| Author |
 Replies: 335 / Views: 33,270 |
|
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
10625 Posts |
Quote:
Maybe you should have done some research because then you would have known that the design is completely different NOT slightly different.
Here are examples of all 4 Monarchs that have appeared on Australian sixpence coins.
You will notice that the reverse design remains the same throughout the period that Pre decimal 6d coins were minted and that the design is VASTLY different to that on the fantasy 1937 coin.
As such The chances that the fantasy could be mistaken as a genuine 6d are incredibly remote But the reason the DC fantasy overstrikes are so dangerous is because of the possibility of people not researching and getting taken.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
7096 Posts |
Quote:
But the reason the DC fantasy overstrikes are so dangerous is because of the possibility of people not researching and getting taken I doubt very much that US collectors don't know what a Morgan dollar looks like and if they were fronted with a coin that is as obviously different as the 1937 6d restrike is then they would have no problem picking it out as being a fake. The only difference on the Carr restrikes is the date, Everything else is exactly the same as a genuine Morgan. |
|
Forum Dad
 United States
24187 Posts |
Quote:struck over genuine Morgan dollars (which puts them in the category of altered coins, not counterfeits); To me this is a ridiculous argument and nothing will change my mind. You are completely destroying one coin and making a different coin. If I put an aluminum can in a press and make a medal, would you call it an altered can? Of course not, because it's a medal now. What if I take a Morgan dollar and melt it down, make a new planchet, then make a different coin with it. Still an altered coin? Of course not, both processes destroy the previous item down to raw materials, then create a new item. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
7096 Posts |
Quote:struck over genuine Morgan dollars (which puts them in the category of altered coins, not counterfeits); This argument is used simply to take advantage of a loophole that is on pretty shaky ground anyway in the attempt to legitimise these copies. If a New planchet was used to mint these then they would most likely be deemed as counterfeits. The very process used to create these totally destroys the original coin and the results are the same as if a blank brand new planchet had been used. Dan Carr's experience and knowledge from working at the Mint allowed him to take advantage of the restrike loophole to create these and I imagine that he is making a tidy little profit as well as the people that are buying these and flipping them. I wonder if these were being produced in China or any other place using the same techniques they would be regarded as "Art" or "collectables" as some regard these as now. |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
7390 Posts |
Quote:
The very process used to create these totally destroys the original coin and the results are the same as if a blank brand new planchet had been used. That is an absurdly false statement. Reminants of the host coin design shows through at various degrees. The results are far from the same as if he were to use a blank planchet. |
|
Forum Dad
United States
24187 Posts |
Oh please, so if a remnant of the can can be seen that makes it an altered can and not a medal? Ridiculous. Tell me what year he used on your coin, tell me what condition it was in. Show it to anyone that doesn't KNOW what they are and see if they go "Oh, that was a different dollar once." Talk about absurd. And Trout is exactly right, if the Chinese were making them the exact same way and importing them here people would FREAK, without question. What was this made from?   |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
7096 Posts |
Quote:
That is an absurdly false statement. Seriously All the smoke and mirrors and the Lame arguments put forward in the attempt to give credibility to these things is what is really "Absurd"  |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
7096 Posts |
Quote:
What was this made from? Crikey Bobby anyone can see that was once an EF45 1921D Morgan that had been dipped and harshly cleaned  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2335 Posts |
I'm going to reiterate my point & I'm done. Please note that I am limiting my comments to those coins that are exact copies except for the date. The arguments put forth by Mr. Carr as to why these pieces are different from other fantasy pieces are specious & part of a carefully crafted marketing plan to create a profitable collectible. Obviously this has been successful up to this point & it's entirely within the realm of possibility for that to continue. However, history has shown that the vast majority of created collectibles end up worthless.
People are entitled to produce &/or buy whatever legal consumer product they like. What's disturbing to me is the risk of potential damage to the hobby. I also suspect that the same people that defend these fantasy coins would have an entirely different opinion if they were created by an artist in (insert non-US country here). That's just sad.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
171 Posts |
Quote:
I'll agree that wasn't really where you went. Where you went was to publicly state that you don't believe the articles published by coin publications. That pretty much speaks for itself. UNFOUNDED GENERALIZATION. I question ONE aspect of ONE particular article. I never stated anything about not believing coin publications in general. Quote:
I'm not going to address your list of "differences" individually. I'm a hard core capitalist. More power to you for finding & capitalizing on a niche....but call a spade a spade. The bottom line is anyone reasonably competent with the right equipment (which doesn't necessarily have to be US Mint surplus) can duplicate US Mint coins with dates they weren't produced in. Here is what a typical "reasonably competent" person produced for a "1964" Morgan dollar (take a look at the quality of the reverse side engraving details, specifically): http://www.ebay.com/itm/282331830242 |
|
Valued Member
United States
171 Posts |
Quote:
There are many different Edward VIII fantasy coins out and about, From Crowns to Maundy pieces.
As collectors of brit AND other commonwealth coins use the obverse as the main area to determine the grade of a coin they are acutely aware that real Edward VII coins shouldn't exist.
These Fantasy coins are vastly different to your restrikes in that the obverse design is unique and was NEVER used for any circulating British coinage.
Whereas the reverse designs on your fantasy coins are well known and have appeared on Millions or circulating coins.
So the odds of a Edward VIII fantasy coin being mistaken or scammed off as being a genuine coin are extremely remote But with your restrikes that use a common and well known design of a circulating coin regardless of the fictitious date and that they are the exact same silver alloy do have the potential to be mistaken or misrepresented as a genuine coin.
The differences between the two examples as quite obvious.
As you say that you are a collector yourself So you should also understand the risks to other collectors that your restrikes pose.
I forgot to add that neither the obverse nor reverse designs of the Australian 6d that you used as an example was ever used for a 6d design in Australia.
There were also some countries that DID issue some Edward VII coins (Fiji,New Guinea,Ireland,& some of the Indian Princely States,most notably Kutch,as well as East Africa.)
But these are Not particularly rare and there isn't much value there for counterfeiters to bother with. This seems enormously hypocritical. Where is the supposed outrage ? So you are saying that a collector as well as an average layperson should know the difference on these Edward VII pieces ? What is to prevent a person from being scammed into thinking it is a rare pattern coin of some sort ? You state that the portrait is the first thing a collector looks at to determine the grade. Well, on a Morgan dollar, the date is the first thing that a collector looks at to determine the value. |
|
Valued Member
United States
171 Posts |
Quote:
To me this is a ridiculous argument and nothing will change my mind. It is more of a fact than an "argument" [that I over-strike Morgan dollars]. Quote:
You are completely destroying one coin and making a different coin. If I put an aluminum can in a press and make a medal, would you call it an altered can? Of course not, because it's a medal now. If you took a genuine Morgan dollar and re-engraved the date digits on it, it becomes an ALTERED Morgan dollar, not a "COPY" of a Morgan dollar. Quote:What if I take a Morgan dollar and melt it down, make a new planchet, then make a different coin with it. Still an altered coin? Of course not, both processes destroy the previous item down to raw materials, then create a new item. I never melt the coins prior to the over-striking. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
7096 Posts |
Quote:It is more of a fact than an "argument" [that I over-strike Morgan dollars]. Quote:If you took a genuine Morgan dollar and re-engraved the date digits on it, it becomes an ALTERED Morgan dollar, not a "COPY" of a Morgan dollar. Quote:
I never melt the coins prior to the over-striking. All this is just semantics. What is really happening here is that you are using genuine coins as planchets to produce copies of coins with fictitious dates. The design on the host coin is destroyed during the process so you are not merely altering the coin you are making fundamental changes to it. In other words you are creating a brand new coin. |
|
Valued Member
United States
171 Posts |
Quote:
This argument is used simply to take advantage of a loophole that is on pretty shaky ground anyway in the attempt to legitimise these copies.
If a New planchet was used to mint these then they would most likely be deemed as counterfeits.
The very process used to create these totally destroys the original coin and the results are the same as if a blank brand new planchet had been used. The host coin is not "totally destroyed". Traces of it are still visible. But even if not visible, the essence of the original coin is still there. You may be familiar with the technique of applying acid to a gun that had serial numbers filed off, so as to reveal those serial numbers again. The acid etches the metal differently, depending on how it was stressed from the imprinting of the serial numbers. Toning an over-strike coin can usually reveal ghost details such as the original date. And the general form of the host coin is actually an aid when over-striking because much of the relief is already there and that makes it easier to obtain a full impression (when the over-strike is aligned well with the existing relief) Quote:
Dan Carr's experience and knowledge from working at the Mint allowed him to take advantage of the restrike loophole to create these and I imagine that he is making a tidy little profit as well as the people that are buying these and flipping them. I designed coins for the US Mint but I never worked there. I've only worked at my own mint. I have a unique set of skills that I utilize, including everything from freehand drawing to computer programming to mechanical repair work. Are you against making a profit ? Quote:
I wonder if these were being produced in China or any other place using the same techniques they would be regarded as "Art" or "collectables" as some regard these as now. The "techniques" are only part of it. The other major factor is the person (artist) producing the work. Compare an actual Warhol painting to a similar work from an unknown artist. The Warhol work could sell for millions and the anonymous piece might only fetch pocket change. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
7096 Posts |
Quote:
The "techniques" are only part of it. The other major factor is the person (artist) producing the work. Just because you make Good copies doesn't change the fact that they are still copies. |
| |
Replies: 335 / Views: 33,270 |
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 02/01/2017 11:45 am
