I do have a historical coin question but please bear with me. I have searched over 100+ websites and emailed many experts yet cannot find/get an answer. I am sure the answer has been staring me right in the face but my logical myopia won't let me see it. In short, I cannot make any logical sense of the British pound repeatedly referenced in 17th century literature. My confusion revolves about "pound" currency or coin extensively mentioned in 17th century literature and legal documents and how this was handled in coin (or currency). I understand Charlemagne's accounting system of 4 farthings=1 penny, 12 pence=1 shilling, 20 shillings=1 pound. As an example: in researching colonial coins I ran across a North Carolina probate will for Valentine Bird from 1680. In this will, there are references to pounds specifically "Fine Holland Sheets" valued at £7 10s and "Negro man" valued at £40. Now my question: Pound coins- from what I understand- were not minted until the 1800s. While I recognize the predominate barter system of the time and the lack of colonial specie, how did colonists or merchant pay a pound to England based traders? In what format? Paper currency? Forget even colonial payments, how did an Englishman pay royal taxes if he owed £3 2s? I cannot find a pound coin minted in or around 1680. I see James II Shillings, Crowns, Guineas, Farthings etc but no "pound" coin/currency references. All documentation I have found during the 17th century refer to tax, indenture transfer costs to the colonies and merchandise payments in pounds- yet no details. Spanish reales- frequently used by the US until mid 19th century do not match up to pound (I think). It seems to me odd that there are innumerable "pound" references with no actual coin associated. I don't see a merchant having to pay £7 10s for "Fine Holland Sheets" would fork over 150s in coins. Thoughts anyone? Thanks in advance.
THe pound was a rather large amount, and there were plenty of crowns at 4 to the pound if you wanted to pay in silver. Generally the gold 'piece' as Samuel Pepys refers to it was the guinea. In practice the nominal 20/- value of the Guinea was often at a small premium for its portability, Pepys would sometines have to pay 6d or 1/- extra for gold pieces to keep his hoard to a reasonable size. Hence the guinea soon became worth more than its nominal value, and after 60 years it was redefined as 21/-. None the less, it was a pound coin. There was no pound coin called 'a pound coin' till 1971. The sovereign was referred to as just that , a sovereign, not a pound, though a ten pound purchase could be made with a 5 pound note and 5 sovs without anyone batting an eye or thinking it strance. Since the purchasing power of gold coins was so high, no one really cared much about matematical convenience, since few would ever deal in them. It should also be noted that British weights and measures are noted for their eccentricity, the lack of a one pound nominal value coin until 1820 was nothing out of the ordinary, and of course, calling the coin a pound would far too simple.. In international trade, the weight of gold was more important than the nominal denomination, traders would have coin weights equivalent to all the common gold coins and the uncommon ones would be tested and weighed to get a value.
Although there were a limited number of "Pound" gold coins minted pre-1680 the Pound was primarily a unit of value rather than a coin, much as the Shilling was simply a unit of value with no coin in the UK until the time of Edw. VI.
Just envision the "Pound," in that time, as the equivalent of - say - $1000 today. You can spend $1k in cash pretty easily without having a bespoke piece of that face value, and the vast majority of individual transactions are for far less than that unit.
Thanks all. Very informative in concept. But I am an idiot. Just found that a James II Sovereign = 1 pound in Wiki. Not a Wiki fan, but I now it all makes better sense to me.
There were gold pound, and half pound, coins minted in the time of Elizabeth I (late 16th century). They are immensely beautiful things and consequently completely unaffordable today. They likely didn't make it into everyday commerce, but the elite probably used them for large transactions. Or they merely served as stores of wealth. You can find them in Spinks' books, or in Heritage auctions. Here is an image of one from the web: And here is a link to a Heritage auction for one: http://coins.ha.com/itm/great-brita...abeth-i-gold-pound-nd-1594-96-/a/3010-21012.s Search for "Elizabeth I gold pound" and you'll find plenty of examples.
mlubao - maybe this will help with understanding. Your basic question was regarding the British monetary unit of a pound and a corresponding coin of that amount. But there's really a lot more to it than that. And it goes back centuries, before, the time frame you are talking about. You see, the "pound" was also a monetary unit in most countries throughout Europe, not just Britain. And at the same time it was also a unit of measure, a weight, used in reference to silver, and gold. Although the marc, or mark, is the one we hear and read about most often. And 2 marcs equaled a pound. But there was also a problem for there was no universal standardization. The pound was used as a standard weight, but every city, not just every country, had its own pound with a differing weight, so the problems were enormous. The mark of Cologne, Germany, was the general standard until the 1800's, so the following list is a comparison with that standard: Cologne = 2 marc = 467.620 grams French = 2 marc = 489.506 Aachen = 32 loth = 467.040 Amsterdam troy = 2 mark = 492.168 Antwerp = 2 mark = 468.800 Hamburg = 512 pennyweight = 484.690 Lisbon = 2 marcas = 459.100 Lucerne = medical pound = 357.950 Munich = 560.000 Naples = 12 ounces = 320.759 Stockholm = 425.34 You see, all of those cities are talking about the same unit of weight - the pound. But it is only when you break it down into how many grams were in each pound, as above, that you begin to really see the problem. This is how it was, how it had always been since the very beginning of "money". This is why everywhere you went, every city, town, and village - had its own money changers. This is why the coins of anyplace other than your home city, were not just accepted at their stated value. Every coin of every denomination had to be weighed and tested for fineness before it could be exchanged for the local currency. This was often true even in different cities within the same country. And that was because the local mint, well let's just say they didn't always adhere to the stated Royal policy of weight and fineness per coin. In other words, the local Count, Baron, Duke, Bishop .... - the local Noble who had minting authority for the area - quite often debased their coinage for their own monetary benefit. So when you added THAT to all the differing weights already in use in each different city, let alone each different country, when it came to "money" - well you had a mess is what you had. Now I could go on and tell you how a tiny little country that few if any even think of changed it all and became the most powerful trading nation in the world because they developed a coin that was instantly accepted and honored anywhere and everywhere in the world. And how that tiny little country set the stage for our modern monetary system, but that's another story altogether.
@EWOMACK: Gorgeous- love it. Great pic. That is art to me. To my surprise, English coins were quite affordable for the ones I wanted- That is, I wanted coins that circulated in the colonies to compliment my 1793 penny and other 1796/7 minted types. You know, just to demonstrate the contrast in art, skill and experience. I picked up a striking 1787 George III w/o hearts MS63 shilling for $90. Compare that to the XF Fugio I bought for $1,495. I was sort of surprised to get 17th century English half -penny, penny for under $40. But then again, I have not tried to get a 17th century guinea... yet. @GDJMSP: Excellent and elucidating comment. Many thanks. However, as a layman general history buff, I cannot resist your tease: "Now I could go on and tell you how a tiny little country" Off the top of my head because I am patriotically & egocentrically biased: my gut tells me that due to the mish-mash of coinage in colonies from Dutch, English, New Netherlands, New Sweden, New France and Portugal (via Caribbean or piracy) trade influence, the US had some say but definitely not the final word (I can hear and see the tavern or dockside arguments over payment values in my imagination: "I'll pay 3 guilders"... "What? Damn, where's my scale!"). Your clues: "tiny little country" & "became the most powerful trading nation in the world" make it difficult for me speculate or guess. My initial reaction was Spain ( but tiny?) due to the hastily made cobs of reales. I know they were widely accepted in the colonies and I believe the stability (or constancy) of the Spanish dollar convinced Hamilton that decimal system as the way to go. The US and Spain certainly became a powerful trading nations but definitely not tiny. So that rules them out despite the ruling decimal system. But now I waiver a bit- is the decimal system predominate worldwide today? Anyway, I will shoot from the hip and make a guess though I know absolutely nothing about foreign coins or currency: Japan. But I don't see it because I have never even seen or heard of Japanese currency or coinage in any historical documents or books that I have read. I am curious so who is it?
Britain, obviously. The British invent things like the American colonies, steam engines, iron ships with screw propellers, computing machines, the jet engine and the internet, then leave others to run with them, while sitting back and watching cricket with a pint of beer at a sensible temperature.
Ah. Understood. Quite right. I would add Royal navy just as intimidating as yesteryear. Doubt very highly they would surrender a gunboat to Iran like Americans.
Let me add a little with my background of 12th century England - the pound, shilling, and Mark were at one time just units of account, and not an actual coin. The only coin was the penny. 12 pennies were counted as a shilling, 20 shillings as a pound, because 240 pennies weighed a pound of silver. In the case of England, a Mark was 2/3 of a pound, or 13s. 4d. No coins, just accounting units. It's like saying "I have a thousand dollars" - I don't actually have a single bill worth $1000, but a bunch of smaller ones that add up to it.
at the start of English money--a penny weight of silver was 40 grains of wheat--240 pennies was a pound or 9600 grains of wheat--if a penny was cut in half you had a halfpenny,cut in quarters you had a forth thing or farthing--neither a pound or shilling was a coin but units of account
Netherlands? Interesting, never thought about Netherlands as a powerhouse but knew the Dutch were serious seafarers- just did not/do not know the extent (been to Aruba several times- I should have had a clue so I'll take a Gibbs slap). Will now add that to my research just for giggles and kicks. But about that ducat: I like to put things in a movie script sort of way to stimulate my imagination and real life implications. So estate owners of New Netherlands (NY) seeking to purchase slaves from Dutch West India Company really had to cart chests of coins to the docks. Seeing the average cost of a slave was 600 guilders, that is serious weight to haul if wanting to purchase 4 slaves. Ramifications of treasure chest transportation to NY docks must have been an interesting experience with Indian raiders/disguised Indians/bandits on the news a ship was scheduled to arrive. Guards with muskets and swords must have been used to protect the gold/silver and watch over sickly, chained slaves on the return trip. Jeepers, what a cumbersome, cruel and barbaric task. Fascinating.
Yup. Got it now. "accounting unit" puts it quite succinctly. My interest has been on the physical handling of specie. Thanks.
Ramifications of treasure chest transportation to NY docks must have been an interesting experience with Indian raiders/disguised Indians/bandits on the news a ship was scheduled to arrive Better to think in terms of paper, bills of lading, manifests, letters of credit, notes of hand, bank draughts. Moving large amounts of cash would be a rare event. Most settlements would be paper transactions because they were much safer. Large cash sums would usually be sent by naval ship, if they had to go. Merchants with a thousand pieces of gold to remit to the old country would deposit them with a reputable goldsmith, who'd issue a letter of credit payable in London or Utrecht or wherever. Copies of the letter of credit could be sent in three ships, if one was lost, no harm done, no sunken treasure. The goldsmith in London, with a client wanting to invest in the colonies would issue another letter of credit, the colonial goldsmith would pay out the money they had from customer A. Both goldsmiths would get a small cut for the service. No cash need risk the perils of the sea. This is far more boring than chests of dubloons sailing the Spanish Main so Hollywood, source of much misinformation about pirates, the muggers, murderers and rapists of their day, stick to the fabulous treasure model. I like to put things in a movie script sort of way Make the movie a factual history of banking, to be less of a work of pure imagination. Just because people lived 400 years ago did not make them stupid. In general, pirates did not steal cash, they stole cargoes of whatever the target carried, which they sold off to the local equivalent of a fence at a big discount. The pirates were the ones at risk of losing cash, because the black economy depended on it, unlike regular legitimate trade. And of course, they would pick on the smallest and weakest prey. Pickings could be pretty slim for the average pirate.
OK, let's talk about documented fact. Between 1503 and 1660, 400,000 pounds of gold (avoirdupois, not Troy) and 40,000,000 pounds of silver were transported by ship from the New World to Spain. Those are actual, real banking numbers. And that's just the ships that actually made it to Spain. A great deal was also lost to pirates and hurricanes. To help put that into perspective, this is a list of the ships and what they were carrying that was lost in just one hurricane in 1733. * "El Infante"; "Nuestra Senora de Balvaneda" a galleon owned by the King alleged to have carried 562,509 pesos in silver specie and bullion, 643 marcos in worked silver. The wreck lies on Little Conch Reef. LORAN: 14109.1 // 43266.0 Lat-Long: 24 55.59N // 80 28.23W * "San Jose y Las Animas" an English built 326.5 ton vessel alleged to have carried 30,435 pesos in silver specie and bullion. Lies inshore of Little Conch Reef LORAN: 14108.5 // 43268.8 Lat-Long: 24 56.03N // 80 29.04W * "La Capitana; "El Rubi" 60 cannon vessel owned by the King alleged to have been carrying 104 castellanos in worked gold, 3,200 pesos in gold specie, 5,090,285 pesos in silver specie and bullion, 6,099 marcos in worked silver. Lies between Davis and Crocker Reef. LORAN: 14103.8 // 43276.5 Lat-Long: 24 54.62N // 80 30.65W * "Chaves"; "Angustias"; "Nuestra Senora del Carmen" a 220.9 ton merchant ship, treasure lies in very shallow water just off of Snake Creek ballast pile. Loran: 14098.5 // 43292.7 Lat-Long: 24 55.34N // 80 34.78W * "Herrera"; "Nuestra Senora de Belemy San Antonio de Padua" English built 242.5 ton vessel alleged to be carrying 1200 pesos in silver specie and bullion, 359 marcos in worked silver. Lies near the Chaves in Hawk Channel. LORAN: 14094.7 // 43296.6 Lat-Long: 24 56.61N // 80 35.37W * "Tres Puentes"; "Nuestra Senora de Belemey San Juan Bautista" a 212 ton vessel carrying no known treasure lies just seaward of the Herrera. LORAN: 14093.5 // 43296.5 Lat-Long: 24 52.67N // 80 35.15W * "San Pedro" a merchant nao Dutch built 287+ tons alleged to be carrying 16,000 pesos in silver specie and bullion and Chinese porcelain. Lies off of Indian Key. LORAN: 14082.2 // 43320.8 Lat-Long: 24 51.13N // 80 40.68W * "Herri-Lerri" Others have identified this wreck as the Arizon. Silver coins continue to wash up near the beach just oceanside of mile marker 75 face the ocean and search the shallow waters just to the left of the billboard. LORAN: 14077.1 // 43330.6 Lat-Long: 24 50.07N // 80 42.75W * "San Francisco de Asis" an English 264+ ton vessel also referred to as "Cayo Vivoras". Lies just off Craig Key, still has huge beams in amongst the ballast pile. LORAN: 14070.4 // 43342.8 Lat-Long: 24 48.59N // 80 45.35W * "La Almiranta"; "El Gallo" owned by the King a 60 cannon vessel alleged to be carrying 196 castellanos in worked gold, 3.200 pesos in gold specie, 4,895,216 pesos in silver specie and bullion, 2,579 marcos of "plata pasta" lies in shallow water between Lower matecumbe and Long Key. LORAN: 14068.5 // 43345.4 Lat-Long: 24 48.10N // 80 45.87W * "El Sueco de Arizon"; "Nuestra Senora del Rosario"; "San Antonio y San Vicente Ferrer" The owner and captain was alleged to have carried 24,000 pesos in silver specie and bullion. LORAN: 14053.2 // 43379.1 Lat-Long: 24 46.38N // 80 53.52W * "San Fernando"; "Nuestra Senora de los Reyes"; "San Francisco de Panla"a 328 ton vessel alleged to be carrying 16,000 pesos in silver specie and bullion, 226 marcos worked silver has not been located but is believed to be near Duck Key or Grassy Key at Cayo de Viboras out near Coffins Patch. * "Sumey de San Ignacio"; "San Ignacio" English built 292+ ton vessel alleged to be carrying 12,000 pesos in silver specie and bullion, 696 marcos of worked silver in six boxes located near Cayo de Vacas near Coffins Patch. LORAN: 14038.5 // 43399.2 To translate those numbers, a peso was approx. 27 grams of 90+% silver. One marc (marcos) 8 ounces Troy pure silver. And that was just the Spanish ships from the New World to Spain. The ships of other countries also transported large amounts of gold and silver all around the world. So Hollywood is far more accurate than you seem to think.
I'mnot saying silver and gold were not carried, just that routine commerce (as against looting the resources of colonies) did not generally involve large cash transfers. The biggest hazard for the usually large and fairly heavily armed ships used was the weather, and dubious navigation, not piracy. Your average pirate was a stealer of old lady's handbags, not the 'crime of the century' type.
