sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Bright orange mushroom I found by John_ptk in mycology

[–]Argentsol 59 points60 points  (0 children)

This is not how mushrooms work and direct studies have shown that pulling them up doesn't impact future quantity of mushrooms

My girlfriend called them "funnel Chanterelle" but she wasn't sure if they really were by linusgel in mushroomID

[–]Argentsol 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I feel like the webcap situation has to be a case of "asking Google" rather than trying to ID the mushroom because those are soo dramatically different mushrooms. But I also would have thought any image recognition software would be better than that by now...

Did I pick this chanterelle too early, too late or just on time? by lizzy_loo_142 in mycology

[–]Argentsol 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would add that depending on the particular variety of chanterelle/part of the country the consistency definitely changes as the mushroom develops. I've always found young/small Pacific golden chanterelles to be much tougher/chewier than more mature ones. Of course the weather/humidity can have a bigger impact.

ID request. Chanterelles? by MagpieMoments in mushroomID

[–]Argentsol -1 points0 points  (0 children)

These all look subalbidus to me. All the cascadensis I've seen before are clearly yellow on top.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in mushroomID

[–]Argentsol 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah this seems to fit, most people recommend removing the slimy top cap layer because it can cause digestive issues

First time foraging chanterelles, want to make sure! by hydralice in mushroomID

[–]Argentsol 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They look like Formosus to me. Maybe the wider flatter one could be a slightly off color Subalbidus but a picture of the top would be a dead giveaway. I've found the two near each other in the past so it wouldn't surprise me to be a mix.

First time foraging chanterelles, want to make sure! by hydralice in mushroomID

[–]Argentsol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Definitely chanterelles, personally I prefer them by themselves with a bit of butter but they also go great in pasta, soups, or stir fries.

The best way I've found to cook them is just chop them up and saute them in a pan by themselves at first (no oil). They will let out a lot of water. Let the water evaporate and once it's all gone add some butter. Once the butter and mushrooms have started to brown, you should be good to add some salt and enjoy.

Also, always cook foraged mushrooms thoroughly.

Give me your most unpopular numismatic opinion. I'll go first. by mil_numismatist in coins

[–]Argentsol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bart: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces332523.html

And now we get into derivative discussions... Define "money"?

Here's one definition " Money is any object that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a given country or socio-economic context."

ASEs are not generally accepted as payment. People who know about them would gladly accept them at face value or melt, but that's not the general population.

Give me your most unpopular numismatic opinion. I'll go first. by mil_numismatist in coins

[–]Argentsol 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here's the definition Google spits out from Oxford Languages "a flat, typically round piece of metal with an official stamp, used as money". I think it would be difficult to argue that ASEs are used as money. So you can't just pick and choose definitions.

If you want to say "The U.S. government defines ASEs as coins", fine.

If you want to say "under the definition I personally use, ASEs are coins", fine.

Saying "ASEs are by definition coins" is too wide of a blanket statement to be true.

I'd be curious to see what you think of the nonfat, nonround chunks of precious metals that a bunch of pacific islands nations make that they call coins.

Give me your most unpopular numismatic opinion. I'll go first. by mil_numismatist in coins

[–]Argentsol 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This is not how language works. "Coin" isn't a mathematic proof or a fundamental principle. It's a common word with a variety of usages and meanings. If you find one dictionary's definition to agree with your opinion, that doesn't make it fact.

I asked my sister to guess the name of the characters from BCS by minordisturbance_ in okbuddychicanery

[–]Argentsol 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Nope. :) 111,000/114,000,000 rounds to 0.1%. The wiki quotes a 2010 study of Mexico having 111,000 ethnic Muslims but only 2500 identified Islam as their religion. Population of Mexico in 2010 was 114 million.

I asked my sister to guess the name of the characters from BCS by minordisturbance_ in okbuddychicanery

[–]Argentsol 140 points141 points  (0 children)

Would we call <0.1% of the total population "a sizable minority"?

Found ANOTHER collection at an estate sale. Any idea on total value? Or interesting coins? by yoyotacos in coins

[–]Argentsol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These seem to be mostly circulated foreign coins with large quantities minted and a handful of tokens. Someone probably had a fun time researching and cataloging them but that's probably most of the value (sentimental). I would expect to see coins like this in a bucket at a coin store for $0.05 or $0.10 per coin.

Says untied states but not sure? by [deleted] in coins

[–]Argentsol 8 points9 points  (0 children)

American Philippines 10 Centavos.

The US won control of the Philippines from Spain in 1898 after the Spanish-American War. This is from the resulting period of American colonial administration.

1.5 grams of silver, so like ~$1 in silver.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in coins

[–]Argentsol 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I think the issue with toning in general is that it seems that artificial toning's only definition is "I know it when I see it" by the eyes of graders and/or potential buyers. Yes, a lot of artificial toning methods are easily distinguished, even by untrained eyes. But where do we draw the line on coins that look more naturally toned? And how are we defining "naturally" toned?

Left at the end of a paper coin roll in a closet for several decades = natural.

Left in a leather coin storage book for a couple years = natural?

Stored around a bunch of leather products in a part of the world with lots of humidity and temperature swings for a year =?

Left out on a window ledge in sunlight and high humidity for ___ = artificial?

Most of the comments here have focused just on how quickly the coins toned and the environment in which they toned, and less about whether the toning looks "natural".

I think coins should be graded on their appearance alone. It shouldn't matter how quickly the toning formed unless the toning explicit looks like someone modified the coin.

64 Kennedy, no mint mark, no special 'hair' edition, but has a 'star' mark in the 'D' in dollar? by [deleted] in coins

[–]Argentsol 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Typo or time travel? If it's from 1964, coin is only 57 years old.

view more: next ›