Lessons in problem coins: Whizzed.

Again, copper IS a special case. It is more reactive than either silver or gold, and we never did pure nickel in this country (Canada did), so most of "copper" includes 5-cent pieces. They are ALMOST as reactive as cents, but not quite.

There are 100+ year old silver and gold coins that are shiny as all git out that are perfectly okay. As one example, just shy of 16,000 new ones are about to be rolled out to (inflicted upon?) the hobby next week. Silver has a fighting chance if handled well. Gold makes its own luck by being NEARLY inert.

This is a snarky irreverent line with a nugget of truth - What causes toning? Carelessness.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You seriously need to stop. When you start make up fantasies about people whizzing coins with lasers, you have lost the argument. When you start feigning ignorance of common numismatic terms like "original" you have lost the argument.

Kurt made his argument very clear, his interpretation is that whizzing is any process using a high speed brush to simulate luster by creating artificial flow lines on the coin and that metal build up at the devices is a common indicator of whizzing but it's absence is not disqualifying.

Last night, I read a post in a different thread that I think you need to read.

You've staked out a position that you agree with Doug's interpretation of the term whizzing, which is fine. But when you start arguing hypothetical scenarios about whizzing coins with lasers simply to defend an idea that you adopted, you are obviously out of your depth.

PS, after proof reading this post, I can see how you might think I'm calling you stupid, I am not. I really don't agree with that gentleman's first sentence at all, but I do agree with his overall point that people will continue to defend a viewpoint that far exceeds their knowledge on the subject.

 

Umm, @Lehigh96? If people stop making up fantasies, the general workload of the General Assembly goes down about 9/10th and my career gets cut short.

 

I like how you simplified my post in your quote box, simple & accurate.

 

That is the case. The seller blessed us with many close up pics.

 

I think the distinction between 'whizzed' as a description of damage and 'whizzed' as a method is valid distinction that illuminates how Doug and Kurt were talking past each other. I'm not sure if I'm right about that as Doug hasn't weighed in on the matter.

I understand Kurt's definition completely and repeated it back to him (in my own words) to verify that I had it right.

If the definition that Kurt is using is the community consensus I will adopt it as my own; however, I do still wonder if that definition is as useful to the buyer as the definition which uses 'whizzed' as a description of damage.

The hypothetical laser example was meant to illustrate the difference between 'description of damage' and 'method of damage'. A better example would have been 'toned', which is used to describe the damage without attempting to identify the method of damage (natural, artificial, chemical A, chemical B, torch, etc.). When you say a coin is 'toned' everyone knows what you mean (description of damage) without knowing the method of damage. I think that would be a good example to follow for whizzed.

I'm pretty up front about being new to the hobby.
When I'm new to something I pester experts in the field with questions.
I've yet to run into an expert that is incapable of defending himself.

 

Up front, I’ll stipulate your 3rd paragraph is good stuff. Going back to my original green emblazoned post of just under 24 hours ago, the NEXT paragraph, after the quoted one, (man, you NAILED this) went into how whizzed coins are THEN often artificially TONED to conceal the worst of the diagnosis of whizzing. Take a bow, Gregg.

 

...and then treated with lasers.

 

So where are the air quotes?

 

I'm really messing up bad today.
Here ya go:

 

Any idea of how he did it? Did they look better?

 

Doug and Kurt were talking past each other because they is what they do. I've been debating Doug on this forum for 10 years, trust me, he will never concede any point, EVER. And the majority of his arguments are based on silly semantics, just like this one. You are a good disciple though, further muddying the waters by separating whizzing into the "method" and "description" of damage.

If that weren't enough, you attempt to obfuscate the issue further by introducing an analogy in the most divisive arena within numismatics, toning. However, you have stumbled, by accident, into the very reason why "method" doesn't matter. When evaluating a coin, you have only the coin. You don't have information on what happened to that coin before it got to you. You can only decide based on the surfaces of the coin, your best guess at to what happened. In the toning world, people like Doug will tell you that what separates artificial toning from natural toning is intent. He states this knowing full well that the intent of the previous owners is a impossible to obtain. All you can do is look at the toning and decide if the indicators tell you the toning is original or artificial.

Likewise, when looking at a whizzed coin, there is absolutely no way to definitively say whether a metal brush or plastic brush was used to impart the metal displacement. You can never know that information, so just like "intent" with respect to toning, "method" with respect to whizzing is meaningless. Almost everyone who looked at the OP's coin thought it was whizzed because it has the same look that all whizzed coins show, simulated luster in the fields. Doug doesn't even dispute that, he simply disqualifies it because it doesn't show what he considers the "tell tale" sign of metal buildup at the devices.

I'm curious, have you ever seen a whizzed coin in hand?

 

Oh boy, are you now going to explain the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 artificial toning?

 

No. I. Am. Not. Ya only getz so much fer free. Speaking of, this coming December, LAWYERS will spend money to have ME, a non-lawyer, teach THEM on the finer points of the Pennsylvania Election Code. They call it "Continuing Legal Education", and most of the attendees will be, literally, "Philadelphia lawyers".

 

Thats good funny.

 

I think were done here

 

OMG...a sign of the End Times...

 

LOL. Yep. I'm too old to give a you know what and I've been there and done all of that with great success, so being average now in retirement, is a good thing.