Numismatist on whizzing
Reid Goldsborough
whizzing. One whiz here argued for years that whizzing removes metal
from a coin, that it doesn't move it, that moving metal is impossible
with whizzing. He did this despite the fact that evidence for whizzing
is metal pushed up against devices and legends, not reduced weight. He
also argued this without having actually seen in hand a whizzed coin,
but he had a metal shop, and he guessed at what whizzing did and tried
to duplicate it in his shop to prove his point. Others have pointed out
that whizzing moves, not removes metal, including PCGS in its book Coin
Grading and Counterfeit Detection, the ANA in its book Official A.N.A.
Grading Standards for United States Coins, and the most visible coin
doctor in the U.S. Later, another whiz here pointed out how this metal
shop guru was right and that the contention that whizzing moves metal
was "ignorant." Brian Silliman, who also works for NCS (Numismatistic
Conservation Services), is the latest to refute this nonsense, stating,
"In the course of whizzing, the coin's surface metal is moved..." This
metal shop guru later changed his story and said he wasn't talking about
whizzing, no, he was talking about something else entirely, that's
right, he was talking about "light whizzing." The person who said that
the contention that whizzing moves metal was "ignorant" probably still
feels she's right.
--
Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos
Jeff R.
news:3b3g52....@news.alt.net...
Feeling argumentative today, Reid?
OK
> In another column, Counterfeit Detection, Brian Silliman talks about
> whizzing. One whiz here argued for years that whizzing removes metal from
> a coin, that it doesn't move it, that moving metal is impossible with
> whizzing.
That would be *me*!
>...He did this despite the fact that evidence
No, it's not "evidence".
It is "faulty observation".
>...for whizzing is metal pushed up against devices and legends, not reduced
>weight.
The reduced weight would be within the tolerance of any commercial coin
scales, hence irrelevant.
>....He also argued this without having actually seen in hand a whizzed
>coin,
Irrelevant again, but since rectified. My ownership of a coin certified as
"whizzed" changes nothing, least of all the facts of metallurgy.
> but he had a metal shop, and he guessed at what whizzing did and tried to
> duplicate it in his shop to prove his point.
You would be referring to this?
http://www.mendosus.com/whizzing/whiz.html
Sheesh. I wrote this five years ago.
...and I stand by every word.
(FX: sound of dead horse being flogged)
>...Others have pointed out that whizzing moves, not removes metal,
>including PCGS in its book Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection, the ANA
>in its book Official A.N.A. Grading Standards for United States Coins, and
>the most visible coin doctor in the U.S. Later, another whiz here pointed
>out how this metal shop guru was right and that the contention that
>whizzing moves metal was "ignorant."
That was an accurate and, actually, rather polite characterisation.
A less diplomatic description could have included the words "wilfully
stupid", "arrogant", "smug", "self-satisfied" and so on.
There's nothing wrong with being ignorant. It's a human trait we all share.
Failure to acknowledge reality is a bit of a problem, however.
>...Brian Silliman, who also works for NCS (Numismatistic Conservation
>Services), is the latest to refute this nonsense, stating, "In the course
>of whizzing, the coin's surface metal is moved..."
You don't think, perhaps, that this gentleman's knowledge bank may be
derived from sources previously mentioned?
Rather than personal experience?
Or (shock horror!) actual *metallurgical* knowledge?
No, Reid.
He read it somewhere - from a source he trusts - and therefore it's gospel.
Same as you.
Catch is - the source is *demonstrably* wrong.
>..This metal shop guru later changed his story and said he wasn't talking
>about whizzing, no, he was talking about something else entirely,
If you mean *me*, then you have misplaced your attributions here.
I did/ said no such thing. I stand by every comment I've made on the
subject.
>....that's right, he was talking about "light whizzing." The person who
>said that the contention that whizzing moves metal was "ignorant" probably
>still feels she's right.
Because she still is.
Let me summarise the argument for you Reid.
In order to accept your contention that "whizzing moves metal" (in the
manner in which you describe) then you would have to accept the notion that:
"Silver/copper alloys may be plastically deformed at room temperature with a
light load applied by a flexible instrument."
"Silver/copper alloys"? So that no smartie-pants will counter with arguments
about mercury or bismuth etc.
"plastically deformed"? Look it up. It's what must happen if you are right.
"room temperature"? Whizzing only slightly warms the coin - nowhere near the
temperature required for a phase change.
"a light load"? A hand pressing a dremel (or a "motorised screwdriver, as
the PCGS "expert" laughingly declared), as opposed to a multi-tonne coin
press, which *does* plastically deform the coin.
"A flexible instrument"? A wire brush.
In other words, a spinning wire brush has the capacity to transform solid
metal into a goopy paste which can then be herded around the surface of the
coin. Ridiculous.
Reid, your contention remains untenable.
Your tone remains smug and arrogant, in the face of good, solid evidence.
It remains to be seen (but I could bet) if you will -once again- fail to
address the issue and will concentrate on ad hom and strawman attacks.
Thus, I can't guarantee I'll persist in arguing. The points are well
addressed above.
I will leave you with a possible olive branch - a way out which could enable
you to save face in this silly "debate".
Sintering.
Powder metallurgy.
Look it up. Use your imagination and try to see how it could relate to this
issue - in particular the point about "build-up around the devices".
I'm not saying it's definitely the mechanism that causes this - just that
it's a possible one.
Whereas "moving" the metal plastically is not.
--
Jeff R.
(five years later, still demonstrating that "debating" <> "science".
Jeff R.
"Reid Goldsborough" <reidgol...@yahoo.com> wrote
>... and that the contention that whizzing moves metal was "ignorant."
http://www.mendosus.com/whizzing/prof-steve-jones.mp3
Mentally substitute "Goldsborough" for "Jones" and "numismatics" for
"biology"
(I know I shouldn't have, but I can't resist)
:-)
--
Jeff R.
Nick Knight
>There's nothing wrong with being ignorant. It's a human trait we all
>share. Failure to acknowledge reality is a bit of a problem, however.
How ironic. Thank you, Reid, for poking a stick in the old pile of dung and
firing up the pest. Only one so far; expecting at least one more.
<plonk>
Nick
Bruce Remick
> Nick Knight wrote:
>
>> How ironic. Thank you, Reid, for poking a stick in the old pile of dung
>> and
>> firing up the pest. Only one so far; expecting at least one more.
>
> are old topics. What hasn't changed is the astonishing degree that some
> people will twist themselves into knots to avoid having to admit they need
> to change their views on an issue. No matter what evidence you present, no
> matter how straightforwardly convincing, no matter how expert the
> concurring opinion and the evidence on which it's based, they'll try to
> argue around it, oblivious to their own irrationality. This isn't unique
> to numismatics, of course, with lots of really good examples in the worlds
> of science, religion, politics, and so on. But I'm still astonished by it
> every time I see it. What drives people to be so afraid to admit they were
> wrong is really interesting to analyze. I don't think there's necessarily
> just one cause. But it seems to be intensified online, definitely
> intensified. On the other hand, you see the opposite too, of course, the
> self-confident "You've got a good point there" and "I hadn't thought about
> that" kinds of responses.
Reid, do you believe you're 100% correct based on stuff you've read or from
some personal experience or acedemic training? You've already pointed out
in another post how numismatic writers can be inacurate when they stray too
far from numismatics. From the tone of his posts, Jeff seems to have some
technical background in this field. I have no expertise to offer on the
subject so I'm left to watch this verbal ping pong match. So far, Jeff
seems to be ahead.
Jeff R.
"Nick Knight" <bhnc...@mr2ice.com> wrote in message
news:4b17156f$5$avpx$mr2...@news.east.cox.net...
Nick - you proudly proclaimed that you had <plonked> me ages ago. More than
once actually.
Would you kindly remain honest - at least to yourself - and refrain from
replying to my posts.
Thanks in advance
--
Jeff R.
Jeff R.
> Nick Knight wrote:
>
>> How ironic. Thank you, Reid, for poking a stick in the old pile of dung
>> and
>> firing up the pest. Only one so far; expecting at least one more.
>
> are old topics. What hasn't changed is the astonishing degree that some
> people will twist themselves into knots to avoid having to admit they need
> to change their views on an issue.
Sigghhhh.
Exactly as I predicted.
Reid, please outline exactly how metal can be plastically deformed with a
wire brush.
If you can't do that, then no amount of self-congratulatory bluster will
conceal the fact that you're simply *wrong* on this one.
--
Jeff R.
Reid Goldsborough
> From the tone of his posts, Jeff seems to have some
> technical background in this field. I have no expertise to offer on the
> subject so I'm left to watch this verbal ping pong match. So far, Jeff
> seems to be ahead.
From the tone of his posts? I don't know if that's a very good criteria
for deciding that he's right and PCGS, NCS, the ANA, and a coin doctor
are all wrong when they or their people unlike Jeff had actually seen
whizzed coins before making pronouncements about them, likely many
dozens or hundreds of whizzed coins. It's the business of the grading
services to spot stuff like this, and it's the business of the coin
doctor to alter coins.
It's extremely simple, if you don't get snowed by the technical-sounding
mumbo-jumbo. Whizzed coins are diagnosed by the *result* of metal having
been moved, by it having been pushed up against devices, legends, and
rims. Whizzed coins are not diagnosed by metal having been removed
because their weight is the same, within two decimal points, of
unaltered coins.
Bruce Remick
> Bruce Remick wrote:
>
>> From the tone of his posts, Jeff seems to have some technical background
>> in this field. I have no expertise to offer on the subject so I'm left
>> to watch this verbal ping pong match. So far, Jeff seems to be ahead.
>
> From the tone of his posts? I don't know if that's a very good criteria
> for deciding that he's right and PCGS, NCS, the ANA, and a coin doctor are
> all wrong when they or their people unlike Jeff had actually seen whizzed
> coins before making pronouncements about them, likely many dozens or
> hundreds of whizzed coins. It's the business of the grading services to
> spot stuff like this, and it's the business of the coin doctor to alter
> coins.
I could easily picture all PCGS graders able to detect evidence of whizzing,
while not necessarily able to explain the metallurgical action involved.
All the grader needs to know is the signature of whizzing, not what happens
to the metal molecules. No one here has suggested that a TPG grader can't
make that call.
>
> It's extremely simple, if you don't get snowed by the technical-sounding
> mumbo-jumbo. Whizzed coins are diagnosed by the *result* of metal having
> been moved, by it having been pushed up against devices, legends, and
> rims. Whizzed coins are not diagnosed by metal having been removed because
> their weight is the same, within two decimal points, of unaltered coins.
I thought this debate involved whether the surface metal becomes liquified
from friction during the whizzing process, or is the surface metal simply
"moved" or scratched in a microscopic pattern created by the bristles of a
wire brush. I have my own opinion, but it's not a scientific one.
Nick Knight
>From the tone of his posts? I don't know if that's a very good criteria
>for deciding that he's right
Yeah, ironic again. I thought it was pretty funny. One sentence "don't
believe everything you read" (creatively paraphrased), then next "he sure
reads to be pretty credible". Humph. Maybe it's just me. I've seen many,
many of Jeff's arguments. Credible doesn't come to mind.
From my own personal experience, I've seen polished coins, and I've seen
some "nicely" whizzed coins. Under magnification, it sure looks like metal
was moved around. But then, who am I to believe my own eyes in the face of
all of this credibility. It may have simply been the reading over the years
tainting my judgement.
I even ended up polishing a whizzed coin. To remove all of the whiz marks.
I didn't feel good about it at all, and it didn't look better, just more
honest.
Nick
Jeff R.
>
> It's extremely simple, if you don't get snowed by the technical-sounding
> mumbo-jumbo.
??
What? Like "plastically deform"? Sheesh.
Sorry Reid. I forgot.
Here.
I'll make it simpler for you:
"You cannot make the surface of coins all soft and goopy with a whizzing
brush."
That's easier to understand.
>...Whizzed coins are diagnosed by the *result* of metal having been moved,
>by it having been pushed up against devices, legends, and rims.
No.
This is a misdiagnosis.
>...Whizzed coins are not diagnosed by metal having been removed because
>their weight is the same, within two decimal points, of unaltered coins.
Cite for the "two decimal points"?
Or did that come from the usual source?
The one where you have to stand up first?
--
Jeff R.
(still waiting for Reid to address the principal point)
Jeff R.
> In <3b42tk....@news.alt.net>, on 12/02/2009
> at 11:04 PM, Reid Goldsborough <reidgol...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>>From the tone of his posts? I don't know if that's a very good criteria
>>for deciding that he's right
>
> Yeah, ironic again. I thought it was pretty funny. One sentence "don't
> believe everything you read" (creatively paraphrased), then next "he sure
> reads to be pretty credible". Humph. Maybe it's just me. I've seen
> many,
> many of Jeff's arguments. Credible doesn't come to mind.
...and yet you continue to comment on my posts from behind the coward's
castle of a killfile.
Display some honesty, Nick, and stop commenting on my posts.
Or reply honestly.
> From my own personal experience, I've seen polished coins, and I've seen
> some "nicely" whizzed coins. Under magnification, it sure looks like
> metal
> was moved around.
Well that's a pretty definite diagnosis.
"Sure looks like"
OK Nick.
How about *you* explain how the surface metal of a coin can be liquified
with a whizzing brush.
Take as much space as you like.
Use both sides of the paper.
Or continue to hide behind your selective killfile.
--
Jeff R.
Frank Provasek
http://content-imagesv3.shoplet.com/productimages/300x300/114-442.EPS.JPG
while coins are whizzed using DISK brushes
http://content-imagesv3.shoplet.com/productimages/300x300/114-535.EPS.JPG
The disk type of wire brush creates a series of scratches in the
coin. Any loss of metal is slight.
This is similar to the term CHASING in metalwork.
From wikipedia:
The term chasing is derived from the noun "chase", which refers to a
groove, furrow, channel or indentation. The adjectival form is "chased
work".
The techniques of repoussé and chasing utilise the plasticity of
metal, forming shapes by degrees. There is no loss of metal in the
process
--
RARE COIN AUCTIONS NO RESERVES www.frankcoins.com
http://myworld.ebay.com/frankcoins Texas Auction License
11259, Board member of Texas Coin Dealers Association,
Member TNA, ANA, PCGS, NGC - Full Time Since 1991
Reality
> I could easily picture all PCGS graders able to detect evidence of whizzing,
> while not necessarily able to explain the metallurgical action involved.
> All the grader needs to know is the signature of whizzing, not what happens
> to the metal molecules. No one here has suggested that a TPG grader can't
> make that call.
>
I agree with Bruce that ALL PCGS graders should be able to, and with
an incredibly high degree of accuracy, be able to decect a whizzed
coin by sight.
Who cares about needless "science" when the coin either has or hasn't
been whizzed?
Reality
> From my own personal experience, I've seen polished coins, and I've seen
> some "nicely" whizzed coins. Under magnification, it sure looks like metal
> was moved around.
I agree, the metal is moved around even on "nicely" whizzed coins.
Whizzing imparts sratches into the coin surface, so by definition
metal is being moved.
Sorry to be OT on this post, but IMO that's why originally preserved
rare coins are expensive. A lot of decent coins in many collections
have been messed with in one form or another (including whizzing) by
some clueless knucklehead trying to "improve" them before they try to
sell them. That practice has mauled a lot of killer original coins in
all conditions over time.
Reality
> OK Nick.
> How about *you* explain how the surface metal of a coin can be liquified
> with a whizzing brush.
Why do you care about the physics of a scratch in metal? Liquified?
Who friggin cares. By definition metal is moved when it's scratched.
AKA as "whizzed" in coin talk.
Mr. Jaggers
> Reality wrote:
>
>> Who cares about needless "science" when the coin either has or hasn't
>> been whizzed?
>
> things are as they are. You know, reality, Reality. Nice handle.
>
> In centuries past people would chalk up the reason for reality being
> the way it is as God's will. In ancient Greece and Rome most people
> believed it wasn't just one god that caused reality to be as it is
> but many. Now we know that there are underlying laws of nature that
> account for the physical nature of reality. Many people find learning
> about those laws interesting. This applies as well to numismatics.
>
> To recount ... this discussion came about when a single person here
> couldn't understand how applying a rotating wire brush to a coin's
> surface, i.e. whizzing, could cause a thin layer of surface metal to
> heat up enough to become a thick liquid and move. He disagreed with
> the science behind this being possible. He has a metal shop, and he
> fashioned an experiment to prove his point, not to learn about the
> reality of the situation, but to prove that he was right.
>
> This metal shop whiz tried to whiz a coin in his metal shop to cause
> the metal to move. Alas, he wasn't able to. No moving metal! So he
> concluded that he was right, that whizzing doesn't move metal. To
> support his case, he fashioned a pseudo-scientific explanation,
> diagrams and all, and put it on the Web, so everybody could become
> edified by his scientific experimentation. And some people here were,
> frankly, snowed by this. They were taken in by his "tone" and
> apparently continue to be.
> One of the things I'm fairly good at, one of the things I have to be
> good at to do my job, is recognizing when people are playing expert.
> There were many problems with the experiment of the metal shop whiz.
>
> First, he had a point to prove so he had some bias from the outset.
> Second, he admitted he had never seen a whizzed coin before trying to
> create one. Third, he didn't talk to anyone who whizzed coins to learn
> what they did. Fourth, as we've just learned, he used the wrong kind
> of metal brush in his "whizzing" experiment. Fifth, he can't credibly
> explain the diagnostic of whizzed coins, which he was unaware of
> before doing his experiment, that metal from a coin's fields shows
> evidence of having been pushed up against devices, legends, and rims,
> that it has moved. Sixth, in arguing that metal is removed, not
> moved, in whizzing, he can't credibly explain how the diagnostic of
> whizzed coins isn't weight (because the weight of whizzed coins is
> the same as unaltered coins, at least to two decimal points, and
> weight is never mentioned as a diagnostic in books or articles that
> address the subject of whizzing). Seventh, the most visible coin
> doctor in the U.S., a guy who has whizzed his share of coins even
> though these days whizzing has fallen by the wayside as a convincing
> coin-altering technique, says that yes, whizzing moves metal. Eighth,
> those who have seen their share of whizzed coins, the ANA, PCGS, and
> NCS, no doubt among many others, also say that yes, whizzing moves
> metal.
> The science behind this -- real science now, not pseudo-science
> buttressed by fancy-sounding jargon and wrong-headed experimentation
> -- is interesting. Just as metal turns into a thick liquid and flows
> when a coin is struck and just as metal is moved, not removed, when a
> coin is countermarked or when in ancient times a coin was test cut,
> so does a thin layer of metal turn into a thick liquid and move when
> a quickly rotating wire brush is applied under pressure to a coin's
> surface in the process of whizzing. The force applied causes enough
> heat to melt the surface metal enough to move it in the way desired.
>
> As happens online all too frequently, the metal shop whiz has refused
> all along to admit he could possibly be wrong. "Internet experts" are
> never wrong. To admit a mistake or to change one's view would be to
> lose face, in their minds. The evidence against his position is
> incontrovertible. Yet he continues to argues his position, that
> whizzing doesn't move metal. I see, Reality, that you acknowledge
> that whizzing moves metal. So maybe Reality is a good handle after
> all.
> In conclusion, I believe that this metal shop whiz is a dodo. I'm not
> being dramatic here or trying to flame or anything else. I really
> think that he's a dodo, not a human being at all, and that perhaps he
> may be the last surviving dodo on the planet. Beyond the silliness of
> this continuing debate, this is what's truly newsworthy about all
> this.
The only thing in your disquisition that I have a problem with is the "thick
liquid" business. When one is hammering gold into leaf, for example, I
don't think the gold is really being heated up or liquefied, I think it can
be worked because of its malleability, a physical attribute that can be
looked up in the CRC. If I remember correctly, it has to do with how
tenaciously the individual atoms of the metal are inclined to cling to each
other in a rigid pattern. Perhaps we could say that coin metal, or any
metal for that matter, is a "thick liquid" in its rest state at room
temperature, and that the rotating wire brush takes advantage of that
quality, but doesn't create it. Very closely related to the chasing of
metal would be putting coins between the teeth in an attempt to bend them.
The human mouth is hardly warm enough to liquefy the metal, and the teeth
certainly aren't warm enough to make telltale indentations in the softer
metals, but make them they do.
James
Bruce Remick
< snipped >
>
> In conclusion, I believe that this metal shop whiz is a dodo. I'm not
> being dramatic here or trying to flame or anything else. I really think
> that he's a dodo, not a human being at all, and that perhaps he may be the
> last surviving dodo on the planet. Beyond the silliness of this continuing
> debate, this is what's truly newsworthy about all this.
Of course you're not being dramatic here (8 paragraphs snipped) or trying to
flame or anything else. Why would anyone think otherwise?
Funny, too, you started off claiming that "someone" (wink. wink.) couldn't
understand how whizzing causes metal to liquify. Then you changed that to
"metal moving". Scratching a coin with a knife causes metal to move, which
few likely would dispute. That the metal becomes liquified in the
scratching process would take more convincing. Why is this so important to
you to resurrect it at every opportunity?
Petronius
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:lUOWm.9163$ft1....@newsfe10.iad...
> Funny, too, you started off claiming that "someone" (wink. wink.) couldn't
> understand how whizzing causes metal to liquify. Then you changed that to
> "metal moving". Scratching a coin with a knife causes metal to move, which
> few likely would dispute. That the metal becomes liquified in the scratching
> process would take more convincing. Why is this so important to you to
> resurrect it at every opportunity?
Because he is a lonely man with no friends, probably due to the fact that he is
a condescending blowhard.
Jeff R.
For heaven's sake, Reid, do I have to go through your whole post,
point-by-point to demolish your silly contentions? Again?
If you want me to provide evidence (*not* uninformed hearsay) for each point
you have raised, then I will - but I sincerely doubt that you will read my
reply. I also doubt that you have the capacity to understand basic
metallurgy, as demonstrated by the howlers you have invented below.
Here's an alternative set of suggestions:
(1) Take your arguments to an independent qualified professional
metallurgist. Ask for comment. Don't forget to mention the term "wire
brush" - not to be confused with hardened steel die or knife or scraper.
For additional hilarity, quote your much-vaunted PCGS "expert", and refer to
an "electric screwdriver" as the motive source.
(2) Look up "plastic" in a technical dictionary. cf. "solid", "liquid" and
"malleable". (Helpful hint: "plastic deformation" as a search term will
bypass a lot of the dross.)
Thank you, at least, for coming out with your screed below.
It firmly sets your position in this "debate" - something which you have not
been willing to do in the past. It is certainly one for the permanent file.
Further, it makes any more argument pointless, since your position is
unassailable - one of faith and a complete lack of understanding of the
simple processes involved.
I don't like this analogy, but if you were a first year engineering student,
I would fail you on the basis of this nonsense you have propagated.
...and finally, thanks for the flame at the end. As if it were necessary,
it cements my position, and your attitude.
Jeff "Facepalming" R.
"Reid Goldsborough" <reidgol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3cd16g....@news.alt.net...
> Reality wrote:
>
>> Who cares about needless "science" when the coin either has or hasn't
>> been whizzed?
>
> Science is only needless if you're not curious about the reasons things
> are as they are. You know, reality, Reality. Nice handle.
>
> In centuries past people would chalk up the reason for reality being the
> way it is as God's will. In ancient Greece and Rome most people believed
> it wasn't just one god that caused reality to be as it is but many. Now we
> know that there are underlying laws of nature that account for the
> physical nature of reality. Many people find learning about those laws
> interesting. This applies as well to numismatics.
>
> To recount ... this discussion came about when a single person here
> couldn't understand how applying a rotating wire brush to a coin's
> surface, i.e. whizzing, could cause a thin layer of surface metal to heat
> up enough to become a thick liquid and move. He disagreed with the science
> behind this being possible. He has a metal shop, and he fashioned an
> experiment to prove his point, not to learn about the reality of the
> situation, but to prove that he was right.
>
> This metal shop whiz tried to whiz a coin in his metal shop to cause the
> metal to move. Alas, he wasn't able to. No moving metal! So he concluded
> that he was right, that whizzing doesn't move metal. To support his case,
> he fashioned a pseudo-scientific explanation, diagrams and all, and put it
> on the Web, so everybody could become edified by his scientific
> experimentation. And some people here were, frankly, snowed by this. They
> were taken in by his "tone" and apparently continue to be.
>
> One of the things I'm fairly good at, one of the things I have to be good
> at to do my job, is recognizing when people are playing expert. There were
> many problems with the experiment of the metal shop whiz.
>
> First, he had a point to prove so he had some bias from the outset.
> Second, he admitted he had never seen a whizzed coin before trying to
> create one. Third, he didn't talk to anyone who whizzed coins to learn
> what they did. Fourth, as we've just learned, he used the wrong kind of
> metal brush in his "whizzing" experiment. Fifth, he can't credibly explain
> the diagnostic of whizzed coins, which he was unaware of before doing his
> experiment, that metal from a coin's fields shows evidence of having been
> pushed up against devices, legends, and rims, that it has moved. Sixth, in
> arguing that metal is removed, not moved, in whizzing, he can't credibly
> explain how the diagnostic of whizzed coins isn't weight (because the
> weight of whizzed coins is the same as unaltered coins, at least to two
> decimal points, and weight is never mentioned as a diagnostic in books or
> articles that address the subject of whizzing). Seventh, the most visible
> coin doctor in the U.S., a guy who has whizzed his share of coins even
> though these days whizzing has fallen by the wayside as a convincing
> coin-altering technique, says that yes, whizzing moves metal. Eighth,
> those who have seen their share of whizzed coins, the ANA, PCGS, and NCS,
> no doubt among many others, also say that yes, whizzing moves metal.
>
> The science behind this -- real science now, not pseudo-science buttressed
> by fancy-sounding jargon and wrong-headed experimentation --
> is interesting. Just as metal turns into a thick liquid and flows when a
> coin is struck and just as metal is moved, not removed, when a coin is
> countermarked or when in ancient times a coin was test cut, so does a thin
> layer of metal turn into a thick liquid and move when a quickly rotating
> wire brush is applied under pressure to a coin's surface in the process of
> whizzing. The force applied causes enough heat to melt the surface metal
> enough to move it in the way desired.
>
> As happens online all too frequently, the metal shop whiz has refused all
> along to admit he could possibly be wrong. "Internet experts" are never
> wrong. To admit a mistake or to change one's view would be to lose face,
> in their minds. The evidence against his position is incontrovertible. Yet
> he continues to argues his position, that whizzing doesn't move metal. I
> see, Reality, that you acknowledge that whizzing moves metal. So maybe
> Reality is a good handle after all.
>
> In conclusion, I believe that this metal shop whiz is a dodo. I'm not
> being dramatic here or trying to flame or anything else. I really think
> that he's a dodo, not a human being at all, and that perhaps he may be the
> last surviving dodo on the planet. Beyond the silliness of this continuing
> debate, this is what's truly newsworthy about all this.
>
Reality
Did you see his response to me? What a tool.
Bob
> "Reid Goldsborough" <reidgolduse...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I will probably regret this, but in daring to enter this discussion at
this late stage let me say that "whizzing" arose in the early 1970s
when battery-powered, pen-shaped, electric-eraser-like polishing tools
came on the market. One of the tool heads was a small wire brush,
intended for home hobbyists.
Now the way to tell whether a (silver) coin is uncirculated is to look
for unbroken mint lustre. If a coin is only AU, slight flatness can
be seen on a high spot or two. Many AU Mercury dimes, taken from
circulation, were available in the 1970s, and would be worth quite a
bit more if they could be sold as BU.
Unscrupulous persons took these dimes (later, Morgan dollars and
anything else) and used these electric brushes--the name whiz comes
from the sound the brush made--to obscure the flat spots on these
dimes with a pattern of fine scratches that simulated original mint
lustre (though not very well). Tip one of these whizzed dimes around,
and, at a glance, it looks BU.
It is certainly true that no significant amount of metal is removed by
this process (the coin is given the briefest "whiz" by a whizzing
artist); it is merely scratched up a little. But there is no chance
that these little battery-powered tools could possibly heat silver up
to its melting point either; this is surely a misunderstanding.
Unfortunately, the term "whizzed" has lost its original meaning in the
intervening decades, and possibly some coins polished with high-speed
equipment could actually become red hot and partially melt. Also,
hairlines have been removed from the fields of cameo proof coins by
localized melting in recent years, but I think that this is done with
lasers. In my opinion, calling polishing/localized laser melting
"whizzing" is a misnomer, and distracts collectors from checking their
shiny Mercury dimes or other "BU" coins closely.
I hope that this little explanation adds more light than "heat," and
that no rcc reader discovers a whizzed coin in their collection!
Reality
wrote:
> Reality wrote:
> > Who cares about needless "science" when the coin either has or hasn't
> > been whizzed?
>
> are as they are. You know, reality, Reality. Nice handle.
Reality in this case is: who the hell cares about your silly attempt
at a scientific explanation behind the fact that THE COIN IS WHIZZED?
If a coin is whizzed and you are too stupid to recognize it then you
*should* lose your ass when you buy it.
>
> In centuries past people would chalk up the reason for reality being the
> way it is as God's will. In ancient Greece and Rome most people believed
> it wasn't just one god that caused reality to be as it is but many. Now
> we know that there are underlying laws of nature that account for the
> physical nature of reality. Many people find learning about those laws
> interesting. This applies as well to numismatics.
>
> To recount ... this discussion came about when a single person here
> couldn't understand how applying a rotating wire brush to a coin's
> surface, i.e. whizzing, could cause a thin layer of surface metal to
> heat up enough to become a thick liquid and move.
Cite?
> He disagreed with the
> science behind this being possible. He has a metal shop, and he
> fashioned an experiment to prove his point, not to learn about the
> reality of the situation, but to prove that he was right.
>
> This metal shop whiz tried to whiz a coin in his metal shop to cause the
> metal to move. Alas, he wasn't able to. No moving metal! So he
Scratches move metal, blowhard.
Yes. Whizzing moves metal. Who the hell cares if it "liquifies" in
the process?
>
> In conclusion, I believe that this metal shop whiz is a dodo. I'm not
> being dramatic here or trying to flame or anything else. I really think
> that he's a dodo, not a human being at all, and that perhaps he may be
> the last surviving dodo on the planet. Beyond the silliness of this
> continuing debate, this is what's truly newsworthy about all this.
IMO you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
Jeff R.
"Reality" <realit...@ausi.com> wrote in message
news:74cd6ec2-55ba-4386...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>Yes. Whizzing moves metal. Who the hell cares if it "liquifies" in
> the process?
Ummm... actually, that is the whole point of this thread, and the ones that
have preceded it - for years.
You don't *have* to be interested in the topic. It's not compulsory.
I am, so I participate.
You're not (yes?), so don't torture yourself by sticking around.
--
Jeff R.
Reality
> "Reid Goldsborough" <reidgolduse...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Reid is a master of the blatently obtuse.
BTW, sorry if I blew up at you earlier, I misread your post. Reid is
merely being Reid. Whizzing is a well understood doctoring techinique
that Reid apparently can't grasp, and IMO he is only looking to incite
debate over a moot point.
My point is WHO CARES. We (at least most of us) can spot a whizzed
coin from a mile away and would never buy it beyond a modest premium
over spot metal. Or in the case of a truly rare coin, with a MAJOR
discount applied.
Mr. Jaggers
The only MAJOR discount I've ever seen for a problem coin is when the dealer
is offered one by a collector. In the other direction, it's always just a
small percentage below fullbore retail. But that's just my experience,
based on half a century of doing coins, so others may see things
differently.
James
Bruce Remick
"Bob" <RLWin...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:64a3fa8d-9c11-4edd...@y24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
====================
Your explanation sounds reasonable to me. I've owned a few whizzed coins
over the years, bought as Unc and later revealed as "enhanced". From what I
gather, the whizzing tool or brush can create enough micro-swirl ridges to
increase light reflection/refraction and give the false impression of lustre
to the naked eye. Unfortunately there have been a lot of naked eyes out
there.
Reality
> "Reality" <realitych...@ausi.com> wrote in message
It's a public forum. I'll comment at will.
Reality
Even on doctored coins James? IMO they're a pass.
Jeff R.
>
>> You're not (yes?), so don't torture yourself by sticking around.
>
>> --
>> Jeff R.
> It's a public forum. I'll comment at will.
Of course!
Please don't misunderstand. (That's Reid's vocation.)
I was merely suggesting that you may save yourself some grief, since you
appear to be railing at issues which aren't being raised here.
--
Jeff R.
Anka
> "Reid Goldsborough" <reidgolduse...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
> http://www.mendosus.com/whizzing/prof-steve-jones.mp3
>
> Mentally substitute "Goldsborough" for "Jones" �and �"numismatics" for
> "biology"
>
> (I know I shouldn't have, but I can't resist)
>
> :-)
>
> --
> Jeff R.
I must have missed this way back when. Cute. ;-)
~Anka
Tony Clayton
I am a metallurgy graduate.
What is certainly true is that, in the process of whizzing,
liquifaction of the metal does NOT take place. The melting
point of copper is 1083 degC, and silver 961 degC
Both metals are very good conductors of heat; indeed silver
has the highest thermal conductivity of any metal and copper is not far behind.
Any heat generated during the whizzing process would be removed away from the
surface very rapidly.
What does occur is plastic deformation of the surface layers. This will
result in surface metal being moved, in just the same way as drawing a knife
across the surface will result in a scratch with the moved material
forming a narrow raised area on each side.
Almost as bad is dipping a coin, as the silver sulfide that darkens
silver coins is turned back into silver, giving that slightly powdery look
that you get. The surface will be altered.
For a F or VF coin this matters only slightly. For an uncirculated coin the
surface is irretrievably altered.
--
Tony Clayton tony.cla...@pem.cam.ac.uk
Coins of the UK : http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk
Sent using RISCOS using VirtualAcorn-SA running on a PC
... In nuclear warfare all men are cremated equal.
Mr. Jaggers
> I have read this debate on whizzing with interest, as
> I am a metallurgy graduate.
>
> What is certainly true is that, in the process of whizzing,
> liquifaction of the metal does NOT take place. The melting
> point of copper is 1083 degC, and silver 961 degC
> Both metals are very good conductors of heat; indeed silver
> has the highest thermal conductivity of any metal and copper is not
> far behind. Any heat generated during the whizzing process would be
> removed away from the surface very rapidly.
>
> What does occur is plastic deformation of the surface layers. This
> will result in surface metal being moved, in just the same way as
> drawing a knife across the surface will result in a scratch with the
> moved material
> forming a narrow raised area on each side.
>
> Almost as bad is dipping a coin, as the silver sulfide that darkens
> silver coins is turned back into silver, giving that slightly powdery
> look that you get. The surface will be altered.
I have always been under the impression that the silver sulfide was removed
and washed away, not "converted back" to silver. Please elaborate.
James
Peter
wrote:
> I have always been under the impression that the silver sulfide was removed
> and washed away, not "converted back" to silver. Please elaborate.
>
> James- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I believe you are about right. It is also possible to heat silver
enough that the sulfide is expelled and the silver left behind, also
leaving a rough surface. Most of the solutions I know of dissolve
silver salts. In either case, some (possibly slight) damage is done
to the surface.
Mr. Jaggers
Apparently such coins may slab after a single dipping, but with additional
dippings, eventually the accumulated damage goes above the threshhold of
acceptability and the coin will not slab. I haven't come to any conclusion
as to how I should feel about that.
James
Tony Clayton
I accept that most of the silver sulfide is dissolved, but
when I use the solutions on my silver cutlery it develops a
powdery appearance, which leads me to believe some might be
reduced back to metal.
Either way, metal is being removed, and not necessarily uniformly.
See http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/homeExpts/tarnish.html
--
Tony Clayton tony.cla...@pem.cam.ac.uk
Coins of the UK : http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk
Sent using RISCOS using VirtualAcorn-SA running on a PC
... This is a Tagline mirror><rorrim enilgaT a si sihT
Reid Goldsborough
> What is certainly true is that, in the process of whizzing,
> liquifaction of the metal does NOT take place. The melting
> point of copper is 1083 degC, and silver 961 degC
> Both metals are very good conductors of heat; indeed silver
> has the highest thermal conductivity of any metal and copper is not far behind.
> Any heat generated during the whizzing process would be removed away from the
> surface very rapidly.
>
> What does occur is plastic deformation of the surface layers. This will
> result in surface metal being moved
This is credible and makes sense. So I'll sit corrected. The surface
metal doesn't melt in moving when a coin is whizzed. But it still moves,
as you say, which was my main point. It's not removed, which was the
conclusion of the metal shop whiz. And again it's clear that it moves
because that's the diagnostic of whizzed coins -- the visible movement
of metal against devices, legends, and rims, and because the weight of
whizzed coins isn't measurably altered because metal isn't measurably
removed.
> Almost as bad is dipping a coin, as the silver sulfide that darkens
> silver coins is turned back into silver, giving that slightly powdery look
> that you get. The surface will be altered.
I'd disagree with this, however, from all I've read. I believe that with
dipping a coin, a thin layer of silver sulfide (which had previously
formed from the silver of the coin's surface reacting with sulfur-based
compounds in air, coin folders, etc.) is in fact removed by the sulfuric
acid and other ingredients in the dip. Perhaps a small amount is
converted back into silver? I don't know if anyone has measured whether
repeatedly dipping a coin measurably alters its weight. I do know it
muddles its surfaces ... from having deliberately done this some years
ago just to see what would happen and from the descriptions I've read
and heard of coins that have been overdipped.
Bruce Remick
> Tony Clayton wrote:
>
>> What is certainly true is that, in the process of whizzing,
>> liquifaction of the metal does NOT take place. The melting
>> point of copper is 1083 degC, and silver 961 degC
>> Both metals are very good conductors of heat; indeed silver
>> has the highest thermal conductivity of any metal and copper is not far
>> behind.
>> Any heat generated during the whizzing process would be removed away from
>> the
>> surface very rapidly.
>>
>> What does occur is plastic deformation of the surface layers. This will
>> result in surface metal being moved
>
> This is credible and makes sense. So I'll sit corrected. The surface metal
> doesn't melt in moving when a coin is whizzed. But it still moves, as you
> say, which was my main point. It's not removed, which was the conclusion
> of the metal shop whiz. And again it's clear that it moves because that's
> the diagnostic of whizzed coins -- the visible movement of metal against
> devices, legends, and rims, and because the weight of whizzed coins isn't
> measurably altered because metal isn't measurably removed.
Au contraire, your initial point of ridicule was that a particular
"someone" couldn't understand that whizzing caused the surface metal on a
coin to liquify. Your words...............
"..........this discussion came about when a single person here couldn't
understand how applying a rotating wire brush to a coin's surface, i.e.
whizzing, could cause a thin layer of surface metal to heat up enough to
become a thick liquid and move. He disagreed with the science behind this
being possible."
"........The science behind this -- real science now, not pseudo-science
buttressed by fancy-sounding jargon and wrong-headed experimentation -- is
interesting. Just as metal turns into a thick liquid and flows when a coin
is struck and just as metal is moved, not removed, when a coin is
countermarked or when in ancient times a coin was test cut, so does a thin
layer of metal turn into a thick liquid and move when a quickly rotating
wire brush is applied under pressure to a coin's surface in the process of
whizzing. The force applied causes enough heat to melt the surface metal
enough to move it in the way desired."
Then you went on to mock this "metal shop whiz" for trying to create
these conditions in his shop, as if no scientist ever conducts an experiment
to confirm or disprove a preconceived notion or theory.
And then you boasted........."One of the things I'm fairly good at, one
of the things I have to be good at to do my job, is recognizing when people
are playing expert."
I suspect that some others here have become pretty good at that, too.
Peter
> In a recent message Peter <w2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 19, 10:30 am, "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > I have always been under the impression that the silver sulfide was removed
> > > and washed away, not "converted back" to silver. Please elaborate.
>
> > > James- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I believe you are about right. It is also possible to heat silver
> > enough that the sulfide is expelled and the silver left behind, also
> > leaving a rough surface. Most of the solutions I know of dissolve
> > silver salts. In either case, some (possibly slight) damage is done
> > to the surface.
>
> I accept that most of the silver sulfide is dissolved, but
> when I use the solutions on my silver cutlery it develops a
> powdery appearance, which leads me to believe some might be
> reduced back to metal.
>
> Either way, metal is being removed, and not necessarily uniformly.
>
> Seehttp://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/homeExpts/tarnish.html
>
> --
> Coins of the UK :http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk
> Sent using RISCOS using VirtualAcorn-SA running on a PC
> ... This is a Tagline mirror><rorrim enilgaT a si sihT
Thanks; I had forgotten about using aluminum.
Bruce Remick
> Bruce Remick wrote:
>> Au contraire, your initial point of ridicule was that a particular
>> "someone" couldn't understand that whizzing caused the surface metal on a
>> coin to liquify. Your words...............
>
> of about five years ago, when this topic initially came up. This topic
> resurfaced through a column in the Numismatist that was just published on
> the topic. The main point of disagreement, again, was whether metal was
> moved, or removed, by whizzing. I thought this was clear. I got the
> mechanics wrong, I now see, about how metal moves. But I didn't get the
> main point wrong, that metal moves.
In your post from which I made the quotes, and in which you chose to
resurrect your "scientific" whiz feud with a certain person, your "initial"
rant began "..........this discussion came about when a single person here
couldn't understand how applying a rotating wire brush to a coin's surface,
i.e. whizzing, could cause a thin layer of surface metal to heat up enough
to become a thick liquid and move." What followed was what seemed to be a
prepared "scientific" discourse against that "someone" just waiting to be
dusted off again at your first opportunity. I'm sure you thought you were
correct, so you spared few words letting everyone know. Now re-reading that
post makes you look foolish and a poor researcher, although I'm sure you
don't think so.
Bruce Remick
> Bruce Remick wrote:
>
>> In your post from which I made the quotes, and in which you chose to
>> resurrect your "scientific" whiz feud with a certain person, your
>> "initial" rant began
>
> ago that you quoted but in my post after the Numismatist column by an NCS
> (Numismatistic Conservation Services) staffer on the subject appeared, a
> post I made on Dec. 2, 19 days ago, starting this thread. Again, that
> column supported my initial contention, five years ago, that whizzing
> alters coin surfaces through the moving of metal, not the removing of it,
> an observation that the ANA, PCGS, and a coin doctor who has whizzed coins
> have also made, according to research I did. Again, I got the mechanics
> wrong in surmising HOW metal moves, the science behind the movement of
> metal in whizzing. Unlike some others here, unlike a lot of people online
> actually, I have zero problem in being corrected and saying I had earlier
> been wrong about something, in learning something new.
>
> Metal moves in whizzing, just as it does when a coin is struck and when
> it's countermarked or test cut. Not removed. The ridiculous of this
> whizzing "experiment," done with a point to prove, done without having
> seen a whizzed coin, done without having asked anyone who has whizzed
> coins how they're whizzed, and as we recently learned done with the wrong
> kind of wire brush, remains ridiculous. And the metal shop whiz, if you
> haven't noticed, still insists that the action of whizzing is the removal
> of metal, not the moving of it, that he "stands by every word" of his
> initial interpretation of this noble experiment of his. Further, he says
> that this NCS expert was just copying everybody else rather than basing
> his conclusions on personal experience. We've heard that ridiculousness
> here before as well. Why haven't you commented on these matters? Do you
> think metal moves or is removed? Or don't you care? It's far from the
> biggest issue in numismatics, but it can be interesting. You earlier said
> you were impressed with the "tone" of what the metal shop whiz said. That
> actually explains a lot.
That's right. In this case I was more willing to accept the opinions and
observations of someone who worked with metal than those of someone who
didn't but was sure he was right.
Jeff R.
> Bruce Remick wrote:
>
>> In your post from which I made the quotes, and in which you chose to
>> resurrect your "scientific" whiz feud with a certain person, your
>> "initial" rant began
>
> ago that you quoted but in my post after the Numismatist column by an NCS
> (Numismatistic Conservation Services) staffer on the subject appeared, a
> post I made on Dec. 2, 19 days ago, starting this thread. Again, that
> column supported my initial contention, five years ago, that whizzing
> alters coin surfaces through the moving of metal, not the removing of it,
> an observation that the ANA, PCGS, and a coin doctor who has whizzed coins
> have also made, according to research I did.
Rick Montgomery, in an article dated March 2000; the very article upon
which this entire fracas was based:
"... a whizzed coin -- a coin that has actually been altered on the
surfaces by liquefying and moving about the metal... "
http://www.pcgs.com/articles/article2194.chtml
(Montgomery's article is quoted and reprinted in full many times since then,
in "official" numismatic journals, as recently as December this year.
Word-for-word, complete with errors.)
That phrase, and Reid's uncritical acceptance of the term "liquefying"
always was, and remains, the central bone of contention in this thread, and
its predecessors.
This alleged "melting" was the reason I joined this discussion back in '04.
The fact that Reid is prepared to somersault and concede his major point on
the basis of *personality*, rather than observable, verifiable and
universally-accepted *fact* is sufficient demonstration for me to believe
that he is not pursuing real answers, but is simply trolling for a response.
As an aside, Reid is still woefully deficient in his understanding of the
mechanism(s) of abrasion ("whizzing") and the contention that metal "moves
about" the surface of the coin.
Over five years ago I demonstrated the mechanics of this "motion"
http://www.mendosus.com/whizzing/whiz.html , and provided a simple
diagrammatic explanation
http://www.mendosus.com/whizzing/gif/ridges-1.gif of the true extent of
this "movement".
No "mass migration" of metal takes place.
The "movement", as explained ad nauseum, is microscopic.
More at
http://www.mendosus.com/whizzing/whiz-concl.html .
The "movement" consists of the raising of ridges through abrasion, and the
removal of metal, also through abrasion. Not surprising, for an abrasive
process such as is "whizzing".
Of course, there's no point in me repeating this, since Reid has clearly
shown his hand here. Someone else will need to point it out to him.
In the meantime, since you, Reid, have repeatedly insulted me - called me
names, impugned my education (etc. etc.) - as recently as a few days ago, I
wonder if an apology will be forthcoming, now that you concede the major
point I have been making since day one?
Also, since your tame expert, Rick Montgomery, has also been shown to be in
error on a fundamental point, I wonder if you will dissociate yourself from
his previously apparent
infallibility?
No... I thought not.
>...Again, I got the mechanics wrong in surmising HOW metal moves, the
>science behind the movement of metal in whizzing. Unlike some others here,
>unlike a lot of people online actually, I have zero problem in being
>corrected and saying I had earlier been wrong about something, in learning
>something new.
Big of you, Reid. I imagine you've had a lot of practice.
Now, will you concede the silly "metal moving" hypothesis?
No "zero problem" there, I'd wager.
> Metal moves in whizzing, just as it does when a coin is struck and when
> it's countermarked or test cut. Not removed.
Completely different processes. Flexible wire brushes versus rigid cutting
or stamping tools.
Isn't that obvious?
======
I know I shouldn't rise to the bait of Reid's ignorant trolls - but I do.
I'll try to restrain myself in future, but such examples of egregious
deception, based upon monumental ignorance and cemented with
colossal smugness, are difficult to ignore.
But I'll try.
--
Jeff R.
Mr. Jaggers
> Tony Clayton wrote:
>
>> What does occur is plastic deformation of the surface layers. This
>> will result in surface metal being moved, in just the same way as
>> drawing a knife across the surface will result in a scratch with the
>> moved material forming a narrow raised area on each side.
>
> metal shop whiz continues to say that the action of whizzing is the
> removal, not the moving, of metal. He describes the contention that
> whizzing acts by moving metal as a silly hypothesis and later as
> monumentally ignorant. What do you think?
>
> I've visited your "Metals Used in Coins and Medals" page many times. I
> know you know of what you speak. What I don't know is if your
> expertise on the subject of whizzing comes from having done an
> experiment like the metal shop whiz did to formulate his views or if
> you might consider doing such an experiment. If you do, you would
> need to create a "whizzed" coin before you had actually seen one or
> had talked to anyone who whizzed coins about what they did, and you
> would need to use wire brushes different from the type that coin
> doctors use and have used to whiz coins. I recognize that this is a
> pretty tall order, perhaps impossible for any rational, clear-headed
> human being. So, perhaps your expertise has arisen in a different
> manner? On what basis, may I ask, do you say that whizzing moves
> metal?
> What I just can't understand is if whizzing removes metal, why is the
> weight of whizzed coins the same as unaltered coins of the same type.
> Maybe this has something to do with quantum physics and the
> uncertainty principle, or perhaps superstring theory and brane
> cosmology.
I certainly hope that the Higgs boson is found, and very, very soon, at
CERN, and when it is, it will put this tiring repetition of character
assassination to merciful rest, one way or the other. Then we can go back
to talking about what really matters in numismatics, namely, the value of a
rebound Breen Encyclopedia vis-�-vis his pedophilia and his intellectual
dishonesty.
James the Particle Physicist
Bruce Remick
"Jeff R." <con...@this.ng> wrote in message
news:4b2eb727$0$6094$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
It looked to me like Reid turned what might have been a sincere "my bad",
albeit minus an apology to you, into a "what a regular guy I am to accept my
error and admit it" pronouncement. He obviously has had no prior experience
at being found in error.
Jeff R.
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:PRzXm.102545$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad...
> It looked to me like Reid turned what might have been a sincere "my bad",
> albeit minus an apology to you, into a "what a regular guy I am to accept
> my error and admit it" pronouncement. He obviously has had no prior
> experience at being found in error.
Au contraire, Bruce.
Reid has lots of experience in being proven wrong.
He's just not very good at it.
(He does tend to forget about it a minute or two later)
--
Jeff R.
Jud
wrote:
I am not a metallurgist, nor do I play one on TV. However, it seems to
me that if the wire brush was to be examined after 'whizzing' a coin,
or anything else, there would be traces of the object being 'whizzed'
in the brushes. With precious metals, it seems that it would be
worthwhile to retrieve them from the brushes, if economically viable.
Mr. Jaggers
> Reid Goldsborough wrote:
>
>> What I just can't understand is if whizzing removes metal, why is the
>> weight of whizzed coins the same as unaltered coins of the same type.
>> Maybe this has something to do with quantum physics and the
>> uncertainty principle, or perhaps superstring theory and brane
>> cosmology.
>
> I'm open to suggestions and corrections. The reason whizzing removes
> metal, despite whizzed coins being the same weight as unaltered coins,
> is the same reason that metal on whizzed coins under magnification
> appears pushed up against devices, legends, and rims. It's not that
> metal is moved, not removed. That's too logical, too commonsensible.
> That's what you might think in the everyday Newtonian/Einsteinian
> four-dimensional universe of length, width, height, and time. But
> brane cosmology, which is about the hottest thing going besides
> Jessica Alba, holds that there are actually 11 dimensions.
>
> These other dimensions are ultra-compact, so we can't see them. But,
> if we look carefully, we can notice their effects. Most brane
> cosmologists used to think that there were 10 dimensions. I believe
> that that extra weight and the pushed-metal of whizzed coins proves
> that there must in fact be an 11th dimension. I believe that it's the
> collision of unseen branes that not only led to the creation of our
> current universe but also the unexplained weight and pushed-up metal
> anomalies that "Jeff R." in his famous whizzed experiment of the
> mid-2000s couldn't previously account for.
>
> So this is the real science behind this. I previously got wrong the
> way that metal moves, thinking it was heat and pressure rather than
> pressure alone that moves metal up against devices, legends, and
> rims. Now I see that metal is actually removed as "Jeff R." says and
> then redeposited through the 11th dimension.
Well, for the first time you did not condescendingly impugn Jeff as some
disembodied "whiz", so to my eyes and in that sense, you have made progress,
Mr. G.
James
Mr. Jaggers
One might postulate a cloud made up of microscopic chunks of both "whizzee"
and "whizzor" material forming around the point of impact. If such cloud
does actually exist, its presence (and the reduction in mass of both whizzee
and whizzor agents) is detectable, given the proper instrumentation and
procedures. Has this ever been done under rigorous laboratory conditions
with all other variables controlled?
James the Whizzer
Bruce Remick
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:hgo9h...@enews2.newsguy.com...
CHEEZ!!
>
>
mazorj
"Jud" <numis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2d764a9a-1e9f-4916...@t42g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
Back when b&w film was still used extensively, you could buy kits to
recover the silver that is washed out from developing the negatives
(and IIRC maybe the printing paper). It was barely profitable for
home darkrooms but it was used by many large photo labs.
Recovering whizzed PMs as described here would be more difficult
because unlike liquid silver salts, it's only in the form of thin
solid gold or silver films deposited on hundreds of thin metal
whiskers. Some if not most of it is firmly bonded to the bristles
after friction heated a thin layer of the coin's surface atoms which
then cooled on the brush surfaces. The PM can be harvested, but the
process may be expensive and the amount transferred by one or two
coins probably would be trivial. A production line whizzing operation
doing hundreds of coins might make it somewhat profitable.
During the Alaska gold rush, unscrupulous assayers would apply a thin
coating of oil or syrup to their hands which they would frequently use
to brush their hair back or wipe on an apron. After work, a shampoo
or hand washing of the apron yielded a small but lucrative amount of
stolen flakes.
Mr. Jaggers
Are you suggesting that we have been a nation of criminals since, maybe, the
beginning?
James the Outlaw
mazorj
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
Yep. How else do you explain eBay?
Mr. Jaggers
More in terms of Lying SOS syndrome than actual criminality.
James the Prevaricator
mazorj
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
> mazorj wrote:
>> "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
>> news:hgqo2...@enews2.newsguy.com...
...
>>> Are you suggesting that we have been a nation of criminals since,
>>> maybe, the beginning?
>>>
>>> James the Outlaw
>>
>> Yep. How else do you explain eBay?
>
> More in terms of Lying SOS syndrome than actual criminality.
>
> James the Prevaricator
True, but when it comes to commerce, being a Lying SOS can rise to
fraud.
- mazorj the Sardonic
Bruce Remick
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
CHEEZ!!
>
>
Bruce Remick
"mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hgqu2t$2nk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
There was an eBay at the Beginning??....which begat PayPal??
mazorj
>
> "mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:hgqu2t$2nk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
>> news:hgqo2...@enews2.newsguy.com...
...
>>> Are you suggesting that we have been a nation of criminals since, maybe,
>>> the beginning?
>>>
>>> James the Outlaw
>>
>> Yep. How else do you explain eBay?
>
> There was an eBay at the Beginning??....which begat PayPal??
And all the ill-begotten goods sold thereby thereon.