Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;BooksB4Coins, post: 2514645, member: 36230&quot;]Trust me, no offense is or ever would be taken, and I had hoped to make that clear with the &quot;waste your life&quot; addition. I&#039;ve lived it; I know.</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;ve never given anything but due and deserved credit for the quality of his work. If solely based upon craftsmanship, I certainly can appreciate and even see what he does as an &quot;art form&quot;, but refuse to view the copying itself, coupled with the ridiculous deflection, as one and/or fall in line with lauding him for it, especially when the same consideration is not given (by him) to others.</p><p><br /></p><p>As for the copyright issue, most here, including Mr. Carr himself, fail to either realize or simply accept that this has <b>everything</b> to do with the fact that copying by any other name is still, well, copying. Common sense and even his own explanation earlier in this thread prove that&#039;s what his &quot;over strikes&quot; are; the design was copied with the help of modern technology, yet some here will argue until blue in the face that it&#039;s anything but. I&#039;ve used the example before, but if I scan or photograph a Vermeer, load it into photoshop, change a few elements, and call it my own while claiming not to have copied the original, I&#039;d sincerely hope someone would see it as and call BS because that&#039;s exactly what it would be. I wouldn&#039;t consider myself, and certainly wouldn&#039;t expect others to see me as some great &quot;artist&quot;, but apparently I&#039;m supposed to see and praise him as just that, not based on his own designs but the copying. Not only that, but I guess I&#039;m also supposed to look upon others who do the same or similar as being trash based upon their location (not an American), their tools (no surplus press), or even their choice of planchet material (not using junk silver, etc). I&#039;m sorry, but I find the notion to be ludicrous. </p><p><br /></p><p>His copies are nothing more than slightly different and high quality versions of the earlier-discussed &quot;tribute proofs&quot; so many of us see as a black eye on this hobby. The same argument he puts forth regarding his over strikes, that they should be &quot;<i>easily identifiable by the average collector of that coin type</i>&quot; (his exact words, not mine) should hold true for the aforementioned, yet they&#039;re marked &quot;COPY&quot; and for good reason. If the &quot;average collector of that coin type&quot; can so easily identify his small changes/differences, such collectors should also be able to easily identify items made of a different material without the need for the copy mark. Again, this is his argument and not mine, so unless he is to have special privilege not allowed to others, what&#039;s so terribly wrong about holding everyone to the same standard? If the threshold is knowledgeable collectors of whatever type, such people are not going to be fooled by his products, but neither will they be by a plated pot metal &quot;tribute proof&quot;. Other than the choice of planchet material, what&#039;s the difference? However, if all comes down to planchet material, perhaps the tribute proof producers should start using Ikes and make them large, or halves and slightly small; at least that way they&#039;d be an &quot;alteration&quot; and according to Mr. Carr, perfectly legal.... but something tells me that most involved in this hobby wouldn&#039;t be too accepting of it coming from them. Double standard, anyone?[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in