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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |