Talk:Solidus (coin)

message: "Until decimalisation in the United Kingdom, the letter s, from solidus, was used to represent a shilling, worth 1/20th of a Pound Sterling."
I don't wish to seem ignorant, but why do we think 's' comes from 'solidus' and not from 'shilling'? DJ Clayworth 18:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: £ (a decorated L) from libra, the Latin word for "pound", d for denarius, and s for solidus.  I guess this dates right back to when the Roman currency was used, although the pound would presumably have referred only to the weight, since I don't think there was a roman coin of that name. 80.43.216.81 02:02, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  S for solidus or shilling? 

message: An apparently good-faith edit added the peculiar phrase "dumpy issues from the Byzantine Empire".  Google search for "dumpy issues" turns up no other uses of this phrase, so I expect it is not standard.  Can some numismatist perhaps figure out what was meant here and change it to something more intelligible? -- Dominus 15:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dumpy issues 

message: I know the style guide says don't use an AD or CE unless the date without it would be ambiguous, but I feel since this is dealing with the Roman empire, which existed in both CE and BCE, that this case qualifies for ambiguous.  It confused me.  In the standard of WP:BOLD I edited it.   Feel free to change it back if you disagree. Whiteflame74 (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: Even though the word ordinarily has negative connotations in contemporary English, in this context it doesn't. A small edit, but greatly improves the article. Zyxwv99 (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks for fixing "vulgar" Latin 

message: Québec is the only province in Canada where Québec French is official and where cenne et trente-sous are normed by the Office de la langue française. Acadian French is official in New Brunswick but cenne et trente-sous are not in use. Eklir (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Québec 

message: This might be a very dumb question. In what aspect of solidus was "solid"? Komitsuki (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why solid? 

message: At the end of first section, "Roman and Byzantine coinage", there's a statement tagged with "citation needed" which says that the solidus had no face value. This is essentially the same as saying that the solidus was a floating currency. Here's a relevant passage from page 239 in "The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine" (ISBN: 9780521818384, article written by Georges Depeyrot, translated and edited by Noel Lenski) which elaborates on this function of the solidus:
From the moment of its creation, the solidus constituted a standard currency and unit of value while other coins were relegated to secondary functions. Thus the mints could suspend their output of silver money and manipulate the weight of their bronze issues without destabilizing the system. The solidus quickly gained strength as an empire-wide unit of value and then retained that
strength because of the choice of Constantine and his successors never to alter its characteristics. This made the solidus an excellent monetary instrument for estimating debts, so much so that it quickly became standard to reckon loans only in gold solidi. The role conferred on the gold currency from the 310s onward made it the center not only of the monetary system but also of the economy. Gold coin gained a supramonetary value. By overtaking fixed relations of exchange with the silver coin, it became a true floating currency. The fact that taxes were demanded in gold contributed, for example, to a growth in the demand for the solidus as a commodity.
I'll leave it to someone else to do the actual edit if someone would feel that the above would resolve the citation tag.
Abvgd (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elaboration on the solidus as floating currency 

message: The lead is supposed to summarize the body, and shouldn't have new information there, such as "Pepin the Short's currency reform" which is not mentioned anywhere in the article (so we don't know what century that was in).  The lead should be rewritten; material not contained in the body should be moved down, and the lead should be expanded to summarize the rest of the article, most of which is not touched on at all in the Lead. Mathglot (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead vs. body 

message: It seems like trough the article we mention several time that the coin kept it dimension unchanged. But at no point we say which dimension it is? Apparently the Art Institute of Chicago claims it collection vary from ~1.4cm to 2.1cm.  . I don't know enough on the subject to express an opinion about any of this. I just discovered today that they should weigh 24 [Carat (mass)|carats] and that's the extent of my knowledge. Iluvalar (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dimensions