Whizzing coins - new info
A.Gent
involves moving metal around the surface of a coin with the aid of a wire brush.
Fascinated at this seemingly absurd proposition, I asked a few questions.
A little light was shed on the notion, and some good points were made.
Unconvinced was I.
Therefore, I have sacrificed a perfectly innocent (and rather attractive) VF 1943
Australian florin on the altar of Scientific Advancement.
If you would care to view the results (and the process) they're at:
http://www.mendosus.com/whizzing/whiz.html
The site is image-heavy, but well-protected by thumbnails and small(ish) pages.
(Adjusting his asbestos undies...)
Now!
Let the flames fly!
...or alternatively, you could let me know what you think.
All comments welcome.
Cheers, all
--
Jeff
(no longer busting for a whiz)
Bruce Hickmott
to have written:
Excellent. Coin World, are you watching? You should mail him a check and print
what he's done.
Bruce
A.Gent
"Bruce Hickmott" <bru...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
news:c0vq70po1f5tbfhku...@4ax.com...
> >All comments welcome.
> >
> >Cheers, all
>
> Excellent. Coin World, are you watching? You should mail him a check and print
> what he's done.
>
> Bruce
Thanks Bruce.
(Jeepers, you read fast!)
--
Jeff
Bruce Hickmott
to have written:
>
Whenever I hit a wall on what I'm working on, I hit the refresh button on my
newsreader.
Right now, I'm trying to write a parser that can handle two separate formats of
the same data. One format is NORMALLY illegal, but is allowed in certain
specific cases. I'm having real trouble trying to figure out how to make this
crude scripting language determine if I have a legal format with the data I'm
given.
Until I get that figured, expect quick responses. I've hit refresh at least 4
times in the last hour.
Bruce (when the only tool you have is a hammer, the entire world looks like a
nail)
A.Gent
>
> Whenever I hit a wall on what I'm working on, I hit the refresh button on my
> newsreader.
Hehehe
That's the exact same reason why I'm on this blessed NG so often.
In fact, I'm *so* easily distracted that...
Ian
I grieve for the florin, it had led such a sheltered life....and had
soooooo many more useful years ahead of it.
Next trial for you is to determine exactly how long it takes being used
as a pocket / conversation piece to smooth out the effects of having
been whizzed. ;-)
Ian
A.Gent
"Ian" <I...@wideblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:zqffc.3654$Aw2.34...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> A.Gent wrote:
>
> >
> > Therefore, I have sacrificed a perfectly innocent (and rather attractive) VF 1943
> > Australian florin on the altar of Scientific Advancement.
> >
> > If you would care to view the results (and the process) they're at:
> > http://www.mendosus.com/whizzing/whiz.html
> >
>
> soooooo many more useful years ahead of it.
>
> Next trial for you is to determine exactly how long it takes being used
> as a pocket / conversation piece to smooth out the effects of having
> been whizzed. ;-)
>
> Ian
>
If we are to advance as a society, *sacrifices must be made*!
Ye Gods!
Is that the time?
'night all.
--
Jeff
Alan Williams
Excellent work! Excellent technique and excellent exposition, Jeff!
Grade A!
Alan
'thinks nylon must be the material of choice'
Bruce Remick
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 04:03:23 +1000, "A.Gent" <still....@spam.bots> is
alleged
> to have written:
>
> >
> >"Bruce Hickmott" <bru...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
> >news:c0vq70po1f5tbfhku...@4ax.com...
> >> >All comments welcome.
> >> >
> >> >Cheers, all
> >>
> >> Excellent. Coin World, are you watching? You should mail him a check
and print
> >> what he's done.
> >>
> >> Bruce
> >
> >
> >Thanks Bruce.
> >(Jeepers, you read fast!)
>
> Whenever I hit a wall on what I'm working on, I hit the refresh button on
my
> newsreader.
>
> Right now, I'm trying to write a parser that can handle two separate
formats of
> the same data. One format is NORMALLY illegal, but is allowed in certain
> specific cases. I'm having real trouble trying to figure out how to make
this
> crude scripting language determine if I have a legal format with the data
I'm
> given.
>
If you have any luck, could you run me through how to program my VCR before
they become totally obsolete? : ' )
Bruce
Alan Williams
Beta or VHS?
Alan
'couldn't help it'
Scot Kamins
"A.Gent" <still....@spam.bots> wrote:
> Therefore, I have sacrificed a perfectly innocent (and rather attractive) VF
> 1943
> Australian florin on the altar of Scientific Advancement.
>
> If you would care to view the results (and the process) they're at:
> http://www.mendosus.com/whizzing/whiz.html
Jeff,
Pretty impressive bit of work. Thanks for doing it.
--
*** Collecting euros (for no apparent reason) ***
*** Assembling a U.S. type set (to decide what to specialize in) ***
*** Recently bitten by the U.S. Commemorative bug (Diety help me!) ***
Bob Peterson
in one of the coin rags.
"A.Gent" <still....@spam.bots> wrote in message
news:407d7b31$0$25657$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Barry
Yeah, and it doesn't risk losing any of your sleazy advertisers,
either.
--
Note - Remove the X from my e-mail address for direct replies
John Carney
> I grieve for the florin, it had led such a sheltered life....and had
> soooooo many more useful years ahead of it.
>
> Next trial for you is to determine exactly how long it takes being used
> as a pocket / conversation piece to smooth out the effects of having
> been whizzed. ;-)
>
> Ian
I think it looks nice and shiney!..........well it does :o)
--
John
Visit the RCCers favorite coins web page
http://mysite.verizon.net/jcarney44/coins/rccers.html
Bruce Remick
"Alan Williams" <will...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:407D9F9D...@mindspring.com...
Huh? I don't have any diseases, if that's what you're asking. And I
normally don't like to publically admit my ineptness in understanding minor
technical home appliances. I almost mastered the basic buttons on my TV
remote, when the local cable company gave us these huge ergonomic new ones
with enough buttons to control the Mars Rover.
I finally learned to navigate Napster a couple years ago and now have 100
illegal obscure doo-wop oldies in MP3 format that I can play on my computer,
but nowhere else. I bought a $200 CD burner and followed the installation
instructions, but the thing will not work.
I still have a bunch of LP and 45rpm records that I like to play
occasionally, just to keep in practice and to keep the parts of my
"Victrola" from rusting.
I recorded some cassette tapes to play in the car. Then I bought a new car
and a cassette player was no longer an option.
I just bought a new computer and paid for a tech to come and connect the
pieces and migrate files from this one to the new one. Now I don't know how
I'll get any leftover files from the old box to the new. I had a floppy
drive, internal Zip-drive, and non-writeable CD drive in the old one. The
new one has no floppy drive and an internal Zip drive wasn't an option.
I guess I'll just emerse myself in some old 1940's western movies until my
VCR dies or until the computer guy comes.
Bruce
'what were we talking about?'
Patrick Rose
patrick
"Bob Peterson" <peter...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:c5kf70$2nqbk$1...@ID-179783.news.uni-berlin.de...
Donald F. Boudreau
FWIW I would have tried the #535 brass wheel brush as it is more suited for soft
metals such as gold and silver and "could" be the type used by the whizzing
artists. Had I done the experiment, that would have been my first choice to
compare with the nylon brush. And by using the wheel type you also get a higher
contact or frictional speed at the point where the brush meets the coin.
Just my florin's worth.
Don
If you ask enough people for advice, you're bound to find someone
to advise you to do what you wanted to do anyway.
A.Gent
"Patrick Rose" <isz...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:5Klfc.36887$Xh1....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> Could you sacrifice a copper coin for the same demo? TIA
>
> patrick
Well, yes, (no shortage of coppers to volunteer) but I've already exceeded my
allocation of discretionary time to RCC this month.
Not saying "no", just warning that it may take a while. (The RCC Mint calls, too)
--
Jeff
(already in the "red")
A.Gent
"Donald F. Boudreau" <dfbou...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:t5rr70ljkq80nk6om...@4ax.com...
>
> FWIW I would have tried the #535 brass wheel brush as it is more suited for soft
> metals such as gold and silver and "could" be the type used by the whizzing
> artists. Had I done the experiment, that would have been my first choice to
> compare with the nylon brush. And by using the wheel type you also get a higher
> contact or frictional speed at the point where the brush meets the coin.
>
> Just my florin's worth.
>
> Don
Good points. Thanks Don.
Catch is, (this is a really lame excuse, but its true!) the local hardware doesn't
carry them.
I'll start looking.
--
Jeff
A.Gent
"John Carney" <jcarney4...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:FZjfc.58834$QQ6....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> "Ian" <I...@wideblueyonder.co.uk> wrote
>
> > I grieve for the florin, it had led such a sheltered life....and had
> > soooooo many more useful years ahead of it.
> >
> > Next trial for you is to determine exactly how long it takes being used
> > as a pocket / conversation piece to smooth out the effects of having
> > been whizzed. ;-)
> >
> > Ian
>
> I think it looks nice and shiney!..........well it does :o)
>
> --
> John
Hey! It *does*!
Really - it does look "nice and shiny"!
If whizzing/polishing weren't such an anathema to numismatics, I could well
understand the attraction.
--
Jeff
(next project will be a Rolls Royce pickup truck - "ute" to us Aussies)
A.Gent
> "A.Gent" wrote:
> > <snip>
> > Jeff
> > (no longer busting for a whiz)
>
> Excellent work! Excellent technique and excellent exposition, Jeff!
> Grade A!
>
> Alan
> 'thinks nylon must be the material of choice'
That's what Mum said in 1943.
--
Jeff
(not that I remember)
A.Gent
"Bob Peterson" <peter...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:c5kf70$2nqbk$1...@ID-179783.news.uni-berlin.de...
> in one of the coin rags.
Nothing dilutes the fun of a project like this faster than doing it on commission -
being paid for it.
Ask the buxom lady in the fishnet stockings, loitering outside the hotel.
--
Jeff
(in it just for the fun)
A.Gent
"Scot Kamins" <kam...@spamtrapdogeared.com> wrote in message
news:kamins-523514....@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <407d7b31$0$25657$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> "A.Gent" <still....@spam.bots> wrote:
>
>
> > Therefore, I have sacrificed a perfectly innocent (and rather attractive) VF
> > 1943
> > Australian florin on the altar of Scientific Advancement.
> >
> > If you would care to view the results (and the process) they're at:
> > http://www.mendosus.com/whizzing/whiz.html
>
> Jeff,
>
> Pretty impressive bit of work. Thanks for doing it.
Welcome.
It was (still is) fun.
--
Jeff
Reid Goldsborough
<dfbou...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>FWIW I would have tried the #535 brass wheel brush as it is more suited for soft
>metals such as gold and silver and "could" be the type used by the whizzing
>artists. Had I done the experiment, that would have been my first choice to
>compare with the nylon brush. And by using the wheel type you also get a higher
>contact or frictional speed at the point where the brush meets the coin.
There are many other variables too that he A.Gent didn't test. Most
pointedly, I strongly suspect that he didn't do what whizzers/coin
doctors themselves do. I say "suspect" because I don't know the
technique that whizzers use. But I do know that in none of the
pictures that resulted from A.Gent's testing do you see the
characteristic signs of whizzing -- crests and ridges of metal pushed
up against devices, legends, and dates. All you see in the close-up
shots A.Gent provides is scratched up metal. So the only logical
conclusion is that what he did isn't what whizzers do, that he just
guessed at what they do, and that he got it very wrong.
A.Gent
"Reid Goldsborough" <reidgold...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lj9u70d61r5chrv2k...@4ax.com...
Thanks for the critique, Reid.
> There are many other variables too that he A.Gent didn't test. Most
> pointedly, I strongly suspect that he didn't do what whizzers/coin
> doctors themselves do. I say "suspect" because I don't know the
> technique that whizzers use. But I do know that in none of the
> pictures that resulted from A.Gent's testing do you see the
> characteristic signs of whizzing -- crests and ridges of metal pushed
> up against devices, legends, and dates. All you see in the close-up
> shots A.Gent provides is scratched up metal. So the only logical
> conclusion is that what he did isn't what whizzers do, that he just
> guessed at what they do, and that he got it very wrong.
You must have missed the images I posted, and the explanations attached, about the
formation of "ridges".
That's understandable, though. There's over 120 images (>5Mb) presented over 10
pages, so perhaps it was a bit of overkill, and a lot to wade through.
I showed two instances of the production of "crests" and "ridges":
(1) between the devices "1" and "9" of the silver florin, and
(2) around the "01" on the 2001 cupro-nickel issue.
I showed, and explained, how these "ridges" were actually the high spots left between
the _valleys_ caused by the abrasive whizzing. Two instances, two different
explanations, same conclusion.
Here is one way that whizzing produces (microscopic) ridges:
http://www.mendosus.com/whizzing/gif/ridges-1.gif
In order to show this photographically, I would have to section, mount and polish a
whizzed coin, then photograph it with my other 'scope - the metallurgical one. Later
maybe.
This is another way ridges are produced (macroscopic):
http://www.mendosus.com/whizzing/gif/ridges-2.gif
This is the type of ridge which I produced, photographed and explained.
This is the type of ridge which would be observed through a loupe or low-power
microscope.
Note that it (they) doesn't extend higher than the original (untouched) position of
the coin's field.
It (they) is the product of abrasive removal of metal.
> ...All you see in the close-up
> shots A.Gent provides is scratched up metal.
Not quite. Sure, there's an awful lot of "scratched up metal". That's what whizzing
does - not on the "emu" side of the florin, though.
I followed every direction available to me about "how" to whiz. Tried a few methods
that weren't publicly posted or printed. Three different brushes, practically every
combination of pressure, angle, RPM, duration, movement. Could you suggest some
other variables I should apply? The brass brush I have already noted.
I *did* produce the classic diagnostic signs of whizzing:
* bright (but "dead") "lustre"
* blast white appearance
* frosty fields
* smoothing of sharp detail
* scratches of all shapes and sizes (mostly, BTW, invisible to the naked eye.)
* "cartwheel-ish" lustre
* ridges (and valleys!)
>...So the only logical
> conclusion is that what he did isn't what whizzers do,
No, that is just *one* conclusion. Not the "only logical" one.
I whizzed the coins. I produced artificial lustre. I produced ridges (and valleys).
I ended up with a very shiny coin, half of which is not scratched at all.
I remain convinced that metal is not "moved around the surface of the coin". The
mechanism of whizzing is abrasive removal of metal, not plastic deformation. Existing
scratches aren't "filled" - they are removed.
I cannot disprove the "metal moving" argument, any more than I can disprove the
presence of ghosts.
However, I have applied the technique, obtained the commonly-reported results and
shown that the mechanism is *other than* "moving metal around the coin".
Can you suggest some other technique or diagnostic I should apply?
Can you explain, in metallurgical terms, how a high-speed wire brush can fluidly move
metal around the surface of a coin?
Can anyone?
--
Jeff
mark
> I say "suspect" because I don't know the
>technique that whizzers use.
Given your admission above, on what sane basis can you claim this conclusion as
valid:
>So the only logical
>conclusion is that what he did isn't what whizzers do, that he just
>guessed at what they do, and that he got it very wrong.
Call your doctor Reid, your meds obviously need adjusting.
--
mark
Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
>Can you suggest some other technique or diagnostic I should apply?
PCGS talks about crude or heavy whizzing and sophisticated whizzing. I
strongly suspect you did the former. The sophisticated whizzing is
sometimes used on proof coins or prooflike business strikes, leaving
none of the harsh scratches on your test pieces. It says that a fine
burr may be used, possibly attached to a high-speed dentist's drill,
possibly with heat or chemicals used as well.
None of your links above worked either.
A.Gent
Thanks for the heads-up. My site is living up to its name. It'll be back up soon. In
the meantime, I've mirrored the site, and the two diagrams you missed are at the
bottom of:
http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/argenteus/whiz-concl.html
One half of the coin I whizzed (the emu half) did not have introduced scratches. I
guess that qualifies as "sophisticated" whizzing.
(Sidebar: hehehe. You should look at dictionary.com's -and the OED's- definitions
for "sophisticated" - but far be it for me to indulge in arguments about
"semantics" - or "original meaning of words"! ;-) )
Rick opines:
"In yet another form of surface alteration, the surfaces of Proof coins are heated to
actually melt the hairlines or other defects. This method may involve anything from a
match held under the surface for a few seconds to a high temperature torch
selectively applied to a specific area."
I'm discussing *whizzing*, not other forms of surface alteration.
...but...
"...anything from a match held under the surface..."
Well... do we lend any credence to *that* suggestion? Its right up there with the
high-speed electric screwdriver.
Ever melted silver? I have - many, many times. Unless you 'Merkins have wa-a-a-a-ay
powerful matches, then Rick's suggestion is not going to melt even the thinnest,
smallest artefact of a scratch. Silver is a very good conductor (Read: "heatsink").
"...a high temperature torch selectively applied ..."
O.K. I'll buy that. A jeweller's pipe, or a very, very fine oxy tip - but it's NOT
WHIZZING! Its: "...another form of surface alteration..."
Chemicals?
No need to go there. That's not whizzing, either. At worst, its "etching". At best,
its "artificial toning". Not relevant.
Dentist's burrs?
Maybe. In my experience these are *less* gentle than brushes - more likely to
scratch. I have a large set, but didn't even consider using them in this test for
that reason. I reiterate, however, that there is *no way* that a burr can heat the
surface of the coin sufficient to liquefy it, without first self-destructing and
leaving massive evidence on the coin surface. Even then.
=============
I maintain my thesis: that metal is not "moved" around the surface by whizzing - and
is certainly not "liquefied" in any way, shape or means. The mechanism of "whizzing"
is mechanical abrasion. (Deliberate tautology for emphasis.) Nothing more, nothing
less.
Neither Rick (by quote) nor Reid have advanced any arguments which suggest (let alone
prove) the contrary.
--
Jeff
A.Gent
"A.Gent" <still....@spam.bots> wrote in message
>
> "Reid Goldsborough" <reidgold...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:p800805kf95a14hdj...@4ax.com...
> >
"...either...?"
> Thanks for the heads-up. My site is living up to its name. It'll be back up soon.
Its back up now.
http://www.mendosus.com/whizzing/whiz.html home and index page
http://www.mendosus.com/whizzing/whiz-concl.html conclusions (and missing disgrams)
--
Jeff
mark
>That Reid can write two diametrically opposing statements in two posts or
>even the same post has never disturbed his serene countenance or even
>raised an eyebrow. I don't expect it ever will. It's sort of nice that
>some things never do change.
I keep waiting for some announcement from him that he's plonked me, cause he'll
never reply to this, he's not replied to either of my posts wherein I point out
that his precious Vartian says it's illegal to buy and sell counterfeits (page
28!), and a couple of others.
--
mark
Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
>Thanks for the heads-up. My site is living up to its name. It'll be back up soon. In
>the meantime, I've mirrored the site, and the two diagrams you missed are at the
>bottom of:
>http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/argenteus/whiz-concl.html
Um, ah, well, shoot ... This is a very good page, a good effort. But
you recognize as well it's just a start, that you could not possibly
have the same expertise in experimenting with whizzing as those who
have done it for years as a nefarious, profit-making enterprise. For
instance, you make the point on this page that in your experiments,
metal doesn't seem to have been moved and scratches don't seem to have
been filed in. But you didn't use heat or chemicals, which could well
induce the metal-moving and scratch-filling changes that PCGS has
observed and described when used in conjunction with a mechanical
nylon or other brushing action.
A.Gent
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 11:41:47 +1000, "A.Gent" <still....@spam.bots>
> wrote:
>
> >Thanks for the heads-up. My site is living up to its name. It'll be back up soon.
In
> >the meantime, I've mirrored the site, and the two diagrams you missed are at the
> >bottom of:
> >http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/argenteus/whiz-concl.html
>
> Um, ah, well, shoot ... This is a very good page, a good effort.
Why, thank you! ;-)
>..But
> you recognize as well it's just a start, that you could not possibly
> have the same expertise in experimenting with whizzing as those who
> have done it for years as a nefarious, profit-making enterprise. For
> instance, you make the point on this page that in your experiments,
> metal doesn't seem to have been moved and scratches don't seem to have
> been filed in. But you didn't use heat or chemicals, which could well
> induce the metal-moving and scratch-filling changes that PCGS has
> observed and described when used in conjunction with a mechanical
> nylon or other brushing action.
Yes, but, the introduction of heat and/or chemicals takes it out of the realm of
"whizzing" and right into the "other types of alteration" field.
The simple point I've been trying to make all along is that whizzing with a brush
(steel, nylon or dentist's burr) cannot liquefy and/or move metal around the surface
of a coin. 'Taint physically possible. I could take my jeweller's pipe and melt
shut a scratch on a florin, but that wouldn't be "whizzing".
Rick M. is wrong to attribute this phenomenon to "whizzing", as he does. I accept
that this may be careless editing - or creative licence - on his (or his editor's)
part.
As to my experience in whizzing as a "nefarious, profit-making enterprise": Correct,
I have only a week's experience in whizzing - but I do have 35+ years experience in
related metalworking endeavours (non-nefarious) and I'm cocky enough to feel that
they count for something!
--
Jeff
Scot Kamins
"A.Gent" <still....@spam.bots> wrote:
> As to my experience in whizzing as a "nefarious, profit-making enterprise":
> Correct,
> I have only a week's experience in whizzing - but I do have 35+ years
> experience in
> related metalworking endeavours (non-nefarious) and I'm cocky enough to feel
> that
> they count for something!
...erm...non-nearious but ferrous? [::ducking::]
Scot Kamins
Alan Williams
>
> In article <4081d02b$1$16964$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> "A.Gent" <still....@spam.bots> wrote:
>
> > As to my experience in whizzing as a "nefarious, profit-making enterprise":
> > Correct,
> > I have only a week's experience in whizzing - but I do have 35+ years
> > experience in
> > related metalworking endeavours (non-nefarious) and I'm cocky enough to feel
> > that
> > they count for something!
>
> ...erm...non-nearious but ferrous? [::ducking::]
>
Alan
'damn literary types'
A.Gent
> In article <4081d02b$1$16964$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> "A.Gent" <still....@spam.bots> wrote:
>
> > As to my experience in whizzing as a "nefarious, profit-making enterprise":
> > Correct,
> > I have only a week's experience in whizzing - but I do have 35+ years
> > experience in
> > related metalworking endeavours (non-nefarious) and I'm cocky enough to feel
> > that
> > they count for something!
>
>
> ...erm...non-nearious but ferrous? [::ducking::]
>
> Scot Kamins
Oh yes indeedies!
Ferrous, non-ferrous and ferrets
(but that was a horrible and tragic mistake - never to be spoken of again.)
--
Jeff
Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
>Yes, but, the introduction of heat and/or chemicals takes it out of the realm of
>"whizzing" and right into the "other types of alteration" field.
I don't see this. It's all alteration of a coin's surfaces for the
sake of deception. A whizzer doesn't care if he's following your
particularly narrowly defined definition of whizzing that doesn't
involve heat or chemicals. He just wants to make a coin prettier. If
heating the coin while he employing high-speed mechanical brush does
this better than employing a mechanical brush without heat, he'll use
heat.
A.Gent
Sigghhh.
I thought we were pretty fussy about definitions on this NG. (Witness "coin grading")
Surely the term "whizzing" implies high speed spin or motion (only).
This is not "my" definition. I don't "own" it. I am by no means the first to use it.
I feel that any definition of whizzing that allows for the separate application of
heat/chemicals is a clumsy and inexcusably imprecise use of the language. Find
someone else (other than Rick M.) who uses it.
However - personal standards differ.
I believe I have adequately suggested that
"applying-a-very-high-speed-wire-or-composition-brush" (the process
previously-known-as-whizzing) to the surface of a coin will not, alone, allow that
surface to liquefy and/or "move about".
Maybe I haven't expressed myself clearly enough.
--
Jeff
Phil DeMayo
>Sigghhh.
>I thought we were pretty fussy about definitions on this NG. (Witness "coin
>grading")
>Surely the term "whizzing" implies high speed spin or motion (only).
>
>This is not "my" definition. I don't "own" it. I am by no means the first to
>use it.
>
>I feel that any definition of whizzing that allows for the separate
>application of
>heat/chemicals is a clumsy and inexcusably imprecise use of the language.
>Find
>someone else (other than Rick M.) who uses it.
>
>However - personal standards differ.
You forgot you were talking to Mr. Grey Areas
++++++++++
Phil DeMayo - always here for my fellow Stooge
When bidding online always sit on your helmet
Just say NO to counterfeits
mark
>. A whizzer doesn't care if he's following your
>particularly narrowly defined definition of whizzing that doesn't
>involve heat or chemicals.
And just how many "whizzer" people do you know?
--
mark
Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
>I thought we were pretty fussy about definitions on this NG.
I think it's easy to go overboard with definitions and semantics and
so on. Your purpose was to try to show that metal doesn't get moved
around and scratches don't get filled in with "whizzing," which of
course is a type of coin doctoring. My point is that how you define
whizzing is secondary to what actual coin doctors do. Do they employ
only a high-speed mechanical brush? Or do they employ other methods in
conjunction with a mechanical brush in pursuit of their deception?
I don't know the answer. What I do is what know I've read in PCGS's
book, Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection, and what I've read
online. And it makes sense, doesn't it, that the use of heat or
chemicals might soften the silver surface slightly, making it a bit
more malleable, better able to move in ways that cover up defects and
simulate luster?
I'm not trying to be harsh here, but I don't believe that after one
week's experimenting with whizzing your conclusions are valid, that
what PCGS has written about whizzing in incorrect. Though, again, what
you did was interesting to read, and you did a good job, for what it's
worth, to my eyes.
What you did is similar to what some have done in trying to draw
conclusions about ancient minting practices. They make educated
guesses from what they've read about how the ancients struck coins,
try to replicate it in striking coins from scratch, and write up their
results. One person did this not long in an article for the Celator.
Of course, others responded with criticism, including the fact that
ancient celators likely had to undergo apprenticeships before striking
coins themselves, learning from masters who had done it for many
years, that celators, probably strong young men, likely wielded
hammers far heavier than the hammer this article writer used, and so
on.
Again, this is not to say that this type of experimentation is
useless. It's not. But it does have it limitations.
Scot Kamins
Reid Goldsborough <reidgold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm not trying to be harsh here, but I don't believe that after one
> week's experimenting with whizzing your conclusions are valid, that
> what PCGS has written about whizzing in incorrect.
Before you people start hurling WMD at each other (so THAT'S where they
went!), has anyone thought of asking PCGS why THEY think that whizziing
moves metal around? Maybe they made a mistake that nobody caught. Maybe
an editor was in a hurry to go to lunch. (Believe me, that happens a LOT
in publishing.) Maybe a million things. But if somebody's got a finger
pointed at 'em, maybe s/he should be given the chance to comment.
No?
Alan Williams
>
> In article <n3p580tisfg5njkel...@4ax.com>,
> Reid Goldsborough <reidgold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm not trying to be harsh here, but I don't believe that after one
> > week's experimenting with whizzing your conclusions are valid, that
> > what PCGS has written about whizzing in incorrect.
>
> Before you people start hurling WMD at each other (so THAT'S where they
> went!), has anyone thought of asking PCGS why THEY think that whizziing
> moves metal around? Maybe they made a mistake that nobody caught. Maybe
> an editor was in a hurry to go to lunch. (Believe me, that happens a LOT
> in publishing.) Maybe a million things. But if somebody's got a finger
> pointed at 'em, maybe s/he should be given the chance to comment.
>
> No?
>
Odds are good I've repeated it myself. I never really gave it much
thought before Jeff's hands-on experiment, but it *does* seem ridiculous
to think that silver is plastic enough to just 'shove it around', rather
than abrade the coin's surface.
Reid as a doubter is par for the course. He's not that long in the
hobby and has no background as a metallurgist. In the past he's proven
big on hanging onto 'the common thought' or published dogma for dear life.
Alan
'got a florin that needs scratched? I know where you can get it done'
Reid Goldsborough
<will...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>it *does* seem ridiculous
>to think that silver is plastic enough to just 'shove it around'
I'm forced again to say to you that if you knew one iota about what
you were speaking about, you wouldn't say something as patently
ridiculous as you just said. Metal gets pushed around every time a
coin is struck, and it's this pushing of metal that creates not only a
coin's devices and inscriptions but also flow lines and all the rest.
Silver is *very* plastic, under the right circumstances. If metal gets
pushed around during striking, it's very easy to see how it could get
pushed around during post-strike doctoring, with mechanical devices,
heat, and chemicals.
Alan Williams
Why don't you add solar eclipses, nuclear reactions and anti-gravity
wells to your ever-expanding list of 'whizzing' techniques? Coins are
struck under tons of pressure, Reid. You gotta hydralic coin press
handy?
Alan
'at least you spelled 'iota' correctly this time'
Reid Goldsborough
<will...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Why don't you add solar eclipses, nuclear reactions and anti-gravity
>wells to your ever-expanding list of 'whizzing' techniques? Coins are
>struck under tons of pressure, Reid. You gotta hydralic coin press
>handy?
Were ancient coins struck under tons of pressure? Duh. You don't need
tons of pressure to move metal. If a hammer can move metal, so can a
mechanical wire brush used with heat or chemicals.
Alan Williams
>
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:42:30 GMT, Alan Williams
> <will...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Why don't you add solar eclipses, nuclear reactions and anti-gravity
> >wells to your ever-expanding list of 'whizzing' techniques? Coins are
> >struck under tons of pressure, Reid. You gotta hydralic coin press
> >handy?
>
> Were ancient coins struck under tons of pressure? Duh. You don't need
> tons of pressure to move metal.
You seem to unfamiliar with impact forces.
If a hammer can move metal, so can a
> mechanical wire brush used with heat or chemicals.
Love that vague 'chemicals'. Did this information show up in a secret
decoder ring?
Alan
'2,000 pounds'
Jorg Lueke
wrote:
How big were the celator's hammers?
A.Gent
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:42:30 GMT, Alan Williams
> <will...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Why don't you add solar eclipses, nuclear reactions and anti-gravity
> >wells to your ever-expanding list of 'whizzing' techniques? Coins are
> >struck under tons of pressure, Reid. You gotta hydralic coin press
> >handy?
>
> Were ancient coins struck under tons of pressure? Duh.
Yes!
Emphatically YES!
The ancients didn't gently lay the hammers on the dies, and await plastic flow.
They BELTED THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS out of them!
You *can't* mint a coin without exerting TONS of pressure (per sq. in.)
They took their 10lb hammers and applied tons of topical force.
> You don't need
> tons of pressure to move metal. If a hammer can move metal, so can a
> mechanical wire brush used with heat or chemicals.
NO no no no!
Have you ever, in your life, ever actually *worked* any metal?
If you rest a die on a flan, then tap it with a 50lb (equivalent - per sq.in.) stroke
and you will barely make a slight dent.
You can scratch a coin with a knife ONLY because the sharp edge of the knife
tranlates your couple of pounds force into tons per sq. in.
The laws of physics have not changed over the centuries - just our expression of
them.
Each coin requires tons of pressure in order to shape it.
A wire brush cannot do this - heat or chemicals irrelevantly notwithstanding.
--
Jeff R.
mark
>Do they employ
>only a high-speed mechanical brush? Or do they employ other methods in
>conjunction with a mechanical brush in pursuit of their deception?
>
>I don't know the answer
So you ought to have stopped right there until you found out.
> What I do is what know I've read in PCGS's
>book, Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection, and what I've read
>online.
And you've been told more than once by more than one person that what you read
on-line was wrong.
>And it makes sense, doesn't it, that the use of heat or
>chemicals might soften the silver surface slightly, making it a bit
>more malleable, better able to move in ways that cover up defects and
>simulate luster?
No, it doesn't. The use of chemicals doesn't make the silver more malleable.
And you can't simulate luster by heating a coin. I would have thought that
there's been more than enough examples of people faking toning by heating coins
to have clued you into that by now. But, apparently not.
--
mark
Alan Williams
Thanks, Jorg. ;-)
When I split wood, I use an eight pound maul. The hydralic wood
splitters use something like 5 to 6 tons of pressure to get the same
result.
Thanks for the 'Duh', Reid. You never seem to tire of embarrassing
yourself in here.
Alan
'silver softener, the secret of the ancients'
A.Gent
> I'm forced again to say to you that if you knew one iota about what
> you were speaking about, you wouldn't say something as patently
> ridiculous as you just said. Metal gets pushed around every time a
> coin is struck, and it's this pushing of metal that creates not only a
> coin's devices and inscriptions but also flow lines and all the rest.
Of course.
Under *many* tons of pressure.
There's a really good example of this at the Royal Australian Mint.
There is a series of semi-struck 50c coins - struck with varying pressure from one
ton to the required pressure of (AFAIR) 40 tons or so.
The under-5-ton strikes have barely enough design to see. Just a line here and there.
The under 10-ton are recognisable, but only just.
The full design doesn't appear until around 20 ton.
The strike isn't complete until around 40 ton.
(The 50c is cupro-nickel, a little smaller than a Morgan)
> Silver is *very* plastic, under the right circumstances.
...which are *massive pressure* or very high sustained heat.
Neither of which a wire brush is capable of.
Would you care to fend off my silver knife?
Don't worry - just *imagine* it as plastic.
> If metal gets
> pushed around during striking, it's very easy to see how it could get
> pushed around during post-strike doctoring, with mechanical devices,
> heat, and chemicals.
...and if a nuclear explosion can level a city, its easy to see how tuppenny
fireworks can bring down a whole city block.
(Identical logic)
Sheesh.
--
Jeff R.
mark
>> > Reid Goldsborough wrote:
>> > If a hammer can move metal, so can a
>> >> mechanical wire brush used with heat or chemicals.
>Thanks for the 'Duh', Reid. You never seem to tire of embarrassing
>yourself in here.
I can move metal with just on finger. Of course, that's the entire coin I'm
moving. If you are talking about the top few microns of metal of a coin and
using pressure as a mechanism, you aren't really moving the metal in terms of
push and pull. This is the single most significant concept in the conversation,
and the Reid has completely failed to grasp every time it's mentioned.
--
mark
A.Gent
> Were ancient coins struck under tons of pressure? Duh. You don't need
> tons of pressure to move metal. If a hammer can move metal, so can a
> mechanical wire brush used with heat or chemicals.
Reid - I am truly at a loss here.
I just don't understand you.
Do you *really* believe your statement above:
"Duh. You don't need tons of pressure to move metal."
Really?
Honestly?
...or are you just grinning and trolling, knowing full well how utterly absurd that
contention is?
I was posting under the assumption that you are genuinely seeking (and posting)
information.
Now come clean.
You *are* just trolling, aren't you.
(Because *nobody* could believe that you don't need tons of pressure to strike a
coin.)
--
Jeff R.
mark
>You *are* just trolling, aren't you.
>
>(Because *nobody* could believe that you don't need tons of pressure to
>strike a
>coin.)
He does. He also doesn't understand the differences in striking a coin,
chemically treating a coin, and wire brushing it. He just continues to go on
about "moving metal". After all, he read it on line, so it has to be true,
right?
--
mark
Phil DeMayo
>Were ancient coins struck under tons of pressure? Duh. You don't need
>tons of pressure to move metal. If a hammer can move metal, so can a
>mechanical wire brush used with heat or chemicals.
Hey, wait a minute....I thought all that was required for whizzing was a "wire
brush attached to a mechanical device such as an electric screwdriver, again,
to push metal around, to fill scratches, digs, and so on."
This just keeps getting better all the time.
Michael E. Marotta
>> > <will...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> > Coins are
>> > struck under tons of pressure, Reid.
Reid Goldsborough <reidgold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Were ancient coins struck under tons of pressure? Duh. You don't need
> tons of pressure to move metal. If a hammer can move metal, so can a
> mechanical wire brush used with heat or chemicals.
Alan, I ran into this with intaglio printing. The printers use the
same shorthand talk you do of "millions of pounds of pressure" or even
mere "thousands." A quick order of magnitude estimate shows that a
40-lb. hammer on a 3-foot shaft imparts a third of a million pounds
per square inch on a coin. That, of course, is the source of this
communication breakdown. It does not take a million pound hammer to
impart "a million pounds of force." You know that; I know that. Not
everyone does. So, those who are not good at doing science and math
in their heads need to be allowed the time required to think this
through.
Michael
"less than 100 feet tall and less than 1000 lbs weight."
Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
>Each coin requires tons of pressure in order to shape it.
>A wire brush cannot do this - heat or chemicals irrelevantly notwithstanding.
Alan talked about needing a hydraulic press to move metal. I pointed
out you don't need one. And nothing I've read or seen so far about
this indicates to me that it's physically impossible to move metal
with a mechanical brush on a coin's surface that has been softened
with heat. PCGS says metal is moved. Your neophyte experiments,
guessing at what whizzers do, prove nothing. They're interesting as an
exercise, sure, and it seems you had fun with them, but in no way do
they lead to your conclusion, that PCGS was wrong. But you must
realize that all this is just a fairly academic exercise. It
ultimately doesn't matter one bit, in practical terms, whether metal
if moved or scratched up or whatever. What matters is training
yourself to see evidence of whizzing, the kind of advanced,
sophisticated whizzing that's done by coin doctors to deceive.
Alan Williams
A classic.
Alan
'a cork has utility'
Phil DeMayo
>And nothing I've read or seen so far about
>this indicates to me that it's physically impossible to move metal
>with a mechanical brush on a coin's surface that has been softened
>with heat. PCGS says metal is moved.
Where exactly does PCGS say metal is moved using heat to soften the metal of
the coin during whizzing?
PCGS has an online article titled "Detecting Doctored Coins, Part 2" with
excerpts taken from "The Official Guide to Coin Grading and Counterfeit
Detection"
In that article they say that during whizzing metal is moved "mechanically".
They only mention chemicals and/or heat when discussing a couple of specific
instances....and the mention of "chemicals and/or heat" is speculation, not
fact.
A.Gent
"Michael E. Marotta" <mer...@torchlake.com> wrote in message
news:a0ebae31.04041...@posting.google.com...
Actually, a very good link was posted which outlined this clearly.
But it had to be read and understood.
--
Jeff R.
A.Gent
"Phil DeMayo" <flip...@aol.compulsion> wrote in message
news:20040419181224...@mb-m07.aol.com...
> Reid Goldsborough wrote:
>
> >And nothing I've read or seen so far about
> >this indicates to me that it's physically impossible to move metal
> >with a mechanical brush on a coin's surface that has been softened
> >with heat. PCGS says metal is moved.
Therefore its Gospel.
>
> Where exactly does PCGS say metal is moved using heat to soften the metal of
> the coin during whizzing?
>
> PCGS has an online article titled "Detecting Doctored Coins, Part 2" with
> excerpts taken from "The Official Guide to Coin Grading and Counterfeit
> Detection"
>
> In that article they say that during whizzing metal is moved "mechanically".
> They only mention chemicals and/or heat when discussing a couple of specific
> instances....and the mention of "chemicals and/or heat" is speculation, not
> fact.
PCGS (Rick Montgomery) actually refers to heat as:
"...yet another form of surface alteration, ... heated to actually melt the hairlines
or other defects."
"Another" form - i.e. *not* "whizzing".
This is the quote from Rick that initially got my attention:
"...a coin that has actually been altered on the surfaces by liquefying and moving
about the metal. "
He then goes on to *imply* that such "liquefying" is caused by the actions of a wire
brush on an electric screwdriver.
Well - if Rick Montgomery said it, it must be true, and my 3+ decades of experience
in moving and liquefying metals obviously counts for nothing.
BTW, it was *another poster* who has recently modified his stance to include the
"application of heat and chemicals" in his authorised definition of "whizzing".
Rick is at least sensible enough to separate the three processes.
--
Jeff R.
(just the facts, Ma'am)
Phil DeMayo
>Well - if Rick Montgomery said it, it must be true, and my 3+
>decades of experience in moving and liquefying metals obviously
>counts for nothing.
Over the past several years I have had extensive experience using Dremel rotary
tools (30,000+ rpm) with a myriad of attachments, polishing wheels and
polishing compounds to cut and polish opals and other stones. I have also used
all of the above to work on gold and silver jewelry settings. I have never been
unable to "move" metal as the original poster described.
It was because of that experience that I responded with skepticism that this
could be accomplished with a wire brush attached to an electric screwdriver as
the OP claimed....a claim I knew he "borrowed" from Montgomery.
>BTW, it was *another poster* who has recently modified his stance
>to include the "application of heat and chemicals" in his authorised
>definition of "whizzing".
I understand that all too well. He makes a habit of trying to change the
playing field.
Phil DeMayo
>I have never been
>unable to "move" metal as the original poster described.
Ooops...."unable", of course, should actually read "able"
Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
>This is the quote from Rick that initially got my attention:
>"...a coin that has actually been altered on the surfaces by liquefying and moving
>about the metal. "
You can continue to argue this until you're blue in the face, but
again, it ultimately means nothing. PCGS says metal is moved. I've
heard the same from others, though in a quick search I couldn't find
any references. You say metal isn't moved. Your experiments don't
prove this. Big whoop. All this means nothing unless you plan to go
into the business of whizzing coins. Then you'll need to learn way
more than you know now with your little experiments. Good luck with
this.
If you don't plan this as a second career, being serious now, what
would be far more useful than your guessing at what whizzers do,
trying to replicate it, and posting very good photos of what you did
would be for you to find coins that have been deceptively, and
expertly, whizzed by coin doctors, then put them side by side with
mint state or proof coins of the same type, pointing out how newcomers
and others can detect whizzing, the telltale signs, magnified and
described.
Jorg Lueke
<reidgold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 08:59:13 +1000, "A.Gent" <still....@spam.bots>
> wrote:
>
>> This is the quote from Rick that initially got my attention:
>> "...a coin that has actually been altered on the surfaces by liquefying
>> and moving
>> about the metal. "
>
> You can continue to argue this until you're blue in the face, but
> again, it ultimately means nothing. PCGS says metal is moved. I've
> heard the same from others, though in a quick search I couldn't find
> any references. You say metal isn't moved. Your experiments don't
> prove this. Big whoop. All this means nothing unless you plan to go
> into the business of whizzing coins. Then you'll need to learn way
> more than you know now with your little experiments. Good luck with
> this.
You are kidding right? An experts in metals performs "a little experment"
and it is menaingless because it doesn't agree with two published opinions
(namely your own and Mr. Montgomery's). It seems to me the more
knowledgable opinion would be with someone who has actually done something
rather than someone who has done nothing.
>
> If you don't plan this as a second career, being serious now, what
> would be far more useful than your guessing at what whizzers do,
If Jeff is guessing what are you doing? Are you trying to imply Rick
Montgomery has forst hand experience with whizzing? If not then why does
the one person you know who has actually experimented with this count so
little?
> trying to replicate it, and posting very good photos of what you did
> would be for you to find coins that have been deceptively, and
> expertly, whizzed by coin doctors, then put them side by side with
> mint state or proof coins of the same type, pointing out how newcomers
> and others can detect whizzing, the telltale signs, magnified and
> described.
Have you done this or are you too busy denigrating Jeff's accomplishment?
mark
>And nothing I've read or seen so far about
>this indicates to me that it's physically impossible to move metal
>with a mechanical brush on a coin's surface that has been softened
>with heat.
What's the melting point of silver?
How direct or difused a heat source is required to heat the surface of the coin
to the melting point? Without discoloring the coin, because then it'd be a
dead give-away, right? Do you heat it in a vacuum? How much space do you leave
between the tip of the heat source and the surface of the coin?
>PCGS says metal is moved.
Wrong! *ONE* person said it, and you've continually misunderstood it.
Quick, what's the hardness of silver in a 90/10 alloy with copper? What's the
hardness of your average steel bristle in your average steel brush? How much
pressure is necessary to exert with said steel brush against said silver
alloyed coin to scratch the surface, thereby creating both a divot and a ridge
(maybe two if the angle of attack with the brush was close enough to 90 degrees
to achieve it)?
And before you claim victory with the above as your "moving metal" hype, keep
in mind that there are no ridges without the divots, and that the end result is
unmistakeable and unmaskable as having been scratched with a brush, and no
amount of after-the-fact polishing or chemical dipping is going to alter that.
Certainly not under as little as 2x magnification.
> It
>ultimately doesn't matter one bit, in practical terms, whether metal
>if moved or scratched up or whatever.
Gee reid, backing down so soon? After all, this isn't what you claimed
yesterday or the day before, or the day before that.
--
mark
Ian
Now Look here bud! If Reid Almighty says that metal is moved around by
whizzing, then it is! To us mere mortals it is science fiction, but to
Reid Almighty such activity is childs play. He thinks, therefore it is.
No more arguements please!! He is backed in his position by the gospel
on whizzing according to PCGS and has, according to the prophet Mel, the
freedom to interpret it any way he likes. Och aye the noo!
So let that be an end to your nonsense. After all, if Captain Kirk can
be beamed up to escape from those nasty Kligons, then i'm sure that
those advanced coin doctor type whizzers can move a little bit of metal
around on the surface of a coin, chemicals or no chemicals.
Ian
`I said beam me up Scotty,.... not whizz me up.'
Ian
So....speaking as a coin doctor with expertise in creating frosty
surfaces and lovely red copper where before there was only darkness,
what do you see as being the indicators of coin doctor type whizzing we
should all be on the lookout for?
A.Gent
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 08:59:13 +1000, "A.Gent" <still....@spam.bots>
> wrote:
>
> >This is the quote from Rick that initially got my attention:
> >"...a coin that has actually been altered on the surfaces by liquefying and moving
> >about the metal. "
>
> You can continue to argue this until you're blue in the face, but
> again, it ultimately means nothing. PCGS says metal is moved.
And MS-70-PCGS *never* makes mistakes.
Because PCGS (well - one ex-employee of theirs, four years ago) says it, does that
*prove* it?
Is it possible that Rick observed ridges and misunderstood the cause of said ridges?
Maybe he thinks that metal *can* be pushed up into ridges by a wire brush.
No doubt he has observed ridges, and he just assumed that they were caused that way.
He could be wrong.
I could be right.
Stranger things have happened.
>...I've
> heard the same from others, though in a quick search I couldn't find
> any references.
Then try a slow search.
Then try to determine if any further cites you find are not simply downstream copies
of Rick's original error.
>...You say metal isn't moved. Your experiments don't
> prove this. Big whoop.
I'm sorry? Big *what*?
>...All this means nothing unless you plan to go
> into the business of whizzing coins. Then you'll need to learn way
> more than you know now with your little experiments. Good luck with
> this.
Can you argue without being patronising?
"...means nothing"?
I think not. I summarised my results.
I can't disprove the existence of something I cannot create myself (the "ghosts"
argument) but I *have* made a very strong case, which I'm not going to
re-re-re-repeat here (and I don't stutter) _for_ an alternative means of producing
the symptoms of this effect.
> If you don't plan this as a second career, being serious now, what
> would be far more useful than your guessing at what whizzers do,
> trying to replicate it, and posting very good photos of what you did
> would be for you to find coins that have been deceptively, and
> expertly, whizzed by coin doctors, then put them side by side with
> mint state or proof coins of the same type, pointing out how newcomers
> and others can detect whizzing, the telltale signs, magnified and
> described.
I have no desire to collect whizzed coins for any purpose. What you suggest would be
a good project for a society (say - the ANA?) but would be unreasonably onerous for
an individual.
Counterfeit identification/detection/comparison would best be handled in this manner
by some responsible authority, too.
Probably not PCGS, though, if they still think that metal can be moved around and
piled up at room temperature.
====================================
Reid, I'll come clean here.
I've been teasing you and leading you on (just a *little*) ! ;-) My bad, as the
youngsters say.
I know full well from my graduate metallurgical studies, and my decades of
metalworking experience, that liquefying the surface of a coin in the manner
described is impossible.
Not "unlikely".
Not "difficult".
Not "done by some mysterious method which I don't understand."
Im-poss-ible!
(I can say that even more slowly if you like...)
I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E !
YOU can carry on until *you* are blue in the face (yourself!), if you like, but it
won't change the laws of physics.
Metal can be moved, but not like that.
Not with a wire brush.
Rick Montgomery made what appears to be an editing mistake, but you have made a
cognitive blunder of the first degree.
Have you *ever* worked any metal yourself?
--
Jeff R.
A.Gent
"Ian" <I...@wideblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GF3hc.3469$F6.32...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
> Now Look here bud! If Reid Almighty says that metal is moved around by
> whizzing, then it is! To us mere mortals it is science fiction, but to
> Reid Almighty such activity is childs play. He thinks, therefore it is.
Cogito ergo dumb...
> No more arguements please!! He is backed in his position by the gospel
> on whizzing according to PCGS and has, according to the prophet Mel, the
> freedom to interpret it any way he likes. Och aye the noo!
>
> So let that be an end to your nonsense. After all, if Captain Kirk can
> be beamed up to escape from those nasty Kligons, then i'm sure that
> those advanced coin doctor type whizzers can move a little bit of metal
> around on the surface of a coin, chemicals or no chemicals.
>
> Ian
>
> `I said beam me up Scotty,.... not whizz me up.'
"Very funny, Scotty. Now beam up my clothes!"
--
Jeff R.
Ian
"Technically yer still wearin 'em Cap'n...it's jist...well they have
been `whizzed' intae a different time stream.....It must hae been caused
by one o' them temporal flux thingies brought aboot by a Reidoid logical
paradiddle type shiftin (yes, that was a real `shiftin' sir!) and in ony
event ah cannae hud it taegither much longir."
WDW GFH
Jeff R.
(just the facts, Ma'am)>>>>
it and for posting your experiment.
Doris
Good work,
http://www.geocities.com/ampa_ltd/protestreports.html
~ Farmers Fighting For Farmers ~
http://www.geocities.com/ampa_ltd/
A.Gent
> A.Gent wrote:
> > "Very funny, Scotty. Now beam up my clothes!"
> >
> > --
> > Jeff R.
> >
> >
>
> "Technically yer still wearin 'em Cap'n...it's jist...well they have
> been `whizzed' intae a different time stream.....It must hae been caused
> by one o' them temporal flux thingies brought aboot by a Reidoid logical
> paradiddle type shiftin (yes, that was a real `shiftin' sir!) and in ony
> event ah cannae hud it taegither much longir."
"Thank you Mr Scot. (exasperated)
I take it, then, that the DiLithium crystals have liquefied all over the surface of
the transporter?
(sotto voce:) Scottish git! "
A.Gent
"WDW GFH" <Sonn...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20660-408...@storefull-3117.bay.webtv.net...
"WDW GFH"?
I used to work with a bloke who (bless him!) used to speak in acronyms *all* the
time.
"Where's my f****ng keys?!" became "Where's MFK ?!"
Funny thing is, we could almost always understand him perfectly, without explanation.
Context helped, of course, but the dead giveaway was the inevitable inclusion of the
copulatory gerund, "f****ing".
Now... I see "WDW GFH" as your new screen name, Doris, and I'm not game to suggest
what it probably stands for. The gerund is in exactly the right place, as is the
interrogative (starts with "W").
Still - prolly more fun to keep guessing.
-----
BTW - thanks for the nice comments above. It was (still is) a hoot!
--
Jeff R.
note.boy
Ian
>
> "Thank you Mr Scot. (exasperated)
> I take it, then, that the DiLithium crystals have liquefied all over the surface of
> the transporter?
> (sotto voce:) Scottish git! "
>
>
"They never even had a chance tae liquify! The Reidoid sniffed up a
whole line of dilithium crystals before we could stop it!
Not only that, but the transponder circuits have blown; we've jist worn
oot a plasma coil trying tae unwhizz yer uniform....... it's a no a
pretty sight sir!; Spock has been tryin' tae mind meld with the Reidoid,
but he's wiped oot by jist tryin' tae find a mind to meld wie; and all
you can do is moan. I need a whisky!" (sounds of a bottle being slugged
back)
"Well, (shaking head) it looks like curtains Cap'n...." (aside: and
that's the best we can do on short notice)
"Dinnae worry though, ye can wear the flowery ones " (aside: ye big
aussie woos yeh!).
note.boy
Scotty from Star Trek.
Other than Ian of course. :-) Billy
A.Gent
"note.boy" <note...@removentlworld.com> wrote in message
news:408528C6...@removentlworld.com...
> I would like to make it clear that people in Scotland do NOT sound like
> Scotty from Star Trek.
>
> Other than Ian of course. :-) Billy
>
Oh yes they do! - and worse!
(I've watched Hamish MacBeth AND Taggert!)
--
Jeff R.
(expert on hee'land dialect)
A.Gent
<merciful snip>
> "Well, (shaking head) it looks like curtains Cap'n...." (aside: and
> that's the best we can do on short notice)
>
> "Dinnae worry though, ye can wear the flowery ones " (aside: ye big
> aussie woos yeh!).
(From one of the earlier ST movies - forget which one - Scotty [elderly] speaking
into a 1990's IBM PC mouse):
"Computer-r-r-r-..." (rolling his arse) "...Shut this bloody thing off!"
Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
>Have you done this or are you too busy denigrating Jeff's accomplishment?
I'm not denigrating anything. What I am doing is saying that his
experiment doesn't prove anything, for the reasons I said -- he can
not possibly guess correctly, in a week's worth of experimenting, at
what whizzers do who have been doing this for years. And two
techniques mentioned by PCGS that he admitted to not doing were using
heat and/or chemicals along with a mechanical brush.
Also, as I said, his work was interesting -- and I praised it -- but
for what it was. And what it was, again, was just an academic
exercise. Whether or not metal is moved during whizzing doesn't help
collectors in any practical way. What would help collectors in a very
practical way was what I suggested. Jeff illustrated well, with photos
and diagrams, what he did. He just indicated he has no desire to do
this with coins that have been expertly and deceptively whizzed by
others, and this of course is his prerogative. But his or someone else
doing this would be a *useful* service to the collecting community.
Winde Walker
> I would like to make it clear that people in Scotland do NOT sound like
> Scotty from Star Trek.
>
Winde
Winde Walker
That would be Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home. Where they fly a clingon
battle cruiser into the past to bring a pair of humpback whales to the
future to save the planet.
Winde
'trekky and proud of it'
RAV
Aye
Bruce Hickmott
is alleged to have written:
If I owned the rights to Star Trek, their writers would never be allowed to
write another time travel story. period. And Q would be limited to once per
season.
'Oh, yeah. Kirk's ship. We got a file on him THIS thick. The man ought to be
locked up, he's a menace' - Federation Time Cop, in the Ds9 episode on Tribbles.
Bruce
A.Gent
<...>
>...And two
> techniques mentioned by PCGS that he admitted to not doing were using
> heat and/or chemicals along with a mechanical brush.
from PCGS:
"...POSSIBLY produced by this method in combination with chemicals and/or heat..."
"...In yet ANOTHER FORM of surface alteration..." (my emphases)
*click*..sh-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h..*click*..sh-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h..*click*..sh-h-h-h-h
-h-h-h-h-h-h..*click*
(sound of a broken record, endlessly intoning the same message)
--
Jeff R.
(feels 78, looks 45)
A.Gent
"Winde Walker" <winde...@comSPAMcast.net> wrote in message
news:5K6dnU934NT...@comcast.com...
http://frogstar.com/wav/displaywav.asp?fil=fasinate.wav
;-)
A.Gent
"A.Gent" <still....@spam.bots> wrote in message
news:4085ae2f$0$25657$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> http://frogstar.com/wav/displaywav.asp?fil=fasinate.wav
>
> ;-)
or:
http://frogstar.com/wav/displaywav.asp?fil=scotcomp.wav
A.Gent
"zax" <NOzaxS...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:4085ce51$1$16476$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
> A. Gent:
>
> Thank you for your posting and related pages detailing your "whizzing"
> experiments. I have also read many of the responses to the article and
> feel compelled to toss my opinion in as well.
Thanks zax (blush).
A few snips and a few comments in context:
> To confess, I have returned to coin collecting from a time in my youth
> when "whizzing" had an entirely different meaning,
Aha !
I believe *that* meaning was touched on briefly in this debate. ;-)
> Seems like there are a limited number of ways to remove a scratch on a
> coin, but I fully acknowledge my lack of expertise in this area and
> would welcome more sophisticated understanding. You can grind away the
> metal around it gradually going less deep further away from the scratch
> so that the lowered level blends into the level in the surrounding area.
> Could this be done so artistically and skilled that there would be
> no detection?
This is, I believe, the primary mechanism of scratch-removal by "whizzing".
It can be done in such a way that detection is very difficult, and easy to miss, but
not such that it is undetectable.
>
> You could fill the scratch with extraneous material and subsequently
> cover the area with the matching luster and tone of the rest of the coin.
> Sort of like fixing a car dent with body putty and painting it over. I
> suppose (I really don't), if your techniques were good enough and nobody
> looked under the coat, it would not be detected.
Now this would be difficult! Not impossible... but not easy. The scale involved makes
the task inordinately fussy. Anyone (well... almost) can fill a deep scratch in,
say, a car body, and then disguise the fill with paint and polish. But on a coin
face? Where the scratch is possibly too small to see with the naked eye? Where the
fill material really should be the same as the base material? Yes - its possible, but
I doubt if it would be economically viable on any but the most expensive coins.
> Finally, you can move the metal around the scratch into the scratch.
> Precision laser melting?
There's an idea. Catch is, the shape of the metal surface following resolidification
would be a giveaway. It'd then have to be re-ground flat and repolished. Even then,
the "lustre" would be a giveaway.
>..."Re-press" a small portion of the coin?
Sort of "micro-planishing". To be effective, this would leave a dent which would
need to be filled. If it didn't leave a dent, it wouldn't have enough force to
"close" a scratch.
>... I find it unlikely that you missed the right combination of Dremel
> attachments in your studies.
I readily concede that my tools were limited, but as you infer, I don't think it
would have made a difference if I had used a greater combination of types/grades of
wheel.
> Increasing the grade of a coin by a few points is not practical if it
> costs more than the coin is worth after the increase.
Of course, any coin grader will argue that it is impossible to increase a coin's
grade by any means. I understand that it is the intention of the whizzer to attempt
to fraudulently "increase" a coin's grade by:
1) "improving" the lustre, or
2) removing hairlines/scratches.
Both processes appear, at a casual glance, to work. They don't survive detailed
observation, though.
>...In fact, I am looking forward to reading the "PCGS Guide
> to Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection" that I bought last weekend.
Please let me know if it contains any more detail on "liquefying" a coin's surface
than is provided in the online version.
Is it dated 2000? Is Rick Montgomery the author? Is there a contact address for the
author?
> Again, thank you for the fine article and I look forward to your next
> one.
Thanks again zax. It has been a hoot.
The "next one" is likely to be (at this stage) a study of microstructures of ancient
vs modern silver coins - but other pressing projects must come first.
Cheers
--
Jeff R.
>
Reid Goldsborough
>Finally, you can move the metal around the scratch into the scratch.
>Precision laser melting? "Re-press" a small portion of the coin? I
>would love to hear about any evidence of such cases, even anecodotal
>evidence.
This is what people like Alan Stockton, Coin World advertiser, and Ray
Brown do. They're both professional coin doctors, meaning they do this
for profit and as their occupation. And they do it openly. What I know
of them is what I've heard from dealers. They move metal into
scratches, among other things, in doctoring a coin. I don't know of
course precisely what techniques they use. Even if I delved into this
further and tried talking with them personally, I doubt very much that
they would reveal their methods.
A.Gent
A good magician never reveals his methods.
--
Jeff R.
Ian
dml3dm
>I'm not denigrating anything.
>his
>experiment doesn't prove anything, for the reasons I said
>What would help collectors in a very
>practical way was what I suggested
>someone else