Options
How many are waiting for the sniffer?
grip
Posts: 9,962 ✭✭✭✭✭
I wonder how many genuine( 91) coins will be submitted once the sniffer
comes into play.I have my own little pile that I know for sure that
are not AT.
comes into play.I have my own little pile that I know for sure that
are not AT.
0
Comments
say AT for the graders than it is NT. Remember that one mans NT
is another mans environmental damage so you have to get by more than just AT to get a grade.
<< <i>
Hey. That's me.
For those that might not get the joke of the photo as the file name indicates that was the Smell-O-Scope.
John
Never view my other linked pages. They aren't coin related.
The dog is getting ready for the "big one"
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
<< <i>Text
The dog is getting ready for the "big one"
That is animal cruelty LOLOLOL.
<< <i>
<< <i>Text
The dog is getting ready for the "big one"
That is animal cruelty LOLOLOL. >>
How to track wanted orbs.
I guess a guy had to be in 'em to appreciate 'em.
https://acoinshop.com/ —-> https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
https://acoinshop.com/ —-> https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>I do believe there are many people that have no clue about sniffer technology. It can, and will, detect chemicals it is programmed to detect. It will not detect the presence of chemicals/agents it is not programmed for. Samples can be subjected to a gas chromatograph, but it is unlikely this will happen. Standard toning, whether accelerated or natural is, in many cases, identical. The sniffer will not differentiate. I have used this technology in industry in the past. Cheers, RickO >>
I do not think that GC will be useful here. Basically the sniffer [it don't have squat to do with smells, smelling or odors] uses conventional spectrophotometric techniques wherein the radiation is reflected off of the coin surface since it can't pass through it. It should be fairly easy to detect things like putty.
<< <i>I do believe there are many people that have no clue about sniffer technology. It can, and will, detect chemicals it is programmed to detect. It will not detect the presence of chemicals/agents it is not programmed for. Samples can be subjected to a gas chromatograph, but it is unlikely this will happen. Standard toning, whether accelerated or natural is, in many cases, identical. The sniffer will not differentiate. I have used this technology in industry in the past. Cheers, RickO >>
Concur. The gas detectors I have used in the past for fuel cell entry only tell you what part per million of VOC is detected. In my world in an aircraft fuel cell it can be assumed that the VOC is a jet fuel or a cleaning solvent used in the cell.
So all I really know is there is X number of PPM of some VOC present. Also agree with the other poster this will be more useful for some of the coating agents known to have been put on coins to fill or hide dings.
Also I think it somewhat wise for PCGS to keep whatever technology they are using somewhat secret so the bad guys don't know what it is they have to beat.
John
Never view my other linked pages. They aren't coin related.
<< <i>
<< <i>I do believe there are many people that have no clue about sniffer technology. It can, and will, detect chemicals it is programmed to detect. It will not detect the presence of chemicals/agents it is not programmed for. Samples can be subjected to a gas chromatograph, but it is unlikely this will happen. Standard toning, whether accelerated or natural is, in many cases, identical. The sniffer will not differentiate. I have used this technology in industry in the past. Cheers, RickO >>
Concur. The gas detectors I have used in the past for fuel cell entry only tell you what part per million of VOC is detected. In my world in an aircraft fuel cell it can be assumed that the VOC is a jet fuel or a cleaning solvent used in the cell.
So all I really know is there is X number of PPM of some VOC present. Also agree with the other poster this will be more useful for some of the coating agents known to have been put on coins to fill or hide dings.
Also I think it somewhat wise for PCGS to keep whatever technology they are using somewhat secret so the bad guys don't know what it is they have to beat.
John >>
I do not think that VOCs are the issue.
<< <i>I'm skeptical the sniffer will do much to resolve the AT/NT controversy. >>
Personally I think their backs have been pressed to the wall by this so-called "controversy." Their market has been crying for something, and they're giving it to them. Personally I think this whole measure is very extreme. And I'll add this. The day I feel as if I have to rely on a machine to dictate to me whether I can appreciate a coin is the day I throw in the towel on this hobby.
Good point. And many, here and hobby-wide, appreciate artificially tarnished coins. The problem is, they want them graded and slabbed as well. As long as the 'standards' demand original surfaces, body bags for AT will continue. Of course, the coins that have been puttied etc, should be detected and rejected - I assume no one wants them.... (hmmm I guess no one does) - except to sell.
<< <i>Personally I have been waiting to send a coin back in that I am completely convinced is NT and the leading expert on the series agreed even before PCGS body bagged it. If you guys are telling me the sniffer isn't designed to get good coins in graded holders that is really going to upset me as isn't that what PCGS stated? Can someone from PCGS respond and let me know if my BB coin is worth sending back for the sniffer treatment? >>
I agree! I thought that's what it was all about (the sniffer).
Empty Nest Collection
<< <i>Good point. And many, here and hobby-wide, appreciate artificially tarnished coins. The problem is, they want them graded and slabbed as well. As long as the 'standards' demand original surfaces, body bags for AT will continue. Of course, the coins that have been puttied etc, should be detected and rejected - I assume no one wants them.... (hmmm I guess no one does) - except to sell.
RickO, I find myself, again, agreeing with you, but only in part. The weak spot, again, is, nobody can define "AT," or, as you otherwise choose to put it, "artificially tarnished coins," in any other than a very broad way that wouldn't hold up to so much as the slightest, most crude and unskilled cross-examination or scrutiny. That's where we always seem to part company, on your acceptance of that, what I'll call, arbitrary and capricious, if not, totally illusory term.
Two weeks later I showed him the Jimmy Hayes catalog (Stacks 1985 or so). A collection every dealer and knowledgeable collector had waited years to see. There was a color plate of the coin. The same. I'm sure at some time in the past it had been dipped.
Just like the 1901-S 25c MS68+ PCGS had been. That toning is definitely fake. It only took 20 years to form. Too bad you are too busy enjoying the coins. What kind of numismatist are you?
Dipping nice coins has contributed to the ruination of coins orders of magnitude greater than coins hurt by AT.
<< <i>Dipping nice coins has contributed to the ruination of coins orders of magnitude greater than coins hurt by AT. >>
On a serious note... this is really true. Originality cannot be "restored" when washed away.
https://acoinshop.com/ —-> https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5