Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;medoraman, post: 1272516, member: 26302&quot;]Not sure I follow. You say I don&#039;t understand the difference between copper being used to make currency and gold being currency, and yet you say copper was very valuable at times. I am not aware of any period where copper was more valuable than gold, when was that? Gold has always been rarer, but easily available.</p><p><br /></p><p>What people need to understand about currency is the government has not once done this as a public service. The first coin in the world was underweight gold and overweight silver, but passed off as standard electrum. Because of this coinage may have died out in Lydia but for Croesus&#039; reforms of making pure PM coins instead. Chinese coins were always more valuable than the bronze in them, as well as Indian silver issues. Yes, they were very close to the metal value, but slightly deficient. </p><p><br /></p><p>So which am I misunderstanding? Gold, silver, and copper were used to make a currency that circulated at the proscribe value from the beginnings of currency. All three have a long, rich tradition of being used as marks of value and items for trading. All three have long traditions of being valued to craft valuable items that were wanted. The only reason the bronze oxhide does not qualify as coinage is that it does not have a mark of value, other than that they are of standard weight and trade widely. Out of all of this how is gold the only one of these three metals that is &quot;money&quot; and the other two aren&#039;t? I am assuming that is your conclusion.</p><p><br /></p><p>Not being argumentative, just curious.[/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