dan carr oregon commem and new 2oz hologram
0

249 posts in this topic

people get over it if u dont like them dont buy them more for me :) all i know is years down the line u will be the D.A. kicking yourself for not buying them .its pretty obvious dans work is collected and not by people thinking its real they know what they are buying and in many cases pay 2-3X original cost can u say that about every us mint item .....your arguments are pointless dan is going to continue to make these and if u dont like it to fricken bad cause there are many that do so just get over it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15,660 posts
Idon't like copies period. I don't like overstrikes period.

What is your opinion of the U.S. mint's copies of the buffalo nickel (to strike gold rounds)?

 

And what is your opinion of half-cents overstruck on cut-down large-cents?

 

I am not trying to stir up trouble. I really am interested in your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,272 posts

I am neutral in the discussion. But as to the point that ebay does allow sales goes some distance.

 

I am sure they have a powerful legal team which for one reason or another does not see any reason to ban these coins.

 

Despite the fact we may or may not like it this has not been proven illegal.

 

I personally do not like the idea of spending time and resources protecting the ignorant, nor do I like the fact that some of the hypothetical situations could be harmful to the hobby.

 

Tough one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
630 posts
Try as you might, you will never, ever convince a jury that a coin with nothing altered but the date, but which otherwise looks, feels, sounds, tastes, and smells like a real coin is doing anything but purpoting to be a real coin.

 

And if you try the "hobo nickel" and "love token" defense, you will sink your case. These things look obviously different from the originals, in a way that anyone can tell.

 

Your "fantasy pieces"....? No, not so much....

 

Your speculation about what a jury might decide is totally without standing.

 

Not at all. And I would be thrilled to have the opportunity to prove it, too.

 

People with pre-conceived judgements are not allowed on juries (unless they lie to get in). So no, you will not get that "opportunity".

 

The fact is, altering coins is completely legal, except for fraudulent purposes.

I provide full disclosure when I market and sell the items, and I also publish diagnostics on them. Every buyer from me knows exactly and accurately what they are getting prior to purchase.

 

The US Mint web site underlines the key word:

US Mint - 18 U.S.C. 331

 

Yes, yes, as I said before, you're very good at defending why you *can* make these...but pay little attention to whether or not you *should*, or any ramifications down the road.

 

"Not my problem."

 

Convenient.

 

See my other posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48,345 posts
people get over it if u dont like them dont buy them more for me :) all i know is years down the line u will be the D.A. kicking yourself for not buying them .its pretty obvious dans work is collected and not by people thinking its real they know what they are buying and in many cases pay 2-3X original cost can u say that about every us mint item .....your arguments are pointless dan is going to continue to make these and if u dont like it to fricken bad cause there are many that do so just get over it

 

Dan is NOT going to continue to make these if the Federal Gov't can be persuaded to shut it down.

 

:)

 

And no, people won't be "kicking themselves" down the road. Not everyone values profit over principle.

 

(thumbs u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15,660 posts

I do have another question, though. What is the situation if someone takes a fantasy 1927-D Oregon, and alters the date to 1938(-D)?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48,345 posts
Try as you might, you will never, ever convince a jury that a coin with nothing altered but the date, but which otherwise looks, feels, sounds, tastes, and smells like a real coin is doing anything but purpoting to be a real coin.

 

And if you try the "hobo nickel" and "love token" defense, you will sink your case. These things look obviously different from the originals, in a way that anyone can tell.

 

Your "fantasy pieces"....? No, not so much....

 

Your speculation about what a jury might decide is totally without standing.

 

Not at all. And I would be thrilled to have the opportunity to prove it, too.

 

People with pre-conceived judgements are not allowed on juries (unless they lie to get in). So no, you will not get that "opportunity".

 

Why do you imagine that I was referring to myself being on that jury...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,272 posts
I do have another question, though. What is the situation if someone takes a fantasy 1927-D Oregon, and alters the date to 1938(-D)?

 

We should let them hash out one problem before we give them another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
630 posts
Why do you imagine that I was referring to myself being on that jury...?

 

Because you said that you would like that (non-existant) "opportunity".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
630 posts
I do have another question, though. What is the situation if someone takes a fantasy 1927-D Oregon, and alters the date to 1938(-D)?

 

If the coin was originally a genuine 1938-D prior to being stamped as a "1927-D", and then was re-engraved back into a "1938-D", then the result would be a genuine (but extensively "tooled") 1938-D.

 

If the coin was originally a genuine coin with some date other than 1938-D prior to being stamped as a "1927-D", and then was re-engraved into a "1938-D", then the result would be an altered-date coin. If you took an original 1928 Oregon Trail half dollar and used hand tools to directly carve it into a "1938-D", that would also be an altered-date coin.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48,345 posts
Why do you imagine that I was referring to myself being on that jury...?

 

Because you said that you would like that (non-existant) "opportunity".

 

One need not be ON said jury, for the opportunity to prove what a jury would decide. I could, after all, be a prosecutor, or a judge, or a legislator...any number of which could accomplish getting the case before a jury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
people get over it if u dont like them dont buy them more for me :) all i know is years down the line u will be the D.A. kicking yourself for not buying them .its pretty obvious dans work is collected and not by people thinking its real they know what they are buying and in many cases pay 2-3X original cost can u say that about every us mint item .....your arguments are pointless dan is going to continue to make these and if u dont like it to fricken bad cause there are many that do so just get over it

 

Dan is NOT going to continue to make these if the Federal Gov't can be persuaded to shut it down.

 

:)

 

And no, people won't be "kicking themselves" down the road. Not everyone values profit over principle.

 

(thumbs u

 

then u are not very good at business why would u buy anything that u thought down the line at some point u coudnt make a profit on or after u pass ur family make a profit ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you imagine that I was referring to myself being on that jury...?

 

Because you said that you would like that (non-existant) "opportunity".

 

One need not be ON said jury, for the opportunity to prove what a jury would decide. I could, after all, be a prosecutor, or a judge, or a legislator...any number of which could accomplish getting the case before a jury.

 

so are u one of the above mentioned ? if so im sure dan would be ready to defend himself ...and i am sure he would win

 

now u on the other hand have called him out as making fakes ...so u are liable ...do u think u could win that case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts

now u on the other hand have called him out as making fakes ...so u are liable ...do u think u could win that case

 

Two principles of law that could govern are listed below. Draw your own conclusions. I have no interest in weighing in on the underlying argument.

 

1. Truth is a good defense;

2. Usually opinions that do not express reckless disregard for the truth and that are made without malice are NOT actionable; and

3. In order to receive a judgment there must be actual injury (and I don't think this would qualify as a "per se" tort - any argument to bring it within one of these classes of action would be inherently weak).

 

now u on the other hand have called him out as making fakes ...so u are liable ...do u think u could win that case

 

I do think he could win that case, especially if he has a skilled attorney.

 

Edited by coinman_23885

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
630 posts
Why do you imagine that I was referring to myself being on that jury...?

 

Because you said that you would like that (non-existant) "opportunity".

 

One need not be ON said jury, for the opportunity to prove what a jury would decide. I could, after all, be a prosecutor, or a judge, or a legislator...any number of which could accomplish getting the case before a jury.

 

Before any such opportunity could arise, a law would have to be broken. But no laws have been violated here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,841 posts
people get over it if u dont like them dont buy them more for me :) all i know is years down the line u will be the D.A. kicking yourself for not buying them .its pretty obvious dans work is collected and not by people thinking its real they know what they are buying and in many cases pay 2-3X original cost can u say that about every us mint item .....your arguments are pointless dan is going to continue to make these and if u dont like it to fricken bad cause there are many that do so just get over it

 

Dan is NOT going to continue to make these if the Federal Gov't can be persuaded to shut it down.

 

:)

 

And no, people won't be "kicking themselves" down the road. Not everyone values profit over principle.

 

(thumbs u

 

then u are not very good at business why would u buy anything that u thought down the line at some point u coudnt make a profit on or after u pass ur family make a profit ...

 

You don't seem to grasp the notion that sometimes people put principle above financial profit. For example a know a number of dealers who will not deal in certain coins/types of coins because they don't believe in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,841 posts
to each there own and i understand that but just cause i dont buy what u buy dosn't give the right to bash it ..

 

I wish they weren't being produced, but I haven't bashed them or posted anything even remotely close to that. So please don't be reckless in your posting.

 

By the way, it's "their own" not "there own".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48,345 posts
This mythological person who would be willing to pay much more than face value or silver scrap value, without knowing anything about it, doesn't exist.

 

Nonsense.

 

That "mythological person" is what PT Barnum (and many, many others) built his fortune on.

 

All it takes is a slick product (done) and a slick salesman.

 

The world is filled with people who are willing to believe anything, and you've made it very easy for them to do so in these cases.

 

Show an actual case where a fantasy date (non-existant date) coin was mis-represented as original and somebody paid way more than market value for it.

 

As was explained before, this situation is still relatively new, and your "creations" have likely not had the chance to leave the hands of the people who originally purchased them. That does not mean, however, that it has not happened. I don't need to have a specific example of your creations to demonstrate that the potential exists.

 

And one cannot prove something has NOT happened. Nobody can do that.

 

However...I can most certainly demonstrate how one of your "creations" could be misrepresented as something it is not.

 

How many non-collectors are going to pay $300 for a "1927-D" Oregon Trail half dollar ? None.

 

That is a claim you cannot possibly prove.

 

So far EVERY purchaser of EVERY over-strike coin from me has been a knowledgeable collector. You can not prove that a non-collector will pay more than market value for a fantasy-date coin.

 

And neither can you prove that they will not.

 

I am, however, impressed that you know the knowledge level in the hobby of EVERY person who has purchased from you. That's quite the networking feat!

 

:applause:

 

And I'll counter it with something you CAN prove...how many people, collectors or not, are willing to pay hundreds and even thousands of dollars on counterfeit coins that they obviously do not know are counterfeit? Lots, clearly.

 

These counterfeit coins in question, closely match KNOWN dates and mint marks for the series.

 

Tell me...what's the difference between an 1877-CC Morgan Dollar, and a 1927 Oregon Trail half...? After all, 1877-CC closely matches a known date and mint mark...1878-CC...and 1927 also closely matches a known date and mint mark....1926.

 

These coins were originally sold deceptively into the marketplace, without disclosing their origin.

 

Not in all cases.

 

My over-strikes are clearly marketed as fantasy-date pieces, from the beginning. Again, you have to look at the date to determine the value. The date alone tells the story.

 

Only to those who are aware that such a date never existed in the first place.

 

You keep saying that it is the MOTIVE for why these things are created that matters, and so long as YOU aren't trying to decieve anyone, that's the end of that. Unfortunately, the law doesn't generally NEED motive to convict, and quite often can do so with just the physical evidence at hand.

 

And the physical evidence says: "Here's an item that has been made to look as close to an actual, original numismatic item as possible, with absolutely no obvious marking showing that it's not. If you keep saying "the date, the date, the date!" I will keep telling you that the date is NOT an "obvious marking."

 

How many knowledgeable people would be willing to spend $300 for one ? Based on sales so far, less than 100. But suppose years from now, somebody sees one for sale and thinks it is worth the same as other Oregon Trail half dollars in uncirculated condition. They don't bother to look it up in a coin book and they pay $300 for it. Who is to say that they wouldn't actually be getting a good deal on it ? The "1964-D" Peace Dollars that I over-struck sell for $250-$350 on eBay now. My issue price was about $140 to $160.

 

None of this is relevant to the argument. Whether or not someone (and I can't believe I'm saying this on this side of the board) "got a good deal" means nothing. That's the line used by hucksters for centuries who have overstated their items. The fact is, they didn't get what they THOUGHT they were getting, and that's all that matters.

 

It is very relevant, in answering the question who, if anyone, is harmed.

Nobody who has purchased one of the coins from me has been harmed.

 

You'll forgive me if I use your trick on you: Prove it.

 

:)

 

If the owner decides they don't like the coin anymore, they can always send it back to me for a full refund. Occasionally, I buy them back, paying the owner more than the issue price. The US Government is not harmed either, since no new apparent legal tender is placed into circulation.

 

Again, whether or not you think someone is being harmed or not isn't relevant. The issue is someone buying something that is not what they THINK it is.

 

PS:

eBay has banned all sales of Chinese copies. However, eBay continues to allow my over-strikes to be sold as "fantasy" coins.

 

lol

 

As others have said, eBay is *hardly* the final word on the legality of anything.

 

;)

 

I never said eBay was a legal authority.

 

The context of the conversation was legality.

 

But they make the rules on what can and can not be sold on eBay. That they do not allow "copy" coins, but do allow "fantasy" coins, is an important consideration.

 

To you and to eBay and your customers. Not to the law. eBay is a private corporation, with its own rules and regulations that don't always coincide with legality. They are NOT the arbiter of what is, and is not, legal, and certainly not what is ethical.

 

That eBay allows fantasy-overstrike coins to be sold, is important to some buyers of the coins. Having them on eBay also spreads general awareness about them. I have yet to see an eBay listing that mis-represented one of the over-strike coins. But if I ever do, I will report it to eBay and/or the seller.

 

Well, that's nice, but it still has nothing to do with a person buying these and thinking they're real. eBay is not the only selling venue in the world.

 

And while you are very good at defending why you *can* make these, you've said very little about whether or not you *should*...after all, you know as well as anybody else that someone, somewhere, will mistake these for genuine items someday, and your attitude seems to be "well, that's too bad for them. If they're too stupid to do a little research first, that's on them" while at the same time purposely creating something that is made to look as close to "real" as possible...

 

You don't see the disconnect there....?

 

If I wanted to make something that looked "as real as possible", I wouldn't put a date on the coin that was never issued for that type. To determine the value of a coin, you have to look at the date.

 

No, you don't. Dateless coins are sold all the time for greater than face value. And again...to the casual observer the date is not enough to identify it as a "fantasy."

 

Your entire argument rests on what you think should be obvious to everyone, and if it's not, oh well, too bad...if they're too stupid to figure it out, that's on them.

 

My "attitude" is that nobody can predict future values for things. But I produce the over-strikes to high-quality standards, and in very limited numbers, such that they have the potential to be worth as much or more than other original coins of the same type (but different date).

 

Again, whether or not something has the potential to worth more than an original numismatic item is not relevant.

 

Looking at the lists of who has purchased my over-strike coins in the past, it is an impressive array of major numismatic players.

 

So...?

 

So, people like them. Even top numismatists like them. I like making them.

 

None of which are valid reasons for why they are ethical. "Because I can" has never been a good reason to do anything. Neither has "because people like it."

 

>>>Your entire argument rests on what you think should be obvious to

>>>everyone, and if it's not, oh well, too bad...if they're too stupid to figure it out,

>>>that's on them.

 

No, my argument is that nobody is going to pay a large amount of money for something they know nothing about. For example, would you, out of the blue, go to an estate sale and pay $20,000 for a quilt without doing some research and checking it out first ?

 

You keep saying that as if it's an all or nothing proposition. Of course nobody's going to spend that amount with NO knowledge...but a little bit of knowledge...? Now there's a dangerous thing.

 

Would I spend $20,000 for a quilt, knowing nothing about quilts? Heavens, no.

 

Could I be persuaded to spend $20,000 on a quilt if the seller said this was Martha Washington's own quilt, saved for centuries, and the only one left that she made with her own two hands....? Especially if there was no obvious way to tell it was not...?

 

Well, I couldn't, but someone might. And that's the rub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,855 posts
to each there own and i understand that but just cause i dont buy what u buy dosn't give the right to bash it ..

 

I wish they weren't being produced, but I haven't bashed them or posted anything even remotely close to that. So please don't be reckless in your posting.

 

By the way, it's "their own" not "there own".

 

It's also "you" and "I" and "doesn't". Seriously man, for the good of us all, use a spell checker or something. If I can't read your post without getting a headache, I'm certainly not going to give any credence to the ideas which may or may not be contained within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48,345 posts
Why do you imagine that I was referring to myself being on that jury...?

 

Because you said that you would like that (non-existant) "opportunity".

 

One need not be ON said jury, for the opportunity to prove what a jury would decide. I could, after all, be a prosecutor, or a judge, or a legislator...any number of which could accomplish getting the case before a jury.

 

Before any such opportunity could arise, a law would have to be broken. But no laws have been violated here.

 

Not necessarily. No law need be violated to bring a civil case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48,345 posts
Man this is ugly!!! :popcorn:

 

:shrug:

 

I think it's rather cordial. People are intently discussing an issue that interests them and, aside from indiananationals, doing it without being personally insulting.

 

That's how disagreements should always be handled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48,345 posts
Why do you imagine that I was referring to myself being on that jury...?

 

Because you said that you would like that (non-existant) "opportunity".

 

One need not be ON said jury, for the opportunity to prove what a jury would decide. I could, after all, be a prosecutor, or a judge, or a legislator...any number of which could accomplish getting the case before a jury.

 

so are u one of the above mentioned ? if so im sure dan would be ready to defend himself ...and i am sure he would win

 

now u on the other hand have called him out as making fakes ...so u are liable ...do u think u could win that case

 

I have at no time (and quite purposefully) said Mr. Carr was "making fakes."

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,841 posts
Why do you imagine that I was referring to myself being on that jury...?

 

Because you said that you would like that (non-existant) "opportunity".

 

One need not be ON said jury, for the opportunity to prove what a jury would decide. I could, after all, be a prosecutor, or a judge, or a legislator...any number of which could accomplish getting the case before a jury.

 

so are u one of the above mentioned ? if so im sure dan would be ready to defend himself ...and i am sure he would win

 

now u on the other hand have called him out as making fakes ...so u are liable ...do u think u could win that case

 

I have, at no time, and quite purposefully, NOT said Mr. Carr was "making fakes."

 

:)

 

I think that "have at no time" and "NOT" qualify as a double negative. And that combination resulted in your unintentionally saying that Mr. Carr was "making fakes".

 

But since that was not your intention, you need not worry about being found guilty of liable.

:devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48,345 posts
Why do you imagine that I was referring to myself being on that jury...?

 

Because you said that you would like that (non-existant) "opportunity".

 

One need not be ON said jury, for the opportunity to prove what a jury would decide. I could, after all, be a prosecutor, or a judge, or a legislator...any number of which could accomplish getting the case before a jury.

 

so are u one of the above mentioned ? if so im sure dan would be ready to defend himself ...and i am sure he would win

 

now u on the other hand have called him out as making fakes ...so u are liable ...do u think u could win that case

 

I have at no time (and quite purposefully) said Mr. Carr was "making fakes."

 

 

:)

 

I think that "have at no time" and "NOT" qualify as a double negative. And that combination resulted in your unintentionally saying that Mr. Carr was "making fakes".

 

But since that was not your intention, you need not worry about being found guilty of liable.

:devil:

 

Why, I have no idea to what you refer....

 

:whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,272 posts
to each there own and i understand that but just cause i dont buy what u buy dosn't give the right to bash it ..

 

By the way, it's "their own" not "there own".

 

Stiff jab. :roflmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,394 posts

Well this thread has prompted me to place another order...I needed a 1931-S quarter...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,841 posts
mark i was not talking about u bashing them the people who were know who they are

 

In that case, you should have made that clear, by including their quote. After all, your post followed mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0