dan carr oregon commem and new 2oz hologram

[RockMyAmadeus]

No one could hold the originals and the fantasies next to one another without noticing the difference.

 

Except for the fact that there are no originals with which to compare since they do not exist.

 

They don't? Did someone melt all the 1926, and 1928, and 1936, etc Oregon Halves...?

 

 

THERE ARE NO 1927 DATED OREGON COMMEMORATIVE HALVES, I GUESS WITH THE MENTAL CAPACITY OF A THREE-YEAR-OLD WE HAVE TO SPELL THESE THINGS OUT FOR YOU. person_who_is_obnoxiously_self-impressed-.

 

If you can't control your temper in a discussion with people who don't agree with you, it is perhaps best if you don't participate in those discussions.

 

And who is "we"...? You're not the spokesman for anyone but yourself, so you speak for you, and let everyone else speak for themselves. Attempting to shore up your argument by invoking "we" is poor debate form.

 

I'll just note that you're not capable of understanding when someone is making a rhetorical statement to illustrate the point. Not insulting you, just pointing out what is. You clearly didn't understand what I said, hence your reaction.

 

And you are quite wrong...there are, in fact, 1927 dated Oregon Commemorative Halves. Here, here's a picture of one:

 

 

 

(hint: rhetorical again...)

 

[dcarr]

The hologram coins I produce have the largest holographic surface area of any such coins produced anywhere.

 

I use hologram "shims", which are pure nickel foil and have the holographic image on them as sub-microscopic grooves and ridges. I wanted a generic hologram pattern, like that seen on a CD, so I could use it for different coins. So I ordered the image mastering and two sheets of the actual shims from a company that makes these sorts of things for credit card manufacturers. The one-time image mastering was about $2,500, and each sheet of nickel foil shims is about $500.

One sheet of shims contains 16 identical images, each one 2.5"x2.5".

 

I cut out a circular area from one of the images, place it between the silver blank and the die, and stamp it in the coin press like any other coin. The grooves and ridges on the shim are imprinted onto the surface of the silver.

 

Due to the very large surface area, the shims stretch, fade, and tear more easily. And while learning how best to do this sort of thing, I used about 10 shims on each of the first two hologram coins I made: (25) of the 63mm "4"-oz coins, and (50) of the 50mm "2"-oz coins. I changed production procedures for the third (recent) hologram coin, and I was able to get (50) coins done using up only three shims. I've got about ten shims left - I'll use them eventually.

 

PS:

"Exchange Currency" is just a barter concept piece.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

No one could hold the originals and the fantasies next to one another without noticing the difference.

 

Except for the fact that there are no originals with which to compare since they do not exist.

 

They don't? Did someone melt all the 1926, and 1928, and 1936, etc Oregon Halves...?

 

 

THERE ARE NO 1927 DATED OREGON COMMEMORATIVE HALVES, I GUESS WITH THE MENTAL CAPACITY OF A THREE-YEAR-OLD WE HAVE TO SPELL THESE THINGS OUT FOR YOU. person_who_is_obnoxiously_self-impressed-.

 

There's no need to be rude, as you were. And I believe his point was that a non-expert could be generally aware of the Oregon Trail commems, but not know them well enough to realize that the 1927 was not struck by the US Mint.

 

I still want to know why protecting some dummy who doesn't have the ability to consult a redbook is more important than my desire to own one of these fantasy coins or Dan's ability to make money by producing them.

 

Mr. Carr is...willingly or not...making it very easy for people to defraud others. If his creations have not yet been used to try and defraud people, they will be at some point in the future. It's inevitable.

 

And the argument isn't about protecting people, but aiding and abetting fraud.

 

The case can be made for the latter quite easily.

 

It occurs to me that I have never seen this level of outrage for things that actually deserve it. The words "gold clad masterpiece" come to mind.

 

Outrage? Who's outraged?

 

The only outrage I see is from the folks namecalling.

 

I do always have to wonder, though, why disagreement is always interpreted as "outrage" by some on the 'net.

 

Fascinates me.

 

But this...this is just a discussion.

[dcarr]

Mr. Carr is...willingly or not...making it very easy for people to defraud others. If his creations have not yet been used to try and defraud people, they will be at some point in the future. It's inevitable.

 

And the argument isn't about protecting people, but aiding and abetting fraud.

 

The case can be made for the latter quite easily.

 

If someone is intent on committing numismatic fraud, they will find a coin (or some other thing) to attempt it with, one way or another. By far the most pervasive activity along these lines is polishing and whizzing of lightly-circulated coins and then attempting to sell them as higher-grade uncirculated coins. This is the main reason that coin grading companies came into existence in the first place - because this coin cleaning was wide-spread and anybody could do it at home with simple household supplies.

 

If someone is worried about unintentionally buying a fake, cleaned, or altered coin, and their knowledge is limited, they should stick to certified coins.

 

Can you blame the US Mint for making coins that could potentially be used in fraudulent activity ? Of course not. All blame for such activity lies with the person perpetrating it.

 

By your logic, the Smithsonian Institution and NGC are both aiding and abetting fraud by their issuance of that "1876 $100 Union Morgan" coin that looks like a legal-tender US pattern, without "copy" on it. But that logic is flawed. If someone takes a gun and intentionally and illegally shoots somebody, is the gun maker at fault ? Of course not. Fault lies with the person pulling the trigger.

 

[lehigh96]

 

It occurs to me that I have never seen this level of outrage for things that actually deserve it. The words "gold clad masterpiece" come to mind.

 

Outrage? Who's outraged?

 

The only outrage I see is from the folks namecalling.

 

I do always have to wonder, though, why disagreement is always interpreted as "outrage" by some on the 'net.

 

Fascinates me.

 

But this...this is just a discussion.

 

Just because you haven't resorted to name calling doesn't mean you are not outraged at what DCarr is doing. All evidence to the contrary. Who in their right mind would dominate over 20 pages of DISCUSSION on an internet chat room if they were not outraged about something?

 

Or is your agenda more sinister? Are you trying to set a record for the most posts in one thread on the NGC forum?

[dcarr]

Also what happens if one of these pieces makes it into a pocket piece and is then carried around for some time and wears down . Could this be just be thrown in with a bulk lot of commenoratives for sale .

I just struggle to see the difference between using an orignal mint coin or

a chinese mint product when both could end up looking exactly the same .

 

A worn-down "1927" Oregon Trail half dollar mixed in with other loose coins might go unnoticed. But the buyer of that lot might actually be getting a good deal on it. With only about 50 being made, they could potentially have a value premium. No guarantees of future value, of course.

 

I once found an AU grade 1902-o micro-o (vintage counterfeit) Morgan Dollar in a dealer's silver dollar pile. I bought it for about $20. I sold it on eBay as a vintage counterfeit (it is also well-known as one of the rare "VAM" varieties). It brought $850 and was purchased by a knowledgeable VAM collector. I actually wish I could buy it back.

 

The moral of this story is, counterfit and altered coins are not necessarily worthless.

 

PS:

Here is a pocket "peace" I made (no, I did not release it):

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Mr. Carr is...willingly or not...making it very easy for people to defraud others. If his creations have not yet been used to try and defraud people, they will be at some point in the future. It's inevitable.

 

And the argument isn't about protecting people, but aiding and abetting fraud.

 

The case can be made for the latter quite easily.

 

If someone is intent on committing numismatic fraud, they will find a coin (or some other thing) to attempt it with, one way or another. By far the most pervasive activity along these lines is polishing and whizzing of lightly-circulated coins and then attempting to sell them as higher-grade uncirculated coins. This is the main reason that coin grading companies came into existence in the first place. If someone is worried about unintentionally buying a fake, cleaned, or altered coin, and their knowledge is limited, they should stick to certified coins.

 

You insist on making arguments based on what you think people should do, rather than on what actually is.

 

Can you blame the US Mint for making coins that could potentially be used in fraudulent activity ? Of course not. All blame for such activity lies with the person perpetrating it.

 

 

Reallly..? You're really going to argue that the US Mint, which makes the originals to begin with, is making it easy for those wishing to commit fraud to do so...?

 

On the contrary, the US Mint has fought such attempts over the centuries, making it harder...not easier, as you have done....for the fraudulent to conduct their activities. The Mint and Treasury doesn't (at least not deliberately) attempt to make products that look as close as possible to other, non-Mint made products.

 

After all...the Mint doesn't make "fantasy $100 bills, series 1924" that, other than the date, look exactly like genuine series 1914 $100 bills, and are even made by overprinting those exact notes.

 

But you make items that look as close as possible to original, numismatic items as possible.

 

By your logic, the Smithsonian Institution and NGC are both aiding and abetting fraud by their issuance of that "1876 $100 Union Morgan" coin that looks like a legal-tender US pattern, without "copy" on it. But that logic is flawed. If someone takes a gun and intentionally and illegally shoots somebody, is the gun maker at fault ? Of course not. Fault lies with the person pulling the trigger.

 

The discussion isn't about the "1876 $100 Union Morgan", for all the reasons discussed earlier.

 

The case can be made...and probably will be made...that you, with full knowledge, created an item that was meant to deceive people into thinking they had something they did not.

 

It doesn't matter what your intent is. All a lawyer has to do is show that 1. you made no attempt to mark these coins as "fantasy" in any way (and no one is going to buy your "but...the DATE is the difference!" argument), and 2. you were made aware that such potential existed.

 

So, if someone uses your coins to commit fraud, they could include you in the suit for making it so very easy for them to do so.

 

You've created a very slippery slope.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Also what happens if one of these pieces makes it into a pocket piece and is then carried around for some time and wears down . Could this be just be thrown in with a bulk lot of commenoratives for sale .

I just struggle to see the difference between using an orignal mint coin or

a chinese mint product when both could end up looking exactly the same .

 

A worn-down "1927" Oregon Trail half dollar mixed in with other loose coins might go unnoticed. But the buyer of that lot might actually be getting a good deal on it. With only about 50 being made, they could potentially have a value premium. No guarantees of future value, of course.

 

I once found an AU grade 1902-o micro-o (vintage counterfeit) Morgan Dollar in a dealer's silver dollar pile. I bought it for about $20. I sold it on eBay as a vintage counterfeit (it is also well-known as one of the rare "VAM" varieties). It brought $850 and was purchased by a knowledgeable VAM collector. I actually wish I could buy it back.

 

The moral of this story is, counterfit and altered coins are not necessarily worthless.

 

PS:

Here is a pocket "peace" I made (no, I did not release it):

 

Whether or not you think (or even if the market confirms) that the fantasy piece has value beyond its intrinsic worth, the fact is that they will have bought something that is not what they thought it was, and THAT is the legal crux of the matter.

 

"But, it's worth $5,000,000!!!" may save you from litigation, but it won't change the legal fact that the item was mistaken for something that is "real."

[dcarr]

Reallly..? You're really going to argue that the US Mint, which makes the originals to begin with, is making it easy for those wishing to commit fraud to do so...?

 

No, that is not my argument - it is the argument that you were making - that the maker of an item is responsible for how somebody in the future uses it. I just pointed out how that notion is misguided.

 

On the contrary, the US Mint has fought such attempts over the centuries, making it harder...not easier, as you have done....for the fraudulent to conduct their activities. The Mint and Treasury doesn't (at least not deliberately) attempt to make products that look as close as possible to other, non-Mint made products.

 

That is false ! The US Mint has done things in the past that made it very easy for scammers. In 1995, the US Mint issued "W" mint proof Silver Eagles, only available in a special set. They also issued "P" mint proof Silver Eagles individually. This made it possible for scammers to take the gold/silver anniversary set, remove the very valuable "W" mint Proof Silver Eagle, and substitute it with the much-cheaper "P" mint proof Silver Eagle. Then, of course, they would sell the set without disclosing the swap, and also sell the rare coin by itself. Some people actually did fall for it. The US Mint totally enabled it, due to their marketing decisions and desire to sell more collector coins !

 

But by your ridiculous logic, the US Mint would be to blame for this. No, the scammers perpetrating the fraud are to blame.

 

After all...the Mint doesn't make "fantasy $100 bills, series 1924" that, other than the date, look exactly like genuine series 1914 $100 bills, and are even made by overprinting those exact notes.

 

But you make items that look as close as possible to original, numismatic items as possible.

 

See above. The US Mint makes more variations (surface finishes, mint marks) than necessary. They do so to get more sales. Is this really necessary ? All these extra versions make it harder to keep track, and give more opportunities for scammers.

 

By your logic, the Smithsonian Institution and NGC are both aiding and abetting fraud by their issuance of that "1876 $100 Union Morgan" coin that looks like a legal-tender US pattern, without "copy" on it. But that logic is flawed. If someone takes a gun and intentionally and illegally shoots somebody, is the gun maker at fault ? Of course not. Fault lies with the person pulling the trigger.

 

The discussion isn't about the "1876 $100 Union Morgan", for all the reasons discussed earlier.

 

The discussion most certainly IS about things like that, and it wasn't discussed in any real depth. The "1876 $100 Union Morgan" coin could be used by a scammer as easily as ANY fantasy or altered coin. It looks just like a vintage (rare) US pattern coin. It has all the proper mottoes and legends on it, including "United States of America" and "One Hundred Dollars". But you don't seem to care about that item. That indicates that you are only posting here for the sake of arguing (self entertainment).

 

The case can be made...and probably will be made...that you, with full knowledge, created an item that was meant to deceive people into thinking they had something they did not.

 

If I wanted to "deceive", I wouldn't distrubute every coin with a certificate (inserted into the same holder as the coin) stating the facts of origin. I wouldn't post diagnostics about them on my websites. I wouldn't talk, on public forums, about how I made them. I wouldn't consult with a grading company about how to spot these things. You speculate about this and that, and what somebody might do, but you don't actually make a case.

 

It doesn't matter what your intent is. All a lawyer has to do is show that 1. you made no attempt to mark these coins as "fantasy" in any way (and no one is going to buy your "but...the DATE is the difference!" argument), and 2. you were made aware that such potential existed.

 

Altering coins is perfectly legal, except with fraudulent intent. "Intent" is a major factor, and it does matter.

 

>>> and no one is going to buy your "but...the DATE is the difference

 

Again you speculate on what somebody might think or do. Your speculations don't mean squat. What was it you just said ? You said this: "you insist on making arguments based on what you think people should do, rather than on what actually is". You should take note of your own advice.

 

So, if someone uses your coins to commit fraud, they could include you in the suit for making it so very easy for them to do so.

 

Like a bank robber, who would include a gun manufacturer in their trial for making it so easy to commit armed robbery ? Good luck with that.

 

You've created a very slippery slope.

 

I'm not sliding on any slope. I've clearly stated what I would do and what I wouldn't do. That won't change.

 

[dcarr]

..."But, it's worth $5,000,000!!!" may save you from litigation, but it won't change the legal fact that the item was mistaken for something that is "real."

 

"Real" is not necessarily an all or nothing proposition. What is "real" ?

The coin pictured ["1964-D" over-struck Peace Dollar] started out as a real Peace Dollar, which was then altered (no metal added or removed). Date aside, Is it still a "real" Peace Dollar ? I don't claim that it is, but is it still legal tender ? Is a "hobo" nickel still legal tender ? Those questions can only be answered by the legal authority.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

..."But, it's worth $5,000,000!!!" may save you from litigation, but it won't change the legal fact that the item was mistaken for something that is "real."

 

"Real" is not necessarily an all or nothing proposition. What is "real" ?

The coin pictured ["1964-D" over-struck Peace Dollar] started out as a real Peace Dollar, which was then altered (no metal added or removed). Date aside, Is it still a "real" Peace Dollar ? I don't claim that it is, but is it still legal tender ? Is a "hobo" nickel still legal tender ? Those questions can only be answered by the legal authority.

 

Legal authority in the United States is derived from the people.

[jerseycat10]

[RockMyAmadeus]

Reallly..? You're really going to argue that the US Mint, which makes the originals to begin with, is making it easy for those wishing to commit fraud to do so...?

 

No, that is not my argument - it is the argument that you were making - that the maker of an item is responsible for how somebody in the future uses it. I just pointed out how that notion is misguided.

 

No, that's not the argument I made at all. You're on full disconnect.

 

US Mint - makes items that are clearly and obviously (by necessity) marked as to what they are, in nearly all cases, and by statute. They do not replicate in any way existing items made either publicly or privately, but are entirely new creations.

 

Daniel Carr - makes items that are not in any way obviously marked as to what they are, and which are made to look as close to the original Mint product from whence they came as is possible.

 

On the contrary, the US Mint has fought such attempts over the centuries, making it harder...not easier, as you have done....for the fraudulent to conduct their activities. The Mint and Treasury doesn't (at least not deliberately) attempt to make products that look as close as possible to other, non-Mint made products.

 

That is false ! The US Mint has done things in the past that made it very easy for scammers. In 1995, the US Mint issued "W" mint proof Silver Eagles, only available in a special set. They also issued "P" mint proof Silver Eagles individually. This made it possible for scammers to take the gold/silver anniversary set, remove the very valuable "W" mint Proof Silver Eagle, and substitute it with the much-cheaper "P" mint proof Silver Eagle. Then, of course, they would sell the set without disclosing the swap, and also sell the rare coin by itself. Some people actually did fall for it. The US Mint totally enabled it, due to their marketing decisions and desire to sell more collector coins !

 

Really? You're going to hang TWO CENTURIES of anti-fraud, anti-counterfeiting activities, and a POLICY of anti-fraud activities, on ONE example that they screwed up on....?

 

And a MISTAKE, not a "heh heh heh, let's see if the public figures out what we've done!"

 

And you've completely ignored the statement that the US Mint does NOT set out to make something almost exactly look like something SOMEONE ELSE MADE. The Mint did not SET OUT to create a scenario whereby people could be fooled.

 

That's all you do. Create scenarios whereby people could be fooled.

 

And if the Mint had the opportunity to FIX it, did they...? Because YOU have the opportunity to fix YOUR enabling ways, but that would utterly defeat your business plan!

 

But by your ridiculous logic, the US Mint would be to blame for this. No, the scammers perpetrating the fraud are to blame.

 

I haven't used any pejoratives to describe any of your arguments. I'd appreciate if you showed me the same courtesy.

 

Thanks.

 

After all...the Mint doesn't make "fantasy $100 bills, series 1924" that, other than the date, look exactly like genuine series 1914 $100 bills, and are even made by overprinting those exact notes.

 

But you make items that look as close as possible to original, numismatic items as possible.

 

See above. The US Mint makes more variations (surface finishes, mint marks) than necessary. They do so to get more sales. Is this really necessary ? All these extra versions make it harder to keep track, and give more opportunities for scammers.

 

....and? They're not creating products that nearly perfectly replicate products made by some other entity (in fact, if they did, they'd stand a good chance of being sued for trademark infringement.) They make new products, based on original designs.

 

And necessary according to whom....?

 

Your arguments...they are but men filled with straw. "Well, the mint does thus and such, so that makes what I do ok."

 

It doesn't work that way.

 

By your logic, the Smithsonian Institution and NGC are both aiding and abetting fraud by their issuance of that "1876 $100 Union Morgan" coin that looks like a legal-tender US pattern, without "copy" on it. But that logic is flawed. If someone takes a gun and intentionally and illegally shoots somebody, is the gun maker at fault ? Of course not. Fault lies with the person pulling the trigger.

 

The discussion isn't about the "1876 $100 Union Morgan", for all the reasons discussed earlier.

 

The discussion most certainly IS about things like that, and it wasn't discussed in any real depth. The "1876 $100 Union Morgan" coin could be used by a scammer as easily as ANY fantasy or altered coin. It looks just like a vintage (rare) US pattern coin.

 

As stated before:

 

1. It looks nothing like a vintage US pattern coin. It looks like a modern proof, which is precisely what it is.

 

2. Such a "pattern" never existed, so there's nothing to compare it to.

 

3. Even if that pattern DID exist, patterns, by their very nature, are extremely scarce. You cannot get 10 different coins, all of the same design, and DIFFERENT DATES AND MINTMARKS, together on one table, except MAYBE at one of the big shows during the year...and John Q. certainly ain't gonna be handling any of those. I doubt that 10 patterns all with different dates (and obviously not mintmarks), but otherwise identical even EXISTS.

 

It has all the proper mottoes and legends on it, including "United States of America" and "One Hundred Dollars". But you don't seem to care about that item. That indicates that you are only posting here for the sake of arguing (self entertainment).

 

No, it indicates that it's not relevant to the argument,and you keep bringing it up as a red herring to distract from what you do.

 

The case can be made...and probably will be made...that you, with full knowledge, created an item that was meant to deceive people into thinking they had something they did not.

 

If I wanted to "deceive", I wouldn't distrubute every coin with a certificate (inserted into the same holder as the coin) stating the facts of origin. I wouldn't post diagnostics about them on my websites. I wouldn't talk, on public forums, about how I made them. I wouldn't consult with a grading company about how to spot these things. You speculate about this and that, and what somebody might do, but you don't actually make a case.

 

Much like you basing your arguments on what you think SHOULD happen, rather than on what is...?

 

It doesn't matter how much you talk about them. All a clever lawyer has to say is "of course he's going to say all that, to relieve himself of liability. But I contend that he knew from the start that this would eventually happen, yet he chose to do it anyways, and all his "disclosure" was just to cover his own tracks.

 

Burden of proof civilly is "a preponderance of evidence"....

 

It doesn't matter what your intent is. All a lawyer has to do is show that 1. you made no attempt to mark these coins as "fantasy" in any way (and no one is going to buy your "but...the DATE is the difference!" argument), and 2. you were made aware that such potential existed.

 

Altering coins is perfectly legal, except with fraudulent intent. "Intent" is a major factor, and it does matter.

 

>>> and no one is going to buy your "but...the DATE is the difference

 

Again you speculate on what somebody might think or do.

 

No, this is not speculation. This is critical thinking based on common sense, knowledge, and experience.

 

As RWB said....if it walks like a duck....

 

Your speculations don't mean squat. What was it you just said ? You said this: "you insist on making arguments based on what you think people should do, rather than on what actually is". You should take note of your own advice.

 

Again...and all your deflections don't really change anything...this is not speculation. This is an obvious conclusion arrived at by a process of using critical thinking skills.

 

So, if someone uses your coins to commit fraud, they could include you in the suit for making it so very easy for them to do so.

 

Like a bank robber, who would include a gun manufacturer in their trial for making it so easy to commit armed robbery ? Good luck with that.

 

Your analogy fails. Certain firearms are, indeed, outlawed because they make it easier for criminals to commit crimes. For example, no manufacturer of fully automatic weapons is going to advertise for sale to the public, and if they did, they would almost certainly be held liable if one of their products was used in a rampage.

 

And that's not even addressing the faulty analogy of tools (guns) versus collectibles.

 

You've created a very slippery slope.

 

I'm not sliding on any slope. I've clearly stated what I would do and what I wouldn't do. That won't change.

 

You keep changing what I said, and then responding as if I said that. That's very poor debate form.

 

I didn't say you were sliding...I said you created one.

[RockMyAmadeus]

..."But, it's worth $5,000,000!!!" may save you from litigation, but it won't change the legal fact that the item was mistaken for something that is "real."

 

"Real" is not necessarily an all or nothing proposition. What is "real" ?

 

Are we now at the "that depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" stage...?

[jerseycat10]

Seriously... RockMyAmadeus, obviously your viewpoint on this issue is not going to change, so why do you guys continue to argue.

 

Just agree to disagree and move on.

[indiananationals-migration]

another carr design i just got

[123cents]

Why do you guys keep arguing about a subject that you are never going to agree on? I think you have already convinced your self that you either like or dislike David Carr's work for various reasons. What's left?

[James_OldeTowne]

..."But, it's worth $5,000,000!!!" may save you from litigation, but it won't change the legal fact that the item was mistaken for something that is "real."

 

"Real" is not necessarily an all or nothing proposition. What is "real" ?

The coin pictured ["1964-D" over-struck Peace Dollar] started out as a real Peace Dollar, which was then altered (no metal added or removed). Date aside, Is it still a "real" Peace Dollar ? I don't claim that it is, but is it still legal tender ? Is a "hobo" nickel still legal tender ? Those questions can only be answered by the legal authority.

Suppose a counterfeiter melted down damaged morgan dollars to create new silver-dollar planchets, then (re)strikes the "new" planchets with imitation dies. Would these be definable as "restrikes" if the date 1895 was used on the imitation dies?

[coinman_23885]

Why do you guys keep arguing about a subject that you are never going to agree on? I think you have already convinced your self that you either like or dislike David Carr's work for various reasons. What's left?

 

I fully agree, and have not entered the debate for this reason. It is futile. Some love his work while others dismiss them as counterfeit or altered monstrosities. I doubt anyone is going to change their mind.

[Dcoin]

Couldn't all this solved with a little laser watermark of the word...

 

"Copy"?

[MarkFeld]

Couldn't all this solved with a little laser watermark of the word...

 

"Copy"?

 

No, apparently many buyers of the coins don't want that.

[Dcoin]

Couldn't all this solved with a little laser watermark of the word...

 

"Copy"?

 

No, apparently many buyers of the coins don't want that.

 

They have marks (no pun) that can't be seen by the naked eye? Or even somewhere along the edge.

 

I can't see why a buyer would care?

[MarkFeld]

Couldn't all this solved with a little laser watermark of the word...

 

"Copy"?

 

No, apparently many buyers of the coins don't want that.

 

They have marks (no pun) that can't be seen by the naked eye? Or even somewhere along the edge.

 

I can't see why a buyer would care?

 

If the marks can't be seen by the naked eye, that wouldn't solve the potential problem of the coins being sold as the real thing to unknowledgeable buyers.

[lehigh96]

Seriously... RockMyAmadeus, obviously your viewpoint on this issue is not going to change, so why do you guys continue to argue.

 

Just agree to disagree and move on.

 

According to him it is not an argument, but a discussion. I guess it is all about perspective though. On the comics forum, I guess this would be classified as a discussion.

[dcarr]

No, that's not the argument I made at all. You're on full disconnect.

 

Your argument is that the maker of something is responsible for enabling any crimes committed with that thing down the road. In a world like that, nobody would make cars (the maker would be held liable if someone intentionally ran over somebody else). Nobody would make weapons. Nobody would make rope (enough to hang oneself). Nobody would make anything. There would be no economy, no civilization.

 

US Mint - makes items that are clearly and obviously (by necessity) marked as to what they are, in nearly all cases, and by statute. They do not replicate in any way existing items made either publicly or privately, but are entirely new creations.

 

Guess what ? The US Mint made high-relief St. Gaudens "replicas". You know, a scammer with a "slick sales pitch" could use one to fool a naive collector into paying a lot of money for one, thinking that it was the valuable original 1907 issue. But, any such collector need only look at the date on it and do a tiny bit of research to figure it out.

 

Daniel Carr - makes items that are not in any way obviously marked as to what they are, and which are made to look as close to the original Mint product from whence they came as is possible.

 

False. The date. A potential buyer need only look at the obvious date on it. I take an original US Mint coin and then I alter it, without adding or removing any metal. The result looks LESS like a US Mint product than it did prior to the alteration. The new date doesn't exist on original US Mint products of that type. By definition, the altered coin is not "as close as possible" to the original because the date put on it is intentionally unlike any original date issued for that type.

 

On the contrary, the US Mint has fought such attempts over the centuries, making it harder...not easier, as you have done....for the fraudulent to conduct their activities. The Mint and Treasury doesn't (at least not deliberately) attempt to make products that look as close as possible to other, non-Mint made products.

 

Really? You're going to hang TWO CENTURIES of anti-fraud, anti-counterfeiting activities, and a POLICY of anti-fraud activities, on ONE example that they screwed up on....?

 

And a MISTAKE, not a "heh heh heh, let's see if the public figures out what we've done!"

 

Your insinuation that I've concealed what I've done, that I'm somehow watching from behind a curtain, is blatantly and obviously false.

 

There are many other examples. Modern Mint proofs are intentionally issued in copper-nickel clad and 90% silver. They've made it easy for someone to silver-plate clad coins and sell them as the more-expensive 90% silver versions. Or, a scammer can just put copper-nickel proofs in the silver-proof cases (they aren't sealed) without even plating them - since you can't see the coins' edges, they look just like real silver proof sets.

 

And you've completely ignored the statement that the US Mint does NOT set out to make something almost exactly look like something SOMEONE ELSE MADE. The Mint did not SET OUT to create a scenario whereby people could be fooled.

 

That's all you do. Create scenarios whereby people could be fooled.

 

And if the Mint had the opportunity to FIX it, did they...? Because YOU have the opportunity to fix YOUR enabling ways, but that would utterly defeat your business plan!

 

I don't need to "fix" anything. That something even needs to be "fixed" is only your opinion, not a fact.

 

I haven't used any pejoratives to describe any of your arguments. I'd appreciate if you showed me the same courtesy.

 

You say things are "obviously untrue". I say things are "ridiculous" (which means, subject to ridicule). Same difference, as far as I'm concerned.

 

....and? They're not creating products that nearly perfectly replicate products made by some other entity (in fact, if they did, they'd stand a good chance of being sued for trademark infringement.) They make new products, based on original designs.

 

Your arguments...they are but men filled with straw. "Well, the mint does thus and such, so that makes what I do ok."

 

That is NOT my argument. My "argument" is using the US Mint as an example of how the maker of something is not to blame when someone uses that thing later on to commit fraud.

 

As stated before ["1876 Morgan Union $100 pattern]:

 

1. It looks nothing like a vintage US pattern coin. It looks like a modern proof, which is precisely what it is.

 

2. Such a "pattern" never existed, so there's nothing to compare it to.

 

3. Even if that pattern DID exist, patterns, by their very nature, are extremely scarce. You cannot get 10 different coins, all of the same design, and DIFFERENT DATES AND MINTMARKS, together on one table, except MAYBE at one of the big shows during the year...and John Q. certainly ain't gonna be handling any of those. I doubt that 10 patterns all with different dates (and obviously not mintmarks), but otherwise identical even EXISTS.

 

1. & 2. The coin is based on a sketch by Mint engraver Morgan. It looks every bit like a plausible US Pattern from 1876, with NO markings on it of any kind to show otherwise. So, somehow you would know it isn't a real pattern coin because you have every type of pattern coin memorized, but at the same time, you can't remember if "1927" Oregon Trail half dollars were ever issued ? Your double-standard is showing !

 

3. "Scarcity" has nothing to do with it. According to you, it is inevitable that one of the over-strike coins will be used in a fraud (I disagree). But, you claim that since pattern coins are "scarce", the piece in question won't ever be used in a scam, and that the Simithsoinian Institution and NGC are not enabling such a potential scam ? Double standard again.

 

Perhaps the most widely-issued numismatic reference of all time is the "Red Book". A person can look up a "1927" Oregon Trail half dollar in a Red book and they will immediately see that something is amiss. But the Red Book only shows a few pattern coins. So a potential buyer of a "1876 Morgan Union $100" coin, being given a "slick sales pitch", could not determine from their Red Book if it was legitimate or not.

 

So, if anything, the "1876 Morgan Union $100" fantasy coin is far more condusive for scams than any fantasy-date regular-issue coin.

 

 

.

It has all the proper mottoes and legends on it, including "United States of America" and "One Hundred Dollars". But you don't seem to care about that item. That indicates that you are only posting here for the sake of arguing (self entertainment).

 

No, it indicates that it's not relevant to the argument,and you keep bringing it up as a red herring to distract from what you do.

 

No, you keep brushing it aside so as to not reveal your double standard.

 

It doesn't matter how much you talk about them. All a clever lawyer has to say is "of course he's going to say all that, to relieve himself of liability. But I contend that he knew from the start that this would eventually happen, yet he chose to do it anyways, and all his "disclosure" was just to cover his own tracks.

 

Burden of proof civilly is "a preponderance of evidence"....

 

It doesn't matter what your intent is. All a lawyer has to do is show that 1. you made no attempt to mark these coins as "fantasy" in any way (and no one is going to buy your "but...the DATE is the difference!" argument), and 2. you were made aware that such potential existed.

 

That layer would be obviously wrong. I made the over-strikes with dates that were never originally issued. To say that "no attempt" was made to make the over-strikes appear different, is patently false. I purpously chose dates that were never issued, so that the pieces could obviously be identified.

 

 

No, this is not speculation. This is critical thinking based on common sense, knowledge, and experience.

 

In other words, one person's opinion.

 

As RWB said....if it walks like a duck....

 

Again...and all your deflections don't really change anything...this is not speculation. This is an obvious conclusion arrived at by a process of using critical thinking skills.

 

More opinion: RWB is not a legal expert.

 

Your analogy fails. Certain firearms are, indeed, outlawed because they make it easier for criminals to commit crimes. For example, no manufacturer of fully automatic weapons is going to advertise for sale to the public, and if they did, they would almost certainly be held liable if one of their products was used in a rampage.

 

You do not understand firearms laws, apparently.

But I'll use another analogy:

A rope manufacturer is not responsible for a lynching.

 

...

[inconsequential and unnessesary arguments deleted.]

[dcarr]

Are we now at the "that depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" stage...?

 

We already arrived there a while ago when you first said "the date is not an obvious marking".

 

[rrantique]

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein

[James_OldeTowne]

Suppose someone melted down damaged Morgan dollars to create new silver-dollar planchets. Then, that person prepared imitation Morgan dollar dies, but with the date of 1895.

 

If the reformed planchets were struck with the imitation dies, would the coins be legal or not?

[dcarr]

Suppose someone melted down damaged Morgan dollars to create new silver-dollar planchets. Then, that person prepared imitation Morgan dollar dies, but with the date of 1895.

 

If the reformed planchets were struck with the imitation dies, would the coins be legal or not?

 

It might depend on what you tried to do with it after you made it. Spend it ? Sell it as a modern remake ? Sell it as an original coin ? I'll leave the legal questions for others to comment on.

 

But I will say that the scenario above is not something I would do, for two reasons:

 

1) I don't melt down coins to make blanks - I only over-strike them without heating or melting, and without adding or removing any metal from individual coins.

 

2) I don't over-strike to apply dates that already exist for that coin type (unless I'm making at least two other significant and obvious changes).

 

 

[James_OldeTowne]

Suppose someone melted down damaged Morgan dollars to create new silver-dollar planchets. Then, that person prepared imitation Morgan dollar dies, but with the date of 1895.

 

If the reformed planchets were struck with the imitation dies, would the coins be legal or not?

 

It might depend on what you tried to do with it after you made it. Spend it ? Sell it as a modern remake ? Sell it as an original coin ? I'll leave the legal questions for others to comment on.

 

But I will say that the scenario above is not something I would do, for two reasons:

 

1) I don't melt down coins to make blanks - I only over-strike them without heating or melting, and without adding or removing any metal from individual coins.

 

2) I don't over-strike to apply dates that already exist for that coin type (unless I'm making at least two other significant and obvious changes).

Needless to say, I am referring to a "circulation strike" 1895 Morgan , not a proof! The 1895 dollar is similar in nature to the 1964-D in that they were struck, but then all destroyed. So to alter my scenario a bit, suppose we take some cleaned and polished generic Morgan dollars and restamp them with the "new" dies. What would I have?? a restrike? a fake? a fantasy coin?