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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

"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.