Coin without any number/figure?

22

TwentyTwo (DD)

Welcome CoinCorgi.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

22

 

o\_/~ ~\_/o have a cup of tea. (while I write somethings "new" here)

 

Coin & Error

Lets take DD as an example. For those visitors surfers viewing here and seeing DD first time, DD is Doubled Die error in the coin. (note: it is not "Double Die", it is DoubleD Die".) Anyway, our business here is not its detail, that can be found anywhere. It is an error in the mint production, in die making process rather than striking process. That's, it is not an error of worker working at the strike press machinery (think about the past when there was no automation unlike today.) In those old days, production machines were not so high quality as machines of today, therefore, off-center alignments in the dies were probably frequent. However, a good master die maker could still do good dies even with those old mechanical machines. So, that DD error in the die making was most likely human error. For example, the worker working at the die making machine (lathe/milling/etc) was probably drunk when he was working at the machine. No, it is unlikely. A logical reason is that he had money problem, again, like anyone has even today. When there is money problem everybody has a tendency in making error. Then. Question: Who does not have money problem?

 

In those mechanized days, if instead of minting coins they were making a similar number of stampings that were intended as a part on a light switch, would you expect every one to be perfect? When ICs were being produced early on a silicon wafer, did each one work correctly ? Why does Intel produce so many different levels of CPUs , I3, I5,I7, I9, etc? Because many are not exactly at the optimum specs. So no one has to be drunk at all, just humans, making billions of objects as rapidly as they can.

 

Two decades ago, in late 1990s, I was on a hand made rug collectors forum.
I just checked it now after years, yes, it is still alive, www.turkotek.com. There, there were such talks about "perfectness". More than tousand of years ago, girls weaving rugs were adding an error and they were doing this "intentionally", because they were affraid of making their rugs "perfect" and those errors they depicted in the rugs intentionally were protecting against the jealous "evil eyes", that was their belief and their traditions. I mean, perfectness is not a thing of our modern era, it has been throughout the all history. Some have been after perfectness and when they get close (like those rug weavers) they fear perfectness and they may make intentional errors. There may be such people here or there or also in the mints. But, the thing that has not changed in the long past and even today is the money. When people here are looking at the money they are looking into their details in the coins because they are viewing the coins just like any product and since it is more engineering product than rug like art pieces they are questioning engineering techniques in the coins and errors in them. I guess this "error hunting" in the coins had started by someones who were allergic to engineers, engineering and technology and it has spreaded to a part of community. Yes, there are errors also in the coin and its engineering in the mints, but, the main error about the money is not in the mint only. Lets not forget that everybody has connection with the money, it is in their responsibility of every individual. So, the main error is not in the coin design or in coin production, but, it is in its set-up. As I have been repeating over and over in this thread, the main error is in handling the money, specifically, the cent coin which is the unit of money which should be produced, but, should not (have) be(en) circulated. And, doing this is not only their duty of the mints, but, of everybody. Doing it correctly may not make us reach at the perfectness, but, may put us on that road, and no need to fear of walking on that road toward perfectness.

 

An article mentioned by @davidh in another thread, about the US monetary system and its history:

https://web.stanford.edu/~rehall/Gov and Monetary Unit 1981.pdf

Some related parts in the article to the "unit":

"...Congress, in 1792, created a new monetary unit called the dollar..., defined in terms of weights of gold or silver..." (page 6)

"... The dollar was unambiguously 0.04838 of an ounce of gold or the equivalent amount of silver..." (page 7)

"... The last vestige of the gold definition of the dollar disappeared in 1971 when the U.S. discontinued sales of gold to central banks... For the past decade, the U.S. has operated a purely fiduciary monetary system... " (page 9)

---

So, as seen in these sentences, the dollar (like any other currency in the world) was based on the gold, that's, the dollar was not the standard, gold was the standard, that's, the reference was the gold, was not the dollar. This was formally so till 1971.

That the commodity or metals such as gold as references tells that the "monetary unit" mentioned in this article and also everywhere is the "commercial unit" which may be different than the "unit" of money "itself". This is like that, by analogy: You can use a handful of wheat grain in commerce and you can call that "handful" as "unit". What was done in the new creation of the dollar in 1792 (by some ounce of gold instead of handful of grain) was like that and continued till 1971, however, it didn't end, still more or less same even if it called "fiduciary" (or "trust") monetary system.

That article, written in 1981, is simple and very informative about the US currency history, but, while there are hundreds of the word "dollar" in the article, there is no any mention about the cent, not even single one word "cent" exists in the article. It is understandable as this article too, like 99,9999999% of articles, is about the money&economy, not about the money itself.

Now that, since 1971, it is said that the monetrary system is purely fiduciary system in which the gold is not reference anymore, "commercial monetary unit" has become meaningless, that's, calling the dollar as unit has become meaningless (like that handful of wheat grain has no meaning anymore.)

Then, question arises: What is the reference of monetary system now?
Whole World are still searching some new resources as new references, eg, petrolium in last decades, but, been failing as all such attempts are related to the commerce again and the commerce is not based on the "trust" and this non-trust contradicts with the claimed so-called "fiduciary" monetary system. If it is fiduciary/trust based monetary, then, it should be scientifically objective. Although the commerce too can be called science, this scientific objectivity in the money under consideration should be non-debatable if it is fiduciary/trust. That means, the money "itself" should be questioned before talking about its relation with the commerce. Then, the question arises:

What is the reference in the money? Scientifically, if there is an indivisible unit in the money, it is the reference. And, yes, there is. It is the cent and only and only the cent.

 

No. In the European Currency Union for example, the euro is the currency unit - the cent is the sub-unit ("the euro as the currency of the participating Member States will be divided into one hundred sub-units with the name 'cent'" according to EU law). And I am pretty darn sure it works the same way with the other currencies you mentioned.

Christian

 

And, that EU law just proves that EU didn't know it, either, didn't know what the money is. When setting-up the currency in 2005, if I were in the committee, I'd have suggested the law like that:

"...The Cent is the new name of the unit of currency in EU and there is no "sub-unit" nor "super-unit" in the currency... However, anyone may prefer to give names to multiples of the cents, for ex., "100cents=Euro", "112cents=Urro", 167cents=Orro", "200cents=Zorro", "1000cents=Morro", etc etc.. such things are just personal linguistics choices..."

 

What they did by setting "Euro" and dividing it to 100 "Cent" can be explained better by money::wheat analogy with respect to countability.

Unit "Euro" corresponds to, say, a Handful of wheat grain, where "handful" can be considered as "unit" and yes, that unit "handful" is countable. But, this unit "handful" is commercial unit in monetary system, it is NOT the unit of money itself. In this "money::wheat" analogy, the unit of money itself corresponds to each wheat "grain". Suppose there are 100 "grains" in 1 "handful" of wheat. Take 1 "handful" wheat in your one hand and take 100 "grains" in your other hand. Scientifically, the both hands are same, but, there is difference between these two hands, the difference is "work". Here, "Euro" as unit which corresponds to the unit "handful" of grains is a "commercial unit" of monetary system, it is not the unit of money itself. The unit of money itself corresponds to the unit "grain" of wheat. This is objective unit while commercial unit is subjective as "handful" may change depending on "hand sizes" of people. That's another reason why I call "cent" (which is the real unit of money corresponding to "grain" which is the real unit of wheat) is locally universal.

 

Titus how I am starting to feel!

 

I've done that.

 

Sad...

for centless...

Support Coin Talk?
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/support-coin-talk.7970/page-2

---

A cost calculation.

One website hosting costs $1000, equals to how many cents? (any math prof out there?) ok, 100,000 cents?
It has 100 megabytes, equal to 100,000,000 bytes
One line post eats 1000 bytes.
How much does a nonsense one line post cost?
.
.
.
Answer: 1cent.
You the two, each of you owe one cent.

 

News.
5000 years old "toy horse cart" found.
http://aa.com.tr/tr/kultur-sanat/5-bin-yillik-oyuncak-at-arabasi-bulundu/924641
(You can copy&past the link in Google translate)

Brief summary.
Toy cart, made of terracotta, in late stone age, in early bronze age, c3000BC, has a size of about 5cm (~2"). From the pictures, diameter of its wheel is around 2,5cm (~1"). While there were such wheels of coin size, most likely, there were also coins at that time. Also, look at their hubs of wheels, its technical geometry is not much different than that of wheel hubs of vehicles today, the only difference is its material, stone, instead of metal. On back of the cart, those symmetrical inciseds like "<<<" are a sign showing that they knew counting "one by one", they had number.

 

What in the world is this thread about???? Does anyone know? My eyes hurt trying to read this mess

 

I think it's about over.

 

There is no money in this thread, only one cent.

Welcome here
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/support-coin-talk.7970/page-3

 

Some of us have been trying to figure that out since July 17. Now it's just to see what Erol will post next that is obscure and odd in its own right.

Main Key words to decipher
One Money
One Cent
Work Safety

Now ancient clay toy carts......

Welcome to the Insanity!!!! Adult drinks on Coincirgie at page 26!

 

NEVER! That's just blasphemy!!!

 

The more the merrier!