Re: invite to eBay coin forgery group NEW 244 members


"Al's Coins" <barnowl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1136934258.935431.171520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hello Jim / Anita / RCC List,
> So I guess people who make posts which are purely personal
> attacks, and have nothing about coins in them, are "more" academic, and
> those who write about coins are "less" academic? I have plenty to write
> about why coins might bne, or are, forgeries or alterations. I guess
> with the rabble of the "numismatic" World having something to write is
> a negative. If anyone here cares to make any meaningful discussion here
> of coin fraud, I am interested. Otherwise, I am not interested to
> engage in trading personal insults with a small cadre of hecklers on
> this list. So Anita, what specific post are you referring to on the
> eBay group, or are you just making up stories here? Do I compell anyone
> to read in depth analysis of coins and coin frauds, or are small minded
> people (about coin fraud) free to not read them? I read a lot, and i
> write a lot, that is what forensic numismatic science is about, and why
> I have been referenced twice in the works of Dr Ilya Prokopov et al on
> coin forgery, while Reid has yet to be referenced any place in a
> serious work on paper on coin forgery, that I am aware of. Having
> nothing of substance to write, and not being published any place in
> forensic numismatics beyond a few lines, is not as I see a sign of
> "expertise". I have actual peers in forensic numismatics, who have made
> their opinions of my work known, and then there are forensic
> numismatics ignorant hecklers, who fob themselves off on lists such as
> this as "experts" with the support of a small cadre of adherents, who
> may or may not be running multiple identities of the same person. I am
> all for everyones right to be cheated with fake coins, and to cheat
> others in ignorance. I am also for everyones right to express their
> opinions about coin fraud (even personal attacks, but not on any lists
> I moderate), and to supress coin fraud, even against the meaningless
> (nothing about numismatics) howling of baboons.
> So anyone here care to discuss the literature? For those who
> have not read any of the ltierature, why should anyone consider their
> opinions as to who knows something about the subject of coin fraud to
> have any merit? So what about the "Galvano Boys" forgeries? What do the
> hecklers here see as the primary weaknesses of them in a general sense,
> and the post IBSCC BOC articles improved versions? The odd bulges
> maybe? Transfer wear from host coins? How they are marketed perhaps? Or
> would any of the hecklers here even know if they saw one it was a fake,
> in hand or by a photo? Anyone on this list, who is not active on the
> CFDL, know anything about the blast casting method, and have any
> pointers about how to detect them for this list? Blast casts are
> present in every laerge market now, offered as authentic, even examples
> easily defeated by a good photo using the Prokopov and Paunov book. So
> anyone here find it of interest that blast cast coins have the same
> density as the hsot coin, can be morphologically accurate to within a
> few microns tot he host coin, can transfer accurately mint luster from
> the host coin, and can transfer cuts on the host coin so well as to
> look sharp and original, not transfer, under the microscope?
> I am sure some on this list are interested in coin fraud,
> others, are more interested to hide their ignorance, and live in a
> state of denial.
> Best Wishes,
> Alan Van Arsdale
>

Well, it didn't take long in reading your other post to see that it was just
another childish 'rant on Reid' post. Boring! I stopped reading at that
point. If there was anything in there about coins, I didn't get far enough
to see it.


.