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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message ... On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 17:29:17 +1000, "A.Gent" wrote: Have cake... ...eat it too. Pay attention: As I said, Michael used an unarticulated definition of electrum that's much broader than is used by other numismatists. This isn't that hard. Pay attention yourself. First you say MM defined electrum in a certain way. Period. Then (when challenged) you say you didn't say that. 'nuther period. Then you claim you didn't backpedal. Twice I reposted the offending paragraphs. You were wrong. The issue of "what is the most correct definition of 'electrum'" is an interesting one, but it is not the one I'm trying to get through to you. (I happen to prefer the = 4/5:1/5 definition too, but that's irrelevant.) The issue is that you misquoted and misrepresented MM's article and ascribed motives which you could not possibly know. Your motive? I can only guess "malice". |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"A.Gent" wrote:
(snip) The issue is that you misquoted and misrepresented MM's article and ascribed motives which you could not possibly know. Your motive? I can only guess "malice". You are overlooking a second good possibility. "force of habit". Alan 'what if your face would freeze that way?' |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:46:55 +1000, "A.Gent"
wrote: Both the words "bimetallic" and "bimetallism" are used in reference to the issuing of coins in relatively pure gold and silver. The former is simply an adjective, the latter a noun. Look through the literature. Or do a Google search. Patronising again. Patronizing? You said these words had different meanings, and I explained they didn't and how you could prove this for yourself. You're just arguing now for the sake of arguing without making any sense. This seems to be contagious. The other posts you just left are equally argumentative and equally insubstantial , and all this has the very probable potential to degenerate further into a mindless flamewar. So for both of our sakes, and those to don't enjoy the flamejunk, I'm going to bow out of responding to you further in this thread. -- 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 |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message ... On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:46:55 +1000, "A.Gent" wrote: Patronising again. Patronizing? Yes. When you wrote: Look through the literature. Or do a Google search. Remedial reading. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message ... The other posts you just left are equally argumentative and equally insubstantial , and all this has the very probable potential to degenerate further into a mindless flamewar. So for both of our sakes, and those to don't enjoy the flamejunk, I'm going to bow out of responding to you further in this thread. Well... it took a while, but... (Call me "carborundum") |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Reid wrote: "You've reached the ****y level, not discussing the substantive
numismatic issues involved here but countering with absolute nonsense." Pardon my ****iness... Your paraphrasing is totally inaccurate. You 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.'" Michael did not define "electrum." He never used the term "appreciable amount." You left out the prepositional phrase "by that standard," crucial to his reference to the U.S. coins. You invent freely. You 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." Everybody? You wrote: "We're also not talking about Pliny's observations. We're talking about a definition that he made, which numismatists have followed for the past two thousand years. Except Michael." I ask you again, what would you call an issue of Phokaia which is 55.5% gold? You wrote: "Pay attention: As I said, Michael used an unarticulated definition of electrum that's much broader than is used by other numismatists." Unarticulated. What a laugh... You assume the author's intent. You wrote: "A very interesting perspective. Change the meaning of words, and you can rewrite history..." and "What point does it serve to change the definition of a word used in a numismatic context some others in another context use it differently? That's my point. The only purpose it served with Michael's article was to allow him to include many more coins as 'electrum' coins than he would have been able to do otherwise." I bet you'll dress up as Kreskin for Halloween. You cite out of context. You wrote: "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. snip This is how he was able to write about all those 'electrum' coins and even, ridiculously, describe U.S. gold coins as electrum coins." Michael's oblique reference to the U.S. coins came near the end of his 5,000 word article. You would have us believe that he included them in the same category as ancient electrum issues. He did not. You stress totally innocuous portions of the article and elevate them to the level of "thesis." You wrote: "No one else I've read, and I've read just about all the literature about this written over the past half century, in English anyway, has said that most pre-Alexander III gold coins are actually electrum coins. That's his main thesis..." Michael's article was a well written, informative history of electrum. He approached the topic from several angles: historical, technical, as well as numismatic. What you call his "thesis" could be considered one of the themes of the article, but geez, Reid... According to you, Michael's just about ready to nail this thing to the cathedral door! You wrote: "It's become a joke. Michael is silent, and you defend him like a charging she-bear protecting her young." Oh... I don't think -I'm- the joke here, Reid. Anka Z Co-president of the once thriving, but now defunct, Tommy John Fan Club. Go, Lake County Captains! |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
On 15 Oct 2003 06:01:15 GMT, (Ankaaz) wrote:
Pardon my ****iness... You should apologize. You've reached a low. I'm going to respond only to the substantive part of what you wrote. Your paraphrasing is totally inaccurate. You 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.'" Michael did not define "electrum." He never used the term "appreciable amount." You left out the prepositional phrase "by that standard," crucial to his reference to the U.S. coins. AGAIN, this was his assumed, unarticulated definition, as I've said now about four times, and it let him include as "electrum" coins far more coin types than others consider electrum. Actually, I'm done with you here. This is boring. -- 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The first coin - addenda | Reid Goldsborough | Coins | 66 | July 30th 03 05:30 PM |