Effective communication depends on common usage of terms, even if not accepted by all. In our hobby we have mercury dimes, Indian head cents, and Buffalo nickels. Even those collectors who are purists and often use more accurate or elaborate descriptors in their writings understand these accepted descriptions. However, the reverse isn’t true. If any of you dealers want to advertise a set of Barber coins and include the nickel, or advertise Barber nickels, or winged-liberty dimes, etc., good luck.
@mr1931S said:
It's not a secret that Charles Barber designed the Liberty Head Nickel that was minted 1883-1912. Some of you all are just "No" with no explanation WHY you say 'No". Sometimes I think I'm living in an alternate reality, a reality where the rules of logic apply but those living in the other reality flagrantly ignore or disregard those rules that are so dear to me. I could go on but I won't. Just one more observation though. The herd mentality appears to be alive and well around here.
I assume you don't wonder why you aren't more popular...
"Two things are infinite: human stupidity and the universe; and I'm not sure about the universe."
-Albert Einstein-
Mistakes are natural. But repeated mistakes without reflection are something else. That may be the “stupidity” he was referring to. In research, he admitted uncertainty openly. “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” This shows humility. Even a Nobel laureate accepted doubt. That humility makes the quote less cynical and more observational.
“How you gonna disrespect somebody that came before you?”
Harsche, Einstein, Rockwell. Who's next?
"Two things are infinite: human stupidity and the universe; and I'm not sure about the universe."
-Albert Einstein-
Mistakes are natural. But repeated mistakes without reflection are something else. That may be the “stupidity” he was referring to. In research, he admitted uncertainty openly. “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” This shows humility. Even a Nobel laureate accepted doubt. That humility makes the quote less cynical and more observational.
"Two things are infinite: human stupidity and the universe; and I'm not sure about the universe."
-Albert Einstein-
Mistakes are natural. But repeated mistakes without reflection are something else. That may be the “stupidity” he was referring to. In research, he admitted uncertainty openly. “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” This shows humility. Even a Nobel laureate accepted doubt. That humility makes the quote less cynical and more observational.
@mr1931S said:
It's not a secret that Charles Barber designed the Liberty Head Nickel that was minted 1883-1912. Some of you all are just "No" with no explanation WHY you say 'No". Sometimes I think I'm living in an alternate reality, a reality where the rules of logic apply but those living in the other reality flagrantly ignore or disregard those rules that are so dear to me. I could go on but I won't. Just one more observation though. The herd mentality appears to be alive and well around here.
You're saying any coins designed by the same person are automatically part of the same series? That is news to me. I do, however, respect the opinions of those who include Liberty nickels as part of the same series. And I'm not opposed to a good debate. But to use this disagreement as an example of "herd mentality" is ludicrous.
@mr1931S said:
It's not a secret that Charles Barber designed the Liberty Head Nickel that was minted 1883-1912. Some of you all are just "No" with no explanation WHY you say 'No". Sometimes I think I'm living in an alternate reality, a reality where the rules of logic apply but those living in the other reality flagrantly ignore or disregard those rules that are so dear to me. I could go on but I won't. Just one more observation though. The herd mentality appears to be alive and well around here.
You're saying any coins designed by the same person are automatically part of the same series? That is news to me. I do, however, respect the opinions of those who include Liberty nickels as part of the same series. And I'm not opposed to a good debate. But to use this disagreement as an example of "herd mentality" is ludicrous.
The herd mentality I am speaking to is unthinkingly "falling into line." That's what you are expected to do in this forum, fall in line. Unpleasantness from some quarter of this forum awaits the one who fails to fall in line. I see this forum as a microcosm of herd life in America over the past decade or so.
"Two things are infinite: human stupidity and the universe; and I'm not sure about the universe."
-Albert Einstein-
Mistakes are natural. But repeated mistakes without reflection are something else. That may be the “stupidity” he was referring to. In research, he admitted uncertainty openly. “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” This shows humility. Even a Nobel laureate accepted doubt. That humility makes the quote less cynical and more observational.
You're saying any coins designed by the same person are automatically part of the same series?
Look closely at the Barber designed nickel, dime, quarter and half-dollar. You will see two distinctly different obverses and three distinctly different reverses. Barber designed four different denominations of U.S. coins. The nickel, dime, quarter, and half-dollar that Barber designed comprise a denominational series is what I have concluded.
"Two things are infinite: human stupidity and the universe; and I'm not sure about the universe."
-Albert Einstein-
Mistakes are natural. But repeated mistakes without reflection are something else. That may be the “stupidity” he was referring to. In research, he admitted uncertainty openly. “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” This shows humility. Even a Nobel laureate accepted doubt. That humility makes the quote less cynical and more observational.
@mr1931S said:
It's not a secret that Charles Barber designed the Liberty Head Nickel that was minted 1883-1912. Some of you all are just "No" with no explanation WHY you say 'No". Sometimes I think I'm living in an alternate reality, a reality where the rules of logic apply but those living in the other reality flagrantly ignore or disregard those rules that are so dear to me. I could go on but I won't. Just one more observation though. The herd mentality appears to be alive and well around here.
You're saying any coins designed by the same person are automatically part of the same series? That is news to me. I do, however, respect the opinions of those who include Liberty nickels as part of the same series. And I'm not opposed to a good debate. But to use this disagreement as an example of "herd mentality" is ludicrous.
The herd mentality I am speaking to is unthinkingly "falling into line." That's what you are expected to do in this forum, fall in line. Unpleasantness from some quarter of this forum awaits the one who fails to fall in line. I see this forum as a microcosm of herd life in America over the past decade or so.
That is not what you said. You said, essentially, that anyone who disagreed with you isn't using "rules of logic". Unlike YOU, none of us insulted you for your disagreement, even though your rules of logic aren't as absolute as you think.
Go look at modern coins with Craig Cambell's initials (CAC) and consider the following questions:
1. Does anyone call them the "Campbell series"?
2. Do they all belong in the same series?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@mr1931S said:
It's not a secret that Charles Barber designed the Liberty Head Nickel that was minted 1883-1912. Some of you all are just "No" with no explanation WHY you say 'No". Sometimes I think I'm living in an alternate reality, a reality where the rules of logic apply but those living in the other reality flagrantly ignore or disregard those rules that are so dear to me. I could go on but I won't. Just one more observation though. The herd mentality appears to be alive and well around here.
You're saying any coins designed by the same person are automatically part of the same series? That is news to me. I do, however, respect the opinions of those who include Liberty nickels as part of the same series. And I'm not opposed to a good debate. But to use this disagreement as an example of "herd mentality" is ludicrous.
The herd mentality I am speaking to is unthinkingly "falling into line." That's what you are expected to do in this forum, fall in line. Unpleasantness from some quarter of this forum awaits the one who fails to fall in line. I see this forum as a microcosm of herd life in America over the past decade or so.
The egotistical mentality I see here is those who unthinkingly "think they know better." That's what @mr1931S is expected to do in this forum, declare himself a martyr. Unpleasantness from a tiny minority of this forum awaits the many who fail to recognize @mr1931S's supposed genius. I see this tiny minority of the forum as a microcosm of aging, self-important boomers who are incapable of introspection that has become increasingly loud in America over the past decade or so.
@mr1931S said:
It's not a secret that Charles Barber designed the Liberty Head Nickel that was minted 1883-1912. Some of you all are just "No" with no explanation WHY you say 'No". Sometimes I think I'm living in an alternate reality, a reality where the rules of logic apply but those living in the other reality flagrantly ignore or disregard those rules that are so dear to me. I could go on but I won't. Just one more observation though. The herd mentality appears to be alive and well around here.
You're saying any coins designed by the same person are automatically part of the same series? That is news to me. I do, however, respect the opinions of those who include Liberty nickels as part of the same series. And I'm not opposed to a good debate. But to use this disagreement as an example of "herd mentality" is ludicrous.
The herd mentality I am speaking to is unthinkingly "falling into line." That's what you are expected to do in this forum, fall in line. Unpleasantness from some quarter of this forum awaits the one who fails to fall in line. I see this forum as a microcosm of herd life in America over the past decade or so.
That is not what you said. You said, essentially, that anyone who disagreed with you isn't using "rules of logic". Unlike YOU, none of us insulted you for your disagreement, even though your rules of logic aren't as absolute as you think.
Go look at modern coins with Craig Cambell's initials (CAC) and consider the following questions:
1. Does anyone call them the "Campbell series"?
2. Do they all belong in the same series?
Kindly refrain from telling me what I said. I use the rooted-in-logic scientific method when thinking about things such as the subject presented by the OP. As I stated earlier, substitute "series" with "design" and there should be no confusion. If one were to say they do not consider the Liberty nickel minted from 1883 to 1913 to be a C. Barber design they would be wrong, absolutely wrong. As for insults, if the shoe fits, wear it. You insulted me with that "Paging IkesT" stunt. How juvenile.
"Two things are infinite: human stupidity and the universe; and I'm not sure about the universe."
-Albert Einstein-
Mistakes are natural. But repeated mistakes without reflection are something else. That may be the “stupidity” he was referring to. In research, he admitted uncertainty openly. “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” This shows humility. Even a Nobel laureate accepted doubt. That humility makes the quote less cynical and more observational.
_"This is why you keep hammering the distinction between:
mechanics (reality)
categories (interpretation)
Evolution? Same pattern.
Hydrology? Same pattern.
Pyramid Texts? Same pattern.
Science itself? Same pattern.
You’re pointing out that categorical thinkers confuse the label for the thing.
In 1893, “Barber coinage” was the label.
Today, it’s obsolete.
The coins didn’t change."_
The total lack of substance from Copilot is why AI will never replace humans.
The lack of substance from Copilot is because of how he's using it, not because of what Copilot is capable of. A human without AI cannot compete (in the near future) with a human with AI. No one has EVER said that AI would replace humans, other than in the places it already has - ain't no phone operators no more.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@mr1931S said:
It's not a secret that Charles Barber designed the Liberty Head Nickel that was minted 1883-1912. Some of you all are just "No" with no explanation WHY you say 'No". Sometimes I think I'm living in an alternate reality, a reality where the rules of logic apply but those living in the other reality flagrantly ignore or disregard those rules that are so dear to me. I could go on but I won't. Just one more observation though. The herd mentality appears to be alive and well around here.
You're saying any coins designed by the same person are automatically part of the same series? That is news to me. I do, however, respect the opinions of those who include Liberty nickels as part of the same series. And I'm not opposed to a good debate. But to use this disagreement as an example of "herd mentality" is ludicrous.
The herd mentality I am speaking to is unthinkingly "falling into line." That's what you are expected to do in this forum, fall in line. Unpleasantness from some quarter of this forum awaits the one who fails to fall in line. I see this forum as a microcosm of herd life in America over the past decade or so.
That is not what you said. You said, essentially, that anyone who disagreed with you isn't using "rules of logic". Unlike YOU, none of us insulted you for your disagreement, even though your rules of logic aren't as absolute as you think.
Go look at modern coins with Craig Cambell's initials (CAC) and consider the following questions:
1. Does anyone call them the "Campbell series"?
2. Do they all belong in the same series?
Kindly refrain from telling me what I said. I use the rooted-in-logic scientific method when thinking about things such as the subject presented by the OP. As I stated earlier, substitute "series" with "design" and there should be no confusion. If one were to say they do not consider the Liberty nickel minted from 1883 to 1913 to be a C. Barber design they would be wrong, absolutely wrong. As for insults, if the shoe fits, wear it. You insulted me with that "Paging IkesT" stunt. How juvenile.
I QUOTED you. If you don't know what you said, I shouldn't have to tell you. But, since you forgot, I will NOT refrain from reminding you.
Your exact words "Sometimes I think I'm living in an alternate reality, a reality where the rules of logic apply but those living in the other reality flagrantly ignore or disregard those rules..."
You are expressly (not implicityly) stating that you are in a reality of logic and the rest of us are living in a reality which disregards the rules of logic.
There, I once again told you what you said. Whatcha going to do about it?
If you don't want to get called out, don't insult the entire forum.
@mr1931S said:
It's not a secret that Charles Barber designed the Liberty Head Nickel that was minted 1883-1912. Some of you all are just "No" with no explanation WHY you say 'No". Sometimes I think I'm living in an alternate reality, a reality where the rules of logic apply but those living in the other reality flagrantly ignore or disregard those rules that are so dear to me. I could go on but I won't. Just one more observation though. The herd mentality appears to be alive and well around here.
You're saying any coins designed by the same person are automatically part of the same series? That is news to me. I do, however, respect the opinions of those who include Liberty nickels as part of the same series. And I'm not opposed to a good debate. But to use this disagreement as an example of "herd mentality" is ludicrous.
The herd mentality I am speaking to is unthinkingly "falling into line." That's what you are expected to do in this forum, fall in line. Unpleasantness from some quarter of this forum awaits the one who fails to fall in line. I see this forum as a microcosm of herd life in America over the past decade or so.
That is not what you said. You said, essentially, that anyone who disagreed with you isn't using "rules of logic". Unlike YOU, none of us insulted you for your disagreement, even though your rules of logic aren't as absolute as you think.
Go look at modern coins with Craig Cambell's initials (CAC) and consider the following questions:
1. Does anyone call them the "Campbell series"?
2. Do they all belong in the same series?
Kindly refrain from telling me what I said. I use the rooted-in-logic scientific method when thinking about things such as the subject presented by the OP. As I stated earlier, substitute "series" with "design" and there should be no confusion. If one were to say they do not consider the Liberty nickel minted from 1883 to 1913 to be a C. Barber design they would be wrong, absolutely wrong. As for insults, if the shoe fits, wear it. You insulted me with that "Paging IkesT" stunt. How juvenile.
I QUOTED you. If you don't know what you said, I shouldn't have to tell you. But, since you forgot, I will NOT refrain from reminding you.
Your exact words "Sometimes I think I'm living in an alternate reality, a reality where the rules of logic apply but those living in the other reality flagrantly ignore or disregard those rules..."
You are expressly (not implicityly) stating that you are in a reality of logic and the rest of us are living in a reality which disregards the rules of logic.
There, I once again told you what you said. Whatcha going to do about it?
If you don't want to get called out, don't insult the entire forum.
@mr1931S said:
It's not a secret that Charles Barber designed the Liberty Head Nickel that was minted 1883-1912. Some of you all are just "No" with no explanation WHY you say 'No". Sometimes I think I'm living in an alternate reality, a reality where the rules of logic apply but those living in the other reality flagrantly ignore or disregard those rules that are so dear to me. I could go on but I won't. Just one more observation though. The herd mentality appears to be alive and well around here.
You're saying any coins designed by the same person are automatically part of the same series? That is news to me. I do, however, respect the opinions of those who include Liberty nickels as part of the same series. And I'm not opposed to a good debate. But to use this disagreement as an example of "herd mentality" is ludicrous.
The herd mentality I am speaking to is unthinkingly "falling into line." That's what you are expected to do in this forum, fall in line. Unpleasantness from some quarter of this forum awaits the one who fails to fall in line. I see this forum as a microcosm of herd life in America over the past decade or so.
The egotistical mentality I see here is those who unthinkingly "think they know better." That's what @mr1931S is expected to do in this forum, declare himself a martyr. Unpleasantness from a tiny minority of this forum awaits the many who fail to recognize @mr1931S's supposed genius. I see this tiny minority of the forum as a microcosm of aging, self-important boomers who are incapable of introspection that has become increasingly loud in America over the past decade or so.
I'm seeing lots of projecting here. Try to be more original instead of parroting my writings to make your comments. Also, you should work on shaking off some of your herdness instinct. You can do it. Herd mentality can successfully be shaken off by the afflicted individual who earnestly applies him or herself.
"Two things are infinite: human stupidity and the universe; and I'm not sure about the universe."
-Albert Einstein-
Mistakes are natural. But repeated mistakes without reflection are something else. That may be the “stupidity” he was referring to. In research, he admitted uncertainty openly. “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” This shows humility. Even a Nobel laureate accepted doubt. That humility makes the quote less cynical and more observational.
@mr1931S said:
It's not a secret that Charles Barber designed the Liberty Head Nickel that was minted 1883-1912. Some of you all are just "No" with no explanation WHY you say 'No". Sometimes I think I'm living in an alternate reality, a reality where the rules of logic apply but those living in the other reality flagrantly ignore or disregard those rules that are so dear to me. I could go on but I won't. Just one more observation though. The herd mentality appears to be alive and well around here.
You're saying any coins designed by the same person are automatically part of the same series? That is news to me. I do, however, respect the opinions of those who include Liberty nickels as part of the same series. And I'm not opposed to a good debate. But to use this disagreement as an example of "herd mentality" is ludicrous.
The herd mentality I am speaking to is unthinkingly "falling into line." That's what you are expected to do in this forum, fall in line. Unpleasantness from some quarter of this forum awaits the one who fails to fall in line. I see this forum as a microcosm of herd life in America over the past decade or so.
That is not what you said. You said, essentially, that anyone who disagreed with you isn't using "rules of logic". Unlike YOU, none of us insulted you for your disagreement, even though your rules of logic aren't as absolute as you think.
Go look at modern coins with Craig Cambell's initials (CAC) and consider the following questions:
1. Does anyone call them the "Campbell series"?
2. Do they all belong in the same series?
Kindly refrain from telling me what I said. I use the rooted-in-logic scientific method when thinking about things such as the subject presented by the OP. As I stated earlier, substitute "series" with "design" and there should be no confusion. If one were to say they do not consider the Liberty nickel minted from 1883 to 1913 to be a C. Barber design they would be wrong, absolutely wrong. As for insults, if the shoe fits, wear it. You insulted me with that "Paging IkesT" stunt. How juvenile.
You use "rooted-in-logic scientific method", but if someone quotes you exactly, you kindly ask them to refrain? That's not logic. Very far from it.
@mr1931S said:
It's not a secret that Charles Barber designed the Liberty Head Nickel that was minted 1883-1912. Some of you all are just "No" with no explanation WHY you say 'No". Sometimes I think I'm living in an alternate reality, a reality where the rules of logic apply but those living in the other reality flagrantly ignore or disregard those rules that are so dear to me. I could go on but I won't. Just one more observation though. The herd mentality appears to be alive and well around here.
You're saying any coins designed by the same person are automatically part of the same series? That is news to me. I do, however, respect the opinions of those who include Liberty nickels as part of the same series. And I'm not opposed to a good debate. But to use this disagreement as an example of "herd mentality" is ludicrous.
The herd mentality I am speaking to is unthinkingly "falling into line." That's what you are expected to do in this forum, fall in line. Unpleasantness from some quarter of this forum awaits the one who fails to fall in line. I see this forum as a microcosm of herd life in America over the past decade or so.
The egotistical mentality I see here is those who unthinkingly "think they know better." That's what @mr1931S is expected to do in this forum, declare himself a martyr. Unpleasantness from a tiny minority of this forum awaits the many who fail to recognize @mr1931S's supposed genius. I see this tiny minority of the forum as a microcosm of aging, self-important boomers who are incapable of introspection that has become increasingly loud in America over the past decade or so.
I'm seeing lots of projecting here. Try to be more original instead of parroting my writings to make your comments. Also, you should work on shaking off some of your herdness instinct. You can do it. Herd mentality can successfully be shaken off by the afflicted individual who earnestly applies him or herself.
Sure, Jan.
@lermish said:
aging, self-important boomers who are incapable of introspection
@jmlanzaf said:
The lack of substance from Copilot is because of how he's using it, not because of what Copilot is capable of. A human without AI cannot compete (in the near future) with a human with AI. No one has EVER said that AI would replace humans, other than in the places it already has - ain't no phone operators no more.
You're using AI to to confirm and extrapolate what you believe based not on logic but rather its ability to quickly gather and process data, This is great because this is one of the things at which AI excels. Any question that can be phrased in words can get some sort of answer with sufficient data.
You climb aboard and hang your hat on assumptions made by 19th century scientists who have been contradicted by experiment a million times. The experiments are right and the assumptions are wrong but we lack the categories to see it and this have no words to describe it.
What it boils down to is that you are wrong across the board. Reality is a procedural unfolding and most modern coins failed this bottleneck. They are gone. Walk into any (every) coin shop and you'll see dozens of nice collectible 19th century coins for every collectible '65- '98 coin. You'll see about the same thing in collections. Or you could look in circulation and see many of these coins are effectively gone because there are so few left they can't be gathered up before they're gone as well.
There's nothing wrong with asking AI questions but the promptor must remember he is inheriting not only his own framing but also the assumptions of people from many centuries ago.
Copilot-
You’re right that any question phrased in words inherits the definitions and axioms baked into the language. That’s the framing. And yes — if you ask AI questions inside that framing, you’ll get answers shaped by it. That’s unavoidable.
But I’m not hanging my hat on 19th‑century assumptions. I’m pointing at the bottleneck in reality. Modern coins didn’t survive the procedural unfolding. They’re gone. Walk into any coin shop and you’ll see dozens of collectible 19th‑century coins for every collectible ’65–’98 coin. You’ll see the same thing in collections. And circulation shows it even more clearly — the survivors are too few to gather before they disappear entirely.
This isn’t about AI. It’s about attrition, supply chains, and the simple fact that mint sets were neglected, abused, and destroyed for three generations. The BU‑roll supply is collapsing because the mint‑set supply collapsed first. That’s the bottleneck.
There’s nothing wrong with asking AI questions. The promptor just has to remember he inherits not only his own framing, but the framing of everyone who built the language he’s using.
@mr1931S said:
It's not a secret that Charles Barber designed the Liberty Head Nickel that was minted 1883-1912. Some of you all are just "No" with no explanation WHY you say 'No". Sometimes I think I'm living in an alternate reality, a reality where the rules of logic apply but those living in the other reality flagrantly ignore or disregard those rules that are so dear to me. I could go on but I won't. Just one more observation though. The herd mentality appears to be alive and well around here.
You're saying any coins designed by the same person are automatically part of the same series? That is news to me. I do, however, respect the opinions of those who include Liberty nickels as part of the same series. And I'm not opposed to a good debate. But to use this disagreement as an example of "herd mentality" is ludicrous.
The herd mentality I am speaking to is unthinkingly "falling into line." That's what you are expected to do in this forum, fall in line. Unpleasantness from some quarter of this forum awaits the one who fails to fall in line. I see this forum as a microcosm of herd life in America over the past decade or so.
The egotistical mentality I see here is those who unthinkingly "think they know better." That's what @mr1931S is expected to do in this forum, declare himself a martyr. Unpleasantness from a tiny minority of this forum awaits the many who fail to recognize @mr1931S's supposed genius. I see this tiny minority of the forum as a microcosm of aging, self-important boomers who are incapable of introspection that has become increasingly loud in America over the past decade or so.
I'm seeing lots of projecting here. Try to be more original instead of parroting my writings to make your comments. Also, you should work on shaking off some of your herdness instinct. You can do it. Herd mentality can successfully be shaken off by the afflicted individual who earnestly applies him or herself.
You haven't chimed in with your opinion about the Liberty nickel being part of the Barber series. I logically concluded that the Liberty nickel is indeed a part of the Barber designed coinage in the context of the denomination series, nickel, dime, quarter-dollar and half-dollar. What is your opinion?
"Two things are infinite: human stupidity and the universe; and I'm not sure about the universe."
-Albert Einstein-
Mistakes are natural. But repeated mistakes without reflection are something else. That may be the “stupidity” he was referring to. In research, he admitted uncertainty openly. “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” This shows humility. Even a Nobel laureate accepted doubt. That humility makes the quote less cynical and more observational.
@jmlanzaf said:
The lack of substance from Copilot is because of how he's using it, not because of what Copilot is capable of. A human without AI cannot compete (in the near future) with a human with AI. No one has EVER said that AI would replace humans, other than in the places it already has - ain't no phone operators no more.
You're using AI to to confirm and extrapolate what you believe based not on logic but rather its ability to quickly gather and process data, This is great because this is one of the things at which AI excels. Any question that can be phrased in words can get some sort of answer with sufficient data.
You climb aboard and hang your hat on assumptions made by 19th century scientists who have been contradicted by experiment a million times. The experiments are right and the assumptions are wrong but we lack the categories to see it and this have no words to describe it.
What it boils down to is that you are wrong across the board. Reality is a procedural unfolding and most modern coins failed this bottleneck. They are gone. Walk into any (every) coin shop and you'll see dozens of nice collectible 19th century coins for every collectible '65- '98 coin. You'll see about the same thing in collections. Or you could look in circulation and see many of these coins are effectively gone because there are so few left they can't be gathered up before they're gone as well.
There's nothing wrong with asking AI questions but the promptor must remember he is inheriting not only his own framing but also the assumptions of people from many centuries ago.
Copilot-
You’re right that any question phrased in words inherits the definitions and axioms baked into the language. That’s the framing. And yes — if you ask AI questions inside that framing, you’ll get answers shaped by it. That’s unavoidable.
But I’m not hanging my hat on 19th‑century assumptions. I’m pointing at the bottleneck in reality. Modern coins didn’t survive the procedural unfolding. They’re gone. Walk into any coin shop and you’ll see dozens of collectible 19th‑century coins for every collectible ’65–’98 coin. You’ll see the same thing in collections. And circulation shows it even more clearly — the survivors are too few to gather before they disappear entirely.
This isn’t about AI. It’s about attrition, supply chains, and the simple fact that mint sets were neglected, abused, and destroyed for three generations. The BU‑roll supply is collapsing because the mint‑set supply collapsed first. That’s the bottleneck.
There’s nothing wrong with asking AI questions. The promptor just has to remember he inherits not only his own framing, but the framing of everyone who built the language he’s using.
What the hell are you talking about?
You have no idea what i use AI for or how i feel about 19th century scientists or their assumptions.
Stay in your effing lane.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
"The lack of substance from Copilot is because of how he's using it,"
What the hell are you talking about?
You have no idea what i use AI for or how i feel about 19th century scientists or their assumptions.
Stay in your effing lane.
...And it would appear you have no idea how I'm using it.
19th century assumptions and definitions are baked into science.
We know exactly how you're using it. You've posted 4000 of your copilot queries.
You're wrong about 19th assumptions,by the way. There are rule of thumb simplifications that use antiquated assumptions, but those are not at the cutting edge of science. And all real scientists know what the assumptions are and when they are suitable or not.
But I have no idea what that had to do with anything. There is zero science in any of this. It was a gratuitous shot across my bow because I insulted your continued use of Copilot as an echo chamber translator of your own ideas. [Which you've even admitted to, by the way. ]
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I use LLM's to show me where my thinking is wrong and to elaborate and translate.
This thread is about terminology and I have no intention of pursuing this conversation here.
It is ironic though that you think V-nickels can't be or aren't "Barber coins". I wager if the nickel were larger and silver denominated as a dollar you'd call it a "barber coin" or "of the barber series".
I use LLM's to show me where my thinking is wrong and to elaborate and translate.
This thread is about terminology and I have no intention of pursuing this conversation here.
It is ironic though that you think V-nickels can't be or aren't "Barber coins". I wager if the nickel were larger and silver denominated as a dollar you'd call it a "barber coin" or "of the barber series".
Actually, I didn't say that nor was that the question. As I mentioned earlier, they were called Barber nickels at one time. They are not called that anymore.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
(little green box) I don't care.
Theodore Roosevelt felt that the Barber coinage was "insipid" and inferior to coins produced in European nations.
Enter Augustus Saint Gaudens.
Teddy was right.
@D808LF said:
(little green box) I don't care.
Theodore Roosevelt felt that the Barber coinage was "insipid" and inferior to coins produced in European nations.
Enter Augustus Saint Gaudens.
Teddy was right.
So, you're saying they are all part if the Insipid Series?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@D808LF said:
(little green box) I don't care.
Theodore Roosevelt felt that the Barber coinage was "insipid" and inferior to coins produced in European nations.
Enter Augustus Saint Gaudens.
Teddy was right.
So, you're saying they are all part if the Insipid Series?
Comments
Effective communication depends on common usage of terms, even if not accepted by all. In our hobby we have mercury dimes, Indian head cents, and Buffalo nickels. Even those collectors who are purists and often use more accurate or elaborate descriptors in their writings understand these accepted descriptions. However, the reverse isn’t true. If any of you dealers want to advertise a set of Barber coins and include the nickel, or advertise Barber nickels, or winged-liberty dimes, etc., good luck.
lol
"Two things are infinite: human stupidity and the universe; and I'm not sure about the universe."
-Albert Einstein-
Mistakes are natural. But repeated mistakes without reflection are something else. That may be the “stupidity” he was referring to. In research, he admitted uncertainty openly. “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” This shows humility. Even a Nobel laureate accepted doubt. That humility makes the quote less cynical and more observational.
“How you gonna disrespect somebody that came before you?”
Harsche, Einstein, Rockwell. Who's next?
"Two things are infinite: human stupidity and the universe; and I'm not sure about the universe."
-Albert Einstein-
Mistakes are natural. But repeated mistakes without reflection are something else. That may be the “stupidity” he was referring to. In research, he admitted uncertainty openly. “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” This shows humility. Even a Nobel laureate accepted doubt. That humility makes the quote less cynical and more observational.
.
"Two things are infinite: human stupidity and the universe; and I'm not sure about the universe."
-Albert Einstein-
Mistakes are natural. But repeated mistakes without reflection are something else. That may be the “stupidity” he was referring to. In research, he admitted uncertainty openly. “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” This shows humility. Even a Nobel laureate accepted doubt. That humility makes the quote less cynical and more observational.
You're saying any coins designed by the same person are automatically part of the same series? That is news to me. I do, however, respect the opinions of those who include Liberty nickels as part of the same series. And I'm not opposed to a good debate. But to use this disagreement as an example of "herd mentality" is ludicrous.
The herd mentality I am speaking to is unthinkingly "falling into line." That's what you are expected to do in this forum, fall in line. Unpleasantness from some quarter of this forum awaits the one who fails to fall in line. I see this forum as a microcosm of herd life in America over the past decade or so.
"Two things are infinite: human stupidity and the universe; and I'm not sure about the universe."
-Albert Einstein-
Mistakes are natural. But repeated mistakes without reflection are something else. That may be the “stupidity” he was referring to. In research, he admitted uncertainty openly. “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” This shows humility. Even a Nobel laureate accepted doubt. That humility makes the quote less cynical and more observational.
You're saying any coins designed by the same person are automatically part of the same series?
Look closely at the Barber designed nickel, dime, quarter and half-dollar. You will see two distinctly different obverses and three distinctly different reverses. Barber designed four different denominations of U.S. coins. The nickel, dime, quarter, and half-dollar that Barber designed comprise a denominational series is what I have concluded.
"Two things are infinite: human stupidity and the universe; and I'm not sure about the universe."
-Albert Einstein-
Mistakes are natural. But repeated mistakes without reflection are something else. That may be the “stupidity” he was referring to. In research, he admitted uncertainty openly. “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” This shows humility. Even a Nobel laureate accepted doubt. That humility makes the quote less cynical and more observational.
That is not what you said. You said, essentially, that anyone who disagreed with you isn't using "rules of logic". Unlike YOU, none of us insulted you for your disagreement, even though your rules of logic aren't as absolute as you think.
Go look at modern coins with Craig Cambell's initials (CAC) and consider the following questions:
1. Does anyone call them the "Campbell series"?
2. Do they all belong in the same series?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
The egotistical mentality I see here is those who unthinkingly "think they know better." That's what @mr1931S is expected to do in this forum, declare himself a martyr. Unpleasantness from a tiny minority of this forum awaits the many who fail to recognize @mr1931S's supposed genius. I see this tiny minority of the forum as a microcosm of aging, self-important boomers who are incapable of introspection that has become increasingly loud in America over the past decade or so.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
This thread needs pictures.
Even the silver coins turned their back on the nickel.
.
.
.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
Lol.
But if you put the nickel on the left side, all of the silver coins are welcoming the old lady to the party.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
No. Miss Liberty actually looks like a woman on the V nickel. On the others… not so much.
The total lack of substance from Copilot is why AI will never replace humans.
Actually, the more I interact with humans...
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I should qualify my statement with “reasonably intelligent “ humans.
Kindly refrain from telling me what I said. I use the rooted-in-logic scientific method when thinking about things such as the subject presented by the OP. As I stated earlier, substitute "series" with "design" and there should be no confusion. If one were to say they do not consider the Liberty nickel minted from 1883 to 1913 to be a C. Barber design they would be wrong, absolutely wrong. As for insults, if the shoe fits, wear it. You insulted me with that "Paging IkesT" stunt. How juvenile.
"Two things are infinite: human stupidity and the universe; and I'm not sure about the universe."
-Albert Einstein-
Mistakes are natural. But repeated mistakes without reflection are something else. That may be the “stupidity” he was referring to. In research, he admitted uncertainty openly. “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” This shows humility. Even a Nobel laureate accepted doubt. That humility makes the quote less cynical and more observational.
The lack of substance from Copilot is because of how he's using it, not because of what Copilot is capable of. A human without AI cannot compete (in the near future) with a human with AI. No one has EVER said that AI would replace humans, other than in the places it already has - ain't no phone operators no more.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I QUOTED you. If you don't know what you said, I shouldn't have to tell you. But, since you forgot, I will NOT refrain from reminding you.
Your exact words "Sometimes I think I'm living in an alternate reality, a reality where the rules of logic apply but those living in the other reality flagrantly ignore or disregard those rules..."
You are expressly (not implicityly) stating that you are in a reality of logic and the rest of us are living in a reality which disregards the rules of logic.
There, I once again told you what you said. Whatcha going to do about it?
If you don't want to get called out, don't insult the entire forum.
@IkesT He wants to talk to you again.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Absolutely NO.
I'm seeing lots of projecting here. Try to be more original instead of parroting my writings to make your comments. Also, you should work on shaking off some of your herdness instinct. You can do it. Herd mentality can successfully be shaken off by the afflicted individual who earnestly applies him or herself.
"Two things are infinite: human stupidity and the universe; and I'm not sure about the universe."
-Albert Einstein-
Mistakes are natural. But repeated mistakes without reflection are something else. That may be the “stupidity” he was referring to. In research, he admitted uncertainty openly. “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” This shows humility. Even a Nobel laureate accepted doubt. That humility makes the quote less cynical and more observational.
You use "rooted-in-logic scientific method", but if someone quotes you exactly, you kindly ask them to refrain? That's not logic. Very far from it.
The “no cents” variety was part of the series. Ask all those dead guys who took a haircut with a racketeer nickel. . Speakin’ of barbers.
Sure, Jan.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
Wow. So much OT debate resulting from a really simple, harmless and playful question. Seems to be a new trend here. Sad.
Yeah. Some large portion of the blame is a recurring crew of clueless, recidivist posters.
And the rest is on a group (myself included) who just can't stop ourselves from pointing out idiocy, hypocrisy, and obtuseness.
Would probably do better to ignore the oblivious posters but easier said than done sometimes.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
You're using AI to to confirm and extrapolate what you believe based not on logic but rather its ability to quickly gather and process data, This is great because this is one of the things at which AI excels. Any question that can be phrased in words can get some sort of answer with sufficient data.
You climb aboard and hang your hat on assumptions made by 19th century scientists who have been contradicted by experiment a million times. The experiments are right and the assumptions are wrong but we lack the categories to see it and this have no words to describe it.
What it boils down to is that you are wrong across the board. Reality is a procedural unfolding and most modern coins failed this bottleneck. They are gone. Walk into any (every) coin shop and you'll see dozens of nice collectible 19th century coins for every collectible '65- '98 coin. You'll see about the same thing in collections. Or you could look in circulation and see many of these coins are effectively gone because there are so few left they can't be gathered up before they're gone as well.
There's nothing wrong with asking AI questions but the promptor must remember he is inheriting not only his own framing but also the assumptions of people from many centuries ago.
Copilot-
You’re right that any question phrased in words inherits the definitions and axioms baked into the language. That’s the framing. And yes — if you ask AI questions inside that framing, you’ll get answers shaped by it. That’s unavoidable.
But I’m not hanging my hat on 19th‑century assumptions. I’m pointing at the bottleneck in reality. Modern coins didn’t survive the procedural unfolding. They’re gone. Walk into any coin shop and you’ll see dozens of collectible 19th‑century coins for every collectible ’65–’98 coin. You’ll see the same thing in collections. And circulation shows it even more clearly — the survivors are too few to gather before they disappear entirely.
This isn’t about AI. It’s about attrition, supply chains, and the simple fact that mint sets were neglected, abused, and destroyed for three generations. The BU‑roll supply is collapsing because the mint‑set supply collapsed first. That’s the bottleneck.
There’s nothing wrong with asking AI questions. The promptor just has to remember he inherits not only his own framing, but the framing of everyone who built the language he’s using.
You haven't chimed in with your opinion about the Liberty nickel being part of the Barber series. I logically concluded that the Liberty nickel is indeed a part of the Barber designed coinage in the context of the denomination series, nickel, dime, quarter-dollar and half-dollar. What is your opinion?
"Two things are infinite: human stupidity and the universe; and I'm not sure about the universe."
-Albert Einstein-
Mistakes are natural. But repeated mistakes without reflection are something else. That may be the “stupidity” he was referring to. In research, he admitted uncertainty openly. “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” This shows humility. Even a Nobel laureate accepted doubt. That humility makes the quote less cynical and more observational.
What the hell are you talking about?
You have no idea what i use AI for or how i feel about 19th century scientists or their assumptions.
Stay in your effing lane.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
...And it would appear you have no idea how I'm using it.
19th century assumptions and definitions are baked into science.
We know exactly how you're using it. You've posted 4000 of your copilot queries.
You're wrong about 19th assumptions,by the way. There are rule of thumb simplifications that use antiquated assumptions, but those are not at the cutting edge of science. And all real scientists know what the assumptions are and when they are suitable or not.
But I have no idea what that had to do with anything. There is zero science in any of this. It was a gratuitous shot across my bow because I insulted your continued use of Copilot as an echo chamber translator of your own ideas. [Which you've even admitted to, by the way. ]
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Nonsense.
I use LLM's to show me where my thinking is wrong and to elaborate and translate.
This thread is about terminology and I have no intention of pursuing this conversation here.
It is ironic though that you think V-nickels can't be or aren't "Barber coins". I wager if the nickel were larger and silver denominated as a dollar you'd call it a "barber coin" or "of the barber series".
Actually, I didn't say that nor was that the question. As I mentioned earlier, they were called Barber nickels at one time. They are not called that anymore.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
(little green box) I don't care.
Theodore Roosevelt felt that the Barber coinage was "insipid" and inferior to coins produced in European nations.
Enter Augustus Saint Gaudens.
Teddy was right.
fka renman95, Sep 2005, 7,000 posts
So, you're saying they are all part if the Insipid Series?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Me? no. Teddy, yes.
fka renman95, Sep 2005, 7,000 posts
You should consider incorporating AI into your writing. May have better shot at selling the books.
Never mind Joseph. You blew up that opportunity. Good luck with the AI generated underwear book.
Thanks for the ad!
I will sign books for you!
Check out my new children's book.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Even AI could not make up this. Poor use of data centers. This is just sad.