Latest Articles

Talk about money is also talk about business. We required money to live, buy something, doing vacation, and many more. All of the people have a target to be rich or wealth. We can get those target by doing in the right strategy of business. The highest business level all the time is investing. Investing is the quickest way to get a great amount of profit by having an asset on buying gold or gold coins. Investing on gold is the very common investor do in this world because gold is the ultimate asset that has been proved in a very long time. Find great bargains on gold coins at www.coincollectinguniversity.com

If you are planning to invest on gold, try to visit the goldcoinsgain.com. It is the site to buy gold bullion to your pure assets. This site is acknowledged for their certified gold coins, so you can trust on them. This site full of information about an investment gold such as spot price of gold, grading of gold, gold’s history, gold coin performance, and so on. You can also do a gold ira transfer from this site. This site provided various gold coins like Liberty Quarter Eagle, Gold American Eagle, Gold Canadian Maple Leaf, Chinese Gold Panda and many more. They have a quiet complete list of world gold coins countries. Not only gold, but you can also buy other precious metals. They also already in the national media such as Newsweek, CNBC, Forbes.com and MarketWatch.

Now, you learn that buy gold is the best investment because its miss to devaluate from government. It is a pure form of money. The price of gold can be rising dramatically based on several situation issues like war, inflation, high oil and gas prices, weakness in the U.S dollar, budget deficits, bank failures and more. Because of that, many investors like to invest in gold. So, whether you are investors or starting to invest on gold, goldcoinsgain.com will be the very best place for your reference and buy gold coins or selling it.

There has been a lot of E-mail traffic coming in after my blog on The Greens the other day. At the heart of the matter is the fundamental difficulty people have in appreciating that there has been a fundamental shift since the 1970s in the way our monetary system operates. This shift redefines how we should think about macroeconomics and the role of a national government which issues its own currency. The defenders of The Greens economic policy clearly misunderstand this historical shift. To really get to the heart of how a modern monetary system functions you have to appreciate the difference between a convertible and non-convertible currency and a fixed versus a flexible exchange rate system. The economics that apply to convertible currency-fixed exchange rate systems bears no relation to that which applies to the fiat currency-flexible exchange rate systems that prevail in most economies today. So before you attack my macroeconomics, make sure you understand what a government can do in a modern monetary paradigm. Otherwise, you are a dinosaur and they became extinct.

Gold standard - convertibility and fixed exchange rates

When we talk about the gold standard we are referring to the system which regulated the value of currencies around the world in terms of a certain amount of gold. When the gold standard was in vogue (C19th into the C20th) it was the major way that countries adjusted their money supply.

How does it work?

First, a currency might be valued for its intrinsic value (so gold or silver coins). This is a pure commodity currency system. In the C18th, commodity money systems became problematic because there was a shortage of silver and this system steadily gave way to a system where paper money issued by a central bank was backed by gold. So the idea was that a currency’s value can be expressed in terms of a specified unit of gold. So we might say that a unit of paper currency (a dollar note) might be worth x grains of gold. To make this work there has to be convertibility which means that someone who possesses a paper dollar will be able to swap it (convert it) for the relevant amount of gold.

Britain adopted the gold standard in 1844 and it became the common system regulating domestic economies and trade between them up until World War I. In this period, the leading economies of the world ran a pure gold standard and expressed their exchange rates accordingly. As an example, say the Australian Pound was worth 30 grains of gold and the USD was worth 15 grains, then the 2 USDs would be required for every AUD in trading exchanges.

The monetary authority agreed to maintain the “mint price” of gold fixed by standing ready to buy or sell gold to meet any supply or demand imbalance. Further, the central bank (or equivalent in those days) had to maintain stores of gold sufficient to back the circulating currency (at the agreed convertibility rate).

Gold was also considered to be the principle method of making international payments. Accordingly, as trade unfolded, imbalances in trade (imports and exports) arose and this necessitated that gold be transferred between nations (in boats) to fund these imbalances. Trade deficit countries had to ship gold to trade surplus countries. For example, assume Australia was exporting more than it was importing from New Zealand. In net terms, the demand for AUD (to buy the our exports) would thus be higher relative to supply (to buy NZD to purchase imports from NZ) and this would necessitate New Zealand shipping gold to us to fund the trade imbalance (their deficit with Australia).

This inflow of gold would allow the Australian government to expand the money supply (issue more notes) because they had more gold to back the currency. This expansion was in strict proportion to the set value of the AUD in terms of grains of gold. The rising money supply would push against the inflation barrier (given no increase in the real capacity of the economy) which would ultimately render exports less attractive to foreigners and the external deficit would decline.

From the New Zealand perspective, the loss of gold reserves to Australia forced their Government to withdraw paper currency which was deflationary - rising unemployment and falling output and prices. The latter improved the competitiveness of their economy which also helped resolve the trade imbalance. But it remains that the deficit nations were forced to bear rising unemployment and vice versa as the trade imbalances resolved.

The proponents of the gold standard focus on the way it prevents the government from issuing paper currency as a means of stimulating their economies. Under the gold standard, the government could not expand base money if the economy was in trade deficit. It was considered that the gold standard acted as a means to control the money supply and generate price levels in different trading countries which were consistent with trade balance. The domestic economy however was forced to make the adjustments to the trade imbalances.

Monetary policy became captive to the amount of gold that a country possessed (principally derived from trade). Variations in the gold production levels also influenced the price levels of countries.

In practical terms, the adjustments to trade that were necessary to resolve imbalances were slow. In the meantime, deficit nations had to endure domestic recessions and entrenched unemployment. So a gold standard introduces a recessionary bias to economies with the burden always falling on countries with weaker currencies (typically as a consequence of trade deficits). This inflexibility prevented governments from introducing policies that generated the best outcomes for their domestic economies (high employment).

Ultimately the monetary authority would not be able to resist the demands of the population for higher employment.

The onset of World War I interrupted the operation of the gold standard and currencies were valued by whatever the specific government wanted to set it at. The ensuing 25 odd years saw significant instability with attempts to go back to the standard in some countries proving extremely damaging in terms of gold losses and rising unemployment. The UK abandoned the gold standard in 1931 as it was facing massive losses of gold. It had tried to maintain the value of the Pound in terms the pre-WW1 parity with gold but the war severely weakened its economy and so the pound was massively over-valued in this period and trade competitiveness undermined as a consequence.

After World War 2, the IMF was created to supercede the gold standard and the so-called gold exchange standard emerged. Convertibility to gold was abandoned and replaced by convertibility into the USD, reflecting the dominance of the US in world trade (and the fact that they won the war!). This new system was built on the agreement that the US government would convert a USD into gold at $USD35 per ounce of gold. This provided the nominal anchor for the exchange rate system.

The Bretton Woods System was introduced in 1946 and created the fixed exchange rates system. Governments could now sell gold to the United States treasury at the price of $USD35 per ounce. So now a country would build up USD reserves and if they were running a trade deficit they could swap their own currency for USD (drawing from their reserves) and then for their own currency and stimulate the economy (to increase imports and reduce the trade deficit).

The fixed exchange rate system however rendered fiscal policy relatively restricted because monetary policy had to target the exchange parity. If the exchange rate was under attack (perhaps because of a balance of payments deficit) which would manifest as an excess supply of the currency in the foreign exchange markets, then the central bank had to intervene and buy up the local currency with its reserves of foreign currency (principally $USDs).

This meant that the domestic economy would contract (as the money supply fell) and unemployment would rise. Further, the stock of $USD reserves held by any particular bank was finite and so countries with weak trading positions were always subject to a recessionary bias in order to defend the agreed exchange parities. The system was politically difficult to maintain because of the social instability arising from unemployment.

So if fiscal policy was used too aggressively to reduce unemployment, it would invoke a monetary contraction to defend the exchange rate as imports rose in response to the rising national income levels engendered by the fiscal expansion. Ultimately, the primacy of monetary policy ruled because countries were bound by the Bretton Woods agreement to maintain the exchange rate parities. They could revalue or devalue (once off realignments) but this was frowned upon and not common.

Whichever system we want to talk off - pure gold standard or USD-convertible system backed by gold - the constraints on government were obvious.

The gold standard as applied domestically meant that existing gold reserves controlled the domestic money supply. Given gold was in finite supply (and no new discoveries had been made for years), it was considered to provide a stable monetary system. But when the supply of gold changed (a new field discovered) then this would create inflation.

So gold reserves restricted the expansion of bank reserves and the supply of high powered money (Government currency). The central bank thus could not expand their liabilities beyond their gold reserves (although it is a bit more complex than that). In operational terms this means that once the threshold was reached, then the monetary authority could not buy any government debt or provide loans to its member banks.

As a consequence, bank reserves were limited and if the public wanted to hold more currency then the reserves would contract. This state defined the money supply threshold.

Some gymnastics could be done to adjust the quantity of gold that had to be held. But overall the restrictions were solid.

The concept of (and the term) monetisation comes from this period. When the government acquired new gold (say by purchasing some from a gold mining firm) they could create new money. The process was that the government would order some gold and sign a cheque for the delivery. This cheque is deposited by the miner in their bank. The bank then would exchange this cheque with the central bank in return for added reserves. The central bank then accounts for this by reducing the government account at the bank. So the government’s loss is the commercial banks reserve gain.

The other implication of this system is that the national government can only increase the money supply by acquiring more gold. Any other expenditure that the government makes would have to be “financed” by taxation or by debt issuance. The government cannot just credit a commercial bank account under this system to expand its net spending independent of its source of finance.

As a consquence, whenever the government spent it would require offsetting revenue in the form of taxes or borrowed funds.

Ultimately, Bretton Woods collapsed in 1971. It was under pressure in the 1960s with a series of “competitive devaluations” by the UK and other countries who were facing chronically high unemployment due to persistent trading problems. Ultimately, the system collapsed because Nixon’s prosecution of the Vietnam war forced him to suspend USD convertibility to allow him to net spend more. Here is an interesting historical video of Nixon abandoning the Bretton Woods system on August 15, 1971. This was the final break in the links between a commodity that had intrinsic value and the nominal currencies. From this point in, governments used fiat currency as the basis of the monetary system.

Fiat currency

The move to fiat currencies fundamentally altered the way the monetary system operated even though the currency was still, say, the $AUD.

This system had two defining characteristics: (a) non-convertibility; and (b) flexible exchange rates. You need to recognise this major shift in history before you can understand why the economic policy ideas that prevailed in the previous monetary systems (based on convertibility) are no longer applicable. You cannot assume that the logic that applied in the fixed exchange rate-convertibility days translates over into the fiat currency era. The fact is that it doesn’t.

What I call neo-liberal macroeconomic reasoning is really the sort of reasoning that prevailed in the days prior to fiat currency. While there were debates about how to conduct macroeconomic policy in those days, there were some obvious key constraints that I have outlined above. This is irrespective of whether you want to call yourself a Keynesian or a Monetarist. The shift in history also renders most of the textbook economics outdated and wrong, in terms of how they depict the operations of the fiat monetary system.

When I talk about modern monetary theory I am referring to the fiat monetary system. I am recognising that a fundamental shift occurred in history when Bretton Woods collapsed and this has dramatically altered the opportunities available to sovereign governments.

First, under a fiat monetary system, “state money” has no intrinsic value. It is non-convertible which means that you can take a $AUD coin to the government and in return you will get a $AUD coin back. There is no responsibility to do more than this. So for this otherwise “worthless” currency to be acceptable in exchange (buying and selling things) some motivation has to be introduced. That motivation emerges because the sovereign government has the capacity to require its use to relinquish private tax obligations to the state. Under the gold standard and its derivatives money was always welcome as a means of exchange because it was convertible to gold which had a known and fixed value by agreement. This is a fundamental change.

Second, given the relationship between the commodity backing (gold) and the ability to spend is abandoned and that the Government is the monopoly issuer of the fiat currency in use (defined by the tax obligation) then the spending by this government is revenue independent. It can spend however much it likes subject to there being real goods and services available for sale. This is a dramatic change.

Irrespective of whether the government has been spending more than revenue (taxation and bond sales) or less, on any particular day the government has the same capacity to spend as it did yesterday. There is no such concept of the government being “out of money” or not being able to afford to fund a program. How much the national government spends is entirely of its own choosing. There are no financial restrictions on this capacity.

This is not to say there are no restrictions on government spending. There clearly are - the quantity of real goods and services available for sale including all the unemployed labour. Further, it is important to understand that while the national government issuing a fiat currency is not financially constrained its spending decisions (and taxation and borrowing decisions) impact on interest rates, economic growth, private investment, and price level movements.

We should never fall prey to the argument that the government has to get revenue from taxation or borrowing to “finance” its spending under a fiat currency system. It had to do this under a gold standard (or derivative system) but not under a fiat currency system. Most commentators fail to understand this difference and still apply the economics they learned at university which is fundamentally based on the gold standard/fixed exchange rate system.

Under a fiat currency system, if the government sets limits on its spending - for example, a rule restricting real growth of spending to be 2 per cent - then this is purely voluntary. It might be a sensible rule given the scale of nominal demand relative to real capacity but it is purely voluntary. These rules, however, usually arise from some misperception that the size of the budget deficit is a concern or the growth in public debt is a concern. Neither are particularly relevant to anything germane.

Third, in a fiat currency system the government does not need to finance spending in which case the issuing of debt by the monetary authority or the treasury has to serve other purposes. Accordingly, it serves a interest-maintenance function by providing investors with an interest-bearing asset that drains the excess reserves in the banking system that result from deficit spending. If these reserves were not drained (that is, if the government did not borrow) then the spending would still occur but the overnight interest rate would plunge (due to competition by banks to rid themselves of the non-profitable reserves) and this may not be consistent with the stated intention of the central bank to maintain a particular target interest rate.

Importantly, the source of funds that investors use to buy the bonds is derived from the net government spending anyway (that is, spending above taxation). The private sector cannot buy bonds in the fiat currency unless the government has spent the same previously. This is a fundamental departure from the gold standard mechanisms where borrowing was necessary to fund government spending given the fixed money supply (fixed by gold stocks). Taxation and borrowing were intrinsically tied to the government’s management of its gold reserves.

So in a fiat currency system, government borrowing doesn’t fund its spending. It merely stops interbank competition which allows the central bank to defend its target interest rate.

The flexible exchange rate system means that monetary policy is freed from defending some fixed parity and thus fiscal policy can solely target the spending gap to maintain high levels of employment. The foreign adjustment is then accomplished by the daily variations in the exchange rate.

Conclusion

The two monetary systems are very different. You cannot apply the economics of the gold standard (or USD convertibility) to the modern monetary system. Unfortunately, most commentators and professors and politicians continue to use the old logic when discussing the current policy options. It is a basic fallacy and prevents us from having a sensible discussion about what the government should be doing. All the fear mongering about the size of the deficit and the size of the borrowings (and the logic of borrowing in the first place) are all based on the old paradigm. They are totally inapplicable to the fiat monetary system.

Have you ever bought coins online or over the phone after watching a commercial on TV? These rare coins are often sold along with coin collecting folders. These coin collecting folders allow you to display the coins in your collection all in one often tri-fold folder. The folders also act as a coin collecting holder because they encase your coins in a plastic sheathe. This keeps your coins protected from the elements or from getting nicked or faded, thus increasing their value; and it also keeps them in order so that you can separate your coins by year, country or even decade or century.

Coin Collecting Folder For Any Coin

There are coin collecting folders for any type of coin you could ever think of. You can get coin collecting folders for just US quarters, or just US coins, you can get folders for international coins, for gold coins, copper coins, silver coins or any other type of coin. There are even coin collecting folders where you can mix your coins however you want to. Serious collectors don’t like to keep their coins all mixed up. They want to keep them in order and they often want to display their coins and these coin collecting folders are the perfect way to do that.

Coin Collecting Folder: Where To Get Them?

If you have some coins that you want to display in coin collecting folders, you can find coin collecting folders at your local book store, the Franklin mint, and you can even buy them online. You may want to look for your folders on the net as much wider variety of folders are available online to match your variety of coins. Finding the coins to put in those folders will be a little more difficult than finding the folders themselves; but it’s exciting when you have the folders knowing that you’ll soon fill them with all the coins you’ll soon be collecting. Find these great coins at www.coincollectinguniversity.com

Preserving In Coin Collecting Folder

Coins in a collection should be kept in mint condition. That means the coins should be without nicks or should be free from fading and other impurities. The coin collecting folders keep them protected from the elements and also keep them free of human fingers or from falling on the ground and thus will keep them preserved for as long as you keep them in their protective cases. That means you can store your folders away and come back years later and your coins will be in the same condition they were the day you put them in your coin collecting folders.

Beside coin collecting folders there are other coin collecting accessories like coin collecting books, coin collection map and free coin collecting software that you may utilize to realize the best value of your coin collection.

Tags: coin collecting books, coin collecting folder, coin collecting holder, coin collection map

This is for Hello Kitty Fan. I am reading the Malaysia star newspaper today and found a news about Hello Kitty’s 35th anniversary commemorative coin in a 50-dollar gold coin and three 5-dollar silver coin. I check the Internet and I found that look like many products depicting the character Hello Kitty including dolls, stickers, greeting cards, clothes, jewelery, accessories and home appliances were produced to commemorate her 35th anniversary. This include a gold coin and silver coin by Taisei coin’s and UK Royal Mint. I also found out that the photo in the star foto folder section is not the coin by Taisei coins but exactly by UK Royal Mint.

Source: 

————————————————————————————————-

Hello Kitty is celebrating her 35th anniversary and for that special moment, The UK Royal Mint released a series of commemorative coins honoring the famous Kitty. There are Silver and Gold coins featuring Kitty and her boyfriend Daniel, visiting UK attractions like the Big Ben and London Bridge.

 

Source: mainichi

Great gold coins at www.coincollectinguniversity.com

Buy Gold Bullion diversify their portfolio which is a good thing even in stable economic times. Currently, have the physical gold is more relevant than ever because the markets and currencies continue to fluctuate. Gold coins are often used as an investment under the reliable and can give your family and great peace of mind. Buy Gold and make an investment trust to secure the long term, is much easier to buy gold today than it was 30 years ago. Gold coins are easily bought and sold with the click of a mouse. Not only is it easier to buy gold, gold, but the investments are exploding to the investment scene like never before.

The gold market never closes, and as a result, you can buy and sell gold in any country in any time.Here is the way to buy gold. the goldcoinsgain.com offers a number of coins that complement any investment, has the best options in gold Bullion at its disposal, Come see for yourself how it is beneficial to invest in gold and see the trend that is contrary to the following Gold Dollar, On this site you can check information on the gold vs dollar, gold in reading news, and buy coins of gold, There are several types of gold coin, come now to the goldcoinsgain.com and has the best and most complete site for you buy gold.

After Alexander’s two years  campaign in India, the Greek power, thus established, gave place in less than 10 years’ time to Indian under the headship of Chandragupta, and later the dynasty of Asoka. Greek influence found its stronghold in Bactria, the modern Balkh, and it is from there that most of the coins of the earlier kings come.

About 250 b.c. Bactria became  independent of the Selucid Kings of Syria, under Diodotus and under a series of kings, or, perhaps more correctly kings and their viceroys—Diodotus, Euthydemus, Demetrius, Eukratides, Pantaleon, Agathokles, Antimachus I and Plato, ending with Heliokles—was ruled by Greek colonists till about 130 b.c, when the Greeks were driven out by Scythians from the north. During these 120 years, though several kings appear to have invaded India, Eukratides and Heliokles are the only kings whose coins are frequently found in India. After the Scythian conquest of Bactria, Heliokles established himself in India, with the Kabul Valley as the centre of his power. Of the kings that follow Heliokles very little is known. From the evidence of double struck coins, his immediate successors or contemporaries included Strato, Philoxenus and Antimachus II.

From Greek, or less certainly, Indian sources, the kings Apollodotus and Menander made wide conquests ; Apollodotus probably ruling the whole Indus Valley, while Menander’s conquests followed the course of the Ganges. From the find-spots of coins the kings Zoilus, Strato, Hippostratus and Artemidorus were probably local kings of a portion of the Punjab only, while the fact that Agathokleia,  3* the wife of Strato, and Kalliope, the wife of Hermaeus (Plate XII, No. 29), were honoured by their heads being placed on coins, (the double-headed Agathokleia and Strato coin has, so far, only appeared as a cast, but the Museum contains a copper coin bearing both names, and the queen’s head,—see Cabinet A-4, No. 4) which would indicate royal descent, suggests that there were, at times, several mutually independent kingdoms. This is also indicated, by the number of different kings, which have to be placed in the short space of 150 years, as in 25 A. D. the last king Hermaeus was displaced by Kadphises, who at first strikes coins as his colleague, and later, as sole ruler.

Many historical deductions have been suggested from the coins themselves, e.g., the head with “elephant’s spoils” (see Plate XII, No. 12), as indicating conquest of the native Indians; the kausia, (see Plate XII, No. 16) as Macedonian descent, etc. ; but such uncertain theories appear unfitted for discussion in a hand-book. The ransference of power from Bactria to the Kabul Valley neighbourhood, though unrecorded historically, is indicated, (a) by the localities in which the coins are found, (b) by the fact that Demetrius first strikes a few copper coins with Kharoshthi inscriptions, while with Heliokles, the Kharoshthi appears on both copper and silver coins ; while Antialkidas is the last king in date who strikes coins of the Greek standard of weight, Heliokles striking both standards. General Cunningham formed many theories, founded on his readings of the monogram mint marks as supposed to indicate the mint town of the coins on which they occur. These theories have not been accepted by continental authorities, but, as founded on the observations of the collector who had best opportunities of ascertaining the localities at which coins are discovered, they

appear to deserve more credit than has been given them. Indeed, to any one who has himself discovered coins, and noted the types that occur and their localities, it seems difficult not to accept his general conclusions. Excluding coins of same type, but of different value and varieties in mint mark, the kings of Greek names are responsible for nearly 200 types, known and catalogued. Evidence of the existence of at least a dozen more types is  available, in the form of casts of coins offered for sale by dealers. Of this total, the Lahore Museum possesses 95 types and many duplicates. It was, therefore, not difficult to select a set of representative coins for photography. The only noticeable deficiencies are,—(t) no good specimen of a coin of Alexander is in the Museum, (it) the very interesting 57 and historically, the most important of all the series, the medal of Eucratides, struck in honour of his parents Heliokles and Laodkie, is represented only by a poor cast (Electrotypes, Class I, No. 22).

The series, as illustrated in Plate XII, opens with,

(1) medal of Alexander, struck by Agathokles ; the king’s head is a good portrait and the coin though worn is very clear this medal forms one of a series of five struck bv Agathokles and Antimachus I, in honour of notable Greek rulers and probably   represents a temporary revival of the national ideas of the Greek colonists. Earlier in date, and contemporary with Alexander’s own coins, is No. 2, a didrachm of Sophytes, an Indian king contemporary with Alexander, ruler of the territory on the Jhelum and Salt Range, the coin is pure Greek in type, the reverse shows a very beautiful Indian gamecock. The actual series of Bactrian coins opens with a didrachm of Diodotus, No. 3, who is recorded in history as governor of Bactria, the modern province of Balkh, 250 b. c, and as setting himself up as an independent ruler, thus beginning the Greek Eastern Empire, the coinage of whose kings is here described. No. 4 is an obolus of Demetrius, and is shown here as a type of the frequently occurring Hercules with club and lion’s skin, which may be contrasted with No. 5, the draped and sceptred Zeus with thunderbolt, from the reverse of a tetradrachm of Heliokles. Nos. 7 and 8 are, respectively, obverse and reverse of the usual type of Eukratides, and show the helmeted portrait bust of the king, and on the reverse the mounted Dioscuri, (Castor and Pollux) charging on horseback with lances and palms.

No. 9 is a coin of Antialkidas, here shown for the caps and palm branches which again indicate the worship of the Dioscuri. The three following coins are selected, to show the representation of common Indian animals, and are, No. 10, a leopard, on a copper coin of Pantaleon, which probably also refers to the worship of the wine god Dionysus while No. 11, and the coin above, No. 6, are square hemidrachms of Apollodotus, and show the humped Indian bull and the elephant.

The next row of five coins is chosen to show, the styles cf head-dress favoured by the kings. It starts with No. 12 a Lysias, in the ” elephant’s spoils.” No. 13 a helmeted Menander, very much akin to the helmeted Eukratides, No 7. No. 14 the same king, bare-headed but clothed in scale armour, and thrusting with a spear. No. 15

an Apollodotus with a filleted head, which among the Greeks was the usual emblem of royalty. No. 16 an 3 Antialkidas wearing the royal cap of the Macedonia, the kausia. Two other types occur but no good specimens are in the Museum,—(a) a tiara head-dress or Phrygian cap peculiar to Amyntas and Hermaeus (Cabinet No. A, 6-29),

and (b) a laurel or ivy wreathed head, best shown in a large copper coin of Menander (Cabinet No. G, 4-33).

The next line is similarly selected to show the commoner deities. No. 17 is a victory with wreath, from the reverse of a coin of Azes, No. 18 is Minerva armed with thunderbolt, from a coin of Menander ; this is the commonest reverse, and occurs on coins of nearly all the  kings later than Heliokles. No, 19 is a victory with a palm branch, which occurs on the coins of Antimachus Nikephorus (the victory bearer). No. 20 is Hercules with a club and lion skin (compare with No. 4), taken from a

rare coin of Zoilus. No. 21 represents Zeus seated in a chair, taken from a coin of Antialkidas. These, with No. 24 showing Apollo, include all the commoner types, the’ Artemis shown on the rare coins of Artemidorus (the gift of Artemis) and Hermaeus ; and the scythes on the coin of Telephus (neither in Museum) being the only important omissions. The next line includes No. 22, the horseman type from a didrachm of Philoxenus (the horse alone, supposed to be typical of freed Bactria is not represented in the Museum collection). No. 23 is a didrachm of Hippostratus, showing either, Demeter, or a city deity, carrying the horn of plenty. - , No. 24 is Apollo, from a chalkon of Apollodotus (given by Apollo) which with No. 26, a square chalkon of Menander $re selected as typical of the coins, which, as we know from Greek sources, remained current in India down to 200 a. d. at least, No. 25 is a typical coin of Azes, a contemporary of Hermaeus, and king of the Punjab, it is selected, from many types of this king, as being the most artistic ; on the reverse is a Poseidon (god of the sea) which occurs on only one other coin of the Graeco-Bactrian series (Cabinet No. G, 8-36).

Following on with, No. 27, we get a rare coin of Epander, showing another treatment of the Indian bull; these with the three coins, Nos. 6, 10 and 11, and a series occurring in the copper ccins of Menander, of (a) the camel, (b) the Indian lion (Cabinet No. G, 4-36), exhaust the typically Indian animals represented, neither of these, nor the very interesting coins, bearing a wheel (type of universal dominion according to Buddhist ideas) occur in good condition in the Museum collection. On a rare copper 39 coin of Agathokles, Electrotypes, Class I, No. 18, and Cabinet No. A, 1-14, is to be seen a figure of a nautch girl. The next coin No. 28 of Hyrkodes is shown as an example of the deterioration of art, even when compared with No. 25 or still more with No. 7. No. 29 is the double headed coin of Hermaeus and his royal wife Kalliope, referred to previously, and No. 30 is a portrait of king Gondophares, a ruler of Eastern Afghanistan, shown, as by ancient tradition, a king of this name, is said to have martyred St. Thomas, the apostle of India. All that can be said, as to truth or falsity of this story, is, that the date of the king is about 50 a.d., and that in the legend, Gondophares’ nephew is called Labdanes, which may easily be a corruption of Abdagases, a contemporary and related king. The next row is rather disconnected, but the first, No. 31, i6 a gold coin of Kanerkes, and is principally interesting as showing the big boots, fur cap and ” postin” still worn in the Kabul valley.

No. 32 is the reverse of another coin of this king showing Lakshmi and the bull, and No. 33 is a Buddhist coin of about 300 a.d. Nos. 34 and 35 are punchedmarked coins, of far clearer and more legible character, than the usually occurring specimens; the elephant on No. 35 is supposed to refer to the ancient city of Taxila (now Shah-ki-deri near Hasan Abdal). This particular square punch-marked coin is probably of date about 50 a.d. as the elephant clearly shows traces of Greek’s art. It is, however, interesting to notice that India, of all the countries subject to Greek influence, seems to have retained its national characteristics in coinage best, the square form, so often occurring, is exclusively Indian, and is, no doubt, due to imiation of the square and oblong punch-marked coins the Greeks found in circulation on their arrival, so also, the inscriptions in Greek and Kharoshthi on  these coins are quite unusual, in no other case, did Greek kings condescend to employ their subject’s language on their coins. It is unfortunate, that the Museum does not possess any specimens of the unique, and metallurgically very interesting nickel coinage of Agathokles and Pantaleon.

Indian historians have reason to be grateful for this fact. The bilingual Greek and Kharoshthi coin inscriptions have been the ” Rosetta stone ” of Indian archaeology, and it is not too much to say, that without these, as a Starting point, Indian history from 30 B.c, to 400 a.d. would be a blank.

In conclusion, the visitor is recommended to look at the revolving frames, Classes, I, II and III, of electrotypes, 4o (supplied by the British Museum), which show exact reproductions of all typical coins, and may be consulted, to fill in the gaps of the Museum collection. It may be as well to state, that coins of these series may be found, on enquiry, in nearly every eld town of the Punjab. Such coins are usually of common types, and may be considered as likely to be genuine. Any person who wishes to collect Bactrian coins largely, and to buy the rare types from curiosity dealers, should realise that he is extremely likely to be deceived ; forgery by casting, and, less commonly, by actual dies, is carried on extensively outside British India, and the dealers themselves are frequently deceived, to such an extent, that it may safely be said that hardly one coin in ten in their possession is genuine. A set of forger’s dies and stamps may be seen in Case O. In a hand-book of this character any description of the methods of distinction between false and genuine coins would be out of place. Only constant handling and examination will give any skill, and there is little doubt that, in the present state of the forger’s art, the best expert is liable to be occasionally deceived. It is extremely improbable that a new type of coin has ever been successfully forged. All false coins appear to represent imitations of genuine coins, which are either known, or will sooner or later come to light.

Source: A descriptive guide to the department of Archaeology & Antiquities by Percy Brown

Owner wanted for Wartime souvenir discovered more than 3,000 miles from the Granite City

By Stephen Christie

Published: 25/05/2009

It was found by Canadian woman Marlene Campbell who made the discovery while going through a collection of old coins belonging to her late father.

The French silver coin caught her eye after she noticed it was engraved on one side with I. Stewart and the number 22974.

It was also inscribed with W.R.A.F. (Women’s Royal Air Force) and C of E (Church of England) and had been fashioned into a “dog tag” style necklace.

Following some investigative work Mrs Campbell, 55, discovered that the coin belonged to an Isabella Stewart who joined the WRAF on October 29, 1918, at the age of 19.

Through her research, Mrs Campbell, of Richard Street, Innisfil, Ontario, also discovered that Ms Stewart had at one stage lived in Powis Place, Aberdeen.

Mrs Campbell, a bookkeeper, said it remained a mystery how the coin had come to be in her father’s collection.

She told the Press and Journal last night: “How my father would have come across this coin, that was obviously a dog tag necklace from a woman in World War I, is unknown. My father had bags of old coins that he had collected during the war while overseas with the Canadian forces.

“The coins were from all over the place – China, Germany, Russia, Italy, France, Argentina, Chile and as far away as India.

“We know that while on leave in England he would travel to different destinations throughout the United Kingdom.”

Mrs Campbell is now hoping to reunite the coin with Ms Stewart’s relatives.

“I would like to return this coin to her family but don’t know where to start looking,” she added.

Anyone with information can e-mail Mrs Campbell on mc5028@rogers. com or contact the Press and Journal on 01224 343425.