EWC

Many thanks Paddy and Coinery As far as records go – it appears money started to be officially defined by weight of metal in Iraq about 2,150 BC. The retreat from that definition perhaps started in Britain in 1914, when banks stopped changing notes for sovereigns. So understanding weight standards is basic to understanding what money was for 97% of its history. If you do not understand the weight standards, you just cannot understand the real history of money. That is why I think it is important. It is comforting to believe there are “a small number of academics willing to invest the time in this”, who are perhaps keeping an eye on the situation for us all. Indeed that was still sort of true 25 years back. But those guys were fighting a loosing battle then and anyhow, they are, as far as I can discover, all now dead. There are today way more professional academics than there ever were before. They generally refuse to discuss these matters, a sizeable sub-group will turn hostile and sarcastic if they are raised. I am afraid this seems a straightforward Cui Bono situation to me. The great majority of professional academics are paid by states, and all states have now adopted “managed money” - which they print at will. ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune’. I am an old guy myself now, and am pretty much fixed on a search for anyone at all out there who will try to understand these matters, and will stand up and debate them. I tried looking amongst professional academics. It was a poor plan. Am I really alone here in seeing the Curator of Coins at our British Museum holding a Charles I pound coin and saying “it is a pound weight in silver” ? All the Best Robert Tye PS in case of interest - for my series of videos on Youtube - look for “A History of Troy Weight” Playlist:

That seems to me a little unfair - but I certainly agree that the nuts and bolts of my position need tightening up So I did it - in the History of Troy Weight thread. Surely someone must now have something to say? Happy New Year! Robert Tye

This topic has now accumulated more than 200 views, but got no further comments. Since it is more than 2 weeks since I put my questions to Diaconis, with no reply, I figure it is time say where I stand. The position put by Diaconis is the one put in 2004 in a book issued by the Museum of Scotland “Weights and Measures in Scotland: A European Perspective” Up until 2004 the question had always been: 1) when did England get its weight system? In 2004 the Scottish book confused the situation by changed the question to: 2) when did that system get the name “Troy”? I judge the correct answer to (1) is the one suggested in the official account by Skinner of 1967. In a nutshell, we got the Troy system in 793 AD. This is the sequence of events. In 789 AD Charlemagne announced the creation of a new pan European penny (of 1.7g). Offa refused to to join up with his plan - with what was in effect an early medieval Euro. A hard Brexit broke out. By 790 AD Channel ports on both sides were reported closed. That hard Brexit terminated with what was in effect a new tariff agreement, with a charge of 1/16th by weight on bullion. In Mercian England an imported Troy pennyweight of silver (24 Troy grains) bought foreign merchants a sterling penny (weight 22.5 grains). Notice that in 1344 Powerful Italian Bankers tried the same sort of thing again. This time to push England onto an Italian (Florin) weight standard, using the standard we today call avoirdupois or “Imperial”. That attempt failed by 1351, as far as the coinage goes. However avoirdupois became widely used for other goods in the 14th century, which is the real reason why the name “Troy” arose. It was to distinguish the very old English standard from the newly imported standard of the Italian bankers (often called “Lombards” but in fact being chiefly Florentines) Notice this third matter. The Scottish book went to the press in 2004, so was developed alongside a third failed attempt to push Britain into a continental currency – now the modern Euro. Tying up a loose end, the Scottish book correctly points out that the English Troy system closely resembles a weight system used for silver in the city of Bruges. The resemblance was already well known before 2004. But the only argument given for Bruges having got the standard first is the spurious one, concerning the origin of the word “Troy”. Surely the tail is wagging the dog here? Little Bruges got its standards from mighty England. That sums up my own conclusions. Questions or criticisms are of course welcome. Robert Tye

Many thanks for the suggestion – I could list a dozen Brexity coin matters, but you immediately came up with one that I never thought of! Three points come to my own mind concerning the BM “Money Gallery”. 1) There is a useful account about how it came into existence here – straight from the horse’s mouth https://icomon.mini.icom.museum/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2019/11/The_HSBC_Money_Gallery_at_the_British_Museum__Access_to_excellence.pdf “In 1995 HSBC Holdings PLC, the international financial group, with a deliberate focus on the increasingly globalised nature of monetary transactions, agreed to provide a donation worth £2,000,000 for the project” I am not sure when you visited – but the “deliberate focus on the increasingly globalised nature of monetary transactions” definitely lay behind that 1997 plan - to make sure every country got representation - and this seems surely linked to the advertising strategies of HSBC some years back (Just search Youtube for “HSBC” and “culture”). So my feeling is not that Soho matters were deliberately dropped. More like - it just did not fit the HSBC core narrative and was forgotten. I will add, knowing the sort of money that international brands pump into football, at 2 million, the BM rather sold itself short. Or maybe, scholarly interest is just a niche matter these days? 2) From my own side, it was the reorganisation of the gallery under Citi funding around 2012 that troubled. You point out the change of name, from “Coins and Medals” to “Money”. Under Citi only one long wall was left devoted to “Coins”. The other entire wall was now devoted to “Money”. Predictably the “Money” wall culminated in……... credit cards. Citibank made many billions from Credit cards, and was part of the associated anti-cash/coin advertising push back in the day. It seems curiously difficult to find the Citi BM donation on line – but I seem to recall it was 4 million. Personally that seems to me a cheap price for what rather looks like a shot at re-writing history. 3) More fundamentally, my fear is that these international money men are coming to the institution with the mind set of an advertising agent. Grabbing the attention of the general public is the core aim, scholarly accuracy sometimes lagging a long long way behind. Very specifically I can point to a Youtube video of the current curator, appointed post Citi, holding a silver pound coin of Charles I and saying the words: “it is a pound weight in silver” Oh dear. Rob Tye

It seems to me that British history is filled with “Brexity” events, and this goes back to the very start of British written text. I could list quite a lot of them that involve money and thus coins. Has anyone else given thought to this matter in general, or is willing to mention historical examples of it that spring to mind? Meanwhile I am new to this group and still trying to find my way around. Recently I tried to raise a matter somewhat linked to this, by reviving a very old thread in the members only section. Few seemed to notice it, so I hope moderators will look sympathetically if I repeat it here, as I am still hoping to get (any) response. It concerns events in 1903 when several committee members at the Royal Numismatic Society resigned to create the British Numismatic Society, having concerns about “continental bias” at the RNS. I wrote: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Here are some details about the past and present relations between the Royal and British Numismatic Societies. I select what seem to me the most important facts, and I do it because I think past events throw a light on current predicaments. This story is primarily selected from the Official History of the Royal Numismatic Society here: https://numismatics.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/a-history-of-the-royal-numismatic-society.pdf The RNS was founded in 1836, and was a mix of officials (BM, Mint, Academia) along with with coin dealers and coin collectors. It was wide ranging, with of course a lot of influence from the aristocratic grand tour inheritance – coins of Rome and Greece - along with an interest in Oriental coins, especially of India, due to Britain’s Imperial context back then. The RNS went into crisis in 1903 in a row over a paper by W J Andrew about the coinage of Henry I, which was aggressively attacked by two officials from the Public Records Office. Andrew resigned and other members backed him stating that the Public Records Office writers were “not members of the Society and that they confess with an air of superiority, that they have no knowledge of numismatics” That paper was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Two further members of the RNS council resigned, having been accused of telling tales in public about what had been said in private at RNS committee meetings. They created a new breakaway society, the British Numismatic Society. Prominent amongst them was Carlyon-Britton, the new BNS president who published this paper in 1904 https://www.britnumsoc.org/publications/Digital BNJ/pdfs/1903_BNJ_1_17.pdf Where he complained about the condescending and self interested positions taken by the British Museum. Whilst personal animosities were not made explicit we should note a BNS view that “British numismatics were inadequately catered for by the Royal Numismatic Society with its classical and continental bias”. That at time when Barclay Head was the curator at the BM, and an editor of the RNS Journal. He published exclusively on Greek coinage, and a RNS tribute on his death noted that of the thirty contributors to his Festschrift, “ten wrote in German, five in French, one in Italian, and one in Greek”. Moving forward now to my own lifetime, having become a member of the Yorkshire and Oriental Numismatic Societies in the 1970’s, I joined the Royal Numismatic Society in 1986. I was struck by a general and genuine camaraderie that existed at that time. Both between the two societies themselves, and also between senior society officials members (Professors and the like) towards ordinary collector/dealer members. Correspondence was entirely on first name terms. In my own experience that camaraderie began to break down around 2000. Prior to 2000 official/academic posts seemed to be recruited from trained historian, many of whom had developed in interest in coin collecting itself at a young age. After 2000 we started to see the jobs going people trained in archaeology, a culture which was largely hostile to private coin collecting and very often noticeably politically left leaning (the two matters being somewhat linked). Today I see a landscape where RNS and BNS are joined at the hip, but isolated from the world in their ivory towers. Members of the same small elite group run both societies. The attitudes of condescension voiced in 1904 have re-emerged. However the will of individual collectors to band together against it has evaporated. 2026 is a fractured world. Collectors and elite professionals hardly seem on the same planet. Others will no doubt differ, and of course I would welcome comment. Robert Tye

Hello Diaconis On further thought I have doubts about this: D > a nominal 120 Troy-grain noble corresponds to 112½ Tower grains (120 × 450⁄480). Tractus de Ponderibus makes the sterling penny 32 rather than 30 grains - so applies a "Tower wheat grain" smaller than the "Troy wheat grain" Thus I would assume the notional calculation you are reaching for would make a nominal 120 Troy-grain noble correspond to 128 such "Tower Grains" (120 x 480/450) Did I miss something? Regards Rob

Dear Diaconis, Delighted to find we exactly agree regarding observed weights. D > There is no evidence¹ It looks as though you intended to footnote this claim – is that the case? I would much like to get reference to any published sources you favour backing up your position here. Broadly, we are at cross purposes. In general you are addressing the use of words, I am addressing the understanding of things. I agree the Troy weight system apparently got that name around the later 14th century, but hold that the system, as we know it, existed long long before that. Readers should note that there are two later 20th century official English publications on the topic, both HMSO publications from the London Science Museum. Skinner in 1967 tentatively hints that the ultimate origins of Troy weight standards were in Egypt, maybe as early as 4,000 BC. Connor in 1987 tentatively associated them with the metrological reforms of Nero. Meanwhile it is implicit in Grierson (and explicit in both Skinner and Connor) that both standards were a single system already existing in the Anglo-Saxon period. D > a nominal 120 Troy-grain noble corresponds to 112½ Tower grains (120 × 450⁄480). To the best of my knowledge there are only two documents even positing the existence of such a “Tower grain”. One is the famous, (or perhaps infamous) “Tractus de Ponderibus” of the early 13th century. In 1987 Connor (p. 125) called that account “simply not true”. The other is a single obscure internal mint document brought to light by Stewart Lyon. From personal discussion with Stewart I know he was later open to the suggestion that that was just an ephemeral 13th century matter. D > In this respect, Tower and Troy weights did not derive from one another but descend from a shared metrological ancestry. A tantalising suggestion that maybe we are closer than you otherwise suggest? It seems overwhelmingly probable to me that Tower was merely a coin weight, derived from a Troy bullion standard, by a gross charge on coining, by weight, of 15/16. That such had roots at least in the Anglo Saxon period is explicit in Skinner and Connor, and implied by Grierson. Meanwhile - what “shared metrological ancestry” do you posit? Finally, I met the delightful Henri Pottier, and corresponded with Elsen, Doyen and de Callatay. Now I get further evidence that metrological study thrives in Belgium 🙂 Meanwhile I get no reply here at all, from anyone in the Britain, concerning this, the foundation stone of our “pre-decimal” coinage. 😞 All the Best for 2026 Rob Tye

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