Test Jump to content
The British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

Diaconis

Sterling Member
  • Posts

    704
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    38

Posts posted by Diaconis

  1. I hope that everyone had a most enjoyable Christmas, I certainly did with the concomitant lashings of Christmas comestibles for which I paid for in a regrettable surfeit of calories and post-festive penitence😂..... 

    Haven't "been on" for a while and noticed this interesting post by Mr. Tye, so I thought I'd have a stab at it...

    On 12/23/2025 at 10:08 AM, EWC said:

    Hello All,

    I have been researching the historical weight standards underlying coin issue for about 30 years. I have become concerned about what seems to be a rapidly decline in understanding of the subject in general.  I joined this group specifically in the hope of informed discussion of the History of Troy weight here.

    For starters then – the 1351 gold noble of Edward III is widely quoted as 120 Troy grains

    By modern standards that ought to be 7.776g

    Actual coins seem to bear this out – for instance this one is stated as 7.75g

    https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=395895

    The variation seem to me trivial – well within what we would assume to be the toleration (the “remedy at the shear”). Alternatively, if the Troy weight standard has changed since 1351, it is not by very much.

    I therefore conclude that the Troy weight standard already existed in 1351, and was used to regulate coin weight.

    I wonder if anyone differs?

    Robert Tye

    You are quite right to point out that the observed weights of surviving 1351 nobles cluster very closely around what we would now express as c. 120 Troy grains, and that the variation you cite (for example, 7.75 g) is entirely consistent with normal medieval tolerances, including the remedy at the shear. On purely numerical grounds, the metrology is remarkably stable.

    Where I would differ is not on the arithmetic, but on the historical inference drawn from it.

    There is no evidence¹ that the Troy weight system as such—that is, explicitly named, formally defined, or administratively adopted—existed in England in 1351 or was used as “Troy” to regulate coin weight. At that date the Tower mint, producing the noble, was still operating explicitly in Tower weight, and continued to do so until its formal replacement by Troy weight in 1527 under Henry VIII. Expressed in Tower-weight terms, a nominal 120 Troy-grain noble corresponds to 112½ Tower grains (120 × 450⁄480), which fits comfortably within contemporary Tower-weight reckoning.

    What your figures do demonstrate, however, is that the grain employed in England in 1351 is effectively identical to the later Troy grain, and that the regulation of the noble’s weight is entirely consistent with what we would now describe as Troy-grain-based measurement. In that limited, practical sense, the Tower system behaves exactly as Troy would later behave. In this respect, Tower and Troy weights did not derive from one another but descend from a shared metrological ancestry, which is precisely why the English transition from Tower to Troy in 1527 was arithmetically seamless.

    The difficulty, then, is one of nomenclature rather than metrology. To describe the 1351 standard as “Troy” risks importing a sixteenth-century administrative label into a fourteenth-century context. In short, the numbers are sound; what is at issue is whether it is historically accurate to call them “Troy” before the name, the system, and the administrative framework had yet been adopted in England.

    ¹Should anyone be aware of a fourteenth-century English mint ordinance that actually uses the word “Troy,” I would be delighted to see it; until then, the numbers seem stubbornly unimpressed by nomenclature.

    With that, may I wish everyone a very happy New Year. May your grains be stable, your scales honest, your tolerances forgiving, and your anachronisms few — and may 2026 finally deliver that elusive coin we all hope to find. 🥳

     

    • Like 1
  2. On 7/10/2019 at 8:11 AM, PWA 1967 said:

    I notice Richard Lubbok mentioned a couple of times on here and just read the book .

    Not much about coins and more about what else he was up to ,although often mentions him going to shows and having a shop in London.

    Good book and is often funny ,although had the down times such as being sent down.

    I see that there’s a gratuitous (?) glorification of his escapades on Amazon at the moment called Breaking Dad. Certainly gives a new meaning to “Know your dealer”.

  3. Tonight, I sorted my coins according to the monarch's resemblance to Julie Goodyear.

    One of my favourite Dylan tracks, those lyrics just leave you guessing. Seen him six times but he never performed this song, I don't think he has ever played it live despite trying over 40 versions and never being happy with it. Lou Reed tried to do it but failed  IMO.

    Not recommended to find yourself with an obscured view of the stage. I remember one concert where for an hour and a half all I saw was the neck of Dylan's guitar bobbing back and forth from behind an ornate stanchion, 'not somebody to move around with much' 🙂

     

    • Like 1
  4. On 5/13/2024 at 11:46 PM, terrysoldpennies said:

    Funny thing , we fought for a Parliament and look what we've ended up with , a plutocracy !!

    Just a thought. Suppose we believe Hobbes that the state of nature is a horrible place where laws do not exist, property is non-existent, and everyone is out for themselves without a care for others. That then is the motivation to work and pay a portion of the proceeds from the fruits of our labours to maintain a government to protect us, and maintain natural law.

    The irony is that the value we are getting for our buck these days is inversely proportional to the greed and self-centeredness of the government itself. 

    Regressing into the state of nature and paying for the privilege 😃 Has a Pythonesque feel to it.

     

    • Like 1
  5. 19 hours ago, Rob said:

    Yes, but they tend to get upset when you tell them. When I pointed out to someone on CoinTalk that 'I collect coins, while you collect opinions', he got a bit miffed. Diplomacy has never been my strong point, so if someone could enlighten me on how to call a spade a spade without offending, I would like to know.

    You simply made a statement concerning the reality of things. As Diogenes said, “Of what use is a philosopher who doesn't hurt anybody's feelings?” 😉

    • Like 3
  6. 6 hours ago, Menger said:

    What other word can better be used to capture the shift of the left from class based politics to identity politics? 

    No idea. I don’t claim to an innovater in the English language, I’m no Shakespeare,  but I think the question should be posed to you. Why do you believe that the word woke so succinctly sums up the essence of your definition?

    Please explain because I am honestly at a loss here? 

    If, as I suspect, theres no direct correlation and we’re just looking for a word to tag on to a theme then in answer to your request, I suggest decentrithorkusmogrificarbiturb, its just as absurd as using the past tense of wake IMO.

    • Like 1
  7. Peckris’ argument does seem valid when considering that “reported” truths and facts cannot be relied upon as such these days, i.e, truths and facts. Has the reporter done sufficient research? Who did he interview, was his information derived from first hand accounts, Chinese whispers or, dare I suggest, re-interpreted for purposes of eliciting certain reactions to reinforce certain existing beliefs. Does he even care about truth and honesty? Probably not.

    However, to discount one source of information in favour of another believing the latter to be more trustworthy than the former when equally uncertain of the source of that information may be fallacious. 

    As for the word woke, don’t get me started, it is the past tense of wake, nothing else.

    I refuse to use the word “woke” in its current context and to acknowledge it in conversation; there’re already too many sub-standard, useless, dumbed-down Americanisms in the English language as it stands, without entertaining new ones. It grieves me just to hear it used.

    Such language seems to be created by those who lack sufficient vocabulary to express themselves adequately in the first place and therefore resort to creating such rubbish out of ignorance. Some may argue that it is a progression and development of a language. I see it as a regression.


     

    • Like 1
  8. 2 hours ago, Menger said:

    I have always thought the “agree to differ” conclusion to discussion misplaced; and that point of discussion is not necessarily to “change viewpoints”, but perhaps to sharpen one’s own ideas by articulating them and testing them against the quality of feedback.  Moreover the back and forth can be entertaining. So while it may not stop people disappearing down woke rabbit holes with bad ideas, open debate may also serve to keep a sizable minority sane. 

    …or end up with one having to imbibe a draught of hemlock😂

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...
Test