Numismatist on whizzing

In another column, Counterfeit Detection, Brian Silliman talks about
whizzing. One whiz here argued for years that whizzing removes metal
from a coin, that it doesn't move it, that moving metal is impossible
with whizzing. He did this despite the fact that evidence for whizzing
is metal pushed up against devices and legends, not reduced weight. He
also argued this without having actually seen in hand a whizzed coin,
but he had a metal shop, and he guessed at what whizzing did and tried
to duplicate it in his shop to prove his point. Others have pointed out
that whizzing moves, not removes metal, including PCGS in its book Coin
Grading and Counterfeit Detection, the ANA in its book Official A.N.A.
Grading Standards for United States Coins, and the most visible coin
doctor in the U.S. Later, another whiz here pointed out how this metal
shop guru was right and that the contention that whizzing moves metal
was "ignorant." Brian Silliman, who also works for NCS (Numismatistic
Conservation Services), is the latest to refute this nonsense, stating,
"In the course of whizzing, the coin's surface metal is moved..." This
metal shop guru later changed his story and said he wasn't talking about
whizzing, no, he was talking about something else entirely, that's
right, he was talking about "light whizzing." The person who said that
the contention that whizzing moves metal was "ignorant" probably still
feels she's right.

--

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

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...

Feeling argumentative today, Reid?
OK

In another column, Counterfeit Detection, Brian Silliman talks about
whizzing. One whiz here argued for years that whizzing removes metal from
a coin, that it doesn't move it, that moving metal is impossible with
whizzing.

That would be *me*!

...He did this despite the fact that evidence

No, it's not "evidence".
It is "faulty observation".

...for whizzing is metal pushed up against devices and legends, not reduced
weight.

The reduced weight would be within the tolerance of any commercial coin
scales, hence irrelevant.

....He also argued this without having actually seen in hand a whizzed
coin,

Irrelevant again, but since rectified. My ownership of a coin certified as
"whizzed" changes nothing, least of all the facts of metallurgy.

but he had a metal shop, and he guessed at what whizzing did and tried to
duplicate it in his shop to prove his point.

You would be referring to this?
http://www.mendosus.com/whizzing/whiz.html

Sheesh. I wrote this five years ago.
....and I stand by every word.

(FX: sound of dead horse being flogged)

...Others have pointed out that whizzing moves, not removes metal,
including PCGS in its book Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection, the ANA
in its book Official A.N.A. Grading Standards for United States Coins, and
the most visible coin doctor in the U.S. Later, another whiz here pointed
out how this metal shop guru was right and that the contention that
whizzing moves metal was "ignorant."

That was an accurate and, actually, rather polite characterisation.
A less diplomatic description could have included the words "wilfully
stupid", "arrogant", "smug", "self-satisfied" and so on.

There's nothing wrong with being ignorant. It's a human trait we all share.
Failure to acknowledge reality is a bit of a problem, however.


...Brian Silliman, who also works for NCS (Numismatistic Conservation
Services), is the latest to refute this nonsense, stating, "In the course
of whizzing, the coin's surface metal is moved..."

You don't think, perhaps, that this gentleman's knowledge bank may be
derived from sources previously mentioned?
Rather than personal experience?
Or (shock horror!) actual *metallurgical* knowledge?

No, Reid.
He read it somewhere - from a source he trusts - and therefore it's gospel.
Same as you.

Catch is - the source is *demonstrably* wrong.

..This metal shop guru later changed his story and said he wasn't talking
about whizzing, no, he was talking about something else entirely,

If you mean *me*, then you have misplaced your attributions here.
I did/ said no such thing. I stand by every comment I've made on the
subject.


....that's right, he was talking about "light whizzing." The person who
said that the contention that whizzing moves metal was "ignorant" probably
still feels she's right.

Because she still is.

Let me summarise the argument for you Reid.
In order to accept your contention that "whizzing moves metal" (in the
manner in which you describe) then you would have to accept the notion that:

"Silver/copper alloys may be plastically deformed at room temperature with a
light load applied by a flexible instrument."

"Silver/copper alloys"? So that no smartie-pants will counter with arguments
about mercury or bismuth etc.
"plastically deformed"? Look it up. It's what must happen if you are right.
"room temperature"? Whizzing only slightly warms the coin - nowhere near the
temperature required for a phase change.
"a light load"? A hand pressing a dremel (or a "motorised screwdriver, as
the PCGS "expert" laughingly declared), as opposed to a multi-tonne coin
press, which *does* plastically deform the coin.
"A flexible instrument"? A wire brush.

In other words, a spinning wire brush has the capacity to transform solid
metal into a goopy paste which can then be herded around the surface of the
coin. Ridiculous.

Reid, your contention remains untenable.
Your tone remains smug and arrogant, in the face of good, solid evidence.
It remains to be seen (but I could bet) if you will -once again- fail to
address the issue and will concentrate on ad hom and strawman attacks.

Thus, I can't guarantee I'll persist in arguing. The points are well
addressed above.

I will leave you with a possible olive branch - a way out which could enable
you to save face in this silly "debate".

Sintering.
Powder metallurgy.

Look it up. Use your imagination and try to see how it could relate to this
issue - in particular the point about "build-up around the devices".
I'm not saying it's definitely the mechanism that causes this - just that
it's a possible one.

Whereas "moving" the metal plastically is not.

--
Jeff R.
(five years later, still demonstrating that "debating" "science".

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote

... and that the contention that whizzing moves metal was "ignorant."

http://www.mendosus.com/whizzing/prof-steve-jones.mp3

Mentally substitute "Goldsborough" for "Jones" and "numismatics" for
"biology"

(I know I shouldn't have, but I can't resist)

:-)

--
Jeff R.

In , on 12/03/2009
at 11:38 AM, "Jeff R." said:

There's nothing wrong with being ignorant. It's a human trait we all
share. Failure to acknowledge reality is a bit of a problem, however.

How ironic. Thank you, Reid, for poking a stick in the old pile of dung and
firing up the pest. Only one so far; expecting at least one more.

plonk

Nick

Nick Knight wrote:

How ironic. Thank you, Reid, for poking a stick in the old pile of dung and
firing up the pest. Only one so far; expecting at least one more.

The columns in this month's Numismatist are new twists on what
admittedly are old topics. What hasn't changed is the astonishing degree
that some people will twist themselves into knots to avoid having to
admit they need to change their views on an issue. No matter what
evidence you present, no matter how straightforwardly convincing, no
matter how expert the concurring opinion and the evidence on which it's
based, they'll try to argue around it, oblivious to their own
irrationality. This isn't unique to numismatics, of course, with lots of
really good examples in the worlds of science, religion, politics, and
so on. But I'm still astonished by it every time I see it. What drives
people to be so afraid to admit they were wrong is really interesting to
analyze. I don't think there's necessarily just one cause. But it seems
to be intensified online, definitely intensified. On the other hand, you
see the opposite too, of course, the self-confident "You've got a good
point there" and "I hadn't thought about that" kinds of responses.

--

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

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
Nick Knight wrote:

How ironic. Thank you, Reid, for poking a stick in the old pile of dung
and
firing up the pest. Only one so far; expecting at least one more.

The columns in this month's Numismatist are new twists on what admittedly
are old topics. What hasn't changed is the astonishing degree that some
people will twist themselves into knots to avoid having to admit they need
to change their views on an issue. No matter what evidence you present, no
matter how straightforwardly convincing, no matter how expert the
concurring opinion and the evidence on which it's based, they'll try to
argue around it, oblivious to their own irrationality. This isn't unique
to numismatics, of course, with lots of really good examples in the worlds
of science, religion, politics, and so on. But I'm still astonished by it
every time I see it. What drives people to be so afraid to admit they were
wrong is really interesting to analyze. I don't think there's necessarily
just one cause. But it seems to be intensified online, definitely
intensified. On the other hand, you see the opposite too, of course, the
self-confident "You've got a good point there" and "I hadn't thought about
that" kinds of responses.


Reid, do you believe you're 100% correct based on stuff you've read or from
some personal experience or acedemic training? You've already pointed out
in another post how numismatic writers can be inacurate when they stray too
far from numismatics. From the tone of his posts, Jeff seems to have some
technical background in this field. I have no expertise to offer on the
subject so I'm left to watch this verbal ping pong match. So far, Jeff
seems to be ahead.

"Nick Knight" wrote in message
...
In , on 12/03/2009
at 11:38 AM, "Jeff R." said:

There's nothing wrong with being ignorant. It's a human trait we all
share. Failure to acknowledge reality is a bit of a problem, however.

How ironic. Thank you, Reid, for poking a stick in the old pile of dung
and
firing up the pest. Only one so far; expecting at least one more.

plonk

Nick

Nick - you proudly proclaimed that you had plonked me ages ago. More than
once actually.

Would you kindly remain honest - at least to yourself - and refrain from
replying to my posts.

Thanks in advance

--
Jeff R.

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
Nick Knight wrote:

How ironic. Thank you, Reid, for poking a stick in the old pile of dung
and
firing up the pest. Only one so far; expecting at least one more.

The columns in this month's Numismatist are new twists on what admittedly
are old topics. What hasn't changed is the astonishing degree that some
people will twist themselves into knots to avoid having to admit they need
to change their views on an issue.

Sigghhhh.
Exactly as I predicted.

Reid, please outline exactly how metal can be plastically deformed with a
wire brush.

If you can't do that, then no amount of self-congratulatory bluster will
conceal the fact that you're simply *wrong* on this one.


--
Jeff R.

Bruce Remick wrote:

From the tone of his posts, Jeff seems to have some
technical background in this field. I have no expertise to offer on the
subject so I'm left to watch this verbal ping pong match. So far, Jeff
seems to be ahead.

From the tone of his posts? I don't know if that's a very good criteria
for deciding that he's right and PCGS, NCS, the ANA, and a coin doctor
are all wrong when they or their people unlike Jeff had actually seen
whizzed coins before making pronouncements about them, likely many
dozens or hundreds of whizzed coins. It's the business of the grading
services to spot stuff like this, and it's the business of the coin
doctor to alter coins.

It's extremely simple, if you don't get snowed by the technical-sounding
mumbo-jumbo. Whizzed coins are diagnosed by the *result* of metal having
been moved, by it having been pushed up against devices, legends, and
rims. Whizzed coins are not diagnosed by metal having been removed
because their weight is the same, within two decimal points, of
unaltered coins.

--

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

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:

From the tone of his posts, Jeff seems to have some technical background
in this field. I have no expertise to offer on the subject so I'm left
to watch this verbal ping pong match. So far, Jeff seems to be ahead.

From the tone of his posts? I don't know if that's a very good criteria
for deciding that he's right and PCGS, NCS, the ANA, and a coin doctor are
all wrong when they or their people unlike Jeff had actually seen whizzed
coins before making pronouncements about them, likely many dozens or
hundreds of whizzed coins. It's the business of the grading services to
spot stuff like this, and it's the business of the coin doctor to alter
coins.

I could easily picture all PCGS graders able to detect evidence of whizzing,
while not necessarily able to explain the metallurgical action involved.
All the grader needs to know is the signature of whizzing, not what happens
to the metal molecules. No one here has suggested that a TPG grader can't
make that call.


It's extremely simple, if you don't get snowed by the technical-sounding
mumbo-jumbo. Whizzed coins are diagnosed by the *result* of metal having
been moved, by it having been pushed up against devices, legends, and
rims. Whizzed coins are not diagnosed by metal having been removed because
their weight is the same, within two decimal points, of unaltered coins.

I thought this debate involved whether the surface metal becomes liquified
from friction during the whizzing process, or is the surface metal simply
"moved" or scratched in a microscopic pattern created by the bristles of a
wire brush. I have my own opinion, but it's not a scientific one.