If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
PING: oly
A dealer friend and I were discussing the later coins of Scotland, and we
were both unable to account for the ratio of the Scottish shilling to the British shilling, which seems to have been in the neighborhood of 24 to 1. So, can you verify that to have been the exchange rate in the 1600s, and can you give the reason for it? Much obliged in advance. James III |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
PING: oly
On Apr 17, 2:08*pm, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
A dealer friend and I were discussing the later coins of Scotland, and we were both unable to account for the ratio of the Scottish shilling to the British shilling, which seems to have been in the neighborhood of 24 to 1.. So, can you verify that to have been the exchange rate in the 1600s, and can you give the reason for it? *Much obliged in advance. James III Actually, I am not very strong on the subject of Scotish coinage before the time that James I (James VI of Scotland) came to the English throne. Even my own "hands-on" handling of English coins is not much before The Restoration of Charles II in 1660, 'though I feel stronger on that whole subject from 1483 or thereabouts. The extreme difference between the English and the Scotish systems probably reflects that (1) the political situation in Scotland was typically less stable than in England (unstable authority tends towards coin debasement), and (2) that Scotland's economy was relatively more primitive [more basic] and that coins weren't used nearly as frequently in the North as in the South. Even as late as the 1770's, Dr. Sam'l Johnson commented on the strong purchasing power and scarcity of coins in Scotland. Can't readily help on why those extreme ratios developed as they did. A lady from Scotland told me about two weeks ago that today there are 51 million English and 8 million Scots (and FWIW, 3 million in Northern Ireland). I was not exactly aware of the lopsidedness of these population figures. oly |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
PING: Tony Clayton (was: PING: oly)
oly wrote:
On Apr 17, 2:08 pm, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote: A dealer friend and I were discussing the later coins of Scotland, and we were both unable to account for the ratio of the Scottish shilling to the British shilling, which seems to have been in the neighborhood of 24 to 1. So, can you verify that to have been the exchange rate in the 1600s, and can you give the reason for it? Much obliged in advance. James III Actually, I am not very strong on the subject of Scotish coinage before the time that James I (James VI of Scotland) came to the English throne. Even my own "hands-on" handling of English coins is not much before The Restoration of Charles II in 1660, 'though I feel stronger on that whole subject from 1483 or thereabouts. The extreme difference between the English and the Scotish systems probably reflects that (1) the political situation in Scotland was typically less stable than in England (unstable authority tends towards coin debasement), and (2) that Scotland's economy was relatively more primitive [more basic] and that coins weren't used nearly as frequently in the North as in the South. Even as late as the 1770's, Dr. Sam'l Johnson commented on the strong purchasing power and scarcity of coins in Scotland. Can't readily help on why those extreme ratios developed as they did. A lady from Scotland told me about two weeks ago that today there are 51 million English and 8 million Scots (and FWIW, 3 million in Northern Ireland). I was not exactly aware of the lopsidedness of these population figures. During that conversation I did speculate on the odd relationships of the Jersey penny (13 to the shilling) and the Manx penny (14 to the shilling), mostly in terms of the effort to keep those coppers from making their way to the homeland. Maybe Tony Clayton could shed some light on all this. James the Accountant |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
PING: oly
On Apr 17, 3:08*pm, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
A dealer friend and I were discussing the later coins of Scotland, and we were both unable to account for the ratio of the Scottish shilling to the British shilling, which seems to have been in the neighborhood of 24 to 1.. So, can you verify that to have been the exchange rate in the 1600s, and can you give the reason for it? *Much obliged in advance. James III Bateson in, "Coinage in Scotland" describes a general debasement of the Scottish coins beginning around 1357 and follows it to 1526 in respect to the groat. At that point, the groat has debased by 4:1 wrt the English groat. I don't see where he carries on into the 1600's with his narrative. Still, with a united kingdom thereafter, they should have converged. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
PING: oly
On Apr 17, 7:57*pm, Peter wrote:
On Apr 17, 3:08*pm, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote: A dealer friend and I were discussing the later coins of Scotland, and we were both unable to account for the ratio of the Scottish shilling to the British shilling, which seems to have been in the neighborhood of 24 to 1. So, can you verify that to have been the exchange rate in the 1600s, and can you give the reason for it? *Much obliged in advance. James III Bateson in, "Coinage in Scotland" describes a general debasement of the Scottish coins beginning around 1357 and follows it to 1526 in respect to the groat. *At that point, the groat has debased by 4:1 wrt the English groat. *I don't see where he carries on into the 1600's with his narrative. *Still, with a united kingdom thereafter, they should have converged. There would be no means to "converge" unless the intrinsic values of the coins of the two countries were exactly the same. The "token" principle was unacceptable to people and not often tried by authorities until the mid-nineteenth century. In a more sane world than today's, a coin was worth no more or no less than the weight and value of its metal. oly |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
PING: oly
oly wrote:
On Apr 17, 7:57 pm, Peter wrote: On Apr 17, 3:08 pm, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote: A dealer friend and I were discussing the later coins of Scotland, and we were both unable to account for the ratio of the Scottish shilling to the British shilling, which seems to have been in the neighborhood of 24 to 1. So, can you verify that to have been the exchange rate in the 1600s, and can you give the reason for it? Much obliged in advance. James III Bateson in, "Coinage in Scotland" describes a general debasement of the Scottish coins beginning around 1357 and follows it to 1526 in respect to the groat. At that point, the groat has debased by 4:1 wrt the English groat. I don't see where he carries on into the 1600's with his narrative. Still, with a united kingdom thereafter, they should have converged. There would be no means to "converge" unless the intrinsic values of the coins of the two countries were exactly the same. The "token" principle was unacceptable to people and not often tried by authorities until the mid-nineteenth century. In a more sane world than today's, a coin was worth no more or no less than the weight and value of its metal. Ah yes, I pine for that saner world of the 1600s that gave us hard currency and the Thirty Years War. James the Historian |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
PING: oly
On Apr 18, 7:49*am, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote:
oly wrote: On Apr 17, 7:57 pm, Peter wrote: On Apr 17, 3:08 pm, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote: A dealer friend and I were discussing the later coins of Scotland, and we were both unable to account for the ratio of the Scottish shilling to the British shilling, which seems to have been in the neighborhood of 24 to 1. So, can you verify that to have been the exchange rate in the 1600s, and can you give the reason for it? Much obliged in advance. James III Bateson in, "Coinage in Scotland" describes a general debasement of the Scottish coins beginning around 1357 and follows it to 1526 in respect to the groat. At that point, the groat has debased by 4:1 wrt the English groat. I don't see where he carries on into the 1600's with his narrative. Still, with a united kingdom thereafter, they should have converged. There would be no means to "converge" unless the intrinsic values of the coins of the two countries were exactly the same. The "token" principle was unacceptable to people and not often tried by authorities until the mid-nineteenth century. In a more sane world than today's, a coin was worth no more or no less than the weight and value of its metal. Ah yes, I pine for that saner world of the 1600s that gave us hard currency and the Thirty Years War. James the Historian- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The greatest currency debasements in history arose from the needs to finance World War I, World War II and Vietnam. At least in the Thirty Years War, you got hard currency and you generally got to face the s-o-b who was trying to kill you. Now somebody paid with electronic debits and credits, they can simply press a button from seven thousand miles away and kill you, and they'll be back home in Virginia or Maryland the same evening. People think that history is the linear story of "progress" in all things, that things always get better and better. The history of money does not bear out that hypothesis. I think J.M. Galbreath said that first, and better than I just did. oly |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
PING: oly
On Apr 18, 7:59*am, oly wrote:
There would be no means to "converge" unless the intrinsic values of the coins of the two countries were exactly the same. Well, yes. That was a part of my point. Both countries used the groat (4 pence). It was the Scots that were using less silver in the coin. I am guessing that in a united kingdom, there would be pressure that the same coin should have somewhat similar properties. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
PING: oly
oly wrote:
On Apr 18, 7:49 am, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote: oly wrote: On Apr 17, 7:57 pm, Peter wrote: On Apr 17, 3:08 pm, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote: A dealer friend and I were discussing the later coins of Scotland, and we were both unable to account for the ratio of the Scottish shilling to the British shilling, which seems to have been in the neighborhood of 24 to 1. So, can you verify that to have been the exchange rate in the 1600s, and can you give the reason for it? Much obliged in advance. James III Bateson in, "Coinage in Scotland" describes a general debasement of the Scottish coins beginning around 1357 and follows it to 1526 in respect to the groat. At that point, the groat has debased by 4:1 wrt the English groat. I don't see where he carries on into the 1600's with his narrative. Still, with a united kingdom thereafter, they should have converged. There would be no means to "converge" unless the intrinsic values of the coins of the two countries were exactly the same. The "token" principle was unacceptable to people and not often tried by authorities until the mid-nineteenth century. In a more sane world than today's, a coin was worth no more or no less than the weight and value of its metal. Ah yes, I pine for that saner world of the 1600s that gave us hard currency and the Thirty Years War. James the Historian- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The greatest currency debasements in history arose from the needs to finance World War I, World War II and Vietnam. At least in the Thirty Years War, you got hard currency and you generally got to face the s-o-b who was trying to kill you. I can't imagine anything more fun that minding your own business in some little village in post-medieval Hesse, only to look toward the ridge to the north, where a band of drunken Scandinavians ride down, rape your wife and nubile daughters, dash your kids' (the few who survived early infancy) brains out on a nearby stone wall (all while you watch helplessly), then put the blade to your neck and reduce your squalid dwelling to ashes or rubble. Them were the good ole daze, yupper. Now somebody paid with electronic debits and credits, they can simply press a button from seven thousand miles away and kill you, and they'll be back home in Virginia or Maryland the same evening. Of course, that can be done, but so far it has not been done, at least not to the scale you have described. And what's the point of sitting around stewing about it happening? I'm going to enjoy life to the fullest extent possible as long as possible. People think that history is the linear story of "progress" in all things, that things always get better and better. The history of money does not bear out that hypothesis. What people are you talking about? Please don't even think of including me in that collective noun. And what's wrong with dreaming of progress? Without hope and dreaming, what's the point of life? To stay on topic, right now I'm dreaming about someday owning a (1785) bar copper. If those chuckleheads hold off on pushing that button for a while, my dream might still come true. James, in Anticipation of Great Things |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
PING: oly
"oly" wrote in message ... .... The greatest currency debasements in history arose from the needs to finance World War I, World War II and Vietnam. True, but I wouldn't stop there. At this point, you can't ignore the cumulative effects of our adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan on the soundness of the dollar. On another level, Soviet expenditures in the Cold War and Afghanistan probably sapped the ruble more than enough to qualify as a contributing factor in the fall of the USSR. The cost of war in blood, treasure, and the pursuit of happiness is orders of magnitude beyond the ken of most people. Even when we do learn it as a hard-knocks lesson in hindsight, every nation in the "civilized" world seems to forget it every generation or two. To tie this back to coin relevance: Devaluation of any currency makes the lowest denominations more and more superfluous. The mill is long gone, as are the half-cent, 2- and 3-cent pieces. These used to have useful places in monetary transactions. Now, people are asking "Of what use, sir, is the penny?" Furthermore, the recent slide in demand for new higher-denomination coinage has forced the Mint to reduce its output of what used to be their core business in business strikes. Needless to say, all of this does not bode well for, and is detrimental to the interests of collectors. IMO we are best served under the conditions of a sound economy and a stable dollar. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ping: Wes | John Ahnen | Coins | 5 | November 22nd 05 03:06 AM |
Ping - Wes | John Ahnen | Coins | 2 | May 7th 05 01:58 PM |
PING: Ira | Phil DeMayo | Coins | 0 | May 6th 05 11:50 PM |
PING: Ira | Heezer Bumfrool | Coins | 20 | April 23rd 05 11:01 PM |
PING SF | George D | Coins | 11 | December 17th 03 11:26 PM |