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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"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) |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"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" |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"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' |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
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 |