I disagree with Paul Bosco about his disagreement "with Charlie Davis about the Alan Weinberg recounting of his besting of Jack Collins and John Ford."

More to the point, dear editor, you have compounded the poor judgment exercised by running the initial account. Now, we are being treated to unwarranted assumptions about the matter based on, as Paul Bosco accurately puts it: "gossip".

"Just because it is gossip does not mean it is not information." Really? It is an unverified account that reflects unfavorably on the co-founder of NBS and another past member, neither of whom are around to defend themselves. "Others were more concerned about not have [i.e., having] to pay 'all the money' to some old lady." Really? How can that conclusion be properly made without input from the parties involved?

Three questions:

1) Would the recounting have been written if Jack and JJF were still around?
2) Would it have been published if Jack and JJF were still around?
3) Would Paul Bosco, assuming an affirmative response to queries 1 & 2, have made the same response if Jack and JJF were still around?

I have no way of gauging the accuracy of Alan Weinberg's commentary. Perhaps it is accurate; perhaps it is not. Assuming that it is, at the very least, context is lacking and it is incorrect to conclude that "Others were more concerned about not have [i.e., having] to pay 'all the money' to some old lady." If all three parties were great collectors, were not the two vying for the prize both "most concerned about acquiring a great piece" and were not both of them attempting to buy it at the lowest possible price?

It is wrong to print gossip, particularly when it reflects poorly on those who are no longer able to defend themselves.

In brief: gossip + conjecture = b--- s---.

To read the earlier E-Sylum articles, see:
NOTES FROM E-SYLUM READERS: APRIL 29, 2012: Bosco on Numismatic Gossip(www.coinbooks.org/esylum_v15n18a16.html)
ALAN WEINBERG RECALLS JACK COLLINS(www.coinbooks.org/esylum_v15n13a05.html)