[Mkguild] A question of money exchange

[Alex Green]

*tl;dr: The links don't weigh that much, but they're bigger than I
expected.  100 links is really long, and they might be difficult to take
apart.  *


On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Ryx <sundansyr at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Well, each culture or kingdom may come up with its own trade valuation
> system - i.e. coins or something the equivalent thereof.
> A chain is perfectly viable, except for the fact that is a PITA to remove
> and add links.  If there's a gap in the link to hook them together there is
> always the risk of the whole thing collapsing.
>

I agree with this.  The dimensions of the links as given by Anthony are
3/16th of an inch thick with an inside diameter of 1 inch.  I hadn't really
bothered to try and visualize that before.  Looking around my desk, I
discovered my monitor's cable is exactly 3/16th of an inch thick, so I made
a loop with an inner diameter of one inch.  Each link is about the size of
this loop. <http://imgur.com/gjFAivf>  As you can see, that's pretty large.
 It's much larger and thicker than I expected it to be.  You would have to
leave a fairly large gap in order to pass another link through.  Gold,
silver, and copper are malleable metals, but I don't know if they would be
malleable enough to bend a link enough to get it off the chain.


>
> You're better off with beads on a thong/lanyard, even if they are *big*
> beads.  Native americans used such as a trade system in the past, though
> the value of the item was often up to the judgment of the individual with
> whom they're being traded.
> One guy might be willing to trade a goat for an abalone bead, where the
> other guy doesn't much want abalone so is willing to part with a chicken
> for it.
>

For reference, beads made with the same alloys as the links would be .582
inches (14.8 mm) in diameter or just a little bigger than half an inch.


>
> So, let's say each link/bead is a set weight (rather than size), let's
> just take ounce as a standard measurement, or grams, either way.  Since I
> understand ounce I'll work with that:  Each gold coin is roughly 1" in
> diameter and 2mm thick, with huge variances under the ancient coinmaking
> processes.  So let's estimate each one to be 1/4 to 1/3 ounce.  A few of
> these will add up quickly to some considerable eight around the neck.
> Silver and copper are also very heavy malleable metals... and these are
> being worn around the neck...
> A commoner might not have a problem with ten copper and a couple silver...
> but what about the guy buying for the Keep's larder?  He'll about lynch
> himself with money if he's not careful.
>

This is why I gave the weights of 100 link chains in the second to last
paragraph of my last email.  As I stated there, the most valuable, and not
so coincidentally the heaviest, 100 link chain would weigh almost 6 lbs
(2.7 kg).  That's not particularly heavy, and it's worth 300 Garretts or
$90000.  I don't think weight is going to be an issue for any one with a
lot of purchases to make.  The MK Wiki says a Garrett weighs an ounce (I'm
assuming troy), so the equivalent amount of Garretts would weigh 20.5 lbs
(9.3 kg).  It would actually be easier to carry these links around as far
as weight is concerned.

However, after seeing the size of a link, the thing that concerns me most
is the volume they would take up.  A chain of 100 links is going to be 100
inches long assuming they stay circular.  That's 8' 4" or 2.54 meters.
 That might be a little difficult to keep coiled around one's neck.


>
> So, beads will still have to be weighed, and there's no really convenient
> way to determine the purity of a given metal - in particular gold which is
> often adulterated to increase it's weight without adding more gold.  It's a
> complex system, but there's more than enough room in the setting to handle
> different monetary exchange systems.
>

That brings up another issue.  Copper is so relatively worthless that the
least valuable coin has to be 1.75% silver to make it worth the $0.90 it's
supposed to be.  No one could tell the silver content on sight, and even
weighing them would be an insufficient method to determine whether it has
any silver of if it's just pure copper (worth $0.14).

Anyway, that's my two cents on the viability of these links as currency.

-AlexSurikat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.integral.org/archives/mkguild/attachments/20140227/7ac005dd/attachment-0001.html>