| Author |
 Replies: 8 / Views: 1,549 |
|
|
New Member
United States
4 Posts |
I'm currently doing research on medieval currency, and I'm running into some strange issues. I know that the Tower Pound based English silver penny weighed 32 grains, so about 1.46 grams. I also know that sterling silver is about 10.3 grams per cubic centimeter. That should, in theory, allow me to calculate the thickness of an English silver penny, since they were mandated as made of sterling silver (925/1000). But when I actually do the calculations my results seem way off.
So, given the grams per cubic cm, a 1.46 gram penny should be about 0.14 cubic centimeters of sterling silver. At the typically found 18-19 mm diameter, that would place the thickness of the coin at less than 1/4 of a millimeter. Which seems obviously insane--and, moreover, I've found one reference to a silver penny from Edward III's period that was apparently 19 mm diameter and 0.7 mm thick. Yet assuming that the sterling standard wasn't being radically debased, that makes no sense at all.
Since I personally have no access to actual English silver pennies, I hoped that a post here might help me find someone who knows their actual dimensions through experience or better research than I have yet been able to manage.
Thanks in advance for any help!
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1391 Posts |
I have a couple of English silver pennies, but I have no way of measuring them. However I can tell you they are very thin, some of them feel like paper. It doesn't seem like 1/4 of a millimeter thick would be that off.
|
|
New Member
 United States
4 Posts |
I actually realized I was doing my math embarrassingly wrong (using pi*diameter instead of pi*radius^2 for diameter.) I'm hanging my head in shame right now. Thanks for the info, though.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
2624 Posts |
I would think it a difficult thing to calculate given that the surface is not flat. If you said that half of the area was concave and the other half convex your average is likely to be half the thickness of the thickest bits and yet twice that of the thinnest bits (if you get my logic)
Regardless the point still stands that they are very thin coins.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Spain
629 Posts |
Silver was a very scarce matal in Europe in the middle age; When Spain discovered America, a river of silver flooded Europe.
Coins became bigger, multiples of the former coinage are struck (The "grosso", the spanish real etc)
In the middle age, Spanish coins were made of "Vellón" (a very debased silver of about 333/1000 and 250/1000)
|
|
New Member
United States
4 Posts |
DavidUK: Indeed. But with my fixed math, I can now calculate with relative certainty that the *average* width of a typical English penny of the 14th century would be around 1 mm exactly when first cast, so just a bit thinner than a US dime. Obviously some parts are wider and some thinner in total, but that's still a useful metric. Of course, given the intervening period, most examples will have diminished in thickness slightly by erosion.
Athalbert: Define scarce. Of course silver is a precious metal, but the Danegeld paid by the Anglo-Saxons has been estimated to have added up to 60 million pence--at 1.5 grams per penny, that's nearly 200,000 pounds of silver paid as tribute over a few hundred years. The silver penny, despite the successful introduction of gold currency under Edward III, remained the primary unit of value throughout English history from Offa to the Napoleonic Age, and these coins were carefully regulated 925/1000 sterling silver. I wouldn't think of that as representing scarcity.
As for the debased real de vellon silver coins, just a brief google search for me shows them appearing first in the mid-17th century. That doesn't support silver being significantly more scarce prior to the exploitation of the New World.
Edited by thewindhover
11/12/2015 9:09 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Spain
629 Posts |
You are mixing different coins...
The Real was born as a good silver coinage at about 1400, much before the discovery of America and was a rare coin made to compite with the "Croat" of Aragon but as I say it was rare.
At about 1500 the silver real is a very common coin that is exported to all Europe, Spain (Castile) starts to expend much more that our incomes are to pay wars and more wars...
The vellón coinage is debased a lot of times so you must pay an important premium if you pay any debt with that coin.
It´s not the same a real paid "in silver" that paid "in Vellón" (that is the reason because a spanish "duro" or dollar is equal to 8 reals in silver coins or 20 in vellón coins)
About scarce...
in ancient times 1 gram of gold was equal to 11-13 grams of silver, that ratio changes in countries and times but with the discovery that ratio is broken.
|
|
New Member
United States
4 Posts |
You're correct, gold to silver peaks in England at least in the 14th century at about 14:1. Less both before and after. But I'm not sure how that supports the scarcity point. I think the issue is that scarcity is relative and we're talking past one another a bit. You're certainly correct that silver becomes more abundant in Europe after Spain occupies the New World. I just wouldn't use the word "scarce" to describe silver's presence before that. But no point quibbling over language, eh? I think we're with each other on the basic points regardless.
Cheers, and thanks for the replies.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Spain
629 Posts |
Sorry, but sometimes I make a literal translation of the messages and...
...I misunderstand the original sense!
|
| |
Replies: 8 / Views: 1,549 |
|
Posted 11/12/2015 5:33 pm
