Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 November 19

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 19

traditional colors of squares on a traditional wood chess board

on a traditional wood chess board, what are the traditional colors of the light square and dark square ? I am replicating a marble floor and I need to be as accurate with color as possible. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.149.0.22 (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't find any information anywhere that indicates there is an accepted standard. Here you can see a wide variety of options, and nothing particularly stands out. If you're going for natural woods, pine and oak and yellow poplar are traditional light woods, while walnut and rosewood and mahogany woods are common decorative dark woods (though responsibly sourced mahogany is difficult to come by). Wood stain is another option. --Jayron32 02:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Can the OP make clear, do you actually want the colors of wood to be reproduced in marble? I have seen plenty of marble chess boards in light and dark grey tones. They had nothing to do with pine and cherry, which is what I would volunteer as good for a wooden board. There's certainly no official color. I would just do a google imag search of either "wood" or "marble chessboard". The latter might even have some pinkish tones. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

"I can't find any information anywhere that indicates there is an accepted standard.
I don't know about "traditional", but here is the FIDE Standards of Chess Equipment, which includes

The board may also be of stone or marble with appropriate light and dark colours, provided the Chief Arbiter finds it acceptable. Natural wood with sufficient contrast, such as birch, maple or European ash against walnut, teak, beech, etc., may also be used for boards, ...

Mitch Ames (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

True, and I found that, but it does not specify colors, which is what I stated already. --Jayron32 18:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there a physical dollar somewhere in the US, for every dollar I own?

Obviously, if everyone in the US went to their bank to withdraw all of their money, the bank would collapse, since most of that money is invested somewhere. But that invested money, does it physically exist somewhere? Apparently there is a total of $1.4 trillion in US currency in the world. These days most transactions are done electronically, but is each one of those digital dollars represented by a physical piece of money somewhere? Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

No, absolutely not; because of fractional reserve banking, when you deposit one dollar in currency in a bank, you increase the money supply by just under one full dollar, even though no more physical pieces of currency are generated. --Trovatore (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

If by "physical dollar" you mean a banknote, no. Only a fraction of money exists as physical notes and coins. Most money exists in the form of account balances at banks and other financial institutions. Today these are stored as data on computers, but computers didn't fundamentally change anything; before computers, they were entries on paper ledgers. Money supply gives more details on the different forms of money, and money itself might be a good read. And here's a video primer from Crash Course Economics. The point to take home is that a "dollar", or a Euro, yen, or whatever, is whatever we want it to be. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to answer more directly, and interpret some things from those articles, Money supply#United States has values for the "M1" money supply (which is basically physical cash: notes and coins and traveler's checks and the like) and "M2" money supply which is basically "all the money" (these are both slight simplifications, but close enough to answer the OPs question). You can see that M1 is about $2.2 trillion and M2 is about $10 trillion, meaning that physical cash only accounts for about 22% of total money. --Jayron32 15:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually M1 includes checking accounts, so it's already a lot more than "physical cash" (because when you put your physical cash in a bank account, the M1 counts your account balance, plus the physical cash too, which has not disappeared). The measure corresponding to "physical cash" is M0. --Trovatore (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source to confirm that a deposited dollar bill gets double counted in M1? The table at Money supply#Empirical measures in the United States Federal Reserve System seems to suggest that "vault cash" is not in M1, so the $1 is only counted once as a demand deposit. 91.155.193.199 (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I'm not sure on some of the details here. Maybe the point is that the "vault cash", as you call it, increases the reserves, so that the bank can then lend out more money, which would go in someone else's demand deposit and get double-counted. But anyway M1 is definitely a broader measure than physical currency. --Trovatore (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Vault Cash is not something "I call it", as you suggest, but rather what Money supply and related articles call it. I notice you do not supply sources for your repeated claims that cash deposits are double counted. 91.155.193.199 (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Where'd this come from? I didn't contradict you; I essentially conceded your point, or at least that I didn't know enough to refute your point. What I do still assert is that M1 is more than physical currency, because of fractional reserve banking, because the money that is deposited can be lent out and put into other demand accounts. Do you deny that? I doubt you deny that, but if so, we can look into it. --Trovatore (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Do cash deposits get double counted? Simple question. (I never did deny that M1 is greater than M0, so perhaps we are done with that straw man.) 91.155.193.199

I think you misunderstood what I meant by double-counting. What I said was, a dollar gets deposited, then it's part of M1 because it's in someone's account. Then it gets loaned out, and re-deposited, and that adds a dollar to M1 from someone else's demand account. That's what I was calling "double-counting". You can quibble with the wording if you like, fine. Do you agree that this is descriptively correct? --Trovatore (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that M1 is increased by lending. I disagree with your repeated assertions above that claim "when you deposit one dollar in currency in a bank, you increase the money supply by just under one full dollar" and "when you put your physical cash in a bank account, the M1 counts your account balance, plus the physical cash too". Those statements are untrue as far as I know, pending sources stating otherwise. 91.155.193.199 (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Dude, I did not in fact "repeat" those assertions. I already conceded those. Are you trying to get to the truth of anything, or do you just want to fight? --Trovatore (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not a native English speaker, perhaps that is why I cannot spot where you said you were wrong. Your subtlety overwhelms me. Sorry. 91.155.193.199 (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why you think "I didn't contradict you; I essentially conceded your point, or at least that I didn't know enough to refute your point" is subtle or requires a native English speaker to understand. But whatever.... Nil Einne (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The Economist once published a tongue-in-cheek calculation claiming that the world's leading reserve currency was now airline miles. Of course they were only comparing them with M0. --Trovatore (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

For every dollar you own? Sure. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Artwork on buildings that is too high to see

City hall

Details under the clock

Back of the building

This building (built about 1887-89) has artwork just under the clock. It is so high up that a person can't see the details. The close-up is the equivalent of an 11.5x a 17x magnification compared to a normal lens. I've seen this type of thing on some other buildings of this era. Why did they put artwork up so high? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

My guess (and it's only a guess) is that they wanted some kind of artwork up there and bought mass-produced pre-made cast blocks that were intended to be viewed at a much closer range. They look like they are cast from the same material as the bricks - probably not hand-carved. Looking at the long distance photo, I can clearly see that there are lions and cherubs up there - although details of the leaves and such are pretty much invisible - so if the architect specified "lions and cherubs", then they might well wind up with more detail than strictly needed. SteveBaker (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure where I can get a reference, but it's apparently the same pride in workmanship that drives many professional craftsman, and is seen in the ornamentation of Cathedrals I have heard mentioned in documentaries. The "why bother" premise is at odds with the notion that facts matter even if no one besides the artists perhaps is aware of them. μηδείς (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, to counteract SteveBaker's presumption (with an equally unreferenced counterpresumption, but at least a logical one) is one only need to look at the ornamentation of large, medieval cathedrals, much of which is highly detailed and all but invisible from ground level. "Mass produced pre-made cast blocks" were not used for gargoyles and the like. --Jayron32 17:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The mediaeval tradition continued to the early 1900s for the older part of Liverpool Cathedral, but the newer part has none of the detailed ornamentation. (It's not possible to see the difference in our article pictures.) I suppose costs were the main consideration in the 1960s and 1970s. Dbfirs 22:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, it continued in the U.S. well into the late 20th Century. The Washington National Cathedral famously has a grotesque of Darth Vader. No Shit. --Jayron32 04:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Steve, your eyes must be much better than mine because I can't tell what it is with the long shot, even zoomed in. But I used to have better than average eyesight, but not it is not so good. I've seen it in person several times and I had no idea what it was until I used the telephoto lens. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Attempting to reconcile Steve's and the other replies (but not directly replying to the Brunswick City Hall example): John Ruskin appreciated Gothic Architecture, not least for what he saw as its truthfulness and honesty in ornamentation. More can be found in his Seven Lamps of Architecture, and it works both ways;

"Consider, first, what kinds of ornaments will tell in the distance and what near, and so distribute them, keeping such as by their nature are delicate, down near the eye, and throwing the bold and rough kinds of work to the top; and if there be any kind which is to be both near and far off, take care that it be as boldly and rudely wrought where it is well seen as where it is distant, so that the spectator may know exactly what it is, and what it is worth."

and, on the other hand, when discussing one of his examples of good architecture, Rouen Cathedral:

"here is a very noble proportioning of the work to the distance, the niches and statues which crown the northern one, at a height of about one hundred feet from the ground, being alike colossal and simple; visibly so from below, so as to induce no deception, and yet honestly and well-finished above, and all that they are expected to be; the features very beautiful, full of expression, and as delicately wrought as any work of the period."

And, like you using a telephoto lens, Ruskin used daguerrotypes to view details the naked eye couldn't catch. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm using a much more powerful lens than cameras had at the time. I don't understand either of those quotes. Neither seems to address why they put nicely done things up so high that people couldn't see them. You need binoculars or a small telescope to see it. Did they do it so angels could see them or something? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

That's certainly not the worst way of seeing it. In the Gothic examples, angels or whoever else happens to be near enough to see them, however "realistic" in our current view of what possibilities existed at the time (i.e. before the advent of modern optics) while factoring out medieval points of view. At the same time, being visible from the ground is important too. Whether your example of the late 19th century meets these criteria or is merely an emulation of times past, I will leave to architecture critics. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The highest points of medieval cathedrals are still accessible - maybe the general public couldn't walk around up there even in the Middle Ages, but people who lived/worked in the building could. The reason you typically can't go up there now is because the building is too old and unsafe. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

There are many more photos of the building in that commons category, if anyone is interested. I just added some with different angles/lighting. Also, there is some stuff on the back of the building (the third photo here), but it isn't up as high - it is over the second story. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the earlier comments to the effect that the "if you can't see it it doesn't matter" attitude is a modern one. Specifically, the Gilded Age was so named because that's when that attitude took hold, with gilding being thinly covering some base material with a precious metal, in order to fool the viewer into thinking it was more valuable than it really was. (Note that gilding existed before the Gilded Age, but it became the norm then.)

This time period corresponds to when your building was constructed. However, that attitude did not spread everywhere in the same time frame, and the architect of your building appears to have been a hold-out for old values and standards of quality, where doing lower quality work wherever it was out of view would be seen as shoddy workmanship, something like if a housekeeper just swept dirt under the carpet rather than removing it. StuRat (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

A similar question was asked a couple of years ago, about the reliefs on Trajan's Column, much of which which can't really be seen from ground level. Perhaps the answer is the building in question is imitating medieval buildings, where sculptures may have been added for religious reasons rather than for people on the ground to appreciate. Alansplodge (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It must be something like that. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)