Numismatist on owning counterfeits
Reid Goldsborough
owning, buying, and selling counterfeits of collectable coins. At least
two people here have argued for years that this is illegal and
unethical, one by playing lawyer, amateurishly combining unrelated
statutes. The authors of this Numismatist column judiciously point out
that the legality of selling and owning counterfeits are confusing but
"The coins are legal to own as long as they are offered as contemporary
counterfeits and not sold with the intent to defraud." They also point
to a recently published book on the subject of counterfeit Bust halves,
available to borrow from the ANA library. I pointed out previously the
availablilty from the ANA library of the video by Red Book editor and
former ANA president Ken Bressett titled "Famous Fakes and Fakers" on
the attraction of collecting counterfeits. Lawyer Michael Benveniste
previously pointed out here that at least two circuit courts have ruled
that possession of counterfeit coins without intent to defraud doesn't
violate the U.S. counterfeit statues (United States v. Cardillo, 708
F.2d 29 [1983], and United States v. Ratner, 464 F.2d 169 [1972]). Those
with entrenched views will likely still argue about the illegality and
immorality of anything and everything having to do with counterfeits
even to the extent of equating the collecting and studying of
counterfeits with the support of international terrorism, to name just
one of the mind-boggling statements made here and that will no doubt
continue to be made. The common theme in all this: the interplay of
truth and misinformation, a key and fascinating issue in numismatics.
--
Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos
les.p...@gmail.com
> In the column Numismatic Ethics the authors talk about the legalities of
> owning, buying, and selling counterfeits of collectable coins.
My two cents: I want the real thing. I don't care about the ethics or
the legality
of the situation; I don't want them. Period. End of sentence. It's
such a pain
to be sifting through eBay auctions, and always needing to add "-
replica -copy -token -mini"
to all of my queries in order to weed out all of the ersatz items and
get to the
actual coins.
Les
me: http://life-of-coins.blogspot.com/
stringer for: http://news.coinupdate.com/
Nick Knight
12/02/2009
>to be sifting through eBay auctions, and always needing to add "-
>replica -copy -token -mini"
Collectable counterfeits are none of these. In this context, they are coins
meant to circulate at the time the copied coin was "current". While I don't
expect everyone to be interested in these (and fine with as little
competition as possible for these rare pieces), many are.
Here are some examples from my own personal collection of Bogus Bust Halves
(and note how many of these would have a tough time getting sold as
genuine):
http://www.mr2ice.com/coins/bogos/BogoList.html
The 1802 and 1816 are more modern "alterations" and not in the same spirit
of the other contemporary pieces. Interesting (to me), none-the-less.
Nick
Mr. Jaggers
While I concur with your positions regarding PCV, whizzing, and collecting
counterfeits, which you review in this recent trio of posts, I fail to see
the educational value in all-of-a-sudden taking potshots at rcc people who
have differed with you in the past. You yourself once observed that many
rcc regulars have dropped out because of what goes on here, but now, here
you are again, using condescending expressions such as "amateurish",
"playing lawyer", "whiz", and "metal shop guru" to refer to your past
opponents. Are you incapable of building yourself up without tearing others
down?
James
Reid Goldsborough
> My two cents: I want the real thing. I don't care about the ethics or
> the legality
> of the situation; I don't want them. Period. End of sentence. It's
> such a pain
> to be sifting through eBay auctions, and always needing to add "-
> replica -copy -token -mini"
> to all of my queries in order to weed out all of the ersatz items and
> get to the
> actual coins.
A much bigger problem than copies sold as copies is copies sold as
authentic. <g> I don't think there are that many copies sold as copies
in relation to authentic coins. But the blatant forgery scams on eBay
remain a big problem. I follow these crooks who sell, without
exaggeration, thousands of fakes as authentic, for years. Maybe the
single worst area here on eBay is antiquities. It's so easy to fool
people with this stuff. Sure, you can say, A fool and his money... and
all that. But the reality is that these forgery crooks get away with it.
The solution, right now, is to never buy stuff like this from eBay
sellers you don't know or who haven't been recommended to you by
reliable sources if you don't have expertise is the type of item and the
ways of eBay. Only a partial solution...
Mr. Jaggers
>> While I concur with your positions regarding PCV, whizzing, and
>> collecting counterfeits, which you review in this recent trio of
>> posts, I fail to see the educational value in all-of-a-sudden taking
>> potshots at rcc people
>
> coin doctoring, and counterfeit collecting) and the behavior (how
> truth gets compromised and misinformation gets spread). I'd suggest
> that one core reason that RCC is such a small shadow of what it used
> to be, along with the anonymous flamers, is the spew of off-topic
> chitchatting with virtually every thread that very quickly steers it
> from a discussion of numismatic substance into whatever somebody like
> you wants to chitchat about. Typically people like this carelessly
> just quote the entire thread before adding their chitchat at the end,
> which forces scrolling and makes it tedious for others to see if
> there's anything worth following. So they stop following. Threads
> degenerate as much from this as from flaming. This is not to say that
> digression and tangents should be outlawed or whatever. Free world
> and all. In the best moderated discussion groups chitchatty
> digression is controlled by gentle persuasion and tactful
> interjections. This doesn't work, for the most part, in unmoderated
> groups, with people just ignoring this. Another key reason for RCC's
> decline is the decline of Usenet in general and the discontinuation
> of Usenet feeds by major ISPs, though all other things being equal
> there are fairly easy work-arounds for this.
Of course you didn't mention a single name. But I know of only one person
who fits the description of "metal shop" and that discussion ended over two
years ago. It should have remained that way, but you had to dredge it up
all over again, complete with unnecessary and patronizing name-calling. It
is no coincidence that that same person is now embroiled with you again. I
don't blame him a bit for striking back.
As for focusing on the issues, please explain why you then bring
personalities into the picture with your adjectival characterisations of
people who hold views contrary to your own. When you do this, it says to me
that your views and your positions cannot stand on their own merit.
Finally, if you have a problem with my or anyone else's off-topic
chitchatting, well, there just aren't enough hardcore coin topics brought up
to make the newsgroup more coinworthy. The idle chitchat and sometimes
licentious banter serve to cement individuals together and make them more
human, not just members of a panel discussion. I've been around here for
several years, and during that time there has always been plenty of OT
material. It's just part of the rcc deal. I have to assume that everyone
here is eminently capable of ignoring or plonking the offending parties, if
it has to come to that. Tired of the anonymous flamers? Same comments
apply.
James
Nick Knight
>The idle chitchat and sometimes
>licentious banter serve to cement individuals together and make them more
>human, not just members of a panel discussion. I've been around here for
>several years, and during that time there has always been plenty of OT
>material.
Sheesh. And there will always be plenty of crime. The quantity doesn't
make it right, or desirable. That can't be used as an excuse to create more
crime.
Sorry, Reid has hit it smack on the head. I could start posting about my
nose hairs, or select a more dazzlingly disgusting topic, and I'm sure I
could get some replies brewing. How thrilling that would be.
There's no reason to bump up the volume with off topic garbage. And that's
what the majority of threads end up being. Usually, 2 people (sometimes 3)
talking amongst themselves about nothing coin related. That's what email is
for.
Nick
mazorj
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:hf946...@enews2.newsguy.com...
I don't know enough of the posting history here to comment on James' points,
but after 26 years on Internet forums and newsgroups, I do know enough to
take issue with some of your (Reid's) views on r.c.c. as an ongoing froup.
You have cited the standard explanations for why a particular newsgroup
would go into apparent decline. They're logical and valid up to a point.
But only up to a point because there's something missing. I have a few
ideas on the missing "X Factor" that I'll get to later.
First, let me give you a contrasting situation by pointing you to the
newsgroup rec.arts.sf.written, which I only recently began following. It is
chartered for a subject that is at least as narrow as numismatics. Arguably
it is even a much more narrow area of interest than coin collecting. Who
reads any books these days, let alone SF? Its title does not invite kooks
and wankers in the way that newsgroups such as alt.paranoia and alt.politics
do. But unlike r.c.c., it averages 300-400 posts a day. Most threads start
out as being on topic, but not surprisingly they soon wander off into
educated, animated discussions (with the occasional flame war) on tangential
topics. Oddly enough, only 2-4 of the hundreds of daily posts are new
threads. The rest are all those lively, generally interesting, generally
educated, continuing discussions of OT topics. They go on and on because
they attract participants and keep them coming back to r.a.s.w.
For the record, r.a.s.w. suffers from all the "defects" that you cite as the
downfall of r.c.c. So why 300-400 posts a day - which also runs counter to
your logical but insufficient observation on the general decline of Usenet -
versus the r.c.c. traffic of a few dozen posts? Also for the record, in the
2+ years that I've been a subscriber, r.c.c. hasn't exactly been a magnet
for drive-by kooks and flamers. There have been a few, and we do have a few
intermittently abusive regulars, but you'd have to be pretty thin-skinned to
let that bother you. If r.c.c. in its current relatively pest-free
condition (knock on wood) isn't bringing back the old crowd, then it's got
to be something else that's keeping r.c.c. from being "appointment Internet"
for them.
Also for the record, part of the explanation for r.a.s.w.'s popularity does
lie in the subject matter. "Real" SF is the literature of ideas. So
naturally, any newsgroup on SF books will initially attract more of the
articulate thinkers who like to kick ideas around. But attracting is one
thing, keeping them is another. If r.a.s.w. stuck strictly to its chartered
topic, my guess is that its traffic would be at or even below the level of
r.c.c. Written SF is the meat and potatoes of r.a.s.w. but there also is a
"special sauce" that keeps them coming back for more. The "special sauce"
is intelligent, articulate discussion of OT spin-offs that invite
participation by others.
If it were not for a few of the regulars here who enjoy OT, r.c.c. would
offer little more than a palid pedestrian diet of plain coin talk, strictly
meat and potatoes without any sauce. Even with the few inveterate,
incorrigible OT'ers we do have, r.c.c. is hardly a Grand Central Station for
lively Internet discussion. The original dot-com entrepreneurs mostly went
bust with their goofy "new economics" business models but they were at least
partly right in one respect: On the Internet, survival does depend on
attracting the eyeballs. And that requires content, be it products,
services, or interesting reading.
You know and admit that OT has a place as part of the glue that binds
participants together, and conversely as the grease that that keeps the
newsgroup machinery humming. Yet... your admissions do not obscure the fact
that you are bringing this up as a thinly disguised whine. If OT really
doesn't bother you (which I doubt) then just shut up about it. If it does
bother you, then shut up and either learn to skim and skip without rancor
the way most of us do, or beef up your killfile until you can only see the
handful of posters who never go OT. And please, stop limiting yourself to
the same litany of necessary but not sufficient reasons for why r.c.c. isn't
the r.a.s.w. of coin collecting. There's more to it than that - and at
least some of the "more" is the need for more of the very OT component that
you bemoan.
I'm have no history with you and I'm not trying to dump on you, Reid. If
anything, I read and enjoy some of your specialized mini-essays here. But
you're way out in left field with your complaining about OT and with your
limited explanations for why r.c.c. is not a powerhouse newsgroup. We have
met the enemy and he is us.
- mazorj
"Admonishments written while you wait."
Mr. Jaggers
Goodness, Nick, by posting as you just did, you have engaged in the very
activity that you condemn.
In my view, a person with only one dimension, whatever it may be, is not a
person I'd care to hang with for very long. Unless that one dimension
happened to be beer, he'd be a pretty lonely guy in most any crowd. Call
off-topic conversations garbage if you wish, but they are a necessary
component of human interaction. You do desire to interact with humans and
not automatons, I presume.
James
Bruce Remick
"Nick Knight" <bhnc...@mr2ice.com> wrote in message
news:4b1875f8$8$avpx$mr2...@news.east.cox.net...
> In <hf946...@enews2.newsguy.com>, on 12/03/2009
> at 01:40 PM, "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> said:
>
>>The idle chitchat and sometimes
>>licentious banter serve to cement individuals together and make them more
>>human, not just members of a panel discussion. I've been around here for
>>several years, and during that time there has always been plenty of OT
>>material.
>
> Sheesh. And there will always be plenty of crime. The quantity doesn't
> make it right, or desirable. That can't be used as an excuse to create
> more
> crime.
No, but maybe you can accept crime as inevitable. The *quality* of the
crime might make it more desirable to read about. At least if crime
bothers you, there are places you can live and measures you can take to
minimize the threat. If off-topic posts on RCC really bother you that much,
ditto. I don't recall very many original OT posts that went very far.
Mostly the coin-related posts wander into OT, once the original subject has
been covered by those few who care. Often, lurkers who might have had some
relevant input don't join the fray until the OT portion heats up. Human
nature, I guess.
>
> Sorry, Reid has hit it smack on the head. I could start posting about my
> nose hairs, or select a more dazzlingly disgusting topic, and I'm sure I
> could get some replies brewing. How thrilling that would be.
Maybe. Maybe not. Fortunately, the future of RCC doesn't depend on your
input.
>
> There's no reason to bump up the volume with off topic garbage. And
> that's
> what the majority of threads end up being. Usually, 2 people (sometimes
> 3)
> talking amongst themselves about nothing coin related. That's what email
> is
> for.
Hey, the end of a delicious ice cream cone is a dry crackery thingy, but
most people finish it without complaining. If you want to see more coin
discussion, start some coin-specific posts. If others are interested,
you'll have the satisfaction you desire. If you don't want to stay aboard
when the thread drifts off topic, you can at least have the satisfaction
that you started it.
Here I thought Usenet also was a place where two or three people could
"talk" amongst themselves about things that were or were not coin-related,
with the understanding that others monitoring the group were free to join in
the fun. Can't do that with email.
Petronius
news:hf9sun$31f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> I don't know enough of the posting history here to comment on James' points,
> but after 26 years on Internet forums and newsgroups, I do know enough to take
> issue with some of your (Reid's) views on r.c.c. as an ongoing froup.
For heaven's sake people, Reid is a glorified troll. Put him in your killfile
and move on.
Whatever positive contributions he may make are wildly offset by his pomposity,
argumentiveness, condescension, self-importance and general all-around
douchebaggery.
Well, at least he doesn't claim to spend $100K in dollar coins a year!
mazorj
"Petronius" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:hfa6p0$ic3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
With all due respect, that's a decision that every poster should make on
his/her own, based on a good first-hand knowledge of the poster's history
dealing with you as well as with the newsgroup in general.
I have seen enough to lend some weight to your recommendation, but he's
never flamed me and I do find some of his material interesting even when it
does come across as a bit stilted. (To which this deponent adds his own
scribblings here and in certain other posts as evidence of a tendency to do
the same. Not being without sin, I'm hardly in a position to cast the first
or even the fiftieth stone on writing style. That being said, his
ill-disguised whines about OT and other Usenet "sins" are starting to grate
on my nerves.)
Nobody's perfect so it depends on how the good and bad stuff balance out.
My jury is still out on RG. Hell, I managed to have some enjoyable
conversations with Finnan when he was in one of his informative, play nice
moods - even after he had shown plenty of examples of his own douchebaggery.
(BTW, nice neologism there.)
- mazorj the Tolerant
Mr. Jaggers
> Petronius wrote:
>
> Hey, "Petronius," why don't you take that bag off of your head and
> reveal who you really are? I know, it's more fun to post with the bag
> on. Well, since "Petronius" spilled the beans, I thought I'd show off
> some of my acquisitions thus far this year. I picked up that Class II
> 1804 dollar, previously in the Smithsonian's collection, but for
> heavens sake people please don't tell the U.S. Mint because this was
> another secret deal by one of their staffers who had access. I was
> also able to acquire one of the 1933 Saints, not one of the ten
> seized by the Secret Service from Israel Switt's daughter but from
> another batch still out there, but for heavens sake people please
> don't tell anyone about this either. I was also fortunate enough to
> acquire a 1964-D Peace dollar and a 1974 aluminum cent -- for heavens
> sake people don't believe everything you read about these either.
> Moving backward in time, which is where the fun really is, there's
> the Athenian Owl dekadrachm that just arrived, but I'd ask for
> confidentiality here too for heaven sakes people in case the U.S.
> State Department goes along with the Turkish government if it
> attempts to seize it as it has others and return it to Turkey as
> cultural property even though it was minted by Greeks and used by
> Greeks living in an area of current-day Turkey that at the time was a
> part of Greece. Well, that's five coins anyway, five of the ... let
> me do a quick count here ... 5,372,109 coins that I added to my
> collection this year, and there's still nearly a month left in 2009!
Reid, I can tolerate some of your verbal excesses once I've vented about
them, but your outbidding me on those first four coins you mentioned is just
plain unforgivable.
James the Disgruntled
Peter
> Petronius wrote:
>
> Hey, "Petronius," why don't you take that bag off of your head and
> reveal who you really are? I know, it's more fun to post with the bag
> on. Well, since "Petronius" spilled the beans, I thought I'd show off
> some of my acquisitions thus far this year. I picked up that Class II
> 1804 dollar, previously in the Smithsonian's collection, but for heavens
> sake people please don't tell the U.S. Mint because this was another
> secret deal by one of their staffers who had access. I was also able to
> acquire one of the 1933 Saints, not one of the ten seized by the Secret
> Service from Israel Switt's daughter but from another batch still out
> there, but for heavens sake people please don't tell anyone about this
> either. I was also fortunate enough to acquire a 1964-D Peace dollar and
> a 1974 aluminum cent -- for heavens sake people don't believe everything
> you read about these either. Moving backward in time, which is where the
> fun really is, there's the Athenian Owl dekadrachm that just arrived,
> but I'd ask for confidentiality here too for heaven sakes people in case
> the U.S. State Department goes along with the Turkish government if it
> attempts to seize it as it has others and return it to Turkey as
> cultural property even though it was minted by Greeks and used by Greeks
> living in an area of current-day Turkey that at the time was a part of
> Greece. Well, that's five coins anyway, five of the ... let me do a
> quick count here ... 5,372,109 coins that I added to my collection this
> year, and there's still nearly a month left in 2009!
>
>
> Consumer:http://rg.ancients.info/guide
> Connoisseur:http://rg.ancients.info/glom
> Counterfeit:http://rg.ancients.info/bogos
It sounds as though you may be (singlehandedly) keeping Chinese
counterfeiters and the Chinese economy prosperous.
Phil DeMayo
in part:
> Lawyer Michael Benveniste
> previously pointed out here that at least two circuit courts have ruled
> that possession of counterfeit coins without intent to defraud doesn't
> violate the U.S. counterfeit statues (United States v. Cardillo, 708
> F.2d 29 [1983], and United States v. Ratner, 464 F.2d 169 [1972]).
The individuals involved in those appeals were convicted of possession
with intent to defraud under Section 485....which requires intent to
defraud.
The cases pointed out that simple possession without intent to defraud
does not violate Section 485, but neither case proved that simple
possession does not violate U.S. Counterfeiting Statutes as you claim.
Try reading the cases.
Mike Marotta
> The cases pointed out that simple possession without intent to defraud
> does not violate Section 485, but neither case proved that simple
> possession does not violate U.S. Counterfeiting Statutes as you claim.
Nicely said. In criminology, we know two broad classes of
perpetrators: excusers and deniers. Excusers says (one way or
another) that the victim had it coming -or- that they themselves were
not (really) responsible for their actions. Deniers claim that they
did not really harm the victim, that there was no crime, that they
were not present, that they did not commit the act.
Famous in criminal justice circles is the theory of SYKES & MATZA
known as "techniques of neutralization." They developed this while
working with juvenile delinquents, but it applies broadly.
(*) Denial of responsibility. -- I did not intend to hurt anyone. It
wasn't my fault. (Contemporary counterfeits existed before I came
along.)
(*) Denial of injury.-- the victim was not really hurt. It's not a
big deal. (The Secret Service does not prosecute.)
(*) Denial of the victim. -- they deserved it (Chinese fakers feel
that US collectors have too much money. Cheating rich Americans is
not a crime.)
(*) Condemnation of the condemners. -- The cops are crooked, so this
arrest is unjust. ("Ever get a speeding ticket?" asks the importer of
counterfeit collectibles.)
(*) Appeal to higher loyalties. -- I won't squeal on my pals,
tradiitionally. but here we see an appeal to "numismatics" and to
"collectibility."
You can see all of that and each of those operating in the statements
of criminals who import, buy and sell counterfeit US currency and
other forgeries.
I have about a dozen good years left in my career and I'd like to see
Bogo The Clown behind bars before I retire.
Mike M.
Michael E. Marotta
"Book 'em, Danno!"
Peter Irwin
> On Dec 6, 2:03 pm, Phil DeMayo <flip1...@aol.com> wrote:
>> The cases pointed out that simple possession without intent to defraud
>> does not violate Section 485, but neither case proved that simple
>> possession does not violate U.S. Counterfeiting Statutes as you claim.
>
> Nicely said. In criminology, we know two broad classes of
> perpetrators: excusers and deniers.
Do you really not have that wonderful feature of English Common Law,
the "lawful excuse" in the United States?
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
Nick Knight
12/19/2009
On Dec 6, 2:03 pm, Phil DeMayo <flip1...@aol.com> wrote:
> The cases pointed out that simple possession without intent to defraud
> does not violate Section 485
>You just said, "The cases pointed out that simple possession without intent
>to defraud does not violate Section 485." Earlier you said, over and over
>and over, that simple possession of counterfeits of collectable coins is
>illegal.
Yeah, I missed that one too!
Could it be that .... FINALLY .... he's tried "reading the cases" himself,
and logic is finally penetrating the thickness?
Say it ain't so! He did still try to pull a silly, illogical slant in his
brilliant follow-up. Oh well. Baby steps. Baby steps. Not that it
matters one bit.
Nick
Phil DeMayo
wrote:
> > in part:
>
> > > Lawyer Michael Benveniste
> > > previously pointed out here that at least two circuit courts have ruled
> > > that possession of counterfeit coins without intent to defraud doesn't
> > > violate the U.S. counterfeit statues (United States v. Cardillo, 708
> > > F.2d 29 [1983], and United States v. Ratner, 464 F.2d 169 [1972]).
> > does not violate Section 485, but neither case proved that simple
> > possession does not violate U.S. Counterfeiting Statutes as you claim.
>
> > Try reading the cases.
>
>
> It seems you're playing lawyer again and trying to obfuscate.
You are lying. Did you delete the response you made shortly after I
posted that so you could pretend that you "missed" it.
> Section 485 deals with counterfeit coins!
No shit Sherlock, but it requires intent to defraud and carries severe
penalties. It does not cover simple possession.
It is section 492 (no intent to defraud required, forfeiture required,
no penalty unless you refuse upon request) that both Courts in the
Boggs case said prohibited possession of counterfeit coins and notes.
Now why don't you go and try to melt some metal with your Dremel...oh
wait, you've finally admitted that you were wrong on that one. That
only took a few years after both Jeff and I told you it couldn't
happen.
Nick Knight
at 03:34 PM, Reid Goldsborough <reidgol...@yahoo.com> said:
>It would indeed be something if Phil admitted he had been wrong.
Yes, it would. I believe it's been obvious to everyone else for many years
now. Hardheads will be hardheads.
>Has the government ever seized your car for this?
I know which one I'd give them! :)
I haven't referenced this page in years, but here's some history for anyone
that wants to understand the multiple-year "discussions" held here:
http://rcc.servehttp.com/#bogophobe
Still works, although you might actually have to click on the "Hardheads and
Counterfeits (the Bogophobic)" link if you get to the table of contents. My
web redirector is ignoring the internal page reference for me. Most of the
other stuff on this page is dated and I assume not applicable anymore. Most
of the composters seem to be gone or back in their caves ... or my killfile
is working better than it used to. I'm off for most of the next 2 weeks;
I'll add reworking this page to my todo list. The bogophobic stuff is
obviously still pertinent. The rest of my rcc commentary will be retired in
the next few days. I still host a somewhat similar page for an OS/2-related
problem, but this hasn't been referenced by anyone since 2004, so I suppose
that can be retired also.
Nick
Stujoe
the same. Forever repeating themselves, yes, but never changing.
Jeff R.
> Stujoe wrote:
>> It is nice to see that, in an ever-changing world, some things remain
>> the same. Forever repeating themselves, yes, but never changing.
>
> of new information has incrementally been added to this debate as time
> has progressed.
Maybe in the counterfeiting thread.
If you'd been paying attention, you would have seen that nothing new has
been added to the whizzing debate for over five years.
Welcome, Stu!
Good to "hear" from you.
--
Jeff R.
Jeff R.
> Jeff R. wrote:
>
>> If you'd been paying attention, you would have seen that nothing new
>> has been added to the whizzing debate for over five years.
>
> your famous whizzing experiment, done without your having previously
> seen any whizzed coins or having talked to anyone who whizzes coins,
> you used the wrong type of brush, that you used a cone brush while
> those who whiz coins use disk brushes. That you are saying this is
> "nothing new" just
> follows along the line of everything else you've said about this.
> You'll no doubt argue this, as you've argued everything. This kind of
> behavior is common enough online, this abject inability to alter a
> position,
> charge a view, admit a mistake. Maybe the oddest thing about this is
> how someone can be so afraid to lose face when we don't see each
> others' faces.
Reid, do you *really* believe the nonsense you spout, or are you just
trolling?
Really!
Its a serious question.
--
Jeff R.
Jeff R.
But Reid - be reasonable. You *never* answer the points in my posts.
(Well - *hardly* ever.)
I raise points, post data, ask questions, even suggest hypotheses and it's
not until *someone else* says exactly the same as I have been saying for
five years that you finally roll over.
You haven't acknowledged sintering as a possible means of "build-up". You
refused to acknowledge the impossibility of temperature build-up through
friction. You refuse to acknowledge the mechanical differences between a
flexible wire brush and a rigid die - etc. etc.
I had a quick look through the archives, and all the relevant points were
made years ago - and have been made many times - yet you choose to
acknowledge them or dismiss them on a whim - based presumably on your
assessment of personalities, not on the facts.
>..You said nothing new has come up about
> whizzing. I pointed to something new that has come up about whizzing,
> that Frank recently pointed out how you used the wrong kind of brush
> in your experiment, and that this further compromised the results.
Rubbish.
The brush type is almost irrelevant. Besides - *of course* I've used all
kinds of brushes. It just so happens I restricted the sample in the
experiment to the ones shown.
If you're interested - the only functional difference between the two types
of brush is that the disk-style can run up to much higher revs without
disintegrating. Therefore it is potentially much more savage than the
cup-style brush, and will dig deep gouges into the surface of any coin.
Technique is infinitely more significant than the shape of the brush.
(BTW - this difference must be irrelevant since your primary source, Rick
Montgomery, tells us that the brushes are used on an "electric screwdriver".
These devices rev at typically a few hundred RPM maximum. You would need to
use a Dremel to gain the advantage (?) of the disk-style brush - and if
you did, you'd be left with a featureless disk of scrap metal in a matter of
seconds. Remember? I ground the face off the 'roo with the *cup*-style
brush running much, much slower. A disk-style at top revs
(its only distinguishing feature) would demolish the coin.)
>.. And
> you're now responding by saying I'm trolling.
Well, explain why you believed Tony in an instant, yet ignored me when I
provided exactly the same explanation - five years earlier.
Try to keep personalities out of your explanation. Explain why my *facts*
were wrong, yet Tony's are right - even though they're the same.
Oh! Almost forgot!
Will you chide Tony - as you chided and belittled me - for using "technical
mumbo-jumbo terms" (such as "plastic deformation") ?
Or is it (again) one rule for me and another rule for others?
Explain also why you post nonsensical "funny" posts in the same thread.
Your humour is so strained it hurts, and it only highlights your desperation
to dodge and deflect.
Will you acknowledge Rick Montgomery was wrong?
Will you accept the consequences that carry on from that observation
(i.e. he is not an infallible source - as you have claimed previously).
>..That also is very much
> in line with your previous behavior.
Which behaviour is that, Reid?
Claiming that I'm right when I am?
So sorry about that.
> Your whizzing experiment was doomed from the start,
How is that?
Does abrasion work differently in the southern hemisphere?
>...wasn't a true
> experiment in the first place, for all the reasons previously pointed
> out.
What reasons?
That I didn't own a whizzed coin?
Are you serious?
>...So now you deny, deflect, and denounce.
I have denied nothing that I have been maintaining since 2004.
Provides cites to demonstrate otherwise, or retract.
I continue to deny suppositions based on ignorance or bad science.
I have not sought to deflect the argument.
My summary has always been:
"Whizzing does not liquefy metal, it is an abrasive process.
The only 'moving' of metal is abrasive or microscopic."
Provide cites to prove otherwise, or retract.
Yes I have denounced. Mea Culpa.
...as I will continue to do - until I finally tire of attempting to educate
you.
>...Anything to avoid
> saying, I was wrong about that.
Well, why would I say that, when everything I've said in this "debate" has
been correct?
Now, Reid.
Will you address all of answers above, or will you "deny, deflect, and
denounce" - to use a handy expression I just picked up?
I should add "ignore", of course, since that is your favoured tactic.
--
Jeff R.
Mr. Jaggers
> whizzing. I pointed to something new that has come up about whizzing,
> that Frank recently pointed out how you used the wrong kind of brush
> you're now responding by saying I'm trolling. That also is very much
> in line with your previous behavior.
>
> in the act, when the wife walks in, and you deny that you're doing
> anything wrong, and you and your mistress dress quickly, and you shoo
> her out of the house, and then you deny to your wife that anyone was
> was ever in the house and say how dare she suspect you.
I'm confused. First, the wife catches you in flagrante and you deny it is
happening (I assume directly to her face), then you and the naked lady have
time to get dressed and she to leave while the sainted wife fetches the
rolling pin or the Smith & Wesson, and yet you survive to repeat the denial.
I know some guys who would pay big for details about how to pull that one
off. Patent that process, and you'll never have to work again!
James the Faithful
Jud
wrote:
> But the one reference I spent the most time
> with was a coin doctor who unlike you actually created a whizzed coin,
> many, a guy I spoke with on the phone, as I've also pointed out many times.
Hearsay evidence. Speak with Jeff and you will get an entirely
different opinion.
Jud -Who watches too much Judge Judy
Mr. Jaggers
Just about all of the "evidence" offered these days easily fits into the
"hearsay" category, no matter what the venue, no matter what the topic.
James the Lie Detector
Jeff R.
"Reid Goldsborough" <reidgol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3cmfgc....@news.alt.net...
> Jeff R. wrote:
>
>> Reid, do you *really* believe the nonsense you spout, or are you just
>> trolling?
>
Don't complain about me, when *you* only ever answer selectively, or not at
all.
See, for example, my comprehensive answer to your above post, which you have
effectively ignored.
Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle.
--
Jeff R.
Stujoe
Just making my every 6 month or so swing through the group. And
getting a chuckle out of it. ;)
Mr. Jaggers
> Stujoe wrote:
>
>> getting a chuckle out of it. ;)
>
> this continuing debate on collecting counterfeit coins? You make a
> statement, a criticism really (that's OK), that the discussion on this
> subject is forever repeating itself and never changing. It's pointed
> out that the discussion has in fact changed, that new information has
> surfaced. And your only response is that you get a chuckle out of this
> group?
>
> If you have no interest in the subject of collecting counterfeit
> coins, why would you choose that subject to comment on during your
> semiannual visit? Why not pick a subject that you have in fact
> followed and have interest in, and perhaps might even have something
> constructive to contribute, some new piece of information or some
> interesting experience to share?
Yeah, I'd like to hear stujoe's views on the Walter Breen Encyclopedia. It
never hurts to have a fresh point of view around this joint. What say you,
stu?
James, Ever Eager for New Information
Anka
Greetings, Stujoe! Merry Christmas!
(Still in the service? I am retiring on January 1st after 38 years &
7 months with the DoD.)
~Anka
Anka
wrote:
> Anka wrote:
> > (Still in the service? �I am retiring on January 1st after 38 years &
> > 7 months with the DoD.)
>
> and Afghanistan. Alexander the Great would have subdued things, as he
> did before, in relatively short order. But unlike you he didn't sit back
> in his cushy office and watch others do the hard work. That was one key
> reason why, after he was gone, his generals put his portrait on their
> coins, beginning the era of ruler portraiture on Greek coinage. No way
> would they have done this if he had just parked himself in front of his
> computer!
>
> Two of his generals honored him this way, maybe three, though the jury
> is still out with Seleukos. I think he did. Cool coin, Sear 6833, don't
> you think?, though you see it on the marketplace today far less than
> Lysimachos or Ptolemy tetradrachms depicting Alexander, and it's priced
> accordingly. Then there are the equally interesting though less
> celebrated Seleukos bronzes, Sear 6852 among others, that may have also
> depicted Alexander but whose iconography is also in dispute. There are
> just too many disputes in the world today.
>
> --
>
> Consumer:http://rg.ancients.info/guide
> Connoisseur:http://rg.ancients.info/glom
> Counterfeit:http://rg.ancients.info/bogos
Still clinging intransigently to those tired old notions, I see.
~Anka
Stujoe
>
> Greetings, Stujoe! Merry Christmas!
>
> (Still in the service? I am retiring on January 1st after 38 years &
> 7 months with the DoD.)
And a Happy New Year to you!
And congrats on the retirement! They got 20 years and about 2 weeks
out of me. ;) The deployments just got to be too much. Now I work at
a VA hospital...going for my next 20.
Stujoe
wrote:
>
> Yeah, I'd like to hear stujoe's views on the Walter Breen Encyclopedia.
Big book. Lots of pictures and words. Mine sits on a bookshelf.
Anka
Good for you! Nice hearing from you again.
~Anka
Mike Marotta
>> On Dec 25, 1:19 pm, Reid Goldsborough <reidgolduse...@yahoo.com>
> > and Afghanistan. Alexander the Great would have subdued things, as he
> > did before, in relatively short order. But unlike you he didn't sit back
> > in his cushy office and watch others do the hard work. That was one key
> > reason why, after he was gone, his generals put his portrait on their
> > coins, beginning the era of ruler portraiture on Greek coinage. No way
> > would they have done this if he had just parked himself in front of his
> > computer!
>
> > Two of his generals honored him this way, maybe three, though the jury
> > is still out with Seleukos. I think he did. Cool coin, Sear 6833, don't
> > you think?, though you see it on the marketplace today far less than
> > Lysimachos or Ptolemy tetradrachms depicting Alexander, and it's priced
> > accordingly. Then there are the equally interesting though less
> > celebrated Seleukos bronzes, Sear 6852 among others, that may have also
> > depicted Alexander but whose iconography is also in dispute. There are
> > just too many disputes in the world today.
AMZ> Still clinging intransigently to those tired old notions, I see.
AMZ> ~Anka
I could not find Reid Goldsborough's original post. He must have
deleted it, as he has, like Winston Smith, destroyed so much history
from the archives.
Personally, I believe that violence is the last resort of the
incompetent. In a rational world, we would not need militaries. But
we do not live in a rational world, do we? The irony is that Anka
actually assured that Reid Goldsborough got paid when he was in the
Navy. She would have done that even if she knew then what she knows
now. She's the kind of trooper who never leaves anyone behind. ...
which is why when the Blue Angels come to the Cleveland Air Show, they
always fly by the Federal Building.
And as is always required, a relevant numismatic point:
http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=316671&AucID=569&Lot=429
or two
http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=325342&AucID=582&Lot=72
Huch! I habe dass Reid kein Deutsch liest vergassen.... Schade...
Hoffentlich, traegt der Bild die gebrauchtete Bedeutung.
Mike M.
Michael E. Marotta
"Diehard civilian"
Anka
> or twohttp://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=325342&AucID=582&Lo...
>
> Huch! �I habe dass Reid kein Deutsch liest vergassen.... Schade...
> Hoffentlich, traegt der Bild die gebrauchtete Bedeutung.
>
> Mike M.
> Michael E. Marotta
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'll miss the air show practices on Thursday before Labor Day,
watching the Blue Angels (or Thunderbirds) fly in from Dayton and land
at Burke or wondering if the C130 transports would ever lift off (they
always did, and on a short runway). You'd swear the FOB would tip
over, there were so many gawking out the windows on the north side of
the building. So here I am, reading RCC and perusing VCoins, drinking
coffee and eating bonbons. ;-)
~Anka
Anka
> On Jan 5, 10:07�am, Anka <ank...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I'll miss the air show practices on Thursday before Labor Day,
>
> taken place in a parallel universe.)
>
> --
>
> Consumer:http://rg.ancients.info/guide
> Connoisseur:http://rg.ancients.info/glom
> Counterfeit:http://rg.ancients.info/bogos
I never said you were in the Navy. I never took you for a Navy man,
either.
~Anka
Anka
> Anka wrote:
> > I never said you were in the Navy. �I never took you for a Navy man,
> > either.
>
> know you're retiring, but come on! <g> I'd love to know what research
> Michael did to come up with this fact. Must have channeled old Walter
> Breen. Hey, Michael. Account for yourself. Maybe you really do know
> something I don't.
>
> --
>
> Consumer:http://rg.ancients.info/guide
> Connoisseur:http://rg.ancients.info/glom
> Counterfeit:http://rg.ancients.info/bogos
Yeah, I remember. That's why I said, "I never said you were in the
Navy."
You used to think that Michael and I were one and the same person.
Perhaps you still do. Perhaps that's the reason for your
befuddlement.
~Anka