"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On 11/15/2010 3:04 PM, Frank Provasek wrote:
Attributing some of the surface changes to "melting" is not wildly
incorrect.

Long post ...

I was incorrect with this point, but you're right -- not wildly
incorrect --

Yes - "wildly" is an accurate adverb. The difference between "melting" and
"abrading" *is* significant.

....and I was right in the whole, as pointed out, that this outdated coin
doctoring technique of whizzing for the most part moved or pushed metal
rather than removing it.

Wrong. Metal is not putty.
You can't "soften" and "move" metal with a wire brush any more than you can
melt it.
Mr Fact-Checker has it all wrong again - I mean "still".

But Jeff R. will never admit this.

Of course not.
I should concede something that is wrong? Just because *you* don't
understand how metal behaves?

Here's why, which I believe ties a lot of things together.

Error hunting can be fun. I do this, and this is one theme in this thread.
It can also be fun trying to knock a know-it-all off his block.

Yes it is - but it is getting tiresome.

I know full well that I come across this way at times, in areas I
specialize in, for the very reason that I specialize in them.

Uh huh.
Look up "metallurgy" in the dictionary. It's a long way from "coin
collecting".


...With coins I go not wide but deep,

Wa-a-a-a-ay of your depth, obviously.

...as deep as I can in a relatively small number of areas, enjoying the
process of acquiring knowledge as much as acquiring coins. I also enjoy
sharing what I learn. Sharing knowledge in numismatics for me involves
online discussion groups, my Web site, and articles and book reviews I
write for numismatic publications.

Spreading the misinformation around for all to see.
Very noble.

...Have another article coming out in the Celator in a couple of months.

Wow!
(Is that it? The full extent? How do you pay the rent?)

...Jeff R. says I was "published in the past," that I'm a "has been," and
all the rest. I always thought I made my living as a writer, but he knows
best about this too, I guess.

Fine.
Point to a few sites where we can read your work.
Less than three years old, preferably.
Paid ones.
Embarrassed? Ashamed?
(You *won't* answer this, will you.)


Jeff R. isn't the first to try with all his might to prove me wrong about
something. Michael Marotta, who Jeff R. ironically and in all his
astuteness thought was me with his Coin World association,

What?
Cites please.

...did the same in almost exactly the same way with his his Alexander the
Great effort. There are interesting parallels -- this will involve some of
the detailed analysis I enjoy. Read no further, anybody, if you don't also
find this enjoyable.

Not my dog.
Not my fight.
Stop trying to change the subject.



Both individuals observed me enjoying the process of commenting in detail
here about two areas I've looked into in detail: coin doctoring techniques
and Alexander the Great's portraiture on coinage. My comments here, on the
Web, and in articles I've written for the seven coin publications I've
written articles for are based on extensive reading,

....of Rick "Proven-Wrong" Montgomery, for example...

observations of coinage, some experimentation, informal discussions and
formal interviews with others who have more experience and expertise than
me on these and other subjects,

Well, *that* wouldn't be hard.

...and thinking.

(*That* would)

....Though I enjoyed sharing my conclusions, they didn't enjoy this, and
they set out to prove me wrong.

Which is not difficult, when you are wrong.

Both engaged in what they regarded as original research. Michael with his
partner Anka read what ancient literature they could find related to the
subject, implying no one else had. Jeff R. tried whizzing a coin himself
without having seen one.

LOL!
http://www.mendosus.com/whizzing/whiz.html is the piece to which he refers.


Both didn't do the necessarily contextual research.

I suppose a degree with engineering and metallurgy in it doesn't count for
"contextual research"?
....and your Master's in English does?
How much metalwork did you do there?


...Neither read in anywhere close to the detail they should have about what
others had concluded from doing far more extensive research than them.

Rubbish!
30 years of experience in exactly the field surely counts for something?


Michael hadn't read the relevant recent literature, over the past half
century, about the issue of Alexander's portrait on coinage, didn't refer
to it in his article, didn't address the core evidence leading scholar
after scholar to conclude that the Herakles/Hercules image on Alexander's
coins was Herakles and not Alexander himself, and didn't know that this was
once widely believed in prior centuries before the historical and
numismatic evidence against it was uncovered more recently. Along with not
having seen a whizzed coin before trying to create one in his metal shop,
Jeff R. didn't talk to a single coin doctor who did this kind of highly
controversial work to find out exactly what they did to create the effects
they produced and wasn't familiar with what others had concluded through
looking in detail at numerous whizzed coins, from PCGS to the ANA.

LOL again!

(1) "Coin doctors" will willingly volunteer information about their
deceptive practices? How naive are you?
What sort of witnesses would such shysters make? What makes you think that
some grubby back-room coin-polisher understands the mechanics of what he
does?

(2) It's an issue of metallurgy, not numismatics.

(3) One doesn't have to talk to a crook, to know that what you claimed is a
physical impossibility.



But they both "proved" me wrong. Debate ensued. Neither budged one iota in
his initial conclusion,

Yes - being right does that to you, I find.

despite the evidence presented against these conclusions.

All of which was uninformed, misunderstood, out of context and/or just plain
stupid.

Both insisted I was just copying the opinions of others and that the
so-called experts in turn were just aping one another. It's true that
experts aren't always right. But due diligence in any kind of research
requires that you look at the same things that experts look at if you want
to prove them wrong. You need a firm grounding in the evidence that's out
there if you want to refute that evidence. You can't show that the emperor
isn't wearing any clothes without having first done your homework.

This is a *scream* - coming from *you*!


Jeff R. takes it to the next level in absurdity with his obsessiveness and
by insisting time after time that I not only issue him an apology but also
this entire group. He does this despite his putting up and repeatedly
referring to the Web site he created devoted entirely to me,

Excuse me, Reid. You do suffer delusions of adequacy. The Reid-bashing
occupies less than about 2% of said website (and is -what- seven years old
now?)

a clownishly sophomoric attempt at mockery

You mean this one: http://mendosus.com/reidisms.html
or this one: http://mendosus.com/glomthis.html (my personal favourite).
Thanks for the segue. :-)

...and further evidence of weirdo obsessiveness.

Something which *you*, in your wholly-professional-journalistic-integrity
could *never* be accused of.
Right.

...But it's all amusing, and informative, offering more insight into this
ever curious, ever fascinating business of online communication. Grist for
the mill...

The mill that melts the grain? Or grinds it?
Just asking....

--
Jeff R.
(given up on the apology, would settle for just acknowledgement of physics)