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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 22:01:10 -0400, Joe Schell
wrote: Is everything that is "minted" considered a coin? Bingo. Think replicas, tokens, medals, and so on. They're all minted. None are coins, as most would define "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 |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: The first coin - addenda
From: Reid Goldsborough Date: 7/20/2003 11:26 PM Eastern \ On 19 Jul 2003 17:33:27 GMT, assed (South of Provemont) wrote: Most so-called authorities say that a coin must have a statement of value. I don't believe this is a common definition. Most ancient coins in fact have no statements of value on them at all. Here is Alan Herbert's definition. He has held to this for many years and in the previous ANA Administration, this became the official ANA definition: From: AnswerMan2 ) Subject: WHAT on Earth is a "Coin" Really? Date: 2002-11-17 07:00:41 PST A coin is defined as an object which has been issued by a governing body with a specific value. While the overwhelming number of coins are metal, there is nothing in the definition which precludes other materials, with the exception of paper products, from being defined as coins. There is also nothing in the definition which specifies that coins must be round or flat. Here is the definition from the ANA "Terms and Definitions" which I chaired and which will be published next year: Coin - 1. A piece of (usually) metal, struck with an official design by the authority of a constituted government and intended to have a stated value for use in commerce. 2. (Verb) To strike coins. Alan Herbert The Answerman Check the Numismatic Dictionary by Doty, curator of the Smithsonian. In fact, I would like to know YOUR definition of a coin. From: Marotta, Michael E. ) Subject: what makes a coin a coin? Date: 2001-05-26 07:21:27 PST A coin is durable money, usually a disk, usually metal. Coins tend to weigh less than 1 ounce (about 30 grams). Coins were invented in or near Lydia about 650 BC and were at first made of electrum a naturally occurring alloy of gold and silver. Historically, coins were made of precious metals or copper alloys, with bronze being the favored of these. Other metals have been used with less success -- iron and zinc both oxidize quickly, for instance. Other substances, even porcelain, wood, and leather, have been used for coins. Coins have had other shapes, square or rectangular, or octagonal, for instance. From about 1965 forward, precious metals became less common in coins for several reasons. Today, coins typically serve as conveniences in part because they can be interfaced with mechanical devices for vending food and other commodities or for counting and tallying, as for instance in mass transit gateways. ....I realize that the above is fairly involved and could go on for a book's length. However, I point to "shoes" as an example of a common object with a complicated definition. (I mean, how do you rigorously differentiate SOCKS from "shoes within boots.") We get hooked on "dictionary definitions" which are OK as far as they go, but seldom stand up to close inspection at the expert level, which is where we are as numismatists. ------- As for your First Coin, I went to the storage units and hauled out Sear's Greek Coins and Their Values, Vol. 2 (Asia) and your coin is arguably one of the first. You make your case on your webpage. I leave that as it is. That said, I also found a few other references and some xeroxes of journal articles. Do you ever play Seven Card Stud? "It's to the man with a lion showing..." ---------------- Michael E. Marotta ANA R-162953 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
In , on 07/23/2003
at 10:59 PM, Reid Goldsborough said: Mark also said, "Learn how to do research and analysis." That's funny, actually. He knows nothing about these coins, which is fine -- he doesn't collect them. But he reads a page I created about them and tries to rebut my information by Googling around, reading outdated and secondary sources, and stating definitively what's right and what's wrong when nobody with an iota of knowledge about these coins writes definitively about them. That's good research and analysis! Ah, our little mark. The expertise that isn't. Lots of talk, lots of text, but never any real meat. My SO wants to get one of those early, tiny Lydian coins ... she saw some at the last ANA. Perhaps this is her year? I didn't pay them much attention last year, but perhaps I'll look more closely this year. Nick |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
In , on 07/24/2003
at 03:09 AM, Reid Goldsborough said: Seriously (I really wasn't being serious, though I think it's great that you have an SO who's really into coins -- mine indulges my coins without getting it herself) Well, my sweetie doesn't have "numismatic fever" as has been talked about here lately. She had a minor interest before she met me, mostly in collecting (er, accumulating?) misc pieces that happened her way. She became more interested trying to share my interest, I think, but did get bitten by the bug herself. At least a little. I believe she's more interested in the age and history than the coin. Coins are just an easy way to hold something pre-BC in your hand and actually possess it. She likes ancient coins! But she doesn't buy anything except on the summer ANA trips, but she doesn't wade in slowly when she does! As for meeting up, I'm game. My schedule there will be non-typical. I'm leaving tomorrow (Friday aft) to arrive in Baltimore Sat mid-day. My SO has her say in what we do until Tues (this is "a vacation", too, afterall), then I get some time at PNG day. Thurs is the day I'm most likely to be at or around the show all day, having meetings in the morning and then another later. By Friday morning, tho, I'm on the road home! Departure doesn't have to be blazingly early on Friday, but by noon we have to be driving. It does leave time for a "second thought" purchase, if required I'll email directly later tonight ... but I won't have much time tomorrow to correspond if I miss you! Ah, I'll send along my work email, too. We'll figure out some way to meet up. Chrysta's lunch sounded great! But alas, that's Saturday, and I'll be back at home by then. Nick |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
From: Reid Goldsborough )
Subject: The first coin - addenda Date: 2003-07-24 00:37:40 PST http://rg.ancients.info/lion/ "I'm defining it as Webster (Second Edition) does: "A piece of metal (or, rarely, of some other material) certified by a mark or marks upon it to be of a definite exchange value and issued by governmental authority to be used as money. (1) You can define a "coin" to be "a small orange pachyderm, native to the Antarctic." If you are consistent in this, fair enough, but then you have a problem when you communicate with the rest of the world. My definition -- and my citation of Alan Herbert's -- were meant to show that the definition of "coin" as with "shoe" and "socks" is not so simple. (2) WHICH "Webster's" dictionary you cite is not a trivial matter. Noah Webster sold his Dictionary to the Merriam Company. ONLY the "Merriam Webster" is the "real" Webster. The editions are now into the teens. So, this "second edition" is some kind of knock-off. You need to cite the PUBLISHER. (3) It is my professional judgement that _ANY_ definition that makes "government-ness" a precondition for "coin-ness" must fail. Are the coins of Hutt River not coins? For instance, by comparison, NO other government officially recognized the Confederate States of America. Are their coins not coins? What is a government? In "The Art of Community" Spencer Maccallum outlined the theory of the PROPRIETARY COMMUNITY. Disney World is an example of this. Yet, numismatists routinely define the coins of Disney as _not_ coins because Disney is not a "government." However, Disney does indeed carry out all of the requirements of government -- as does, in fact, King Saud does for his property which we commonly call the "nation" of Saudi Arabia. There are two sides to this coin: (A) the so-called "kings" of Lydia may or may not have been a "government"; and (b) The Mycenean warrior princes who made bronze cow hides were every bit as much a "government" and arguably moreso (according to mainstream prejudices, not my own), since the Myceneans were hereditary rulers while the Lydian tyrants were usurpers. We do not know who "issued" the Chinese Knife Money, but, again, as I have said before, they meet the TAXONOMIC definition of coin, which is the only objective definition, the only one that works for the widest range of examples. (4) As I have noted before, the British Sovereign gold coin has no such "mark or marks upon it to be of a definite exchange value" -- and neither does your Lydian. These coins are evalued and in fact identified and defined by their WEIGHT (and fineness) alone. Therefore, the "Webster's" definition you offer does not support the thesis you seek to defend. --------------- On 24 Jul 2003 02:44:23 GMT, assed (South of Provemont) wrote: "Here is Alan Herbert's definition. ... " From: Marotta, Michael E. ) Subject: what makes a coin a coin? Date: 2001-05-26 07:21:27 PST "A coin is durable money, usually a disk, usually metal. ..." On 18 Jul 2003 12:19:09 GMT, assed (South of Provemont) wrote: (7a) The origin of metallic money (weighed and hallmarked and traded for other goods) might begin with bronze "cow hides" known from Mycenaean finds. From: Reid Goldsborough ) Subject: The first coin - addenda Date: 2003-07-18 10:18:48 PST Also, not a coin. Again, depending on how you define "coin." We're talking coins here, not money. All kinds of objects have been used as money, as you know. ------------------ (*) Let us not get sidetracked. The reason I cited Herbert and myself was only to show that these definitions of "coin" however limited and arguable are both TAXONOMIC definitions. Arguing against them is fine in another thread, if you wish. However, in this thread, the subject at hand is your "First Coin" and you have to show how your "First Coin" meets a workable definition. What was the "value" of a Third Stater. To say that it was "worth a third of a stater" is tautologous, as if you said that the "value" of a kilometer is 1000 meters. The reason for bringing this up -- do not argue trivialities; stick to the subject -- is that for the title of "the first coin" there are many contenders, long antecedent to yours. You say that a coin can be more than 1 ounce and that you have some such Ptolemaic bronzes. Fine. So, in what ESSENTIAL DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTIC(S) are they differentiable from Mycenean bronze cow hides and Chinese Knife Money -- or from Swedish Plate Money for that matter? MEM That said, I also found a few other references and some xeroxes of journal articles. RG OK. I'll show you mine if you show me yours. Again, you miss the point. The entire passage looks more like: "You make your case on your webpage. I leave that as it is. That said, I also found a few other references and some xeroxes of journal articles. Do you ever play Seven Card Stud? "It's to the man with a lion showing..." " As in stud, you have the lion showing, so the bet is to you. In other words, you publish your article. If I can see you, or see you and raise you, I will, otherwise, I will fold. If you want to argue back and forth about the Myceneans and What is a Coin? and all that, fine. For here and now, the purpose of this post -- as with the previous posts from me re your First Coin webpage -- is only a general discussion of some of the parameters. Other problems remain. For instance: What makes this a 1/3 stater? Light Babylonian standard? Heavy Phoenician? These definitions ultimately come from Barclay V. Head circa 1880, and you denigrate him and his work. So, to my point of view, you need to establish just what "coin" this "first coin" is. But that is another question entirely. Finally, you are perfectly free to pick at whatever details you want from this post -- deconstruct to your heart's content -- but there is a gestalt here. You have yet to actually address that. You have trees but no forest. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On 24 Jul 2003 18:30:35 -0700, (High Plains
Writer) wrote: (3) It is my professional judgement that _ANY_ definition that makes "government-ness" a precondition for "coin-ness" must fail. Are the coins of Hutt River not coins? For instance, by comparison, NO other government officially recognized the Confederate States of America. It was a government. It governed. Are their coins not coins? What is a government? In "The Art of Community" Spencer Maccallum outlined the theory of the PROPRIETARY COMMUNITY. Disney World is an example of this. Yet, numismatists routinely define the coins of Disney as _not_ coins because Disney is not a "government." However, Disney does indeed carry out all of the requirements of government Disney is a government? I guess Exxon is too. And McDonalds. My local gas station. The colony of ants that show up in our front yard most summers. (4) As I have noted before, the British Sovereign gold coin has no such "mark or marks upon it to be of a definite exchange value" -- and neither does your Lydian. These coins are evalued and in fact identified and defined by their WEIGHT (and fineness) alone. Therefore, the "Webster's" definition you offer does not support the thesis you seek to defend. Again, you're missing the distinction between mark of value and recognized value. "One Dollar" on a Morgan dollar is a mark of value. A Lydian lion of a specific weight and fineness, certified as such by the mark of the Lydian royal house (lion with forehead knob) has recognized value. There's no mark on it stating what that value is, though it was recognized by those who used it. (*) Let us not get sidetracked. The reason I cited Herbert and myself was only to show that these definitions of "coin" however limited and arguable are both TAXONOMIC definitions. Arguing against them is fine in another thread, if you wish. However, in this thread, the subject at hand is your "First Coin" and you have to show how your "First Coin" meets a workable definition. What was the "value" of a Third Stater. To say that it was "worth a third of a stater" is tautologous, as if you said that the "value" of a kilometer is 1000 meters. Third staters exhibited very narrow tolerances in both weight and percentage of gold. That's where the recognized (certified) value comes in. What makes this a 1/3 stater? Um, it's one third the weight of a Lydian stater. These definitions ultimately come from Barclay V. Head circa 1880, and you denigrate him and his work. I denigrated his attribution relevance today. He's not used, for good reason. That doesn't mean he didn't to groundbreaking work and was a great numismatist. But knowledge marches on. -- 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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On 24 Jul 2003 18:47:11 -0700, (High Plains
Writer) wrote: The date of 600 BC for "the first coin" and the "first coin" coming from Croesus are two distinct problems. Agreed. But nobody is saying the first coin came from Croesus, not me, not anyone I've read. Are you? He's often credited with creating the first bymetalic system, issuing the first coins of pure gold and pure silver, though there much uncertainty here over whether some of these coins were minted by his or predecessors. -- 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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message ... On 24 Jul 2003 18:30:35 -0700, (High Plains Writer) wrote: (3) It is my professional judgement that _ANY_ definition that makes "government-ness" a precondition for "coin-ness" must fail. Are the coins of Hutt River not coins? Nope. They're tokens. Hutt River is an outback station, not a "Principality". "Prince" Leonard is no more royalty than you and I. He's actually a cunning marketeer. (4) As I have noted before, the British Sovereign gold coin has no such "mark or marks upon it to be of a definite exchange value" -- and neither does your Lydian. These coins are evalued and in fact identified and defined by their WEIGHT (and fineness) alone. Therefore, the "Webster's" definition you offer does not support the thesis you seek to defend. Ha! Practically *no* early Brit coins have a "mark" of value - save perhaps for the Maundy sets - but we still know their recognised "values". |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pr: Baltimore Coin and Currency Convention - July 9-11, 2004 | EdKuszmar | General | 0 | June 29th 04 05:16 AM |
PR: One week until the Baltimore Coin and Currency Convention | EdKuszmar | General | 0 | November 28th 03 04:42 PM |
Coin returns and a question about toning | Bill Krummel | Coins | 28 | July 11th 03 02:09 AM |
FA: .99 no reserve-30's-40's Coin Coll Journal, 1894 NY Coin Catalog, 1958 Bowers pricelist | Michael R | Coins | 0 | July 7th 03 01:33 AM |
What do those letters mean? and "Whats it worth"? July 5 2003 | George D | Coins | 1 | July 5th 03 06:27 PM |