Electrum

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 19:28:55 -0500, Stujoe
wrote:

When I think 'bimetallic' and 'coins', I think of coins like this:

http://www.wbcc-online.com/italy/italy1.html

not of coins made up of alloys.

OK. I see the point now. Bimetallism does in fact have different
meanings in numismatics. With ancient coins, the word is used to
convey the landmark practice of minting coin in relatively pure gold
and silver rather than in the natural or artificial gold/silver alloy
of electrum, as was the practice with the very first coins. The "bi"
here means two distinct metals in different coins, not two distinct
metals in the same coin.

--

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

Stujoe wrote:

When I think 'bimetallic' and 'coins', I think of coins like this:

http://www.wbcc-online.com/italy/italy1.html

not of coins made up of alloys.

Bingo!

Reid Goldsborough wrote:

OK. I see the point now. Bimetallism does in fact have different
meanings in numismatics. With ancient coins, the word is used to
convey the landmark practice of minting coin in relatively pure gold
and silver rather than in the natural or artificial gold/silver alloy
of electrum, as was the practice with the very first coins. The "bi"
here means two distinct metals in different coins, not two distinct
metals in the same coin.

Well, perhaps "the bimetallic monetary standard" would be a better way of
referring to the advent of a monetary system based on two distinct precious
metals (silver and gold).

Most numismatists today would think of Stu's examples when seeing the word
"bimetallic" used in reference to coinage.

P.S. - I thought you had this screen name killfiled ;-)

hint: counterfeits suck.

nit-picker wrote:

Reid Goldsborough wrote:

OK. I see the point now. Bimetallism does in fact have different
meanings in numismatics. With ancient coins, the word is used to
convey the landmark practice of minting coin in relatively pure gold
and silver rather than in the natural or artificial gold/silver alloy
of electrum, as was the practice with the very first coins. The "bi"
here means two distinct metals in different coins, not two distinct
metals in the same coin.

Well, perhaps "the bimetallic monetary standard" would be a better way of
referring to the advent of a monetary system based on two distinct precious
metals (silver and gold).

Most numismatists today would think of Stu's examples when seeing the word
"bimetallic" used in reference to coinage.

P.S. - I thought you had this screen name killfiled ;-)

Idle boast, as I learned on Friday.


hint: counterfeits suck.

Alan
'no argument'

On 13 Oct 2003 02:20:57 GMT, used (nit-picker)
wrote:

Well, perhaps "the bimetallic monetary standard" would be a better way of
referring to the advent of a monetary system based on two distinct precious
metals (silver and gold).

"Bimetallism" is the term that's used,
but the above works.

P.S. - I thought you had this screen name killfiled ;-)

I believe in redemption.

--

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

nit-picker wrote: "Bimetallic has a meaning quite different from your use of
the word to describe an 'alloy'."

....to which Reid replied: "How so?"


http://wbcc-online.com/


Anka ------ owner of six really ugly Slovenian bimetallic prototype issues,
none of which are made of electrum ;-)

Reid wrote:

"I said in a previous message that Michael didn't explicitly offer his own
definition of electrum..."


Ahhhh... I just love the sound of Reid backpedalling.





Anka Z
Co-president of the once thriving, but now defunct, Tommy John Fan Club.
Go, Lake County Captains!

Reid seems to have missed the thrust of Michael's electrum article when he
says:

"Michael didn't explicitly offer his own definition of electrum, just based his
entire argument on an assumed definition that was very broad."


Entire argument? You would have Mr. Flaminio believe that this was the gist of
Michael's article, the raison d'etre for his piece.

Tsk, tsk, Reid.



Anka Z
Co-president of the once thriving, but now defunct, Tommy John Fan Club.
Go, Lake County Captains!

On 13 Oct 2003 03:37:43 GMT, (Ankaaz) wrote:

Ahhhh... I just love the sound of Reid backpedalling.

There's zero backpeddling. As I said, Michael based his entire
argument on his assumed definition of electrum, one he didn't spell
out but one that's much broader than the definition used in
numismatics, the 20 percent or more silver definition. How is this
backpeddling? This is how he was able to write about all those
"electrum" coins and even, ridiculously, describe U.S. gold coins as
electrum coins. If he uses the definition of electrum that everybody
else in numismatics uses, his article ... wait, I should let him speak
for himself.

Michael, are you there? You're not hiding now, are you? Come out, come
out wherever you are. I see you behind those curtains! It's not right
to let Anka do all the work here. She doesn't even know these coins,
not like you. It's OK. We're just talking coins here. Debating them.
The art of rhetoric. You know, the vigorous exchange of differing
views backed up by research and presented as logically and
persuasively as possible with the ultimate goal, if sometimes elusive,
of shedding new light on the subject. An interesting subject too,
these first coins, wouldn't you say? Lots of differing views. You
should see all the disagreements about them in the literature.

--

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 message
...
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.

Without realising it?
I doubt it.

The point I was making was that standards vary - over time and over
distance. It is pointless to attempt to pillory an author (as you are
transparently attempting to do) by applying one standard that you've
discovered and then blithely rejecting any other standard with which you
disagree.