Silver Round with Perched Eagle Reverse

I was about to put a few Silver Rounds on eBay then I found this in my collection. Can anyone give me some more info on this coin?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It is a "generic" privately-minted silver round from "QSB" (Quality Silver Bullion).
It happens to have the basic design of a US Silver Eagle obverse, and a Walk Liberty half dollar reverse, of course.

Good quality silver, but not really worth anything beyond that, especially with the small scratches on it.

 

So they "borrow" designs and the result is "generic", yet when you do it..... it's "art". Gotcha.

 

Bitter and jealous is no way to go through life.

 

Jealous of what? I'm not the one insulting the work of others while acting as if my blatant technology-enabled copying is anything but. If your, ahem, "work" is art, and you want others to agree, why not have the simple non-hypocrite decency to give others the same respect? If anything, your referring to this as "generic" or other fantasies as "copies" or "fakes", even if requiring talent yours do not, shows a jealousy on your part.

Speaking of your, ahem, "work", in a recent thread here it was claimed that original dies for the 64 Peace have been located. If true or not I don't know, but if.... if this is the case, I can't help but to wonder what your thoughts are. It would seem your dies, already of debatable legality deserve a little more scrutiny.

 

I'm with Books on this . To tell the truth Mr.Carr your best work is the work I've seen done by Junior College art students and the reason I say this is your arrogance is beyond belief . If anything you know computers , they do your drawings for your copy's . Jealous of you're artistic abilities don't make me laugh . My apologies to the people of this forum but the truth should be told especially to one who doesn't respect others artists work .

 

Streaming it now. This should be piped into all correctional institutions. Better than water boarding for interrogations. Have you notified the CIA?

 

You insult his work every chance you get which is evident from picking a fight here. You know very well silver bullion rounds are referred to as generic rounds when they aren't issued by a government but you are still trying to pick the fight anyway

 

"Insult"? No.... What I do is reasonably question it, the double standard, and the sometimes extreme hypocrisy on display as with now. Unfortunately, that's just too much for blind fanboys like yourself to fathom.

If I called Carr's "work" generic you and others would be whining and crying worse than you are now, so do tell why it's okay to call rounds created by others copying designs "generic", but Carr's, unless lauded as "art", is an insult. For someone who so wants his copying to be considered "art", one would think he'd give the same consideration to others, but is apparently too classy a move. Perhaps you're right... considering his choice of planchet material, they're not in the "round" category, but solidly in "junk silver". My eternal apologies...

As for supposedly picking a fight, perhaps you could enlighten me: is there a new CT rule allowing Carr to insult the work of others all while his work must not in ANY way be questioned? Has CT become "Carr Talk" during my absence?

 

Sorry, maybe shouldn't engage here, but someone enlighten me on the dcarr vs booksb4coins battle? I having a hard time making sense of the "debate-insult" chatter.

 

Nah, just block whichever one you hate the most and then it's a lot more fun to read the threads...

 

Here is what you wrote previously on this forum:

Thread title: --- Daniel Carr Kennedy Half Dollar, 1963? --- Post #3:

Thread title: --- 1964 peace dollar coin value? --- Post # 104:

In a thread about someone making and selling Sacagawea & Washington quarter sandwich "mules" (simulating the valuable error coins without "COPY" on them), this was posted:

You don't seem worried here about the potential for people to be fooled or swindled down the road by these.

Your posts are contradictory.

 

There is your favorite word again: "hypocrisy".

On a whim, because it was easy, I did a search for posts by BooksB4Coins containing the word "hypocrisy". There are 25 such posts on record. And none of those are quoting someone else's use of the word. I couldn't find any other member here who has used it more than a couple times on record (not counting posts that quote your use of the word). Readers here can draw their own conclusions from that.

It doesn't seem like you understand the meaning of the term "generic" as applied to silver rounds.

My post in this thread had "generic" in quotation marks as an indication of what I think other people would probably call it.

Fine craftsmanship is an "art". The silver round in the original post is not bad. But it does not have a high degree of craftsmanship, and so it is of "generic" quality.

It has also been produced in large quantities, and so it is of "generic" quantity.

But the main reason that it would be considered to be in the "generic" class is that it generally would not sell at auction for much more than the melt value. Several similar rounds have sold recently on eBay for about $20 to $22.

There haven't been any "Carr" 1-oz silver pieces in the last month that have sold on eBay for less than $50. Most were about $60 to $150.

 

It is indeed one of my very favorite words, especially when it's so perfectly fitting. Sure, readers can draw their own conclusions or assumptions based solely upon how many times a certain word was used, or they could dig a little deeper, place its use in context, and see for themselves WHY it was used, but doing so wouldn't help your little narrative, so let's forget about that.

As for the rest of this drivel, artificially low production numbers are just that; artificial. A wise business move all things considered, but your product still is what it is, and that's a well-done knock-off/copy made in lesser numbers than others. The entire point though was that one might think someone who so desires his own "work" to be widely viewed as "art" would give the same respect to others, deserving of it or not.

As for the "quality" claim, I find it very interesting as it somewhat deviates from and contradicts earlier arguments over what "art" is. Previously it was implied that your non-existent skill to create with your own hands was your claim to "art", but now it's the quality of your "work" (computer generated copies), so which is it? By your own definition, if someone else's copies developed a following/demand and began to sell at premiums above that of their metal content, they'd no longer be generic. If so this would suggest that the sole definer of "art" is what some poor schmo is willing to cough up for it and not the talent used to create (not produce) it.

And I well understand the meaning of generic, and think it perfectly applies to someone whose greatest fame is due to the exact copying of the work of others. Let's be honest here; had you stuck to your so-called original designs, which often seem to incorporate elements of others work, you would be nowhere near as well known today. Like many 80s or 90s rappers who made their name "sampling" the genuine talent of others, you've piggybacked your way to the majority of whatever acclaim you presently enjoy within this hobby. If you now wish to distance yourself from previous statements regarding your "art" as the result of exact copying, and now wish to focus only on your craftsmanship, I can certainly respect and buy that. Of course we both know this would go against your very "take credit" nature. After all, you're the one who has publicly claimed the "date to be [your] signature" when pressed with questions of why you steadfastly refuse to incorporate clear and obvious identifiers into your copies, but also turn around and say you do not "claim ownership" of the dates. How can such a contradictory and ludicrous claim make sense to any rational individual? Remove the fanboy mentality and what are you left with? A steaming pile of BS.

I also noticed, sir, that you failed to address or even acknowledge a direct question asked of you. Perhaps you simply missed it, but history suggests another cause, and one best described by another of my favorite words: deflection.

 

Cmon guys, it's a beautiful day, and a holiday to boot!

 

"Don't criticize what you can't understand." - Bob Dylan
Also, I noticed that you didn't dispute the "bitter" part.

The government's official position is that no 1964 dollar coins exist. That hasn't changed. Whatever "1964" Peace Dollar dies I had were totally defaced and destroyed more than five years ago in early 2011. So there are no dies to physically scrutinize.

 

Yes, you are surrounded by hypocrisy. It is lurking in the shadows everywhere. Watch out, it is going to get you !

This quote seems fitting, due to the length of your post:
"Don't pay attention to what they write about you. Just measure it in inches." - Andy Warhol

 

Yet there remains irrefutable proof that you were in possession of what amounts to counterfeit dies, and the same can most reasonably be said for the reverse dies used to produce other copies unless you're now claiming to be authorized as well.

As always, it's very interesting how you oh so selectively pick and choose what "government position" arguably benefits you while ignoring what does not. Just like how you publicly stated your belief that the Gallery Mint's dies were illegal yet yours are, as if by magic, perfectly fine.

Oh, and what is there to understand other than that you skirt the very laws you run and hide behind when it benefits you, and that you apply a standard to others that you refuse to subject yourself to? Your little quotes sure are witty and cute, but as always are designed to deflect away from the real issue, which is your hypocrisy and belief that you are somehow entitled to be an exception. There... Now you can add another to your little list.

 

And this quote seems even more fitting, especially for you...

"Whoever, without lawful authority, makes any die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, either of steel or plaster, or any other substance, in likeness or similitude, as to the design or the inscription thereon, of any die, hub, or mold designated for the coining or making of any of the genuine gold, silver, nickel, bronze, copper, or other coins coined at the mints of the United States; or

Whoever, without lawful authority, possesses any such die, hub, or mold, or any part thereof, or permits the same to be used for or in aid of the counterfeiting of any such coins of the United States"

18 U.S. Code § 487 - Making or possessing counterfeit dies for coins

But you're right... quoting Warhol is more fun and, of course, deflective.


As an aside, after thinking more about your earlier position regarding premiums paid and what they must mean, it dawned on me that the beyond-cheesy plated "tribute proofs" do just that and at times to a level even your copies fail to achieve. At first I thought you were in good company, but then realized that at least they have the decency to call a dog a dog and mark their copies as being a "copy".