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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Ancient acquisition
"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message ... On 4/12/2010 3:09 PM, Phil DeMayo wrote: Kiss our collective asses you self-important mutt. You're the *perfect* spokesperson for this newsgroup, as it is now anyway. You rarely offer any numismatic content. No wonder you seem to have just appointed yourself. But no, I will not kiss your posterior or anyone else's. Further, I will not bite you or any part of you either, no matter how many times you ask me. You've repeatedly asked others here as well to bite you. I don't know if anyone has ever consented. What I cannot fathom is how you cannot see how depraved it is to so publicly solicit these kinds of acts. I try to maintain an open mind, but I doubt I'm the only one who feels that sado-masochism, at the very least, should be kept private. You are such a pompous, humorless twit. g I don't killfile you because it is just too damn funny watching you get your comeuppence by every poster. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Ancient acquisition
On 4/12/2010 8:46 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:
"Bite me" is hardly an invitation to sado-masochism. Check a good slang dictionary for an explanation of the term. By the way, it's been around at least as far back as my own high school days, back in nineteen mumbly-four. Yes, that's right. But it's not only his sadomasochistic words, it's also his actions. Sure, with most people, saying "Bite me!" over and over and referring to body parts where the sun don't shine would just be blown off as the actions of an eccentric curmudgeon. What's more, I don't have any evidence if he engages in sadomasochistic solicitations in person. But from what I've seen online anyway, he's without question sadistic in his messaging, or tries to be anyway. More so in the past than recently, and has been pointed out previously, he seems to relish the gutter fighting, jumping in whenever he can. Further, his online masochism is evident in making the same mistakes over and over, in bringing on the same criticism. I won't repeat all this, not wanting to kill an almost dead horse. I mention this now because he again is engaging in the same kinds of behavior, jumping into brawls without any previous engagement in the conversation and without any knowledge or interest in the subject matter of the thread. -- Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Ancient acquisition
On 4/10/2010 4:05 PM, Reid Goldsborough wrote:
Here's my latest: http://rg.ancients.info/misc/Constantine_II.jpg There's more to it than meets the eye, in hand as well. If anyone comes up with the right answer, they win my eternal admiration. I'll reveal now. Posted this three days ago. Zero coin-related responses. Not surprised but a bit disappointed. Mr. Jaggers was right of course about the challenges in generating positive on-topic discussion in this group, though he seems much more likely now to post interesting coin content than previously, content that does generate positive on-topic discussion. I'll probably do a little analysis of the responses to this thread later, but in short, part of this lack of content here no doubt is that relatively few of the relatively few people still here collect and know about ancients compared with U.S. and other modern coins, though some do. Part of it may be that I posed this as a challenge. And part of it is that it is indeed difficult if not impossible to see anything unusual about the above coin, either from the above photo, not spectacular but typical of online photos/scans of similar coins, or from looking at the coin in hand. It's modern. A counterfeit. A very good fake of a very inexpensive coin. By "good" here I mean not in the sense of moral of course but in the sense of high-quality, and by high-quality I mean deceptive -- successful in what it attempts to do. This doesn't mean either that people should avoid collecting ancients. It's just that as with the Chinese and their faking of American collector coins, including relatively low-value ones, the Bulgarians are getting better and better at faking ancient coins. All this, in my view, makes coin collecting more interesting, not less, if you choose to delve into the area of authenticity. Lots more detail about the above piece, purportedly a Constantine II bronze. -- Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Ancient acquisition
"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message ... ... Further, his online masochism is evident in making the same mistakes over and over, in bringing on the same criticism... POT - KETTLE - BLACK |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Ancient acquisition
"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message ... On 4/10/2010 4:05 PM, Reid Goldsborough wrote: Here's my latest: http://rg.ancients.info/misc/Constantine_II.jpg There's more to it than meets the eye, in hand as well. If anyone comes up with the right answer, they win my eternal admiration. I'll reveal now. Posted this three days ago. Zero coin-related responses. Not surprised but a bit disappointed. Mr. Jaggers was right of course about the challenges in generating positive on-topic discussion in this group, though he seems much more likely now to post interesting coin content than previously, content that does generate positive on-topic discussion. I'll probably do a little analysis of the responses to this thread later, but in short, part of this lack of content here no doubt is that relatively few of the relatively few people still here collect and know about ancients compared with U.S. and other modern coins, though some do. Part of it may be that I posed this as a challenge. And part of it is that it is indeed difficult if not impossible to see anything unusual about the above coin, either from the above photo, not spectacular but typical of online photos/scans of similar coins, or from looking at the coin in hand. It's modern. A counterfeit. A very good fake of a very inexpensive coin. By "good" here I mean not in the sense of moral of course but in the sense of high-quality, and by high-quality I mean deceptive -- successful in what it attempts to do. This doesn't mean either that people should avoid collecting ancients. It's just that as with the Chinese and their faking of American collector coins, including relatively low-value ones, the Bulgarians are getting better and better at faking ancient coins. All this, in my view, makes coin collecting more interesting, not less, if you choose to delve into the area of authenticity. Lots more detail about the above piece, purportedly a Constantine II bronze. I think that if you came right out and described it as counterfeit in your first post, you might have received more responses. Tell us how and why you identified it as such. Those of us who don't collect ancients probably had no idea of what might be unusual or "more than meets the eye" about it, never having seen one before. As a non-collector, so many of the ancient coins look crudely made to me that I have no basis to question one's authenticity, especially from a photo. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Ancient acquisition
"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
... As a non-collector, so many of the ancient coins look crudely made to me that I have no basis to question one's authenticity, especially from a photo. Especially from so crude a photo. But Reid isn't here for discussion, he's here to pontificate and blow his own horn, as usual. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Ancient acquisition
Reid Goldsborough wrote:
On 4/12/2010 8:46 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote: "Bite me" is hardly an invitation to sado-masochism. Check a good slang dictionary for an explanation of the term. By the way, it's been around at least as far back as my own high school days, back in nineteen mumbly-four. Yes, that's right. But it's not only his sadomasochistic words, it's also his actions. Sure, with most people, saying "Bite me!" over and over and referring to body parts where the sun don't shine would just be blown off as the actions of an eccentric curmudgeon. What's more, I don't have any evidence if he engages in sadomasochistic solicitations in person. But from what I've seen online anyway, he's without question sadistic in his messaging, or tries to be anyway. More so in the past than recently, and has been pointed out previously, he seems to relish the gutter fighting, jumping in whenever he can. Further, his online masochism is evident in making the same mistakes over and over, in bringing on the same criticism. I won't repeat all this, not wanting to kill an almost dead horse. I mention this now because he again is engaging in the same kinds of behavior, jumping into brawls without any previous engagement in the conversation and without any knowledge or interest in the subject matter of the thread. Good grief, all this time I was under the impression that you two disagreed over the mechanism of whizzing, not S&M. James de Mistaken |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Ancient acquisition
"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message ... On 4/10/2010 4:05 PM, Reid Goldsborough wrote: Here's my latest: http://rg.ancients.info/misc/Constantine_II.jpg There's more to it than meets the eye, in hand as well. If anyone comes up with the right answer, they win my eternal admiration. I'll reveal now. Posted this three days ago. Zero coin-related responses. Not surprised but a bit disappointed. Mr. Jaggers was right of course about the challenges in generating positive on-topic discussion in this group, though he seems much more likely now to post interesting coin content than previously, content that does generate positive on-topic discussion. I'll probably do a little analysis of the responses to this thread later, but in short, part of this lack of content here no doubt is that relatively few of the relatively few people still here collect and know about ancients compared with U.S. and other modern coins, though some do. Part of it may be that I posed this as a challenge. And part of it is that it is indeed difficult if not impossible to see anything unusual about the above coin, either from the above photo, not spectacular but typical of online photos/scans of similar coins, or from looking at the coin in hand. Cutting through your blathering, babbling chit-chat, we discover that: You admit that you posted a crap image of what is an ugly crap coin (and a counterfeit one at that) from a specialized area of collecting that is far less familiar to most collectors than, say, old U.S. coppers. And then you whine because you got very little in the way of substantive responses. It's modern. A counterfeit. A very good fake of a very inexpensive coin. By "good" here I mean not in the sense of moral of course but in the sense of high-quality, and by high-quality I mean deceptive -- successful in what it attempts to do. This doesn't mean either that people should avoid collecting ancients. It's just that as with the Chinese and their faking of American collector coins, including relatively low-value ones, the Bulgarians are getting better and better at faking ancient coins. All this, in my view, makes coin collecting more interesting, not less, if you choose to delve into the area of authenticity. Lots more detail about the above piece, purportedly a Constantine II bronze. Cutting through your blathering, babbling chit-chat, we discover that: You are fascinated with coins that are not real coins, but counterfeits of foreign coins that most collectors will never see even in image form, let alone possess. Nothing wrong with that... except that you dissed James for his equally detailed knowledge - down to die marriages! - of real, actual 19th century U.S. copper coins that every collector can readily see and buy at coin shows and local shops. Even if they're not in the market for one, they at least know of them from the pages of the Red Book. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then you really ought to see a doctor about your chronic binocular conjunctivitis. To keep my post on topic, and since you like numismatic challenges, I have one for you, Reid. Here is an image of a coin in my possession: O Here is the reverse side... Q and the edge view, [||||||] I know the image quality isn't the best, but I'm hoping that a collector with your vast detailed knowledge can ascertain its type, spot the anomalies on it, and tell me whether it's a counterfeit or a unique find or just a common variety. If you can't provide a substantive response, well, then we'll know that you're just a poseur who's here for the chit-chat. - mazorj, Numismatic Quiz Master |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Ancient acquisition
"mazorj" wrote in message ... "Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message ... On 4/10/2010 4:05 PM, Reid Goldsborough wrote: Here's my latest: http://rg.ancients.info/misc/Constantine_II.jpg There's more to it than meets the eye, in hand as well. If anyone comes up with the right answer, they win my eternal admiration. I'll reveal now. Posted this three days ago. Zero coin-related responses. Not surprised but a bit disappointed. Mr. Jaggers was right of course about the challenges in generating positive on-topic discussion in this group, though he seems much more likely now to post interesting coin content than previously, content that does generate positive on-topic discussion. I'll probably do a little analysis of the responses to this thread later, but in short, part of this lack of content here no doubt is that relatively few of the relatively few people still here collect and know about ancients compared with U.S. and other modern coins, though some do. Part of it may be that I posed this as a challenge. And part of it is that it is indeed difficult if not impossible to see anything unusual about the above coin, either from the above photo, not spectacular but typical of online photos/scans of similar coins, or from looking at the coin in hand. Cutting through your blathering, babbling chit-chat, we discover that: You admit that you posted a crap image of what is an ugly crap coin (and a counterfeit one at that) from a specialized area of collecting that is far less familiar to most collectors than, say, old U.S. coppers. And then you whine because you got very little in the way of substantive responses. It's modern. A counterfeit. A very good fake of a very inexpensive coin. By "good" here I mean not in the sense of moral of course but in the sense of high-quality, and by high-quality I mean deceptive -- successful in what it attempts to do. This doesn't mean either that people should avoid collecting ancients. It's just that as with the Chinese and their faking of American collector coins, including relatively low-value ones, the Bulgarians are getting better and better at faking ancient coins. All this, in my view, makes coin collecting more interesting, not less, if you choose to delve into the area of authenticity. Lots more detail about the above piece, purportedly a Constantine II bronze. Cutting through your blathering, babbling chit-chat, we discover that: You are fascinated with coins that are not real coins, but counterfeits of foreign coins that most collectors will never see even in image form, let alone possess. Nothing wrong with that... except that you dissed James for his equally detailed knowledge - down to die marriages! - of real, actual 19th century U.S. copper coins that every collector can readily see and buy at coin shows and local shops. Even if they're not in the market for one, they at least know of them from the pages of the Red Book. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then you really ought to see a doctor about your chronic binocular conjunctivitis. To keep my post on topic, and since you like numismatic challenges, I have one for you, Reid. Here is an image of a coin in my possession: O Here is the reverse side... Q and the edge view, [||||||] I know the image quality isn't the best, but I'm hoping that a collector with your vast detailed knowledge can ascertain its type, spot the anomalies on it, and tell me whether it's a counterfeit or a unique find or just a common variety. If you can't provide a substantive response, well, then we'll know that you're just a poseur who's here for the chit-chat. - mazorj, Numismatic Quiz Master You forget, you must add g to your response. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Ancient acquisition
On Apr 13, 4:34*pm, "mazorj" wrote:
To keep my post on topic, and since you like numismatic challenges, I have one for you, Reid. *Here is an image of a coin in my possession: O Here is the reverse side... Q and the edge view, [||||||] I know the image quality isn't the best, but I'm hoping that a collector with your vast detailed knowledge can ascertain its type, spot the anomalies on it, and tell me whether it's a counterfeit or a unique find or just a common variety. *If you can't provide a substantive response, well, then we'll know that you're just a poseur who's here for the chit-chat. - mazorj, Numismatic Quiz Master I hope someone can identify this coin, because I have one just like it! 8-) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
My latest coin acquisition | Mr. Jaggers | Coins | 16 | April 11th 10 12:20 AM |
Latest Acquisition | RWF | Books | 0 | March 24th 09 01:13 PM |
A nice acquisition | Francis A. Miniter[_2_] | Books | 7 | March 17th 08 04:46 AM |
Recent Acquisition: Bambi | Francis A. Miniter | Books | 0 | October 29th 07 02:35 AM |
Seeburg 201 acquisition questions | [email protected] | Juke Boxes | 2 | August 31st 04 02:29 AM |