Talk:£sd

See Talk:Decimal Day for comments on merging content from various pages regarding British decimalisation -- OwenBlacker 21:52, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

Link: "Librae" links to the entry for the "Libra" zodiac sign. This doesn't seem right.

(The above comment was unsigned) I was about to change it to Scales but it seems someone has already changed it to point to Ancient Roman units of measurement with a mouse-hover popup of Weight. For now, I have left the article untouched and merely leave a suggestion of changing it to point to the scales page, since that is the most direct translation of the word Librae. EatYerGreens (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The current version of this article has been edited by SimonTrew to state that £sd is pronounced ɛʎ' ɛs' ɖe. (This is IPA, though the article does not say so.) Previously it said that it was pronounced L.s.d. I prefer the earlier version for three reasons:

• "Pronounced L.s.d." is comprehensible by anyone with a basic knowledge of English, whereas most people will have no idea what "ɛʎ' ɛs' ɖe" means.
• I am not sure that it is pronounced "ɛʎ' ɛs' ɖe". The retroflex ɖ and the palatal ʎ may be in use in this expression in some varieties of English, but not in most, and they are certainly not usual in any pronunciation in widespread use in the United Kingdom, which is where this expression has had most prevalence. Likewise the final vowel is more likely to be i than e.
• Even if we were to edit the IPA expression to give a more typical pronunciation, I am not sure it would be advantageous to do so. It seems to me that what is required is to convey the message that the expression is commonly pronounced like the names of the three letters "L, S, D". If you pronounce those letters as ɛʎ' ɛs' ɖe, then that is how you should read "£sd", while, if I pronounce those letters ɛl' ɛs' di, then that is how I should read "£sd". This, I think, is more helpful than specifying the pronunciation used in one form of English.

There are certainly situations where IPA is a good way of indicating pronunciation, but I do not think this is one of them. My inclination is to revert this change, but I will wait a short while to see if anyone has a defense for the present situation. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that IPA is not appropriate here and should be reverted. L.s.d. are letters of the alphabet being pronounced, not words with an obscure or irregular pronounciation. Greensburger (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No one has defended it: I have reverted. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not have both? That is a Wikipedia style established by long habit. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Both if you like, but what is the point? Anyone who has a competent knowledge of English knows how to pronounce "L.s.d.". If you do put in an IPA version then please use a likely pronunciation: "'ɛl ɛs d'i:" would be much better. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with the revert, but I read somewhere that in defining terms a pronunciation is preferable. There are always issues with IPA anyway, since different speakers will pronounve it differently (hence your using different symbols from me, I took it from a dictionary or something that uses IPA so perhaps either the symbols have changed or the pronunciation different); nevertheless I should have marked it as being IPA. The wider issue about conversions of the actual unit quantities' conversions is discussed below. SimonTrew (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be intrigued to know what dictionary this came from. The use of the phoneme ɖ would suggest one of a very limited range of varieties of English: Indian perhaps? ʎ could be an attempt at distinguishing allophones of "l", but if so then it is something of an exaggeration, as ʎ would suggest a much more strongly palatalised version than is used in any version of English that I know of. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Think the real pronunciation is "pounds, shillings, pence"... AnonMoos (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was the more usual pronunciation, and I have amended the article accordingly. JamesBWatson (talk)

Other l.s.d. currencies.

The pre-decimalisation currencies of many western countries were based on the l. divided into 20s. to 12d. For example, in france, the currency was livre > 20 sou > 12 dennier, but inflation made the dennier rather worthless. The new franc was set to equal the old livre. The system dates back to Charlemaine.

In part it has something to do with reckoning with scores on the abacus (European abacus were just stone-boards, of two rows, one can make the rows of any value: usually 4 and 5 were used.

Prussia used a Rixmark of 30 shillings each 12 groschen. In Austria, the florin was divided into 60 kreuzer. Some decimalisation in Europe is recorded as decimal weights and measures started to affect Europe.

see W.S.B Woolhouse "Measures Weights and Moneys of All nations:" 1890. [this is available as a pdf on the net]

The Haliflax standard for fixing the american currencies to sterling is that one dollar is 5 s. This applies to much of the 19c, and well to the second-world-war. The "instructions for American Servicemen in Australia 1942", rates the Australian pound (16s. stg) at 3$20, US, this makes the GBP = 4$, us (and hence the USD at 5s. stg.

At this rate, we have nickel = 3d, dime = 6d, quarter = 1s.3d., half-dollar = half-crown, and dollar = crown. We see that the US 'grand' of 1000 $, is 250l., while the English style is to talk in hundreds of pounds (0.4 grand).

--Wendy.krieger (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that some of this would be interesting to add. it shoould be noted also perhaps that 12 is useful because divisble by 2, 3, 4 and 6; and 60s I imagine has no coincidence (athough probably derived separately) form Phonecian sexagesimal that gives us degrees minutes seconds and hours minutes seconds. If you can reference this (as you seem to be able to) I think it is certainly worth adding it, if you could give us the PDF's addy that would be cool. i can't remember off the top of my head what the official rates of exchange were to the US dollar and the Australian pound/dollar, they did vary a bit with the a couple of the adjustment acts to the gold standard etc. It was $4 = £1 at the start of the nineteenth century, I think, and I would *guess* (very much a guess) that whatever the US soldiers were told in the war was a combination of official rates and common sense, i.e. they had the US market (imported stuff for the US military), rationed UK goods, unrationed UK goods, and the black market-- all of course at effectively different exchange rates.

I am assuiming you are not UK because of not typing £ (which is U+0163). I agree the conversion style should be consistent, as per WP:MOSNUM, but also in articles *specifically* speaking of conversions you can take WP:COMMON and mix the unit order if it makes sense. That is not carte blanche, but if it makes more sense to put it different ways around, that is OK to do so.

Speaking of which we could bit to add some {{convert}} templates for historical currencies if you think it worthwhile. For floating currencies that is obviously pointless (or at least unfeasible) but for pegged historical currencies it might be worthwhile– what do you think? SimonTrew (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I live in australia, and i am old enough to remember real money (ie l.s.d.). One could easily access the £ symbol in the Windows international keyboard by shift+altgraph+4. However, if one spends a good amount of time reading books from the 19C, one will see the writing of money in the style of 5l. 10s. 6d. (rather than £5/10/6). Interesting to note here that / is in fact, long s, is called the solidus, or shilling. Writing 10/6d is correct as 10s. 6d.

For those wanting to experience the value victorian-era l.s.d, the pound was 113 grains troy of gold, which one could round to 120 grains. This makes the troy oz of gold equal to £4, or 960d. At todays prices, this makes 1d = US$1. The corresponding period dollar is then $50, US, or 4s.2d stg. A wage of 15s per week then corresponds to something like $180 per week. --Wendy.krieger (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=oJEBAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22measures,+weights+and+moneys+of+all+nations%22&lr=&as_brr=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Its a books.google.com search on "Measures, weights, and Moneys of all nations" The PDF is a copy of the 1902 edition, but covers much of the pre-decimal european and other measures. One sees that the US dollar does not stray much from the 4s 2d to 5s (rating the $ at 4s 2d (£1 = $4.80) makes the penny equal to US 2c, so "penny for your thoughts" and "my two cents worth" reflect the same value. In terms of pre-decimal currency, the US $ was in the order of 8/- colonial money.

From the victorian era to the end of the world war (1945, Brenton Woods), the world curriencies were either pegged to other currencies, or to the gold or silver standard. The curriencies did drift somewhat but pretty much stayed pegged. The great war (1914-18) put a lot of strain on the system.

The australian currency is rated 4/5 of sterling, eg the AUD is rated at 40p. The few references i have for the US/UK currency gives "crown = 5s. = dollar", and in the "Instructions for American Servicemen in Australia 1942", gives £A 1 as $US 3.20. Since £1 stg = £1.5.0 aus, we see that this gives £1 stg = $4.00 US.

There may be some value in providing something along the lines of "values of old currencies" although there are already several other pages on the wikipedia (Latin Money Union), which do this. For some benefit to readers of older books (such as written pre-world-war-two), one might give some indication that money was worth much more than it is today (as in using 1d=$1, or dividing USD amounts by 50, so "buddy, can you spare me a dime" translates more accurately as can you spare me a fiver ($5.0).

--Wendy.krieger (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Article name

This seems like an odd name for the article. Wouldn't it be better as "Pounds, shillings and pence"? --MoreThings (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes! If no objections, go ahead and move it. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I do have an objection to the proposed name, as it creates grammar issues (whether or not to include a comma before the last list item), as well as simply being awkward to read; in my opinion, almost as awkward as it already is. The German, Italian, and Hungarian articles on it all call it "Carolingian Coinage", though this seems like a misnomer to me, as I don't see anything about it being rooted in the Frankish Empire. I'd personally recommend renaming it British pre-decimal coinage. Mnmazur (talk)

Almost. For part of the pre-decimal period, pound notes mostly replaced pound coins or sovereigns.

How about British currency (1817-1972)? (That broadens the scope a lot).

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this is better:

Divisions of the pound sterling (1817-1972) (Or is it subdivisions?)

---Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I liked your proposal for British currency (1817-1972) alright. Another option, given the concern with the word "coinage", would be to change my proposal of British pre-decimal coinage to British pre-decimal currency. Mnmazur (talk)

Also, I just determined that Pre-decimal British coinage already exists and redirects elsewhere. Mnmazur (talk) Nevermind, I'm an idiot. Mnmazur (talk)

I'd be fine with British currency (1817-1972). I'd probably prefer that over British pre-decimal currency because it's more specific. On the other hand, those are not the first terms that would come to mind when searching for this article, so I think a few redirects would be helpful. --MoreThings (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

British currency (1707-1971) is more accurate, possibly. £sd seems to have started in England in the 16th century, and £p came in in 1971; although the article includes a substantial amount about non-British currency systems and refers to the Kingdom of England which predates 1707. "Pre-decimal" is best avoided - the Victorians experimented with a decimal system. Bazza (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

British? I thought this was about "L.s.d.", the Carolingian money accounting system. It was prevalent in nearly all of western Europe - France, Italy, Germany, etc. - from the early 9th C. until the French Revolution. The article should maintain its name. Or else call itself the "Carolingian" accounting system. Walrasiad (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom of England?

Why the mention of the Kingdom of England in the lead section? Surely the LSD system was fixed in the Great Recoinage of 1816. Prior to that a guinea was 21 shillings, though English realms had Carolingian coinage systems in Anglo-Saxon times. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There must be some sort of carryover from the Carolingian system that's missing an explanation here, because (as noted above) the non-English Wikipedias all have local names of "Carolingian Coinage" for the article title. That would account for the mention of England; what it doesn't explain is what that carryover is. Perhaps someone who knows German, Italian, or Hungarian would be able to figure it out from the other articles? Mnmazur (talk)

Writing Conventions - addendum

£14.8s.2d was also commonly written as £14 " 8 " 2 (with the double quote marks centered vertically). 155.225.54.139 (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Richard Nelson

Carolingian accounting vs. coins

There seems to be some confusion viz. coins & accounting. Just a quick note of clarification.

• L.s.d. is a currency accounting system, with ratios 12d = 1s and 20s = L.1.
• The accounting system is not necessarily reflected in coins. A coin is a piece of metal, which can be one, or several or a fraction of the accounting unit, e.g. a "Farthing" is a 1/4 d. coin, a "Guinea" is 21s coin (= L.1 1s = 252d.), a "Noble" was 6s 8d coin (= 80d), a Ducat/Florin/Forint a 8s (= 96d) coin, a "Grosso/Gros/Groat/Groschen" is a 3d. or 4d. coin, and so on. The accounting system is not affected by the coins. In the same way US$1 = 100 cents accounting, is not affected by the minting of nickels, dimes and quarters.
• Some coins do indeed represent single units, e.g. the "Sovereign" and the "Franc" were L.1 coins, and most famously, the Carolingian silver "denarius/denier" was a 1d. coin.
• Coins have a value "by tale" (their official value, in L.s.d. accounting) and a value "by content" (their real value in terms of gold/silver content). They don't always match. e.g. a debased denier coin can be 1d "by tale" but only 0.75d "by content".
• Because of this mismatch in tale and content, it was often necessary to use qualify the accounting by the specific coin, e.g. if you sell me an apple for 1d, you may have to specify whether you mean 1d. of "good" Paris coins or 1d. of "bad" Tours coins. Or more precisely, quote me two different prices "1 apple = 1d parisis or 1.5d tournois". However, because of government price controls (and there were a lot of controls) and legal tender laws, this was often illegal: royal rules might decree the apple has to be sold simply at "1d" and legal tender laws establishes that a denier coin is 1d, regardless of whether it is minted in Paris or Tours. Of course, in that case, a buyer would pay 1d. in bad Tournois coins, and save up the good Paris coins ("Gresham's Law").
• All commercial accounting was conducted in L.s.d. Three columns in the ledger book. However, there might be a little asterisk noting what kind of coins you mean - Paris or Tours - to reflect real valuation better. But the accounting system itself, the 12d = 1s, 20s = L.1, is unaffected. You simply specify L.s.d. "in parisian coins" or L.s.d. "in tournois coins", and remain consistent in the ledger. e.g. a bill might state I owe you 4s (= 48d) parisis. That bill can be discharged with 48 denier coins from the Paris mint, or 16 groat coins from the Paris mint. But I can also discharge that bill with the cheaper coins from the Tours mint, you just have to remember the Paris-Tours exchange rate, e.g. 1d parisis = 1.5d tournois, implies that paying you 72 denier coins from the Tours mint will dicharge the 48d parisis debt, and you will enter it that way in the ledger.

I hope this makes sense. In sum, L.s.d accounting is consistent. The existence of groats, farthings, guineas, nobles, ducats, florins, ecus, testons, francs, etc. doesn't change the underlying accounting, which remains consistently L.s.d. The only adjustment you might make is in real valuation, in which case your prices/accounts/ledger will specify the L.s.d. in terms of a particular "quality" mint.

A few more notes:

• The L.s.d accounting system was created by the Carolingians c.800 on the ratios 12d = 1s and 20s = L.1 and imposed throughout the Frankish empire (i.e. France, Italy, Germany, etc.) Non-Carolingian areas (Iberia, Byzantium, Scandinavia) inherited different accounting systems. Britain, of course, was not Frankish territory and indeed was originally pulled towards the Viking "mark" system because of trade, but Offa of Mercia imported the Carolingian system to facilitate accounting with the Roman Church (which used L.s.d.). The only reason it became associated with Britain is because Napoleon forced decimalization on the continent, leaving the UK the only one left maintaining it afterwards. But the system is not "British". It is Carolingian, and was general throughout western European for much of history.
  • Italian states: lira, soldo, denaro
  • France: livre, sou, denier
  • Aragon: lliura, sou, diners
  • German states: pfund, schilling, pfennig
• The Spanish peso is not a pound (as the article insinuates). Aragon (via Catalonia) adopted the Carolingian system, but Castile and Portugal did not - they inherited their currency accounting system from Arab maravedi, with decimal subdivisons.
• a word should be said distinctly that the Troy system of weights for gold/silver, uses similar L.s.d terms, but not the accounting system. In Carolingian acounting, 12d = 1s, 20s = L.1, but in Troy accounting it is reversed, 20d = 1s and 12s = L.1. In both cases, of course, it is still 240d = L.1, and a Troy pound of silver is practically the same as a Carolingian pound of silver. But the fractions are quite different. This is worth pointing out.

Walrasiad (talk) 05:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It sounds like you could rewrite the article, which is mostly unsourced in any case. I wonder if the confusing emphasis on the British Empire comes from the native language of the editors, or is implied by the stylized L (£) in the article's title. Nonetheless, the information on British currency and accounting belongs somewhere, but not in the lead of an article about L.s.d.

What is still unclear is whether L.s.d. derives from Ancient Rome or from Charlemagne and his empire. The article suggests that its sources credit the former.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Maybe I should. I think it's fine to refer to the British imperial currency system here - after all, its exactly the same system. The stylized £ was used in other currencies too (e.g. Italian lira). Its just the lead needs to be adjusted a little to clarify that it was not uniquely British, that it was the general European system until the 19th C. decimalizations.

Romans did not use L.s.d. accounting, they originally used a system based on "as" (or "ace"), accounting, with decimal units, e.g denarius = 10 as, quinarius = 5 as, sestercius = 2.5 as, dupondius = 2 as, semis = 1/2 as, etc. The denarius (as a silver coin) did become quite popular in circulation, but most ledger accounting was actually done in sesterci units. Emperors undertook multiple coinage reforms (e.g. Augustus in 24 AD, Caracalla in 215, Aurelian in 274, Diocletian in 293, Constantine in 312, etc.), redefining a pound weight, rejigging the relative values of the coins and introducing new coins & new accounting systems for them (e.g. Diocletian introduced 1 solidus = 10 argentus = 40 nummus = 200 radiate = 500 laureate = 1000 denarius; Constantine created a new solidus as 72s to a new Roman pound, and the accounting as 1 solidus = 2 scripulum = 3.33 tremisses = 4 semissis = 18 miliarense = 24 siliqua), etc. Since most reforms weren't even completed before the next reform began, the late Roman empire had a veritable mess of multiple overlapping systems. Charlemagne cut through the mess by defining a new pound weight, and imposing one system, L.s.d., once and for all, with only three units: libra, solidus, denarius and only one actual coin (the denarius). While the terms "denarius", "solidus" and "libra" came from the old Roman, their definitions and the ratios between them were new and wholly Carolingian. Walrasiad (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I am delighted to read the classical and medieval context of something that appeared to be parochially British despite its Latin name. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)