Why are dimes smaller in diameter than a modern penny??

The half cent? It was already mentioned by @ACoinJob in the thread "Coin with/out numeral". But, I guess, you never visited that thread. Anyway, let me answer this also here. Half cent was before 1857. During those years when there was half cent, the unit of the US currency was half cent, lets write it adjacent, Halfcent as if it is a single noun not to confuse with half of the cent. After 1857, when the Halfcent was phased out, the unit of US currency became the Cent and since then, it has been the cent. (similar things can be said about pound sterling and its denominations.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Let me state this as clearly as I can - WHAT HAPPENS IN CASH TRANSACTIONS IS IRRELEVANT!!!! The tiny MINORITY of transactions involve CASH AT ALL!!!! Electrons are tiny buggers. Money is a concept, a "score" if you will. IT IS NOT A THING!! Not GOLD, not SILVER, not COTTON, not PAPER. It is an abstract concept, PERIOD!!!

Until you know that, understand that, and ACCEPT that, you are a MORON! On a GOOD day.

 

Our highly educated youth at work.

 

I saw this (edit) added part later. First of all, I'm not defining the basic unit of the money, it is already reality, though not known by the majority, perhaps, by everybody. The cent is the unit of the US currency, this is also by Law, even if it is not clear as the dual units (dollar and cent) are mentioned, wrongly... That the 90% of money is electronic has nothing to do with the money unit. If you look at any electronic scale at any supermarket, whatever high accuracy has doesn't matter, it shows two digits after the comma, that's it shows the cent. For example, it doesn't show $125,91342etc, but, it shows $125,91. It's programmed so, according to the cent which is the unit. This is not Erol's decision, it is not decision by the electro-mechanic engineers at scale factory either, not of supermarket owner either, bu, of the Congress members who you elect... By the way, even if the Congress decides to chose smaller, say, $125,913 with the "milli", there will still be a unit and that unit will be the "milli". And, even if all cash moneys (coins and banknotes) are cancelled, even then, there must still be a physical coin corresponding to the unit of money, but, should not be circulated. Anyway, the unit coin which is the cent now should not (have) be(en) circulated, either. Circulation of the unit money is against the nature of it.

 

You sure over
analyze
things. It's simple, not rocket science. The original DIME's were silver, and weighed in grains, but also grams. Same with half dimes, and quarters, and half dollars, and Silver Dollars. Silver half dimes were smaller than dimes (originally), and back when they designed them, they did it out of necessity. The DIME of today, though nickel clad copper, are 17.9 mm in diameter, by which haven't changed sizes since the late 1700's to early 1800's up to 1844. They were different sizes early on as the price of silver varied early on, and they wanted a pennyweights worth of silver to be as humanly accurate as they could muster. Our American Cent 1/100th of a dolllar is equivalent to $0.01 decimal coins, not comma coinage. Your system of commas is foreign, and useless in an American debate unless you're talking thousands of dollars, and more. Not very often do I see a shopping tab go over $200.00 but I have been known to splurge, spend excessively. If I were to buy a boat or motorcycle, it would run between $1,200.00 and $1,500.00 on a bargain.

 

See the bottom of page 6 here: https://web.stanford.edu/~rehall/Gov and Monetary Unit 1981.pdf, "...Congress, in 1792, created a new monetary unit called the dollar..."

 

Lets write that complete sentence written there (and also other sentences in other pages):

"...Congress, in 1792, created a new monetary unit called the dollar..., defined in terms of weights of gold or silver..." (page 6)

"... The dollar was unambiguously 0.04838 of an ounce of gold or the equivalent amount of silver..." (page 7)

"... The last vestige of the gold definition of the dollar disappeared in 1971 when the U.S. discontinued sales of gold to central banks... For the past decade, the U.S. has operated a purely fiduciary monetary system... " (page 9)

---

So, as seen in these sentences, the dollar (like any other currency in the world) was based on the gold, that's, the dollar was not the standard, gold was the standard, that's, the reference was the gold, was not the dollar. This was formally so till 1971.

That the commodity or metals such as gold as references tells that the "monetary unit" mentioned in this article and also everywhere is the "commercial unit" which may be different than the "unit" of money "itself". This is like that, by analogy: You can use a handful of wheat grain in commerce and you can call that "handful" as "unit". What was done in the new creation of the dollar in 1792 (by some ounce of gold instead of handful of grain) was like that and continued till 1971, however, it didn't end, still more or less same even if it called "fiduciary" (or "trust") monetary system.

That article, written in 1981, is simple and very informative about the US currency history, but, while there are hundreds of the word "dollar" in the article, there is no any mention about the cent, not even single one word "cent" exists in the article. It is understandable as this article too, like 99,9999999% of articles, is about the money&economy, not about the money itself.

Now that, since 1971, it is said that the monetrary system is purely fiduciary system in which the gold is not reference anymore, "commercial monetary unit" has become meaningless, that's, calling the dollar as unit has become meaningless (like that handful of wheat grain has no meaning anymore.)

Then, question arises: What is the reference of monetary system now?
Whole World are still searching some new resources as new references, eg, petrolium in last decades, but, been failing as all such attempts are related to the commerce again and the commerce is not based on the "trust" and this non-trust contradicts with the claimed so-called "fiduciary" monetary system. If it is fiduciary/trust based monetary, then, it should be scientifically objective. Although the commerce too can be called science, this scientific objectivity in the money under consideration should be non-debatable if it is fiduciary/trust. That means, the money "itself" should be questioned before talking about its relation with the commerce. Then, the question arises:

What is the reference in the money? Scientifically, if there is an indivisible unit in the money, it is the reference. And, yes, there is. It is the cent and only and only the cent.

 

This post can be deleted from here (gone off-topic) or please, don't reply to this post here. (I'll take a copy of it to "coin with/out numeral" thread, also not to lose it here and also to add that link with an informative article written in 1981 to the library of that other thread.)

 

For example, "gold" too is an abstract, is just an idea.
If we don't give any value to a piece of the gold, it is just like any stone on the ground you see everyday.

And, the gold is more absract than the money. Not everybody is interested in the gold, but, everybody is interested in the money.
Maybe, this should be questioned&answered first. Coin is money or not?

 

Absolutely NOT!!!! It is a mere token that is a physical REPRESENTATION of money. Its status is the result of a mass societal agreement or hysteria, depending on your viewpoint.

 

You only understand that because you are deserving of the sapiens part of our species’ name, unlike, for example, gold bugs and silver stackers.

 

To be sure, let me repeat what you said:
Coin is not money, it is a physical representation of money...

Whether this statement is correct and true or not depends on how you view the coin and the money. From your words, I see that the money is an abtsract concept while the coin is a concrete physical thing and these two are not the same things. And, the representation of the money that is the coin is not the money. I feel, you are blessing/praising the abstract concept "money" while you are belittling the physics "coin". But, "coin" too is an abstract concept. I mean, if you view "money" as a noun like you do, "coin" too is a noun. For example, a particular, say, the dime is a physical representation of the coin which is a physical representation of the money which is a physical representation of the nouns... As seen here, nouns are always abstract concepts... Ok, when we use noun word "coin" we immediately think about a physical object, a metallic piece which is like token. What about the money? When we use noun word "money" what do you immediately think? Not physical coin, but, for ex., electronic numbers? Do you "own" any money? If it is abstract concept only, money can not be owned.

 

As per usual for nearly ANYTHING that traces its genesis from @ErolGarip ’s keyboard, the above is useless drivel and hogwash. It’s nonsense on stilts. I can and do “own” money that is an ethereal concept for the one and only reason it will ever need - the bank with whom it is deposited SAYS I DO, and says so according to the duly enacted laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States of America. That’s all I need and all I ever WILL NEED or care to need. Anything else is needless surplusage and irrelevant trivia. GOVERNMENTS and a BANKING SYSTEM give ALL meaning to money and always will HENCEFORTH and forever more in any realm of time that matters. Coins are tokens only. They ARE NOT MONEY, nor is gold, nor is silver. All money is conceptual. The physical analogs exist merely to comfort the feeble minded.

 

Well I just purchased a physical object on ebay with my "abstract" concept of numbers (" electronics numbers " at that) and the exchange will occur. The seller is foreign, so the abstract concept is even better as there is no need for exchange of one physical for another. You can hold your own theories, but as with "flat earthers", those who believe the world is flat since they can't see the curve themselves, they are not transferable to the real world. Just because many do not contradict you, it does not mean they agree with you. I believe you correlate the number of posts and pages you initiate as validity of your theory and acceptance, but it doesn't. Jim

 

Superb analysis, Jim. And I’ll add parenthetically that I am a not infrequent Jim critic on unrelated issues, for readers caught without a scorecard.

 

In other words, many CoinTalkers, when confronted with the @ErolGarip s of the world, subscribe to the theory, “Never argue with an idiot. They’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

As for me, I find idiocy and its carriers so completely intolerable and incompatible with any life worth living that I have to smack them around as a sort of moral imperative.

 

So, you believe the bank, the government, the banking system? I do NOT... They do NOT have a one cent in their pockets... They are NON-Trustable people. Also, they do NOT give me money, I DO work hard, earn and take the money and I put it in my pocket, the place where I Trust most.

So, do you mean "electronic numbers" (in credit/debit cards or in bank accounts) are money, but, "mechanical numbers" (on coins) are not money? Come on, you can't be serious. Does it matter whether the number is mechanical or electronical? By the way, right now, you answered the question what the money itself is. Yes, it is all about the numbers. But, is not there "1" or in word, "one" in the money numbers? Ha, yes, it is negligible(!) according to the holy commerce laws issued by the governments, isn't it... They are neglecting their own words...

Ps: Edit. Since I "own" money by working and since I have one coin in my pocket that they don't have, the money is NOT belong to the governments/banks/etc, but, to me (or, to anyone who works.)

 

You just go on believing that if it lets you sleep better, but it is not based in truth. All sovereign GOVERNMENTS (and ONLY they) have the power to define what is, and what is NOT, money. It is one of the essential powers of governments, along with raising an army and establishing courts of law. The entire idea of a true “money” not defined AND REGULATED by a government, is utter nonsense. Governments ALWAYS have the power to monetize and yes, demonetize anything they please, theoretically at a whim, any TIME they please. The metal token IN YOUR POCKET has the name of a government (NOT a NATION, a GOVERNMENT) for a REASON.

Don’t put words in my mouth, though. You may own it, but a government CREATED, DEFINED, and REGULATES it, and has the power to destroy it, in physical fact or Law, as the case may be.

 

Consider this “Erolstein”: every one of all those half cents that still exist is still legal currency. The end of manufacture did not render them legally changed in any way. $20 gold certificates are still spendable as $20. Only the Trade Dollar has been demonetized.