Electrum

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
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.

Unless you lived in Britain during the 18th century, when you could be
hanged for passing off .90 as "silver".

You see?
Differect place, different standard.
Same word, different meaning.
Standards are neither writ in stone nor cast in gold.

"Bob Flaminio" wrote in message
...

OK -- but I wouldn't consider 1% "appreciable", and therefore they're
still not electrum by MEM's definition.

"Appreciable" wasn't MM's term - it was RG's.
Besides, 1% is appreciable.
(But irrelevant in this case)

"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.


"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...

Michael didn't explicitly offer his own definition of electrum, just
based his entire argument on an assumed definition that was very
broad. He talked about how some geologists define electrum and in
another place how some metallurgists define electrum. In still another
place he mentioned the Pliny standard but for some reason didn't
mention that this has become the way that numismatists define it.


No need for comment here

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On 12 Oct 2003 16:25:57 GMT, (Ankaaz) wrote:

And some experts in metallurgy.

We're not talking about metallurgy, or about "some" experts in
metallurgy. We're talking about numismatics and about usage in
numismatics.

Who gets to decide that specialists in the subject (metallurgists) should be
excluded from the debate?

Reid - can ye not be gracious enough to admit that the "definition" of
electrum is not fixed - numismatically or otherwise?

At work today I checked my "Engineering Encyclopaedia" - published in 1941 -
and it states categorically that electrum is equivalent to "German Silver",
which is another name for nickel-silver, which contains neither gold nor
silver.

But I guess they're wrong because you don't agree with them.

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
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.

That'd be good.

Bimetallism does in fact have different
meanings in numismatics.

Nope.

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.

Close but no cigar - you're confusing bimetallic with bimetallism.
(seriously)
Bimetallic = those appalling silver (or whatever) coins with a gold (or
whatever) middle bit.
Bimetallism - the ability of a currency to allow equivalence between coins
of different alloys; e.g. one gold blazoo = 16 silver widgets. This
requires an abstract unit - like "dollar"

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...

..What's most
interesting isn't redefining established terms just for the sake of
argument...

Which MM didn't do.

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
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?

==========================================
to wit:
"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.

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
Michael didn't explicitly offer his own definition of electrum, just
based his entire argument on an assumed definition that was very
broad. He talked about how some geologists define electrum and in
another place how some metallurgists define electrum. In still another
place he mentioned the Pliny standard but for some reason didn't
mention that this has become the way that numismatists define it.
============================================

Have cake...

....eat it too.

"A.Gent" wrote:

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
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?

==========================================
to wit:
"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.

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
Michael didn't explicitly offer his own definition of electrum, just
based his entire argument on an assumed definition that was very
broad. He talked about how some geologists define electrum and in
another place how some metallurgists define electrum. In still another
place he mentioned the Pliny standard but for some reason didn't
mention that this has become the way that numismatists define it.
============================================

Have cake...

...eat it too.

Yes, pretty much. It's a good idea to keep the text quotes together as
you have done. Reid has a tendency to go for 'deniablility' when caught
in an inconsistency.

I'll say no more, lest it be entered into his mythology that I believe
electrum is being used to terrorize heroin addicts in Panama.

Alan
'the man is incorrigible'

Reid wrote: "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?"


When I asked you to cite the chapter and verse where Michael put forward his
definition, you posted the following: "I said in a previous message that
Michael didn't explicitly offer his own definition of electrum, but he did base
his argument on an assumed definition, one that's much broader than is used in
numismatics, the
Pliny standard."

This is backpedaling.

Permit me to blow away some of your smokescreen for those RCCers who don't
subscribe to The Celator.

Michael's article on electrum is close to 5,000 words long. He devotes about
400 words to the topic of "modern electrum" in which he states, "Some
metallurgists call any alloy of silver and gold 'electrum.' BY THAT STANDARD,
[my caps] the British sovereign is electrum. Most United States 'gold' coins
qualify as electrum issues." After quoting Tom DeLorey on the composition of
US Eagles and Krugerrands, Michael continues with, "In contrast to such
accidental electrum, the U.S. Mint actually considered an electrum coin in
1878...." and goes on describing various attempts at issuing electrum coins.
He ends with, "While classical electrum may not meet the needs of the modern
world, it does have its own historical appeal..."

As you see it, Reid, is Michael basing his entire argument (what argument?) on
his [sic] assumed definition of electrum. This, according to you, is Michael
writing about and describing ("ridiculously") U.S. gold coins as electrum
coins!

My advice to you is to take a remedial reading course.


Reid: "It's not right to let Anka do all the work here. She doesn't even know
these coins, not like you."

Can't take it, can you?






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

Anka wrote: "As you see it, Reid, is Michael basing his entire argument..."


s/b "As you see it, Reid, Michael is basing his entire argument..."


Anka ------- In English, word order counts!