The message
from "Peter Masson" contains these words:

while both the penny and the half-crown are larger.

And the crown was bigger still.

--
Dave,
Frodsham

"David Jackson" wrote

And the crown was bigger still.

I think I've only once seen a crown used as payment in a normal
transaction - around 1955 a boy in the class paid his week's dinner money (5
shillings) using one.

Peter

In message , at 13:48:59 on
Wed, 11 Jun 2008, David Jackson remarked:
while both the penny and the half-crown are larger.

And the crown was bigger still.

It still is.
--
Roland Perry

Paul Rigg wrote:

I seem to recall that the post office put second class mail up from
4d to 2.5p (ie 6d) and first class mail up from 5d to 3p (7.2d) and
claimed that it wasnt really a price increase.

You are correct about the increase, but I seem to recall that it was
explained by the PO that prices were due to rise at about the same time,
and it would be easier and cheaper to combine the price rise and
decimalisation rather than have two changes.

In the event, as I recall, there was quite a lengthy postal strike over D-
day, so the decimal stamps didn't come into (much) use until some time
later.

(At the time, I was on a student union committee, and we pledged to convert
all our prices at the official conversion rate. We had a complaint that at
the old prices, one scoop of mashed potato was 4d and two scoops were 8d,
but applying official conversion rates, one scoop was now 1.5p and two
scoops were 3.5p.)

Peter

--
Peter Campbell Smith ~ London ~ pjcs00 (a) gmail.com

The message
from "Peter Masson" contains these words:

I think I've only once seen a crown used as payment in a normal
transaction - around 1955 a boy in the class paid his week's dinner money (5
shillings) using one.

You're one-up on me then. I have several, in plastic cases as
"commemorative issues", but I've never seen one used for its proper
purpose.

--
Dave,
Frodsham

wrote:

On the barcelona Metro there are signs saying things such as the
penalty for not having a cvaild ticket is 30 Euros and 5 cents. No
doubt the result of some very fair currency conversion.

I noticed that too, on a recent visit. Very odd.

Alan

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:28:22 +0100, David Jackson
wrote:

The message
from "Peter Masson" contains these words:

I think I've only once seen a crown used as payment in a normal
transaction - around 1955 a boy in the class paid his week's dinner money (5
shillings) using one.

You're one-up on me then. I have several, in plastic cases as
"commemorative issues", but I've never seen one used for its proper
purpose.

Crowns tended to be issued above face value in proof condition but the
1953 coins were IMU the first to be issued as part of a set of coins
in "uncirculated" condition (as was the 1965 Churchill Crown). AFAIAA
the 1953 uncirculated set was issued at or near face value so many
(like my mother's) possibly disappeared/dispersed when there was an
urgent need for cash.

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:46:59 +0100, "A.C.P.Crawshaw"
wrote:

wrote:

On the barcelona Metro there are signs saying things such as the
penalty for not having a cvaild ticket is 30 Euros and 5 cents. No
doubt the result of some very fair currency conversion.

I noticed that too, on a recent visit. Very odd.

Probably the simple result of the original pre-conversion penalty
being fixed by legislation ? The same would have occurred in the UK
for any item/service (e.g. registration fees) set by law in an amount
other than round pounds or shillings (most likely a multiple of 2s 6d)
which remained unchanged at the time of decimalisation.

"Charles Ellson" wrote

Crowns tended to be issued above face value in proof condition but the
1953 coins were IMU the first to be issued as part of a set of coins
in "uncirculated" condition (as was the 1965 Churchill Crown). AFAIAA
the 1953 uncirculated set was issued at or near face value so many
(like my mother's) possibly disappeared/dispersed when there was an
urgent need for cash.

When were crowns last minted as normal currency, as opposed to
commemoratives?

Peter

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:11:27 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote:


"Charles Ellson" wrote

Crowns tended to be issued above face value in proof condition but the
1953 coins were IMU the first to be issued as part of a set of coins
in "uncirculated" condition (as was the 1965 Churchill Crown). AFAIAA
the 1953 uncirculated set was issued at or near face value so many
(like my mother's) possibly disappeared/dispersed when there was an
urgent need for cash.

When were crowns last minted as normal currency, as opposed to
commemoratives?

That might be down to interpretation. The last intentionally-regular
issues for general circulation seem to have been after the 1887 Royal
Jubilee. Since then have been mostly commemorative issues but even
before Victoria's time they don't seem to have been established as an
"everyday" issue. I suspect their size possibly clashed with some kind
of practical threshold above which coins were inconvenient to carry or
handle.