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 -- 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outdated coin doctoring technique of whizzing for the most part moved or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. But Jeff R. will never admit this.
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.
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. With coins
I go not wide but deep, 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. Have
another article coming out in the Celator in a couple of months. 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.

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, 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.

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

Both didn't do the necessarily contextual research. Neither read in
anywhere close to the detail they should have about what others had
concluded from doing far more extensive research than them. 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.

But they both "proved" me wrong. Debate ensued. Neither budged one iota
in his initial conclusion, despite the evidence presented against these
conclusions. 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.

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,
a clownishly sophomoric attempt at mockery and further evidence of
weirdo obsessiveness. But it's all amusing, and informative, offering
more insight into this ever curious, ever fascinating business of online
communication. Grist for the mill...

--

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos