Back to the Hobby Protection Act – Please.

[MJ]

A little Dann Carr trivia

 

What forum member made this statement?

 

"I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

A) Mark Feld

B) RWB

C) Mr Knowitall

D) Coinman_23885

 

mark

 

Okay it was not A), so which of the other 3 was it?

 

Best, HT

 

Hi HT

 

I was hoping the author would chime in after awhile with comment just like Mayrk Feld wants Dan Carr to do. We certainly weren't getting anywhere rehashing case law and interpretations of the HPA. Bored to tears

 

mark

 

Come on, Mark! You really don't think we've made considerable progress on this topic, with all of our new and fresh points of view and comments? Next, you'll claim that a dead horse has been beaten, repeatedly.

 

PS - please note that I include myself as a guilty participant in the above activities.

 

HST, it never hurts to have this discussion from time to time, there are always fresh faces coming in, so it might be flogging the dead horse to the vets, but not to all.... I may be able to claim vet category for me, and I confess to learning alot in this rehash through the several threads and moved from the fence into one of the paddocks that the fence dissects, at least for now.......

 

Best, HT

 

Good to hear HT! I stand corrected

 

mark

[dcarr]

I find it interesting that in the thread MJ referenced, the following quotes appeared from Mr. Carr:

 

Mr. Carr:

 

"The real paradox (irony, actually) is this:

 

If you had one that was made by the US Mint, it would be illegal to own (and subject to immediate confiscation).

 

But these that I made by using my Denver Mint coin press to over-strike genuine 1922-1926 Peace dollars, are (potentially) legal to own:"

 

Reply to Mr. Carr:

 

 

"Potentially?

 

Since the coin was never released and therefore does not exist, is it still legal to produce these without the word "COPY" Daniel?"

 

 

Reply by Mr. Carr::

 

"That is the question that nobody can (or wants) to answer !"

 

 

I think that was from 2009, seven years ago ?

If so, at that time I had not yet distributed any.

"Potentially" was in reference to further study.

Also, "potentially" was a caveat that they would have to be accurately described to potential buyers.

 

 

 

[coinman_23885]

I find it interesting that in the thread MJ referenced, the following quotes appeared from Mr. Carr:

 

Mr. Carr:

 

"The real paradox (irony, actually) is this:

 

If you had one that was made by the US Mint, it would be illegal to own (and subject to immediate confiscation).

 

But these that I made by using my Denver Mint coin press to over-strike genuine 1922-1926 Peace dollars, are (potentially) legal to own:"

 

Reply to Mr. Carr:

 

 

"Potentially?

 

Since the coin was never released and therefore does not exist, is it still legal to produce these without the word "COPY" Daniel?"

 

 

Reply by Mr. Carr::

 

"That is the question that nobody can (or wants) to answer !"

 

 

I think that was from 2009, seven years ago ?

If so, at that time I had not yet distributed any.

"Potentially" was in reference to further study.

Also, "potentially" was a caveat that they would have to be accurately described to potential buyers.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

A little Dann Carr trivia

 

What forum member made this statement?

 

"I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

A) Mark Feld

B) RWB

C) Mr Knowitall

D) Coinman_23885

 

mark

 

Okay it was not A), so which of the other 3 was it?

 

Best, HT

 

Hi HT

 

I was hoping the author would chime in after awhile with comment just like Mark Feld wants Dan Carr to do. We certainly weren't getting anywhere rehashing case law and interpretations of the HPA. Bored to tears

 

mark

 

I also hope that the author - RWB - will explain his dramatically different present day stance on Mr. Carr's work. In recent times, RWB has repeatedly accused Mr. Carr of being a counterfeiter. Whereas, years ago, RWB wrote:

 

"I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

.....so long as the approved design remains legal tender?

[coinman_23885]

A little Dann Carr trivia

 

What forum member made this statement?

 

"I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

A) Mark Feld

B) RWB

C) Mr Knowitall

D) Coinman_23885

 

mark

 

Okay it was not A), so which of the other 3 was it?

 

Best, HT

 

Hi HT

 

I was hoping the author would chime in after awhile with comment just like Mark Feld wants Dan Carr to do. We certainly weren't getting anywhere rehashing case law and interpretations of the HPA. Bored to tears

 

mark

 

I also hope that the author - RWB - will explain his dramatically different present day stance on Mr. Carr's work. In recent times, RWB has repeatedly accused Mr. Carr of being a counterfeiter. Whereas, years ago, RWB wrote:

 

"I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

EDITED TO ADD: Now seeing the quoted thread, it is clear that my post below is wrong. There was a change in position.

 

I think MJ likely pulled the quote from Mr. Carr's website, which has an assortment of RWB quotes concerning Carr and the Moonlight Mint. The problem is that without the original thread, those comments are divorced from the original context. I am not sure that RWB actually had a change of heart, but rather, I think Carr's production work shifted from parody coins/prototype designs to his fantasy overstrikes. His fantasy overstrike work is distinguishable from his parody coins and designs. The latter do not strongly mirror actual U.S. coin issues; however, the fantasy coins do. Interestingly, I was able to locate the original 1964-D DCarr thread ATS, and this was the earliest thread I could find that showed the shift in RWB's tone. The 1964-D Peace Dollar was DCarr's first fantasy overstrike. Unless I am missing something, Mr. Carr did not fairly represent those quotes in response to RWB's ANA complaint, and it appears that the comments were taken out of context.

 

The bottom line is that I do not think it is hypocritical or contradictory to be okay with some of Carr's earlier work while repudiating his later fantasy overstrikes. I hope Carr chimes in and clarifies.

 

[MarkFeld]

A little Dann Carr trivia

 

What forum member made this statement?

 

"I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

A) Mark Feld

B) RWB

C) Mr Knowitall

D) Coinman_23885

 

mark

 

Okay it was not A), so which of the other 3 was it?

 

Best, HT

 

Hi HT

 

I was hoping the author would chime in after awhile with comment just like Mark Feld wants Dan Carr to do. We certainly weren't getting anywhere rehashing case law and interpretations of the HPA. Bored to tears

 

mark

 

I also hope that the author - RWB - will explain his dramatically different present day stance on Mr. Carr's work. In recent times, RWB has repeatedly accused Mr. Carr of being a counterfeiter. Whereas, years ago, RWB wrote:

 

"I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

I think MJ likely pulled the quote from Mr. Carr's website, which has an assortment of RWB quotes concerning Carr and the Moonlight Mint. The problem is that without the original thread, those comments are divorced from the original context. I am not sure that RWB actually had a change of heart, but rather, I think Carr's production work shifted from parody coins/prototype designs to his fantasy overstrikes. His fantasy overstrike work is distinguishable from his parody coins and designs. The latter do not strongly mirror actual U.S. coin issues; however, the fantasy coins do. Interestingly, I was able to locate the original 1964-D DCarr thread ATS, and this was the earliest thread I could find that showed the shift in RWB's tone. The 1964-D Peace Dollar was DCarr's first fantasy overstrike. Unless I am missing something, Mr. Carr did not fairly represent those quotes in response to RWB's ANA complaint, and it appears that the comments were intentionally taken out of context.

 

The bottom line is that I do not think it is hypocritical or contradictory to be okay with some of Carr's earlier work while repudiating his later fantasy overstrikes. I hope Carr chimes in and clarifies.

 

Here

is the thread on the PCGS forum, where I found the quoted comments.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Mark, just in case you missed my post above.....So long as the approved design remains legal tender......?

 

Is this not a caveat and is a logic bust to an assumed shift in stated position?

[MJ]

A little Dann Carr trivia

 

What forum member made this statement?

 

"I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

A) Mark Feld

B) RWB

C) Mr Knowitall

D) Coinman_23885

 

mark

 

Okay it was not A), so which of the other 3 was it?

 

Best, HT

 

Hi HT

 

I was hoping the author would chime in after awhile with comment just like Mark Feld wants Dan Carr to do. We certainly weren't getting anywhere rehashing case law and interpretations of the HPA. Bored to tears

 

mark

 

I also hope that the author - RWB - will explain his dramatically different present day stance on Mr. Carr's work. In recent times, RWB has repeatedly accused Mr. Carr of being a counterfeiter. Whereas, years ago, RWB wrote:

 

"I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

I think MJ likely pulled the quote from Mr. Carr's website, which has an assortment of RWB quotes concerning Carr and the Moonlight Mint. The problem is that without the original thread, those comments are divorced from the original context. I am not sure that RWB actually had a change of heart, but rather, I think Carr's production work shifted from parody coins/prototype designs to his fantasy overstrikes. His fantasy overstrike work is distinguishable from his parody coins and designs. The latter do not strongly mirror actual U.S. coin issues; however, the fantasy coins do. Interestingly, I was able to locate the original 1964-D DCarr thread ATS, and this was the earliest thread I could find that showed the shift in RWB's tone. The 1964-D Peace Dollar was DCarr's first fantasy overstrike. Unless I am missing something, Mr. Carr did not fairly represent those quotes in response to RWB's ANA complaint, and it appears that the comments were intentionally taken out of context.

 

The bottom line is that I do not think it is hypocritical or contradictory to be okay with some of Carr's earlier work while repudiating his later fantasy overstrikes. I hope Carr chimes in and clarifies.

 

Wow. Just wow.

 

You guys are killing me.

 

I took it right off the PCGS website. Do you think it's out of context? Do you think Daniel slanted anything in the ANA complaint? Carr if anything was VERY forthcoming in the thread.

 

mark

[MarkFeld]

Mark, just in case you missed my post above.....So long as the approved design remains legal tender......?

 

Is this not a caveat and is a logic bust to an assumed shift in stated position?

 

John, I believe that RWB was speaking about the 1964-D Peace Dollar overstrikes. What has changed? And what of the other part of RWB's quote?

 

"I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

[coinman_23885]

Wow. Just wow.

 

You guys are killing me.

 

I took it right off the PCGS website. Do you think it's out of context? Do you think Daniel slanted anything in the ANA complaint? Carr if anything was VERY forthcoming in the thread.

 

mark

 

OK, I was wrong. The PCGS search software doesn't work for me, so I used a Google search to spider the PCGS site. I couldn't find your thread, but found the language on DCarr's page divorced from the original thread in a separate search, so I assumed you pulled it from there. I freely admitted in my post to not being able to find the "paradox" thread, but based my comments on (1)the original 1964-D Dan Carr sales thread where RWB was unequivocally opposed and (2)the time line for the production of his fantasy coins. My understanding is that Carr overstruck state quarters with novelty designs and released those before striking/releasing his fantasy overstrikes (like the 1964-D Peace Dollar).

 

Now, I too am curious as to what caused RWB to change his opinion with respect to 1964-D Peace Dollar overstrikes.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Mark, just in case you missed my post above.....So long as the approved design remains legal tender......?

 

Is this not a caveat and is a logic bust to an assumed shift in stated position?

 

John, I believe that RWB was speaking about the 1964-D Peace Dollar overstrikes. What has changed? And what of the other part of RWB's quote?

 

"I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

 

I think you are leaving the last part of the post out, as to where the words originate. Thus my observation, and my logic posit. I could be wrong. I usually am.

[MarkFeld]

Mark, just in case you missed my post above.....So long as the approved design remains legal tender......?

 

Is this not a caveat and is a logic bust to an assumed shift in stated position?

 

John, I believe that RWB was speaking about the 1964-D Peace Dollar overstrikes. What has changed? And what of the other part of RWB's quote?

 

"I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

 

I think you are leaving the last part of the post out, as to where the words originate. Thus my observation, and my logic posit. I could be wrong. I usually am.

 

Please post it if you think it will help - I don't know what you mean and have some coin descriptions to do at the moment - sorry.

[coinman_23885]

Mark, just in case you missed my post above.....So long as the approved design remains legal tender......?

 

Is this not a caveat and is a logic bust to an assumed shift in stated position?

 

John, I believe that RWB was speaking about the 1964-D Peace Dollar overstrikes. What has changed? And what of the other part of RWB's quote?

 

"I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

 

I think you are leaving the last part of the post out, as to where the words originate. Thus my observation, and my logic posit. I could be wrong. I usually am.

 

Please post it if you think it will help - I don't know what you mean and have some coin descriptions to do at the moment - sorry.

 

Do you do write some of the catalog descriptions for Heritage now? (Very neat.) I think John is focusing on the phrase "so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

It is the last words in his post in your link:

 

"This is from a Treasury Dept. Attorney's opinion in the 1940s- so it's just historical".

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Mark, just in case you missed my post above.....So long as the approved design remains legal tender......?

 

Is this not a caveat and is a logic bust to an assumed shift in stated position?

 

John, I believe that RWB was speaking about the 1964-D Peace Dollar overstrikes. What has changed? And what of the other part of RWB's quote?

 

"I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

 

I think you are leaving the last part of the post out, as to where the words originate. Thus my observation, and my logic posit. I could be wrong. I usually am.

 

Please post it if you think it will help - I don't know what you mean and have some coin descriptions to do at the moment - sorry.

 

Do you do write some of the catalog descriptions for Heritage now? (Very neat.) I think John is focusing on the phrase "so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

No. See my answer to Mark.

[MJ]

Wow. Just wow.

 

You guys are killing me.

 

I took it right off the PCGS website. Do you think it's out of context? Do you think Daniel slanted anything in the ANA complaint? Carr if anything was VERY forthcoming in the thread.

 

mark

 

OK, I was wrong. The PCGS search software doesn't work for me, so I used a Google search to spider the PCGS site. I couldn't find your thread, but found the language on DCarr's page divorced from the original thread in a separate search, so I assumed you pulled it from there. I freely admitted in my post to not being able to find the "paradox" thread, but based my comments on (1)the original 1964-D Dan Carr sales thread where RWB was unequivocally opposed and (2)the time line for the production of his fantasy coins. My understanding is that Carr overstruck state quarters with novelty designs and released those before striking/releasing his fantasy overstrikes (like the 1964-D Peace Dollar).

 

Now, I too am curious as to what caused RWB to change his opinion with respect to 1964-D Peace Dollar overstrikes.

 

Thank you.

 

mark

 

 

[coinman_23885]

RWB's entire post:

 

I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender. [This is from a Treasury Dept attorney’s opinion in the 1940s – so it’s just historical.]

 

John, I think RWB may possibly be attributing the last two sentences/paragraph, but the first paragraph clearly is RWB's opinion in support of the pieces.

[MarkFeld]

Mark, just in case you missed my post above.....So long as the approved design remains legal tender......?

 

Is this not a caveat and is a logic bust to an assumed shift in stated position?

 

John, I believe that RWB was speaking about the 1964-D Peace Dollar overstrikes. What has changed? And what of the other part of RWB's quote?

 

"I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

 

I think you are leaving the last part of the post out, as to where the words originate. Thus my observation, and my logic posit. I could be wrong. I usually am.

 

Please post it if you think it will help - I don't know what you mean and have some coin descriptions to do at the moment - sorry.

 

Do you do write some of the catalog descriptions for Heritage now? (Very neat.) I think John is focusing on the phrase "so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

I don't, though I do descriptions for a number of non-auction coin offerings.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

It is the last words in his post in your link:

 

"This is from a Treasury Dept. Attorney's opinion in the 1940s- so it's just historical".

 

 

I'm back and thanks. I don't know what that would have to do with his other part of the post, reading "I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading."

 

 

[dcarr]

Mark, just in case you missed my post above.....So long as the approved design remains legal tender......?

 

Is this not a caveat and is a logic bust to an assumed shift in stated position?

 

John, I believe that RWB was speaking about the 1964-D Peace Dollar overstrikes. What has changed? And what of the other part of RWB's quote?

 

"I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

Here is the full quote from 2010 (prior to my release of any "1964-D" fantasy-date over-strike Peace Dollars) :

I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender. [This is from a Treasury Dept attorney’s opinion in the 1940s – so it’s just historical.]

 

I would be interesting to see that complete Treasury Department Attorney document.

 

Note that the coin pictured in that thread is an early "die pair 2" over-strike piece.

 

I do not know the reason for RWB's change of stance.

It may not be related at all, but the first negative post from RWB that I am aware of relating to anything I was doing came after a post where I disparaged Frankin D Roosevelt by posting a picture of this chart that I later used on a modern Hard Times token:

 

 

 

Or it may have been related to the 2009-DC "proofed" Silver Eagle over-strikes that came out at the same time. For some reason RWB thought the "DC" mark on those pieces was some sort of claim to ownership of the design. But the "DC" was positioned where a mint mark would normally go, and the "AW" obverse and "JM" reverse designer's initials were still there after the over-striking.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

It is the last words in his post in your link:

 

"This is from a Treasury Dept. Attorney's opinion in the 1940s- so it's just historical".

 

 

I'm back and thanks. I don't know what that would have to do with his other part of the post, reading "I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading."

 

 

Context. There were actually 4 bullet points, the supposed existence, the pieces Carr was referring to earlier in the thread, Carr claim in the thread about legality.....intertwined with that is the question etc., and the date(s) of the legal tender the pieces were being struck on. Couple with RWB talent of play on words and context and point is much more logical.

 

Roosevelt Smoosevelt. Note the commentary from others on the thread concerning it is/isn't legal because of the existence at one time of blah blah blah and there is one in timbuktu.

 

What I do know is that Carr ran with a determination that his pieces were legal and made stated same on his website in large caps....LEGAL.

[MJ]

Let's stick to this one post or bullet point. It's not that complicated. No mind reading skills needed

 

"I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

[MJ]

Anyways the entire point of my multiple choice question was to illustrate that this issue is not so black & white. Even the most ardent naysayer changed his stance. There is indeed areas in the HPA open for interpretation. I've have always contended that this is a grey area. My stance is if it's grey I will side with the side pushing the envelope and or the entrepreneur as the deck seems to be stacked against the small businessman.

 

Like the RWB I'm allowed to change my mind as well and I don't need to put it in my signature line.

 

mark

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Let's stick to this one post. It's not that complicated. No mind reading skills needed

 

"I don't believe there's any problem with Daniel Carr's overstruck pieces. He's not making any claim that could be false or misleading.

 

Concerning counterfeits, the key parts were denomination, nationality and design. The date is only incidental, so long as the approved design remains legal tender."

 

His thoughts are in one post. No, lets not stick with his one partial post, as opposed to his entire post that includes quoting someone else, and since his post is a product of responding to all other posts and places his reply in context. It is not complicated. No mind reading skills needed, only eye reading skills and an elementary school level ability to extrapolate connective information in a conversation. While it is appreciated you would like to limit the conversation and limit the use of free speech of other members in order to support you agenda to win, win, win by attempting to deflect the whole point of the RWB post and to continue your silly attempts to belittle persons you have a difference of opinion with and take it personally, it does not change the thrust of the RWB post. Your attempts to limit what he actually posted seems deliberately misleading. In fact, it is misleading.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Anyways the entire point of my multiple choice question was to illustrate that this issue is not so black & white. Even the most ardent naysayer changed his stance. There is indeed areas in the HPA open for interpretation. I've have always contended that this is a grey area. My stance is if it's grey I will side with the side pushing the envelope and or the entrepreneur as the deck seems to be stacked against the small businessman.

 

Like the RWB I'm allowed to change my mind as well and I don't need to put it in my signature line.

 

mark

 

Anyways, the entire point of your post was to attempt to try to make another person appear to be lying and changing his position for other reasons, in my opinion.

 

As to the rest of your thought, I concur that gray ares should be clarified in any law. The way to do that is and bring it to a conclusion is to proceed to adjudication. If a small businessman wants to declare on a website that an endeavor is LEGAL, the businessman certainly can. But, the businessman should expect to be questioned in depth about such a position. Especially when the businessman dis put his signature on it.

 

For these reasons, your stated illustration purpose is unfortunately a failure, and principally because you make the leap of determination and conclusion that a naysayer changed his mind, and like him you want to follow in his footsteps, which would not be logical if in fact he did not change his mind and you simply attempted to interpret the post as you believe, which I don't think is due to a lack of ability to understand. Maybe it is.

 

So, if the post in that thread by Mr. Carr opined that the question was legality and nobody wants to answer it, why do you think he would post on his website that the pieces are....and he did so in caps....LEGAL? That is the second reason your stated purpose of your post fails, because it is black and white that Mr. Carr did declare the pieces LEGAL.

[MJ]

You're a piece of work and need help John. Air ball

City

 

 

Mark

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

You're a piece of work and need help John. Air ball

City

 

 

Mark

 

Shucks. I do what I can. That is just the kind of guy I am.

 

But actually I didn't need help. Your illogical logic posits and convoluted conclusions sort of made it easy. For this I thank you.

 

You didn't really think I was going to not respond to your childish attempt to be snarky and belittling again did you?

You don't learn very quickly. I thought you already figured it out.

[physics-fan3.14]

Well, I can't speak for the thought processes that Roger has (maybe he can explain himself, maybe we can get his wife to).... but, people are allowed to change their minds, aren't they? The thread y'all are arguing about was 6 years ago. I certainly know that I have evolved in my thinking, learned new facts, seen new evidence, and grown/changed as a person in the past 6 years.

[dcarr]

I think it would be useful to examine these five scenarios and think about the HPA ramifications for each one. Assume that none of these five have "COPY" marked on them, and all are marketed with full disclosure.

 

1) A genuine original coin has one date digit carved to make it look like a fantasy date. No other changes to the rest of the original coin are made.

 

2) A genuine coin is tooled and/or engraved over the whole surface to strengthen missing details and/or to impart a different surface finish to the metal. The apparent date and mint mark is not changed.

 

3) A genuine coin is tooled and/or engraved over the whole surface to strengthen missing details and/or to impart a different surface finish to the metal. As part of this process, the apparent date is changed to a fantasy date.

 

4) A genuine coin is over-struck with dies to strengthen missing details and/or to impart a different surface finish to the metal. The apparent design type, date, and mint mark is not changed.

 

5) A genuine coin is over-struck with dies to impart a fantasy date. The apparent design type is not changed.

 

 

Which of these five, if any, violate the HPA and why ?

 

If #2 is allowed, then why would #4 be any different, considering that the final result is no different ?

 

And if #4 is ok, then #5 should be LESS of a problem than #4 because the fantasy date helps indicate that something has been done to the coin.

 

 

Nobody wants take this on (see above) ?