Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Andy, post: 22893, member: 645&quot;]&quot;The importance of the imprint or type on a coin is that it was what guaranteed the bullion has having a definite exchange value&quot; Reid in response to my thinking that GD&#039;s gold, whats new, chinese squares with a hole can be considered as coins and not just currency.</p><p><br /></p><p>Hi Reid I agree with you that the standard defintion of a coin is the three criteria rule being; First, it must bear the mark of the issuing authority. Lacking this, the item is a form of primitive money, not a coin. Secondly, it must contain an intrinsic value bearing some relationship to the circulating value. The intrinsic value can be less than the circulating value but if it falls too far below, the item becomes a token rather than a coin. The third criterion is that the coin must be issued to a denomination and weight standard, otherwise it is bullion which must be weighed at each transaction. </p><p><br /></p><p>However, what I was thinking in the case of GD&#039;s gold is what if the hole in the sqare of gold was the mark of&nbsp; the issuing authority,, which would be that Chinese dynasty, and if the squares of gold came in different sizes wouldn&#039;t that suggest that they would fit the criteria of the other two especially if there was an edict stating that gold could not be&nbsp; mined or melted from ore unless under the&nbsp; ruling authority&#039;s direction. Of course I am not&nbsp; a scholar and Asia,&nbsp; outside of near asia or as we say today the middle east, was never really an area that I had put any effort into so maybe I&#039;m way off but then again I like to think outside of the circle and in this case think inside of the square.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in