Back to the Hobby Protection Act – Please.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

You are also incorrect as to what Mr. coinman advocates. It certainly is not an approach to take action based on non-authoritative interpretation. He is and has and continues to advocate an authoritative solution, by encouraging the producer of the pieces to seek adjudiaction. The cost for the filing fee to do so is minor for Mr. Carr, $4-500. A bargain.

 

He advocated both that and discussion. This is to address the discussion approach. I've already responded to why I do not believe his authoritative approach is advisable is a previous post.

 

No, he did not. You are sliding, now. You did not state why his authoritative approach, which is advocating adjudication of the issues...as he has always stated.....is not advisable. Is it because the authoritative approach (adjudication) would determine the LEGALITY or ILLEGALITY of the pieces and the activities of Mr. Carr? If so, then logically, you don't want an authoritative approach. You want what?

[MJ]

You have some of the most knowledgeable and well heeled collectors that collect Carr's products. You would be amazed at the roster. Guys with seven figure single coins in their collections. Guys that have forgot more then most of us will ever know.

 

You have guys that enjoy collecting these fantasy pieces right along with their regular US coin discipline because it's fun and a diversion and it keeps things interesting and fresh.

 

You have entry level collectors who have a higher percentage of their collection in Carr pieces that will one day probably enter into the more mainstream US coin market in earnest.

 

All of these collectors have one thing in common. They thoroughly enjoy adding Carr pieces to their holdings. His pieces tend to make you smile. This is GREAT for the hobby. His releases are highly antipated and sell out each and everytime. They do extremely well in the secondary market which bodes well as mores collectors are added. Dan Carr has done more good for this hobby the past ten years then just about anybody I know. His followers come from all walks of life and range from newbies to the one percenters.

 

You all enjoy your cocktails and lawbooks and I'll try my best to enjoy this hobby my way. I love tokens, medals, World coins, US Coins and Carr Fantasy pieces thank you very much.

 

mark

 

Mark:

 

Would you enjoy your Carr "coins" any less if they had the word "copy" on them?

 

Mark

 

PS: It really does seem odd addressing a post to "Mark" and then signing it "Mark." Where I grew up, "Mark" was an uncommon name. But here we have at least 3 of us posting...

 

Mark, I think Mark would enjoy them less, without the word copy on them. But let's see what Mark says. OK, Mark?

 

Mark

 

Mark 1 mark me down for a no. I would not buy them if they were marked copy. Mark 2 knows Mark 3 all to well.

 

Mark

[mark]

Mark my words--Mark knew Mark's opinion about marking the "coins."

 

A bit more seriously, I think Mark's (MJ) comment that he would not buy the "coins" if they said "copy" on them might explain why DCarr does not put the word "copy" on them. Not that Mark (MJ) is the entire market, but to the extent he is representative, the demand for the "coins" would be lower, to the detriment of sales.

 

Mark

[MarkFeld]

Mark my words--Mark knew Mark's opinion about marking the "coins."

 

A bit more seriously, I think Mark's (MJ) comment that he would not buy the "coins" if they said "copy" on them might explain why DCarr does not put the word "copy" on them. Not that Mark (MJ) is the entire market, but to the extent he is representative, the demand for the "coins" would be lower, to the detriment of sales.

 

Mark

 

That makes sense to me. I suppose it makes the "over strikes" seem more like the real thing. And let's face it, as such, they're far less common than the alternatives marked "COPY".

[physics-fan3.14]

Where's all the outrage for gold plated state quarters that are not marked "not solid gold"? These pieces are a much bigger threat to some unknowledgeable collector losing big money on a scam sale than any Carr overstrike

 

My criticism isn't limited to Carr alone, and there are a number of other pieces that I have problems with. Carr is merely more brazen IMHO.

 

Carr has also made the choice to post openly on the forums. He thus invites argument. As far as I know, none of the shucksters plating coins, or openly doctoring coins, or any of the Chinese counterfeiters, are posting on numismatic forums. In my book, all of them are equally illegal, equally harmful, and equally responsible.

 

Dcarr just happens to be the only one responding - so he is the one we focus on responding to.

 

Must this literally turn into a federal case to stop him?

 

Yes.

 

You and I both know that this is really the only way this ends.

[Nutmeg Coin]

Most of the laws aren't being enforced unless you have the big bucks to get them to be so or the political connections. Copyright laws especially seem ignored as the line between sharing for educational and entertainment vs. commercial use has been blurred.

[Zoins]

You are also incorrect as to what Mr. coinman advocates. It certainly is not an approach to take action based on non-authoritative interpretation. He is and has and continues to advocate an authoritative solution, by encouraging the producer of the pieces to seek adjudiaction. The cost for the filing fee to do so is minor for Mr. Carr, $4-500. A bargain.

 

He advocated both that and discussion. This is to address the discussion approach. I've already responded to why I do not believe his authoritative approach is advisable is a previous post.

 

No, he did not.

 

Incorrect. Please see:

 

Coinman's discussion approach: Post #9612214

Coinman's authoritative approach: Post #9606893

 

You did not state why his authoritative approach, which is advocating adjudication of the issues...as he has always stated.....is not advisable.

 

Incorrect. Please see:

 

My responses to Coinman's authoritative approach: Posts #9607010, #9607030, #9607041

 

then logically, you don't want an authoritative approach.

 

Incorrect. Please see:

 

My suggestion for an authoritative approach: Posts #9606795, #9611644

[CascadeChris]

Will someone please lock this 34 page merry-go-round of the same rehashed bloviated information. Don't you guys have something better to do. This isn't even a Carr thread and was started because you few ad nauseam blovitors ruined the first one and now this one too. I come back hours later and 5 more pages of the same drivel. Sheesh

[MarkFeld]

Will someone please lock this 34 page merry-go-round of the same rehashed bloviated information. Don't you guys have something better to do. This isn't even a Carr thread and was started because you few ad nauseam blovitors ruined the first one and now this one too. I come back hours later and 5 more pages of the same drivel. Sheesh

 

If you feel that way, why did you come back? Were you unable to get a good feel for the thread's content from just the first 29 pages?

[CascadeChris]

I guess I'm a glutton for punishment . I didn't really follow the first 29 pages aside from the occasional page read hoping for something new I guess. You're really the only one with a somewhat negative view on these pieces that I respect Mark because you see them for what they are. I don't count you as one of "them" obviously.

[coinman_23885]

I guess I'm a glutton for punishment . I didn't really follow the first 29 pages aside from the occasional page read hoping for something new I guess. You're really the only one with a somewhat negative view on these pieces that I respect Mark because you see them for what they are. I don't count you as one of "them" obviously.

 

That's what I suspected. Many (but not all) of his supporters ignore the inconvenient or just aren't paying attention.

[CascadeChris]

Oh please. I've heard the same babble before again and again and again. And yeah, it's you guys who ignore... The obvious... I'm not getting caught up in this black hole of inane perpetuity though

[coinman_23885]

Oh please. I've heard the same babble before again and again and again. And yeah, it's you guys who ignore... The obvious... I'm not getting caught up in this black hole of inane perpetuity though

 

Why are you still here then?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

You are also incorrect as to what Mr. coinman advocates. It certainly is not an approach to take action based on non-authoritative interpretation. He is and has and continues to advocate an authoritative solution, by encouraging the producer of the pieces to seek adjudiaction. The cost for the filing fee to do so is minor for Mr. Carr, $4-500. A bargain.

 

He advocated both that and discussion. This is to address the discussion approach. I've already responded to why I do not believe his authoritative approach is advisable is a previous post.

 

No, he did not.

 

Incorrect. Please see:

 

Coinman's discussion approach: Post #9612214

Coinman's authoritative approach: Post #9606893

 

You did not state why his authoritative approach, which is advocating adjudication of the issues...as he has always stated.....is not advisable.

 

Incorrect. Please see:

 

My responses to Coinman's authoritative approach: Posts #9607010, #9607030, #9607041

 

then logically, you don't want an authoritative approach.

 

Incorrect. Please see:

 

My suggestion for an authoritative approach: Posts #9606795, #9611644

 

Unfortunately, the interpretation you have is quite different from mine.

 

However, I am more interested in why you choose to not elaborate on the questions I have presented to you in the previous posts to you. The questions are very basic really, when reviewed logically.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Will someone please lock this 34 page merry-go-round of the same rehashed bloviated information. Don't you guys have something better to do. This isn't even a Carr thread and was started because you few ad nauseam blovitors ruined the first one and now this one too. I come back hours later and 5 more pages of the same drivel. Sheesh

 

before it is locked per your demand, could you take a few moments and answer the various questions I have asked you directly in the previous posts, instead of misdirecting and avoiding stating a clear and precise position.

 

You can start with the question I asked Mr. Feld, re. what he would reply to an email about value of a Moonlight Mint piece, while keeping in mind the wording on the Moonlight Mint website, that I posted. Could you maybe do this before you get your wish?

 

Then you can follow with what exactly do you want to see happen, other than what you have stated already, which is actually nothing.

 

Then we can move on to what your definition of LEGAL is in re. to the conversation in this thread.

 

When you accomplish these requested tasks, we can move on to the remaining 3 questions I asked of you.

 

I also don't think ad nauseam bloviators means what you think it means, or when it is appropriate to use, and how to conjugate the Latin verb ( and spell). that was a little mean spirited. I apologize. You must admit though, you do enjoy the drama queen approach.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I guess I'm a glutton for punishment . I didn't really follow the first 29 pages aside from the occasional page read hoping for something new I guess. You're really the only one with a somewhat negative view on these pieces that I respect Mark because you see them for what they are. I don't count you as one of "them" obviously.

 

Please describe what Mr. Feld sees the pieces for what they are, that those with a somewhat negative view of the pieces don't see. In simpler terms what makes Mr. Feld:

 

"Really The Only One"

 

Who is "them" exactly, and why are they "them"? How are "them" obvious and how do we identify "them"?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Oh please. I've heard the same babble before again and again and again. And yeah, it's you guys who ignore... The obvious... I'm not getting caught up in this black hole of inane perpetuity though

 

A possible way out of the hole, and a stopgap to your misdirection, is answering the questions I have asked you specifically. If you can do so with clear concise logic and not to much drama queen stuff, it will be helpful to the general discussion.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

That is very interesting, to me. Your position would be that you would treat a question about the piece as you would any other numismatic item, and focus on the perceived or actual market value range.

 

If your thoughts are that the piece is counterfeit in your opinion, as you have mentioned, it does not seem logical that you would address the value of the piece.

 

NGC, ATS and HA will all provide values for certain counterfeits. NGC and ATS will slab them (as problem free) and HA will sell them, so I'm not sure why Mark's response would be surprising.

 

Furthermore, while NGC, ATS and HA will deal in certain counterfeits, Dan's pieces haven't even been established as being counterfeit by any government agency so suggest so is speculation.

 

I see.

 

Then logically, your position is that since the pieces have been declared LEGAL on the website and the reasons stated as to why they are LEGAL are listed on the website, then the pieces are LEGAL, because they are declared to be, and the support of this logic is that because there is absence of any government agency making a declaration of not LEGAL, then the pieces are LEGAL.

 

If you actually read my posts, you will see I suggest people take this up with the proper decision making authorities.

 

This logic is further supported because TPGs are involved in counterfeits. Have I got that right?

 

Actually, no. There's no reason to support non-counterfeits with counterfeits. This was only brought up to help you be aware of how the industry treats certain counterfeits in your reasoning.

 

I actually did read your posts. I assume you accurately read mine, but maybe not (as an example, I stated "interested" not "surprised", but that is a minor issue and not important, except that words mean something). You are suggesting persons take "this" up with the proper decision making authorities. Why? The pieces are declared LEGAL on the website as are the reasons given as to why the pieces are LEGAL. You logically agree, since you have not taken "this" up with the proper decision making authorities. I assume that if you had, you would have shared the results.

 

As to the TPG part of your answer, you state that there is no reason to support non-counterfeits with counterfeits, and the only reason you brought it up is to educate others about how the industry treats certain counterfeits. Then why bring it up at all? It is your opinion the pieces are not counterfeit, so why opine concerning the state of the industry as it applies to counterfeits via TPG?? Your answer was in response to my presentation of a question to Mr. Feld concerning what his answer would be to someone making an inquiry about value. You interject that TPGs price counterfeits, and then when you are given a logic posit of your own making, you declare that there is no reason to support counterfeits with non-counterfeits. Illogical logic, in my opinion.

 

Mr. Cascade, maybe you can start with the questions in this post.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

then your position must be the pieces are LEGAL.

 

Incorrect. I said there are disagreements. As long as there are disagreements by non-authoritative persons, an opinion from an authority is useful.

 

WHAT makes the pieces LEGAL?

 

One disagreement is from Dan who has posted his reasoning on this thread.

 

I see. Then his disagreement(opinion) makes the pieces LEGAL, but the disagreement(opinion) of Mr. coinman and others does not make it illegal?

 

Did you carefully read the question?

 

Again:

 

WHAT makes the pieces LEGAL?

Are you stating that the disagreement(opinion) of Mr. Carr makes the pieces and his activity LEGAL?

 

Mr. Cascade, we can then move on to the questions in this string of posts.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

then your position must be the pieces are LEGAL.

 

Incorrect. I said there are disagreements. As long as there are disagreements by non-authoritative persons, an opinion from an authority is useful.

 

WHAT makes the pieces LEGAL?

 

One disagreement is from Dan who has posted his reasoning on this thread.

 

I stand corrected. I am incorrect that you believe the pieces are LEGAL.

 

Your actual position is that you state there are disagreements, and as longg as there are disagreements by non-athoritative persons than an opinion from an authority is useful, meaning you believe that LEGAL adjudication will be useful in this matter. Accordingly, since there are disagreements, and there is no adjudication, then there remains a question of the status of LEGALITY concerning the pieces and the activities of Mr. Carr. Is that a correct statement of your position?

 

Lastly, Mr. Cascade, we can move on to the questions in this post.

[nk1nk]

This sounds more like an interrogation than a discussion. Name calling is not beneath me.

Mr McK is a complete nut job

[Hard Times]

Oh please. I've heard the same babble before again and again and again. And yeah, it's you guys who ignore... The obvious... I'm not getting caught up in this black hole of inane perpetuity though

 

 

Yet another poster who doesn't get everyone to agree with their view that then resorts to fallback nonsense to justify their own view.

 

Sheesh

 

[Zoins]

You are also incorrect as to what Mr. coinman advocates. It certainly is not an approach to take action based on non-authoritative interpretation. He is and has and continues to advocate an authoritative solution, by encouraging the producer of the pieces to seek adjudiaction. The cost for the filing fee to do so is minor for Mr. Carr, $4-500. A bargain.

 

He advocated both that and discussion. This is to address the discussion approach. I've already responded to why I do not believe his authoritative approach is advisable is a previous post.

 

No, he did not.

 

Incorrect. Please see:

 

Coinman's discussion approach: Post #9612214

Coinman's authoritative approach: Post #9606893

 

You did not state why his authoritative approach, which is advocating adjudication of the issues...as he has always stated.....is not advisable.

 

Incorrect. Please see:

 

My responses to Coinman's authoritative approach: Posts #9607010, #9607030, #9607041

 

then logically, you don't want an authoritative approach.

 

Incorrect. Please see:

 

My suggestion for an authoritative approach: Posts #9606795, #9611644

 

Unfortunately, the interpretation you have is quite different from mine.

 

Please explain your interpretation of the above. The items here seem fairly straight-forward to me so I'm curious to hear your interpretation.

 

However, I am more interested in why you choose to not elaborate on the questions I have presented to you in the previous posts to you. The questions are very basic really, when reviewed logically.

 

I think we need some basic agreement on the things above. This is important because you seem to make a lot of assumptions about what I believe which turn out to be incorrect. Getting agreement on some baselines is important so we are more on the same page.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

You are also incorrect as to what Mr. coinman advocates. It certainly is not an approach to take action based on non-authoritative interpretation. He is and has and continues to advocate an authoritative solution, by encouraging the producer of the pieces to seek adjudiaction. The cost for the filing fee to do so is minor for Mr. Carr, $4-500. A bargain.

 

He advocated both that and discussion. This is to address the discussion approach. I've already responded to why I do not believe his authoritative approach is advisable is a previous post.

 

No, he did not.

 

Incorrect. Please see:

 

Coinman's discussion approach: Post #9612214

Coinman's authoritative approach: Post #9606893

 

You did not state why his authoritative approach, which is advocating adjudication of the issues...as he has always stated.....is not advisable.

 

Incorrect. Please see:

 

My responses to Coinman's authoritative approach: Posts #9607010, #9607030, #9607041

 

then logically, you don't want an authoritative approach.

 

Incorrect. Please see:

 

My suggestion for an authoritative approach: Posts #9606795, #9611644

 

Unfortunately, the interpretation you have is quite different from mine.

 

Please explain your interpretation of the above. The items here seem fairly straight-forward to me so I'm curious to hear your interpretation.

 

However, I am more interested in why you choose to not elaborate on the questions I have presented to you in the previous posts to you. The questions are very basic really, when reviewed logically.

 

I think we need some basic agreement on the things above. This is important because you seem to make a lot of assumptions about what I believe which turn out to be incorrect. Getting agreement on some baselines is important so we are more on the same page.

 

I will set aside my first inclination that this is again misdirection.

 

Answering the questions asked, if you care to,in a clear precise and logical manner will help in achieving what you would like to accomplish. Absent answers, a person must logically ask questions based on what the person has already stated. It is not assumptions as much as it is a lack of clarity and what appears to be misdirection on your part.

 

I do note that you have definitely made assumptions about what other members have posted, and done so in a very discourteous manner.

 

You of course do not need to answer anything at all or make any comments at all.

 

I am sure you can glean that your posts and logic posits are somewhat confusing, though. Then again, we are all creatures of non-objectivity to some extent.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I wish you no ill, as hard as that is for you to grasp. ...

 

Ain't that the truth !

 

Be patient. The only subject exhausted was the use by Mr. Carr of the word "LEGAL".

 

If the end game for you is Truth, it has not quite been achieved at this time.

 

I think you do (wish ill). I think you also wish ill on hobo nickel carvers and collectors because if you had your way there wouldn't be any.

 

Your posts frequently have a subtle passive-aggressive suggestion that something nefarious is always going on. I haven't figured out if you actually believe that, or you are just playing a game (I think maybe the latter). But either way, it is wacky

 

Thank you for your psychoanalysis Mr. Carr. A conversation usually ends in such attempts at belittlement and name calling by a participant that can not logically defend their position. You feel what you feel. It does not change the fact that your endeavors have not been adjudicated. You choose not to do so. You do not want to consider the long term aspects of your actions, including others that will attempt to follow suit. You do not grasp the long term issues for the hobby. Your psychoanalysis thoughts do not alter the issues, nor is it effective in attempting to cower or shame or silence me. It is silly to waste your time doing so. Your talents are evident as is your mechanical engineering background. That is where you should continue to concentrate your efforts. There is much you can contribute to the hobby legally.

 

I think this sums you up quite well Mcknowitall

 

Projection:

 

Projection is the misattribution of a person’s undesired thoughts, feelings or impulses onto another person who does not have those thoughts, feelings or impulses. Projection is used especially when the thoughts are considered unacceptable for the person to express, or they feel completely ill at ease with having them. For example, a spouse may be angry at their significant other for not listening, when in fact it is the angry spouse who does not listen. Projection is often the result of a lack of insight and acknowledgement of one’s own motivations and feelings.

 

Your very first post in this Thread, Mr. Cascade.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

If you struck them with a produced date, everyone would agree it was criminal - why does changing a single digit (but making a coin that, for all intents and purposes, is *exactly* the same as an official release) make it OK?

 

The reasoning is due to the language of the Hobby Protection Act. The HPA requires the imitation numismatic item to purport to be an original numismatic item. In the case of a produced date, an original numismatic item exists. In the case of a fantasy date, an original numismatic item does not exist. That's just from the text of the law quoted in the OP.

 

But that's based on your personal interpretation regarding what constitutes "an original numismatic item". A number of others believe that simply changing/altering the date to one which supposedly doesn't exist doesn't preclude the item from representing "an original numismatic item". In other words, if the coin represents a US Peace Dollar, regardless of the date, it represents an original numismatic item.

 

True, but having different interpretations of US law is a natural consequence of our system. When differences in interpretation arise, it needs to be settled in the courts by the judiciary. The decisions can then be made part of our legal system via case law. I don't think this has happened here yet, but that is how the US legal system would have this resolved.

 

Your second and third posts in this thread, Mr. Zoins.

 

Full disclosure: edited to change Mr. Cascade to Mr. Zoins.

[MJ]

Are some of you on a anti- membership drive? Trying to keep this place all to yourselves? There are like 12 active posters here and you want to drive half of these posters away and discourage new ones from engaging. Mr Knowitall is like a one man haranguing wrecking crew. Suggestion to the new guys and anyone who wants to keep their sanity----stop replying to him.

 

mark

 

 

[comicdonna]

I think this thread could be a little more civil. For the record, I think the fantasy coins are cool. I just would like to see them properly marked as copy. I also think advertising them as legal is misleading.

[coinman_23885]

Are some of you on a anti- membership drive? Trying to keep this place all to yourselves? There are like 12 active posters here and you want to drive half of these posters away and discourage new ones from engaging. Mr Knowitall is like a one man haranguing wrecking crew. Suggestion to the new guys and anyone who wants to keep their sanity----stop replying to him.

 

mark

 

 

This place was nicknamed Sleepy Hollow long before DCarr threads started popping up with frequency. Other factors include (1) the economy, (2) horrible coin market, and (3) larger traffic present at other forums (e.g. PCGS where the traffic has also slowed from levels of even 2-3 years ago).

[Afterword]

I think you may have missed the point - unless you are saying it cannot get any worse, so there is no reason to be cordial.