| Author |
 Replies: 11 / Views: 1,899 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
574 Posts |
Hello,
I have a question that I have been pondering and I was just wondering if anyone here has an opinion on the matter.
The question that I have is that until recently coinage had for the most part pretty much settled on gold, silver and copper for what coins are usually made of. So my question is do you think this is because gold, silver and copper are inherently antimicrobial metals and would have helped hinder the spread of disease and sickness as coins/money passed from person to person and place to place? And if so was it by design, coincidence or by trial and error?
Anyway, just something that I have been pondering. Please let me know what you think. Thanks.
Edited by casualcoincollector
01/09/2018 05:12 am
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
56855 Posts |
I think G-S-C were used because they are considered precious metals.If coins were made of lesser materials just about anyone could make them. John1  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
516 Posts |
I think this was purely coincidental, bacteria was first observed in 1676 whereas gold, silver and copper have been used long before. The choice of metals was because of the intrinsic value of the metal itself.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
574 Posts |
@ Coopertron5000 Ancient cultures may have not known what bacteria was but silver has been used for health purposes for thousands of years. So I think that would support the trial and error theory rather than the coincidence theory. http://www.silver-colloids.com/Pubs...-silver.html |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
4591 Posts |
In order to make units of commerce, the underlying item has to be somewhat rare, durable and workable.
If you look back through history, pretty much anything that meets those two has been used...
Big stones - Yap money (the workability/rarity comes in the effort to make one, not the raw material)
Iron knife money
Wampum (small shells of a specific type - the work was finding them)
etc.
-----Burton 50+ year / Life / Emeritus ANA member (joined 12/1/1973) Life member: Numismatics International, CONECA Member: TNA, FtWCC, NETCC, EveryCountry (online) coin club Owned by three cats and a wife of 40+ years (joined 1983) Author: 3rd Edition of the Sample Slabs book, https://www.sampleslabs.info/ |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5029 Posts |
 Good question casual. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
3831 Posts |
I personally don't think that's the case. Coins were normally based on metals that are commonly available up to something that's somewhat scarce. Metals that are commonly available can easily range from the standard copper to exotic metal such as antimony and heavy toxic metal lead (!)
My partial coin collection http://www.omnicoin.com/collection/gxseriesMy numismatics articles and collection: http://www.gxseries.com/numis/numis_index.htmRegularly updated at least once a month. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6130 Posts |
Gold and silver both exist in pure elemental form in nature, but some time before history, humans realized that silver could be extracted from various ores, which bumped it from its status as the rarest metal (Silver was more valuable than gold in Egypt) but didn't make it "common" by a long shot. Except in China where copper was the *only* coinage metal for a very long time, coins in Europe and India were exclusively made of gold and silver until economies matured to allow a bronze "fiat" currency with little to no intrinsic value. Lead was extensively used as coinage in India, but the Europeans probably preferred it for utilitarian purposes, except in Celtic Gaul where it was alloyed with bronze to make potin coins. Tin was more useful to make bronze, and pure tin is a poor coinage metal as it oxidises easily in cold temperatures (look at how many Japanese WWII tin coins have turned to tin oxide dust). I'm not entirely sure why Iron was not used in early coinage outside of Song dynasty China... it was probably just easier to coin bronze.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Good input, and Burton's thoughts were interesting as well. Excellent thread.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
17900 Posts |
Money of any type is a trade replacement. Instead of needing to barter two chickens for three bushels of corn either could have a standard value which greatly enhanced the economic survivability of a society.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
20753 Posts |
Rather interesting question. When you think about it, almost any metal could have been used and even some non metals. For example why not Silicon? And as time went on, more and more different metals were discovered I would think coins would have been made with many of them. And imagine if they were made of Uranium, for example, they would be easier to find if lost. A simple gieger counter would locate all lost money.
However, today we now use Plastic instead.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
3831 Posts |
Silicon is used as a trace metal in Mexican bimetal coins if I recall correctly. I guess the general consensus of picking what elements to use is the following
1) Cost
2) Availability
3) Hardness
4) Durability
If you want something that's hard and that will last, tungsten comes to mind. But because it's too hard, it's just not a practical metal to work with. These days, plated steel seems to be the choice for many world coins as it's cheap and durable.
|
| |
Replies: 11 / Views: 1,899 |
|
Posted 01/09/2018 05:10 am
