This is the best analysis of the situation. In regards to the SBSS rounds, the thing that killed my interest in that was the ugly feud that broke out between Duane and Gray.....all the accusations, the threats, the hatred pouring out. So I agree with Gatito's suggestion to the parties in this situation...."Keep it dapper, guys.. Don't be hashing it out for all to see -- keep that crap behind closed doors." If this explodes into what the SBSS rounds did, I will loose all interest in the LunarSkulls....period. .
There is another fairly significant difference between the 2 versions of the Monkey Lunar Skull coins. The one as seen here: http://aurinum.de/1-oz-Silver-Lunar-Skulls-Year-of-the-Monkey-2016-Ghana-Ultra-High-Relief-Proof does not have any distinct serial number struck into the coin but the one from SM Mint does.....just as the first issue (Goat) did. .
This seems pretty clear to me. SM had an idea, he took HIS Intellectual Property to anther company to help him produce it. SM was unhappy with the service and decided to take his Intellectual Property to a different producer. Original Producer was under the impression that Intellectual Property was able to be freely used even though laws exist to protect against this. If I were SM, I would be suing the original producer and any resellers of the 2016 Ghana coins that clearly are a theft of his Intellectual Property. This whole situation would be like Apple deciding that the factory making their iPhones wasn't doing a good job so moving production to a different factory but the original factory not being happy with the decision still making iPhones anyway.
Someone invoked SS administration. Basically it looks like an intellectual property dispute - Ghana has issued a legal tender decree, but so will have Palau. That in itself is not really proof of anything - just means that the coins were legally minted as legal tender. My limited background knowledge on this (I'm not involved in reselling either coin, but at least one forum advertiser sells one of them, others will probably follow with either coin), is that db23's summary is probably the closest to what's happened - someone owns the intellectual property for this series. There's also the "artistic rights" - a designer somewhere created the look and feel of the first coin, and their artistic design cannot be infringed by a different artistic if they did not relinquish their rights - and the intellectual property and the artistic rights might be at odds with each other, and held by different interests. In that scenario, normal business practice would be that the holder of the IP still owns the IP, but they may need to come up with a fresh design using a different artist. If someone holds just the artistic rights but not the IP, then generally they would not be free to continue minting the series if a contractual dispute broke out, even if subsequent designs were already prepared. You can hold artistic rights to something that violates someone else's intellectual property. Now as to who's who in this debate, that's up for themselves to sort out. I'm not an IP lawyer, just been through those hoops a few times in the course of running a business. Intrinsic Tender had a bit of a similar issue that was amicably resolved - the first Silver Stackers / Intrinsic Tender rounds was proposed to be a full series based on Australian pre-decimal coinage - I designed the original Penny round as the first release (still got the "back of an A4" drafts somewhere), and then unbeknownst to me, the mint at the time thought that the idea for the series was a suggestion to them free to use, and they went off and designed a Shilling round on their own and offered it to another dealer - which is why there are both XAG Shillings and Ainslie Shillings. The IP for the series and the artistic rights for the Penny belonged to a party I was a shareholder of, but the mint owned the artistic rights to the Shilling, despite it being a logical part of the series we had proposed. Unfortunately that was kind of the end of that series (along with low initial sales because of the cost being uncompetitive), so the envisaged range never materialised. Essentially a misunderstanding that was sorted out amicably behind closed doors, and only came to light when members on this forum started asking questions about why both versions suddenly popped up at the same time. Public spats are bad for both parties in any dispute. Already highlighted in this thread with mmissinglink's comment about losing interest in all releases, period.
Deutscher didn't follow through on their obligations. This is why SM moved his business away. Pure and simple.
Exactly. And some corrupt government official in Ghana was probably very eager to go along with the fraud. They are usually very susceptible to accepting bribes.
Personally I will continue to support the Lunar Skulls marketed and distributed by SM. To hell with the frauds that are trying to make a killing based on his intellectual property.
+1 with that! The melodrama provided by taGS in this thread is exceeded only by the free promotion and advertising the thread is providing. This silliness makes me think of the title of one of Shakespeare's plays--- "Much Ado About Nothing".
I think is not the first time I posted this video and it seems not the last time: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf1WT8VEZxk[/youtube] As a person who bought first coin and liked the idea of the series I'm now somehow disappointed. It just another prove that customers are in the second plan, everything that counts is money. Or to say it shorter: LAME!!!
More like Apple leased the license to a chip inside the product, yet still owned overall license to the completed product. When moving it they decided to lease a different chip and put that inside it. The old factory can't just keep making them with the old chip because it's still Apple's product.
Interesting. So let me get this straight SM needed the german mint to take 50% of the mintage to get the coin off the ground in the first place. I can see dropping a mint if their work is shoddy, they miss deadlines etc, but seems the german mint had a serious financial investment in this as well. If the 50-50 thing was a contractual thing going forward, SM has a serious problem, if it was a gentlemans agreement seems like a very poor business decision on SMs part. And good luck filing an IP suit in the international arena, on a good day thats a long drawn out and expensive proposition. In the end both sides are going to lose, IMO the series was losing steam anyway, the Goat had so much more going for it then subject themes going forward, now it just been fast-tracked to a quick death.
"Lunacy" "for Luna tics" lol Luna series coins from many mints or Luna skull series coins from many mints, whats the problem? more choice! At least one mint as made both years in the series with the same artist same country same denomination which is better than just an "idea" in my opinion! this "idea"is now able to make coins with any mint any artist any country or any denomination so must be dead on the ground. Ask yourself are you collecting a coin or an idea? I knew the lottery was a scam and said so in the monkey skull thread! Ask yourself this, if you knew about the feud before lottery purchase would you have purchased? Buyers may not think it was a scam but they have been fooled into buying a coin with many unexpected differences to the original and not at all what they expected from the second in this series. The lottery was just a cleaver marketing strategy in which those that secured lottery coins will always believe and professes this lottery coin and any subsequent coins from this salesman as the "original Luna Skulls" when in reality they have bought a silver coin or coins from a 50% "idea" no longer a genuine 50% idea 50% mint partnership.
Looks like some had lost interest v the series.... Anyone want to let go the Proof Goat version at reasonable price do let me know. .... aiming a few pieces.... Cheers!
Thanks a lot for the details, MB Coincorner. What you have described indicates 'SM" is not a trustworthy business partner, period. And because of this, this series has been cast with some uncertainty too. So my question is (also asked by another poster earlier), what is the plan after Monkey? Is there follow through for the rest of 10 lunar symbols? Personally, I am not a fan of skulls of anything. But I think this Ghana Monkey design is better than the 1st one. This one has better depth and higher relief (at least on the picture), more features of antique coins, and generally less boring. It give more 3-D effect, unlike the earlier design which was totally flat 2-D, and sort of boring. I know some may disagree with me, but that is ok. Everyone deserves to have their own opinion If it is not a secret, can you tell us who designed this Monkey skull coin?
I'd be interested in hearing both sides of the story, prior to making any judgement re: who's "right or wrong." I'd also be interested in seeing both actual products in-hand -- not just some graphical representations, which can skew one way or the other. Again, prior to making any comparison judgement.
I wouldn't think there was an artist employed to do the image specifically for the coin, if that is what you mean? This 3D image of the chosen skull (in this case a Gorilla) is available online (3rd bloke on the right). Not that that is an issue, in my view. If you find a good rendition of a skull, use it (with permission i assume?). Given the 3D element chosen, i hope they can do it justice with enough planned relief when minting. If they can/will, it could work well.
Yes, as soon as I saw the design I assumed it was taken from a scan of some kind, it has the look of a transfer, not an artistic work.
