Electrum

"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".

"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?'

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

On 13 Oct 2003 20:30:24 -0700, (Michael E.
Marotta) wrote:

Thanks! You and I have never been able to sort out who first
suggested that we could make a pretty good career writing into his
areas of ignorance.

Laurel's Dad got a clean bill of health from his oncologist. I will
have more time for the newsgroup soon.

Michael
"Put your hand inside your coat and stand here."

Good luck with your health issues. Really. But please don't do what
you did with that Alexander piece. Seems you're doing the exact same
thing with this piece. That article was also a continuation of a
debate we had here. You seem to think that if you write an article for
the Celator, you've written the final word on the subject, and there's
no need to respond further to posts here or even answer questions
posed in letters to the Celator about the subject. If you try to
dispel current knowledge, if you try to overturn conventional wisdom,
if you write in diametric opposition to what virtually everyone else
is writing on a subject, you have to expect that some will disagree
with you.

I've jumped in with these two subjects because they're areas I'm very
much involved with, having read as much literature as I could on them,
having looked at as many relevant coins as I could, and having thought
much about the various issues and subissues. I've noticed
methodological mistakes that you've made, with the former article,
totally ignoring previous Macedonian coinage that reputes your "new
paradigm," and with the current article, using the sleight of hand of
redefining numismatic electrum without being explicit about it, just
hinting around this by mentioning that some metallurgists on define it
differently and so on. It's your choice to respond or not. But you
don't do your new paradigms any service by being silent.

--

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 adds....

if you write in diametric opposition to what virtually everyone else is
writing on a subject

If ever Reid was an authority on an issue....

Always here for my fellow syngraphist or oenophile.
--=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=--

"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.

"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")

"A.Gent" adds....

(Call me "carborundum")

As in "Illegitimi"?

Don't believe that (he won't be back) for a second. The next post will begin
with... "Just happened to check Google on this thread and noticed the usual
plonked addys and nimrods and thought I'd set the record straight".

Always here for my fellow syngraphist or oenophile.
--=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=--

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!

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