Significant Errors on a Dan Carr 1975 Bicentennial 25c

I always wanted one of these fantasy pieces. I got one, photpgraphed it, and noticed some flaws/errors right away on both sides.

Look carefully at everything. Very cool!



Also, please don't debate if what he does is good for the hobby. Just focus on the coin above. Thanks.

~Joe Cronin

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Quite a lot of the host coin showing up in the devices on this one. I'm more used to noticing remnants in the fields.

...and what in the world is going on from 7 to 9 o'clock on the reverse? It looks like some weird cross between a die crack and a lamination!

 

There's a lot happening on this piece... Here's a few..

 

Over-strike ....

 

One last thing, there's no errors on this coin either .
http://www.moonlightmint.com/blog_11.htm

 

Why is that?

 

Forehead chin and F on reverse. Was a qiuck glance

 

A over-strike is a coin, struck over another coin .
This is a moonlight mint coin, made to look this way ..

 

I get that, but if the goal is to do so perfectly, imperfections are considered errors.

I mean, it is not a genuine Mint error. But...

 

Appears to be a really poor quality die with a bad strike. I haven't seen that in many Dan Carr coins.

 

I know the term error has been used in many situations referring to coins, but generally they are limited to a government mint issue, not a private company. Otherwise ( and they have already popped up here) people will be trying to get a 'mistake' in a commercial bullion coin ( lot of different silver coins from the past have mistakes) to be accepted and have people think it should be worth a premium. I am sure some newcomers would fall for it as they do 'spitting horses', 'speared buffalo', and all the rest of the cutie names. IMO, Jim

 

That is why I wrote "error" and not "Mint Error."

 

Interesting. Never heard of "Dan Carr" or this "mint". At first very quick read over, I dont like it at all. Im sure I am missing something and will find time to read it slower and digest it.

 

It's easy. Dan Carr takes a US coin, makes a die with a date that was never made by the US mint and overstrikes a real coin. If you wish to tick people off, call them fake coins. Next, people will start calling you all kinds of things for having an opinion.

 

I look at it simply as a genuine coin that was altered with fake dies. A novelty. That's it.

 

To me a novelty is when I put 2 quarters in a machine with a penny and a press squeezes the penny flat, long and put some obscure design on it. I dont really care if anyone cares about my opinion but I dont like the idea of having a die that replicates a coin (replicates US currency) to the point that the average person would not be able to tell the difference thus using that coin without even knowing. Seems borderline shady. Was this Dan Carr making money from this directly or indirectly? At least independent coin makers make unique designs. The coin the OP is showing,,,how many average people would honestly be able to tell it was altered? I wouldnt. It would appear at best a little off or worn and thats it. The dies at the US mint seem almost sacred and IDK, just dont like it. With China and the rest making fakes, this just seems wrong.

 

How many "average people" would care that it was altered? Judging from the number of 1916-D dimes worn down to AG or lower, "average people" don't recognize unusual date/mintmark combinations.

Carr only alters coins to make these; he doesn't mint coins in the likeness of US issues from blanks. He also doesn't alter them into the likeness of a rarer existing issue (which wouldn't threaten the money supply, but would invite fraud).

It's a fine distinction, but it seems adequate to put him in a safe-enough spot.

 

Look at the date. If you can find a 1975 quarter in the Redbook, then the book is a counterfeit.

 

Please read the other threads on this issue that are past history that can be searched.

 

Will do.....I'll find time to read up. Its an interesting thing thats for sure.