| Author |
 Replies: 79 / Views: 20,869 |
|
|
|
Locked
822 Posts |
OK, here's what I'm gonna do. No 1922 wheat cents were minted in Philly. The coin never existed. So I'm gonna make a pair of 1922 Philly dies and mint them over genuine 1922 D cents. I'll just make the wheat stalks 5% longer and add a die chip somewhere so you can tell the difference. Ya'll ok with it?
|
|
New Member
 United States
23 Posts |
Yes I am it's a very nice coin.
|
|
New Member
United States
23 Posts |
Okay let's stay on point I see some people like the coin and some don't only in America The Land Of The Free. Well I'm off the fence now and I'm going to order one just for the investment. :-)
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1534 Posts |
Quote:
I have zero respect for him now and I'm not the only one that feels that way. Yes, but there are plenty of others that feel differently so it's not as if all collectors have a grudge against him now. There are obviously tons of differences of opinion on this and that will most likely continue. |
|
Moderator
 United States
189053 Posts |
I try to live in a black and white world, at least where the law is concerned. If these coins are deemed "okay" by the legal community, then there is no way anyone can claim that any of the Chinese fakes are wrong. It is that simple, the law should apply equally regardless of origin. I also live in the real world, so I know that the law is never applied equally. I am sure he has been given a pass because of who he is. This does not make it right. So count me in the camp of people that has a problem with this. The current existence of a 1964 Peace dollar does not even matter. It is a fact that they did exist at some point in time, this fact alone merits its protection under the HPA. The HPA was created to protect the novice as much as the expert. The law clearly states what the replica needs to be legal, yet for some reason this is allowed to circumvent that? |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Quote:
And if the law has been broken why is D.C still making these coins? Simple, no governmental authority has ordered him to stop. I break laws all the time, and I'm sure others here do as well. But unless those in charge of enforcing those laws notice, and decide it is worth their time and effort to enforce them, I get away with it. But just because I get away with it doesn't make it right or legal. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12437 Posts |
Quote:Maybe Mr Carr chooses to make 1933 Saint-Gaudens next. Maybe this time he chooses not to include any markers that help us determine which coins are fake. Or maybe he is less ambitious and chooses to restrike '32-D Washington quarters from '64 originals. Both scenarios are absurd and will never happen because the HPA is obviously violated in both cases. Quote:
Here is an auction for a 1804 dollar...Any collector with a ounce of knowledge knows that this coin is fake. Yet newbies still bid on it thinking that they have found a hidden gem. Try as hard as you may, you cannot always protect someone from their own stupidity. And yes, buying an 1804 Dollar off ebay thinking you have a chance at getting a real one is STUPID just like buying a 1964-D Peace dollar and thinking you are getting a real one is stupid. Quote:
How about a 2009 proof silver eagle, y'all ok with it?
I couldn't care less, an original numismatic item(2009W proof SAE) has never existed so it does not violate the HPA. Quote:
OK, here's what I'm gonna do. No 1922 wheat cents were minted in Philly. The coin never existed. So I'm gonna make a pair of 1922 Philly dies and mint them over genuine 1922 D cents. Good luck with that, you picked one of the most-difficult-to-reproduce coins around, the ChiComs still can't get it right  |
|
New Member
United States
23 Posts |
As for the 1804 coin that was being sold on ebay that like you said was a copy/fake is coverd by ebay Buyer Protection so let them find out and get a refund. The person selling that coin said that he was not 100% that it was or was not a copy like that mad it right to sell it without knowing as he told me that he would not give a refund good luck with that as someone that buys and sell on ebay it doesn't work that way sorry big guy. Anyone that had a family member that left them a coin like a 1804 would do some homework befor selling :-/ |
|
Locked
822 Posts |
Quote:
Good luck with that, you picked one of the most-difficult-to-reproduce coins around, the ChiComs still can't get it right Clever how you make fun of me to avoid the question. If I make them and sell them by the dozen on ebay you're OK with it right? If the Chinese take worn Morgan dollars and make nice 1886 CCs out of them, not stamped copy, it's all good right as long as they don't sell them as real? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2150 Posts |
Wow! I can see this subject sure does strike a nerve with some folks. I have always felt that if I don't like a coin or have a problem with it for any reason I simply pass on it and wont buy it. As far as the Chinese manufactures and people being branded as stupid for buying coins that are clearly copies but are not marked as such in the hopes that it might pay off. I think it is all our own personal responsibility in educating ourselves in the things we hope to purchase. I don't like the flood of Chinese counterfeits that have entered the hobby the past few years but I'm not buying them, and for the people that are, with all the information available at the push of a button now a days I cant feel sorry for them.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1534 Posts |
Quote:
1886 CCs out of them, not stamped copy, it's all good right as long as they don't sell them as real? That's perfectly fine because 86 CC's were never minted and 1964-D's are assumed by official Mint records as to have never existed. You can argue all day long that there could be 64-D's still hiding somewhere, but without proof we're gonna have trust the Mint records and assume they are all gone. Quote:If I make them and sell them by the dozen on ebay you're OK with it right? No, because that would be the same as a 1922 no D which do exist. It isn't a legitimate hypothetical scenario anyway given the difficulty of minting them, aforementioned by biokemist. Edited by wheatguy
11/22/2010 6:50 pm
|
|
Locked
822 Posts |
Quote:
That's perfectly fine because 86 CC's were never minted Well I gotta be honest, I just lost respect for you too because that's just incredibly stupid for a responsible collector be OK with that in my book. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1534 Posts |
Quote:
Well I gotta be honest, I just lost respect for you too because that's just incredibly stupid for a responsible collector be OK with that in my book. That's perfectly fine, I don't need the respect of an ignorant, overreactive guy who apparently goes around trying to flame YN's and random other people on forums. Another reason why that scenario that has absolutely no merit is because the reason why DC's 64-D's are so popular is because the 64-D Peace dollar is the subject of a lot of collector myth and controversy, completely unlike a fake 86-CC which would have an empty collector base. So please learn to calm down and not have a heart attack when there's a bit of a debate on a thread like this, and learn that people have differences in opinion and that you have to learn to accept that. Edited by wheatguy
11/22/2010 7:19 pm
|
|
Moderator
Australia
16844 Posts |
Let's stop for a moment and see what exactly Mr Carr is doing. Moonlight mint 1964 "fantasy" blog. Judging from that, he's taking genuine Peace dollars, and completely obliterating their old design and replacing it with a new one of his own making, with the 1964 date. Quote:scubu said:If the Chinese take worn Morgan dollars and make nice 1886 CCs out of them, not stamped copy, it's all good right as long as they don't sell them as real? Immoral, yes. Improbable, yes. Illegal, apparently that's a gray area. It appears the Hobby Protection Act has a loophole, as far as altered coins are concerned, since one could reasonably argue they were originally "manufactured" as genuine coins. Altered coins come under a different set of laws, where intent to defraud is indeed pertinent. Which goes to prove that the Hobby Protection Act is defective. If Daniel Carr takes a genuine non-1964 coin and overstamps it with his 1964 dies, it (might be) legal, as long as he tells everybody he's doing it. If he takes the same genuine coin, melts it down, makes a new blank out of it, then stamps that blank with his dies, then it's definitely illegal, because that's counterfeiting. I'm no lawyer, but on that basis, if it went to court, I suspect the argument would centre on whether enough "originality" of the original coin remained to consider it "altered", which would be legal, or whether the overstriking had in effect destroyed the old coin and created a new one, which would be "counterfeiting", and illegal. Personally, I think he'd be on shaky ground; the obliteration of the original coin looks pretty complete to me; he may as well have melted it down. However, I think he might be in even more trouble with the law by making and having the dies themselves, since owning dies to make counterfeit coins which are "in likeness or similitude" to real coins is definitely illegal, and arguing that he didn't intend to use them on silver blanks but to non-fraudulently alter existing coins is irrelevant, because this law makes no mention of intent. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Moderator
United States
189053 Posts |
Quote:
You can argue all day long that there could be 64-D's still hiding somewhere, but without proof we're gonna have trust the Mint records and assume they are all gone. My problem is that we can never prove that there are no 1964-D dollars. Even if we (possibly correctly) assumed that they were all destroyed, having copies would introduce doubt into that assumption. |
| |
Replies: 79 / Views: 20,869 |
First Page
Posted 11/21/2010 10:58 pm
