are very well done.

 

I did not think of that, but it wouldn't exactly be "stamping" the word COPY into the die, would it?

 

I do like this ROM overstrike, but cannot find the word COPY anywhere.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Overstrike-...512650?hash=item3ad4d0200a:g:fNQAAOSw44BYTjJ2

 

Well, the original die is not stamped, it is engraved or machined. Further dies made from the original are stamped I believe. But leaving a raised area, then machining around the raised area, removing the raised material around the word copy...would work. It then raises the point that before the machining, the die would supposedly be illegal but become legal after the machining lol.

Just as Mr Carr pointed out, you could have several dies for striking the same token, one set with 'copy' machined on the obverse. Then another set with 'copy' machined on the reverse. Then you would have both obverse and reverse dies without the word copy on them. Which technically is illegal.

I think this whole thread is a testimony to how badly written and unclear the law is.

 

Hard to see the details on the reverse, probably bad lighting. Not my thing, but yes interesting piece.

 

Here's another again no COPY on it that I can see:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Overstrike-...490046?hash=item3ad4cfc7be:g:PNYAAOSwA3dYR5CI

 

The ones that say half dollar are marked copy. The ones that have no denomination don't appear to be.

 

The piece as a whole looks ok. It's clearly not purporting to be anything other than what it is. I'm not sure that the dies used to strike it are in full compliance with the law, especially since the obverse says 1916-S. Von Nothaus got nailed to the wall for tokens that were far less similar to US coins than what could be made with these dies.

 

You haters better get to work and educate the uneducated, a few more months and these will be sold out. Good luck with Mission Impossible.

 

So there's no machine available, or is even possible, that would ever be preferable to your own, perhaps one that would allow you to "square up" certain deficiencies in your copying or correct certain "Chinese looking" details?

I stand corrected. It's very generous of you to expect buyers of your copies to request your signature even if not charging for it (short the suggested submission fees, of course) or to include it in a flip because we all know they're never lost. Bravo... in a half-assed sort of way.

I'll try to dig it up to refresh your memory. That said though, are you suggesting you're capable of doing, with your own hands, exactly as your computer and CNC can? Please, inform me or, perhaps, even be so kind as to share some of your detailed hand engraving that proves the use of modern technology nothing more than convenience.

You don't claim you're talented, yet you've concluded that I must be "bitter and jealous" of you because I'm not? Brilliant deduction, sir; just brilliant!

For being one who doesn't claim talent, it is interesting how don't think twice at belittling the work of others, while implying how your is so much better, which includes not only those who copy others, but in some cases the very artists you copy? You constantly remind us of your name, how that makes you so super special, allows you to charge what you do (even though you're supposedly not in it for the money) and places you magically above the simple decency that should be expected of everyone, yet there's certainly no implication of talent, right?

You're right... you "never" claim nor even suggest you're talented. Oy!

I said you're stealing their legacy by refusing to admit you're COPYING their work. That's what started this all between you and I: your ridiculous refusal to admit the designs are copied even though anyone outside of the delusional fanhood, can clearly see they're nothing but copies. Refusing to sign your copies plays into this as well. There's simply no valid reason you can't place a small C after the D even if you continue to refuse to properly mark your copies with the word copy.

I also said nothing about it looking Caucasian or anything about native Americans either, but this boogyman was your way of explaining how I could, years prior (remember, this was another one of the old threads you schmuckishly like dig up in a cheeseball attempt to discredit those who question your BS) not have a problem with someone who actually used their hands to create. I'll never understand why it is so hard for you to wrap your little mind around the fact what I said, about a cartoonish "hobo cent", was a simple nicety and nothing more. It wasn't like I lauded it as some great art, nor was it intended as any sort of comparison to your copying, which should be obvious since it happened long before our little dance started. However, since you felt the need to bring it up again, I see a great difference between someone who uses their own hands to create something, even if cheesy, as opposed to someone who requires the use of modern technology/machinery. You don't have to like it or agree, but that's it. All your delusional comparisons to Warhol and deflective BS (Corvettes, Mustangs, etc, etc) simply does not change the apparent fact that without your little "aids", you'd be incapable of producing your exact copies, partial copies, or even your generally very plain and sanitary "original" work.

Now, while I've your attention, perhaps you could also be so kind as to let us know if the Treasury Department ever release a statement that the 64 Morgan dies would never be used, in any way, to produce a mint-made version? If memory serves me correctly, you, after never having thought of a 64 Morgan copy before (Monkey see, Monkey do) said the coast would be clear if such a statement was made. Since you clearly jumped straight to work copying what you saw, even in its "Chinese looking" glory, I can only assume it has been and would very much like to see it.

 

Mr. Carr, as anyone with a brain knows, you do an incredible job. Your work speaks for itself. I have learned that if you let certain childlike members rant, and rave without replying, they will get bored, and go play elsewhere.

 

True and that works for the childlike members on both sides of the issue.

 

Meet John Doe...

 

I went to the store today, I could have walked or even crawled like a caveman....but instead due to my lack of integrity and artistry....I took the car. Do you have a point other than press envy?

I am thinking the proof version looks nice.

 

[/QUOTE]

 

You're a metallurgist, right? What is your opinion of @Paul M. 's comment about using a punch into the die with "COPY" recessed so that it makes "COPY" raised on the die? From a technical aspect, is that what the ROM people did with their 1964 Morgans (that are admittedly ugly)?