Sponsian? You gotta be kidding me... right?

[Filat]

29 minutes ago, CPK said:

@Ocatarinetabellatchitchix

@Ocatarinetabellatchitchix пока молчит. Жду ответы на мои вопросы и от Вас, CPK,
 

[Ocatarinetabellatchitchix]

@FilatI gave you my answer in Klingon. Sorry but Google translater won’t work for this one!

[Filat]

17 minutes ago, Ocatarinetabellatchitchix said:

@FilatI gave you my answer in Klingon. Sorry but Google translater won’t work for this one!

это означает → ответа нет.
 

[Filat]

49 minutes ago, Ocatarinetabellatchitchix said:

 

очередной вопрос для @Ocatarinetabellatchitchix ,@CPK и других комментаторов данного форума → что мы видим на концах желтых стрелок на ребре "the Sponsianus coins", на картинке ниже? → см. Рис. 8., по ссылке:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0274285

Edited January 5, 2023 by Filat

[Filat]

так как ответы моих оппонентов отсутствуют, сообщаю (см. картинку ниже):
1. на концах зеленых стрелок мы видим  крупные каверны (объединение мелких пузырьков воздуха, которые лопнули в процессе литья данного изделия);
2. на концах желтых стрелок мы видим множество мелких пузырьков  воздуха, которые не лопнули, в процессе литья данного изделия.
 

Edited January 5, 2023 by Filat

[AussieCollector]

I'm going to go against the flow here and say yes, on balance, I believe these are probably contemporary coins from the 3rd century.

Honestly, we don't know nearly as much as we think we do and so much is lost to history.

There is so much that happened in the crisis of the third century, who knows.

Rather than reject a new possibility because it would change the history books, think about re-framing your understanding.

[John Conduitt]

18 minutes ago, AussieCollector said:

I'm going to go against the flow here and say yes, on balance, I believe these are probably contemporary coins from the 3rd century.

Honestly, we don't know nearly as much as we think we do and so much is lost to history.

There is so much that happened in the crisis of the third century, who knows.

Rather than reject a new possibility because it would change the history books, think about re-framing your understanding.

Coin collectors are used to history being re-written. They're responsible for much of that re-writing. Ask anyone who collects Parthian, Celtic or Saxon coins. Often they're not even re-writing it - they're writing it for the first time.

[AussieCollector]

55 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

Coin collectors are used to history being re-written. They're responsible for much of that re-writing. Ask anyone who collects Parthian, Celtic or Saxon coins. Often they're not even re-writing it - they're writing it for the first time.

Ok, so why is it being dismissed then?

Why is the null hypothesis that the theory is wrong?

Edit: actually, I suspect the null hypothesis is what it is because the research wasn't led by respected numismatists.

Edited January 5, 2023 by AussieCollector
Additional thought

[John Conduitt]

21 minutes ago, AussieCollector said:

Ok, so why is it being dismissed then?

Why is the null hypothesis that the theory is wrong?

Because of the lack of proof, even by the authors' admission. Because the theory jumps to illogical conclusions while dismissing logical ones. There's a lot of detail in the discussion above. My view is that nothing is proven (as was the case before this paper).

That doesn't mean they're wrong. But the authors chose to create a lot of fuss in the media, knowing they hadn't proven anything. So a lot of noise is coming their way to the contrary.

[Filat]

25 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

But the authors chose to create a lot of fuss in the media, knowing they hadn't proven anything. So a lot of noise is coming their way to the contrary.

авторы, скорее всего, не коллекционеры и плохо разбираются в вопросах подлинности монет. 
 

[AussieCollector]

25 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

Because of the lack of proof, even by the authors' admission. Because the theory jumps to illogical conclusions while dismissing logical ones. There's a lot of detail in the discussion above. My view is that nothing is proven (as was the case before this paper).

That doesn't mean they're wrong. But the authors chose to create a lot of fuss in the media, knowing they hadn't proven anything. So a lot of noise is coming their way to the contrary.

There is proof, it's just that you haven't accepted the proof, choosing other theories over the one presented.

The onus isn't on them to prove beyond all doubt. They've presented a case with a theory.

[Ryro]

9 minutes ago, Filat said:

авторы, скорее всего, не коллекционеры и плохо разбираются в вопросах подлинности монет. 
 

Is anyone else just ignoring this?

It really does come off as nonsense. I translated the first one or two and then realized it wasn't worth my time. 

Create your own thread and you can utpa itpu ntopi igpa atinla ... for all anyone cares. 

Your argument isn't cohesive and becomes all the less so due to Google not translating butt breath correctly. 

It's a Ryro joint. Post a coin or make your own thread about whatever you'd like. 

[Ryro]

26 minutes ago, AussieCollector said:

There is proof, it's just that you haven't accepted the proof, choosing other theories over the one presented.

The onus isn't on them to prove beyond all doubt. They've presented a case with a theory.

The proof is in our hearts and we just have to believe?

I thought the title of the thread said it all...

[John Conduitt]

32 minutes ago, AussieCollector said:

There is proof, it's just that you haven't accepted the proof, choosing other theories over the one presented.

The onus isn't on them to prove beyond all doubt. They've presented a case with a theory.

No, there isn't. The only new 'proof' relates to deposits and they admit that no study has ever been conducted to show how such deposits form on gold (or anything else) and what they might prove. So their paper has no new proof, it just re-opens the debate.

And the onus is on them to prove at least beyond some doubt before announcing to the BBC that they found a new emperor. I've already had this exact discussion in this thread, though.

Edited January 6, 2023 by John Conduitt

[AussieCollector]

54 minutes ago, Ryro said:

Is anyone else just ignoring this?

It really does come off as nonsense. I translated the first one or two and then realized it wasn't worth my time. 

Create your own thread and you can utpa itpu ntopi igpa atinla ... for all anyone cares. 

Your argument isn't cohesive and becomes all the less so due to Google not translating butt breath correctly. 

It's a Ryro joint. Post a coin or make your own thread about whatever you'd like. 

Yes, I think we're all just ignoring.

[AussieCollector]

1 hour ago, Ryro said:

The proof is in our hearts and we just have to believe?

I thought the title of the thread said it all...

[AussieCollector]

1 hour ago, John Conduitt said:

No, there isn't. The only new 'proof' relates to deposits and they admit that no study has ever been conducted to show how such deposits form on gold (or anything else) and what they might prove. So their paper has no new proof, it just re-opens the debate.

And the onus is on them to prove at least beyond some doubt before announcing to the BBC that they found a new emperor. I've already had this exact discussion in this thread, though.

I'm sorry, you're saying because the work is groundbreaking it doesn't provide proof? It does provide proof, the question is whether you're willing to consider the proof provided. No doubt we will find out more when further studies are conducted.

Just remember though, there was a time when the Koson Staters were dismissed as fakes by some experts.

In re to media, if you've ever published before, you'd know that you share your findings with media to get exposure to your article. If you read their article, they use words like "suggest" and "hypothesis". It is not their fault that the media chose the angle they did. Media will do what media do.

 

[John Conduitt]

8 hours ago, AussieCollector said:

I'm sorry, you're saying because the work is groundbreaking it doesn't provide proof? It does provide proof, the question is whether you're willing to consider the proof provided. No doubt we will find out more when further studies are conducted.

Just remember though, there was a time when the Koson Staters were dismissed as fakes by some experts.

In re to media, if you've ever published before, you'd know that you share your findings with media to get exposure to your article. If you read their article, they use words like "suggest" and "hypothesis". It is not their fault that the media chose the angle they did. Media will do what media do.

 

I would suggest that confuses evidence and proof. They are not the same.

I think anyone who has published before (I take it that you have) would know exactly how the media would treat conclusions presented like that. The guy even did an interview and didn’t express any doubt at all.

 

[Briac]

On 1/5/2023 at 4:50 AM, Filat said:

очередной вопрос для @Ocatarinetabellatchitchix ,@CPK и других комментаторов данного форума → что мы видим на концах желтых стрелок на ребре "the Sponsianus coins", на картинке ниже? → см. Рис. 8., по ссылке:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0274285

저자가 보여주는 것은 발톱과 긁힌 자국에 있는 외피와 응고물입니다. 기사를 읽었다면 질문을 하지 않았을 것입니다!

 

[Briac]

18 hours ago, Filat said:

авторы, скорее всего, не коллекционеры и плохо разбираются в вопросах подлинности монет. 
 

[Briac]

19 hours ago, AussieCollector said:

There is proof, it's just that you haven't accepted the proof, choosing other theories over the one presented.

The onus isn't on them to prove beyond all doubt. They've presented a case with a theory.

just give 1 serious and scientifical proof, it will be funny... authors themselves saied 

the authors themselves say that

- we do not have data allowing us to estimate the time that the monanies have spent in the ground

- that traces of wear can be copied easily (Becker himself did it!)

their main argument is that they can't imagine any other situation, that doesn't make it a proof, just a theory

[Briac]

18 hours ago, AussieCollector said:

I'm sorry, you're saying because the work is groundbreaking it doesn't provide proof? It does provide proof, the question is whether you're willing to consider the proof provided. No doubt we will find out more when further studies are conducted.

Just remember though, there was a time when the Koson Staters were dismissed as fakes by some experts.

In re to media, if you've ever published before, you'd know that you share your findings with media to get exposure to your article. If you read their article, they use words like "suggest" and "hypothesis". It is not their fault that the media chose the angle they did. Media will do what media do.

 

you confuse evidence with clues and lines of thought, these are totally different things, proof is argued and irrefutable, here the authors themselves question their clues, this clearly shows that there is no proof!

the title "Authenticating coins of the ‘Roman emperor’ Sponsian" say clearly than authors have their own theory before and was trying to confirm it. as I told on cointalk (where Pearson is but doesn't answer anymore) 

the 1st fault have been made by the authors when they refered in title "roman emperor" this mention tells us directly that the authors believe in the existence of Sponsianus and do not make the difference between an emperor (authority recognized by the senate) and a usurper who only ruled a tiny part of the empire for a very short time

and I find it surprising that this kind of publication comes out shortly after the publication of a book by Pearson (a geologist) on the crisis of the Third Century which is struggling to sell even on amazon you can get discount of 17% for it but not on Ikka Syvanne's books which is an historian...

[Ricardo123]

4 hours ago, Briac said:

just give 1 serious and scientifical proof,

Sorry for the poor english language. I do agree with you Briac, no real proof but surely interesting hints, will need deeper analyse of the Sponsiano coin. No SCIENTIFIC proofs. The coin is known to be forgery, but based on what SCIENTIFIC proofs ? We need honesty on both sides. On what is based assumption of forgery ? Only on opinions or SCIENTIFIC facts ? Cohen was a king, but I can give many examples he believe was modern forgery but it was prooven later were authetic ancient coins… A lot of numismatist thought it was genuine but it is only opinions. What proofs do ee have ?

[Troyden]

Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, this alone would rule out Sponsian's authenticity. One coin is far too little for that, even one that would actually look plausible.

But this coin is not plausible, it's dubious to say the least. It looks like an inept forgery, as if someone with only a passing knowledge of Roman coinage made a fake to fool some rich sucker.

[Filat]

41 minutes ago, Troyden said:

But this coin is not plausible, it's dubious to say the least. It looks like an inept forgery, as if someone with only a passing knowledge of Roman coinage made a fake to fool some rich sucker.

Браво!!!!!!!!