Electrum
"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message ... .... ... In the August issue of the Celator, in an article titled "Electrum," Michael Marotta broke free from this long tradition and defined it differently, as gold alloyed with any appreciable amount of silver. Actually, as I read it, he offered many differing definitions of electrum, without claiming any as his own. Thus, Saints and other U.S. gold coins "qualify as electrum issues." Yes. And? According to British standards, US silver coinage is not silver (92.5%+), but is debased at 90%. So what? One man's meat is another man's croissant. A very interesting perspective. Change the meaning of words, and you can rewrite history. The article includes some very nice coins, all the ancient ones being from CNG. ....and? I'm immersed right now in the issue of these first coins. Fascinating stuff. Talking about paradigm changes. and picking nits? There wouldn't be a personal aspect to this criticism, would there Reid? |
|
"A.Gent" wrote
"Reid Goldsborough" wrote ... In the August issue of the Celator, Gee, I am sorry that I could not find the original post. I got an error message: Message id or article number not found. I searched for ELECTRUM in the title from August 8 forward and found only A. Gent and Phil DeMayo, for a total of two posts. I searched for "electrum" in the body from October 1 forard and got the same result. I am crestfallen... However, there is an upside! I have discovered that A. Gent is a Celator reader with an interest in ancients. That is a pleasant surprise. Mike M. ANA R-162953 |
"Michael E. Marotta" wrote in message m... "A.Gent" wrote "Reid Goldsborough" wrote ... In the August issue of the Celator, Gee, I am sorry that I could not find the original post. I got an error message: Message id or article number not found. I searched for ELECTRUM in the title from August 8 forward and found only A. Gent and Phil DeMayo, for a total of two posts. I searched for "electrum" in the body from October 1 forard and got the same result. I am crestfallen... However, there is an upside! I have discovered that A. Gent is a Celator reader with an interest in ancients. That is a pleasant surprise. Mike M. ANA R-162953 Hi Mike. Prepare to raise your crest. (I note the original post is showing on Google yet either - just my reply and Phil's.) Not to worry. Here is the original post: ======================= "Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message ... Coins are history as much as they are money. Many find the history and the art more appealing than the finance and the economics. And the further back you go, the more interesting it gets. Go all the way back to the first coins, and you reach, among other things, an entirely different metal. Electum. Ever since the first century A.D. Roman naturalist and writer Pliny in his Natural History (33.80-1) defined electrum as gold alloyed naturally or artificially with 20 percent or more silver, scholars have used this definition. In the August issue of the Celator, in an article titled "Electrum," Michael Marotta broke free from this long tradition and defined it differently, as gold alloyed with any appreciable amount of silver. Thus, Saints and other U.S. gold coins "qualify as electrum issues." And the ancients used electrum, not gold, for hundreds of years after the introduction of coinage, not for a generation or two, as everyone else believes, before most minting authorities switched over to bimetalic coinage. A very interesting perspective. Change the meaning of words, and you can rewrite history. The article includes some very nice coins, all the ancient ones being from CNG. I'm immersed right now in the issue of these first coins. Fascinating stuff. Talking about paradigm changes. -- Coin Collecting: Consumer Guide: http://rg.ancients.info/guide Glomming: Coin Connoisseurship: http://rg.ancients.info/glom Bogos: Counterfeit Coins: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos ======================== Now, I knew that you didn't need me to defend you, but I couldn't resist putting in my tuppence... As to my interests: Eclectic. I own exactly *one* genuine ancient, and one knock-off of an Athena tet. (Like to read about them, though) I like most numis fields (except modern commems - urgghhh) but my real interest lies in Aussie colonial coinage (read: British, c. 1770-1911) and mainly the so-called "Proclamation Coins" of 1800. Anyways, I'll leave you to compose a reply to the above. Its nearly midnight in Sydney - I've got work in seven hours - so I'm off. Cheers all |
"A.Gent" wrote in message u... (I note the original post is showing on Google yet either - just my reply and Phil's.) sigghhhh I meant "isn't" |
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 15:19:40 +1000, "A.Gent"
wrote: According to British standards... Without realizing it, it seems, you've pointed to the crux of the issue, right there. Standards. How we use a particular word is a standard. The definition of electrum as a gold and silver alloyed with at least 20 percent silver is a standard. Everybody uses the word this way, scholars as well as collectors. Well, except Michael. By diverging from this standard, he was able to greatly expand the number and types of coins in ancient times that are "electrum" and not gold, not to mention calling U.S. gold coins "electrum." Please note that this is not an attempt to start some junky flamewar with ****y, picayune criticisms. This is, or could be, a debate about matters of substance directly related to the purpose of this newsgroup, coins. I disagreed with Michael's approach and am criticizing it. He can elect to respond, or not, his choice of course. This is not a personal criticism. I'm not calling Michael names, making up lying accusations about him, impugning his parenthood, threatening him, or doing any of the other junk that people do here, and elsewhere, because, well, they can. I'm focusing on the subject matter, which is one I'm very interested in and involved with right now and have been for some months. Here's my original message since it doesn't appear to have shown up for some: Coins are history as much as they are money. Many find the history and the art more appealing than the finance and the economics. And the further back you go, the more interesting it gets. Go all the way back to the first coins, and you reach, among other things, an entirely different metal. Electrum. Ever since the first century A.D. Roman naturalist and writer Pliny in his Natural History (33.80-1) defined electrum as gold alloyed naturally or artificially with 20 percent or more silver, scholars have used this definition. In the August issue of the Celator, in an article titled "Electrum," Michael Marotta broke free from this long tradition and defined it differently, as gold alloyed with any appreciable amount of silver. Thus, Saints and other U.S. gold coins "qualify as electrum issues." And the ancients used electrum, not gold, for hundreds of years after the introduction of coinage, not for a generation or two, as everyone else believes, before most minting authorities switched over to bimetallic coinage. A very interesting perspective. Change the meaning of words, and you can rewrite history. The article includes some very nice coins, all the ancient ones being from CNG. I'm immersed right now in the issue of these first coins. Fascinating stuff. Talking about paradigm changes. -- Coin Collecting: Consumer Guide: http://rg.ancients.info/guide Glomming: Coin Connoisseurship: http://rg.ancients.info/glom Bogos: Counterfeit Coins: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos |
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 15:19:40 +1000, "A.Gent"
wrote: According to British standards, US silver coinage is not silver (92.5%+), but is debased at 90%. Would you write an article about debased coinage through history and include the entire run of circulating U.S. silver coins in it? U.S. silver coins aren't debased. They've always been .900 silver (with minor exceptions). This is the "standard" that's used in this country -- going back to the concept of standards again. Virtually all circulating U.S. silver coins are .900, made of this purity for sound reasons (for one thing, they're more durable, with added copper, than sterling). Saying that U.S. silver coins aren't made of silver would be the same kind of mistake Michael made by saying that pre-Alexander the Great gold coins weren't made of gold. -- Coin Collecting: Consumer Guide: http://rg.ancients.info/guide Glomming: Coin Connoisseurship: http://rg.ancients.info/glom Bogos: Counterfeit Coins: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos |
Reid Goldsborough wrote:
In the August issue of the Celator, in an article titled "Electrum," Michael Marotta broke free from this long tradition and defined it differently, as gold alloyed with any appreciable amount of silver. Thus, Saints and other U.S. gold coins "qualify as electrum issues." Huh? Aren't Saints and other U.S. gold coins 90% gold and 10% copper? How would this qualify as "electrum" according to either yours or MEM's definition? -- Bob |
Reid wrote: "The definition of electrum as a gold and silver alloyed with at
least 20 percent silver is a standard. Everybody uses the word this way, scholars as well as collectors. Well, except Michael." And some experts in metallurgy. For those of you who aren't subscribers to The Celator, here is the excerpt pertaining to Reid's comment above: "Some metallurgists call any alloy of silver and gold 'electrum.' By that standard, the British sovereign is electrum. Most United States 'gold' coins qualify as electrum issues." Michael later states that classical electrum may not meet the needs of the modern world. Reid: "Ever since the first century A.D. Roman naturalist and writer Pliny in his Natural History (33.80-1) defined electrum as gold alloyed naturally or artificially with 20 percent or more silver, scholars have used this definition." Scholars that adhere to Pliny's definition, that is... Pliny also wrote that porcupines shoot out their quills when provoked. His many observations should be taken with a grain of salt. In my opinion, his use of the fraction 1/5 was purely arbitrary. (What would you call an issue containing 19% silver?) For the sake of expediency, the term "electrum" has been applied generically to any gold/silver alloy, no matter what the ratio. It simplifies things, don't you think? You yourself have admitted on more than one occasion that language changes. According to Isadore of Seville, my brooch from the Baltic is "electrum." I prefer to call it amber. Marotta's was a good article, informative and comprehensive. I'm sure you agree. Anka Z Co-president of the once thriving, but now defunct, Tommy John Fan Club. Go, Lake County Captains! |
Ankaaz wrote:
Reid wrote: "The definition of electrum as a gold and silver alloyed with at least 20 percent silver is a standard. Everybody uses the word this way, scholars as well as collectors. Well, except Michael." And some experts in metallurgy. For those of you who aren't subscribers to The Celator, here is the excerpt pertaining to Reid's comment above: "Some metallurgists call any alloy of silver and gold 'electrum.' By that standard, the British sovereign is electrum. Most United States 'gold' coins qualify as electrum issues." Michael later states that classical electrum may not meet the needs of the modern world. You'll find electrum defined that vaguely in almost any dictionary. Reid: "Ever since the first century A.D. Roman naturalist and writer Pliny in his Natural History (33.80-1) defined electrum as gold alloyed naturally or artificially with 20 percent or more silver, scholars have used this definition." Scholars that adhere to Pliny's definition, that is... Pliny also wrote that porcupines shoot out their quills when provoked. His many observations should be taken with a grain of salt. In my opinion, his use of the fraction 1/5 was purely arbitrary. (What would you call an issue containing 19% silver?) For the sake of expediency, the term "electrum" has been applied generically to any gold/silver alloy, no matter what the ratio. It simplifies things, don't you think? You yourself have admitted on more than one occasion that language changes. According to Isadore of Seville, my brooch from the Baltic is "electrum." I prefer to call it amber. Excuse me, your Latin is showing. ;-) Alan 'Iberian Show and Tell' |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:36 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CollectingBanter.com