READ "Perfection by Mere Attachment; Priorities" in Section 28.5 (In re Nicolosi, 4 UCC Rep. 111 (Ohio 1966)). Why didn't the jewelry store, Rike-Kumler, file a financing statement to protect its security interest in the ring? What argument did the trustee make as to why the ring should not be considered "consumer goods" so that he-the trustee-should be able to take the ring as an asset belonging to the estate of the debtor? What do you think of the court's ruling on this issue?*