Whizzing

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 19:10:30 GMT, "note.boy"
wrote:


"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...

"note.boy" wrote in message
...

"Jorg Lueke" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 6, 8:59 pm, "note.boy" wrote:
Why does whizzing only occur in the USA? Billy

Are you sure that it does? Maybe other places just don't care.



I bought my first coin in 1968 and I've never heard whizzing being
mentioned here in the UK.

To me it means mechanical polishing rather than polishing by hand, too
much is being read into the term. Billy

When I think of polishing "by hand" I think of the use of a soft cloth
and
a very fine abrasive, an activity practiced by the uneducated in order
to
make a coin look better *to them*. I invite you to read this article on
whizzing: http://www.coinworld.com/news/022805/bw_0228.asp

James
'motivation is a big part of the difference'


They seems to agree with Reid about metal being moved by whizzing. Billy


If this is the paragraph where you see agreement:

"The surfaces have a finely porous but even texture. The shine is
unnatural. Under good magnification and lighting, tiny buildups of
metal at the edges of raised design elements can be noticed, where the
wire brush has shoved metal until it meets an obstruction."

I wonder if it does provide any agreement with Reid. Reid's position
is that the metal flows in a melted liquid state caused by friction.

Reid doesn't share my interest in the careful use of appropriate
words, but this is an example of how ambiguity in wording can lead to
false conclusions. Does "moved" or "shoved" mean the same thing as
"flowed"?

We can force an ice pick across the surface of a coin and cause metal
to move. We can shove it from one place to another with the point of
an ice pick. But we have not caused that metal to liquify or flow.

The article referenced here does not, in my opinion, support the
theory of surface flow of metal. It simply asserts that metal is
shoved from one place on the coin's surface to another. The same
effect could be caused by the build-up of particles loosened by
abrasion and "shoved" by the abrading wheel.


--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

I find it difficult to see how a wire brush can move metal on a coin, remove
it yes, but move it no.

To me whizzing is mechanical polishing rather than done by hand.

I'm still waiting for Phil to post the definition he found on a UK coin web
site and I've never seen the term used here in the UK. Billy

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 20:16:51 GMT, "note.boy"
wrote:

They seems to agree with Reid about metal being moved by whizzing. Billy


If this is the paragraph where you see agreement:

"The surfaces have a finely porous but even texture. The shine is
unnatural. Under good magnification and lighting, tiny buildups of
metal at the edges of raised design elements can be noticed, where the
wire brush has shoved metal until it meets an obstruction."

I wonder if it does provide any agreement with Reid. Reid's position
is that the metal flows in a melted liquid state caused by friction.

Reid doesn't share my interest in the careful use of appropriate
words, but this is an example of how ambiguity in wording can lead to
false conclusions. Does "moved" or "shoved" mean the same thing as
"flowed"?

We can force an ice pick across the surface of a coin and cause metal
to move. We can shove it from one place to another with the point of
an ice pick. But we have not caused that metal to liquify or flow.

The article referenced here does not, in my opinion, support the
theory of surface flow of metal. It simply asserts that metal is
shoved from one place on the coin's surface to another. The same
effect could be caused by the build-up of particles loosened by
abrasion and "shoved" by the abrading wheel.

I find it difficult to see how a wire brush can move metal on a coin, remove
it yes, but move it no.

That's why I don't like "move" or "shove" They are imprecise terms in
this context.

A wire brush can dig into the metal. The metal that's affected is
going to go somewhere. The wire brush isn't going to dig out chunks
of metal; it's going to dig out metal in tiny, almost powder-like,
bits. These bits will cling together, and even clump together if a
lubricant or chemical is used.

If it falls off, or is brushed off, the coin, it's removed. If it
re-deposits elsewhere on the surface, it's in a different place on the
surface than where it was gouged out.

"Moved" or "shoved" is an imprecise term to describe this. It implies
that the movement is directed when, in fact, the residue just builds
up against ridges or raised areas.

Reid's theory is that the metal bits achieve a molten state due to the
friction of the wheel or that - rather than bits at all - the metal
flows in a liquid form and solidify elsewhere on the coin.

To me whizzing is mechanical polishing rather than done by hand.

I agree. The Reid/Jeff argument is whether or not the mechanical
polishing results in a flow of the metal.


--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

On Oct 7, 3:01?pm, tony cooper responds
to billy-boy:

They seems to agree with Reid about metal being moved by whizzing. Billy

If this is the paragraph where you see agreement:

"The surfaces have a finely porous but even texture. The shine is
unnatural. Under good magnification and lighting, tiny buildups of
metal at the edges of raised design elements can be noticed, where the
wire brush has shoved metal until it meets an obstruction."

I wonder if it does provide any agreement with Reid. Reid's position
is that the metal flows in a melted liquid state caused by friction.

Reid doesn't share my interest in the careful use of appropriate
words, but this is an example of how ambiguity in wording can lead to
false conclusions. Does "moved" or "shoved" mean the same thing as
"flowed"?

We can force an ice pick across the surface of a coin and cause metal
to move. We can shove it from one place to another with the point of
an ice pick. But we have not caused that metal to liquify or flow.

The article referenced here does not, in my opinion, support the
theory of surface flow of metal. It simply asserts that metal is
shoved from one place on the coin's surface to another. The same
effect could be caused by the build-up of particles loosened by
abrasion and "shoved" by the abrading wheel.

I imagine it's pretty tough to stop the wheel precisely before it hits
the side of a device on the coin.

If you don't stop it the brush will continue to cut into the device as
well. I wonder if the "moved" metal some claim to see built up against
the side of the device is simply ridges from the cuts into the device.
Or perhaps it's the tiny filings from cuts just before reaching the
device that have been "sintered" against the side of the device.

On Oct 7, 3:16?pm, "note.boy" wrote:

I'm still waiting for Phil to post the definition he found on a UK coin web
site and I've never seen the term used here in the UK. Billy

You're going to have to Google it yourself.

As I said it was a few days ago, I felt no need to bookmark the site
and had looked at dozens of sites during the course of the search.
Don't feel like doing it again.

"Phil DeMayo" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 7, 3:16?pm, "note.boy" wrote:

I'm still waiting for Phil to post the definition he found on a UK coin
web
site and I've never seen the term used here in the UK. Billy

You're going to have to Google it yourself.

As I said it was a few days ago, I felt no need to bookmark the site
and had looked at dozens of sites during the course of the search.
Don't feel like doing it again.


I looked at the first 100 hits for whizzed and coins UK results only and
found no coin site containing the word whizzed.

Can you find it using the Ctrl key and H?

I've also looked at the UK coin catalogues I have and none mention the word
whizzed.

Until evidence is provided to prove otherwise I will continue to post that
the term whizzed is not used when describing UK coins ands thus is not a
problem here.

Cleaned coins are avoided like the plague here and if coins were whizzed
they would be in the same category. Billy

"note.boy" wrote in message
...

"Phil DeMayo" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 7, 3:16?pm, "note.boy" wrote:

I'm still waiting for Phil to post the definition he found on a UK coin
web
site and I've never seen the term used here in the UK. Billy

You're going to have to Google it yourself.

As I said it was a few days ago, I felt no need to bookmark the site
and had looked at dozens of sites during the course of the search.
Don't feel like doing it again.


I looked at the first 100 hits for whizzed and coins UK results only and
found no coin site containing the word whizzed.

Can you find it using the Ctrl key and H?

I've also looked at the UK coin catalogues I have and none mention the
word whizzed.

Until evidence is provided to prove otherwise I will continue to post that
the term whizzed is not used when describing UK coins ands thus is not a
problem here.

I recently used the term whizzed when referring to my young head crown, a UK
coin - in this very thread. Thus the term has indeed been used when
describing a UK coin. This Colonist has been around a long time and knows
whizzing when he sees it. Q.E.D.

James