| Contenu de l'article |
- From njraywms@optonline.net Thu Dec 29 13:56:26 2011
Return-Path: <njraywms@optonline.net>
X-Sender: njraywms@optonline.net
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
X-Received: (qmail 69400 invoked from network); 29 Dec 2011 21:56:25 -0000
X-Received: from unknown (98.137.35.162)
by m3.grp.sp2.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Dec 2011 21:56:25 -0000
X-Received: from unknown (HELO mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net) (167.206.4.196)
by mta6.grp.sp2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Dec 2011 21:56:25 -0000
X-Received: from DeeRayPC (ool-18bf5c8e.dyn.optonline.net [24.191.92.142])
by mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net
(Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007))
with SMTP id <0LWZ00AUJJM0Z7N0@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> for
colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:56:25 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:56:32 -0500
To: Colonialcoins <colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com>
Message-id: <E0580B1C49A4488BA9D29E1E07666269@DeeRayPC>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V12.0.1606
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 12.0.1606
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Boundary_(ID_mj9To6x8cKDzqB0cvfcTmQ)"
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
X-Originating-IP: 167.206.4.196
X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0:0
From: Ray Williams <njraywms@optonline.net>
Subject: information
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=78843690; y=O8_WelBgmsvc_17DA_jMozNFC7XVGbj5p0KN2EpgFF0w
X-Yahoo-Profile: njray2
--Boundary_(ID_mj9To6x8cKDzqB0cvfcTmQ)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Hi Guys,
Some of you might be wondering why I have been persistent in showing John why he's wrong about his "hub matrix" theory. If we were just talking, we'd share our opinions and probably just walk away agreeing to disagree. But when information is published (book, journal, article, internet), it's out there forever and impossible to retract.
It's been my experience that us collectors of colonial coins just can't get enough information about these little round discs we so actively pursue. We want to know the history, the people involved, the pedigree, minting information... anything we can get our hands on. Being that none of the long time C4 members here have not jumped in to say that John may be correct, I'm assuming they are in agreement with me (I hope). But in any case, those collectors won't be fooled by something like this. My concern is the general public and new collectors are not accepting this piece as anything other than an impression of a Wood's obverse.
Obviously, an ebay seller has taken John's description and perpetuated it in his ebay sale of the came hunk of lead. The seller admits in his ebay store that he is not an expert. This piece may enter a collector's collection as something it's not. Someone could write an article about it for a weekly publication and perpetuate the myth even further, but I'd hope the editor would catch it for what it is and not print it.
I don't like it when catalogers and writers try to give themselves legitimacy by "Breen Bashing". Breen did a tremendous amount of good in numismatics. Especially later in life, he presented theories as fact, with nothing to back them up. But fact they were none the less. Now some of these "Breen facts" are being proven to be wrong, but the literature is already out there in the hands of thousands. If Breen had only qualified his statements by saying "It could be ..." or "It might have been..." or "My theory is...".
Back to the situation at hand. If this misinformation (in my opinion) could be corrected and agreed upon, hopefully John's theory won't go any further than this ebay sale. I don't think that any numismatic or scientific expertise is necessary to come to the conclusion that this is an impression of a coin in a lead disc. Just a close look at the item will bear this out.
But John, I am willing to consider anything you have to try to change my mind. If you succeed, I'll publicly agree and put an end to it. But if you should now agree with what I have said, please say so and put an end to it. Just one final question? Is it possible in your mind that a coin could have been used to make this impression?
Must run...
Ray
--Boundary_(ID_mj9To6x8cKDzqB0cvfcTmQ)
Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16440"></HEAD>
<BODY style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
id=MailContainerBody leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 bgColor=#ffffff
CanvasTabStop="true" name="Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Hi Guys,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> <FONT size=2 face=Arial>Some of you might be
wondering why I have been persistent in showing John why he's wrong about his
"hub matrix" theory. If we were just talking, we'd share our opinions and
probably just walk away agreeing to disagree. But when information
is published (book, journal, article, internet), it's out there forever and
impossible to retract. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> <FONT size=2 face=Arial>It's been my experience
that us collectors of colonial coins just can't get enough information about
these little round discs we so actively pursue. We want to know the
history, the people involved, the pedigree, minting information...
anything we can get our hands on. Being that none of the long time C4
members here have not jumped in to say that John may be correct, I'm assuming
they are in agreement with me (I hope). But in any case, those collectors
won't be fooled by something like this. My concern is the general public
and new collectors are not accepting this piece as anything other than an
impression of a Wood's obverse. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> <FONT size=2 face=Arial>Obviously, an ebay seller
has taken John's description and perpetuated it in his ebay sale of the came
hunk of lead. The seller admits in his ebay store that he is not an
expert. This piece may enter a collector's collection as something it's
not. Someone could write an article about it for a weekly publication and
perpetuate the myth even further, but I'd hope the editor would catch it for
what it is and not print it. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> <FONT size=2 face=Arial>I don't like it when
catalogers and writers try to give themselves legitimacy by "Breen
Bashing". Breen did a tremendous amount of good in numismatics.
Especially later in life, he presented theories as fact, with nothing to back
them up. But fact they were none the less. Now some of these "Breen
facts" are being proven to be wrong, but the literature is already out there in
the hands of thousands. If Breen had only qualified his statements by
saying "It could be ..." or "It might have been..." or "My theory
is...".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> <FONT size=2 face=Arial>Back to the situation at
hand. If this misinformation (in my opinion) could be corrected and agreed
upon, hopefully John's theory won't go any further than this ebay sale. I
don't think that any numismatic or scientific expertise is necessary to come to
the conclusion that this is an impression of a coin in a lead disc. Just a
close look at the item will bear this out. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> <FONT size=2 face=Arial>But John, I am willing to
consider anything you have to try to change my mind. If you succeed, I'll
publicly agree and put an end to it. But if you should now agree with what
I have said, please say so and put an end to it. Just one final
question? Is it possible in your mind that a coin could have been used to
make this impression? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Must run...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Ray</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
--Boundary_(ID_mj9To6x8cKDzqB0cvfcTmQ)--
|
|---|
