Coin without any number/figure?

After coin & its math, now, Coin & Economy...
(The U.S. as an example. Can be extrapolated to the World roughly multiplying total figures by 20, world population is 20 times more than that of the US.)

I found this on the net: https://www.creditloan.com/media/ve-coin-circulation.png which shows coins in $ value to the date 2009 .

And, unit weights of coins everywhere on the net:
cent: 2,5 grams
nickel: 5 grams
dime: 2,27 grams
quarter: 5,67 grams
half: 11,34 grams
dollar: 8,1 grams

Lets do some math now using these weights and total values in the chart in that link.

Cent - 2.5 grams/pcs x 1,65x100 trillion pcs = 412,5 million kg
Nickel - 5 grams/pcs x 86,64x20 million pcs = 8,88 million kg.
Dime - 2.27 grams/pcs x 146x10 million pcs = 3,32 million kg.
Quarter - 5.67 grams x 379,12x4 million pcs = 8,60 million kg.
Half Dollar - 11.34 grams x 3,54x2 million pcs = 0,08 million kg.
Dollar - 8.1 grams x 322,98x1 million pcs = 2,62 million kg.

Total $: $2,585 trillion.
Total qty: 170 trillion pieces.
Total weight: 436 million kg or 960 million lb (i.e. about 20,000 trucks... about 400,000 trucks in the world.)

Average face value of (imaginery) coin = total $ / pcs = 2,585/170 = 15 cents approx.
Average weight of (imaginary) coin: total weight / total pcs = (436 / 170)/1000 = 0,00256kg = 2,56 grams approx. (5,63 milli-lb, 0,00563lb)

Value effect of 1cent coins in total value: $1,65/$2,585 trillions = 64% approx.
Qty effect of 1cent coins in total qty: 165/ 170 = 97%
Weight effect of 1cent coin in total weight: 412,5/436 = 95%

So, 1cent had dominated in every aspect, EXCEPT its value.
The balance value of all coins pre-2009 is around 15 cents and this is a result of that people had tried to get rid or escape away of 1cent and arrived at 15 cents, a balance coin value they had danced around... This is the reflection of economy on the coins...

Comparing 1cent to 15cent, it is too much difference...?

Ps: total coin value in $ is around 1% of all money forms (coins and paper moneys). So, balance coin value 15cents, i.e. $0,15 is 0,15% of 1% = 0,15% coin effect in Total currency and 99,85% is paper money effect. So, 99,85 of 100 is considered important, rounding it to 100 is not acceptable by people, but, for same people, 99,84 or 99,86 of 100 does not matter, either of them is acceptable... Is this how the business/economy works?... Economy is turning around this balance coin value, 15 cents... And, although 97% of circulating coins are 1cent coins nobody has 1cent coin in their pocket... Isn't this strange...?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

...page 9...

 

Only 9? If I were a book author, I'd have written 999999... books just on that one coin.

"Garip" in my nickname here means "Strange." There are a lot of strange things, probably everybody see such things, but, they may not just express systematically. With one cent, eg in the US, things can be seen systematically clearly.

For example, people may not interpreate those figures in millions billions trillions etc as most of them have had never such figures. If I express, for ex, 436 million kg (total weight of coins issued from, say, 1980s to 2009) in another word, as trucks, it is about 20,000 trucks. Ok, lets say it is only trailer, which has a length, 12 m, or 40 ft, 20,000 trailers, full of coins. If we put these trailers side by side on a road without distance between them, it'll be 240 km, that's 150 miles. If we mount trucks to trailers, it will be around 300km, that's, around 200 miles. And, think that more than 19,000 trailers of total 20,000 trailers are full with 1cent coins only... So much effort!....

And all these efforts for average coin value 15 cents... a balance point where people gather around.

Ok, the data on the chart is as of 2009, say, the data from 1980 to 2009. With some more inflation, as of 2017, maybe, average coin value has increased from 15 cents to 16 cents in 8 years since 2009... This "16cents average coin" means that you can throw all coins away and you can issue only one coin worth of 16cents. Of course, this may not be a solution, but, you can see the stiuation of economy that's dancing around 16 cents today.

Today, everybody uses coins? Yes. Whoever enters a shop to buy anything, even if she/he carries only paper money, she/he has to take some coin back. So, in a place where everybody uses coins, that 19,000 trucks of 1cent coins of total 20,000 trucks of all coins are going into the garbage means strange/absurd/somethings wrong...

Solution: simple. For ex, in the US, total population (except babies and very olds) who can use money is 250 million. With some more extra for tolerance, total 300 million 1cent coin is sufficient... That corresponds to around 40 trucks of 1cent coins only instead of 19,000 trucks... Less than this 300 million/40 trucks of 1cent coins is under-engineering, more than this is over-engineering and what we are living in reality is over-over-over-over-over---over-engineering, that's hurting everybody... Like engineering, economy field too is an "approximation" anyway. Approximation is in the money itself (you can see approximation in cutting/rounding last two digits of calculated figures, eg, from $1,7823 ..to $1,78). What is being done within this approximation? It is that 1cent is fixed, exact, a constant after approximation. So, since it is constant of money it is unnecessary to circulate it... Always just keep at least one 1cent in the pocket, that's all to be done. So simple. The rest, economy by other coins/etc will stay as approximations as economy itself is approximation, in daily life saying, approximation in economy is negotiation, not constant, variables.

 

go figure...

 

And, "CoinCorgi" liked that you said. So what? What did you figure out? For example, derping derping derping "CoinCorgi" is a dog collecting coins? And, you "Kentucky", are you mayor of Kentucky? You are funny. And, you are always Off-Topic. Still...

Notice that it is not "GaripErol" (Erol is my name), it is "ErolGarip". That's, it is not "StrangeErol", it is "ErolStrange", that's, "Garip/Strange" is not adjective before/belong name "Erol". "ErolGarip/ErolStrange" can be read as "Erol (talking about) Strange (things around which are seen also in the previous posts) " Isn't it so? For example, you are producing 20,000 trucks of coins and you are throwing 19,000 of them into the gargabe. And, all these are for 15 cents... Aren't these strange?...

 

Errol Strange,
States have Governors, Cities have mayors. (That your civil lesson for the day)

As for Off topic, I thought that was the point of this whole thread.....off topic, strange topic, lack of topic, confusing topic!

 

I'm not 100% positive but I think the U.S. 1776 Continental Currency coins did not have a denominati0on on them.

 

(Kentucky and Truble, take this lesson from mr Thomas how an on-topic post can be posted here. Thanks Thomas Mozzillo, I had started to feel I was totally alone here.)

As for 1776 Continental Currency coin. I immediately checked it on the net. https://coins.nd.edu/ColCoin/ColCoinText/CC-Dollar.1.html - Yes, it does not have any denomination/value on it. I first thought it was similar to British Sovereing coin with no numeral which was mentioned by someones in this thread, I thought that 1776 coin was copied from the British Sovereing coin. But, that Sovereign coin had started after 1800. Then, I guessed there was another British coin pre-1800 and yes, I just learnt "Guniea coin" of Britain which does not have any numeral value on it, either and that Guniea coin was in between 1600s-1800s before it was cancelled. I see there was another one, similar one, Spain dollar coin which did not have a numeral value on it, either and it was also used during colonial period in the continent America. However, Britain influence there in the continent America in between 1700s-1800 was more, so, that continental currency in 1776 was probably related to Britain currencies of those days. There is an article here on "The value of money in colonial America" http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-colonial/1646

Ok, these are, last few centuries, near past considering long history of the money. Still, all these info are also helpful in searching an answer to questioning "why there was no any mark of value on most of ancient coins and on some of near past coins" which is the point of this thread. One of possible answers seems to be that in the history "major" coins such as "Guniea" coin were minted first and later, they were divided into "minor" coins. So, people knew "major" first and then "minor". And, this kind of view of money was not left in the past. It is still same even though all coins today have numerals, marks of values on them. For example, while there is "cent" in the U.S. which to me is the real currency in the U.S., people&state there still call "dollar" as the U.S. currency. It is as if there are two currencies in the U.S. Even naming a currency as "major" and "minor" currencies is false as there is only one currency in the U.S. today and it is "cent". Why people tend to look at the so called major, i.e. "dollar", rather than the so called minor, i.e. "cent" in the past and today is totally relevant to economy reason and this is where we are at now in this thread. (in my previous post before Kentucky and Truble went Off-Topic as they always do, I had arrived at a conclusion that "the economy is dancing around an imaginary 15cent coin." So, also economically, we are still at "cent", not at "dollar".)

 

This may look unreal to many people here. True, unreal, it is not 15cent in reality.
That 15cent (based on 2009 data, maybe it is 16cent today in 2017) is according to "designed economy" in which 1cent too is being tried to be circulated, it is minted, distributed, but, in reality, it's not been circulating really. So, if we do same calculations for "real economy" that is in every daily life, by omitting 1cent coin like it is done in daily life, these are figures of real economy, reflection on the coin:

After omitting 1cent,
total value of coins in $ is $2,585 trillion - $1,65 trillion = $0,935 trillion = $935 billion...
total quantity of all other coins except 1cent = 5 billion pieces.

So, the average value of coins (without 1cent) is $935/5 = $187 = 18700 cents... Now, probably, this looks more real. Yes, so. Imagine a coin with that face value 18700cents... Beyond the range, 1-100cents, but, it is still in cent even if it is 18700cents.
From this, the difference between "designed economy" and "real economy" can be seen in 15cents and 18700cents...

This 18700cent is still unreal of course, it is so because of omitting $1,65 trillion which appear in the calculations. This $1,65 trillion of 1cent coins corresponds to 165 trillion pieces of 1cent coins, i.e. about 19,000 trailers filled with 1cent coins (of total 20,000 trailers filled with all coins including 1cent coins.) Of course, omitting 19,000 trailers of total 20,000 trailers is strange, but, in real economy, it is a reality being done... Main problem lies in the "design" in which 1cent coin too is being tried to be circulated, that can not be done practically, not logical either.

Ps: in my calculations in a previous post, I see I did an error, total quantity was not 170 trillion pieces, but, around 166 trillion pieces, 4 trillion pieces which corresponds to around $1 trillion is not a small error. However, my this "big" error does not change the result much, instead of 15cents, it would have been 16cents. On the other hand, the result of small error by omitting 1cent results in big result which can also be seen in the omitting 165 trillion pieces of total 166 trillion pieces, in value, $1,65 trillion of total $2,585 trillion... So, after all, we can see how a "small" error (trying to circulate 1cent coin) results in a "big" result... (those who studied some chaos science are familiar with this concept.)

 

I saw Jurassic
Park, does that count?

 

Jeez, I hate to get off topic like this, but from a post in the Ancients forum, I note that there were Tridrachms...hmmmmmmmmmm..Drachms, Didrachms, Tridrachms, Tetradrachms and Dekadrachms, and none of them had ANY numbers on them at all. Our ancestors must have been really smart to have sorted out all these denominations without having numbers on the coins...

 

I am now all in on this thread, just to continue to see 1) how long we can keep it front and center and 2) the continuing crazy train of ErolGarip or the "strange Turk" as I like to affectionately call him.

 

We'll, it's more complicated if you were an ancient Greek. The Greeks had an obsession with tiny silver coins. The bigger denominations might have been easier to tell apart, but try differentiating between a bunch of sub- 10mm tiny silver coins.

Only one solution: Buy a scale. The ancient Greeks did have weights and scales to be able to measure the weight of coins quite accurately.

Denominations of silver drachma
Image Denomination Value Weight

Dekadrachm 10 drachmae 43 grams

Tetradrachm 4 drachmae 17.2 grams

Didrachm 2 drachmae 8.6 grams

Drachma 6 obols 4.3 grams

Tetrobol 4 obols 2.85 grams

Triobol (hemidrachm) 3 obols 2.15 grams

Diobol 2 obols 1.43 grams

Obol 4 tetartemorions 0.72 grams

Tritartemorion 3 tetartemorions 0.54 grams

Hemiobol 2 tetartemorions 0.36 grams

Trihemitartemorion 3/2 tetartemorions 0.27 grams

Tetartemorion 1/4 obol 0.18 grams

Hemitartemorion ½ tetartemorion 0.09 grams

 

AND NONE OF THESE HAD NUMBERS???!!!

 

Of course not. If you want coins 2,000 + years ago with stated values on them, maybe a handful of Roman Republic denarii and quinarii had them (and that was only in a very tiny minority of these types of coins). I would say almost all ancient European coins don't have a stated value. We know however what they are from surviving ancient texts that give us the name of denominations and the weight for them.

The ancient Europeans didn't really do numbers on coins. Weight was the main distinguishing feature. Weight was also key because size of the denominations was not standardized. You could have a particular issue of Denarius be only 17mm in diameter, and another issue be 20mm in diameter, but at least the weight was standardized.

Here is a Tetradrachm that's about 22mm in diameter:



And this one featuring a portrait of Alexander the Great is almost 28 mm in diameter:



One is noticeably bigger than the other, and they vary in thickness quite a bit, with the Athenian Owl Tetradrachm being noticeably chunkier.

But let's look at the weight. The Athenian is 17.12g, and the Seleucid Tetradrachm is 17.20g. Based in the near identical weights alone you know they are Tetradrachms. Size doesn't matter, standardized weight does. They weigh almost the same despite being minted 2000 miles apart (one in Athens and one in Babylon, near modern day Baghdad.)

 

First of all, mentioning +2000 years old coins here in this thread as being done by "sallent" is NOT off-topic here. Mentioning 1776 continental coin as done by "thomas mozzillo" here is not off-topic either. Mentioning "Sovereign" or 9000 years old, 7000BC, stone coin is not off topic either. Mentioning sea cowry shells used as money is not off-topic either. Etc. Each of them tells some stories about their days in the past. For ex, that 1776 continental coin on which "We are One" was depicted on the coin tells about uniting people there of those days rather than the money itself of those days. The value of that coin is a kind of political value which can be seen in many coins in the past and today with political figures of the days. This "I am power, we are powers, etc" is one of reasons that have shadowed the real value of money, real basic of money.

In his post of "sallent", we see that in Roman times "material values" had started to dominate more, hence, people then were counting "weights" more and it fits that period which was the last period of "mine age", an era when finer metal crafts were started to be made. During that period, there was a "jump" in math and engineering which valued materials and their weights more. In our modern era, it is not much different, material value is still dictating on the money, for ex, you call your 5cent not "five cent", but, "nickel"... As you know, 5 or Five in the cent is another thing, nickel value is another thing. When nickel value/price exceeds that numeral/face value on that coin, it becomes "a material" rather than "money". We are already used to "metal values" which are important in engineering industry and we aren't questioning these, we are accepting doing so is true. What about those 9000 years old stone coins with inciseds on them such as "I" or "IIIII" etc? i.e. this https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/token4-gif.669727/ and this https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/token1-gif.669728/ . Today, we can say these are simple cheap stones anyway and today many can say that they can not be money as they can be made by anyone at his small blacksmith workshop. But, it is not really so. These stones coins made in the last period of "stone age" that is neolithic age were finer crafts than their previous stone coins if there were any, that we don't know. So, those stone coins too had material values, but, not exactly same material value that we understand from material value today. Those stone coins were coins made of "nothing", of stones with no value, but, gained value, after what? After craftmanship by shaping them into round/geometrical objects and drawing inciseds on them. If I were a person who were living 10,000 years ago and if I saw those 9,000 years old coins, I could say that they were fine master craftmanships. And, the basic of money that people don't see today is visible on those stone coins which have "counting" on them is clearly seen on those stone coins unlike other coins such as numeralless metal coins, cowry shells, etc.

Money, or coin in particular as the old form of money, has been counted differently, depending on the "values" of the day. For example, as seen in "Sallent"'s posts, counting material values/weights were being counted. Sometimes, and most of the times, political values were being counted as seen in the observed/head face of the coins, etc. All these have shadowed the basic counting in the money which can be clearly seen in the 9,000 years old stone coins on which there is no any politic figure/picture/etc., but, only, simple inciseds, for ex, "IIIII" which corresponds to "V" in Roman (also appears in few of Roman coins as "Sallent" mentioned and why few they were? is relevant further questioning) or "5" that we see on the coins today, but, we still really don't care about "5" even if it is there on the coins. You can say "no, we know it and we care about it", maybe, but, blurry/flue. It is clear when I say "what about the coin with "1"? Definitely, in reality, nobody cares about it, not only in the US, but also everywhere in the World.

PS: In this thread, which can also be considered as "online academical research study in progress" in the public by contributions of members of this forum also, these are being questioned. Such a study is not seen or very rare on the net in the public, so, lets enjoy it. Btw, even though Erol is a starter of this thread, Erol can be considered here as moderator of this thread or as a coordinator of talks in this thread. If "money/coin" was belong to Erol only, then, "Kentucky" et al, your personal attacks to Erol would be meaningful and it would not have been off-topic as this topic/thread was only about Erol if the money/coin were belong to Erol only. Your questioning Erol personal is like questioning the starter/mod of this cointalk forum, it is like saying "hey, cointalk forum admin/mod, why did you start this CoinTalk forum which is off-topic, off-the purpose of the internet, etc." which can be considered as absurd. If there is a such a forum here, CoinTalk, in this thread/sub-forum, another aspect/point of the coin (counting/numeral/etc) is being questioned here mathematically, linguistically, engineeringly, etc etc and this counting/numeral/etc is the heart of money in general and its basic is in the coins. Must be so. Hope things clear. When we deviate from the basic of money as it has been happening for centuries we may find ourselves in chaos as it has been happening for centuries. Yes, chaos is relevant to this topic as well, as seen in omitting 19,000 trucks of 1cent coins in total 20,000 trucks of all coins. A "small" 1cent, a "big" result... This simply indicates there is chaos in the money&coin.

 

What was the post associated with these? https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/token4-gif.669727/ and this https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/token1-gif.669728/

 

Those are interesting, but it's a tall leap indeed to call them coins or proto-money, or even counting tokens. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, these could just as well be game pieces for some prehistoric game.

 

This was some hell of a post!