of coins -- "plugged", adj., 1773; "plug", verb, 1785 & 1789; "sweated" 1797

[Victor Steinbok]

If nothing else, I enthusiastically endorse Joel's findings. The plugged
2. definition seems to be much too narrow, even if it need not be split
up (just needs a better description). Just recall that one alternative
to the kind of "plugging" OED admits to was clipping or shaving. That
would be a major cause for "light gold". Plugging and re-authorizing the
coins (with a seal, stamp or engraving), as described in Joel's finds,
would restore the full value. I'm always glad to see pushing the dates
back by a century, especially with new variants found along the way. I
am also wondering how many of the catalogued "plugged" coins are of this
kind and not of the other, inferior value. It might be worth contacting
a numismatic society for clarification.

     VS-)

On 2/14/2011 1:51 PM, Joel S. Berson wrote:
> Further disputing the date for "plugged", bringing it back to 1773,
> but restoring it to where it belongs (the U.S.)
>
> Also two early -- and perhaps *new* --  senses of "plug", verb, for
> coins, one that means "to restore to its original value" and the
> other that means "to debase".  Thus questioning the OED definition of
> "plugged", adj., as *only* "Of a coin: having a portion replaced with
> less valuable material."

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org