The first coin - addenda

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

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

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

On 24 Jul 2003 02:44:23 GMT, assed (South of
Provemont) wrote:

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.

I agree with this. But this doesn't support your earlier statement
that "most so-called authorities say that a coin must have a statement
of value." "Specific value" and "statement of value" are two different
things. Most ancient coins, for instance, meet the first criterion but
not the second.

A coin is durable money, usually a disk, usually metal. Coins tend to weigh
less than 1 ounce (about 30 grams).

Tend? I've got some really nice ones in my collection that tend to
weigh more, more than twice this actually. Ptolemaic bronzes. There
are lots of other big coins issued throughout the ages weighing more
than one ounce. I agree that most have weighed less. But I personally
wouldn't include the 1 ounce demarcation, even qualified with a
"tend," in any definition of a coin.

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.

This isn't at all definite, and the above needs a qualifier.
Researchers and scholars have proposed, based on archeological
evidence, other places of origin of coinage, including but not limited
to China, Cisjordan (Israel and the West Bank of the Jordan River),
and northern Syria. I personally lean toward Lydia, but the evidence
is way too scanty to make a definitive statement about Lydia or even
Asia Minor.

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.

Sear wrote this 25 years ago. But not a great deal has changed about
these coins from what he wrote, though many numismatists seem to feel
that the date is closer to 600 BC than the 650 BC he mentioned.

That said, I also found a few other references and some xeroxes of journal
articles.

OK. I'll show you mine if you show me yours. References/citations. I'm
gonna beg off on photocopying all this stuff. Take way too long.
That's what the ANS is for. But talking about the ANS, they won't be
doing this kind of work again until their move is finalized, likely
sometime in early 1994, according to Frank Campbell. I got my last
order in just in time, but it's a bit of a bummer not having them as a
resource, even temporarily. I enjoy getting articles in the mail every
bit as much as getting coins, even with the ANS's $20 minimum
photocopying charge.

--

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

you want to hook up in Baltimore?

If not, cool.

If yes, send me email and we can arrange a
time.

You're one of the "decent guys" here, after all. g

Is that g. for Gag Me?

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

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.

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

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

"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".