DD, your last post is simply ludicrous! You state that NGE could tell more about the hammer and the handle being original or not from my first pic. There is no way. I am a baseball card expert (have been collecting T206's and Vintage Cards for 30 years). I can tell if a card is original most of the time from a scan, but cannot tell if it has been altered (trimmed, recolored, etc.) unless I examine it in person usually. The same could be said for telling if this hammer's handle is the original or not. I have it in person and I can tell you I have owned enough tools and been to enough flea markets in my lifetime to state it is the original handle. There are no shams holding the handle in place to the head (as one has to sham a new handle that is undersized as you two state this one is). Even though the entire handle is corroded, the metal on the head actually seems to be the same metal as on the handle. Also, there is no sign of welding either. The handle simply fits perfectly snug to the head. You said there is no way I can tell if the handle is original when I have the hammer in hand. However, you state NGE can tell this from a picture. This is simply proposterous to say the least.
Tell you what, since it worked with Beale. When it came time to put up or shut up, be didn't put up (though, he probably won't shut up either
). I will make you and/or NGE a wager. Both of you seem to think you believe the handle is not the original and the hammer was made after 1900. I will be both of you any amount of money (up to $100k again) that the handle is original to the hammer and/or the hammer is much older than 1900. Plus the loser(s) has/have to pay the expense of having tests done by a credible University that can date the hammer and come to a conclusion on the handle. I know from experience in different collectibles that nobody can ascertain a small detail such as you two state by looking at a scan (regarding the handle being replaced). I also know that even non-experts can tell more than an expert about small details of an item such as this when looking at it in person.
You say I am bashing other people. However, I am only defending my statements against the bashing from you, Beale and NGE. Am I not allowed to do this - especially when I have an object in hand and can tell more about it than you can from looking at a picture?
I have never claimed to be smarter than anyone on here. All I have claimed is what I have found. And, I have more evidence than just this hammer btw. I would again wager that I have more evidence I have found Swift's mines than anybody else - period. I have been contacted by many experts on Swift and spoken with them on the phone. It is funny that all of the Swift "experts" I have spoken with believe me when I tell them about my findings, yet you and a couple of others are worried whether a hammer is a ball peen or a chasing hammer (when they are both used for practically the same purpose in metal working). I believe why NGE has made the outrageous comment that the handle is not original is that it would prove the hammer's age, since these hammers had metal handles before the 1800's. This comment is simply outrageous. Not only are there no shaming nor damage to the head (that would have resulted if the handle was beaten in tightly), the handle is solidly attached and does not even wiggle (it is hard to find new hammers that are not made from one piece of metal that don't wiggle when pulled on). Also, use a little common sense on this one - IF the hammer had an original wooden handle as NGE has suggested, why would anyone replace it with a skinny metal handle, as it would be much easier to replace a wooden handle with a wooden handle (plus, easier to hold in your hand, as this skinny metal handle is really awkward to grip)
I will probably have the hammer dated by a respected University or Society before publishing my book - unless you and/or NGE would like to take me up on my wager now??
Beale - BTW, the wager doesn't have to be for $100k - that is simply the most I could wager. Heck, I will bet you as low as $1000 if you want - PLMK (anything lower wouldn't be worth it - especially since I am saving the good evidence and pics for my book and don't want to ruin the surprise). BTW - you mention showing proof of treasure - I wasn't born yesterday.
DD - One last thing, as I just noticed your last post while I was typing. You state I am attacking, yet you aren't - I just don't get that one. TBH, we are both trying to prove our points I thought. However, if I am attacking, you must be as well.
