Refunds on counterfeit and mis-attributed coins

[dadams]

PS:

The question mark was in regards to the meaning (if any) of your code:

"MK DTHOID UI KXC M QDMIXK. UKICDMV, UC'I M WUD VQDIIDV OL CX IOUC CED XHHMIUXK."

The "code" happens to be a cryptogram that I found in a puzzle magazine. It's easy enough to solve.

 

Substitution cipher:

 

MK DTHOID UI KXC M QDMIXK. UKICDMV, UC'I M WUD VQDIIDV OL CX IOUC CED XHHMIUXK.

AN EXCUSE IS NOT A REASON. INSTEAD, IT'S A LIE DRESSED UP TO SUIT THE OCCASION.

[coinman_23885]

Why talk about the Smithsonian or NGC when we have you lurking around? You seem to prefer demeaning other entities in order to take the pressure off yourself. Is there something "we should analyze" about you?

 

By the way, I don't believe that Roger mentioned anyone by name, so you must be feeling guilty about something. Perhaps you should discuss it with your "tech support".

 

One more thing! What was the question mark (?) about?

 

Chris

 

Chris, if you don't have a problem with the Smithsonian and NGC, your criticisms do seem inconsistent. And if you do have a problem with them, you've kept it to yourself.

 

Personally, I do have a problem with them, as well as Mr. Carr's creations. And that 's whether they're deemed to be legal or not.

 

I do not like the Smithsonian pieces either, but I think they are legally and materially distinguishable from Carr's work. The Smithsonian pieces were at least approved by and/or legitimated by a government body/organization whereas I do not believe that Carr's pieces are. His work effectively destroys the original coin and the new coin produced is no more genuine (in my opinion), than if I melted down 90% silver and produced my own 90% planchets and starting counterfeiting 1893-S Morgan Dollars and what not. (And to anticipate Mr. Carr's arguments - I do not see changing the date as legitimating the pieces in any way and as I have already discussed ad nauseam in another 30 page or so thread. The plain meaning of the language used in the relevant legal authorities speaks for itself).

 

Not even the US Mint can issue a new legal-tender coin (commemorative or otherwise) without Congressional authorization. The Smithsonian did not obtain Congressional authorization for that $100 Union "coin". So it is not legal tender.

 

Regarding over-strikes on legal-tender US coins -

the law does not stipulate, nor has it ever been established what severity of defacement will nullify the legal-tender status of a coin. All we know is that the US Mint will redeem mutilated coins, separated by denomination, and pro-rated by total weight. This applies to any "current" coins, even those melted together in a lump, so long as they can be identified as US Mint products. But yes, I am aware of the recent situation where it was found that a Chinese company was sending mutilated counterfeit coins to the US Mint for redemption.

 

I agree with you that the Smithsonian pieces are problematic - no problems there. But it would seem that the government could not reasonably enforce the relevant statutory scheme against people making, possessing, and selling those pieces given that a governmental body consented to it regardless of whether it constitutes legal tender or not. At the very least, in a civil suit, there would be sound theories that a defendant could prevail on including detrimental reliance, estoppel, and waiver. And I don't think any of the Title 18 offenses are strict liability, so government consent would seemingly kill the mens rea element there.

 

Legal tender refers to currency that can be spent. When you mutilate all of a coin such that little or none of the original elements are present, then that presents a problem. If I made an ingot from melted junk 90% silver, would it still be legal tender? I don't think so. Your argument about the government buying mutilated coins by weight furthers this argument. If it was legal tender, you would be paid face value and not on the basis of the metal left.

[dcarr]

Why talk about the Smithsonian or NGC when we have you lurking around? You seem to prefer demeaning other entities in order to take the pressure off yourself. Is there something "we should analyze" about you?

 

By the way, I don't believe that Roger mentioned anyone by name, so you must be feeling guilty about something. Perhaps you should discuss it with your "tech support".

 

One more thing! What was the question mark (?) about?

 

I made no statements of judgment or opinion regarding the Smithsonian/NGC $100 Union. I only stated the facts that the thing looks just like a plausible original legal-tender coin, but isn't. And it doesn't have "COPY" on it.

 

What entities, other than perhaps you (my apologies), have I demeaned here ?

 

PS:

The question mark was in regards to the meaning (if any) of your code:

"MK DTHOID UI KXC M QDMIXK. UKICDMV, UC'I M WUD VQDIIDV OL CX IOUC CED XHHMIUXK."

 

The "code" happens to be a cryptogram that I found in a puzzle magazine. It's easy enough to solve.

 

I don't accept your apology. You didn't offer it when you made certain comments on another forum, so why should I accept it now? No, I don't intend to waste my time telling you what comments you made.

 

I apologized for asking here if you were a communist.

 

On the other forum I stated that there was "jealousy" and that there were "haters" and "trolling". I never applied any such term to any particular person. You even said I was calling myself a troll.

 

No, I don't intend to waste my time telling you what comments you made

 

Then your claims are pure hearsay if you can not back up your statement with any documentation.

 

In all these arguments, you have never provided any link or any documentation to substantiate any of your claims.

 

But hey, if you like to argue, I can argue with the best of them.

 

[dcarr]

... Legal tender refers to currency that can be spent. When you mutilate all of a coin such that little or none of the original elements are present, then that presents a problem. If I made an ingot from melted junk 90% silver, would it still be legal tender? I don't think so. Your argument about the government buying mutilated coins by weight furthers this argument. If it was legal tender, you would be paid face value and not on the basis of the metal left.

 

To clarify, when I over-strike a coin, some of the design elements do still remain as outlines around letters, facial profile, etc. The host coin is not completely flat when I over-strike it. In fact, on most or all of the Barber over-strikes, it is possible to determine the original date and/or mint mark of the host coin. And the chemical elements (copper, silver) remain exactly as they were.

 

The question of whether or not a melted ingot of 900 fine silver coins is still legal tender is academic here, since that is NOT what I do. But since 900 fine silver coins are not considered to be "current" by the US Mint, a melted lump of them, even if identifiable, would not be eligible for redemption (but, of course, the silver value would be far higher than the face value anyway).

 

I do not perform any heating or melting - there is a one-for-one correlation of original host coin to over-strike.

 

The guidelines for submitting mutilated coins to the US Mint for redemption is as follows:

 

Only "current" coins are accepted.

The coins must be separated by denomination (melted lumps are ok).

The coins (or lumps or whatever) must be identifiable in some way as US Mint products.

The redemption value (payout) is based on the total weight, divided by the average weight of a single coin of that denomination, times the face value of one coin.

 

In other words, if you had 100 Washington quarters that had all been cut in half (200 pieces total), the total weight of the lot divided by the average weight per Washington quarter would equal 100 full coins - so the payout would be $25.

 

I think the US Mint uses the weight method mostly because mutilated coins usually won't feed through a coin counting machine very well.

 

 

[19Lyds]

Why talk about the Smithsonian or NGC when we have you lurking around? You seem to prefer demeaning other entities in order to take the pressure off yourself. Is there something "we should analyze" about you?

 

By the way, I don't believe that Roger mentioned anyone by name, so you must be feeling guilty about something. Perhaps you should discuss it with your "tech support".

 

One more thing! What was the question mark (?) about?

 

Chris

 

Chris, if you don't have a problem with the Smithsonian and NGC, your criticisms do seem inconsistent. And if you do have a problem with them, you've kept it to yourself.

 

Personally, I do have a problem with them, as well as Mr. Carr's creations. And that 's whether they're deemed to be legal or not.

I have no problem with Daniel Carr's creations because I know exactly what they are. Overstrikes of original and authentic coins.

 

[Conder101]

I don't see you accusing the Smithsonian Institution of being greedy and taking advantage of a "loophole" by endorsing and selling the 1876 Union coins that do NOT have "COPY" on them. And you have not made any similar accusations about our hosts certifying them. NGC and the Smithsonian both made more from the pieces than they would have if they had been marked "COPY". But I did notice that both times I've posted about them, you have apparently ignored it. Why is that ?

Personally I do consider them to be in violation of the HPA as I understand it.

[cpm9ball]

Why talk about the Smithsonian or NGC when we have you lurking around? You seem to prefer demeaning other entities in order to take the pressure off yourself. Is there something "we should analyze" about you?

 

By the way, I don't believe that Roger mentioned anyone by name, so you must be feeling guilty about something. Perhaps you should discuss it with your "tech support".

 

One more thing! What was the question mark (?) about?

 

I made no statements of judgment or opinion regarding the Smithsonian/NGC $100 Union. I only stated the facts that the thing looks just like a plausible original legal-tender coin, but isn't. And it doesn't have "COPY" on it.

 

What entities, other than perhaps you (my apologies), have I demeaned here ?

 

PS:

The question mark was in regards to the meaning (if any) of your code:

"MK DTHOID UI KXC M QDMIXK. UKICDMV, UC'I M WUD VQDIIDV OL CX IOUC CED XHHMIUXK."

 

The "code" happens to be a cryptogram that I found in a puzzle magazine. It's easy enough to solve.

 

I don't accept your apology. You didn't offer it when you made certain comments on another forum, so why should I accept it now? No, I don't intend to waste my time telling you what comments you made.

 

I apologized for asking here if you were a communist.

 

On the other forum I stated that there was "jealousy" and that there were "haters" and "trolling". I never applied any such term to any particular person. You even said I was calling myself a troll.

 

No, I don't intend to waste my time telling you what comments you made

 

Then your claims are pure hearsay if you can not back up your statement with any documentation.

 

In all these arguments, you have never provided any link or any documentation to substantiate any of your claims.

 

But hey, if you like to argue, I can argue with the best of them.

 

Think of this as a classroom. There are some instructors who give you all of the answers so you can formulate whatever conclusions you choose. However, this is not one of those classrooms. The instructor of this classroom expects you to find the information on your own. It is out there, if you know where to look. Instead, you have chosen to distort things to suit yourself. So, go ahead and say what you please. It will only make you look bad in the long run. I don't have to worry about that.

 

Chris

[19Lyds]

Aren't we a weird bunch?

 

From PCGS Coin Facts

 

"1848 1C Sm Dt Breen-1901 Fantasy, BN (Regular Strike)"

 

"Ron Guth: Plain and simple, the 1848 Small Date Large Cent is a counterfeit, and probably a contemporary one. However, it has been accepted as a collectible coin by the copper community and brings strong prices whenever it appears at auction. Virtually all of the known examples are on over-sized planchets, often double-struck or overstruck on other coins, and at least two show one or more planchet clips. Breen knew of seven in 1988; today the population is 10-12 examples. The Dan Holmes collection (sold in 2011) contained three examples."

 

More from OCGSCoinfacts

 

"1823 1C Private Restrike, BN (Regular Strike)"

 

Yte More

 

"1823 1C Private Restrike Silver (Regular Strike)"

 

How about this one?

"1804 1C Private Restrike, RB (Regular Strike)"

 

All counterfeit yet all fully collectible and attributed as such by the TPG's.

 

But that was then and this is now. Creativity and independent thinking has been lost through the generations. And then there's the HPA. Wonderful piece of legislation designed to protect us from ourselves. Ain't it grand?

 

From my perspective, we all have to learn at least a little something and if it amounts to actually knowing when a particular series of coins ended, then at least that's something.

Knowing what an authentic coin looks like is also a big plus and anybody that has ever examined Dan Carr's work, can spot it. It's not rocket science and has been shown by past "counterfeits (Henning nickels?) and private restrikes", his work is not going to ruin the hobby or turn folks away from the hobby.

Of anything at all, it enriches a whole new genre of collectors with products that are well documented.

 

That's my take.

[dcarr]

Think of this as a classroom. There are some instructors who give you all of the answers so you can formulate whatever conclusions you choose. However, this is not one of those classrooms. The instructor of this classroom expects you to find the information on your own. It is out there, if you know where to look. Instead, you have chosen to distort things to suit yourself. So, go ahead and say what you please. It will only make you look bad in the long run. I don't have to worry about that.

 

This is like a courtroom. Accusations have been made. Present your case and present your evidence. The evidence is the most important part. Without it, everything is just hearsay. Physical evidence (forensics) always trumps eyewitness testimony. Why ? Because the forensics don't lie, but people do (even under oath).

 

So are you lying ? Or do you have any evidence to support your case ?

 

PS:

I was not the one on the other forum who made the Salem Witch Trials reference. Nor was I the one who said that you would probably float. But I did find it funny.

 

[seventee]

They can't weigh every coin if they are doing large business.

 

There's an easy way around this. Weigh the coins in aggregate.A bad coin or two or three should show up if coins are weighed in aggregate and then checked against specs for what they should weigh.

 

My troy weight set has capability to weigh seven double eagles in aggregate.

Fifty-six quarter eagles could be weighed at the same time.

 

It would be possible to identify one or more fakes being in an aggregate group of gold coin of the same denomination by doing careful weight measurement.

 

6/5/15

I thought I would expand on my post to clear up any confusion I may have created.

 

The standard for adjustment of weight for gold quarter-eagles is:

 

SEC.3535. "In adjusting the weights of the gold coins,the following deviations shall not be exceeded in any single piece;...in the half-eagle,the three-dollar piece,the quarter-eagle,and the one-dollar piece,one fourth of a grain." And in weighing a number of pieces together,when delivered by the coiner to the superintendent,and by the superintendent to the depositor,the deviation from the standard weight shall not exceed one-hundredth of an ounce in five thousand dollars of double-eagles,eagles,half-eagles or quarter-eagles."

Laws of the United States Relating to Coinage (1792-1903),p113-114.

 

If one has fifty quarter-eagles to weigh (face value $125) the aggregate can deviate no more than .12 grains (~1/8 grain) from the aggregate weight.

 

Individually,a quarter-eagle gold coin can weigh 64.5 ±.25 grain (troy) and be within tolerance.Collectively,fifty quarter-eagles can weigh 3225 ± .12 grain (troy) and be within tolerance.Note that the tolerance for the aggregate of fifty is about half of the tolerance for just one piece. I've found thinking of the aggregate tolerance as the "tolerance of the tolerance" to be helpful.

 

With just fifty pieces weighed,to apply the aggregate standard is to apply it stringently since $125 is only one-fortieth of $5000.

 

Aggregate of 50 out of tolerance by even 1/100 grain (troy) strongly suggests that one or more of the pieces could be "bad." More investigation would be needed to ferret out the bad piece or pieces but at least one has a start to detect possible bad pieces based on simple but careful weight measurements.

 

Die struck counterfeits with the proper alloy mix are unlikely to be detected by weight measurements alone.

[RWB]

The point of the OP's question seemed to be responsibility when a false coin was sold. Unless there is some written agreement between buyer and seller otherwise, the seller is presumed to deliver good title. Since good title to a counterfeit coin cannot pass, it is the seller's responsibility to remedy the situation. It does not matter if the coin was made last week in Colorado by a 5th grade art student, last year in Guangzhou by Liu Wen Zheng, or a century ago in Detroit by a bored auto worker.

 

As a matter of ethical behavior, my opinion is that the seller of the fake should also reimburse the buyer for authentication costs.

 

[Admittedly, counterfeits of circulating coins made in the 19th century, have a legitimate historical value. Their perpetrators and victims are long gone. But that comes back to disclosure.]

[cpm9ball]

Think of this as a classroom. There are some instructors who give you all of the answers so you can formulate whatever conclusions you choose. However, this is not one of those classrooms. The instructor of this classroom expects you to find the information on your own. It is out there, if you know where to look. Instead, you have chosen to distort things to suit yourself. So, go ahead and say what you please. It will only make you look bad in the long run. I don't have to worry about that.

 

This is like a courtroom. Accusations have been made. Present your case and present your evidence. The evidence is the most important part. Without it, everything is just hearsay. Physical evidence (forensics) always trumps eyewitness testimony. Why ? Because the forensics don't lie, but people do (even under oath).

 

So are you lying ? Or do you have any evidence to support your case ?

 

PS:

I was not the one on the other forum who made the Salem Witch Trials reference. Nor was I the one who said that you would probably float. But I did find it funny.

 

This is not a courtroom. Do you really think that you are the one to set the rules? I wonder how much you really care about the numismatic community. I don't really care what you find funny, but I do wonder what people will think of you in the decades to come.

 

How did you like the cryptogram that I found in a puzzle magazine? Wasn't it amusing?

 

Chris

[coinman_23885]

Knowing what an authentic coin looks like is also a big plus and anybody that has ever examined Dan Carr's work, can spot it.

 

I wouldn't bet money on this if I were you. Consumer protection laws (e.g. the HPA) are not written to protect knowledgeable individuals and those capable of protecting themselves. Rather, the laws are meant to protect the less informed and, more bluntly, the less intelligent. That is why I am very opposed to his fantasy overstrikes. Does the Red Book even mention the 1964-D Peace Dollar? I can see an uneducated, naive novice paying stupid money in a flee market sale thinking that he or she acquired something truly rare and special.

 

And if you contend that the everyone can spot a bad coin, please tell me why there are still self slabbers on eBay? Some of those are obviously problematic and some of them even contain fake coins (should we call them fantasy pieces in fantasy slabs?) yet they sometimes sell for decent money.

[wdrob]

 

Does the Red Book even mention the 1964-D Peace Dollar?

 

I have the 'Super Duper Mega 1,500 page Deluxe Edition' in front of me right now and yes it does mention the 1964-D Peace dollar.

 

Mintage: 316,076

Cert: 0

Grades: None Known To Exist.

 

 

Edited to add: The footnotes for the 1964-D Peace Dollar state: "The entire mintage of 1964-D Peace dollars was melted by government order. Deceptive reproductions exist."

 

 

[coinman_23885]

Does the Red Book even mention the 1964-D Peace Dollar?

 

I have the 'Super Duper Mega 1,500 page Deluxe Edition' in front of me right now and yes it does mention the 1964-D Peace dollar.

 

Mintage: 316,076

Cert: 0

Grades: None Known To Exist.

 

 

Edited to add: The footnotes for the 1964-D Peace Dollar state: "The entire mintage of 1964-D Peace dollars was melted by government order. Deceptive reproductions exist."

 

 

PCGS has a standing offer of $10,000 to authenticate a real one. I think it is feasible that a novice could be deceived.

[coinman_23885]

P.S. CaptainHenway has an interesting series of posts ATS called "Why coin dealers drink" or something to that effect. Some of them are real gems. Read some of those posts and come back and tell me that there isn't someone who could feasibly be taken by one of these pieces.

 

Here is one of them now:

 

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=944847

[19Lyds]

Knowing what an authentic coin looks like is also a big plus and anybody that has ever examined Dan Carr's work, can spot it.

 

I wouldn't bet money on this if I were you. Consumer protection laws (e.g. the HPA) are not written to protect knowledgeable individuals and those capable of protecting themselves. Rather, the laws are meant to protect the less informed and, more bluntly, the less intelligent. That is why I am very opposed to his fantasy overstrikes. Does the Red Book even mention the 1964-D Peace Dollar? I can see an uneducated, naive novice paying stupid money in a flee market sale thinking that he or she acquired something truly rare and special.

 

And if you contend that the everyone can spot a bad coin, please tell me why there are still self slabbers on eBay? Some of those are obviously problematic and some of them even contain fake coins (should we call them fantasy pieces in fantasy slabs?) yet they sometimes sell for decent money.

Anybody that has examined Daniel Carr's coins can spot his work.

 

Rounded Letters, sandblasted fields and devices. None of his coins is going to fool a numismatic professional which is the individual that a prospective buyer would seek out before investing money in some great rarity.

 

The Moonlight Mint 1964-D Peace Dollar has been out for close to 5 years yet I've not heard of anyone investing moon money in one just yet. Matter of fact, I doubt that there are many coin dealers or collectors that have not heard of the MoonLight Mint's 1964-D Peace Dollar.

 

As for the HPA? If an individual buys a fake coin believing that it is real and spends a significant amount of money on the coin, then the HPA affords them an opportunity to gain compensation plus court costs provided the individual that bought the coin even knows what the Hobby Protection Act is. Again, a numismatic professional would probably be contacted at some point in time.

 

As for self slabbers and ebay? Apples and oranges friend. People self slab because the industry offers them the tools with which to do their own slabbing and generally speaking, those self slabs command low end prices with the exception of someone that really wants to get into this coin collecting thing. 99 out of 100 times, they end up in this or some other forum and in turn receive the education points.

 

The HPA isn't going to resolve the problems of an enthusiastic buyer that has the funds.

 

One fellow over on the CU Forums, spent $16,000 for a coin lot on eBay and then reported his purchase. He quickly got informed of how silly it was to do so and eventually wised up and cancelled the transaction. Sometimes you can fix dumb but only if you know about it.

 

Coin Forums in general provide information and feedback and sooner or later, folks that are buying coins, end up on some forum somewhere. We more or less police and educate ourselves freely and openly. Rarely would anybody use the HPA as a tool for a single coin. Instead, its aimed at folks the produce coins.

 

I would challenge anybody that has a real problem with the Moonlight Mint to go ahead and afford yourself the protection of the HPA.

 

Regardless of the outcome, the coins that have already been produced are nice quality overstrikes on authentic US Coinage and they will have their place in numismatic history. History says so.

[Afterword]

Personally, I do not believe Mr. Carr deserves this kind of grief because of what some people imagine might possibly happen if a larcenous person who owns one of his coins should encounter an incredibly stupid person?

 

After all, it is the larcenous person committing the misdeed - not Mr. Carr.

 

[e1cnr]

It is my understanding that Dan Carr uses authentic coins and alters them -

 

that is much different than someone taking a lump of metal and making a US coin counterfeit

 

 

back to the original question, you are making an assumption that TPGs are 100% correct when they say 'counterfeit', to intentionally damage the item as a buyer before returning would be grounds for no refund as far as I am concerned.

[coinman_23885]

that is much different than someone taking a lump of metal and making a US coin counterfeit

 

The original coin is effectively destroyed - the devices, mottos, legends, dates, etc. - all are obliterated such that I don't see his work as being any different than striking similar pieces on a generic lump of metal on a Chinese press. In any event, even if you don't consider these pieces "counterfeits," he did make a instrument that is similar in design or similitude of legitimate U.S. coinage (a paraphrase of the relevant statutes at play), so I still don't see that as legitimating the pieces or making them okay. In fact, in my opinion, they still violate the law. And even if the coins were legal, then the dies used to strike them would still be illegal in my opinion.

 

I think this should be my last post on Carr. Not every thread that discusses counterfeits, unauthorized replicas, etc., should divulge into a debate about him. For any reply that might address my points, my responses are contained in a thread entitled "Near Counterfeit" here.

 

18 U.S.C. 487

 

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—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both.

 

 

18 U.S.C. 485

 

Whoever falsely makes, forges, or counterfeits any coin or bar in resemblance or similitude of any coin of a denomination higher than 5 cents or any gold or silver bar coined or stamped at any mint or assay office of the United States, or in resemblance or similitude of any foreign gold or silver coin current in the United States or in actual use and circulation as money within the United States....

 

 

[dcarr]

P.S. CaptainHenway has an interesting series of posts ATS called "Why coin dealers drink" or something to that effect. Some of them are real gems. Read some of those posts and come back and tell me that there isn't someone who could feasibly be taken by one of these pieces.

 

Here is one of them now:

 

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=944847

 

Ok, taking that as an example ...

What did the person actually pay for the things ? Not very much.

It is one thing to pay $20 for a coin you think might be worth $1,000, or to think that a coin you found or inherited might be worth $1,000. But it is all together an entirely different thing to actually PAY $1,000.

 

>>>Read some of those posts and come back and tell me that there isn't someone who could feasibly be taken by one of these pieces.

 

Such a person could more easily be taken by a VF coin polished and sold as "BU". After all, the seller could show this imaginary ignorant buyer a "Red Book" with a high price listed for the MS-63 grade (for example).

 

In contrast, a fantasy-date coin has no listing in the red book at all. How is a scammer going to convince an ignorant person to pay a lot for a coin that has no listing at all in the price guides ?

 

PS:

My "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollars are listed in the 6th edition of the Krause Unusual World Coins Catalog (page 696, "BU" price $120).

 

 

[dcarr]

that is much different than someone taking a lump of metal and making a US coin counterfeit

 

The original coin is effectively destroyed - the devices, mottos, legends, dates, etc. - all are obliterated such that I don't see his work as being any different than striking similar pieces on a generic lump of metal on a Chinese press. In any event, even if you don't consider these pieces "counterfeits," he did make a instrument that is similar in design or similitude of legitimate U.S. coinage (a paraphrase of the relevant statutes at play), so I still don't see that as legitimating the pieces or making them okay. In fact, in my opinion, they still violate the law. And even if the coins were legal, then the dies used to strike them would still be illegal in my opinion.

 

I think this should be my last post on Carr. Not every thread that discusses counterfeits, unauthorized replicas, etc., should divulge into a debate about him. For any reply that might address my points, my responses are contained in a thread entitled "Near Counterfeit" here.

 

I searched for the "near counterfeit" thread (I remember it), but the search yielded nothing.

 

A "hobo" nickel carving "effectively destroys" the original details on a coin.

 

Striking something that looks like a half dollar on an anonymous piece of metal is a lot different than striking the same thing over an existing legal-tender half dollar of the same design. The difference is that in the latter situation, no new apparent legal tender is created out of something that wasn't to start with.

 

Has anyone ever been convicted of making and spending counterfeit coins ? Yes.

 

Has anyone ever been convicted of a crime by carving a "Hobo" nickel ? No.

 

That is the difference.

[coinman_23885]

that is much different than someone taking a lump of metal and making a US coin counterfeit

 

The original coin is effectively destroyed - the devices, mottos, legends, dates, etc. - all are obliterated such that I don't see his work as being any different than striking similar pieces on a generic lump of metal on a Chinese press. In any event, even if you don't consider these pieces "counterfeits," he did make a instrument that is similar in design or similitude of legitimate U.S. coinage (a paraphrase of the relevant statutes at play), so I still don't see that as legitimating the pieces or making them okay. In fact, in my opinion, they still violate the law. And even if the coins were legal, then the dies used to strike them would still be illegal in my opinion.

 

I think this should be my last post on Carr. Not every thread that discusses counterfeits, unauthorized replicas, etc., should divulge into a debate about him. For any reply that might address my points, my responses are contained in a thread entitled "Near Counterfeit" here.

 

I searched for the "near counterfeit" thread (I remember it), but the search yielded nothing.

 

A "hobo" nickel carving "effectively destroys" the original details on a coin.

 

Striking something that looks like a half dollar on an anonymous piece of metal is a lot different than striking the same thing over an existing legal-tender half dollar of the same design. The difference is that in the latter situation, no new apparent legal tender is created out of something that wasn't to start with.

 

Has anyone ever been convicted of making and spending counterfeit coins ? Yes.

 

Has anyone ever been convicted of a crime by carving a "Hobo" nickel ? No.

 

That is the difference.

 

Apples and oranges. A hobo nickel makes the coin look less like an original genuine mint product, whereas yours makes it look like a genuine coin of a rare date and mint mark. There is a big difference.

 

If I took a classic piece of paper money and bleached it, overprinting it as a rare note, would that be legal?

 

And the thread of interest is here (all 37 pages of it): http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7728386&fpart=1

[dcarr]

The point of the OP's question seemed to be responsibility when a false coin was sold. Unless there is some written agreement between buyer and seller otherwise, the seller is presumed to deliver good title. Since good title to a counterfeit coin cannot pass, it is the seller's responsibility to remedy the situation. It does matter if the coin was made last week in Colorado by a 5th grade art student, last year in Guangzhou by Liu Wen Zheng, or a century ago in Detroit by a bored auto worker.

 

As a matter of ethical behavior, my opinion is that the seller of the fake should also reimburse the buyer for authentication costs.

 

[Admittedly, counterfeits of circulating coins made in the 19th century, have a legitimate historical value. Their perpetrators and victims are long gone. But that comes back to disclosure.]

 

>>> It does matter if the coin was made last week in Colorado by a 5th grade art student

 

 

Oh, that again. I'm not in the 5th grade. But I am in Colorado and I'm (always) a student of art.

 

Since it seems to be the time to dredge up past insults, here is a classic:

Have you ever been investigated for cruelty to animals ? (That is actually a serious question, which I feel compelled to ask based upon many of your past posts which advocate the torture of cats).

 

PS:

Many counterfeits have market values far in excess of the metallic content, like the "Omega" high-relief Saint Gaudens Double Eagles and the "micro-o" Morgan dollars.

[dcarr]

Apples and oranges. A hobo nickel makes the coin look less like an original genuine mint product, whereas yours makes it look like a genuine coin of a rare date and mint mark. There is a big difference.

 

If I took a classic piece of paper money and bleached it, overprinting it as a rare note, would that be legal?

 

And the thread of interest is here (all 37 pages of it): http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7728386&fpart=1

 

>>> A hobo nickel makes the coin look less like an original genuine mint product

 

To whom ?

How would a person know that a carved "hobo" nickel looks less like a US Mint product ? Some hobo nickels look very much like plausible US Mint products.

 

"Rare date" coins are easy to spot - they have higher prices listed for them in the price guides. What about a coin that isn't listed in price guides at all ? Would a reasonable person, when contemplating spending a lot of money for such a piece, be responsible for doing a minimum amount of due diligence ? And what might motivate a person to spend a lot of money for a coin when knowing nothing about it and without doing any research ? Would a reasonable person spend $10,000 for a used car without checking out that model's history and taking a test drive ?

 

Currency and associated printing plates are treated differently than coinage. But to address your analogy - a more appropriate comparison might be to take a Federal Reserve $1 note, bleach off SOME (but not all) of the ink, print over it so that it looks like a $1 note again, but with district markings that don't exist (such as "M-13"). Would there be any real harm done if you spent it ? If you attempted to sell it as a "rare" expensive note, without disclosing what modifications you had done to it, that would be a problem.

 

[dcarr]

Think of this as a classroom. There are some instructors who give you all of the answers so you can formulate whatever conclusions you choose. However, this is not one of those classrooms. The instructor of this classroom expects you to find the information on your own. It is out there, if you know where to look. Instead, you have chosen to distort things to suit yourself. So, go ahead and say what you please. It will only make you look bad in the long run. I don't have to worry about that.

 

This is like a courtroom. Accusations have been made. Present your case and present your evidence. The evidence is the most important part. Without it, everything is just hearsay. Physical evidence (forensics) always trumps eyewitness testimony. Why ? Because the forensics don't lie, but people do (even under oath).

 

So are you lying ? Or do you have any evidence to support your case ?

 

PS:

I was not the one on the other forum who made the Salem Witch Trials reference. Nor was I the one who said that you would probably float. But I did find it funny.

 

This is not a courtroom. Do you really think that you are the one to set the rules?

 

(no evidence) = (you lie)

That is how some people might view the current mud-slinging "debate". But you'll have to ask them to get a definitive answer.

 

I wonder how much you really care about the numismatic community.

 

I wonder how much damage you are doing to the numismatic community. Like on the other forum when you told a novice that their 1889-CC Morgan dollar was probably counterfeit (it wasn't).

 

I don't really care what you find funny, but I do wonder what people will think of you in the decades to come.

 

Well, here are some past names to compare to:

 

Boggs, Dickeson, Lovett, Scott, Lesher, Elder.

 

How did you like the cryptogram that I found in a puzzle magazine? Wasn't it amusing?

 

Coming from you, it was quite funny (and ironic).

 

[RWB]

Does the Red Book even mention the 1964-D Peace Dollar?

 

I have the 'Super Duper Mega 1,500 page Deluxe Edition' in front of me right now and yes it does mention the 1964-D Peace dollar.

 

Mintage: 316,076

Cert: 0

Grades: None Known To Exist.

 

 

Edited to add: The footnotes for the 1964-D Peace Dollar state: "The entire mintage of 1964-D Peace dollars was melted by government order. Deceptive reproductions exist."

 

 

Well, they claim to have melted all the weight of struck planchets, but a physical count was never performed. The mintage is merely an estimate based on the weight of planchets used. See the "Guide Book of Peace Dollars" for what is known so far.

[cpm9ball]

The Moonlight Mint 1964-D Peace Dollar has been out for close to 5 years yet I've not heard of anyone investing moon money in one just yet. Matter of fact, I doubt that there are many coin dealers or collectors that have not heard of the MoonLight Mint's 1964-D Peace Dollar.

 

Is that the one that is mentioned in the Red Book as a "deceptive reproduction"?

 

Chris

[cpm9ball]

My "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollars are listed in the 6th edition of the Krause Unusual World Coins Catalog (page 696, "BU" price $120).

 

Red Book........"deceptive reproductions exist."

 

Chris

[cpm9ball]

(no evidence) = (you lie)

 

:banana:Stick and stones! Sticks and stones! It's out there. It's just that you are too lazy too find it for yourself.

 

I wonder how much damage you are doing to the numismatic community. Like on the other forum when you told a novice that their 1889-CC Morgan dollar was probably counterfeit (it wasn't).

 

Yeah, that was another of your attempts to make me look bad, but you didn't mention that I stated that I hoped I was wrong. But, that's just you being a jerk. Wasn't it!

 

By the way, the person who posted that 1889-CC is hardly a novice. He's 73, has been a member of the CT forums for 9-1/2 years and has about 6 times as many posts as you do.

 

Which reminds me, do you only post on a forum when someone posts a negative comment about your work? You don't seem to join in any general conversations for the sake of the hobby.

 

Chris