1964 Morgan

[dcarr]

...A knowledgeable collector that knows what the pieces are (counterfeit) as you state, and that the pieces have not been adjudicated and still chooses to buy the item, is not deserving of sympathy. The knowledgeable collector should not be supporting an activity that has not been adjudicated.

 

In some societies (dictatorships, communism, etc), everything is illegal unless explicitly allowed by the government. However, we live in a "free" country where everything is legal unless it is explicitly outlawed.

 

"Hobo" nickels have not been "adjudicated". But there is no law explicitly outlawing the practice of making or collecting them. So, by default, they are legal so long as there is no fraudulent activity.

 

...The Freedom Tower silver dollar marketed by NCM: ...

Mr. Carr was commissioned to design the artwork for the Freedom Tower piece, and proudly declares this on his website. He also declares on the same website he does not endorse the piece.

 

I regret that Mr. Carr won't endorse that which he designed, under paid commission. If he could only do the same with the pieces he has produced, until the pieces and his endeavors are adjudicated, that may be helpful to all the knowledgeable collectors you have sympathy for.

 

This is a gross mischaracterization.

I posted the facts about it on my web page. There is no "pride" involved, only facts. I was simply hired to do some graphic design for a "Freedom Tower" medal. That part I endorse. I did not participate in the additions of certain wording on them, or the sculpting, engraving, striking, or marketing of the pieces. That part I do not endorse.

[CaptHenway]

As I have said many times, these type pieces will harm people down the road, not today.

 

In my years working for Coin World, for ANACS and in coin shops I have encountered many people who have absolutely no clue as to what it is that they have inherited or found. These are the people at risk of losing a substantial amount of money trying to find out that what they have is only an unmarked replica.

 

I do not see how enforcing an existing law is "punishing" you.

 

TD

 

How does one go about "losing a substantial amount of money trying to find out that what they have is only an unmarked replica" ?

 

The information is readily available. A little internet searching will produce results for very little (if any) cost.

 

We've all had items that we had no idea what the value was. Many of us probably searched the internet and were able to find out.

 

As I have previously stated, it is one thing to find or be given an item and hope that it is worth a lot of money.

It is all together a different thing to have the knowledge and motivation to actually spend a lot of money for an item.

 

 

At ANACS we had somebody fly in with a cast replica they were afraid to put in the mail.

 

Another time somebody spent $500 in postage mailing us something they thought was worth half a million dollars.

 

Not everybody is on the internet. It isn't required of people. Following the law is.

[coinman_23885]

...A knowledgeable collector that knows what the pieces are (counterfeit) as you state, and that the pieces have not been adjudicated and still chooses to buy the item, is not deserving of sympathy. The knowledgeable collector should not be supporting an activity that has not been adjudicated.

 

In some societies (dictatorships, communism, etc), everything is illegal unless explicitly allowed by the government. However, we live in a "free" country where everything is legal unless it is explicitly outlawed.

 

Congress has explicitly done so through the enactment of 18 U.S.C. 485-489, and the Hobby Protection Act. The FTC (using its powers delegated by Congress) has also ruled that fantasy coins must carry the inscription of "COPY" or the pieces are in violation of the HPA. This really isn't that complicated.

 

I also find it ironic that you mention authoritarian regimes. One of the key aspects of those regimes is the break down of the rule of law, and the idea that certain people are above the law. It is ironic that some of your supporters seem to adopt that logic to you finding certain laws "unworthy of support" and some apparently believe that any law which impinges on your ability to do whatever you want is invalid. You also seem to think that you must have a special invitation (in the form of a court order) to comply with the HPA and other federal laws. What you describe (pure anarchy and the break down of the rule of law itself) is worse in some regards than the political systems you complain of.

 

This is a gross mischaracterization.

I posted the facts about it on my web page. There is no "pride" involved, only facts. I was simply hired to do some graphic design for a "Freedom Tower" medal. That part I endorse. I did not participate in the additions of certain wording on them, or the sculpting, engraving, striking, or marketing of the pieces. That part I do not endorse.

 

So when the FTC went after the minter of those pieces, it also addressed the design and inscriptions which it found to be in violation of the HPA. I inquired in one of the other threads concerning your involvement of certain inscriptions, yet you ignored the questions. I can read between the lines. It appears that you may have already had the FTC slam one of your designs (that was adjudicated upon through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) so you out do yourself with newer creations that are even more egregious than the previous ones. That sounds like solid logic to me. I am sure the FTC would be pleased to learn that you are at it again and have continually ignored its rulings (in my opinion).

[dcarr]

As I have said many times, these type pieces will harm people down the road, not today.

 

In my years working for Coin World, for ANACS and in coin shops I have encountered many people who have absolutely no clue as to what it is that they have inherited or found. These are the people at risk of losing a substantial amount of money trying to find out that what they have is only an unmarked replica.

 

I do not see how enforcing an existing law is "punishing" you.

 

TD

 

How does one go about "losing a substantial amount of money trying to find out that what they have is only an unmarked replica" ?

 

The information is readily available. A little internet searching will produce results for very little (if any) cost.

 

We've all had items that we had no idea what the value was. Many of us probably searched the internet and were able to find out.

 

As I have previously stated, it is one thing to find or be given an item and hope that it is worth a lot of money.

It is all together a different thing to have the knowledge and motivation to actually spend a lot of money for an item.

 

 

At ANACS we had somebody fly in with a cast replica they were afraid to put in the mail.

 

Another time somebody spent $500 in postage mailing us something they thought was worth half a million dollars.

 

Not everybody is on the internet. It isn't required of people. Following the law is.

 

Anybody can go to the library (and have someone help them look up something).

 

When was the last time you worked at ANACS and when did these event occur ? I don't think there was much of an internet at the time. Probably no email for sending pictures either.

 

The sort of thing you describe occurs FAR more often with polished genuine coins sold as "gem BU" and the like.

 

[dcarr]

...A knowledgeable collector that knows what the pieces are (counterfeit) as you state, and that the pieces have not been adjudicated and still chooses to buy the item, is not deserving of sympathy. The knowledgeable collector should not be supporting an activity that has not been adjudicated.

 

In some societies (dictatorships, communism, etc), everything is illegal unless explicitly allowed by the government. However, we live in a "free" country where everything is legal unless it is explicitly outlawed.

 

Congress has explicitly done so through the enactment of 18 U.S.C. 485-489, and the Hobby Protection Act. The FTC (using its powers delegated by Congress) has also ruled that fantasy coins must carry the inscription of "COPY" or the pieces are in violation of the HPA. This really isn't that complicated.

 

The "Fantasy Coins" that the FTC referred to were not over-strikes, and they were deceptively marketed. It isn't that hard to see the difference.

 

None of the laws you cited specifically prohibit non-fraudulent alterations to existing coins.

 

I also find it ironic that you mention authoritarian regimes. One of the key aspects of those regimes is the break down of the rule of law, and the idea that certain people are above the law. It is ironic that some of your supporters seem to adopt that logic to you finding certain laws "unworthy of support" and some apparently believe that any law which impinges on your ability to do whatever you want is invalid. You also seem to think that you must have a special invitation (in the form of a court order) to comply with the HPA and other federal laws. What you describe (pure anarchy and the break down of the rule of law itself) is worse in some regards than the political systems you complain of.

 

What political systems have I "complained" of ?

I have not violated any laws, so your commentary above is entirely inapplicable.

 

This is a gross mischaracterization.

I posted the facts about it on my web page. There is no "pride" involved, only facts. I was simply hired to do some graphic design for a "Freedom Tower" medal. That part I endorse. I did not participate in the additions of certain wording on them, or the sculpting, engraving, striking, or marketing of the pieces. That part I do not endorse.

 

So when the FTC went after the minter of those pieces, it also addressed the design and inscriptions which it found to be in violation of the HPA. I inquired in one of the other threads concerning your involvement of certain inscriptions, yet you ignored the questions. I can read between the lines. It appears that you may have already had the FTC slam one of your designs (that was adjudicated upon through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) so you out do yourself with newer creations that are even more egregious than the previous ones. That sounds like solid logic to me. I am sure the FTC would be pleased to learn that you are at it again and have continually ignored its rulings (in my opinion).

 

You are wrong again, on multiple counts.

First off, the FTC did not go after the "minter" of the Freedom Tower pieces. They were minted by Sunshine Minting. Sunshine Minting was never mentioned. The government brought action against the marketer of the coins (National Collectors Mint) because of their deceptive marketing approach.

Regardless, your contention that a design is deemed illegal because it has "In God We Trust" on it is ridiculous. That phrase is not owned or restricted by anyone. What if a foreign country put it on one of their coins, or a bus company put it on their tokens, is that coin/token suddenly illegal ? Of course not.

 

Personally I don't think the motto is necessary on US coins. But think of the public outrage that would arise if, for example, a private bus company was told that it had to remove "In God We Trust" from their tokens.

 

[coinman_23885]

Regardless, your contention that a design is deemed illegal because it has "In God We Trust" on it is ridiculous. That phrase is not owned or restricted by anyone.

 

That's not my opinion. That's the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which had the final say legally (and it was more than the motto IIRC). I don't make the law or write judicial opinions. I merely point them out when on point and relevant to the discussion. Ditto for the appeals court rulings cited in other threads finding coins overstruck over genuine coins to be counterfeits. That portion of the ruling had nothing to do with intent. While the 9-11 coins had marketing issues as well, the opinion clearly found the coin design and inscriptions to be violations of the Hobby Protection Act. You can try to ignore that all you want, but it doesn't change reality.

 

As for your contention that the "fantasy coins" the FTC was referring to anything other than your work, you seem to miss the citations in the discussion to the comments people made about your work (although not in name reference to fantasy overstrikes was made).

 

Anybody can go to the library (and have someone help them look up something).

 

Anybody who can afford a surplus Denver Mint press can afford a competent attorney to seek an adjudication before striking coins that push legal boundaries (at best). I guess people here should show you the same callous indifference for not doing your homework if an adjudication were ever to occur against your works.

[dcarr]

Regardless, your contention that a design is deemed illegal because it has "In God We Trust" on it is ridiculous. That phrase is not owned or restricted by anyone.

 

That's not my opinion. That's the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which had the final say legally (and it was more than the motto IIRC). I don't make the law or write judicial opinions. I merely point them out when on point and relevant to the discussion. Ditto for the appeals court rulings cited in other threads finding coins overstruck over genuine coins to be counterfeits. That portion of the ruling had nothing to do with intent. While the 9-11 coins had marketing issues as well, the opinion clearly found the coin design and inscriptions to be violations of the Hobby Protection Act. You can try to ignore that all you want, but it doesn't change reality.

 

Was it the intent of Congress to ban the use of "In God We Trust" on private mint tokens, medals, and foreign coins ? Certainly not. Any competent attorney would be entirely successful arguing that point.

 

The over-struck coins in the court proceedings you cited above were produced for purposes of deception. They were ordinary Roosevelt dimes over-struck as "1955"-dated coins (which had a premium value in the market at the time). The defendants then intentionally sold those "1955" pieces as genuine original 1955-dated dimes.

 

The two situations are completely different, but you don't want to see that.

 

As for your contention that the "fantasy coins" the FTC was referring to anything other than your work, you seem to miss the citations in the discussion to the comments people made about your work (although not in name reference to fantasy overstrikes was made).

 

The FTC comments about "fantasy coins" cited one case, and that case did not involve over-striking, but did involve fraudulent and intentional misrepresentation of the pieces.

 

Anybody can go to the library (and have someone help them look up something).

 

Anybody who can afford a surplus Denver Mint press can afford a competent attorney to seek an adjudication before striking coins that push legal boundaries (at best). I guess people here should show you the same callous indifference for not doing your homework if an adjudication were ever to occur against your works.

 

Has any "hobo" nickel carver ever had their work "adjudicated" ?

Not that I know of. And I don't know of anyone (except perhaps you or Mr. McKnowitall) who thinks that it is necessary.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

...A knowledgeable collector that knows what the pieces are (counterfeit) as you state, and that the pieces have not been adjudicated and still chooses to buy the item, is not deserving of sympathy. The knowledgeable collector should not be supporting an activity that has not been adjudicated.

 

In some societies (dictatorships, communism, etc), everything is illegal unless explicitly allowed by the government. However, we live in a "free" country where everything is legal unless it is explicitly outlawed.

 

"Hobo" nickels have not been "adjudicated". But there is no law explicitly outlawing the practice of making or collecting them. So, by default, they are legal so long as there is no fraudulent activity.

 

...The Freedom Tower silver dollar marketed by NCM: ...

Mr. Carr was commissioned to design the artwork for the Freedom Tower piece, and proudly declares this on his website. He also declares on the same website he does not endorse the piece.

 

I regret that Mr. Carr won't endorse that which he designed, under paid commission. If he could only do the same with the pieces he has produced, until the pieces and his endeavors are adjudicated, that may be helpful to all the knowledgeable collectors you have sympathy for.

 

This is a gross mischaracterization.

I posted the facts about it on my web page. There is no "pride" involved, only facts. I was simply hired to do some graphic design for a "Freedom Tower" medal. That part I endorse. I did not participate in the additions of certain wording on them, or the sculpting, engraving, striking, or marketing of the pieces. That part I do not endorse.

 

As to your first answering paragraph, Mr. Feld raised the issue. I simply do not agree with being sympathetic toward knowledgeable collectors that support activities that have not been adjudicated, especially when the activity is designed to walk the edge of propriety of existing laws and the the person engaged in the activity knows this. Hobo nickels should not be supported either. I would also do some research about just that subject. You may be surprised. As to your professorial diatribe concerning Democracy, I thank you. It establishes that you are aware we have laws and the intended consequences of not complying with same.

 

As to your second answering paragraph, what is a gross wrongful characterization?

 

It is on your website. You stated same. Of course you were proud. You were letting the reader know of your skills and that the level of same was desired by NCM. (I was for it before I was against it...or in the alternative, I didn't throw the bullet in the fire....Fat Albert). You were PAID. You knew what and who was involved. You know the controversy, and that it still exists, yet you leave your comments up on your website. Why? To tell the truth? You should be apologizing... Simply hired. Sheesh! How many times has a Judge heard that one? You endorse only the Freedom Tower. so that makes it all OK, I guess.

 

Why are you so touchy about this? You were involved, were you not? You are proud of the work you did, were you not? If not, it would not be part of the mini-resume on your website.

 

I will let you share which website I am referring to. I assume you are proud to do so.

 

Don't take it down or change it now, like you quietly did with the word "LEGAL", assuming nobody would notice, and substituting more misleading blarney in place of it.

[dcarr]

...A knowledgeable collector that knows what the pieces are (counterfeit) as you state, and that the pieces have not been adjudicated and still chooses to buy the item, is not deserving of sympathy. The knowledgeable collector should not be supporting an activity that has not been adjudicated.

 

In some societies (dictatorships, communism, etc), everything is illegal unless explicitly allowed by the government. However, we live in a "free" country where everything is legal unless it is explicitly outlawed.

 

"Hobo" nickels have not been "adjudicated". But there is no law explicitly outlawing the practice of making or collecting them. So, by default, they are legal so long as there is no fraudulent activity.

 

...The Freedom Tower silver dollar marketed by NCM: ...

Mr. Carr was commissioned to design the artwork for the Freedom Tower piece, and proudly declares this on his website. He also declares on the same website he does not endorse the piece.

 

I regret that Mr. Carr won't endorse that which he designed, under paid commission. If he could only do the same with the pieces he has produced, until the pieces and his endeavors are adjudicated, that may be helpful to all the knowledgeable collectors you have sympathy for.

 

This is a gross mischaracterization.

I posted the facts about it on my web page. There is no "pride" involved, only facts. I was simply hired to do some graphic design for a "Freedom Tower" medal. That part I endorse. I did not participate in the additions of certain wording on them, or the sculpting, engraving, striking, or marketing of the pieces. That part I do not endorse.

 

As to your first answering paragraph, Mr. Feld raised the issue. I simply do not agree with being sympathetic toward knowledgeable collectors that support activities that have not been adjudicated, especially when the activity is designed to walk the edge of propriety of existing laws and the the person engaged in the activity knows this. Hobo nickels should not be supported either. I would also do some research about just that subject. You may be surprised. As to your professorial diatribe concerning Democracy, I thank you. It establishes that you are aware we have laws and the intended consequences of not complying with same.

 

I'm not surprised that you don't like "hobo" nickel carving. Too bad for you. Don't ruin it for everybody else that likes them.

 

As to your second answering paragraph, what is a gross wrongful characterization?

 

It is on your website. You stated same. Of course you were proud. You were letting the reader know of your skills and that the level of same was desired by NCM. (I was for it before I was against it...or in the alternative, I didn't throw the bullet in the fire....Fat Albert). You were PAID. You knew what and who was involved. You know the controversy, and that it still exists, yet you leave your comments up on your website. Why? To tell the truth? You should be apologizing... Simply hired. Sheesh! How many times has a Judge heard that one? You endorse only the Freedom Tower. so that makes it all OK, I guess.

 

Why are you so touchy about this? You were involved, were you not? You are proud of the work you did, were you not? If not, it would not be part of the mini-resume on your website.

 

I will let you share which website I am referring to. I assume you are proud to do so.

 

"Pride" is not the right word. I put it on my website for completeness. I am neither proud nor ashamed of the work. I was simply hired to produce a graphic illustration and that is what I did. I sent them the illustration, was paid, and that was the end of it for me. I know you are desperate to dig up some "dirt", but there isn't any. This latest attempt to characterize the Freedom Tower thing as

 

Don't take it down or change it now, like you quietly did with the word "LEGAL", assuming nobody would notice, and substituting more misleading blarney in place of it.

 

What are you talking about ?

 

PS:

Do you even like coins, or is your only hobby being a Mr.Mcknowitroll ?

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Hey buddy. You do good work but it creates a bit of controversy.

 

Don't be too embarrassed to put "David Carr Overstrike" on the ridge. My guess is that would clear up alot of hate.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Hey buddy. You do good work but it creates a bit of controversy.

 

Don't be too embarrassed to put "David Carr Overstrike" on the ridge. My guess is that would clear up alot of hate.

 

It is not hate. I don't know anyone that has concerns about the pieces that "hates" Mr. Carr or "hates" his talent or him personally. Your guess as to what may clear up the differences of opinion can only be resolved by adjudication. Your suggestion could be one that our Democracy would consider as complying with stated laws and the existing opinions of the legal process to date.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

...A knowledgeable collector that knows what the pieces are (counterfeit) as you state, and that the pieces have not been adjudicated and still chooses to buy the item, is not deserving of sympathy. The knowledgeable collector should not be supporting an activity that has not been adjudicated.

 

In some societies (dictatorships, communism, etc), everything is illegal unless explicitly allowed by the government. However, we live in a "free" country where everything is legal unless it is explicitly outlawed.

 

"Hobo" nickels have not been "adjudicated". But there is no law explicitly outlawing the practice of making or collecting them. So, by default, they are legal so long as there is no fraudulent activity.

 

...The Freedom Tower silver dollar marketed by NCM: ...

Mr. Carr was commissioned to design the artwork for the Freedom Tower piece, and proudly declares this on his website. He also declares on the same website he does not endorse the piece.

 

I regret that Mr. Carr won't endorse that which he designed, under paid commission. If he could only do the same with the pieces he has produced, until the pieces and his endeavors are adjudicated, that may be helpful to all the knowledgeable collectors you have sympathy for.

 

This is a gross mischaracterization.

I posted the facts about it on my web page. There is no "pride" involved, only facts. I was simply hired to do some graphic design for a "Freedom Tower" medal. That part I endorse. I did not participate in the additions of certain wording on them, or the sculpting, engraving, striking, or marketing of the pieces. That part I do not endorse.

 

As to your first answering paragraph, Mr. Feld raised the issue. I simply do not agree with being sympathetic toward knowledgeable collectors that support activities that have not been adjudicated, especially when the activity is designed to walk the edge of propriety of existing laws and the the person engaged in the activity knows this. Hobo nickels should not be supported either. I would also do some research about just that subject. You may be surprised. As to your professorial diatribe concerning Democracy, I thank you. It establishes that you are aware we have laws and the intended consequences of not complying with same.

 

I'm not surprised that you don't like "hobo" nickel carving. Too bad for you. Don't ruin it for everybody else that likes them.

 

As to your second answering paragraph, what is a gross wrongful characterization?

 

It is on your website. You stated same. Of course you were proud. You were letting the reader know of your skills and that the level of same was desired by NCM. (I was for it before I was against it...or in the alternative, I didn't throw the bullet in the fire....Fat Albert). You were PAID. You knew what and who was involved. You know the controversy, and that it still exists, yet you leave your comments up on your website. Why? To tell the truth? You should be apologizing... Simply hired. Sheesh! How many times has a Judge heard that one? You endorse only the Freedom Tower. so that makes it all OK, I guess.

 

Why are you so touchy about this? You were involved, were you not? You are proud of the work you did, were you not? If not, it would not be part of the mini-resume on your website.

 

I will let you share which website I am referring to. I assume you are proud to do so.

 

"Pride" is not the right word. I put it on my website for completeness. I am neither proud nor ashamed of the work. I was simply hired to produce a graphic illustration and that is what I did. I sent them the illustration, was paid, and that was the end of it for me. I know you are desperate to dig up some "dirt", but there isn't any. This latest attempt to characterize the Freedom Tower thing as

 

Don't take it down or change it now, like you quietly did with the word "LEGAL", assuming nobody would notice, and substituting more misleading blarney in place of it.

 

What are you talking about ?

 

PS:

Do you even like coins, or is your only hobby being a Mr.Mcknowitroll ?

 

As to your first paragraph, I actually do like hobo carvings, even the modern artists that practice the art. I like the history of how and why the pieces came to be. That is not the thrust of my comment.

 

As to your second paragraph, it is not dirt I seek, or sought. As someone stated about your "LEGAL" commentary on your website, why state anything at all? You did so to impress the viewer as part of a mini- resume. There is nothing wrong with that. You did not give a full description of your involvement with NCM on your website as you did here. You used wording that is suggestive of your talent only and that you were involved. That is a fact. You stated involvement for the purpose of marketing. That is a fact.There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing so. You were PAID. No problem. That is not dirt digging. It is a fact. You did not endorse the piece on your website. That is not dirt digging. It is a fact. You are proud of the work, as you should be. You are talented. That is a fact. So, why would you not endorse the piece? Was that non-endorsement added to the website before or after the controversy? (I know the answer). There is nothing wrong with that. Other members may be interested in the website and your business. You should share it. Many might not know about it, or even know about you very fine education accomplishments.

 

So, with all the facts similar to your own pieces, i.e., You are paid for them. That is a fact. You have them displayed on your website. That is a fact. You are talented. That is a fact. You have a website for the purpose of marketing the pieces you produce. That is a fact. You display the pieces and information on your website for "completeness". That is a fact.

 

Do you endorse your pieces? If so, why? Do you not endorse the pieces, if so, why not?

 

Are the pieces LEGAL? If so, why? If not why not?

 

As to your 3rd paragraph, are you going to do that again? It has been posted 5 times as of yesterday, and you have still not answered. I will just post again, since you appear to have missed it 5 times.

 

As to your 4th paragraph, the first question, yes I like coins very much. It has been a life long hobby.

 

As to the 2nd question, while it may be clever and a little humorous, it does not assist you in furthering your position to try to belittle another member, which was your intention. It won't do any good anyway. I am immune to such silliness. It is not my intention to belittle you or be discourteous, nor have I done so in any of my replies to you. You have used this tactic before, to no avail, and in an attempt to deflect and obfuscate. That is your choice of communication. You certainly are free to do so, although there is really no purpose for doing so.

 

I will again state that I am fond of your Chevrolet work.

[dcarr]

...A knowledgeable collector that knows what the pieces are (counterfeit) as you state, and that the pieces have not been adjudicated and still chooses to buy the item, is not deserving of sympathy. The knowledgeable collector should not be supporting an activity that has not been adjudicated.

 

In some societies (dictatorships, communism, etc), everything is illegal unless explicitly allowed by the government. However, we live in a "free" country where everything is legal unless it is explicitly outlawed.

 

"Hobo" nickels have not been "adjudicated". But there is no law explicitly outlawing the practice of making or collecting them. So, by default, they are legal so long as there is no fraudulent activity.

 

...The Freedom Tower silver dollar marketed by NCM: ...

Mr. Carr was commissioned to design the artwork for the Freedom Tower piece, and proudly declares this on his website. He also declares on the same website he does not endorse the piece.

 

I regret that Mr. Carr won't endorse that which he designed, under paid commission. If he could only do the same with the pieces he has produced, until the pieces and his endeavors are adjudicated, that may be helpful to all the knowledgeable collectors you have sympathy for.

 

This is a gross mischaracterization.

I posted the facts about it on my web page. There is no "pride" involved, only facts. I was simply hired to do some graphic design for a "Freedom Tower" medal. That part I endorse. I did not participate in the additions of certain wording on them, or the sculpting, engraving, striking, or marketing of the pieces. That part I do not endorse.

 

As to your first answering paragraph, Mr. Feld raised the issue. I simply do not agree with being sympathetic toward knowledgeable collectors that support activities that have not been adjudicated, especially when the activity is designed to walk the edge of propriety of existing laws and the the person engaged in the activity knows this. Hobo nickels should not be supported either. I would also do some research about just that subject. You may be surprised. As to your professorial diatribe concerning Democracy, I thank you. It establishes that you are aware we have laws and the intended consequences of not complying with same.

 

I'm not surprised that you don't like "hobo" nickel carving. Too bad for you. Don't ruin it for everybody else that likes them.

 

As to your second answering paragraph, what is a gross wrongful characterization?

 

It is on your website. You stated same. Of course you were proud. You were letting the reader know of your skills and that the level of same was desired by NCM. (I was for it before I was against it...or in the alternative, I didn't throw the bullet in the fire....Fat Albert). You were PAID. You knew what and who was involved. You know the controversy, and that it still exists, yet you leave your comments up on your website. Why? To tell the truth? You should be apologizing... Simply hired. Sheesh! How many times has a Judge heard that one? You endorse only the Freedom Tower. so that makes it all OK, I guess.

 

Why are you so touchy about this? You were involved, were you not? You are proud of the work you did, were you not? If not, it would not be part of the mini-resume on your website.

 

I will let you share which website I am referring to. I assume you are proud to do so.

 

"Pride" is not the right word. I put it on my website for completeness. I am neither proud nor ashamed of the work. I was simply hired to produce a graphic illustration and that is what I did. I sent them the illustration, was paid, and that was the end of it for me. I know you are desperate to dig up some "dirt", but there isn't any. This latest attempt to characterize the Freedom Tower thing as

 

Don't take it down or change it now, like you quietly did with the word "LEGAL", assuming nobody would notice, and substituting more misleading blarney in place of it.

 

What are you talking about ?

 

PS:

Do you even like coins, or is your only hobby being a Mr.Mcknowitroll ?

 

As to your first paragraph, I actually do like hobo carvings, even the modern artists that practice the art. I like the history of how and why the pieces came to be. That is not the thrust of my comment.

 

As to your second paragraph, it is not dirt I seek, or sought. As someone stated about your "LEGAL" commentary on your website, why state anything at all? You did so to impress the viewer as part of a mini- resume. There is nothing wrong with that. You did not give a full description of your involvement with NCM on your website as you did here. You used wording that is suggestive of your talent only and that you were involved. That is a fact. You stated involvement for the purpose of marketing. That is a fact.There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing so. You were PAID. No problem. That is not dirt digging. It is a fact. You did not endorse the piece on your website. That is not dirt digging. It is a fact. You are proud of the work, as you should be. You are talented. That is a fact. So, why would you not endorse the piece? Was that non-endorsement added to the website before or after the controversy? (I know the answer). There is nothing wrong with that. Other members may be interested in the website and your business. You should share it. Many might not know about it, or even know about you very fine education accomplishments.

 

So, with all the facts similar to your own pieces, i.e., You are paid for them. That is a fact. You have them displayed on your website. That is a fact. You are talented. That is a fact. You have a website for the purpose of marketing the pieces you produce. That is a fact. You display the pieces and information on your website for "completeness". That is a fact.

 

Do you endorse your pieces? If so, why? Do you not endorse the pieces, if so, why not?

 

Are the pieces LEGAL? If so, why? If not why not?

 

As to your 3rd paragraph, are you going to do that again? It has been posted 5 times as of yesterday, and you have still not answered. I will just post again, since you appear to have missed it 5 times.

 

As to your 4th paragraph, the first question, yes I like coins very much. It has been a life long hobby.

 

As to the 2nd question, while it may be clever and a little humorous, it does not assist you in furthering your position to try to belittle another member, which was your intention. It won't do any good anyway. I am immune to such silliness. It is not my intention to belittle you or be discourteous, nor have I done so in any of my replies to you. You have used this tactic before, to no avail, and in an attempt to deflect and obfuscate. That is your choice of communication. You certainly are free to do so, although there is really no purpose for doing so.

 

I will again state that I am fond of your Chevrolet work.

 

 

You wrote:

Don't take it down or change it now, like you quietly did with the word "LEGAL", assuming nobody would notice, and substituting more misleading blarney in place of it.

You made accusations here that are totally false. No such thing was done. Also the tone of it was belittling with the "misleading blarney" verbiage.

 

Information about the Freedom Tower dollar design is presented on my website. That is a fact. Beyond that, you can infer things all day long, but that doesn't make those inferences accurate.

 

I actually do like hobo carvings, even the modern artists that practice the art. I like the history of how and why the pieces came to be. That is not the thrust of my comment.

You previously wrote that hobo nickels should not be supported.

So which is it ?

 

Hobo nickels should not be supported either.

[coinman_23885]

 

Don't take it down or change it now, like you quietly did with the word "LEGAL", assuming nobody would notice, and substituting more misleading blarney in place of it.

 

Why help him out and give him any more free advice at this point? If anything, you are only alerting him to potential legal issues that could be used against him in the future.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Come now, Mr. Carr.What is false? That the word "LEGAL" was on your website, as a description of your pieces? You admitted so already. If misleading blarney is belittling to you I assume you prefer less mannerly language. I choose not to use such, as it is not necessary to describe blarney. Most people familiar with the English language understand the word blarney and how and why it is used. I suspect you do also, but you have to grasp at something here.

 

Mr.Carr, concerning the hobo nickels. please reach for an idea by applying logic. I admire and like your work, but don't support it. I like hobo art, but I don't support it. See the thrust? I admire Boggs work but don't support it. See the connected logic?

 

It is more interesting what you did not comment on and deftly avoided in my post, and tried to deflect by using gobbledygookery about very clear statements. Very interesting. I am getting very familiar with your word tactics. I assume the tactics have served you well in the past but suffer when logically reviewed.

[3keepSECRET]

Hey buddy. You do good work but it creates a bit of controversy.

 

Don't be too embarrassed to put "David Carr Overstrike" on the ridge. My guess is that would clear up alot of hate.

 

...what about being too embarrassed that David Carr is an ex NFL QB and not the Mr. Carr you are addressing???

[dcarr]

Come now, Mr. Carr.What is false? That the word "LEGAL" was on your website, as a description of your pieces? You admitted so already. If misleading blarney is belittling to you I assume you prefer less mannerly language. I choose not to use such, as it is not necessary to describe blarney. Most people familiar with the English language understand the word blarney and how and why it is used. I suspect you do also, but you have to grasp at something here.

 

Mr.Carr, concerning the hobo nickels. please reach for an idea by applying logic. I admire and like your work, but don't support it. I like hobo art, but I don't support it. See the thrust? I admire Boggs work but don't support it. See the connected logic?

 

It is more interesting what you did not comment on and deftly avoided in my post, and tried to deflect by using gobbledygookery about very clear statements. Very interesting. I am getting very familiar with your word tactics. I assume the tactics have served you well in the past but suffer when logically reviewed.

 

Yet again, what are you talking about ?

The world "LEGAL" is still on my web site.

 

You wrote "hobo nickels should not be supported".

That is a projection of your opinion towards others, strongly suggesting that other people should not support them. It appears that if you had things your way, there would be no field of hobo nickel carving and collecting, and entities such as the "Original Hobo Nickel Society" of collectors would be no more.

That is why I stated that if you had things your way it would ruin it for a whole group of enthusiasts of hobo nickels.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Come now, Mr. Carr.What is false? That the word "LEGAL" was on your website, as a description of your pieces? You admitted so already. If misleading blarney is belittling to you I assume you prefer less mannerly language. I choose not to use such, as it is not necessary to describe blarney. Most people familiar with the English language understand the word blarney and how and why it is used. I suspect you do also, but you have to grasp at something here.

 

Mr.Carr, concerning the hobo nickels. please reach for an idea by applying logic. I admire and like your work, but don't support it. I like hobo art, but I don't support it. See the thrust? I admire Boggs work but don't support it. See the connected logic?

 

It is more interesting what you did not comment on and deftly avoided in my post, and tried to deflect by using gobbledygookery about very clear statements. Very interesting. I am getting very familiar with your word tactics. I assume the tactics have served you well in the past but suffer when logically reviewed.

 

Yet again, what are you talking about ?

The world "LEGAL" is still on my web site.

 

You wrote "hobo nickels should not be supported".

That is a projection of your opinion towards others, strongly suggesting that other people should not support them. It appears that if you had things your way, there would be no field of hobo nickel carving and collecting, and entities such as the "Original Hobo Nickel Society" of collectors would be no more.

That is why I stated that if you had things your way it would ruin it for a whole group of enthusiasts of hobo nickels.

 

Thank you Mr. Carr for your usual blarney deflection. Your school yard replies are becoming repetitive. I can not change the way you feel, but what is the point of silly psychological profiling? What does it gain you? When you have to resort to assuming the "projections" of a person in a conversation, logic has departed from the table of idea exchanges. Lastly, websites....not website.

[dcarr]

Come now, Mr. Carr.What is false? That the word "LEGAL" was on your website, as a description of your pieces? You admitted so already. If misleading blarney is belittling to you I assume you prefer less mannerly language. I choose not to use such, as it is not necessary to describe blarney. Most people familiar with the English language understand the word blarney and how and why it is used. I suspect you do also, but you have to grasp at something here.

 

Mr.Carr, concerning the hobo nickels. please reach for an idea by applying logic. I admire and like your work, but don't support it. I like hobo art, but I don't support it. See the thrust? I admire Boggs work but don't support it. See the connected logic?

 

It is more interesting what you did not comment on and deftly avoided in my post, and tried to deflect by using gobbledygookery about very clear statements. Very interesting. I am getting very familiar with your word tactics. I assume the tactics have served you well in the past but suffer when logically reviewed.

 

Yet again, what are you talking about ?

The world "LEGAL" is still on my web site.

 

You wrote "hobo nickels should not be supported".

That is a projection of your opinion towards others, strongly suggesting that other people should not support them. It appears that if you had things your way, there would be no field of hobo nickel carving and collecting, and entities such as the "Original Hobo Nickel Society" of collectors would be no more.

That is why I stated that if you had things your way it would ruin it for a whole group of enthusiasts of hobo nickels.

 

Thank you Mr. Carr for your usual blarney deflection. Your school yard replies are becoming repetitive. I can not change the way you feel, but what is the point of silly psychological profiling? What does it gain you? When you have to resort to assuming the "projections" of a person in a conversation, logic has departed from the table of idea exchanges. Lastly, websites....not website.

 

The word "legal" is still on my product description websites. I did not "quietly" remove it. Some unnecessary text was trimmed, but the word "legal" is still there.

 

Perhaps you can explain how you can like hobo nickels, but at the same time think that they shouldn't be supported and/or that people shouldn't collect them ?

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Come now, Mr. Carr.What is false? That the word "LEGAL" was on your website, as a description of your pieces? You admitted so already. If misleading blarney is belittling to you I assume you prefer less mannerly language. I choose not to use such, as it is not necessary to describe blarney. Most people familiar with the English language understand the word blarney and how and why it is used. I suspect you do also, but you have to grasp at something here.

 

Mr.Carr, concerning the hobo nickels. please reach for an idea by applying logic. I admire and like your work, but don't support it. I like hobo art, but I don't support it. See the thrust? I admire Boggs work but don't support it. See the connected logic?

 

It is more interesting what you did not comment on and deftly avoided in my post, and tried to deflect by using gobbledygookery about very clear statements. Very interesting. I am getting very familiar with your word tactics. I assume the tactics have served you well in the past but suffer when logically reviewed.

 

Yet again, what are you talking about ?

The world "LEGAL" is still on my web site.

 

You wrote "hobo nickels should not be supported".

That is a projection of your opinion towards others, strongly suggesting that other people should not support them. It appears that if you had things your way, there would be no field of hobo nickel carving and collecting, and entities such as the "Original Hobo Nickel Society" of collectors would be no more.

That is why I stated that if you had things your way it would ruin it for a whole group of enthusiasts of hobo nickels.

 

Thank you Mr. Carr for your usual blarney deflection. Your school yard replies are becoming repetitive. I can not change the way you feel, but what is the point of silly psychological profiling? What does it gain you? When you have to resort to assuming the "projections" of a person in a conversation, logic has departed from the table of idea exchanges. Lastly, websites....not website.

 

The word "legal" is still on my product description websites. I did not "quietly" remove it. Some unnecessary text was trimmed, but the word "legal" is still there.

 

Perhaps you can explain how you can like hobo nickels, but at the same time think that they shouldn't be supported and/or that people shouldn't collect them ?

 

 

Thank you Mr. Carr. We have exhausted the subject.

[dcarr]

Thank you Mr. Carr. We have exhausted the subject.

 

You have exhausted the subject perhaps. The rest of us, maybe, maybe not.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Thank you Mr. Carr. We have exhausted the subject.

 

You have exhausted the subject perhaps. The rest of us, maybe, maybe not.

 

That is a logical observation. Not knowing your definition of the rest of us, I would expect you would continue on the subject I opined was exhausted. You and the rest of us would have to identify the subject I was referring to....I did that already in the other thread. It is the word LEGAL.

I support your continuance of that subject as it applies to your endeavors. Exchange of logical ideas is a good thing.

[Hard Times]

Where was Mr. Mcknowing last week? Was he banned or something? Suddenly he is back and we are getting active threads again.....

 

Best, HT

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Where was Mr. Mcknowing last week? Was he banned or something? Suddenly he is back and we are getting active threads again.....

 

Best, HT

 

Possibly the same location that you were when you were not around between 9/22-9/27, 8/1-8/5, 7/8-7/15, 6/3-6/9. I do not remember seeing you on a banned list, though. You just weren't around. Not just here. Not at all. On any forum. Mysterious.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Where was Mr. Mcknowing last week? Was he banned or something? Suddenly he is back and we are getting active threads again.....

 

Best, HT

 

Possibly the same location that you were when you were not around between 9/22-9/27, 8/1-8/5, 7/8-7/15, 6/3-6/9. I do not remember seeing you on a banned list, though. You just weren't around. Not just here. Not at all. On any forum. Mysterious.

 

Weird....I just checked. Turns out I was around last week, every day. And post trail on another forum. Strange. Very mysterious. It is different from the times when you weren't around on any forum. How can that happen? Continuous wrist slaps? Never mind. It was probably nothing. You just didn't feel like posting anything. It happens.

[physics-fan3.14]

These threads are more fun with Mr. Mcknownothing on ignore. Watching you all respond, trying to figure out what illogical and inane nonsense he has spouted.... it is kind of entertaining in an "I want to shove hot pokers into my eyes, because it would be better" sort of way.

[Hard Times]

Where was Mr. Mcknowing last week? Was he banned or something? Suddenly he is back and we are getting active threads again.....

 

Best, HT

 

Possibly the same location that you were when you were not around between 9/22-9/27, 8/1-8/5, 7/8-7/15, 6/3-6/9. I do not remember seeing you on a banned list, though. You just weren't around. Not just here. Not at all. On any forum. Mysterious.

 

Yup I was traveling. So you were in Africa 9/22-927 also?

 

Best, HT

[coinman_23885]

These threads are more fun with Mr. Mcknownothing on ignore. Watching you all respond, trying to figure out what illogical and inane nonsense he has spouted.... it is kind of entertaining in an "I want to shove hot pokers into my eyes, because it would be better" sort of way.

 

John is correct on the wording issue.

 

P.S. You have an interesting definition of "fun." These threads can be painful at times (some are impervious to logic and repeat the same logical fallacies), but the discussions should be had.

[3keepSECRET]

These threads are more fun with Mr. Mcknownothing on ignore. Watching you all respond, trying to figure out what illogical and inane nonsense he has spouted.... it is kind of entertaining in an "I want to shove hot pokers into my eyes, because it would be better" sort of way.

 

......it's funny to think how many more missing teeth people would have if it were not for the internet...I see the way people talk online and I can literally close my eyes and imagine how things would play out if it were said face to face. Lot's of brain but no teeth in the end to smile with

[physics-fan3.14]

These threads are more fun with Mr. Mcknownothing on ignore. Watching you all respond, trying to figure out what illogical and inane nonsense he has spouted.... it is kind of entertaining in an "I want to shove hot pokers into my eyes, because it would be better" sort of way.

 

John is correct on the wording issue.

 

P.S. You have an interesting definition of "fun." These threads can be painful at times (some are impervious to logic and repeat the same logical fallacies), but the discussions should be had.

 

I agree that the discussions should be had. But I feel like the discussion has been had, dissected, had again, re-had, permutated, and had a final time. How many times can the same discussion be had? There is no progress being made, the same arguments, distractions, and fallacies are being repeated, and nothing is accomplished except for filling up a server.

 

No amount of us arguing is going to convince Dcarr, no amount of Dcarr throwing straw-men is going to convince us, and no amount of... whatever it is Mcknownothing is doing... is going to convince anyone on the other side of anything. Until there is some actual action, why keep wasting our time?