Numismatist on owning counterfeits

In the column Numismatic Ethics the authors talk about the legalities of
owning, buying, and selling counterfeits of collectable coins. At least
two people here have argued for years that this is illegal and
unethical, one by playing lawyer, amateurishly combining unrelated
statutes. The authors of this Numismatist column judiciously point out
that the legality of selling and owning counterfeits are confusing but
"The coins are legal to own as long as they are offered as contemporary
counterfeits and not sold with the intent to defraud." They also point
to a recently published book on the subject of counterfeit Bust halves,
available to borrow from the ANA library. I pointed out previously the
availablilty from the ANA library of the video by Red Book editor and
former ANA president Ken Bressett titled "Famous Fakes and Fakers" on
the attraction of collecting counterfeits. Lawyer Michael Benveniste
previously pointed out here that at least two circuit courts have ruled
that possession of counterfeit coins without intent to defraud doesn't
violate the U.S. counterfeit statues (United States v. Cardillo, 708
F.2d 29 [1983], and United States v. Ratner, 464 F.2d 169 [1972]). Those
with entrenched views will likely still argue about the illegality and
immorality of anything and everything having to do with counterfeits
even to the extent of equating the collecting and studying of
counterfeits with the support of international terrorism, to name just
one of the mind-boggling statements made here and that will no doubt
continue to be made. The common theme in all this: the interplay of
truth and misinformation, a key and fascinating issue in numismatics.

--

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

Reid Goldsborough wrote:
In the column Numismatic Ethics the authors talk about the legalities
of owning, buying, and selling counterfeits of collectable coins. At
least two people here have argued for years that this is illegal and
unethical, one by playing lawyer, amateurishly combining unrelated
statutes. The authors of this Numismatist column judiciously point out
that the legality of selling and owning counterfeits are confusing but
"The coins are legal to own as long as they are offered as
contemporary counterfeits and not sold with the intent to defraud."
They also point to a recently published book on the subject of
counterfeit Bust halves, available to borrow from the ANA library. I
pointed out previously the availablilty from the ANA library of the
video by Red Book editor and former ANA president Ken Bressett titled
"Famous Fakes and Fakers" on the attraction of collecting
counterfeits. Lawyer Michael Benveniste previously pointed out here
that at least two circuit courts have ruled that possession of
counterfeit coins without intent to defraud doesn't violate the U.S.
counterfeit statues (United States v. Cardillo, 708 F.2d 29 [1983],
and United States v. Ratner, 464 F.2d 169 [1972]). Those with
entrenched views will likely still argue about the illegality and
immorality of anything and everything having to do with counterfeits
even to the extent of equating the collecting and studying of
counterfeits with the support of international terrorism, to name
just one of the mind-boggling statements made here and that will no
doubt continue to be made. The common theme in all this: the
interplay of truth and misinformation, a key and fascinating issue in
numismatics.

While I concur with your positions regarding PCV, whizzing, and collecting
counterfeits, which you review in this recent trio of posts, I fail to see
the educational value in all-of-a-sudden taking potshots at rcc people who
have differed with you in the past. You yourself once observed that many
rcc regulars have dropped out because of what goes on here, but now, here
you are again, using condescending expressions such as "amateurish",
"playing lawyer", "whiz", and "metal shop guru" to refer to your past
opponents. Are you incapable of building yourself up without tearing others
down?

James

While I concur with your positions regarding PCV, whizzing, and collecting
counterfeits, which you review in this recent trio of posts, I fail to see
the educational value in all-of-a-sudden taking potshots at rcc people

I didn't mention a single name. I focused on the issues (coin holders,
coin doctoring, and counterfeit collecting) and the behavior (how truth
gets compromised and misinformation gets spread). I'd suggest that one
core reason that RCC is such a small shadow of what it used to be, along
with the anonymous flamers, is the spew of off-topic chitchatting with
virtually every thread that very quickly steers it from a discussion of
numismatic substance into whatever somebody like you wants to chitchat
about. Typically people like this carelessly just quote the entire
thread before adding their chitchat at the end, which forces scrolling
and makes it tedious for others to see if there's anything worth
following. So they stop following. Threads degenerate as much from this
as from flaming. This is not to say that digression and tangents should
be outlawed or whatever. Free world and all. In the best moderated
discussion groups chitchatty digression is controlled by gentle
persuasion and tactful interjections. This doesn't work, for the most
part, in unmoderated groups, with people just ignoring this. Another key
reason for RCC's decline is the decline of Usenet in general and the
discontinuation of Usenet feeds by major ISPs, though all other things
being equal there are fairly easy work-arounds for this.

--

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

Reid Goldsborough wrote:
While I concur with your positions regarding PCV, whizzing, and
collecting counterfeits, which you review in this recent trio of
posts, I fail to see the educational value in all-of-a-sudden taking
potshots at rcc people

I didn't mention a single name. I focused on the issues (coin holders,
coin doctoring, and counterfeit collecting) and the behavior (how
truth gets compromised and misinformation gets spread). I'd suggest
that one core reason that RCC is such a small shadow of what it used
to be, along with the anonymous flamers, is the spew of off-topic
chitchatting with virtually every thread that very quickly steers it
from a discussion of numismatic substance into whatever somebody like
you wants to chitchat about. Typically people like this carelessly
just quote the entire thread before adding their chitchat at the end,
which forces scrolling and makes it tedious for others to see if
there's anything worth following. So they stop following. Threads
degenerate as much from this as from flaming. This is not to say that
digression and tangents should be outlawed or whatever. Free world
and all. In the best moderated discussion groups chitchatty
digression is controlled by gentle persuasion and tactful
interjections. This doesn't work, for the most part, in unmoderated
groups, with people just ignoring this. Another key reason for RCC's
decline is the decline of Usenet in general and the discontinuation
of Usenet feeds by major ISPs, though all other things being equal
there are fairly easy work-arounds for this.

Of course you didn't mention a single name. But I know of only one person
who fits the description of "metal shop" and that discussion ended over two
years ago. It should have remained that way, but you had to dredge it up
all over again, complete with unnecessary and patronizing name-calling. It
is no coincidence that that same person is now embroiled with you again. I
don't blame him a bit for striking back.

As for focusing on the issues, please explain why you then bring
personalities into the picture with your adjectival characterisations of
people who hold views contrary to your own. When you do this, it says to me
that your views and your positions cannot stand on their own merit.

Finally, if you have a problem with my or anyone else's off-topic
chitchatting, well, there just aren't enough hardcore coin topics brought up
to make the newsgroup more coinworthy. The idle chitchat and sometimes
licentious banter serve to cement individuals together and make them more
human, not just members of a panel discussion. I've been around here for
several years, and during that time there has always been plenty of OT
material. It's just part of the rcc deal. I have to assume that everyone
here is eminently capable of ignoring or plonking the offending parties, if
it has to come to that. Tired of the anonymous flamers? Same comments
apply.

James

In , on 12/03/2009
at 01:40 PM, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com said:

The idle chitchat and sometimes
licentious banter serve to cement individuals together and make them more
human, not just members of a panel discussion. I've been around here for
several years, and during that time there has always been plenty of OT
material.

Sheesh. And there will always be plenty of crime. The quantity doesn't
make it right, or desirable. That can't be used as an excuse to create more
crime.

Sorry, Reid has hit it smack on the head. I could start posting about my
nose hairs, or select a more dazzlingly disgusting topic, and I'm sure I
could get some replies brewing. How thrilling that would be.

There's no reason to bump up the volume with off topic garbage. And that's
what the majority of threads end up being. Usually, 2 people (sometimes 3)
talking amongst themselves about nothing coin related. That's what email is
for.

Nick

Nick Knight wrote:
In , on 12/03/2009
at 01:40 PM, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com said:

The idle chitchat and sometimes
licentious banter serve to cement individuals together and make them
more human, not just members of a panel discussion. I've been
around here for several years, and during that time there has always
been plenty of OT material.

Sheesh. And there will always be plenty of crime. The quantity
doesn't make it right, or desirable. That can't be used as an excuse
to create more crime.

Sorry, Reid has hit it smack on the head. I could start posting
about my nose hairs, or select a more dazzlingly disgusting topic,
and I'm sure I could get some replies brewing. How thrilling that
would be.

There's no reason to bump up the volume with off topic garbage. And
that's what the majority of threads end up being. Usually, 2 people
(sometimes 3) talking amongst themselves about nothing coin related.
That's what email is for.

Goodness, Nick, by posting as you just did, you have engaged in the very
activity that you condemn.

In my view, a person with only one dimension, whatever it may be, is not a
person I'd care to hang with for very long. Unless that one dimension
happened to be beer, he'd be a pretty lonely guy in most any crowd. Call
off-topic conversations garbage if you wish, but they are a necessary
component of human interaction. You do desire to interact with humans and
not automatons, I presume.

James

"Nick Knight" wrote in message
...
In , on 12/03/2009
at 01:40 PM, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com said:

The idle chitchat and sometimes
licentious banter serve to cement individuals together and make them more
human, not just members of a panel discussion. I've been around here for
several years, and during that time there has always been plenty of OT
material.

Sheesh. And there will always be plenty of crime. The quantity doesn't
make it right, or desirable. That can't be used as an excuse to create
more
crime.

No, but maybe you can accept crime as inevitable. The *quality* of the
crime might make it more desirable to read about. At least if crime
bothers you, there are places you can live and measures you can take to
minimize the threat. If off-topic posts on RCC really bother you that much,
ditto. I don't recall very many original OT posts that went very far.
Mostly the coin-related posts wander into OT, once the original subject has
been covered by those few who care. Often, lurkers who might have had some
relevant input don't join the fray until the OT portion heats up. Human
nature, I guess.


Sorry, Reid has hit it smack on the head. I could start posting about my
nose hairs, or select a more dazzlingly disgusting topic, and I'm sure I
could get some replies brewing. How thrilling that would be.

Maybe. Maybe not. Fortunately, the future of RCC doesn't depend on your
input.


There's no reason to bump up the volume with off topic garbage. And
that's
what the majority of threads end up being. Usually, 2 people (sometimes
3)
talking amongst themselves about nothing coin related. That's what email
is
for.

Hey, the end of a delicious ice cream cone is a dry crackery thingy, but
most people finish it without complaining. If you want to see more coin
discussion, start some coin-specific posts. If others are interested,
you'll have the satisfaction you desire. If you don't want to stay aboard
when the thread drifts off topic, you can at least have the satisfaction
that you started it.

Here I thought Usenet also was a place where two or three people could
"talk" amongst themselves about things that were or were not coin-related,
with the understanding that others monitoring the group were free to join in
the fun. Can't do that with email.

Nick Knight wrote:
Usually, 2 people (sometimes 3)
talking amongst themselves about nothing coin related. That's what email is
for.

This is another post that hits the nail right on the head. The
chitchatters get a response or two from other chitchatters, and it
becomes positive reinforcement, causing the chitchat to grow at the
expense of on-topic discussion, putting off other people. This again
isn't to say that people should never digress. It's a matter of balance.
I don't think most people regard chitchat as the "glue" that holds
everything together in an online discussion group. That's, bluntly,
nonsense. The glue in this discussion group, the common ground, is love
of coins.

Most people will put up with some tedious chitchat, and sometimes leave
their own (though your own chitchat is never tedious g), to get at the
nuggets of relevant discussion. On the other hand, some of the comments
that people leave about their lives and activities and likes and
dislikes and so on ... chitchat ... can be interesting. Again, it's
about balance. When the nuggets of on-topic talk become too few and far
between, people leave ... and many have. Again, people leave for other
reasons too.

This person also said I was whining in offering comments and criticism
about what I regard as an offputting excess of irrelevant chitchat by a
few people. That's also nonsense. Criticism is only whining if you
disagree with it. Sure, my comments weren't coin related. I, well,
digressed. g Actually I was responding to another poster. And
discussing the dynamics of a particular discussion group in that
discussion group has always been popular and mostly accepted so long as
it doesn't ... like the chitchat ... drown out the discussion of the
subject matter of the group.

--

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Reid Goldsborough wrote:
While I concur with your positions regarding PCV, whizzing, and
collecting counterfeits, which you review in this recent trio of
posts, I fail to see the educational value in all-of-a-sudden taking
potshots at rcc people

I didn't mention a single name. I focused on the issues (coin holders,
coin doctoring, and counterfeit collecting) and the behavior (how
truth gets compromised and misinformation gets spread). I'd suggest
that one core reason that RCC is such a small shadow of what it used
to be, along with the anonymous flamers, is the spew of off-topic
chitchatting with virtually every thread that very quickly steers it
from a discussion of numismatic substance into whatever somebody like
you wants to chitchat about. Typically people like this carelessly
just quote the entire thread before adding their chitchat at the end,
which forces scrolling and makes it tedious for others to see if
there's anything worth following. So they stop following. Threads
degenerate as much from this as from flaming. This is not to say that
digression and tangents should be outlawed or whatever. Free world
and all. In the best moderated discussion groups chitchatty
digression is controlled by gentle persuasion and tactful
interjections. This doesn't work, for the most part, in unmoderated
groups, with people just ignoring this. Another key reason for RCC's
decline is the decline of Usenet in general and the discontinuation
of Usenet feeds by major ISPs, though all other things being equal
there are fairly easy work-arounds for this.

I don't know enough of the posting history here to comment on James' points,
but after 26 years on Internet forums and newsgroups, I do know enough to
take issue with some of your (Reid's) views on r.c.c. as an ongoing froup.

You have cited the standard explanations for why a particular newsgroup
would go into apparent decline. They're logical and valid up to a point.
But only up to a point because there's something missing. I have a few
ideas on the missing "X Factor" that I'll get to later.

First, let me give you a contrasting situation by pointing you to the
newsgroup rec.arts.sf.written, which I only recently began following. It is
chartered for a subject that is at least as narrow as numismatics. Arguably
it is even a much more narrow area of interest than coin collecting. Who
reads any books these days, let alone SF? Its title does not invite kooks
and ******s in the way that newsgroups such as alt.paranoia and alt.politics
do. But unlike r.c.c., it averages 300-400 posts a day. Most threads start
out as being on topic, but not surprisingly they soon wander off into
educated, animated discussions (with the occasional flame war) on tangential
topics. Oddly enough, only 2-4 of the hundreds of daily posts are new
threads. The rest are all those lively, generally interesting, generally
educated, continuing discussions of OT topics. They go on and on because
they attract participants and keep them coming back to r.a.s.w.

For the record, r.a.s.w. suffers from all the "defects" that you cite as the
downfall of r.c.c. So why 300-400 posts a day - which also runs counter to
your logical but insufficient observation on the general decline of Usenet -
versus the r.c.c. traffic of a few dozen posts? Also for the record, in the
2+ years that I've been a subscriber, r.c.c. hasn't exactly been a magnet
for drive-by kooks and flamers. There have been a few, and we do have a few
intermittently abusive regulars, but you'd have to be pretty thin-skinned to
let that bother you. If r.c.c. in its current relatively pest-free
condition (knock on wood) isn't bringing back the old crowd, then it's got
to be something else that's keeping r.c.c. from being "appointment Internet"
for them.

Also for the record, part of the explanation for r.a.s.w.'s popularity does
lie in the subject matter. "Real" SF is the literature of ideas. So
naturally, any newsgroup on SF books will initially attract more of the
articulate thinkers who like to kick ideas around. But attracting is one
thing, keeping them is another. If r.a.s.w. stuck strictly to its chartered
topic, my guess is that its traffic would be at or even below the level of
r.c.c. Written SF is the meat and potatoes of r.a.s.w. but there also is a
"special sauce" that keeps them coming back for more. The "special sauce"
is intelligent, articulate discussion of OT spin-offs that invite
participation by others.

If it were not for a few of the regulars here who enjoy OT, r.c.c. would
offer little more than a palid pedestrian diet of plain coin talk, strictly
meat and potatoes without any sauce. Even with the few inveterate,
incorrigible OT'ers we do have, r.c.c. is hardly a Grand Central Station for
lively Internet discussion. The original dot-com entrepreneurs mostly went
bust with their goofy "new economics" business models but they were at least
partly right in one respect: On the Internet, survival does depend on
attracting the eyeballs. And that requires content, be it products,
services, or interesting reading.

You know and admit that OT has a place as part of the glue that binds
participants together, and conversely as the grease that that keeps the
newsgroup machinery humming. Yet... your admissions do not obscure the fact
that you are bringing this up as a thinly disguised whine. If OT really
doesn't bother you (which I doubt) then just shut up about it. If it does
bother you, then shut up and either learn to skim and skip without rancor
the way most of us do, or beef up your killfile until you can only see the
handful of posters who never go OT. And please, stop limiting yourself to
the same litany of necessary but not sufficient reasons for why r.c.c. isn't
the r.a.s.w. of coin collecting. There's more to it than that - and at
least some of the "more" is the need for more of the very OT component that
you bemoan.

I'm have no history with you and I'm not trying to dump on you, Reid. If
anything, I read and enjoy some of your specialized mini-essays here. But
you're way out in left field with your complaining about OT and with your
limited explanations for why r.c.c. is not a powerhouse newsgroup. We have
met the enemy and he is us.

- mazorj
"Admonishments written while you wait."

"mazorj" wrote in message
...
I don't know enough of the posting history here to comment on James' points,
but after 26 years on Internet forums and newsgroups, I do know enough to take
issue with some of your (Reid's) views on r.c.c. as an ongoing froup.

For heaven's sake people, Reid is a glorified troll. Put him in your killfile
and move on.
Whatever positive contributions he may make are wildly offset by his pomposity,
argumentiveness, condescension, self-importance and general all-around
douchebaggery.
Well, at least he doesn't claim to spend $100K in dollar coins a year!