Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 1101817, member: 112&quot;]OK, let me start by asking what I consider to be the most obvious question. And that is precisely why most people never even think of it - because it is the most obvious. Ya ready ?</p><p><br /></p><p>How in the world would anyone know that the metal was .986 or .900, or whatever number you pick; if they did not also know how to achieve 1.000 ? Do you see what I mean ? To be even be able to measure down to the thousandths of a percent to judge fineness you must first have the ability to produce 1.000 purity or else you have nothing to even measure it against.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now, as to your question about why they chose a given number of fineness. People always assume that the reason coinage metal was debased was to make the coins hold up better. And while that is a valid reason, it is also a reason that was never even thought of until much later in history. You see, people would not even know that they had a problem with coins of pure metal holding up in commerce unless they first produced coins of pure metal and then discovered that they wore out too easily and too soon. That is also something that is so blatantly obvious that it is overlooked.</p><p><br /></p><p>But even besides that, coins holding up in circulation was not a problem at all until much, much later in history. The reason it was not a problem is because gold coins were so much money that they really didn&#039;t circulate in commerce, at least not in the way that we think of circulation today. So wear was not even a problem.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now, to the real reason, the original reason, that coinage metal was debased - seignorage. You see, monarchs chose whatever fineness they wanted to use purely at their whim. The debasement of the metal had nothing to do with their not being able to produce pure metal. It only had to do with the cost of producing the coins and the image of himself (ego) that the monarch wished to present to the world. And the greater a monarch&#039;s finacial difficulties then the more debased his coinage was at any given time.</p><p><br /></p><p>You see, back then image, stature if you will, was everything. The way other kings and queens perceived you played a very large part in how much power or influence over other countries you actually had. And if your coinage was of a higher fineness than other country&#039;s coinage then you gained stature. So unless they were in trouble financially monarchs tried to produce coinage of as high a fineness as they could. But rarely did they do it at a cost to them - thus seignorage. Seignorage was, is, and always has been the primary reason for debased coinage. It was never because they could not produce pure metal, it was because they did not <b><u>want</u></b> to produce pure metal.</p><p><br /></p><p>It was precisely because the Venetians chose to use gold of such a high fineness that made the ducat the most successful, the most widely accepted and trusted coin that the world has ever known. The high purity of the ducat, and the consistency with which it was produced by every country made the ducat the preferred choice of all coinage.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>It&#039;s not some rare book, it Friedbergs. A standard reference for gold coinage. You&#039;ll find the same references in Krause as well. As for tests, you&#039;d have to ask the authors of the books, not me.[/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