Jump to content

Talk:Coins of the pound sterling/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Names of the coin pages

I don't think the current names are terribly good to link to: "British coin Five Pence". I think we could simply have "Five pence", or "Five pence coin". If we need disambiguation, "Five pence coin (UK)". Any objections or suggestions before I move pages? (anyone else feel free to beat me to it! :) -- Tarquin 17:02 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I'd strongly object -- granted the current names aren't terribly elegant, but we're currently working on describing all the denominations that have ever circulated in England (I'll let someone else work on Scottish coinage, if they're interested!). In the case of the five pence, I'll grant you there was never a coin called that before 1968, but you would still want to distinguish it from the Irish five pence coin. I notice on the ten pence article you've changed the link from "British coin Florin" to plain "Florin", although that coin was worth two shillings to 1971, and we've already got an article on the "English coin Florin or Double Leopard" which was worth six shillings in 1344, and you'd need to distinguish between the florin as an alternate name for the late Dutch guilder, and various coins called florins which have been produced all over Europe since they first appeared in Renaissance Florence. There is method in our madness! -- Arwel 17:17 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)

The problem is that these names are extremely unnatural. Do you ever say to a numismatic friend "I have an English coin ten pence here"? "Ten pence coin (UK)" so you can use the pipe trick. Or, if in the actual article text you're going to specify the country, "UK ten pence coin". These read like the names of actual things. -- Tarquin 21:37 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)

Well in my defence I'll just say that this format's been in use since at least 10 months before I found Wikipedia! (as I just replied to "212" who complained about it on my talk page, even though the format was in use when he edited the page :-) ). I've no great objection to renaming them as long as I don't have to do them all! ... Do however pause before you start as we need to think through how we distinguish the different time periods -- you can't describe a coin as "UK" before 1707; in the present system I've tended to describe coins before 1603 as "English", ones from after 1707 as "British" and for between 1603 and 1707 I tended to switch in between them depending on how I felt at the time. For pennies I'm not even sure about describing all of them as "English" since the first ones predate the English state... -- Arwel 01:36 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry to add woes but I don't think the recent pluralization of coin names is correct - you don't say "two pounds coin", but "two pound coin" etc. Shouldn't we reflect usage? Nevilley 23:34 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)

Well, you don't say "two pounds coin" but the coin itself says "two pounds". Except in the case of the £2 and £5 all the other coin names we have links to are what are actually on the coin, which is why I brought those two into line too. -- Arwel 01:36 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)
Fair enough! Maybe we could just add a note on the common usage which might be useful to non-natives. But yes, as that's what it says on the coins, I am sure you are right and it should stay there. Thanks. Nevilley 08:03 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

April 23 says: *1968 - The United Kingdom produces its first decimalised coins, a 5p and a 10p coin.

Which is correct, 1971 or 1968? -- Zoe
Both. - Hephaestos
Yup - 5p and 10p were introduced in 1968, 50p in 1969, since they had exact equivalent values (1/-, 2/-, 10/-) in the old currency, even though actual decimalisation wasn't until 1971. Actually, of course, the first decimalised coin was produced in 1849 with the florin, it's just that they didn't proceed with the idea for another 120 years! -- Arwel

Under Slang there is this reference: "a half crown was a half dollar." Is this correct? Willmcw 05:20, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It was certainly used in some places as late as the 1950s. I don't remember hearing it used in my presence (I never had that much money in the 60s when it still circulated!), and I suspect it may have been a Londonism. 5/- was the approximate exchange rate for the US dollar in much of the early 20th century, but I don't know if that was the connection - Britain also issued "trade dollars" for use in China and the Pacific in the nineteenth century. -- Arwel 12:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
half a dollar was certainly widely used in both the South east (my family home) and in Solihull where I was living in the 1950s and 1960s.

Velela 23:48, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Coppers as slang. Arwel is right about the 20p limit on the use of 1p and 2p coins, however I think that copper is neverthless a slang term in use such I've only got a few coppers....

Velela 23:48, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Libra

"The symbol, £, for the pound is derived from the first letter of the Latin word for pound, the librum."

I suppose "librum" is the accusative case of liber (i.e. book).

Pound was libra (see Ancient_weights_and_measures#Weight_2

it:Utente:Carlomorino

Alderney pound

Can anyone tell me why the Alderney pound is not listed, and doesn't have a page? The Standard Catalog of World Coins has an entry for it, but I can't find anything about it in Wikipedia. Ingrid 02:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Mainly I think, because it's purely a commemorative coinage issue, rather than a full currency with banknotes. Administratively Alderney is part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, and they've only issued commemorative coins since 1989, usually in £1, £2 or £5 values in base metail (also in silver and gold). -- Arwel (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. Would you consider adding a short note to the Guernsey pound page? And maybe a redirect from Alderney pound to Guernsey pound? Since all I know about it is what you've said above, I'm afraid that I'd mess it up if I tried to paraphrase what you said (but I'll try if you don't want to). Ingrid 05:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge notice

  • Merge - I see no reason to keep both pages - unless someone want to talk about coinage seperate from the sets of coins themselves. Personally "Coins" is the prefered and usual usage. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 15:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Pound signs

"although note that the British pound symbol is always written with two bars (ref: Bank of England Notes)". I've got a Bank of England tenner sat next to me and it's very much a single bar on both sides. or am I misunderstanding something? IainP (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Look at this image and decide, it looks to me as if its only one bar thru Joe I 21:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Which is what I'm saying. The article states it's two. I can only see one! Methinks the article needs correcting. It's not my field (check my edits...) so I'd rather leave it to someone who knows this stuff better than me :) IainP (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The Bank of England web site shows all the notes with a single bar and, as a long-term British British currency user, I've always written it with one bar. I've corrected the article. Bazza 14:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Tuppence

I'm just curious as to why there is no mention of tuppence = two pence anywhere. topher67 11:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Slang

The article states that florin is a slang term for two shillings. This is not strictly true - whilst terms such as tanner and bob are "proper" slang words (for 6d and 1/- respectively), florin was an alternative term for 2/- and could be found inscribed on some older 2/- coins. It should not be included in the slang section. Bazza 12:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Copper Content

Doesn't really belong on the main page but just thought I would mention it here. Due to the recent increase in wholesale copper prices as of May 2006 a 2p peice was worth approx 2.3 as scrap metal. This only relates however to coins older that 1997(guessing at that date) as their copper content was reduced after that. If anyone as any further info it might be a nice little addition.

Also could someone add a section on whether it is actually acceptable to deface a coin or bank note

Pre-decimal system

Use of the Tower pound, not the Troy, as the standard throughout the Medieval era is covered in parallel under various headings: English units, Tower pound, etc. The role of Offa is also included in his main article, but no details about the Tower pound or the coin weight. I didn't want to cite a specific date for the 16th century reform. The Tower pound article says 1528, the other says 1527, and I can't relocate a non-Wiki source I recall as putting the change during Elizabeth I.

The wording should also be made clearer that only the names of English and Frankish coins are derived from Roman coinage; the ratios originated in post-Roman Frankish coinage and the weight standards are distinct (Tower pound is almost exactly 3 Frankish pounds). I don't have time to make that change. RgoNaut 08:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Rationale

How did Britons come up with their pre-decimal system? To me it looks utterly illogical but I am sure that it must have made sense to someone back then. I came here because I was confused by the monetary units used in old English literature but still don't understand the rationale behind using a currency based on 1/240th of something else, or 1/12th and 1/20th respectively. (Or think of a quarter farthing, which is 1/3840th of a pound, or a half crown which is a quarter of a pound, totally mind boggling) [i]What was the Briton's rationale behind using pre-decimal units anyway?[/i]--Soylentyellow 19:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Convenience, same as the non-decimal divisions of the foot and the unit of weight pound. The penny was originally the basic unit (indeed, originally the ONLY coin), and 1/240 of a pound made for a convenient size. A more decimally-minded people might've picked 1/250 of a pound, but 240 has advantages in that it can be divided into more fractions than 250. The shilling developed as a middle level, equal to 12 pence, which worked out to 1/20 pound. 12 is a convenient number, which is why, to this day, quite a few things are sold in dozens, such as eggs. The farthing was simply a quarter of a penny. You can't get much more convenient than that, especially in the early days when there was no farthing coin, and half-pennies and farthings were simply cut coins. It's a lot easier to cut a coin into halves and fourths than into other fractions such as fifths.
And what's so hard to understand about quarter-farthings? It's just a fourth of a farthing! Since the farthing was non-decimal, any fraction of it would be likewise non-decimal. Also, the crown was a quarter of a pound, thus the half-crown was an eighth of a pound. Which strikes me as a useful fraction, more so than 1/10 in fact. It's a series of binary divisions, penny, half-penny, farthing, half-farthing, quarter-farthing - each coin is one-half the value of the next larger one, whereas in a decimal system you're stuck with having coins 2½ the value of the next-smaller one, such as the modern 5p and 2p coins. In fact, with the exception of the half-crown and florin, each coin in the pre-decimal system was either 2 or 3 times the value of the next smaller one:
Sovereign (£1) = 2 half-sovereigns
Half-sovereign (10/-) = 2 crowns
Crown (5/-) = 2 half-crowns or 2½ florins
Half-crown (2/6) = 2½ shilings
Florin (2/-) = 2 shillings
Shilling (1/-) = 2 sixpence
Sixpence (6d) = 2 threepence
Threepence (3d) = 3 pennies
Penny = 2 halfpennies
Halfpenny = 2 farthings
Farthing = 2 half-farthings or 3 third-farthings
Half-farthing = 2 quarter-farthings (third-farthings and quarter-farthings were not used in the same colonies)
Nik42 19:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
See also Denomination (currency)#Decimal v.s non-decimal. Comparing 240 and 250, 240 has 20 divisors: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 20, 24, 30, 40, 48, 60, 80, 120, 240, while 250 has only 8 divisors: 1, 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 125, 250. The reason for this big difference is that 240's integer factorization is composed of smaller prime numbers: 24 × 3 × 5, compared to 250's integer factorization: 2 × 53.
Ok what does it mean to have more divisors. It's more convenient to have partition things while you still get integers.
See also Table of divisors. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

History of the penny

In addition to the above I would like to make more changes. In this section, in the History of the penny primary article, and to a general history of money in Europe. Again the initial standard for the English penny was the Tower pound. Troy weights didn't exist in the 8th century, they originated in Troyes (France) several centuries later.

Charlemagne didn't dictate coin weights but rather a system of accounting to be used throughout his empire, based on the existing Frankish system of 1li=20s=240d. German currency was based on the mark of Cologne. Each Italian city had its own lira. The English had the only major currency using a trade weight pound as its defining index. The use of shilling as the intermediate denomination is from the word scilling, a Germanic term for older wire money.

How much depth belongs in a brief historical section on a page of this type? RgoNaut 18:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Pre decimal system /small coins

Please see http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/gold-bri.html which is the only source i can find, but i have previously encountered mention of smaller predecimal coins than a farthing, this site supports my recollection of a 1/2, 1/3 and (which i didn't know) a 1/4 farthing having existed. Also apparently there has been a 1.5d coin (1834-1862) Graldensblud 22:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

See Three halfpence. -- Arwel (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Coins of the pound sterling??

The title of this article - "Coins of the pound sterling" - is not any sort of English that I recognise. Propose changing it to "British coins", or "British coinage", or similar.

  • I don't have a problem with it - the article describes coinage which has been and is used for exchanging currency amounts in pound sterling. But if you want to change the title, that's OK. But be careful what bag of worms you open with the word "British". Does that include the Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Northern Ireland...? If you think me over-cautious, then have a peek at Talk:British_Isles_naming_dispute, Talk:British and Talk:British_Isles. Bazza 11:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FivePence.jpeg

Image:FivePence.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The letters patent which decimalised some pre-decimal coins specifically allowed for 5 different silver (or cupro-nickel) coins: crown (5s/25p) florin (2s/10p) shilling (1s/5p) sixpence (6d/2.5p). The letters patent also listed the 'double florin' (4s/20p). These coins were decimalised on the 30th August 1971. Since that time the sixpence, shilling and florin have all been demonitised. The crown is still valid (and indeed is listed on the Royal Mint website) and shown in the info boxes on this page. The wikipedia page on the double florin does state that it is still legally tenderable; so can we put this coin in the commemorative and bullion box, and perhaps consider renaming that title as the double florin is neither commemorative not bullion, but is legally tenderable under the current english decimal system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.84.226 (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed the following

"The competition to find new UK coin designs has highlighted that the UK is not anticipating joining the Euro any time soon." Looks like WP:OR. Rich Farmbrough, 14:26 31 October 2007 (GMT).

New coins

The mint has released designs for the 1p, 2p 5p, 10p, 20p, 50p and £1 coins, featuring different parts of the Royal Coat of Arms. They are to be minted this summer, and can be seen here and here. RossEnglish 18:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I see they've already been added to the article. I should really read the whole thing first! RossEnglish 18:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think its cool that the new coins have been designed from a 26 year old born in Bangor, North Wales. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/7326830.stm Onshore —Preceding comment was added at 00:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"New coins will replace..."

As far as I am aware the new coins are to circulate alongside the current coins. They will not be specifically removed from circulation. They will only be removed when they are worn out and no longer useful, as will any new coins that become unsuitable. I therefore think that any reference to them "replacing" the old coins should be removed or reworded as appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.162.127 (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

20p changed, so has the 50p

The page states that the design obverse of the 20p has been amended. Is is worth also pointing out that the 50p is now the other way around? "Upside down" in effect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.162.127 (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting point, the obverse is bound to be "upside down" also, but only time will tell if this continues and whether the 2009 commemorative and future 50p pieces will continue with the new orientation. Insekt x (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a set of the new design coins and yes, the design of the 50p's obverse has been rotated slightly to suit the new orientation of the reverse design (i.e point down rather than point up).
Dent's designs are the new standard designs, so this orientation of the 50p *will* continue. Commemorative issues may differ, but I can well imagine the Royal Mint will not want the expense/technical issues of stiking two different obverses concurrently and will issue future commemoratives in the new orientation also.
Petecollier (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean when you say that the obverse of the newly-designed 50p coins are "upside-down"? I have several of the new designs and the observe and reverse sides of the coins are both the same way up!! Why is the obverse design "bound to be upside down"??!!86.179.161.84 (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Because there is an odd number of sides (7), each individual edge of the coin lies opposite a corner. Before 2008 the Queen's portrait was oriented such that an edge ran below (beneath her neck) and a corner was above (above the top of her head). Since 2008 the situation is now the opposite: the corner is below the Queen's portrait and the 'straight' edge is above her head. Petecollier (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wales and the new designs

I just reverted an anon who added a point that Wales is not individually represented in the new designs. I reverted because the shield does not in theory individually represent England, Scotland or (Northern) Ireland either, but represents the Monarchy and by implication the UK as a whole - thus Wales, as part of the UK, is included.

It just happens that the shield does not include a Welsh part, since Wales was not one of the kingdoms that formed the union back in the day, and it has never since been added to the shield. The designs were done by a Welshman and it seems unlikely that he would have deliberately excluded Wales.

Is this right? Pfainuk talk 17:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not quite; Wales is technically represented in the arms because at the time of the Act of Union, Wales was considered a principality of England (everything that affected England legally affected Wales also). Daniel (‽) 20:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. In any case another anon has added something rather more concrete on the subject sourced from a newspaper from North Wales - which shows that it has been noticed. I've just revised it as I wasn't convinced the original version was NPOV and it mis-attributed a quote. I think the current version puts the idea across accurately and concisely but naturally correct me if I've got it wrong! Pfainuk talk 22:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:British 50 pence obverse.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Photo size

Is there a Wiki policy about coin photo sizes in articles? That (I'm speculating) they should be life size unless noted?

Or perhaps there are government policies about not reproducing existing coinage life size?

Sorry for being a stick-in-the-whatever here, but in a couple Wiki articles I've recently been confused as to what size I'm looking at. That particularly holds when it's apparent more than one scale is being used within an article.

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Old Will

(question moved from the top of the page) I am looking at a will from Colonial Virginia. The deceased left an estate worth L1,1998.8.8 1/4 What amount is this in "words?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4Tinkerbell (talk • contribs) 19:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you read the beginning right, and that it's "L1" and not just an ornate "£"? £1998.8.8¼ would be read as "one thousand nine hundred and ninety eight pounds, eight shillings and eightpence farthing". -- Arwel (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Dime comment

The article mentions that the new UK coins list their value only in words and not in symbols. It compares this to the U.S. dime, which the article claims does not state its value. That is not true. The word "dime" is a denotation of value. American currency is divided into three units of value: dollars, dimes and cents. While it is true that we generally don't converse in dimes or price things in dimes, the fact remains that "dime" is a unit of value in U.S. currency. Note that this differs from the "nickel" which is a mere nickname, and from the "quarter" which is properly noted on its reverse as "quarter dollar." I recommend the comment about dimes simply be removed.

(In addition, this leads me to question whether the unit of shilling has truly been removed from the British system. I had previously thought that ten pence made a shilling and ten shillings made a pound. Why would this not be true? However, it is undeniable that the coins say "ten pence" rather than "one shilling.")71.38.200.244 (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Donald Bugg

£1 = 100p, £1 = 20s = 240d; and so 1s = 12d = 5p. So 5p is the equivalent of a shilling. And indeed, the first 5p coins issued were identical in size, shape and colour to the already existing shillings; only the design and wording was different. Bazza (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bazza,

The main reason that the coins were the same size and nominal value upon decimalisation was to get round the conversion from a pre-decimal penny being worth 1/240th of a pound to a new one being worth 1/100th of a pound. Upon decimilisation, all the old names and values went out of the window. A sixpence was worth 2.5 new pence. A shillings "correct name" would be a twelvepence, but after 1971 was worth fivepence in new money. There was a transition period of roughly 15 years to get the physical coinage cut over. Any trace of pounds shillings and pence are now long gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Wolstencroft (talk • contribs) 13:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Stupid

Lets face it, no one likes it. That's why they didn't advertise the change. They knew anyone with half a brain or any sense of national identity would hate it. Why would a world wide encyclopedia acknowledge such an insult unless it hated the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.114 (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The £2 coin?

The article states that the two pound coin has, as the edge lettering "standing on the shoulders of giants", and it has remained unchanged. In interest, I took out a two pound coin from my wallet, read the lettering on the side, and lo and behold, it said "In victory magnanimity in peace goodwill" ... Hanii (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You've been selective in your reference. The article states The standard-issue £2 coin...; this does not include commemorative or special issue £2 coins whose inscription, as you have observed, may be different or non-existant, and which are described in the main article referred to at the top of the Standard two pound coin section. Bazza (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Coin weights

While some coins in the table are integer numbers of grammes, others are evidently specified as convenient fractions of an ounce.

I suggest adding the fraction and unit where this is other than grammes, in the table, with the approximate equivalent in grammes bracketed.

Is the mass of the 1p conveniently expressed in terms of the ounce? The value given in grammes appears to be nearly but not quite 1/8 oz (avoirdupois or troy). GilesW (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Pre 1997 £2 Coins

The £2 Coins issued in 1986 (The Commonwealth Games), 1989 (The Bill of Rights), 1989 (The Claim of Right), 1994 (Bank of England Tercentenary), 1995 (50th Anniversary of the end of the Second World War), 1995 (50th Anniversary of the United Nations), 1996 (European Football Championships) WERE all issued for general circulation! I have several copies of each of these coins and I did not purchase them from any coin dealer but merely collected them in my loose change!86.179.161.84 (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Various corrections made to text

It was stated that no one pound coins were issued in 1998 or 1999. This is incorrect!

It was also stated that commemorative reverse designs of the 50p coin (in addition to the Britannia design) were issued between 2000 and 2007. This again is incorrect. There were no 'special' designs for the years 2001 nor 2002.86.179.161.84 (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Egomania

The withdrawal of the old-size 10p in 1003 marked the withdrawal of the last pre-Elizabeth II coinage. Has there been any other point at which a monarch has expunged all their predecessors from the coinage? I have this mental image of a future Tony Robinson assuming an egomaniacal Elizabeth II imposed a Khmer Rouge-like Year zero. Bazj (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Fractional farthings

This article says that the half, third, and quarter farthings never circulated in the UK, only in some colonies. But the half farthing article says that from 1842 to 1869, it was in fact legal tender in Britain as well as Ceylon, and circulated widely. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Pre-decimalisation and software

How were shillings and pence handled by computer software of the era? The few very old IBM texts I could locate are very US-centric. 99.40.197.2 (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I may be wrong but I believe they converted LSD into (old) pence for storage and calculations, then back again for display.Roly (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

equivalent of 3 guineas and 1 crown in 1797

For a Wikipedia article (not this one), I want to determine the value of three guineas and a crown as of July 1797. I calculate it from Wikipedia's articles (the ledes) as 3 pounds 8 shillings or 3.4 pounds or 3 and 8/20 pounds. Is this correct, is it some other amount, or is it impossible to determine? Nick Levinson (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The Royal Mint website, which you'd expect to be accurate on such matters, agrees with Wikipedia that the value of the guinea, having previously fluctuated, was fixed at 21 shillings in 1717 [1]. So, yes, 3 guineas in 1797 would be 3 pounds 3 shillings, and another five shillings for the crown would make 3 pounds 8 shillings. 86.160.221.207 (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


Coins of the pound sterling → British coinage – I have never liked the name "Coins of the pound sterling", which to me seems clumsy and only barely proper English. "British coinage" seems a simpler and more sensible choice. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC) 86.160.221.207 (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC) "Coins of the pound sterling" does look and sound clumsy but it is consistent with other similar articles (e.g. "Coins of the United States Dollar" etc.).Roly (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

5p and 10p coins "debased"

"Since January 2012, 5p and 10p coins have been debased and are now worth less than the face value of the coin."

To me, this sentence gives the impression that previously the coins by design had an intrinsic value equal to their face value, which seems dubious. Maybe it ended up that way by accident as metal prices soared, but the whole idea that coins' intrinsic values should match their face values was surely abandoned long ago. 86.151.119.57 (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree. This needs changing. The coins have indeed not been worth their metal content since the mid 20th century (or there about). A correct description could be: "Since January 2012, the 5p and 10p coins metal content changed from cupro-nickel to nickel plated steel". The same thing happened to the 1p and 2p in the early 1990's when the bronze was changed to copper plated steel. Maybe look there to see how it is said to give an idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.89.230 (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

mediæval

Just curious - why has mediæval been changed to mediaeval? Isn't mediæval correct? Roly (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOS says that it is usual to update ligatures in quotations of old texts which use them; implicit in that is the recognition that ligatures shouldn't be in non-quotations in the first place. Leave 'mediæval' spellings in the Middle Ages. -sche (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coins_of_the_pound_sterling/Archive_1&oldid=1136621332"