The Plateau or Mesa Effect - Characteristic of all proofs?

jmlanzaf

The theory is that all proofs can be identified by the sharp transition between the vertical rise and horizontal top of devices.

I have nothing more to contribute. If @FredWeinberg or @ColonelJessup would like to take it from here...

MrEureka

@jmlanzaf said:
Jessup ordered me to start this thread. I'm not sure why he won't do it himself. Maybe the man-child is in a much deserved timeout.

The theory is that all proofs can be identified by the sharp transition between the vertical rise and horizontal top of devices.

I have nothing more to contribute. If @FredWeinberg or @ColonelJessup would like to take it from here...

It's a common characteristic of proofs, but it's not a definitive test that can be applied to all coins.

jmlanzaf

@MrEureka said:

@jmlanzaf said:
Jessup ordered me to start this thread. I'm not sure why he won't do it himself. Maybe the man-child is in a much deserved timeout.

The theory is that all proofs can be identified by the sharp transition between the vertical rise and horizontal top of devices.

I have nothing more to contribute. If @FredWeinberg or @ColonelJessup would like to take it from here...

It's a common characteristic of proofs, but it's not a definitive test that can be applied to all coins.

Thank you.

coinbuf

Only the chimp knows

ColonelJessup

I imagine the OP imagines I should be grateful for his condescension in creating this thread. He is acceding to a request via PM. I didn't order him, I didn't bully him. I challenged him. And yet the OP distorted and misrepresented the topic thread from the moment of its introduction.

And yet again does disingenuousness rule the day.

@jmlanzaf falsely framed this question as a binary.
It is not.
Yet his initial proposition's not a lie. Just an intellectually dishonest reductive flim-flam.
Totally useless as an argument. It stumbles the first step out of the gate.
I suggest that you discount his lack of interest in a resolution to the same degree you might if he were an a ASE producer stating he neither supports or opposes that program.

Try this one on for Jessupian nuance. Note that no resolution is expected, just more granularity.

Jessup insists that the plateau/mesa effect is a prime strike diagnostic of proof fabric (excepting Buffs), and should be considered before most anything else relating to a specific series or date, He's estimated the the perpendicularity and squareness of angle at the juncture to the fields degrades very little and is easily discernable. And that the tops of letters and numbers will be mirror-flat to the same degree. He insists that it can be used as a major tell on 99% of all post-1839 proofs.

To what degree does your experience in-hand differ?

Any series where you might expect 99.8% for effectiveness?
Any series where you'd think 98% was too high?

Hopefully this will be of use to Forum members.

I'll continue to be available to members for PM. Elsewise I've outlived my days of enjoying it here.

MFeld

@ColonelJessup said:
I imagine the OP imagines I should be grateful for his condescension. in creating this thread. He is acceding to a request via PM. And yet the OP distorted and misrepresented the topic thread from the moment of its introduction.

And yet again does disingenuousness rule the day.

@jmlanzaf falsely framed this question as a binary.
It is not.
Yet his initial proposition's not a lie. Just an intellectually dishonest reductive flim-flam.
Totally useless as an argument. It stumbles the first step out of the gate.
I suggest that you discount his lack of interest in a resolution to the same degree you might if he were an a ASE producer stating he neither supports or opposes that program.

Try this one on for Jessupian nuance.

Jessup insists that the plateau/mesa effect is a prime strike diagnostic of proof fabric (excepting Buffs), and should be considered before most anything else relating to a specific series or date, He's estimated the the perpendicularity and squareness of angle at the juncture to the fields degrades very little and is easily discernable. And that the tops of letters and numbers will be mirror-flat to the same degree. He insists that it can be used as a major tell on 99% of all post-1839 proofs.

To what degree does your experience in-hand differ?

Any series where you might expect 99.8% for effectiveness?
Any series where you'd think 98% was too high?

That would have been an excellent post, were it not for the portion above “Try this one on for Jessupian nuance”.

ColonelJessup

@MFeld said:
Why not make the thread about coins and learning, not you and Rick?

@ColonelJessup said:
I imagine the OP imagines I should be grateful for his condescension. in creating this thread. He is acceding to a request via PM. And yet the OP distorted and misrepresented the topic thread from the moment of its introduction.

And yet again does disingenuousness rule the day.

@jmlanzaf falsely framed this question as a binary.
It is not.
Yet his initial proposition's not a lie. Just an intellectually dishonest reductive flim-flam.
Totally useless as an argument. It stumbles the first step out of the gate.
I suggest that you discount his lack of interest in a resolution to the same degree you might if he were an a ASE producer stating he neither supports or opposes that program.

Try this one on for Jessupian nuance.

Jessup insists that the plateau/mesa effect is a prime strike diagnostic of proof fabric (excepting Buffs), and should be considered before most anything else relating to a specific series or date, He's estimated the the perpendicularity and squareness of angle at the juncture to the fields degrades very little and is easily discernable. And that the tops of letters and numbers will be mirror-flat to the same degree. He insists that it can be used as a major tell on 99% of all post-1839 proofs.

To what degree does your experience in-hand differ?

Any series where you might expect 99.8% for effectiveness?
Any series where you'd think 98% was too high?

That would have been an excellent post, were it not for the portion above “Try this one on for Jessupian nuance”.

Mark, mitigated by the spirit of decades of respect and affection, "Here's a quarter, call someone who cares"

jmlanzaf

@ColonelJessup said:

@MFeld said:
Why not make the thread about coins and learning, not you and Rick?

@ColonelJessup said:
I imagine the OP imagines I should be grateful for his condescension. in creating this thread. He is acceding to a request via PM. And yet the OP distorted and misrepresented the topic thread from the moment of its introduction.

And yet again does disingenuousness rule the day.

@jmlanzaf falsely framed this question as a binary.
It is not.
Yet his initial proposition's not a lie. Just an intellectually dishonest reductive flim-flam.
Totally useless as an argument. It stumbles the first step out of the gate.
I suggest that you discount his lack of interest in a resolution to the same degree you might if he were an a ASE producer stating he neither supports or opposes that program.

Try this one on for Jessupian nuance.

Jessup insists that the plateau/mesa effect is a prime strike diagnostic of proof fabric (excepting Buffs), and should be considered before most anything else relating to a specific series or date, He's estimated the the perpendicularity and squareness of angle at the juncture to the fields degrades very little and is easily discernable. And that the tops of letters and numbers will be mirror-flat to the same degree. He insists that it can be used as a major tell on 99% of all post-1839 proofs.

To what degree does your experience in-hand differ?

Any series where you might expect 99.8% for effectiveness?
Any series where you'd think 98% was too high?

That would have been an excellent post, were it not for the portion above “Try this one on for Jessupian nuance”.

Mark, mitigated by the spirit of decades of respect and affection, "Here's a quarter, call someone who cares"

On the other thread, you stated (in Bongoese) that mint state "nevery" and proof state "every". That seems pretty binary.

Further, when I said that the strike strength would be a continuum with weakly struck proofs and hammered business strikes, you claimed a 98.5% distribution.

You are arguing with yourself.

jmlanzaf

@ColonelJessup said:
I imagine the OP imagines I should be grateful for his condescension in creating this thread. He is acceding to a request via PM. I didn't order him, I didn't bully him. I challenged him. And yet the OP distorted and misrepresented the topic thread from the moment of its introduction.

And yet again does disingenuousness rule the day.

@jmlanzaf falsely framed this question as a binary.
It is not.
Yet his initial proposition's not a lie. Just an intellectually dishonest reductive flim-flam.
Totally useless as an argument. It stumbles the first step out of the gate.
I suggest that you discount his lack of interest in a resolution to the same degree you might if he were an a ASE producer stating he neither supports or opposes that program.

Try this one on for Jessupian nuance. Note that no resolution is expected, just more granularity.

Jessup insists that the plateau/mesa effect is a prime strike diagnostic of proof fabric (excepting Buffs), and should be considered before most anything else relating to a specific series or date, He's estimated the the perpendicularity and squareness of angle at the juncture to the fields degrades very little and is easily discernable. And that the tops of letters and numbers will be mirror-flat to the same degree. He insists that it can be used as a major tell on 99% of all post-1839 proofs.

To what degree does your experience in-hand differ?

Any series where you might expect 99.8% for effectiveness?
Any series where you'd think 98% was too high?

Hopefully this will be of use to Forum members.

I'll continue to be available to members for PM. Elsewise I've outlived my days of enjoying it here.

think he is looking for typical diagnostics to be able distinguish business strike auctions that may be proof strikes. Unless there are specific coins he has in mind then he would surely provide photos. Just an opinion.

Jim

PLATEAU EFFECT PROOF EVERY BIZ NEVERY - CHIMP CLUE YN EASY. PICHER!!!

In the words of the Rick Sear.

MFeld

@ColonelJessup said:

@MFeld said:
Why not make the thread about coins and learning, not you and Rick?

@ColonelJessup said:
I imagine the OP imagines I should be grateful for his condescension. in creating this thread. He is acceding to a request via PM. And yet the OP distorted and misrepresented the topic thread from the moment of its introduction.

And yet again does disingenuousness rule the day.

@jmlanzaf falsely framed this question as a binary.
It is not.
Yet his initial proposition's not a lie. Just an intellectually dishonest reductive flim-flam.
Totally useless as an argument. It stumbles the first step out of the gate.
I suggest that you discount his lack of interest in a resolution to the same degree you might if he were an a ASE producer stating he neither supports or opposes that program.

Try this one on for Jessupian nuance.

Jessup insists that the plateau/mesa effect is a prime strike diagnostic of proof fabric (excepting Buffs), and should be considered before most anything else relating to a specific series or date, He's estimated the the perpendicularity and squareness of angle at the juncture to the fields degrades very little and is easily discernable. And that the tops of letters and numbers will be mirror-flat to the same degree. He insists that it can be used as a major tell on 99% of all post-1839 proofs.

To what degree does your experience in-hand differ?

Any series where you might expect 99.8% for effectiveness?
Any series where you'd think 98% was too high?

That would have been an excellent post, were it not for the portion above “Try this one on for Jessupian nuance”.

Mark, mitigated by the spirit of decades of respect and affection, "Here's a quarter, call someone who cares"

Rick, so much for mitigation by the spirit of decades of respect and affection - I just looked it up and read that the cost of a pay phone call is at least half a dollar.😉

jmlanzaf

@MFeld said:

@ColonelJessup said:

@MFeld said:
Why not make the thread about coins and learning, not you and Rick?

@ColonelJessup said:
I imagine the OP imagines I should be grateful for his condescension. in creating this thread. He is acceding to a request via PM. And yet the OP distorted and misrepresented the topic thread from the moment of its introduction.

And yet again does disingenuousness rule the day.

@jmlanzaf falsely framed this question as a binary.
It is not.
Yet his initial proposition's not a lie. Just an intellectually dishonest reductive flim-flam.
Totally useless as an argument. It stumbles the first step out of the gate.
I suggest that you discount his lack of interest in a resolution to the same degree you might if he were an a ASE producer stating he neither supports or opposes that program.

Try this one on for Jessupian nuance.

Jessup insists that the plateau/mesa effect is a prime strike diagnostic of proof fabric (excepting Buffs), and should be considered before most anything else relating to a specific series or date, He's estimated the the perpendicularity and squareness of angle at the juncture to the fields degrades very little and is easily discernable. And that the tops of letters and numbers will be mirror-flat to the same degree. He insists that it can be used as a major tell on 99% of all post-1839 proofs.

To what degree does your experience in-hand differ?

Any series where you might expect 99.8% for effectiveness?
Any series where you'd think 98% was too high?

That would have been an excellent post, were it not for the portion above “Try this one on for Jessupian nuance”.

Mark, mitigated by the spirit of decades of respect and affection, "Here's a quarter, call someone who cares"

Rick, so much for mitigation by the spirit of decades of respect and affection - I just looked it up and read that the cost of a pay phone call is at least half a dollar.😉

Good luck finding a pay phone.

ColonelJessup

The OP has once again manifested his lack of intellectual honesty.
The proposition was stated at the beginning of this thread.
The OP has misrepresented it.
I restated it.

Throw out jessupian nuance; go for scientific rigor

Does the OP wish to again degrade the argument. Of course he does.
This is not about the 100% guaranteed no exceptions OCD satisfying absolutely certain way that each and every coin can be definitively blah blah blah. The OP seemingly would insist that this point is what's important, but since I've said that, you'll likely think about sliding off to yet another Idiocracy-style pseudo-binary debate point. My guess is that the OP, despite his higher post count, is maybe 99,000 hours lifetime behind myself in looking at raw type coins

Scientific enquiry - 98%? 99%? That's today's question.

@jmlanzaf said:
I have nothing more to contribute.

Pants on fire

The OP's perversion of the dialectical process degrades this Forum. YMMV
Want to see me troll someone. Watch. He can't resist

@jmlanzaf said:
I have nothing more to contribute.

This is going to be a win-win for me, but a possible loss for you all

Just savoring a moment I shouldn't have even had to notice.
"If that's the Benson coin, it was bought by Martin Paul".
If????

jmlanzaf

@ColonelJessup said:
I imagine the OP imagines I should be grateful for his condescension in creating this thread. He is acceding to a request via PM. I didn't order him, I didn't bully him. I challenged him. And yet the OP distorted and misrepresented the topic thread from the moment of its introduction.

And yet again does disingenuousness rule the day.

@jmlanzaf falsely framed this question as a binary.
It is not.
Yet his initial proposition's not a lie. Just an intellectually dishonest reductive flim-flam.
Totally useless as an argument. It stumbles the first step out of the gate.
I suggest that you discount his lack of interest in a resolution to the same degree you might if he were an a ASE producer stating he neither supports or opposes that program.

Try this one on for
Hopefully this will be of use to Forum members.

I'll continue to be available to members for PM. Elsewise I've outlived my days of enjoying it here.

Pants on fire.

jmlanzaf

@ColonelJessup said:
The OP has once again manifested his lack of intellectual honesty.
The proposition was stated at the beginning of this thread.
You misrepresented it.
I restated it.

Throw out jessupian nuance; go for scientific rigor

Do you wish to again degrade the argument. Of course you do.
This is not about the 100% guaranteed no exceptions OCD satisfying absolutely certain way that each and every coin can be definitively blah blah blah. You seemingly would insist that this point is what's important, but since I've said that, you'll likely think about sliding off to yet another Idiocracy-style pseudo-binary debate point.

Scientific enquiry - 98%? 99%? That's today's question.

@jmlanzaf said:
I have nothing more to contribute.

Pants on fire

Your perversion of the dialectical process degrades this Forum and yourself.

I'm sure we can all agree that I've contributed nothing to this thread. Therefore, my statement remains accurate.

Quid erat demonstratum

ColonelJessup

I win, you all lose.
@DonTaxay, beam me up.

Sonorandesertrat

@ColonelJessup said:
I win, you all lose.
@DonTaxay, beam me up.

So you're turning into a Hare Krishna?
Say it ain't so, ColonelCatsup!

ColonelJessup

@jmlanzaf said:

@ColonelJessup said:
The OP has once again manifested his lack of intellectual honesty.
The proposition was stated at the beginning of this thread.
You misrepresented it.
I restated it.

Throw out jessupian nuance; go for scientific rigor

Do you wish to again degrade the argument. Of course you do.
This is not about the 100% guaranteed no exceptions OCD satisfying absolutely certain way that each and every coin can be definitively blah blah blah. You seemingly would insist that this point is what's important, but since I've said that, you'll likely think about sliding off to yet another Idiocracy-style pseudo-binary debate point.

Scientific enquiry - 98%? 99%? That's today's question.

@jmlanzaf said:
I have nothing more to contribute.

Pants on fire

Your perversion of the dialectical process degrades this Forum and yourself.

I'm sure we can all agree that I've contributed nothing to this thread. Therefore, my statement remains accurate.

Quid erat demonstratum

You've not contributed nothing, you've made it worse. Your intentions become clearer with every post. You're here to sabotage any discussion. And that's why I won't waste my time here any longer.
I love this. It's more fun than pulling the wings off flies. And easier too.

Watch, he's going to do it again. I'm not, Got sushi coming and some ants to subject to a magnifying glass.
What's the expression. "Like a dog returning to its vomit" ?

jmlanzaf

Yawn

ColonelJessup

Pavlov says "Speak, boy. Speak"

MasonG

So- there's not going to be a discussion of the plateau or mesa effect, then?

jmlanzaf

@MasonG said:
So- there's not going to be a discussion of the plateau or mesa effect, then?

Apparently not. He can't seem to decide which side he's on.

Crypto

I get why the rodeo clown antagonizes the bull, I just get confused when the clown cries outrage when the bull wants to gore him and the crowd snickers

jmlanzaf

@Crypto said:
I get why the rodeo clown antagonizes the bull, I just get confused when the clown cries outrage when the bull wants to gore him and the crowd snickers

You're being a little hard on Rick. He's not well, cut him some slack.

ricko

Well now... After careful consideration, I believe I will remain an observer in this social media donnybrook. Cheers, RickO