Part I.
Hi Guys.
After spending a long time reading the recent WAF thread on opaque diamonds, I thought I would just try and spice things up, and bring the "experts" back onto track.
I couldn't quite believe the replies actually, and the sheer arrogance of a few people posting- who for some reason seem to delight in trying to make others look stupid, by raising the most absurd points, and turning the very real question of opaque enamel, into a battle of the reputations, weighing up vet bring back, vet estate clearance stories against what certain experts claim to know, as well as denouncing anyone and everything that stands in the path of those who are clinging to old and very wrong stories about opaque enamel.
It seems that the "Monkeys" who are fighting over the last Banana, don't actually eat bananas! The few threads about this have been going on for a long time now, and apart from bitching and moaning, I don't see any effort being made to actually research what they are fighting over. People are talking down their noses at others, belittling common sense, and logical - and reasonable questions, and shrugging the whole thing off as a "you either believe of you don't, now move on!" in other words shut up! Or, in other words, we who are bitching the loudest, and demanding the most respect, demanding the attention of those who don't have any right to challenge us, we don't actually do any research, because we only know how to bitch and moan and make others feel stupid! We only know how to enforce our opinion on others. It is pathetic, it really is.
I have seen questions raised, used in defense of, or in support of, absolute crap. Questions pertaining to everything but what should be discussed. It is clear that many people who are fiercely defending their opinions, (pro as well as contra) are doing so by way of verbal abuse instead of actual research. I have seen my name mentioned on one of these threads at WAF, and mentioned in such a way as if everyone should be waiting for the release of my latest
book as the second bloody coming - after my book is released, all will be well, all will be explained…. That's probably as far away from the truth as it gets. As much as my book deals with the errors of past publications, and goes a long way in clearing up many misnomers and errors, the meat of it is based on actual research, research that anyone can do, and research that must be done in future. Hands on research, not any fairy tales first, or reputations first - that's the old way, and the reason why we have all been screwed for so long, because these reputations are about as sordid as they get, and have been, and are still, poisoning the minds of anyone who gets in their way.
The only way forward now, the only way to answer tricky questions that history cannot explain in black and white, it to use the assistance of forensic science. The only way to challenge a banana-eating, tree-swinging ape, who derives pleasure from belittling others - an ape who has seen 200 million bananas, yet is incapable of bringing any [actual] bananas to the table, is to slap him down with hard research, honest research, research that is conclusive and cannot be challenged by any reputation or story.
I have covered the topic of opaque vs. translucent enamel in my book, with many examples, on many pages. The topic of applying forensic science to our hobby to answer questions" has been briefly addresses here by me a few times, but is complicated and can only be touched on, on a forum post. It is covered in detail in my book, and once read and understood, will become clear that it is concussive, and will triumph over any all every opinion, regardless of what we want to think, or would prefer to believe.
I will present one example below that is not in the book, but may hopefully light a spark in the minds of those who may want to answer questions like "Is it real" for themselves without having to read through 20 pages of banana-republic posts first, and wade knee deep through slain users and battered egos, just to gather 1 or 2 bits of semi-coherent information.
The following images, divided into three parts, show two official membership badges. One makes use of translucent red enamel, the other opaque red. Both badges are unquestionably authentic, and both badges were unquestionably made using the identical obverse and reverse dies. The possible time period that they can be attributed to is a complicated one, but one that I have successfully addressed in my book. I will only address a few main pointers on this thread, but enough to give you the general idea of how you can inspect an item, and be 100% sure of the results without 1000 bickering apes throwing bananas at you.
You don't have permission to view attachments.
FIG1. Obverse of both badges.
You don't have permission to view attachments.
FIG2. Reverse of both badges.
Why are both authentic?
You don't have permission to view attachments.
FIG3. A magnified image of the die flaw on the number 1 in the RZM code M1/ of the translucent badge
You don't have permission to view attachments.
FIG4. A magnified image of the identical die flaw on the number 1 in the RZM code M1/ of the opaque badge.