A collecting forum. CollectingBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CollectingBanter forum » Collecting newsgroups » Coins
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Whizzing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 30th 07, 06:50 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Reid Goldsborough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 944
Default Whizzing

The following will be an exercise of truth, and falsity, exposed, with
sources cited.

This is about whizzing, with the recent discussion about this until
now in a thread about ancient coins titled "Ancient Coins: How to
Start a Collection?" Whizzing, however, is primarily an issue
affecting modern coins, so I've broken out this new thread, labeling
it with a subject line that describes it.

In the discussion thus far, Anka sought to show that I post "so many"
ignorant comments, only she had to travel back 3-1/2 years to find an
"ignorant" comment of mine, a comment that was actually correct, not
"ignorant." She made the mistake again of deferring to someone she
shouldn't have about a subject she doesn't know. In this case, she
deferred to Jeff. Jeff had done an experiment that purported showed
that when a coin is whizzed, metal isn't moved. My "ignorant" comment
was that when a coin is whizzed, metal does move. This is the main
point of contention. Does metal move, or not?

Now, Jeff said that he's a metal worker, but he admitted that he has
never seen a whizzed coin, done by a real coin doctor. What's more,
he's got the physics all wrong, talking about how there's no rise in
temperature during whizzing caused by the fiction of the rotary wire
wheel against the metallic surface, that it's all room temperature,
even the point of contact, which defies even common sense. He made
further incorrect assumptions, saying that I based my conclusions on
the Internet when I hadn't even done a Google search about this and
when in actuality what I based my conclusions on was direct
observation of the results of what whizzers do. Read on for citations,
showing how others have also come to the same conclusions (this will
be new information about this subject).

After Anka started things, others jumped in (this is Usenet g), some
agreeing with me, some agreeing with Jeff.

Phil agreed with Jeff, basing his proclamations on his working with
gemstones. That's a good one, isn't it? As usual, he otherwise acted
only as a disruptive troller who's in the discussion primarily to
interfere.

Tony didn't seem to know what he wanted to say. He believes the same
as I do -- he's got the physics right -- but he tied himself up in
knots to avoid having to admit he agreed with me.

Others agreed with me, that metal moves.

To prove my proposition that metal moves, I shared my observations
(and those of many others) of how on a whizzed coin metal is bunched
up against legends and devices -- moved by the rotary wire wheel
through heat and force, causing it to behave like a thick liquid -- in
a very similar way that metal behaves when a coin is struck. I also
shared the fact that the weight of whizzed coins is the same as
unwhizzed coins. If metal were removed, not moved, the weight would be
less, and that would be a diagnostic. It's not. You could say "Duh!"
to all this and leave it alone, but the amateurs and the
self-appointed experts and the arguers continue to argue and argue and
argue against all reason. The best approach to false speech is more
speech, as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said. So...

This is from the book Official A.N.A. Grading Standards for United
States Coins: "A whizzed coin has been mechanically wire-brushed...
The most important diagnostic is the build-up of metal on the coin's
raised devices. As the wire brush moves across the surface of the
coin, a microscopic layer of metal is liquefied BY THE HEAT produced
by friction." (Emphasis mine.) The ANA continues: "The metal is pushed
along in front of the brush until a raised device is encountered, upon
which a ridge of metal is deposited." Gee, sounds familiar, doesn't
it?

Enough? Of course not. The arguers are going to keep on arguing, never
admitting they're wrong. They'll say, "Who's the ANA. They're not the
be-and-end-all. Do they have a metal shop like me? Who cares if their
conclusions are based on real-world coins, real-word observations,
real-world measurements. I know. I'm telling you all, I know. You must
believe me."

OK. Here's another source, PCGS. This is from its book Official Guide
to Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection: "Whizzing is a technique in
which surface metal is MOVED mechanically to create the illusion of
luster." (Emphasis mine.) PCGS then goes on to describe newer methods
used primarily with proof coins that support some of the speculations
made here by Tony that involve, along with a rotary brush, additional
heat and/or chemicals or heat alone, but the diagnostics for these new
methods are different from conventional whizzing -- the surfaces look
plated/chromed or are wavy.

Now, the arguers will no doubt also fault PCGS, saying something like,
"Who's PCGS. They're American. How many coins have they seen? Do they
have a metal shop? Have they done an experiment and put up the results
on the Web? What do they know. I know. I'm telling you."

I'm neglecting to mention other speciousness that no doubt will follow
this: Nitpicking nonsense that ignores the core issue here (metal
moving), talking in tongues, obfuscating language to hide having to
agree, accusations and outright flaming to divert the discussion away
from the core issue (metal moving), all the rest. Nobody will admit
they were wrong.

Bottom line: Metal is moved. Not removed. With whizzing. Just as with
striking.

Hah! Sorry. I couldn't resist. This was just so much fun. And maybe,
just maybe, somebody ... or many people ... reading this learned
something interesting about coins.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer:
http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos
Ads
  #2  
Old September 30th 07, 08:05 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Phil DeMayo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default Whizzing

On Sep 30, 12:50?pm, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

The following will be an exercise of truth, and falsity, exposed, with
sources cited.....much drivel snipped


Oh, is that what it is?

Why does this start with several paragraphs of personal attacks?

Will this be "periodic" drivel?

Have you even bothered to research the temperatures that would be
needed to "liquify" (melt) coin metals?

How can you possibly believe that no metal is removed when a wire
brush turning at thousands of RPM makes contact with the surface of a
coin?

Do you have any scientific data or personal experiences to back up
your claims?

No? I didn't think so.

  #3  
Old September 30th 07, 09:06 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Reid Goldsborough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 944
Default Whizzing

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 12:05:04 -0700, Phil DeMayo
wrote:

Oh, is that what it is?


You just proved my point. One of them. You're here just to argue. You,
and people like you -- and there seems to be a disproportionate
percentage of them online -- never, ever, ever admit it when you're
wrong. You never have, not once, in any conversation I've ever
observed. Same with a few of the others. And when some of them do
admit they're wrong, it's coached in language so as not to make it
seem that they're admitting they're wrong.

This of course is an issue separate from how metal moves on a planchet
or a coin's surface, an issue involving online communication in
general and psychology online and offline. It's interesting, if
somewhat off-topic. I'm sure there have been studies about this, some
of which, a small percentage anyway, could probably be tracked down
online. When time permits I'll do this, and journal articles offline
as well.

But here's a layperson's analysis: Insecurity. It appears that you
feel your world, your self-image, will collapse if you're shown to be
wrong. So you never are. But what's behind the insecurity? Lots of
possibilities here as to why some people are weak in this way and some
are strong, why some have the inner strength and self-assurance to
say, "I was wrong," and some just can't do this.

I don't pretend to be a superman here. But I don't have the problem
people like you have in saying, "I was wrong." I actually enjoy being
corrected so as to not make the same mistake twice, and more
importantly, to better understand the issue involved. Truth is key,
for me, not preserving some counterfeit self-image, some forgery
you've manufactured in your head.

I'm wrong. The ANA is wrong. PCGS is wrong. The weight measurements of
whizzed coins are all wrong. You're right. Because you can't be wrong.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer:
http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos
  #4  
Old September 30th 07, 09:10 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Tony Cooper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,347
Default Whizzing

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 13:50:05 -0400, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

Tony didn't seem to know what he wanted to say. He believes the same
as I do -- he's got the physics right -- but he tied himself up in
knots to avoid having to admit he agreed with me.

I think I've confused you because I have admitted that I don't really
know the actual effects of a rotary brush on metal. I think it's
perfectly normal, and even necessary, to admit lack of knowledge at
times.

I agree that the spinning wire brush causes friction and that friction
causes heat. What I don't know is if the friction produced by the
spinning brush increases the surface-point temperature to a level that
causes the metal to become fluid enough to flow.

To prove my proposition that metal moves, I shared my observations
(and those of many others) of how on a whizzed coin metal is bunched
up against legends and devices -- moved by the rotary wire wheel
through heat and force, causing it to behave like a thick liquid -- in
a very similar way that metal behaves when a coin is struck. I also
shared the fact that the weight of whizzed coins is the same as
unwhizzed coins. If metal were removed, not moved, the weight would be
less, and that would be a diagnostic.


Uhhh, that presumes that the weight of a particular coin series is an
absolute, unvarying amount. According to PCGS, the weight of a 1904
Indian Head $2.50 coin is 64.5 grains, and that figure is annotated
with the symbol for "plus or minus". They don't specify the
acceptable range of deviation, but it is entirely conceivable that
abrasive action would remove only a grain amount that would allow the
coin to remain in the plus/minus 64.5 grain range.

The only true test of a noticeable effect on the weight of a coin
would be the precision weighing of an individual coin before and after
abrasive treatment.

This is from the book Official A.N.A. Grading Standards for United
States Coins: "A whizzed coin has been mechanically wire-brushed...
The most important diagnostic is the build-up of metal on the coin's
raised devices. As the wire brush moves across the surface of the
coin, a microscopic layer of metal is liquefied BY THE HEAT produced
by friction." (Emphasis mine.) The ANA continues: "The metal is pushed
along in front of the brush until a raised device is encountered, upon
which a ridge of metal is deposited." Gee, sounds familiar, doesn't
it?

A good cite.

Enough? Of course not. The arguers are going to keep on arguing, never
admitting they're wrong. They'll say, "Who's the ANA. They're not the
be-and-end-all.


No, the cooler-headed dissenters are going to wonder if the writer of
the ANA article accepted and repeated a false premise or if they
actually put the premise to the test.

Now, the arguers will no doubt also fault PCGS, saying something like,
"Who's PCGS. They're American. How many coins have they seen? Do they
have a metal shop? Have they done an experiment and put up the results
on the Web? What do they know. I know. I'm telling you."


Vide super.


--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
  #5  
Old September 30th 07, 09:35 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Tony Cooper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,347
Default Whizzing

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:06:50 -0400, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

But I don't have the problem people like you have in saying, "I was wrong."


Is there any evidentiary proof of this?

--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
  #6  
Old September 30th 07, 09:58 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 126
Default Whizzing

We made an exhibit at my old store about ten years ago of sample
silver Washington quarters which had been artificially toned,
overdipped, cleaned with baking soda, metal polish, an eraser,
cloroxed, thumbed, and whizzed, along with brilliant Unc and several
naturally toned Unc examples. I gave one of the coins a real work
over with a wire brush on Dremmel. Picked it up to look at it and
burned the crap out of myself. Had a red spot on my fingers that took
2 weeks to go away. So I can believe the surface layer got hot enough
to liquify.


  #7  
Old September 30th 07, 09:58 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Mr. Jaggers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,523
Default Whizzing


"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
The following will be an exercise of truth, and falsity, exposed, with
sources cited.

This is about whizzing, with the recent discussion about this until
now in a thread about ancient coins titled "Ancient Coins: How to
Start a Collection?" Whizzing, however, is primarily an issue
affecting modern coins, so I've broken out this new thread, labeling
it with a subject line that describes it.


[big snip]

No one has yet brought up the topic of what is commonly called metal
"chasing," a technique by which metal is moved around with various hand
tools to form new letters and numerals. Among coppers, many fake 1799 large
cents, the "1815" large cents, as well as the famous "altered reverse" large
cents, are the result of the use of this technique. I will defer to others
to determine if it has any kinship with whizzing.

James


  #8  
Old September 30th 07, 10:50 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Reid Goldsborough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 944
Default Whizzing

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:35:39 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

Is there any evidentiary proof of this?


There you go again, using big words. Is "evidentiary proof" different
from ordinary proof? In other words, is there a type of proof that
doesn't require evidence? Mathematical proof maybe, which requires
logic rather than empirical data, though not relevant in this
instance. This is actually more than a rhetorical question and an
attempt to poke (gentle) fun at your proclivity for utilizing
corpulent verbiage. (It's actually not a matter of using big words.
It's a matter of using the right words, which are sometimes big but
often don't need to be.)

Anyway, to answer your question, I've been wrong, admitting it, about
a number of things, in this newsgroup, other newsgroups, and believe
it or not offline as well. I could cite many examples, but I'll cite
one. When I first learned that a particular dealer and
ex-administrative court judge was selling unmarked Slavey replicas of
ancient coins, I vocally disapproved. After I learned more about this,
I changed my mind, admitting I had prejudged the ex-judge before I
learned enough about this to make an informed judgment. Note that some
people do disapprove of this, which is a whole nuther argument. Along
with being wrong in this pre-judgment, I've also been wrong about
certain facts and have been wrong in certain actions. Here's another
example: I was wrong in using three sockpuppets over the course of a
week about four years ago, also owned up to. I don't deny, though,
that there are undoubtedly occasions in which I haven't admitted being
wrong when I should have, online and offline. Like I said, I don't
pretend to be any kind of superman here.

Here are some other observations about the phenomenon of some people
being unable to admit they're wrong about anything. It seems to
correlate with age, that is, older people tend to exhibit this more
than younger people, though there are lots of exception on both sides.
The coin collecting population skews toward the elderly, so you would
expect to see this behavior more among coin collectors, though I don't
remember ever feeling this way about coin collectors in person, at
meetings or in talking to people individually at shows. I need to
think through why you tend to see this more online across the board.
It may simply have to do with the argumentative nature of online
communication, how the lack of voice inflections, facial expressions,
and body language and the physical separation in space and time make
arguments online more prevalent and more heated than they typically
are in person. But there are no doubt other factors involved too.

--

Email: (delete "remove this")

Consumer:
http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos
  #9  
Old September 30th 07, 11:09 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
RF
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,802
Default Whizzing

On Sep 30, 4:06 pm, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 12:05:04 -0700, Phil DeMayo
wrote:

Oh, is that what it is?


You just proved my point. One of them. You're here just to argue. You,
and people like you -- and there seems to be a disproportionate
percentage of them online -- never, ever, ever admit it when you're
wrong. You never have, not once, in any conversation I've ever
observed. Same with a few of the others. And when some of them do
admit they're wrong, it's coached in language so as not to make it
seem that they're admitting they're wrong.

This of course is an issue separate from how metal moves on a planchet
or a coin's surface, an issue involving online communication in
general and psychology online and offline. It's interesting, if
somewhat off-topic. I'm sure there have been studies about this, some
of which, a small percentage anyway, could probably be tracked down
online. When time permits I'll do this, and journal articles offline
as well.

But here's a layperson's analysis: Insecurity. It appears that you
feel your world, your self-image, will collapse if you're shown to be
wrong. So you never are. But what's behind the insecurity? Lots of
possibilities here as to why some people are weak in this way and some
are strong, why some have the inner strength and self-assurance to
say, "I was wrong," and some just can't do this.

I don't pretend to be a superman here. But I don't have the problem
people like you have in saying, "I was wrong." I actually enjoy being
corrected so as to not make the same mistake twice, and more
importantly, to better understand the issue involved. Truth is key,
for me, not preserving some counterfeit self-image, some forgery
you've manufactured in your head.

I'm wrong. The ANA is wrong. PCGS is wrong. The weight measurements of
whizzed coins are all wrong. You're right. Because you can't be wrong.


Jeez, what a pedantic windbag you are!

  #10  
Old September 30th 07, 11:29 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Tony Cooper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,347
Default Whizzing

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 17:50:23 -0400, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:35:39 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

Is there any evidentiary proof of this?


There you go again, using big words. Is "evidentiary proof" different
from ordinary proof?


Yes. The problem is that I can't completely answer the question
without using "big words".

In other words, is there a type of proof that doesn't require
evidence?


Yes.

I'll snip the rest of your fustian ramble.



--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Whizzing coins - new info A.Gent Coins 91 April 21st 04 09:32 PM
What is "whizzing"? - a little long, sorry A.Gent Coins 37 April 4th 04 07:36 PM
Seller Suggests "whizzing" "uncirculated" coin RLWinnetka Coins 13 March 29th 04 01:47 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CollectingBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.