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