I would refrain from repeating anything said in an advertisement designed to get you to buy a product, especially this show. I know you are excieted to share information that you think is unique, but then it gets repeated as a fact and becomes misleading.
Uhhhhh no, I'd never take credit for naming the dollar sign :smile I will take credit for the theory that the symbol adopted to be used for the dollar sign came from the Potosi mint mark though. That one is 100% me As to why it should be hard to argue with that idea - isn't it obvious ? I mean there it is, right in front of your eyes - a $ sign within that mint mark. You also have to understand that Potosi produced far more coins than some of the other mints combined. The mint sat on top of a literal mountain of silver. It was the largest silver find ever recorded. And as a result of these two things the Potosi mint coins were the ones most commonly seen and used. And since the 8 reales coins were called Spanish dollars, it pretty much stands to reason that the Potosi mint mark was chosen to be the symbol of the dollar once the US dollar came along. Especially since the US dollar was based, and our other denominations, on the Spanish colonial cons.
Eric Newman did a nice study on the origin of the dollar sign. According to him it came from the abbreviation for Pesos which was used for the spanish 8 reales. Originally it was written as Ps, then the s became superimposed on the upright of the P. As time passed the upper loop of the P got smaller while the S got bigger. Eventually the upper loop of the P disappeared just leaving the upright through it. $ He had a series of account books covering maybe a 100 year period that illustrated the evolution of the symbol. It is possible though that the superimposing of the S on the P could have been suggested by the Potosi mintmarks on some of the 8 reales that the bookkeeper had on hand.
That is just me joking around Salty. Actually I have read this information in several places. As for how the $ symbol came to be, there are different theories. Which one do you believe is correct and based on fact? Could the Potosi mint mark be based on the pillars of Hercules w/ banner?
"A common theory holds that it derives from the Spanish coat of arms engraved on the colonial silver coins, the reals, (among them the Spanish dollar) that were in circulation in Spain's colonies in America and Asia. Reals and Spanish dollars were also legal tender in the English colonies in North America, which later became part of the United States and Canada" This goes through all the current theories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_sign Edit: Also there is this "$" symbol, and the one with 2 vertical lines. I've always drawn this symbol with 2 vertical lines.
I'm not sure which origin contributed to the dollar sign as we sometime see it. Interestingly the Mint uses an incomplete single line on all our circulating one dollar coinage. A short line atop and below an S shaped symbol. The BEP doesn't use one at all.
The Cazador coins are interesting only for two reasons. 1. They are shipwreck coins, with an interesting story behind them of how the USA might look entirely different had that ship arrived. 2. They provide an option to purchase fairly decent specimens of portrait dollars at low prices. However, 2) is because all the coins are damaged. Silver and salt water do not go together well. You can find beautiful coins if you spend ~300$, but they will always be "damaged goods" compared to an 8R that hasn't spent time underwater (although you'd pay much more, of course).
No, it couldn't. The Potosi mint mark is quite simple, a P, a T, and an S, superimposed over one another. All of the Spanish colonial mints used a mint mark based on the name of the mint. I know, and that's how I took it. That's why I used the smiley :yes:
The Potosi mint P+T+S+I, and the Peso P+S, all had letters joined in an interesting way. Joined to resemble a pillar / banner? The pillars w/ banner was basically the symbol for money back then.
There was no I used in the Potosi mint mark, just the PTS. Sources that say otherwise are wrong. I already told you what theory I think to be correct - mine. And no, the Potosi mint mark is not based on the Pillars of Hercules. It is based on exactly what I said it was. Just like all of the other Spanish colonial mint marks. And for the benefit of you, and others who read this, I will tell you something that all need to be aware of. Just because you can find information on the net, in a book, in an article, anyplace; and just because you can find that information repeated in various sources - that does not mean that information is correct. When one studies numismatics, and I mean really studies, one thing soon becomes very evident. That thing is that numismatic authors, just like all authors, are very prone to merely copy and or repeat what has been presented by other authors who have gone before them. And if the original author made a mistake or was just flat out wrong, then everybody who copied him or used him as a source was wrong as well. This occurrence is so common as to almost defy belief. Nonetheless it is true. There are so many books, articles, papers and web sites out there that contain bad, incorrect information that it be very difficult to sort them out. And it can take a long time to do that. Because when it comes to coins, it is not uncommon to find bad information that has been repeated over and over for more than a hundred years, sometimes even hundreds of years. How do you sort it out ? By going back to primary sources and discounting all secondary sources. What are primary sources ? Original mint records, original correspondence, decrees, laws, etc. etc. It is never easy to do this, but it can be done. Spain for instance is one of the countries that kept meticulous records, and those records from centuries ago still exist. Venice is another example. Original records from the Venetian mint dating back to the 12th century, and maybe from even before, still exist today. But most authors won't do that. Instead they just copy what has been said by others before them. They feel like writing something so they read some books and sit down and write it. Never even giving any thought to whether or not what they are writing is correct or not. Let me give you an example. Walter Breen was thought of, and still is, as being one of the titans of numismatics. His books are used far & wide and trusted by many as being gospel. But today, it is known without any doubt, that Breen was wrong about more than few things. So unless you are well read enough to know what Breen was right about, and what he was wrong about, then it is all to easy for you to believe bad, incorrect information. In today's world all too many people think that if it's on the internet then it must be true. Well, trust me, it isn't. But some of it is. It is up to you to sort that out
You are wearing me down . I could cite a whole bibliography and so could you. In the end these are all theories. I’m waving the white flag. Good discussion though.
I agree with you GDM. It's important to check your sources. But I must say that it is getting increasingly difficult with the amount of crappy information heavily outweighing the credible information. A lot of stuff on the Internet is actually just hearsay. Sometimes even seemingly credible sources get their information from unreliable places. (Wikipedia is an example)
Swervo513 – I also agree there is a lot of unreliable sources out there online and in literature. The reason I linked Wiki is because it went through all the theories (to be fair), and made it easy for someone else reading the thread to see what we were discussing. Doug – I hope you know that I respect your knowledge, background, and job as administrator. This and "black ring airtites" is the only thing we have disagreed with; and I have read many of your debates on CT. I just feel this debate could go on forever like “Global Warming” and “Did Dinosaurs Exist At The Same Time As Man”. Working 60+ hours a week, and having family in town for the holidays makes me not have the energy for debate like Juan Blanco has . At some point I lost track on what we were really talking about. The dollar sign with one vertical line or two? And going off the Potosi Mint Mark theory; are you saying that was the origin of the dollar sign in the USA, another country, or the origin of the dollar sign period? To me, this pillar: is the closest thing that resembles the modern day dollar sign. If you would give me your main source in why you believe the Potosi Mint Mark theory is correct, I will try to search it out over the holidays to look at it.
John - There is no definitive answer, no right or wrong, to the question of how the dollar sign originated. All anybody has is a theory, an educated guess. So yes, it not only could go on forever, it will go on forever. As for you and me it's not a debate, just a discussion. As to the question of 1 vertical line or 2, I never even mentioned it. Both are acceptable in use, and anybody that sees either one knows exactly what it means. Look on your keyboard, what's it have ? I suspect the same as mine - $ And to the best of my knowledge the dollar sign we use today most definitely originated in the United States. As for the main source for my theory - I am the original source.