If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
rare-coin broker conned an elderly East Sider
"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 ....and I was right in the whole, as pointed out, that this outdated coin doctoring technique of whizzing for the most part moved or pushed metal rather than removing it.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) |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
rare-coin broker conned an elderly East Sider
Whizzing cuts grooves in the coin like furrows from a plow (plough to
you) in the dirt. The dirt is moved, not removed. Scratch a coin with a sewing needle. See any "removed" metal? |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
rare-coin broker conned an elderly East Sider
On 11/16/2010 8:01 PM, Frank Provasek wrote:
Whizzing cuts grooves in the coin like furrows from a plow (plough to you) in the dirt. The dirt is moved, not removed. Scratch a coin with a sewing needle. See any "removed" metal? That's the argument that I and other have made. As said before, it's the same as a coin being slashed with a chisel, as in ancient times to authenticate it, causing a deep gash in it. Yet when you weigh such coins, the weight is exactly the same as unslashed coins. Just as with with whizzing or scratching a coin with a needle, the metal has been pushed to the side. That's the reason as well that whizzed coins have the same weight as those not adulterated this way, that weight is not a diagnostic of whizzing. But you're arguing with another one of those Who Can Never Be Wrong, and he like others of his ilk attempts to deflect this by making this accusation of others, by throwing out jargon, and by referring to his "experience." In what? Coin doctoring? Feast your mind on the hubris of experimenting to create something that you had never actually seen in person, in this case a whizzed coin, then making conclusions from this to prove all the so-called experts wrong. Online expertism, another fascinating aspect of this curious world of online communication. -- Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
rare-coin broker conned an elderly East Sider
"Frank Provasek" wrote in message ... Whizzing cuts grooves in the coin like furrows from a plow (plough to you) in the dirt. The dirt is moved, not removed. Hardly a reasonable analogy, Frank, considering the wildly different natures of soil vs solid metal Scratch a coin with a sewing needle. See any "removed" metal? Yes. http://www.mendosus.com/whizzing/whiz-concl.html See the "filings"? Also, look at the illustrations at the bottom of the page. HTH -- Jeff R. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
rare-coin broker conned an elderly East Sider
"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message ... On 11/16/2010 8:01 PM, Frank Provasek wrote: Whizzing cuts grooves in the coin like furrows from a plow (plough to you) in the dirt. The dirt is moved, not removed. Scratch a coin with a sewing needle. See any "removed" metal? That's the argument that I and other have made. As said before, it's the same as a coin being slashed with a chisel, A flexible wire brush strand is hardly a "chisel" Reid. Would you like me to outline the differences in their properties? ...as in ancient times to authenticate it, causing a deep gash in it. Yet when you weigh such coins, the weight is exactly the same as unslashed coins. What does "exactly" mean? ...Just as with with whizzing or scratching a coin with a needle, the metal has been pushed to the side. That's the reason as well that whizzed coins have the same weight as those not adulterated this way, that weight is not a diagnostic of whizzing. Certainly not at the level of accuracy that weight is measured, no. How many "filings" would it take to make up 0.01g? (a lot) Who diagnoses older coins to a greater order of accuracy than 0.005g? Well? But you're arguing with another one of those Who Can Never Be Wrong, and he like others of his ilk attempts to deflect this by making this accusation of others, by throwing out jargon, Jargon? What jargon? Cites, please. (And I am so sorry if you cannot understand the simple explanations I provide.) ...and by referring to his "experience." In what? Coin doctoring? Feast your mind on the hubris of It's not "hubris" when you're right. experimenting to create something that you had never actually seen in person, in this case a whizzed coin, This doesn't matter. Irrelevant point. (It's wrong now, too, BTW. I have a number of coins that are marked "whizzed" by the graders. They proved or demonstrated absolutely nothing.) I am commenting on laws of physics, which are independent of the opinions of "coin doctors" or "graders". ... then making conclusions from this to prove all the so-called experts wrong. So you now acknowledge their "so-called" status? Have you informed Rick Montgomery of your change of heart? ... Online expertism, another fascinating aspect of this curious world of online communication. Reid, find *one* - just ONE - individual with genuine experience and/or qualifications in metal working and/or metallurgy who agrees with your hypothesis. I cannot "prove" my experience online, and you refuse to acknowledge the facts of physics as I present them to you. (1) Whizzing is an abrasive process (2) You cannot plastically deform metal with a flexible wire brush. Prove me wrong. -- Jeff R. (preferably with science, not just more name-calling) |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
rare-coin broker conned an elderly East Sider
On 11/17/2010 1:08 AM, Jeff R. wrote:
Reid, find*one* - just ONE - individual with genuine experience and/or qualifications in metal working and/or metallurgy who agrees with your hypothesis. You ridiculed me for using the term "plastic deformation" to describe the process though which the surface metal of a coin is softened and moved through whizzing, saying the physics of this is impossible. But this is the same term used to describe whizzing by Tony Clayton, a former physics teacher who maintains a Web site on coin metals. As he said: "What does occur is plastic deformation of the surface layers. This will result in surface metal being moved, in just the same way as drawing a knife across the surface will result in a scratch with the moved material forming a narrow raised area on each side." Allen Stockton, a coin doctor, someone who unlike you actually worked on coins BEFORE you made your grand conclusions about what happens when they're worked on, also says metal is moved. So has PCGS in its book Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection, Brian Silliman of NCS (Numismatistic Conservation Services) in his Numismatist column and the ANA in its book A.N.A. Grading Standards for United States Coins. Yes. You're correct. This is all just my "hypothesis." Or was it what you said before, that all these people are just copying one another, and unlike you none of them has a metal shop? Ad infinitioticdum. Like talking to a brick wall and with the same intelligence. Bye. But remember to keep bringing this subject up whenever you can in threads about completely unrelated subjects, and if you continue to beseech me over the next seven years as you have the past seven to apologize to you and to this entire group for the effrontery of doubting your of-so-well established wisdom about this, maybe I'll eventually do it. Or not. Why not put up some more Web pages too while you're at it, trying in your buffoonishly sophomoric way to ridicule me, and point out this clever Web site of yours to others here a couple of dozen more times in discussions completely unrelated to this subject. Maybe you'll get me to offer you an apology that way. Nutcase. -- Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
rare-coin broker conned an elderly East Sider
"Jeff R." wrote in message ... "Frank Provasek" wrote in message ... Whizzing cuts grooves in the coin like furrows from a plow (plough to you) in the dirt. The dirt is moved, not removed. Hardly a reasonable analogy, Frank, considering the wildly different natures of soil vs solid metal Scratch a coin with a sewing needle. See any "removed" metal? Yes. http://www.mendosus.com/whizzing/whiz-concl.html See the "filings"? Also, look at the illustrations at the bottom of the page. HTH -- You boys ought to step back and ask yourselves "Does anybody (besides yourselves) give a **** about this subject?" OK OK I'll give you the answer: NO. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
rare-coin broker conned an elderly East Sider
On Nov 17, 3:23*pm, "Coin Forum" wrote:
You boys ought to step back and ask yourselves "Does anybody (besides yourselves) give a f**k about this subject?" OK OK I'll give you the answer: NO. Profanity removed by me. I feel that someone who wants people to access your site should refrain from such language on newsgroups. IMHO, it doesn't reflect well upon you. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
rare-coin broker conned an elderly East Sider
In , on 11/17/2010
at 07:43 PM, "Coin Forum" said: Profanity restored by me. And I feel people as prissy as you should not access the Usenet. Ironic, isn't it? Should we now take a poll and see if anyone gives a FF or RA about how YOU "feel"?? Yes, it's the same age-old answer. Funny that. plonk Pin-headed moron removed by me. Nick |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
rare-coin broker conned an elderly East Sider
"Coin Forum" wrote in message ... You boys ought to step back and ask yourselves "Does anybody (besides yourselves) give a **** about this subject?" OK OK I'll give you the answer: NO. Oh dear. You poor fellow. You must have installed the version of OE which doesn't allow you to skip threads. Or ignore posts. It must be hell in there. -- Jeff R. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
9 to be arraigned in rare coin scheme --- Millions stolen from duped elderly victims, authorities say | Arizona Coin Collector | Coins | 5 | November 25th 08 01:36 PM |
Coin broker suspected of swindling nearly $1 million | stonej | Coins | 0 | May 15th 06 06:21 PM |
Mass. coin dealer used in scheme to defraud elderly Florida woman | stonej | Coins | 2 | May 30th 05 04:02 PM |
Man charged with defrauding elderly woman in $1 million gold coin scam | stonej | Coins | 0 | April 25th 05 06:58 PM |
Young girl used in ruse to steal elderly mans coin collection | stonej | Coins | 1 | January 16th 05 06:34 PM |