Toned $2 1/2 Gold Indian! Put your shades on....

Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by BigTee44, Sep 16, 2015.

Page 3 of 3
  1. physics-fan3.14

    physics-fan3.14 You got any more of them.... prooflikes?

    Haha.

    I'm not arguing with Doug to convince Doug of anything. I already know how that battle ends.

    I'm arguing with Doug to make sure the rest of the forum and any other readers of the thread have accurate information.
     
    physics-fan3.14, Sep 20, 2015
    #41 + Quote Reply
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    You really think that's an honest comparison ?

    When the gold and copper are melted to mix together and form the alloy, that's all that happens, the 2 metals get mixed together. But the individual metals do not change each other, the gold still remains gold, and the copper still remains copper. You simply have a given percentage of one and a given percentage of the other mixed together.

    edit - I'll give you this much Dick. When the copper and gold are in their molten state and mixed together, yes the color of the gold will change to a slightly darker shade due to the mixing. In other words if you put 90% gold next to pure gold the 90% is going to be a darker shade than the pure gold. But once the metal hardens that color is fixed.

    In order for that color to change after that, toning must occur. But if it is true that gold cannot tone then it simply cannot tone. So if only 25% of the surface of a gold coin is a metal that can tone, then only 25% of that surface can be any color other than that of pure gold. It's just that simple. If the one thing (that gold cannot tone) is true then the other thing (the percentage of the coin that can tone a color other than that of gold) must also be true.

    So when you look at a coin and almost the entire surface of that coin is a color other than of pure gold, then it cannot be true that gold does not tone.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2015
    GDJMSP, Sep 20, 2015
    #42 + Quote Reply
  4. physics-fan3.14

    physics-fan3.14 You got any more of them.... prooflikes?

    Can't decide if you're being willfully stubborn, or really just don't get it. Either way, its not worth it anymore.
     
    physics-fan3.14, Sep 20, 2015
    #43 + Quote Reply
  5. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Hmmm, thought I said the same thing.

    The coins are listed as being pure gold. Now if you want to argue that .99 or .999 or .9999 isn't pure gold, OK it isn't pure gold. Now go back to post #12 and tell me how that tiny, tiny, amount of copper or other metal in .99 or .999 gold can possibly cover the entire surface of the coin and tone. Then explain the probability of those tiny amounts of impurities all being exposed and concentrated just on the surface of the coin.



    Bold or not, when your own eyes see something that contradicts science, time and time again, then what logical mind cannot question the science ? And it's not because I say so, it's because of what you can see for yourself.

    I don't pretend to be a scientist. But then you don't need to be a scientist to see things with your own eyes. All I am doing is presenting common sense and logic given the facts. What are the facts ? The percentages of the metals. People can draw their own conclusions.

    I'll believe what I see Jason, you, and anybody wishes to, can go on believing science.
     
    GDJMSP, Sep 20, 2015
    #44 + Quote Reply
  6. rlm's cents

    rlm's cents Numismatist

    You (nor anyone's) eyes cannot possible see how any atom is colored. Just like the chocolate milk, 90% is white, but your eyes only see the brown. If you want another example. Get a good microscope and look at your monitor. That white you see consists of red dots, blue dots and green dots. Your eyes don't see 1/3 green, 1/3 blue, and 1/3 red. They only see white. If you find a yellow area, it is 1/2 blue and 1/2 green, but your eyes only see yellow.
     
    rlm's cents, Sep 20, 2015
    #45 + Quote Reply
  7. brg5658

    brg5658 Well-Known Member

    I commend @rlm's cents and @physics-fan3.14 for their persistence in trying to explain to Doug why he is wrong.

    The end of all rational argument was when he replied "I'll believe what I see Jason, you, and anybody wishes to, can go on believing science." Here we have yet another thread derailed, misconstrued, and smattered with mistruths by Doug. Sadly, this is becoming the norm. :(
     
    brg5658, Sep 20, 2015
    #46 + Quote Reply
  8. physics-fan3.14

    physics-fan3.14 You got any more of them.... prooflikes?

    Hahahahahaha. Haha. Hahaha.

    Oh wait, you're serious?

    I thought that sort of thinking went out with the Enlightenment.
     
    physics-fan3.14, Sep 20, 2015
    #47 + Quote Reply
  9. Kentucky

    Kentucky Supporter! Supporter

    And I see those tiny lights in the sky just couldn't be big balls of gas, 'cause I saw it with my own eyes.

    Just because you can't explain something is no reason to think you can decide what it is.
     
    Kentucky, Sep 20, 2015
    #48 + Quote Reply
  10. Kentucky

    Kentucky Supporter! Supporter

    When copper and tin are mixed, the result is not just a mixture, but an alloy that has quite different properties from either of the two starting materials.
     
    Kentucky, Sep 20, 2015
    #49 + Quote Reply
  11. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    There's an interesting thing about science and scientists, all too often they end up having to admit that what they thought was true, wasn't true at all.
     
    GDJMSP, Sep 21, 2015
    #50 + Quote Reply
  12. brg5658

    brg5658 Well-Known Member

    @GDJMSP , you are on a slippery slope downward. I mean this with 100% sincere concern, if you continue to spew the nonsense you have been lately I would strongly recommend taking a break from these boards to reassess your contributions.

    Jason is completely spot on -- your responses are so far out in left field in this thread that the initial response is one of humor/disbelief. But, sadly you clearly mean what you say. That is scary.

    What's interesting is that you point out in this thread that microscopically the surface of a coin is a pattern like:

    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

    But then later in the thread you go on to state that you only believe what you can see -- um, that picture alone describes part of what Jason and the other posters are trying to get across to you. While 1 in 4 atoms may be copper, the surface of a coin is not a plane -- it has a surface area at the atomic level MUCH greater than a single atom thick flat plane. And, your assertion that only 25% of the surface should be toned makes it clear that you do not understand the concept of an alloy.

    No serious numismatist can be a "science denier" at the same time. OK, I've said my bit, I'll not be replying in this thread again. :banghead:
     
    brg5658, Sep 21, 2015
    #51 + Quote Reply
  13. spock1k

    spock1k King of Hearts

    u know u only have 2 best answers? lol
     
    spock1k, Sep 21, 2015
    #52 + Quote Reply
  14. mark_h

    mark_h Somewhere over the rainbow

    I would like to see it in hand. I like the gold to look darker than the norm. Nice coin by the way.
     
    mark_h, Sep 21, 2015
    #53 + Quote Reply
    jwitten likes this.
  15. Kentucky

    Kentucky Supporter! Supporter

    none.png
     
    Kentucky, Sep 21, 2015
    #54 + Quote Reply
Page 3 of 3
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page