The fourth possibility, which I already mentioned but Mark did not cover, is that the coins are absolutely genuine, but a skeptical expert was consulted to provide evidence
Now correct me if I am wrong, but whether anyone believes that the coins are real or not is irrelevant isn't it? Surely if the coins have been deemed
fake in a court of law, and there are no appeals against that ruling, then they are
fake. Isn't that how the law works in America?
I posted to my blog about the "reliability" of SEM for use in authentication:
http://jan.imperialcoins.com/blog/2012/07/05/arnold-weiss-convicted-and-coins-condemned-but-is-the-test-used-reliable/
Back in the late 80's/early 90's the "Black Sea Hoard" was declared genuine using SEM. I would really like to see the report...
Again, I refer to my above statement. I don't know much about the "
Black Sea Hoard" aside from what I have picked up on
Forvm, however in this case the coins have been declared
fake by a court of law, and on that judgement rests the "punishment" that has been handed down. (I'm not aware that the "
Black Sea Hoard" ever
had a court case about it?) You can question the reliability of the method, however unless the judgement is over-turned, the coins are deemed
fake and therefore the test was deemed reliable.
If I've been insufficiently clear on this, I really don't like the deaf-dumb-blind monkey analogy, in a case where the people the analogy is directed at, will not have any opportunity to present their sides of the story. 1 misdemeanor involving 1 party, 70 hours + creative writing is all we actually know. Fairness and justice calls us to respect and move on, rather than make bigger mountains out of molehills we cannot see.
As I have mentioned, the court has declared the coins
fake, there is no appeal against that ruling, and at the moment the coins are going to be destroyed.
Do we all agree with the verdict? Obviously not.
Do we have to accept the verdict? Unfortunately yes.
As we have to accept the verdict, and as information is relatively
scarce, then there are obvious questions that spin off of the
side of the verdict. As those questions involve people and organisations that have a say in our hobby, naturally I, and others, have voiced some of them.
Andrew mentions fairness and justice, and that people core to this case cannot present their
side of the story. Well, justice has been served according to the US legal system, and therefore any questions brought forth from this justice are certainly within the bounds of fairness. Also, as this is a public
forum, as long as their story does not contradict the ruling, there is nothing stopping anyone from presenting their
side of the story here.
(Maybe there is a gagging order
applied to the verdict?, in which case I reckon that falls nicely under the "Speak no Evil"
part mentioned earlier
)
There is a great saying, which is basically "You can't con an honest
man". Without a lack of integrity, a large amount of greed, a
complete failure of moral judgement, simply being dishonest, or a combination of all of that to a greater or lesser degree, Dr
Weiss could not have been caught out. The same applies to anyone that came out of this out of pocket!
Finally the word "respect" was mentioned. The way I see it is that should we show respect for anyone that has been implicated in what has been judged to be essentially a scam? Even if they are a victim, they will have allowed themselves to become a victim by their own actions. And surely by asking questions, are we not showing respect for the judgement?
regards
Mark