Milk Spots- Are They Such a Big Deal?

The point here is that no one, none of us, including Doug, can tell from a photo. I shared a possibility that I believe is related and I gave ideas for how a less than round shape might also be inclusive in this condition. At least you admit 'maybe' and take an assumption at why you believe you know. However, Doug's obstinance is a handicap to his argument and his refusal to give us his reasons a betrayal of his motto of sharing knowledge. For that he cannot be allowed to get off with this deficient argument of his.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thing is, I didn't say I know what is or isn't a milk spot and remain open to their being more to them than merely well defined circular spots that fell in the fields somehow. Doug however did claim my image wasn't milk spots but has no proof or way of educating us about how he knows and how that his knowledge proves it. I am open to being wrong, that the image of spots I provided were not milk spots or related to them in some way. That's because I know this condition is unresolved, and with so little proven about them, do not so narrowly define them by the kind of shape they take, and I don't just think any willy-nilly white spot is a milk spot as Doug implied I had. Doug was asked to prove why he can tell from a photo and he hasn't. Why? He can't. But he's got a powerful reputation on this forum that most bow down to and he has a sneaky way of getting off topic and turning the tables on others who challenge him as he slips away from being held to his own faults and errors.

I appreciate how you interpreted the images I posted and that could be from the image quality itself, however I would disagree with you about the metal flow theory on the coins I had, studied, photographed and ultimately returned to the Mint. The condition on the coins I had affected more than one coin, and not in the same places, and was a more liquid or aqueous like reticulated-type mark on the surface and not the result of the composition blend or flow. Maybe I can't prove that either, but I was the one who experienced this example more closely than anyone refuting my arguments here as well.

 

Proof to you, but proof to us only if we believe you.

 

I'm quite reasonable. I'm entirely open to the fact that my images may not present evidence of a condition related to milk spots. I'm also open to the idea that they are related, even in some minor way. However, I reasonably expect a supposed learned person as you present yourself to be, to explain their proof when asked to do so, and not to act like a smug elitist who plays an endless game bent on tiring out others who would dare to inquire and press you to do so.

If you refuse to compose how it is you arrived at your opinion, then please stop trying to convince us of your authority when you have nothing to back it up. Avoiding the responsibility that's upon you in this conversation is a burden you've created on your own, particularly because you profess to share knowledge, yet absolutely refuse to do so now.

What's pretty simple is for you to show your proof. Let's see made you so knowledgeable, from pictures. So you've seen thousands of pictures, then that should allow you to form some sort of paraphrased summary of why you are so sure of your position. If you cared to review that many images in the past and came here to discuss this, then let's see some evidence of all the images you've reviewed with reasoned explanations about them. That many images and that much time spent reviewing them should suggest you cared enough to retain some of the information and images for just such an inquiry as this and the chance to share your knowledge.

It seems you suppose you're the only one who has seen a lot of examples of coins in pictures with the given condition we are discussing. And yet when presented with something you've never seen before, you just assumed it can't be true or even related.

A reasonable person is asking you for all that's needed, your proof.

 

Does anyone know if spotting has been an issue with the 2014 and 2015 regular issue bullion coins?

 

Not to be excessively dismissive, but I can't right now think of why I'd care. 1) I don't get bullion slabbed. 2) I don't own even a single coin with milk spots. 3) I still think silver has a good way down still to go, so I am NOT stacking at these prices.

Oh yeah, Krispy? You "proved" that yours are not what is called "milk spots" by the hobby (none really are - they're not literally milk at all) by posting your own pictures. The only remaining question is what is the chemistry of yours? And that can't be answered because you sent them back! And you have the temerity to demand "proof" from someone else? Here's a hint for you - in court, verbal testimony from a credible witness, based on his skills, history and resume, is proof - all the proof that is necessary to convict a felon.

 

Then, by your logic, I see proof of what very well may be related to milk spots, and since no one (that includes you, Doug) has solved this mystery condition, nothing anyone (that includes you, Doug) says about my images who doesn't come forth with reliable proof to counter the evidence presented, is just expressing an uninformed opinion that everyone can disregard.

Newsflash...! I knew that before you chimed in, which is why I will not let you get away with your errant comments and this extensive attempt to argue about "knowledge" rather than inform us as to why your comments are factual.

You've spent a few days showing how little proof you have, none. You've spent a few days trying to make me appear unreasonable as a person for asking for your proof and to provide some reference from what informs your knowledge about this.

I'm happy that you are so willing to show us how you play your game, so we all know what a fraud your comments may well be. You can still save face and compose a bit of proof or retract or rephrase your statement, but somehow I doubt you can or will since you apparently don't even live up to your own personal mottos. You can hold out until you're proven right by someone else then say you knew it all the time, but you have no proof or knowledge about this until someone else solves it and provides evidence. That's not your knowledge, that's someone elses knowledge, which you will glean and claim for your own. All you are doing is gambling that you are right, and that's not proof nor is it knowledge.

What a shame you can't just discuss what it is that precisely informs your "knowledge" rather than withhold said self-proclaimed knowledge and/or proof from others who would like to hear what you have to say and (possibly) be informed by it.

 

Actually, I never claimed my images were in fact milk spots. I said before I am open to the very real possibility that they may not be, or that they may be related in some manner to the milk spot condition. I posted the images to show what I considered a possibility and to SHARE it with others to find out more and to test whether it would be received as such. I see many here only know how to judge the spots based on "shape" and/or from 'looking at lots of pictures', doing nothing scientific of their own before judging and insisting they know what they see to be milk spots or not milk spots. Problem is, it's not on me to prove a thing for posting a picture and asking others to tell me why my image is or isn't a milk spot, it's on those who claim to know but fail to provide evidence to their claims of fact. Remember, I made no claims. So, most certainly, I demand the proof of others making such claims. You are pointing your finger at the wrong person, Councilor. The Defendant is the clown in the Groucho Marx disguise!

 

Bajjerfan asked a simple question , and you go on a ramble about why would you care and other off the subject remarks . Maybe he wanted to know in the context of the procedures used in the planchet preparation that could shed some light on the milkspot question . So why should we care about your comments at all in the regard to whether you're stacking at whatever price or if you own any . This thread is about milkspots and their formation and possible removal .

 

I think what you are seeing on coin talk more and more lately is that people want more from you then "trust me I'm right". I think you probably know a lot about coins but no one gets it right all the time. By clearly referencing your post people would not only learn what you say is right but why. Why is far more valuable then what. But the "trust me" style seems to be generating quite a lot of friction.

 

I asked simply because I have heard from a number of people about how nice the 2014 and 2015 coins were and I was wondering if perhaps the Mint may have gotten the issue under control. I've resold rolls without opening them so I don't know what the coins were like inside. Just going by comments I've heard.

 

You may not care, but apparently many others do. I don't slab bullion either [nor do I plan to stack it].

BTW, how many folks who talked about milk spots have ever done anything regarding the chemistry of same other than pay lip service to it?

 

For people that test coins with SEM/EDS weekly like myself in the lab almost all contain sulfur and chlorine on the coin's surface. W. Weimer explains sulfur well enough in Coin Chemistry. The chlorine from NaCL (salt) in the moisture in air. How does one attach a photo from your desktop on this forum. Perhaps a SEM/EDS posted example will help.

JPL

 

I bought ten and they were great , I don't collect them but was surprised that they would grade 70 if you sent them in . Amazing quality for bullion or even nicer than the few burnished ones I have .

 

Do you have a link to the Weimer discussion? Nevermind, I found it. Actually it's Weimar White and not W. Wiemar. I assume if the chloride comes from salt, you'd also find sodium too, no? Not sure that this applies much to the spotting on ASEs. The issue of concern is spotting as it relates to being an artifact of the minting/manufacturing process and not what happens once the coins have been distributed. Spotted coins have been found in mint tubes taken directly from monster boxes.


Click on the button below that says Upload a File. Once you have attached the pic you can choose thumbnail or full image.

 

Yes, I'd say the 14's and 15's sure are nice. But so are quite a few years back, too. Without going to the files, though, the milk spots seem to have started about when bullion ASE's started to come looking like 2005-2010 mint set frosty pieces in their surface finish rather than brilliant finish pieces. Is there a possible causal factor there? Maybe. The frosted finish has more "tooth" that would inhibit moisture spot runoff. Surely the mint changed a good many things in this 2005ish era.

 

Vic,

I'm just curious - how would you go about "proving" a negative to someone who in essence is saying "prove that my pictures of something I no longer have is not milk spots"? At some point, one has to treat this "prove it" meme as the trolling behaviour it is.

 

I posted a pic of a 1998 coin with issues, so it's hard to say when it started; probably has always been there. I did note in the past that there were significant differences in appearance of surface finish over the years. In talking with a gent who went through the West Point facility maybe a year ago, he said that it didn't seem anything like the SF facility except for the presses.