Talk:Touch piece

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Numismatics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Finding a penny heads up is good luck. If tails up, one should flip it over and leave for the next person.

NantucketNoon (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this page, the Lockhart coin is identified as a Edward I groat, while in the page "Clan Lockhart," it is identified as an Edward IV four penny piece. I don't know which, but one of them is wrong and should be fixed as quickly as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.118.212 (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the first sentence: "A touch piece is a coin or medal attached to attracted superstitious beliefs...". What is an "attracted superstitious belief"? Stephen2810 (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certain features of objects have attracted superstitious beliefs and Touch Pieces are coins attached to such features. 92.18.170.109 Rosser Gruffydd 12:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be useful have something on whether there was any benefit? Are there any well-documented cures? It seems likely that there was some placebo effect, but are there any sources that could be referenced that discuss that aspect? I would have thought that would help if the Placebo article was linked to. Brian Hardy 54 (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that less than a third of the article is actually about touch pieces. Much, much more is about scrofula, the practice of kings touching the sick, good luck coins that were not actually touch pieces, bad luck and curse coins that were obviously something entirely different, etc. These other coins are not touch pieces. They were not believed to posess a power due to being touched by someone. Is there a reason for keeping this information here? It's surely misleading to discuss it in this article, as it gives the impression that such coins are actually touch pieces. Surtsicna (talk) 09:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it is worth observing that several coinage metals do actually have medicinal effects? In particular, external applications of free copper ions or nano-scale copper metal colloids have moderate antibacterial activity and powerful antifungal activity; and similar external applications of silver are potently antibacterial. (There is a fringe view that these effects are also seen internally; this is not accepted by mainstream medicine, and the preponderance of evidence is that when taken internally, such metals are rapidly sequestered by other tissues, losing antibacterial activity and in fact risking poisoning.)

Zinc, found in brasses, also has anti-bacterial and anti-fungal activity. However even more interestingly, under some conditions zinc can stimulate the immune system. This effect is particular potent in those with low grade diets that contain high intakes of cereal brans and little meat or fish.

Thus it is not outside the bounds of possibility that some of these treatments actually helped. Now admittedly some of the applications here are medically nonsense; for example there isn't going to be much useful effect from briefly touching such a piece. However the "Lee Penny" method is worth considering. Soaking a copper or silver article in water will usually take a very long time to build up a useful concentration of soluble metal ions, but it can occur in a matter of hours under some conditions (e.g. if the local water has a high content of soluble organic acids, such as may occur if it flows across peat.) Such a solution would then very likely have a useful medical effect if taken externally for certain skin diseases. (It is much less likely that it would be useful internally, and it could be poisonous unless the dose is carefully regulated.) It is also plausible that a benefit would be seen by continualy wearing such a piece of metal in contact with the infection site. And if some applications were seen to be effective, this could be the orgin of legends around other, less medically valid practices.

OK, I don't expect anyone to add all that to the article. Original research, and all that. But I think it shows that it may be useful and informative to at least point out that some coinage metals do have medical effects. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]