Charis newly minted silver and Gold coins

wingfield wrote:Being a kingdom and then an empire, the coins of Charis would probably follow the British and Roman examples, with the head of the sovereign(s) on the reverse. That would now mean the images of Cayleb and Sharleyan on the coinage.

Thinking about this a little more, in Charis there would be plenty of Haarahld VII coins around, a few Cayleb II ones (minted during his short solo reign) and an assortment of ones from Haarahld's father and predecessors.

Similarly, there would be plenty of "Sharleyan" coins going around in Chisholm, plus those of her father and other ancestors. Emerald, Corisande and Tarot would have many coins of their own rulers still in circulation, even once the imperial currency started to become more widespread.

wingfield wrote:

wingfield wrote:Being a kingdom and then an empire, the coins of Charis would probably follow the British and Roman examples, with the head of the sovereign(s) on the reverse. That would now mean the images of Cayleb and Sharleyan on the coinage.

Thinking about this a little more, in Charis there would be plenty of Haarahld VII coins around, a few Cayleb II ones (minted during his short solo reign) and an assortment of ones from Haarahld's father and predecessors.

Similarly, there would be plenty of "Sharleyan" coins going around in Chisholm, plus those of her father and other ancestors. Emerald, Corisande and Tarot would have many coins of their own rulers still in circulation, even once the imperial currency started to become more widespread.

If they followed English the coins in circulation would be recalled periodically to the mint, melted and reminted to prevent debasement of the currency by clipping and to detect forgeries.
Another possible path in this case since the church also act as bankers, would be for them to be minting most of the coin in circulation, in which case a standard format would be maintained globally, the current textev seems to support this as happening. Again to prevent debasement periodic recalls would logically be happening.
Either way forging coins has been traditionally severely punished.
I would therefore expect most of the coins in circulation to be relatively recent (less than 10 to 20 years) due to wear considerations. So plenty of Haarahld VII, some Cayleb II and current Cayleb & Sharleyan issues along with quite a few different offshore issues (as Charis is a trading nation).

AirTech wrote:
If they followed English the coins in circulation would be recalled periodically to the mint, melted and reminted to prevent debasement of the currency by clipping and to detect forgeries.
Another possible path in this case since the church also act as bankers, would be for them to be minting most of the coin in circulation, in which case a standard format would be maintained globally, the current textev seems to support this as happening. Again to prevent debasement periodic recalls would logically be happening.
Either way forging coins has been traditionally severely punished.
I would therefore expect most of the coins in circulation to be relatively recent (less than 10 to 20 years) due to wear considerations. So plenty of Haarahld VII, some Cayleb II and current Cayleb & Sharleyan issues along with quite a few different offshore issues (as Charis is a trading nation).

Quite true about the likelihood of recall, noting the problems being brought to Duchairn's attention in LAMA.

More interestingly, how advanced is their coinage techniques ? Do they have listels ? Do they have listel enscriptions ? Do they have galvanised coins ? Have they thought of mechanising the mints ?

niethil wrote:More interestingly, how advanced is their coinage techniques ? Do they have listels ? Do they have listel enscriptions ? Do they have galvanised coins ? Have they thought of mechanising the mints ?

The books describe precious metal based coinage. So no galvanization.
Mechanizing the minting process would not required excessive effort as the techniques are not too far off making cartridges (particularly rimless rounds).
Adding lettered edges, milled edges or similar markings would be a logical next step from basic automation to make coin clipping more obvious.
If the church has debased their coinage this would potentially have an inflationary on the black market exchange rate giving greater value to an obviously unclipped coin.

AirTech wrote:I would have thought a Shintoist, Hindu or Sikh would have bigger issues (One nation under Gods (insert deity of choice....) (a Muslim would have no issue with one nation under God, and a Buddhist wouldn't care as it would be a distraction in the search for personal enlightenment).

As an agnostic, I find the "Under...." mildly offensive but I've come to believe no religion would be concerned about any of its beliefs offering offense to those of other, or no, beliefs. It is surprising, to me at least, there is no hue and cry about its political correctness.

When I started teaching I came to appreciate the value of the Pledge of Allegiance as a wonderful means of getting the class settled down and into the school day. Other than that I'd have to say IMHO it is of no value whatsoever.

EdThomas wrote:

AirTech wrote:I would have thought a Shintoist, Hindu or Sikh would have bigger issues (One nation under Gods (insert deity of choice....) (a Muslim would have no issue with one nation under God, and a Buddhist wouldn't care as it would be a distraction in the search for personal enlightenment).

As an agnostic, I find the "Under...." mildly offensive but I've come to believe no religion would be concerned about any of its beliefs offering offense to those of other, or no, beliefs. It is surprising, to me at least, there is no hue and cry about its political correctness.

When I started teaching I came to appreciate the value of the Pledge of Allegiance as a wonderful means of getting the class settled down and into the school day. Other than that I'd have to say IMHO it is of no value whatsoever.

There's some hue and cry. It makes me kinda itchy, both out of an interest in a separation of church and state and as an atheist. Skipping two words in a crowd of semi-conscious students is trivially easy, though it's not a perfectly satisfying workaround.

You get some hue and cry in reply whenever there is any hue and cry though - usually at far greater volume, too. It's an offense against constitutional scruples, but then, there are so many of those you've got to prioritize work to eliminate them.

JeffEngel wrote:There's some hue and cry. It makes me kinda itchy, both out of an interest in a separation of church and state and as an atheist. Skipping two words in a crowd of semi-conscious students is trivially easy, though it's not a perfectly satisfying workaround.

You get some hue and cry in reply whenever there is any hue and cry though - usually at far greater volume, too. It's an offense against constitutional scruples, but then, there are so many of those you've got to prioritize work to eliminate them.

this is my personal belief...

the "average" non fanatical "believer" likely won't have major issues although they may have some "twitchy moments" as previously mentioned. however when you get to "fanatics" all bets are off.

honestly my biggest issue with fanatics sometimes called fundimentialists (although they are NOT the same) is they often deliberately refuse to consider anyone else's viewpoint.

to use an example the "Christian Fanatics" that burn copies of the Koran, and are "surprised" that muslems have an issue with that, and yet they get all upset when muslems burn copies of the bible, as if there is a difference, in the activity.

Kakai wrote:

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:
"In God We Trust" on the currency, "under God" in the
Pledge, both in Eisenhower's first term, after getting
by without them for about 175 years!

Out of sheer curiosity, as a non-American, may I ask - do people of different faiths, such as Muslim or Buddhist, have to pledge "under God" as well?

And more on-topic: maybe there could be some coins with, let's say, victorious Charisian soldier or sailor and names and dates of some battles of the current war? Maybe not as a regular currency, but some kind of commemorative "special edition"?

That question has been litigated extensively. The answer is "no". The Pledge is never compulsory in public schools, which is almost all but certainly not completely all the times it is ever invoked.

Guardiandashi wrote:

honestly my biggest issue with fanatics sometimes called fundimentialists (although they are NOT the same) is they often deliberately refuse to consider anyone else's viewpoint.

I know you didn't ask me, but I thought I would pipe up anyway. I am a Christian and a fundamentalist, although whether I'm a fanatic or not depends on your definition. I very much consider others' opinions. That's not a true distinction, though, because I interpret your claim that fanatics don't consider others' opinions to be a description of a common occurrence rather than an absolute rule.

the "average" non fanatical "believer" likely won't have major issues although they may have some "twitchy moments" as previously mentioned.

The Pledge of Allegiance always made me twitchy because I was so young, but old enough to know that something important might be going on. What was I doing? Was I obligating myself legally? Could I retract it later if I determined that was best? I would really have preferred not to make the pledge despite being a Christian then, and despite the presence of the phrase "under God". What does it even mean to be a nation under God? However, there was always so much peer pressure that I never refused.

to use an example the "Christian Fanatics" that burn copies of the Koran, and are "surprised" that muslems have an issue with that, and yet they get all upset when muslems burn copies of the bible, as if there is a difference, in the activity.

Hmmm...I have a copy of the Koran, but I don't plan on ever burning it. I've tried to read it, but I find it rather heavy going. I'm told that reading it is rather less than completely useful because it's in English, and only the original language holds the complete meaning.

I don't want to burn it because it cost seven or eight bucks, and I don't have that to throw away. Despite that, I have to admire the Christians who do burn them. I see it as retaliation for the burning of Bibles. Retaliation is probably too strong a word. Actually, I see it as free speech for those who wish to say that the Koran is not more valuable (to the burners) than is the Bible. Koran burners risk their lives in a way that Bible burners don't, persons willing to kill for Bible burning being rather scarcer on the ground than people willing to kill for Koran burning. At least, that's my impression.

Personally, I would apply the Judaic Negative Golden Rule - that which you do not like, don't do to others. Even so, I can see how fundamentalist Christians could decide not to apply that rule. You might ask how two Christians can come to opposite answers to a moral question, and I might be happy to discuss that with you if you wish.

I encountered a little...dissonance at your description of Koran burners being surprised. I realize you put scare quotes around "surprised" so I know that you don't mean to use the literal definition of the word. My evaluation of Koran burners is that they want to face Bible burners with a choice, either stop burning Bibles, get over your dismay at burned Korans, or bring it on. None of those fit very well with the literal definition of surprised.

~Tonto