Read about the former museum staffer!!!

On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 07:42:43 -0700 (PDT), Voltronicus
wrote:

On Oct 9, 10:14*am, tony cooper wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 09:29:29 -0700, "Charles Cooper"

wrote:

"oly" wrote in message I read once that about 1920 or so,
Picasso married very well, the daughter of a French General or somebody on
that order. *By French bourgeois standards, he married way over his head.
Solid Money too. *Then Picasso went from reasonably nice works to trashy
stuff. *He did it intentionally, to subtly show how stupid the rich were.
He found that the trashy stuff would sell too, and never went back to his
former better stuff (Picasso could MOL do the whole classic to impressionist
to cubist gamut).

Interesting, never knew that about Picasso. *Abstract art is just garbage
that rich people buy so they can feel "worldly" and good about themselves.

Absolute nonsense. *People buy and collect what they like or what they
feel will appreciate in value. *It's no sillier to buy an expensive
abstract painting than it is to buy a coin at a premium price because
it has never been used for its intended purpose or because the
production run of that coin was smaller than the production run of
other coins.

Coins exist because they are a medium of exchange. *They are minted so
that we have a way to acquire things by a simpler method than trading
goats or chickens or whatever for what we want. *A penny should have a
value of one cent regardless of the date, mint mark, or condition.
However, some people create an artificial value for that penny based
on the date, mint mark, and condition.

Why is the value "artificial"?

I used "artificial" because the value is higher than the intrinsic
value of the materials. Any value above that is artificially set.

"Artificial" is not a negative term. It's just a term that describes
the value as set by the manipulation of the market.

Well, anymore artificial than the gubmint saying 2¢ worth of metal is
worth a quarter or a dollar anyway? Don't even get me started on FRNs!
Seems to me the value is real enough since it's established in an open
market with (presumably) informed buyers & sellers.

What is the "real" value of anything? "Real" is as we know it and as
we experience it. The real value of a share of stock, a home, or a
coin is one thing today and - perhaps - another thing tomorrow.
"Real" is actual, and actual changes.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Oct 9, 11:03*am, tony cooper wrote:

I used "artificial" because the value is higher than the intrinsic
value of the materials. Any value above that is artificially set.

I disagree.
Value is that which is decided upon between and informed buyer and
seller.

Interesting, never knew that about Picasso. Abstract art is just garbage
that rich people buy so they can feel "worldly" and good about themselves.
Wealthy individuals who doesn't have the sense to spend money on more
practical things buy this type of expensive junk.

Example of misguided purchase: "Hey, look what I bought (jumping up and
down, waving arms wildly), I have culture! I'm proof than man has evolved
into something more than a monkey that can talk! If you can't see what a
fine piece of "artwork" this is, then maybe you're further down the
evolutionary chain than I am."

I don't let some loser that declares himself to be an art critic influence
my perception. "Oh, Robert Hughes says this is a masterpiece, so it must
be! Let me get my checkbook!"

It doesn't take much intellect to recognize when a lack of skill is touted
as a masterpiece by the deluded. The world is full of elitists with too
much wealth who interpret smudges, smears and drips as being
artwork...relying on the artspeak crutch for their "enlightened" opinions.

Even "fine art" cannot be defined in a tangible sense. It's a vaguery,
always open to interpretation, varying opinion and is objective. One
person's fine
art is another person's "diarrhea splatter on canvas".

A high percentage of art demands a wild imagination, bordering on
hallucination (mainly with regard to abstract art which really isn't art at
all). Abstract art is a perfectly good waste of imagination. A good
example would be the work (garbage) of Helen Frankenthaler. Just a bunch of
nonsense bringing high prices from wealthy fools who want to feel good about
themselves. The young man who mischieviously defaced that joke of a
painting called "The Bay", may have made an improvement when he tattooed his
bubble gum to the canvas several years ago.
There is nothing redeeming about abstract art. One can purchase
paintings, such as Frankenthaler's as an investment until it can
unloaded for a profit to another rich fool who wants to feel good about
themselves? Or perhaps to cover up a nail hole or wall damage? Anyone who
admires
bizarre color splotches on canvas is definitely brain damaged. I've heard
that the severely mentally disabled like to stand and stare at abstract art
hung on the walls in psychiatric hospitals.


"oly" wrote in message I read once that about 1920 or so,
Picasso married very well, the daughter of a French General or somebody on
that order. By French bourgeois standards, he married way over his head.
Solid Money too. Then Picasso went from reasonably nice works to trashy
stuff. He did it intentionally, to subtly show how stupid the rich were.
He found that the trashy stuff would sell too, and never went back to his
former better stuff (Picasso could MOL do the whole classic to impressionist
to cubist gamut).

On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 08:58:25 -0700 (PDT), Voltronicus
wrote:

On Oct 9, 11:03*am, tony cooper wrote:

I used "artificial" because the value is higher than the intrinsic
value of the materials. Any value above that is artificially set.

I disagree.
Value is that which is decided upon between and informed buyer and
seller.

And what are they informed about? What do they make that decision
based on?

They are informed about what others have paid for the coin and they
make the decision of the value based on what others have paid. That
is an artificial value. If other collectors stop buying and selling
the coin for that amount, the value drops. The value was never more
real than the face value or intrinsic value; it was set artificially
by past transactions.

Value is defined as what the market sets, but what the market is
setting is artificial. The market value is the temporary value based
on current conditions. It's real today, but not necessarily yesterday
or tomorrow.
















--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Oct 9, 12:48*pm, tony cooper wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 08:58:25 -0700 (PDT), Voltronicus

wrote:
On Oct 9, 11:03*am, tony cooper wrote:

I used "artificial" because the value is higher than the intrinsic
value of the materials. *Any value above that is artificially set.

I disagree.
Value is that which is decided upon between and informed buyer and
seller.

And what are they informed about? *What do they make that decision
based on?

They are informed about what others have paid for the coin and they
make the decision of the value based on what others have paid. *That
is an artificial value. *If other collectors stop buying and selling
the coin for that amount, the value drops. *The value was never more
real than the face value or intrinsic value; it was set artificially
by past transactions. *

Value is defined as what the market sets, but what the market is
setting is artificial. *The market value is the temporary value based
on current conditions. *It's real today, but not necessarily yesterday
or tomorrow.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

You bandy the word "artificial" about as if there were some type of
market manipulation afoot.

On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 09:58:50 -0700 (PDT), Voltronicus
wrote:

On Oct 9, 12:48*pm, tony cooper wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 08:58:25 -0700 (PDT), Voltronicus

wrote:
On Oct 9, 11:03*am, tony cooper wrote:

I used "artificial" because the value is higher than the intrinsic
value of the materials. *Any value above that is artificially set.

I disagree.
Value is that which is decided upon between and informed buyer and
seller.

And what are they informed about? *What do they make that decision
based on?

They are informed about what others have paid for the coin and they
make the decision of the value based on what others have paid. *That
is an artificial value. *If other collectors stop buying and selling
the coin for that amount, the value drops. *The value was never more
real than the face value or intrinsic value; it was set artificially
by past transactions. *

Value is defined as what the market sets, but what the market is
setting is artificial. *The market value is the temporary value based
on current conditions. *It's real today, but not necessarily yesterday
or tomorrow.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

You bandy the word "artificial" about as if there were some type of
market manipulation afoot.

There is. The numismatic price of coins is not natural. The price is
created, and it's created by the manipulations of the market based on
the supply and demand of a non-essential item.

It's a benign manipulation, but manipulation nonetheless.

You seem to be put off by your own attachment of connotation to words.
You don't like "artificial", but the basic meaning of the word is no
more than "not natural". Unless you can make a case for numismatic
coin prices being set by natural causes, supply a word that describes
man-made influence on prices that suits you better.

The funny thing is that you are Ira's severest critic because he's the
best manipulator in this group of artificial value. You constantly
point out that he attempts to inflate the value of his coins by his
descriptions. You recognize the artificiality of that, but you don't
want to accept that numismatic coin values are artificial.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Oct 9, 3:18*pm, tony cooper wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 09:58:50 -0700 (PDT), Voltronicus





wrote:
On Oct 9, 12:48*pm, tony cooper wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 08:58:25 -0700 (PDT), Voltronicus

wrote:
On Oct 9, 11:03*am, tony cooper wrote:

I used "artificial" because the value is higher than the intrinsic
value of the materials. *Any value above that is artificially set.

I disagree.
Value is that which is decided upon between and informed buyer and
seller.

And what are they informed about? *What do they make that decision
based on?

They are informed about what others have paid for the coin and they
make the decision of the value based on what others have paid. *That
is an artificial value. *If other collectors stop buying and selling
the coin for that amount, the value drops. *The value was never more
real than the face value or intrinsic value; it was set artificially
by past transactions. *

Value is defined as what the market sets, but what the market is
setting is artificial. *The market value is the temporary value based
on current conditions. *It's real today, but not necessarily yesterday
or tomorrow.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

You bandy the word "artificial" about as if there were some type of
market manipulation afoot.

There is. *The numismatic price of coins is not natural. *The price is
created, and it's created by the manipulations of the market based on
the supply and demand of a non-essential item. *

It's a benign manipulation, but manipulation nonetheless. *

You seem to be put off by your own attachment of connotation to words.
You don't like "artificial", but the basic meaning of the word is no
more than "not natural". *Unless you can make a case for numismatic
coin prices being set by natural causes, supply a word that describes
man-made influence on prices that suits you better.

The funny thing is that you are Ira's severest critic because he's the
best manipulator in this group of artificial value. *You constantly
point out that he attempts to inflate the value of his coins by his
descriptions. *You recognize the artificiality of that, but you don't
want to accept that numismatic coin values are artificial.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida-

It's just that I don't consider the forces of supply and demand to be
artificial but rather the natural force of the marketplace. YMMV

On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 16:06:50 -0700, "Charles Cooper"
wrote:

It's no sillier to buy an expensive
abstract painting than it is to buy a coin at a premium price


Nonsense. Only a buffoon with more money than sense buys abstract art. You
can read the date and inscription on a coin and there is usually an image to
look at that is distinguishable. Whereas an abstract painting is usually
just a blob or paint splatter that any waterhead could have created. Doggy
paw prints on canvas are considered abstract art. Let me guess.....you have
bull**** like that on your wall at home.

No, actually, I don't. I have watercolors, pen-and-ink drawings, and
photographs. One large oil painting that's been in the family for
some time, and one small oil in the primitive style. No abstracts,
though I've seen some I'd like to own.

I can read the date and inscription on any coin I take out of my
pocket. A penny, for example. If this is what makes something
desirable, then there's no need to pay a premium for a penny that's
dated 1909, 1914, or 1931. The little "S" or "D" or the designer's
initials don't add that much if the objective is to see an image of
Lincoln and read the date.






--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

It's no sillier to buy an expensive
abstract painting than it is to buy a coin at a premium price


Nonsense. Only a buffoon with more money than sense buys abstract art. You
can read the date and inscription on a coin and there is usually an image to
look at that is distinguishable. Whereas an abstract painting is usually
just a blob or paint splatter that any waterhead could have created. Doggy
paw prints on canvas are considered abstract art. Let me guess.....you have
bull**** like that on your wall at home.

In a recent message Ken Barr wrote:

In article
,
stonej wrote:

On Oct 8, 12:42*am, oly wrote:
Great story.

See about three-quarters of the way down about how to lose your
museum
job!!!

http://news.aol.com/article/rare-isl...-for-55/203830.
..

oly


Stuff happens. I remember reading about a rare bottle of wine (6 or
7 figures) that someone tapped against the
side of a table for some unknown reason and the bottle broke.

Could be worse ... someone could conceivably accidentally
poke a hole in a $50 million Picasso painting ...

It is not too difficult to repair a painting.

More tricky were the three Chinese porcelain jars that were
broken at the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge.

They were comprehensively shattered, and as a result they had
not only a large three dimensional jigsaw, but three mixed up.

I have seen one of the restored jars; the restoration is so good
that you have to get really close to see the joins.

http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/gallery/chinesevases/

--
Tony Clayton
Coins of the UK : http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk
Sent using RISCOS on an Acorn Strong Arm RiscPC
.... "42? 7 and a half million years and all you can come up with is 42?!"