A collecting forum. CollectingBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CollectingBanter forum » Collecting newsgroups » Coins
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Electrum



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 12th 03, 06:19 AM
A.Gent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?


Ads
  #3  
Old October 12th 03, 02:17 PM
Michael E. Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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
  #4  
Old October 12th 03, 02:29 PM
A.Gent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #5  
Old October 12th 03, 02:32 PM
A.Gent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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"


  #6  
Old October 12th 03, 03:57 PM
Reid Goldsborough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #7  
Old October 12th 03, 04:26 PM
Reid Goldsborough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #8  
Old October 12th 03, 05:23 PM
Bob Flaminio
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #9  
Old October 12th 03, 05:25 PM
Ankaaz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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!

  #10  
Old October 12th 03, 05:51 PM
Alan & Erin Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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'
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The first coin - addenda Reid Goldsborough Coins 66 July 30th 03 05:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CollectingBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.