Lessons in problem coins: Whizzed.

Just a cotton wheel. It's the rouge that does the work

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Great discussions here.

Metal built up around the devices is indicative of “whizzing.” How long does it take for “whizzing” to create metal build up around the devices?

If the metal buildup can be measured from “none” to “ a lot.” Could the length of the “whizzing” process be reduced to “lessen” the amount of metal build up near and around the devices. It seems to me with this being said, that a coin CAN in fact be “whizzed” without showing any proof of metal being moved even though the process was identical. This brings me to this - is “whizzing” the FACT that metal was moved OR is it the FACT of how it was done?

 

Put another way, what if the whizzing were done in such a way that the rotating bristles were exclusively moving center to edge?

 

What if there are no devices at all? Is the coin “whizzed?”

What if the devices are added AFTER the “whizzing?”

What happens if a planchet is “whizzed” and then proceeds to be minted?

 

That's called a coin, MAYBE even a specimen coin.

 

You whiz it, then you polish the metal build up to hide the whiz. Or can you whiz the whiz?

 

Would it pass the TPG or be bagged as “whizzed?”

If the “whizzing” takes place at the mint, does that classify it as a mint error vs a detailed coin?

 

Just to be clear, we're not talking about my cat peeing on it, or are we?

 

Did you put it in the litter box?

 

And what about Cheese Whiz?

Just in case you're serious, or if somebody reading this thinks the question is serious, "whizzing" is something that can only be post-strike and outside the Mint. If a blank were "whizzed" before striking, the act of striking would obliterate it completely. If they ever "whizzed" blanks, those would be "specially prepared blanks".

 

"If we look at it, it's a barn, if we smell it, it's a stable" Chico Marx

 

"Sometimes a little bit is a whole lot and sometimes a whole lot is a little bit" Chico Marx...who knew the Marx Bros. were such philosophers?

 

This is strongly reminiscent of discussions I have seen on here about "luster", "coin luster", "cartwheeling luster", etc.

 

Luster with multiple "center points" is your giveaway.

 

Sorry to have to pull out the "big guns" to refute one of Doug's claims, but enough is enough. The below is a word-for-word quote from page 22 of a true official ANA publication, the course book for Grading Coins Today: An ANA Correspondence Course. It is part of the ANA's Numismatic Diploma program. I have highlighted in green the parts that conflict with what Doug has told us on this subject.

"Whizzing is a method of artificial enhancement that employs a rotating wire or plastic brush to alter the surfaces of the coin. The brush completely destroys the coin's original surface by creating new, false flow lines that cause an eerie, bright, "electric" luster. The brush also tends to deposit metal it has picked up elsewhere from the coin's surface onto the edges of design elements. These ridges, which are visible under magnification, are useful in determining if a coin has been whizzed."

I strongly feel Doug's statements of an absolutist nature are at variance with what the ANA teaches.

 

I don’t understand what y’all are so harsh on the man.

 

'Tude. That explains it. The 'tude that only he ever has known what he's talking about, that almost drips from my screen. My similar issue shows up on my keyboard, so it's easy to tell whose it is.

I don't mind being argued with, but show a little uncertainty when you're just buffaloing.

But.... "he cain't he'p it"; it is, after all, THE single most prevalent personality type in numismatics. Come to Philly next week and watch HUNDREDS of "smartest men in the room" engage in metaphorical you-know-what measuring.

 

I see what you are saying, Doug, and I see the subtle distinction. I guess this one (burnished vs whizzed) is not as important to me, as long as people can identify that it has been harshly treated and the surfaces are wrong. There are enough similarities that I'm not going to complain if someone calls it one instead of the other.

(Shiny vs lustrous is a big distinction, of course - but I'm more focused on natural vs mistreated)

 

Not for the non-nusi...nuis...coin collector.