Numismatist on whizzing

"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...
Funny, too, you started off claiming that "someone" (wink. wink.) couldn't
understand how whizzing causes metal to liquify. Then you changed that to
"metal moving". Scratching a coin with a knife causes metal to move, which
few likely would dispute. That the metal becomes liquified in the scratching
process would take more convincing. Why is this so important to you to
resurrect it at every opportunity?

Because he is a lonely man with no friends, probably due to the fact that he is
a condescending blowhard.

Forgive the top-post. It's called for here.

For heaven's sake, Reid, do I have to go through your whole post,
point-by-point to demolish your silly contentions? Again?
If you want me to provide evidence (*not* uninformed hearsay) for each point
you have raised, then I will - but I sincerely doubt that you will read my
reply. I also doubt that you have the capacity to understand basic
metallurgy, as demonstrated by the howlers you have invented below.

Here's an alternative set of suggestions:

(1) Take your arguments to an independent qualified professional
metallurgist. Ask for comment. Don't forget to mention the term "wire
brush" - not to be confused with hardened steel die or knife or scraper.
For additional hilarity, quote your much-vaunted PCGS "expert", and refer to
an "electric screwdriver" as the motive source.

(2) Look up "plastic" in a technical dictionary. cf. "solid", "liquid" and
"malleable". (Helpful hint: "plastic deformation" as a search term will
bypass a lot of the dross.)

Thank you, at least, for coming out with your screed below.
It firmly sets your position in this "debate" - something which you have not
been willing to do in the past. It is certainly one for the permanent file.
Further, it makes any more argument pointless, since your position is
unassailable - one of faith and a complete lack of understanding of the
simple processes involved.

I don't like this analogy, but if you were a first year engineering student,
I would fail you on the basis of this nonsense you have propagated.

....and finally, thanks for the flame at the end. As if it were necessary,
it cements my position, and your attitude.

Jeff "Facepalming" R.


"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
Reality wrote:

Who cares about needless "science" when the coin either has or hasn't
been whizzed?

Science is only needless if you're not curious about the reasons things
are as they are. You know, reality, Reality. Nice handle.

In centuries past people would chalk up the reason for reality being the
way it is as God's will. In ancient Greece and Rome most people believed
it wasn't just one god that caused reality to be as it is but many. Now we
know that there are underlying laws of nature that account for the
physical nature of reality. Many people find learning about those laws
interesting. This applies as well to numismatics.

To recount ... this discussion came about when a single person here
couldn't understand how applying a rotating wire brush to a coin's
surface, i.e. whizzing, could cause a thin layer of surface metal to heat
up enough to become a thick liquid and move. He disagreed with the science
behind this being possible. He has a metal shop, and he fashioned an
experiment to prove his point, not to learn about the reality of the
situation, but to prove that he was right.

This metal shop whiz tried to whiz a coin in his metal shop to cause the
metal to move. Alas, he wasn't able to. No moving metal! So he concluded
that he was right, that whizzing doesn't move metal. To support his case,
he fashioned a pseudo-scientific explanation, diagrams and all, and put it
on the Web, so everybody could become edified by his scientific
experimentation. And some people here were, frankly, snowed by this. They
were taken in by his "tone" and apparently continue to be.

One of the things I'm fairly good at, one of the things I have to be good
at to do my job, is recognizing when people are playing expert. There were
many problems with the experiment of the metal shop whiz.

First, he had a point to prove so he had some bias from the outset.
Second, he admitted he had never seen a whizzed coin before trying to
create one. Third, he didn't talk to anyone who whizzed coins to learn
what they did. Fourth, as we've just learned, he used the wrong kind of
metal brush in his "whizzing" experiment. Fifth, he can't credibly explain
the diagnostic of whizzed coins, which he was unaware of before doing his
experiment, that metal from a coin's fields shows evidence of having been
pushed up against devices, legends, and rims, that it has moved. Sixth, in
arguing that metal is removed, not moved, in whizzing, he can't credibly
explain how the diagnostic of whizzed coins isn't weight (because the
weight of whizzed coins is the same as unaltered coins, at least to two
decimal points, and weight is never mentioned as a diagnostic in books or
articles that address the subject of whizzing). Seventh, the most visible
coin doctor in the U.S., a guy who has whizzed his share of coins even
though these days whizzing has fallen by the wayside as a convincing
coin-altering technique, says that yes, whizzing moves metal. Eighth,
those who have seen their share of whizzed coins, the ANA, PCGS, and NCS,
no doubt among many others, also say that yes, whizzing moves metal.

The science behind this -- real science now, not pseudo-science buttressed
by fancy-sounding jargon and wrong-headed experimentation --
is interesting. Just as metal turns into a thick liquid and flows when a
coin is struck and just as metal is moved, not removed, when a coin is
countermarked or when in ancient times a coin was test cut, so does a thin
layer of metal turn into a thick liquid and move when a quickly rotating
wire brush is applied under pressure to a coin's surface in the process of
whizzing. The force applied causes enough heat to melt the surface metal
enough to move it in the way desired.

As happens online all too frequently, the metal shop whiz has refused all
along to admit he could possibly be wrong. "Internet experts" are never
wrong. To admit a mistake or to change one's view would be to lose face,
in their minds. The evidence against his position is incontrovertible. Yet
he continues to argues his position, that whizzing doesn't move metal. I
see, Reality, that you acknowledge that whizzing moves metal. So maybe
Reality is a good handle after all.

In conclusion, I believe that this metal shop whiz is a dodo. I'm not
being dramatic here or trying to flame or anything else. I really think
that he's a dodo, not a human being at all, and that perhaps he may be the
last surviving dodo on the planet. Beyond the silliness of this continuing
debate, this is what's truly newsworthy about all this.

--

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

On Dec 18, 11:54*am, "Petronius" wrote:
"Bruce Remick" wrote in message

...

Funny, too, you started off claiming that "someone" (wink. wink.) couldn't
understand how whizzing causes metal to liquify. *Then you changed that to
"metal moving". *Scratching a coin with a knife causes metal to move, which
few likely would dispute. *That the metal becomes liquified in the scratching
process would take more convincing. *Why is this so important to you to
resurrect it at every opportunity?

Because he is a lonely man with no friends, probably due to the fact that he is
a condescending blowhard.

Did you see his response to me? What a tool.

On Dec 18, 11:23*am, "Bruce Remick" wrote:
"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message

...

snipped



In conclusion, I believe that this metal shop whiz is a dodo. I'm not
being dramatic here or trying to flame or anything else. I really think
that he's a dodo, not a human being at all, and that perhaps he may be the
last surviving dodo on the planet. Beyond the silliness of this continuing
debate, this is what's truly newsworthy about all this.

Of course you're not being dramatic here (8 paragraphs snipped) or trying to
flame or anything else. *Why would anyone think otherwise?

Funny, too, you started off claiming that "someone" (wink. wink.) couldn't
understand how whizzing causes metal to liquify. *Then you changed that to
"metal moving". *Scratching a coin with a knife causes metal to move, which
few likely would dispute. *That the metal becomes liquified in the
scratching process would take more convincing. *Why is this so important to
you to resurrect it at every opportunity?

I will probably regret this, but in daring to enter this discussion at
this late stage let me say that "whizzing" arose in the early 1970s
when battery-powered, pen-shaped, electric-eraser-like polishing tools
came on the market. One of the tool heads was a small wire brush,
intended for home hobbyists.

Now the way to tell whether a (silver) coin is uncirculated is to look
for unbroken mint lustre. If a coin is only AU, slight flatness can
be seen on a high spot or two. Many AU Mercury dimes, taken from
circulation, were available in the 1970s, and would be worth quite a
bit more if they could be sold as BU.

Unscrupulous persons took these dimes (later, Morgan dollars and
anything else) and used these electric brushes--the name whiz comes
from the sound the brush made--to obscure the flat spots on these
dimes with a pattern of fine scratches that simulated original mint
lustre (though not very well). Tip one of these whizzed dimes around,
and, at a glance, it looks BU.

It is certainly true that no significant amount of metal is removed by
this process (the coin is given the briefest "whiz" by a whizzing
artist); it is merely scratched up a little. But there is no chance
that these little battery-powered tools could possibly heat silver up
to its melting point either; this is surely a misunderstanding.

Unfortunately, the term "whizzed" has lost its original meaning in the
intervening decades, and possibly some coins polished with high-speed
equipment could actually become red hot and partially melt. Also,
hairlines have been removed from the fields of cameo proof coins by
localized melting in recent years, but I think that this is done with
lasers. In my opinion, calling polishing/localized laser melting
"whizzing" is a misnomer, and distracts collectors from checking their
shiny Mercury dimes or other "BU" coins closely.

I hope that this little explanation adds more light than "heat," and
that no rcc reader discovers a whizzed coin in their collection!

On Dec 18, 8:46*am, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
Reality wrote:
Who cares about needless "science" when the coin either has or hasn't
been whizzed?

Science is only needless if you're not curious about the reasons things
are as they are. You know, reality, Reality. Nice handle.

Reality in this case is: who the hell cares about your silly attempt
at a scientific explanation behind the fact that THE COIN IS WHIZZED?
If a coin is whizzed and you are too stupid to recognize it then you
*should* lose your ass when you buy it.


In centuries past people would chalk up the reason for reality being the
way it is as God's will. In ancient Greece and Rome most people believed
it wasn't just one god that caused reality to be as it is but many. Now
we know that there are underlying laws of nature that account for the
physical nature of reality. Many people find learning about those laws
interesting. This applies as well to numismatics.

To recount ... this discussion came about when a single person here
couldn't understand how applying a rotating wire brush to a coin's
surface, i.e. whizzing, could cause a thin layer of surface metal to
heat up enough to become a thick liquid and move.

Cite?

He disagreed with the
science behind this being possible. He has a metal shop, and he
fashioned an experiment to prove his point, not to learn about the
reality of the situation, but to prove that he was right.

This metal shop whiz tried to whiz a coin in his metal shop to cause the
metal to move. Alas, he wasn't able to. No moving metal! So he

Scratches move metal, blowhard.

concluded
that he was right, that whizzing doesn't move metal. To support his
case, he fashioned a pseudo-scientific explanation, diagrams and all,
and put it on the Web, so everybody could become edified by his
scientific experimentation. And some people here were, frankly, snowed
by this. They were taken in by his "tone" and apparently continue to be.

One of the things I'm fairly good at, one of the things I have to be
good at to do my job, is recognizing when people are playing expert.
There were many problems with the experiment of the metal shop whiz.

First, he had a point to prove so he had some bias from the outset.
Second, he admitted he had never seen a whizzed coin before trying to
create one. Third, he didn't talk to anyone who whizzed coins to learn
what they did. Fourth, as we've just learned, he used the wrong kind of
metal brush in his "whizzing" experiment. Fifth, he can't credibly
explain the diagnostic of whizzed coins, which he was unaware of before
doing his experiment, that metal from a coin's fields shows evidence of
having been pushed up against devices, legends, and rims, that it has
moved. Sixth, in arguing that metal is removed, not moved, in whizzing,
he can't credibly explain how the diagnostic of whizzed coins isn't
weight (because the weight of whizzed coins is the same as unaltered
coins, at least to two decimal points, and weight is never mentioned as
a diagnostic in books or articles that address the subject of whizzing).
Seventh, the most visible coin doctor in the U.S., a guy who has whizzed
his share of coins even though these days whizzing has fallen by the
wayside as a convincing coin-altering technique, says that yes, whizzing
moves metal. Eighth, those who have seen their share of whizzed coins,
the ANA, PCGS, and NCS, no doubt among many others, also say that yes,
whizzing moves metal.

The science behind this -- real science now, not pseudo-science
buttressed by fancy-sounding jargon and wrong-headed experimentation --
is interesting. Just as metal turns into a thick liquid and flows when a
coin is struck and just as metal is moved, not removed, when a coin is
countermarked or when in ancient times a coin was test cut, so does a
thin layer of metal turn into a thick liquid and move when a quickly
rotating wire brush is applied under pressure to a coin's surface in the
process of whizzing. The force applied causes enough heat to melt the
surface metal enough to move it in the way desired.

As happens online all too frequently, the metal shop whiz has refused
all along to admit he could possibly be wrong. "Internet experts" are
never wrong. To admit a mistake or to change one's view would be to lose
face, in their minds. The evidence against his position is
incontrovertible. Yet he continues to argues his position, that whizzing
doesn't move metal. I see, Reality, that you acknowledge that whizzing
moves metal. So maybe Reality is a good handle after all.

Yes. Whizzing moves metal. Who the hell cares if it "liquifies" in
the process?


In conclusion, I believe that this metal shop whiz is a dodo. I'm not
being dramatic here or trying to flame or anything else. I really think
that he's a dodo, not a human being at all, and that perhaps he may be
the last surviving dodo on the planet. Beyond the silliness of this
continuing debate, this is what's truly newsworthy about all this.

IMO you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

"Reality" wrote in message
...

Yes. Whizzing moves metal. Who the hell cares if it "liquifies" in
the process?

Ummm... actually, that is the whole point of this thread, and the ones that
have preceded it - for years.

You don't *have* to be interested in the topic. It's not compulsory.

I am, so I participate.

You're not (yes?), so don't torture yourself by sticking around.

--
Jeff R.

On Dec 2, 9:40*pm, "Jeff R." wrote:
"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message

...



It's extremely simple, if you don't get snowed by the technical-sounding
mumbo-jumbo.

??
What? Like "plastically deform"? *Sheesh.
Sorry Reid. I forgot.
Here.
I'll make it simpler for you:

"You cannot make the surface of coins all soft and goopy with a whizzing
brush."

That's easier to understand.

...Whizzed coins are diagnosed by the *result* of metal having been moved,
by it having been pushed up against devices, legends, and rims.

No.
This is a misdiagnosis.

...Whizzed coins are not diagnosed by metal having been removed because
their weight is the same, within two decimal points, of unaltered coins.

Cite for the "two decimal points"?
Or did that come from the usual source?
The one where you have to stand up first?

--
Jeff R.
(still waiting for Reid to address the principal point)

Reid is a master of the blatently obtuse.

BTW, sorry if I blew up at you earlier, I misread your post. Reid is
merely being Reid. Whizzing is a well understood doctoring techinique
that Reid apparently can't grasp, and IMO he is only looking to incite
debate over a moot point.

My point is WHO CARES. We (at least most of us) can spot a whizzed
coin from a mile away and would never buy it beyond a modest premium
over spot metal. Or in the case of a truly rare coin, with a MAJOR
discount applied.

Reality wrote:
On Dec 2, 9:40 pm, "Jeff R." wrote:
"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message

...



It's extremely simple, if you don't get snowed by the
technical-sounding mumbo-jumbo.

??
What? Like "plastically deform"? Sheesh.
Sorry Reid. I forgot.
Here.
I'll make it simpler for you:

"You cannot make the surface of coins all soft and goopy with a
whizzing brush."

That's easier to understand.

...Whizzed coins are diagnosed by the *result* of metal having been
moved, by it having been pushed up against devices, legends, and
rims.

No.
This is a misdiagnosis.

...Whizzed coins are not diagnosed by metal having been removed
because their weight is the same, within two decimal points, of
unaltered coins.

Cite for the "two decimal points"?
Or did that come from the usual source?
The one where you have to stand up first?

--
Jeff R.
(still waiting for Reid to address the principal point)

Reid is a master of the blatently obtuse.

BTW, sorry if I blew up at you earlier, I misread your post. Reid is
merely being Reid. Whizzing is a well understood doctoring techinique
that Reid apparently can't grasp, and IMO he is only looking to incite
debate over a moot point.

My point is WHO CARES. We (at least most of us) can spot a whizzed
coin from a mile away and would never buy it beyond a modest premium
over spot metal. Or in the case of a truly rare coin, with a MAJOR
discount applied.

The only MAJOR discount I've ever seen for a problem coin is when the dealer
is offered one by a collector. In the other direction, it's always just a
small percentage below fullbore retail. But that's just my experience,
based on half a century of doing coins, so others may see things
differently.

James

"Bob" wrote in message
...
On Dec 18, 11:23 am, "Bruce Remick" wrote:
"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message

...

snipped



In conclusion, I believe that this metal shop whiz is a dodo. I'm not
being dramatic here or trying to flame or anything else. I really think
that he's a dodo, not a human being at all, and that perhaps he may be
the
last surviving dodo on the planet. Beyond the silliness of this
continuing
debate, this is what's truly newsworthy about all this.

Of course you're not being dramatic here (8 paragraphs snipped) or trying
to
flame or anything else. Why would anyone think otherwise?

Funny, too, you started off claiming that "someone" (wink. wink.) couldn't
understand how whizzing causes metal to liquify. Then you changed that to
"metal moving". Scratching a coin with a knife causes metal to move, which
few likely would dispute. That the metal becomes liquified in the
scratching process would take more convincing. Why is this so important to
you to resurrect it at every opportunity?

I will probably regret this, but in daring to enter this discussion at
this late stage let me say that "whizzing" arose in the early 1970s
when battery-powered, pen-shaped, electric-eraser-like polishing tools
came on the market. One of the tool heads was a small wire brush,
intended for home hobbyists.

Now the way to tell whether a (silver) coin is uncirculated is to look
for unbroken mint lustre. If a coin is only AU, slight flatness can
be seen on a high spot or two. Many AU Mercury dimes, taken from
circulation, were available in the 1970s, and would be worth quite a
bit more if they could be sold as BU.

Unscrupulous persons took these dimes (later, Morgan dollars and
anything else) and used these electric brushes--the name whiz comes
from the sound the brush made--to obscure the flat spots on these
dimes with a pattern of fine scratches that simulated original mint
lustre (though not very well). Tip one of these whizzed dimes around,
and, at a glance, it looks BU.

It is certainly true that no significant amount of metal is removed by
this process (the coin is given the briefest "whiz" by a whizzing
artist); it is merely scratched up a little. But there is no chance
that these little battery-powered tools could possibly heat silver up
to its melting point either; this is surely a misunderstanding.

Unfortunately, the term "whizzed" has lost its original meaning in the
intervening decades, and possibly some coins polished with high-speed
equipment could actually become red hot and partially melt. Also,
hairlines have been removed from the fields of cameo proof coins by
localized melting in recent years, but I think that this is done with
lasers. In my opinion, calling polishing/localized laser melting
"whizzing" is a misnomer, and distracts collectors from checking their
shiny Mercury dimes or other "BU" coins closely.

I hope that this little explanation adds more light than "heat," and
that no rcc reader discovers a whizzed coin in their collection!
====================

Your explanation sounds reasonable to me. I've owned a few whizzed coins
over the years, bought as Unc and later revealed as "enhanced". From what I
gather, the whizzing tool or brush can create enough micro-swirl ridges to
increase light reflection/refraction and give the false impression of lustre
to the naked eye. Unfortunately there have been a lot of naked eyes out
there.

On Dec 18, 4:09*pm, "Jeff R." wrote:
"Reality" wrote in message

...

Yes. *Whizzing moves metal. *Who the hell cares if it "liquifies" in
the process?

Ummm... actually, that is the whole point of this thread, and the ones that
have preceded it - for years.

You don't *have* to be interested in the topic. *It's not compulsory.

I am, so I participate.

You're not (yes?), so don't torture yourself by sticking around.

--
Jeff R.

It's a public forum. I'll comment at will.