Talk:Pound sterling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pound sterling article.
Article policies
This article is part of the WikiProject Numismatics, which is an attempt to facilitate the categorization and creation of accurate and formal Numismatism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join and see a list of open tasks to help with.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Contents

[edit] Photos of coins

The photos appear to be lit from the bottom right - this is really quite strange, are there any replacement photos?

The left edge of the 20 pence coin is cut off by the end of the picture.TheFlyingGerbil 17:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UKP abbreviation

UKP is a non-standard abbreviation.

For what, UK Penny or UK Pound? If the former, this should go with the official abbreviation and not with the information on pence and shillings.

It's often used as an abbreviation for UK Pound. It's wrong, and should not be used. -- Arwel 10:38, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Correct, the pound sterling is GBP and a penny (ie 1/100th of a pound sterling) is GBX. I would guess the confusion comes from our informal country name (and TLD) being UK but our ISO 3166-1 code being GB -- OwenBlacker 21:52, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
I'm interested... can you provide references for the existence of GBX? Marnanel
Yeah, see a Google search. It's not a part of ISO 4217 but seems to be a frequent addition and is the standard abbreviation used for prices on the London Stock Exchange, which are all listed in pennies, presumably due to some phobia over decimal points :o) -- OwenBlacker 23:12, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm. Interesting. I've never seen that before. However, looking at your references, it's clear that GBX (and USX) are additional to ISO 4217, and their usage seems to be restricted to a few markets, so I'd be against giving them undue prominence. -- Arwel 23:30, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'd agree, I only mentioned it in reference to GBP; not worth putting in the main content, I'd suggest -- OwenBlacker 23:32, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Decimalisation

Also, see Talk:Decimal Day for comments about merging content spread across several pages regarding British decimalisation -- OwenBlacker 21:52, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

Surely this should be merged with British coin One Pound, any opinions? Boffy b 23:16, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

Yes. Surely not. The one pound coin didn't exist until 1983 if memory serves me right. Sterling is about the currency, whilst British coin One Pound is about the artefact. Mintguy (T)
Fair enough, I've linked them together becuase I recently spent a while confused on one looking for the other. Boffy b
I'm suprised we don't have articles about the individual notes, as we do about the coinage. No mention of Isaac Newton and his Toblerone. Mintguy (T)
Same here, I was going to start one on the One Pound note, I have scanned one, but should I in some way deface it first? eg: Writing SPECIMIN or similar? Boffy b
I don't know about Britian, but in the US copies of currency must be at least 30% larger or smaller than the orginal.

I certainly don't think the articles should be merged — one is about the curency itself, the other is about the coin. I see no reason why there shouldn't be articles about the notes too. The Bank of England's website suggests it's illegal to reproduce British banknotes (even ones that are no longer valid), but [1] and [2] might tell you more. — OwenBlacker 14:11, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. The problem with articles about notes is that the Bank of England controls their reproduction rather severely, and it's rather hard to meaningfully describe banknotes without pictures! We did have pictures of the Series D (1970s) £1 and £5 notes on the Bank of England article but someone took them down as we didn't have BoE permission. -- Arwel 15:33, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Before decimalisation, the pound wasn't really divided into 240 pence but into 20 shillings which were further divided. Each new penny wasn't worth 2.4 old pence in any practical sense. You couldn't use a new penny to buy 2.4d worth of goods. Also, what you paid in new pence was, in some case, determined not by precise reckoning in terms of old pence (which after all didn't have a 0.4d coin), but by tables which prescribed rounding. (Was this article written by someone who remembers decimalisation?!) What actually happened was that the pound was divided into 200 parts, each worth one-fifth more than an old penny. The old halfpenny, penny and 3d piece didn't fit this pattern on their own but could be spent individually according to the rounding-table. The 6d, shilling, florin (2s) and half crown (2/6) circulated freely in the new system because they corresponded to values in the new 200-part system. For example, the half-crown was worth 25 of the new units (12½p). Shillings and florins effectively circulate to this day as 5p and 10p pieces. A 20p has been added. The ½p measure was later abolished, so that the pound was then divided into just 100 parts and the 6d and half crown were also useless.

That sounds suspiciously like original research. I do remember the process of decimalisation, being 12 at the time, and there was never any public mention made of a 200-part system as is being hypothesised here, and I would like to see proper evidence that such a system ever existed. Prices were converted according to the tables published by the Decimal Currency Board i.e. 1d = 0.5p; 2d = 1p; 3d = 1p; 4d = 1.5p; 5d = 2p; 6d = 2.5p; 7d = 3p; 8d = 3.5p; 9d = 4p; 10d = 4d; 11d = 4.5d; 1/- = 5p etc. As I recall, the only products which I ever bought which actually went down in price at decimalisation were KP Peanuts, which had been 3d a bag and were sold at 1p for a while until inflation kicked in. Postage prices had been 4d and 5d for 2nd and 1st class, but became 2.5p and 3p respectively (although the Post Office had been on strike for a couple of months at Decimalisation Day, so it can't be claimed to have been an attempt to convert the prices without increasing the postage rates). -- Arwel (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
No original research about this; all fact. The smallest subdivision of the pound in 1971 was the ½p which was a 200th part, though the notation and explanation was that the pound was being divided into 100 parts. If so, those 100 parts were then divided into two, making a two-tier (cental and binary!) system like the old one of shillings and pence (though the old pence were also divided making it perhaps more accurately a multi-tier system). There were, indeed, tables for converting prices which were also used in giving change. However, it's still the case that a new penny was never, in a meaningful sense, worth 2.4d. As Mr Parry's most helpful description of the conversion-table above shows, it could, surreally, be worth both 2d and 3d. It was convenient at the time (and perhaps since) to suggest that there was some sort of equivalence at every level between the old and new systems (when there was only at certain levels) or that the country was going decimal, but it's not encyclopedic to do so. However, at no time could you take a new penny and use it to buy something previously priced at 2.4d, not least because nothing ever was priced at 2.4d. Similarly, you couldn't take 2.4d to a bank and change it for 1p. What you could do was pay for items priced in multiples of 2½p using old money without any rounding needed. During the handover, you could buy a 2½p chocolate-bar with, for example, six old pennies. Perhaps what really happened was that the old LSD system was replaced with a new sterling currency based on the tanner (6d piece). It was only at tanner-level and above (in units of whole tanners, mind) that old and new currencies matched up. Some countries, I believe, have withdrawn their smallest coins (as we did the ½p) even to the extent of abolishing the coin which is one hundredth of its larger unit. I heard that bronze euro cent coins are unpopular or non-existent in Finland. If the UK were to abolish its bronze coins, making the 5p its smallest coin, mightn't it have gone back to dividing the pound into 20ths (shillings), which is scarcely decimal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.206.112.162 (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
IMHO, whether it’s a one-tier, two-tier, or three-tier subdivision system is irrelevant. The thing that matters is the ratio between the main unit and the smallest cash unit. This ratio was 240, and became 200, and then 100. Because 100 is a divisor of 200, so things were simple when ½p was abolished. 200 does not perfectly divide 240, therefore the confusion.
Mention of tiers isn't irrelevant to a discussion of tiers. You'd not have got very far before d-day if you had treated the pound as though it had only been divided into 240 parts. The shilling-tier was an essential part of the system and it could be argued that there were other tiers brought about by (nick)named coins such as the crown (5/-), half-crown (2/6), florin (2/-), sixpence or tanner (6d) and threepenny piece/bit (3d). In 1971 we were told we were going decimal. In fact, the pound was divided into 200 parts with an intermediate tier of a penny (two ½ps). The old and new systems intersected at the 6d/2½p level, hence my theory expressed elsewhere that the UK actually embraced a new tanner-based currency (where the pound was divided into 40 parts) which was to be abolished not long afterwards when the ½p was scrapped. Long-term therefore, the systems only truly intersected at the 5p level, so maybe decimalisation (which, with the 200- and 100- unit systems, never actually happened) was really the division of the pound into 20 which, of course, was already in place with the shilling. The old bob simply became a new bob, whose denomination was, puzzlingly, 5. When the UK withdraws bronze coins, the process of bobification will be complete, the pound will have been definitively divided into 20 parts and all that will have been achieved since 1971 will be the abolition of the penny. However, being British, the system will retain eccentric quirks: though based on 20, it will be called decimal (as were the old 200- and 100-based systems) and the basic unit of currency will have on it, not a one, but a five. Of course, inflation will, no doubt, gnaw at this new system and there will be calls for the abolition of the 5p coin. I expect this will happen around 2021 which will mean that it will have taken the UK 50 years to get a decimal currency. Not bad going.
Even if 5p became the smallest cash unit, the currency would still be decimal. We must have a clear distinction between the main unit, the subunit(s), and the smallest cash unit. The latter two are often the same, but not always. IMHO, a currency is decimal if and only if the ratios between the main unit and all the subunits are integral powers of 10. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The florin was a tenth of a pound, (though it was interestingly denominated as two). This didn't make the old system any more decimal than the new one. A decimal system is where the main unit is divided into 10 sub-units and, perhaps, sub-units are themselves divided into 10 sub-sub-units. This was considered for the UK (with new shillings as well as new pence) but was rejected. Even if we accept that a system where the main unit is divided into 100 sub-units can be called decimal, further dividing the sub-units by two rather than 10 or 100 renders the system non-decimal and three-tier (just like the old one!). One of the ways that so-called decimal coinage was sold to us was with the assertion that computers preferred to work in 10s, yet we know they don't. Maybe the only computer-friendly part of the 1971 system was the helpfully binary relationship between the ½p and the penny.
I don't know whether you were ever involved in commercial computer programming either before or after decimalisation, but in the late 1970s as a new programmer I had occasion to examine old manuals which documented the extensions to COBOL which were employed to do Lsd arithmetic, and I can assure you that decimal arithmetic is vastly simpler than the old subroutines which had to be called whenever you wanted to add two cash values. This 200-unit system which you hypothesise frankly bears no relationship to reality as it existed on 15 February 1971: I point out that the banks never dealt in ½p values - the smallest denomination which could be paid into a bank account was 1p. Similarly in the latter days of pre-decimal currency they never dealt in ½d amounts either. -- Arwel (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I've never had to deal with LSD commercially, but I've worked on games which used it for historical reasons, and we just kept the total in pence and then converted it on output, so addition was pretty trivial. Marnanel 09:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pound Sterling/Pound sterling

Should this not really be at Ps and this page redirect there? Rich Farmbrough 12:45, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have listed Pound sterling on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion so that Pound Sterling can be moved to Pound sterling. A move does not work right now because "Pound sterling" has history. Indefatigable 16:00, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think you got it the wrong way round. As currencies are proper nouns both words should be capitalised. What we have now is the equivalent of Charles dickens. Wincoote 17:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Currencies aren't proper nouns, thus dollar and euro.

[edit] Historic value of the pound

Any idea on what 10 pounds in 1668 is worth today? I'm writing the article on Mumbai which was leased for the figure back then. Nichalp 19:27, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

and I wanted the answer for the same question in 1740. Does anybody have access to historic "value of the pound in your pocket" figures going back as far as possible? --Red King 00:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
eh.net has some good calculators. I'd advise reading their advisory notes on what the numbers actually mean, since it can vary a lot depending on what measure you use. Shimgray | talk | 00:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Legal tender

SPICe have quite a good briefing paper on this - (PDF). Among other things, "£1 worth of 1p coins is legal tender but £1.01 is not. £1 and £2 coins are legal tender in Scotland to unlimited amounts." (it's a weird system up here, but there you go - God only knows what the legal basis in NI is like). Shimgray 01:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm now delving into the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia, and goodness it's weird. SPICe seem to be wrong; we're told that -

The quantities of coins which are legal tender are as follows:
  1. gold coins are legal tender for payment of any amount, provided the coins do not fall below the minimum weight specified in the Coinage Act 1971, or in the proclamation under which they are made, as the least current weight;
  2. the £1 coin is legal tender up to any amount;
  3. cupro-nickel or silver coins of denominations of more than 10p are legal tender for payment of any amount not exceeding £10;
  4. cupro-nickel or silver coins of denominations of not more than 10p are legal tender for payment of any amount not exceeding £5;
  5. bronze coins are legal tender for payment of any amount not exceeding 20p.

However, this seems to be a bit out of date - it doesn't mention the £2 coin, except as regards "legal tender by proclamation" for oddities, and cites things like the 1980s commemorative £2 coins. Will investigate further; it's possible that when the £2 was declared legal tender they altered the criteria for what number of coins could be tendered at the same time, but I suspect it's more likely SPICe got it wrong. I don't know, them in their comfortable offices down at Holyrood, it's shocking... ;-)

One note, though - they later mention that:

The Bank of England is permitted to issue notes in denominations approved by the Treasury. These notes are legal tender in England and Wales and notes of less than £5 are legal tender in Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is not affected by the replacement of the £1 note by the £1 coin.

So were the Bank of England to decide to issue a £1 (or £2?) note again - which is implausible, but not impossible - then it'd be legal tender in Scotland, thus confusing this whole matter even further. (Existing English £1 notes, of course, are withdrawn by the Bank and thus don't count). I think my head hurts, now. Shimgray 01:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking it might be best to remove this whole section. Misinformation keeps creeping in and there's a lot of information missing. The Royal Mint Site has the correct amounts for legal tender of coinage. I could re-write the section, but the whole subject is already covered correctly and in detail here. --ascorbic 11:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] £ symbol

Does anyone know when the £ symbol came into use? Am I correct in thinking that it was formed by analogy from $ ? --Carl 11:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it is much older than the $ symbol. It is simply an ornate letter L for 'libra' (Latin for pound). That dates back to the Roman libra or pound (hence lb for weight) and so a pound of silver.

It is comparatively recent in general use, though - until the last century or two, it was common to write "4000l." rather than "£4000" (similar to what would be written for a given number of shillings). Might be worth noting that, though not sure how to work it in. Shimgray 12:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The article currently says "The pound sign is derived from the original german 'L'". I was about to change this to "...derived from the blackletter 'L'", but then I got to wondering if this is really true. The only mention I've been able to find so far of the £ symbol's history is at http://www.exeter.ac.uk/~RDavies/arian/dollar.html, which just says it's a "cursive capital L with a stroke through it" (though it also mentions that this origin is "well established"). So unless anyone can back this up, I think I'm going to take the "original german 'L'" bit out completely. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There is surely no LSD abbreviation from which the £ derives. The £ is the black-letter for the Latin word meaning pound. LSD is a fanciful construct. People spoke about pounds, shillings and pence. The £ did not somehow derive from that construct.

[edit] Empire and Commonwealth use of pound

The article ought to mention Irish pound, Australian pound, New Zealand pound and suchforth, and when these (a) changed their names and decimalised or whatever, and also (b) when they de-pegged, and why. Morwen - Talk 15:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. dollar and 5 shilling coin

The article on the "Pound sterling", under the section "Following the U.S. dollar", claims, "The U.S. dollar itself was derived from a 5 shilling coin used in the American colonies in the 1700s, hence the value of US$4 per pound sterling in use until then."

This contradicts the article "United States dollar", under the section "Origin of the name _dollar_" (a misleading title since the section describes the origins of both the name and the coin itself), which states, "The United States dollar derives from the Spanish 8 reales coin which was composed of just under one ounce of silver. This coin was popular among American colonists who called it the Spanish dollar, the name having derived from a German coin of similar size and composition known as the thaler. The first dollar coins issued by the United States mint were of the same size and composition as the Spanish dollar and even after the American Revolutionary War the Spanish and U.S. silver dollars circulated side by side in the United States."

I lean toward the Spanish 8-reales version. Comments?

Can't see what "which strictly speaking refers to basic currency unit of sterling, now the pound," means or adds to the definition.

Yes, I don't understand the sentence either, so I removed it. AxelBoldt 16:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I was taught in college that the American dollar is based on the Spanish dollar which was divided into 8 equal pieces (Pieces of 8). With the American dollar, these 8 equal pieces came to be know as "bits", therefore 1 bit = 12.5 cents. This is why sometimes you hear of a quarter as being referred to as "2 bits".

  • The spanish milled dollar is considered a "crown-sized" coin which is probably the origin of the confusion here. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for decimalisation

The article says:

"The multiples involved in the pre-decimal currency were such that amounts such as a pound or a shilling had many factors into which they could be exactly divided. However, as these monetary amounts decreased in spending power, and their subdivision therefore became a less important issue, it was decided instead to introduce decimal currency in order to simplify arithmetic."

The implication is that the ease of subdivision, which had previously been an argument against decimalisation, became less important due to inflation, and that this was a notable (or even major) reason for the decision to decimalise when we did. Is this really true? It sounds rather unlikely to me. If no-one objects then I may take it out and state that the primary reasons were to simplify arithmetic and to bring the UK into line with other countries. Thoughts? Matt 00:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC).

I don't think that can have been the reason - the decision to decimalise was taken in 1965 or 66, and inflation didn't really take off until about 1974. I can certainly remember going to Woolworths as a kid and seeing the sweets assortments for 3d and 6d, packets of KP peanuts were still 3d at the time of decimalisation (decimalised to 1p - just about the only thing I recall which actually became cheaper after decimalisation!). I remember packets of Smiths' Crisps going from 3d to 4d. I think decimalisation resulted in some awkward changes - having to feed payphones more frequently for one thing, as you had to use 2p's instead of 6d's! -- Arwel (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
We were told it would make money-arithmetic easier which is bizarre since electronic adding-machines and computers were on their way in and, even if people didn't then envisage such technology's being quite as pervasive as it now is, such machines would have made the handling of tiers not based on 10 much easier. No doubt, the UK will go to all the bother of switching to the euro just before metal and paper money are superseded by electronic cash. The Portuguese tourist in Helsinki may feel encouraged that the price-tags are in the same currency as back in Lisbon, but he is also increasingly likely to pay for his hotel, restaurant-meals, admission to museums and hire-car with a plastic card. You can probably chart the decline of the printed book from the day the new British Library opened.

[edit] Question

I don't think it's mentioned in this article, but how many £ equal US$1? I'm just curious. --68.37.116.234 23:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It depends on when you ask the question. See Economy of the United Kingdom#Exchange Rates for the history or a website like xe.com or oanda.com for today's interbank rate but lose 5% for tourist cash rate. --Red King 23:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
It depends on when you ask. The reference at Economy of the United Kingdom#Exchange Rates gives the average exchange rate for the last 10 years, where £1 has varied between $1.51 and $1.82. For most of the independent history of the US dollar, £1 was worth about $4.50 - $5, though it reached $10 during the American Civil War.
In 1800 - 1810 £1 was worth $4.34 - $4.55
During the War of 1812 it went down to about $3.50 - $3.70
Between 1815 and 1861, it never varied between $4.75 and $5
It hit the high point of $10 in 1864, and in the late 1860s it was worth $6.66
1870-76 it was $5.55, before the dollar got back to $4.80 level in 1877, which was fixed until 1914, when it momentarily hit $5 before going back to $4.80 between 1915-1918.
After the First World War things got a little unstable as Britain was off the Gold Standard, and the pound reached a low of $3.70 in 1920, before getting back to $4.80 in 1925.
During the Great Depression Britain left the Gold Standard again, so the rate got worse from 1931, hitting $3.45 in 1932, but by 1934 £1 was worth $5 again, where it stayed until 1939. WW2 weakened the pound again, with the rate set at $4.03 in 1941-48.
In 1950 the pound was devalued to $2.80, and in 1967 (we're getting into my memory now!) to $2.40.
in 1974 the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates broke down, and since then the exchange rate has varied from day to day, usually depending on economic crises in the various countries - since 1980 the pound has been pretty consistently worth less than $2, and I remember it his a low of $1.08 in 1985 or 86, though it bounced back fairly quickly.
This site will let you find average exchange rates for the the dollar for different historic periods for various other currencies - for the pound it's 1791-2000, although in terms of $1 = so much of the other currency. -- Arwel (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"Libra" is Latin for "scales." "Liber" means "pound." I'm correcting the second paragraph. BrianGCrawfordMA 00:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Actually should say "Libra", not "Liber" Moofresh 15:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Exchange rate WalrusMan118 22:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status of Legal Tender.

Contrary to the article you cannot force someone to accept settlement in legal tender.

From the Bank of Englands website, 'Legal tender' has a technical meaning in relation to the settlement of a debt. Simply, it means that if a debtor pays in legal tender the exact amount he or she owes under the terms of a contract, he or she has a good defence in law, if they are subsequently sued for non-payment of the debt. In practice the concept of 'legal tender' does not govern the acceptability of banknotes as a means of payment. This is essentially a matter for agreement between the parties involved.

This is accurate, and can easily be verified; updated main page to reflect -- Nuwewsco 7th April 2006

[edit] Subdivisions

Jmabel had added The smallest unit of coinage was the halfpenny (pronounced "hay-p'ny") referring to pre-decimal coinage. This isn't true. Immediately prior to decimalisation in 1971, the smallest unit was a penny. The halfpenny had been withdrawn in 1969 (see History of the halfpenny), but was preceded back in time by smaller units, including the farthing, half-farthing and so on (see British coinage article). This is all rather much to put in a single sentence, and as it's discussed at British coinage, I've linked to there instead.

[edit] More Notes

Does anyone have any pictures of the £5 and £50 notes? I think the full currency set would be nice for this article :) Also, is the "Specimin" stamp on the notes required by law for all images depicting UK currency or just because the image is from another source? So next time i come across a 5 or 50 note (not bloody likely!) i'll try and get few pics to stick up here, unless anyone objects. -Benbread 10:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/reproducing_banknotes.htm
For Image:Bank Of England10.gif and Image:Bank Of England20.gif I went through the proper procedure and obtained permission to display them on Wikipedia (until 29 July) /wangi 11:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Could you put them on Commons instead of en? --Chochopk 08:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status table

Wouldn't it be nice if there's a usage/status table to explain the complex situation of all different pound sterling? This is not meant to replace the text completely, but to eliminate some by a condense table.

Attributes:

  • L – legal tender, L – non legal tender
  • W – widely circulates, R – rarely circulates (but sometimes seen), N – does not circulate
  • A – people accept it, F – few people accept it, M – most people accept it
English notes British coins Scottich notes N. Irish notes Manx £ Jersey £ Guernsey £ Gibraltar £ St. Helena £ Falkland Is. £
England, Wales LWA LWA LR? LR? L?? L?? L?? L?? L?? L??
Scotland L??* LWA L?? L?? L?? L?? L?? L?? L?? L??
N. Ireland LWA* LWA LR? LWA L?? L?? L?? L?? L?? L??
Isle of Man L??  ??? L?? L?? LW? L?? L?? L?? L?? L??
Jersey LW?†  ??? LW? L?? L?? LW? LW? L?? L?? L??
Guernsey L??  ??? L?? L?? L?? LW? LW? L?? L?? L??
Gibraltar L??  ??? L?? L?? L?? L?? L?? L?? L?? L??
St. Helena L??  ??? L?? L?? L?? L?? L?? L?? L?? L??
Falkland Is. L??  ??? L?? L?? L?? L?? L?? L?? L?? L??

*Bank of England notes of under five pounds value are legal tender. But such thing doesn't exist anymore
† See contradiction 1 below

Quotes from individual wiki articles

Laws of legal tender are uniquely complex in the UK. In England and Wales, banknotes issued by the Bank of England are legal tender, meaning that they should be accepted in payment of a debt. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, no banknotes are legal tender, and each bank which issues banknotes does so in the form of its own promissory notes. Scottish and Northern Irish notes are sometimes rejected by shops when used in England. Scottish and Northern Irish notes' designs are also different from the English notes' designs. Northern Irish notes may be printed by the Bank of Ireland — mistaken by many English shops for the former Irish Pound, even though they say "sterling" and are regularly accepted as such in Northern Ireland. Other Northern Irish Pound Sterling notes include those issued by the First Trust Bank, the Northern Bank and the Ulster Bank. The one pound coin also has many varied designs on the reverse side, which differ from year to year with new designs appearing; however, all of these are Royal Mint coins and of equivalent legality.
The nature of legal tender is even more restricted in Scotland — only Royal Mint coins are legal tender, and even then the use of smaller coins is limited (the five and ten pence coins are only legal tender to a value of five pounds, for example). However, one and two pound coins are legal tender to an indefinite amount. This was not always the case, as during World War II the Scottish banknotes were made legal tender by the Currency (Defence) Act 1939; this status was withdrawn on January 1, 1946.
To complicate matters further, some notes of the Bank of England were until recently legal tender in Scotland and Northern Ireland. This status only applied to notes under a value of five pounds, so following the withdrawal of the Bank of England one pound note in 1985, no circulating notes were covered by this clause.
All commonly circulating British coins are legal tender throughout the UK, as are the rarely seen five pound and twenty‐five pence ("crown") coins. Several gold coins issued by the Mint are still legal tender, though as they have a bullion value far greater than their face value they are never used in circulation and tend to be kept by collectors.
Gibraltar and the islands of Guernsey, Jersey, Saint Helena, the Falkland Islands and the Isle of Man, which are not part of the United Kingdom, also issue their own currencies, which are fixed to the value of sterling. None of the regional currencies are legal tender in England or in other regions (contradiction 1), but they are commonly accepted by large businesses and banks, or are sometimes accepted unknowingly — for example, many vending machines cannot distinguish between British coins and those from outside the UK. An exchange commission may be charged if used at a bank or a large business.
Bank of England notes are the only banknotes that are legal tender in England and Wales. Scottish, Northern Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey and Manx banknotes are not legal tender in England and Wales. However, they are not illegal under English law and creditors and traders may accept them if they so choose.
In Scotland and Northern Ireland no banknotes – not even ones issued in those constituent countries – are legal tender, although Bank of England one pound notes were when they existed: Bank of England notes of under five pounds value are legal tender. Scottish and Northern Irish notes are 'promissory notes', essentially cheques made out from the bank to 'the bearer', as the wording on each note says.
  • British coinage
Coins from British dependencies are sometimes found in change in other jurisdictions, but are not legal tender in the United Kingdom and tend not to be accepted by UK traders and banks. Since they have the same specifications as UK coins, they are sometimes tolerated in commerce, and can readily be used in vending machines.
In the United Kingdom, Manx notes and coins are generally not accepted, and travellers are advised to exchange them before leaving the island. Many banks and Bureaux de Change in the UK will convert Manx notes to British notes at no cost. To assist those travelling, the ATM machines at the Sea Terminal, Douglas, and at Ronaldsway Airport (IOM) both issue British notes only. The Manx coins do, however, sometimes creep into general UK circulation as they have identical size and shape to the corresponding UK coins.
Both Jersey notes and Bank of England notes are legal tender in Jersey and circulate together, alongside the Guernsey pound and Scottish banknotes. (contradiction 1)
The Guernsey pound, the pound sterling (including Scottish and Northern Irish notes) and the Jersey pound may be used in Guernsey.
The Guernsey pound is legal tender only in Guernsey, but also circulates freely in Jersey.
Since 1927, Gibraltar has issued its own banknotes and, since 1988, its own coins, although British coins and banknotes continue to circulate and are widely accepted.
Gibraltar notes are not legal tender in the UK, but are exchangable 1:1 for British notes.

See also

v • d • e
Types of British coinage
A friend of mine visited Northern Ireland, so I updated the table above. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rarely_used_coins

When I designed the infobox, I intended this attribute to be used for coins that you can demand from a banks for their face value, even though they are rarely seen. Like US$2 and $1 coins, or for coins that are phasing out because of low value. But it was not intended for coins that for commemorative coins which the only way to obtain is to pay a premium. I'm not sure about 25p & £5. Can someone verify? --Chochopk 00:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

25p are obsolete - none have been minted in over 25 years, and you can't get them from a bank. You can get £5 coins from a bank for a time when a new commemorative issue is released. -- Arwel (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
For face value? --Chochopk 03:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes : I get them occasionally myself, to put into general circulation. Of course, I wouldn't contemplate for a second paying a penny of premium - this is a currency coin. --A Karley (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I would guess so as the £5 coin issued to commemorate the Queen's Golden Jubilee appears (albeit very infrequently) in general circulation. The [80th Birthday £5 coin] is currently for sale from the Royal mint for £5 face value. Of course, some vendors may apply a premium for presentation or packaging. --Bazza 08:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes I've had two or three different £5 coins recieved in change as part of the general circulation. Shimgray | talk | 15:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the last 25p coin issued was in 1982 for the royal wedding of charles and diana. Its the old pre decimal "crown" denomination, and indeed was still referred to as a "commemerative crown". Though as said before they are obsolete and were replaced by the commemerative £5 coin. Bensonby 11:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting glitch

The vertical alignment of the pound coin and £20 note graphics is wonky. These are supposed to be attached to the "Legal tender and regional issues" section, but when you show or hide the TOC, they jump about, overlaying other parts of the text, or leaving a spurious big white gap, or breaking in some other way. I don't know how to fix this... any ideas anyone? Matt 22:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC).

[edit] "Green pound"

I'm surprised to find that there is no article for the green pound that used to exist in the Common Agricultural Policy before the euro. Does anybody know enough about it to write one? --Red King 20:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] £100 note

I removed the reference to a hundred pound note in the "rarely used" bracket. It does not exist, put it back in if yo0u can prove it does... see: [[3]] Bensonby 11:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

British banknotes#Scotland --Chochopk 11:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

ah, apologies... how could I forget the scots!? Bensonby 12:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] plural

The plural of sterling is sterling correct? One would never say 5 pound sterlings, right? If so this should go in the article. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 22:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"A sterling" isn't used on its own anyway. It's always "pound sterling", whose plural is "pounds sterling". Bazza 13:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
How can this be worked into the article? Not all of us yanks know how to say it properly. ;)-Ravedave (help name my baby) 15:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
It's the same principle as "courts martial". I've added it to the introduction. I've also clarified the usage of "sterling" on its own. Bazza 13:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "the oldest currency in use"

This claim is incredibly bold considering no citation is provided. I will remove it in a few days unless we can find something. —anskas 21:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm no medieval currency expert, but consider Russian, Swedish and other Scandinavian currencies. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

SEK = 1873 DKK = 1873 NOK = 1875 FIM = 1960 RUB = 1998 GBP = ???? (Stefan2 15:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

928 is quoted at [4] Bazza 17:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Principle of quoting exchange rate on an arbitrary date

A table has been added to the article, giving the exchange rates as at an arbitrary date.

IMO, it is not a good idea in principle to quote exchange rates as at some arbitrary date. It is not sustainable and not encylopedic. An annual average is far more useful.

  • It is not sustainable because it is unrealistic to expect that it will be revised for all currencies every day. Anyone who needs to know the actual daily rate will use a reliable source like XE.COM or OANDA.COM
  • It is not encyclopedic because, by capturing the rate on an arbitrary date, no useful understanding of long term price is conveyed to the reader.

The historical exchange rates (since 1990) that are given in Exchange rates section of the Economy of the United Kingdom entry, are far more useful. Spikes are smoothed and the reader gets a far better idea of the relative prices and how they move over time. It only needs to be updated once a year and the exact date is not critical.

To discuss, please use template talk:Exchange Rate --Red King 16:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Printer

I'm not sure if these banks are really the printer. The article of De La Rue says De la Rue prints notes for Bank of England, the Royal Bank of Scotland, Bank of Scotland, and the Isle of Man Government. If that is true, shouldn't we eliminate those from the infobox? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy theories

I deleted the wonderful statement Despite the collapse, the country's monetary authorities have chosen to continue to strengthen the pound's relative price. Evidence of this can be found in the reserves section of the Pink Book, the official Balance of Payments. . This is a really basic error of economics. For details, see Central bank#Limits of enforcement power "Since most Western economies are now considered "open", this essentially means that central banks may target interest rates or exchange rates with credibility, but not both at once." The Bank of England has an inflation rate target, which it controls using interest rates. The exchange rate is a side-effect of this policy, not its purpose. Investors choose to hold deposits in pounds because they get a better interest rate and they believe that the value of their money will not be lost. This demand pushes up the price of the pound on the markets. --Red King 21:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darwin on the 10 pound note

Hi, I am from Russia. Recently, in a debate over Darwinism/Creationism, a creationist mentioned that Darwin's image is to be removed from the 10 pound bill because some officials decided that he is a disgrace to Britain, for his theory was proven false. Personally, I think it is a lie. I searched the web and failed to find any mention about that. None the less, I would like to ask the experts, if it is at least partly (even for the smallest part) true? ru:User:Alexei Kouprianov/User:Alexei Kouprianov. PS Sorry I have no time to log in. 83.149.3.147 18:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello from Russia. UK banknotes change from time to time - the next change is the £20 note[[5]]. There is no plan announced here (UK) about replacing the £10 note as well. New banknotes are very expensive to design and undergo lots of research to make sure they are fit for purpose. There has never been a case here of a note being completely withdrawn just because someone did not like the design. From the Bank of England site: Who decides who the historical figure should be on the back of a new note? It is the Governor who makes the final decision. The Bank have celebrated the lives of eminent British personalities on the back of their notes since 1970. It is usual practice to consider a number of probable candidates all of whom have been selected because of their indisputable contribution to their particular field of work and about whom there exists sufficient material on which to base a banknote design. Bazza 13:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that's more than I need. I suspected that the whole thing about replacing Darwin is some sort of a hoax. Alexei Kouprianov 13:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The Darwin £10 is the second design of this denomination in Series E, and was introduced in November 2000. The Bank of England tends to change the design of its banknotes every 8 - 12 years. The first denomination of the new Series F, the £20, is scheduled to be released this coming spring, and judging from the experience of Series D and Series E I would expect a new £10 note to be introduced in 2 to 4 years' time. -- Arwel (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laws of legal tender are uniquely complex in the UK

"Uniquely" means that no other country has complex legal tender laws, is this true? --jmb 11:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Depending on personal opinion, one might say that legal tender laws in the Republic of Ireland also are complex. However, they aren't as complex as the UK ones. (Stefan2 22:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Origin of "quid"

I have deleted the statement that quid derives from 'quid pro quo'. There is no evidence, to the best of my knowledge, that there is any connection and in my opinion it is highly unlikely that popular slang would derive from Latin (though not impossible). My own dictionary and Wictionary agree that the origin of 'quid' is unknown. My own suspicion is that the origin may be somehow connected indirectly with the word 'guinea', seeing as quid was used previously for guinea. And do we need to include other slang for pound: nicker, sovereign and sov come to mind? Emeraude 16:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

would be great to find out where 'quid' comes from. I've not heard sovereign or sov as slang for pounds - where is this used? In the south east of England some old boys used to refer to 50p as "half a bar" though. --82.133.79.7 11:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish Bank Notes

Should there be a mention that the one pound bank note is still in use in Scotland? If it is in the article then I must have missed it. --jmb 01:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

  • By the way, is it "bank note", "bank-note" or "banknote"? The OED has "bank-note" --jmb 01:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Scottish £1 note, see Banknotes of the pound sterling. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I just wondered whether a brief comment should be incorporated into the discussion on coins and notes. --jmb 10:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Bank notes are also issued from the Clydesdale Bank in Scotland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.240.30 (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Question: I have always been told that "Quid" is an (imaginary) unit equal to 21-Shillings -- while the (real) Pound is (or was) 20-shillings. I have older British friends that agree emphatically. Most current dictionaries define "Quid" as equal "Pound." Can folks here clarify? and/or correct the main Wiki information. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.193.73.85 (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You (and/or your emphatic friends) are confusing the word with Guinea (which is/was not imaginary) - see Guinea (British coin) The price of objects were still very occasionally sold in Guineas after decimalisation equivalent to £1.05. A quid is most definitely slang for 1 pound in the same way that a buck is slang for a dollar. Jooler (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] World War II debt to USA

This was finally paid off in the 2006-07 financial year and the intriguing back-story explained in some detail in the BBC documentary Mortgaged to the Yanks. I am unable to cite written sources, so I will leave the editing of the main article to those who can. EatYerGreens 20:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] slang

The mention of quid is far too prominent given the seriousness of the subject. There are many other slang expressions, none of which deserves prominence either. Nicknames belong in the quirkies section. The "depending on the region" is inept and non-encyclopedic.

[edit] two and six

2/6 is an unfortunate example to show how people spoke about old money. 2/6 might also be called half a crown. A better example would be 2/7, pron. "two and seven".

[edit] duodecimal

The so-called original system wasn't duodecimal. Only part of it (the pence and shillings part) was. Not only did shillings (and not 12 of them) comprise a pound, but the penny was subdivided.

[edit] Opposition to Euro

Opposition to adopting the Euro in the UK runs much deeper than that the pound is just a symbol of nationalism. Many in the UK are worried that adoption of the Euro will cause problems with inflation seen in the rest of the EU and that Britain will lose control of its economic destiny if the Euro is adopted. There should be greater mention of this. Sloverlord 19:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Guineas in Spoken and Written form

A "guinea", an obsolete gold coin, first made of gold brought from Guinea, West Africa, had a value of 21 shillings, i.e. 1 shilling more than the pound. The value was written out as £1/10, spoken as "one pound ten" but being in fact £1 and 1 shilling. The "ten" in the £1/10 did not denote ten pence or ten shillings but, as mentioned, was 1 shilling (or 12 pence).

I hesitate to change the above on my own — quoted from the main-page — and would have another of my age or older confirm first. I would not have known how to read '£1/10' as it's conflicted. (It literally says 'pound one shilling ten'). A guinea was ' £1·1·0 ' — we used raised dots vs a full stop when handwriting, as a full stop could potentially be seen as a decimal point, (though it was used sometimes). An alternative would have been to write '£1-1-0', however '£1/10' is in error.

An oblique stroke from upper right to lower left was only ever used with an amount of shillings and pence, (such as '2/7' read 'two and seven', and meaning 'two shillings and seven pence'). This was a short hand form of the older long-s, and as such ' / ' stood for 'solidus', just as 's.' did, i.e. 'shilling'.

Guineas were spoken of as 'a shilling in the pound' meaning that each pound contained one more shilling to make a guinea. In general, however, if guineas were used, such as a price of '3g.' i.e. 'three guineas' then this was often written on paper — especially for purposes of calculating sums — in the equivalent amount of shillings as '63/-' or '63s'. In a similar way, 'half a guinea' would have been expressed as '10/6', (or '10s 6d').

I'm fairly certain the writer intended to express a guinea as ' £1·1·0 ', and this would have been read aloud as 'one pound one (shilling (and no pence))'. --Christian Gregory 03:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ' / ' i.e. 'The Shilling Mark' vs Unit Separators

In reflecting on the above regarding 'Guineas', I think where there may be some confusion is that ' / ' is being read as if it were a unit separator, when in the days of £sd, ' / ' stood for shilling in the most simplified form of writing, (but only used when there was a sum of shillings alone or a sum of whole pence and shillings). Again, it was an abbreviated form of the long-s for 'solidus' and meant 'shilling'.

Looking at the quote below:

A "guinea", an obsolete gold coin first made of gold brought from Guinea, west Africa, had a value of 21 shillings, i.e. 1 shilling more than the pound, i.e. it was £1/1/0 (£1 and 1s). 10 June 2007

In the 10 June version of this article, the error is apparent, in that the writer means ' £1·1·0 ' — this could also have been written ' £1-1-0 ' or even ' £1.1.0 ' — however, it could not be written ' £1/1/0 '. No indication after the pound-symbol was necessary, or used, however, if a field were blank, then this would be indicated by a nought. Thus a sum of 'five pounds and tup'ence' would have been written ' £5·0·2 ' but a sum of 'five pounds and two shillings ' £5·2·0 '

There was however, one rarer case where ' / ' could be used with a hyphen to indicate a fraction of a penny, eg. 2s 11-3/4d. (two shillings eleven pence three farthing ... in practice, this was read as 'two, eleven, three where the context would mean it could not be referring to £2·11·3). Such a case only came about when type writers or printers didn't have a single key or symbol to indicate ¼ ½ ¾ , if they did, the amount would have been expressed as ' 2s 11¾d ' .

I'm no writer, and would not do the article justice, or I might tackle editing it myself. I simply remember the structure and day-to-day applications of living with £sd until I was in my teens.

--Christian Gregory 21:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apparent contradiction

Originally a silver penny had the purchasing power of slightly less than a modern pound.

versus

The pound sterling maintained its intrinsic value etc.

To a layman this sounds like a contradiction. Please rephrase this. Shinobu 12:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal tender amounts

So if the maximum legal tender for 50p's is £10 does that mean that in a shop I could not buy an item costing more than £10 if i paid using ONLY 50p peices? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saiorse44 (talk • contribs)

No, because that's not what "legal tender" means (see legal tender): it's money that can't be refused in payment of a debt. You don't have a debt to the shop or anything like one (see invitation to treat). Credit cards aren't legal tender either, but you can still buy things with them, can't you? Marnanel 17:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC) (IANAL)
I believe in this case the shop keeper can refuse the payment. But the coins are still legal tender and can't be refused for amounts lower than £10. Enlil Ninlil 07:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GBP/UKP -- non sequitur?

The article says:

The ISO 4217 currency code is GBP (Great Britain pound). Occasionally the abbreviation UKP is seen, but this is incorrect. The Crown dependencies use their own (non-ISO) codes.

This strikes me as a bit of a non-sequitur, assuming that the third sentence is supposed to explain the second one. Northern Ireland is not a crown dependency, according to that article, and it's also not part of Great Britain. So why wouldn't it be "United Kingdom pound", so as to include Northern Ireland? --Trovatore 23:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the third sentence is intended to explain the second one.
The article is correct in saying that use of UKP is incorrect because it's not the ISO symbol for the currently. However, you are correct in that the ISO code is a bad code - UKP would be a far better ISO code because of Northern Ireland. When I quote a code for a currency, I use UKP for this reason. However if you are looking for the code in xe.com or other places that use the ISO codes, you'll need to look for GBP. 84.64.237.177 15:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

ISO defines "GB" as being the international country code for the United Kingdom (which includes Northern Ireland). This is different from most other cases, where "GB" instead is an abbreviation for Great Britain (which doesn't include Northern Ireland). (212.247.11.153 12:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC))


[edit] ATMs

Hi. The infobox says that ATMs dispense £5, £10 and £20 notes, but I have lived my whole life in the UK and I've never seen an ATM that dispense a £5 note. I was just wondering if this was a mistake or if there really are ATMs that do. If so, I'm curious, where? Scroggie 11:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I found an ATM in Haltwhistle that dispensed all its cash in £5 notes on Christmas day. Karl 12:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You must be young, Scroggie - when I got my first ATM card 30 years ago we had ATMs which only dispensed one denomination, I remember Lloyds Bank in Norwich had about 3 ATMs dispensing £1 notes and one dispensing £5 inside the main banking hall! That said, it's a long time since I've had a fiver out of an ATM, now. -- Arwel (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have had many instances of fivers coming out from an ATM. David 12:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

For clarity and consistency, shouldn't this article reside at British pound sterling?
Dove1950 10:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur. —Nightstallion 10:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't Britian including England, Wales and Scotland, but this currency includes Northern Island and other territories, so wouldn't United Kingdom pound be more appropriate? Enlil Ninlil 04:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Mh, you have a point there. —Nightstallion 09:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Hang on. Why? There is no other currency called Pound Sterling. David 12:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Two things. First, whilst United Kingdom pound sterling wouldn't be wrong, the word British is used officially as the adjective for the U.K. For example, a U.K. passport states that the holder is a "British citizen". Second, the pound sterling is also used by the crown dependencies (as this article states in it's opening) but the dependencies have their own pages (Jersey pound, etc.) which means this article could be renamed to clarify things.
Dove1950 16:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

GBP is used by the UK, the uninhabited British Antarctic Territory (according to that article), the British Indian Ocean Territory, the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and the crown dependencies. Some other UK dependencies use custom sets of banknotes and coins with their own currency codes, but pegged at par to GBP. Since GBP is used by areas other than just the UK, this means that GBP is a supranational currency similar to the euro and the CFA francs. The article on euro states just plain "Euro" and not "European Union euro", "European euro" or "Eurozone euro". Similarly, the articles on the CFA frans don't state "Western CFA franc zone CFA franc" etc. Maybe the "British" part should be dropped for GBP too. If an adjective were to be used, which one would that be? "UK realm pound sterling"? "Sterling zone pound sterling"? "UK and dependencies pound sterling"? (Stefan2 19:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

It's just Pound Sterling. As per usual some members of Wikipedia want to complicate things. David 23:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
As per usual, some users want to make things accurate. This article deals mostly with the use of sterling post 1707, when it became the British currency. It could be argued that, if this article were fleshed out to cover the English currency before 1707 in more detail that the current title should be retained. Alternatively, the article could be split between English and British.
Dove1950 10:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
But it's the same currency!! Stop making things unnecessarily complicated! David 12:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
If the truth is complicated, it is not unneceassary. The fact is that there are two clear phases to the history of sterling, before and after 1707. That must be reflected, either in this article or by splitting the article into two. I initially favoured a split but, if the concensus is against it (and there's no evidence for that so far), then the changes will need to go in here.
Dove1950 12:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: There's a somewhat related discussion at Talk:Renminbi on whether or not it should be moved to Chinese renminbi or Chinese yuan (and populated, it seems, by some of the same editors). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding "British" to the article accomplishes nothing. What could the pound sterling be if it weren't British? If there is no common convention for a more complicated name, then there's no point in using it. Wikipedia does not need to create a consistency that does not exist in the real world.--Jiang 06:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jiang, adding "British" adds nothing, and is not normal usage and is unnecessary complication. A Google search for "pound sterling" brings up 2,870,000 hits, "British pound sterling" only 367,000. -- Arwel (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no point adding "British" or "United Kingdom" to the title. Pound sterling is the currency used in the UK and by the British crown dependencies. It is used no where else and no other currency has that exact name ("sterling"). Its alternative name is the British pound, which redirects to the more official Pound sterling. David 14:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
"What could the pound sterling be if it weren't British?" Well, let's see: Manx, Gibraltarian or St. Helenan, from Jersey, Guernsey or the Falkland Islands. These states may be associated with the U.K. but they issue their own money with formal relationships to sterling. "It is used no where else" but, then, the naira is only used in Nigeria but we still use the article title Nigerian naira and no one complains. The point of adding the word British would be to make it clear to those who know nothing about British money that this article is about the money of the U.K. Remember, an Encyclopaedia is not written exclusively for people who already know something about the subject. No prior knowledge should be assumed. The problem with this article as it stands is that it also covers the English pound sterling, issued before 1707. Hence, adding the word British could necessitate a split, something that needs further discussion.
Dove1950 16:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hang on. One only needs to read the first line of the article to know that pound sterling is the currency of the UK. What's more, it's not like the article's title is just "Pound". That would of course be wrong. As for this lark about the English pound and British pound - are they not the same? The currency did not change in 1707. The Scots inherited the English currency upon union. David 16:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You could argue that the article title is entirely irrelevant. I don't think we really want to go down that path, do we? The point is that the currency is now the currency of the U.K. but this article is about much more than that, a fact that only becomes apparent further down. Hence the need for the right title.
Dove1950 —Preceding comment was added at 22:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welsh 1 pound coin

I have seen a one pound coin with what appears to be a Welsh dragon on the front. It is dated 1997. Does Wales have diffeent 1 pound coins, or is it a commemorative coin? Welsh coinage isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Tarcus 21:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

See British one pound coin. David 21:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
If it was 1997, then the coin was a counterfeit. The dragon appeared on £1 coins in 1995 and 2000. -- Arwel (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I've conducted a major rewrite as I found this article to be very poorly constructed. I hope this will serve as the basis for future work on this article. I've removed a few things which struck me as incongruous and limited most of the discussion to the U.K. I hope I've not removed anything useful by mistake.
Dove1950 17:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that - as far as I can tell the article is now accurate. David 18:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I have now made a number of additions/edits. We need a citation/reference for the "oldest currency in use" claim - I believe it to be true though (and therefore don't believe that claim should be removed). David 19:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Penny

It says that there are 100 pennies to the pound. Surely that should be pence (or new pence). Penny is the official name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.55.124.2 (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article title II

The proposal to move this article to British pound sterling is still on the table. We have "votes" for and against. As I stated above, I support it as this article only deals with issues with the U.K. and earlier states that came together to make the U.K. It does not deal with the other issues of the pound sterling in the Empire and Crown Dependencies. Hence the need for the word British.
Dove1950 (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My reading of the discussion above is that there is a pretty strong consensus to leave it as it is. The currency is the pound sterling. Indeed, the term "sterling" alone is widely used in currency markets to mean the UK pound. If you wanted to be pedantically correct, the article should be called "United Kingdom Pound" (since there are other pounds such as the CYP but no other pound sterlings). The term "British Pound Sterling" is uneducated but if you must have it, create it as a redirect to this article. There is no consensus for a move. --Red King (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. David (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the second occurrence of the issue: Should the name of the country always occur in the title a currency article?. The same issue has shown up in Talk:Renminbi#Move_to_Chinese_renminbi. Karl (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I object strongly to the assertion that British pound sterling is "uneducated". In what way? Given this is an encyclopaedia, being correct is rather important. As I stressed earlier, there are many places which use or have used the pound sterling and this only deals with the British issues. Just to be crystal clear, British is the correct adjective for the U.K. (look in a British passport, for example).
Dove1950 (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current Strength

Recently, the pound has hit all time lows against the Euro, and continues to do so every fortnight or so, surely in the section 'Current Strength' which mentions the pounds recent highs against the dollar, the Euro rate should be noted /mentioned? BBC LINK:[6] Umbongo91 (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] £100 notes

I notice that the article states the types of GDP currency as including £100 notes. When I asked at my bank for one they categorically informed me the UK does not issue £100 notes. I would be interested to know who is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.20.178 (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Bank of England does not issue £100 notes, but some of the banks allowed to issue notes in Scotland and Northrn Ireland do, and possibly some territories. See the articel Banknotes of the pound sterling —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarcus (talk • contribs) 05:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


In 1990 I got £700 from my bank as 5x£100 notes and 4x£50 notes. I got them in Scotland, from a Scottish bank, and they were drawn on the Bank of England (which I did not object to, because I was getting money to buy something in England).

Contrary to the preceding comment, the Bank of England has certainly issued £100 notes in the past, and pending me visiting the bank tomorrow to check, I'm pretty sure that the BoE still does. Certainly I routinely carry thick wads of notes rich in Scottish £100 notes, because they're thinner than the same wads of £50s. Many shops will cavil at a £50 ; even more will cavil at a £100, and even more more at a Scottish £100 in an English shop. Which is why I got English £100s ; don't need the extra hassle for a planned purchase.

ISTR that the BoE had a counterfeiting problem in the early '00s which led to a general collapse of confidence in the higher-denomination BoE bank notes. --A Karley (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the Bank of England does not issue £100 notes, and has not done so since at least when all notes larger than £5 were withdrawn following Operation Bernhard in the Second World War. Historically it was small notes which the BoE did not issue, and they did issue large denomination notes, but they started issuing successively smaller denominations during the wars with France in the 18th & 19th centuries. -- Arwel (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This is another case of people conflating "England" and "the UK". The Bank of Scotland, Royal Bank of Scotland, Clydesdale Bank, Northern Bank, and First Trust Bank all issue £100 notes, though the Bank of England does not. -- Arwel (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regional variations

Following the discovery of a Manx pound in my wifes purse after today's shopping, I was trying to track down a picture for comparison, to check that I'd got the identification right. The wife is moderately interested in such variations, so we're keeping the coin. But it's rather worn on the head side - not a good example - but if necessary I could get some photos of this and various other examples. If anyone is interested in documenting these other forms, drop me a message through my user page. I check it for comments every couple of months.

A Karley (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Britishcoins.jpg

Image:Britishcoins.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't The Work Of A Government Have Free Use? 68.13.151.71 (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
No. Goverment works are also covered by copyright (and in many cases a longer lasting copyright than applies to the works of private individuals.Mayalld (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, But I Could Put A Pic Of A USD Or USC ANYWHERE I Wanted And It Would Be Considered In The Public Domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.151.71 (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frequently used banknotes

The recent anon users changing the frequently/infrequently used banknotes attracted my attention to the fact that £1 notes are down as being frequently used. I wouldn't have said that this was true any more. Having worked in retail I can say that I have had many times more customers spending £100 notes than £1 notes. Though you do see them sometimes. Anyway I would "be bold" but since there seems to be something of an edit war going on as to whether £50 notes are common or not I didn't want to get in the middle of that. Once this has been settled perhaps someone would change £1 notes. Scroggie (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historical subdivisions of the pound

The "Historical subdivisions of the pound" table and some of the associated detail in the "Subdivisions and other units" seems to be primarily about coinage. There is already a coinage section in this article, and a dedicated article all about coinage, so do we really need this here too? Should we merge it to the other sections and keep this section brief? 86.133.247.82 (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious

The term sterling is derived from the fact that, about the year of 775, silver coins known as “sterlings” were issued in the Saxon kingdoms...

Although this sentence seems to have been copied almost verbatim (oops) from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, per the reference I just added, I'm not sure if it's correct. Lots of sources say that the term "sterling" (or "esterling") did not come into use until after the Norman conquest — either 12th or 13th century. The etymology section at Sterling silver seems to agree. I think an expert needs to review this whole paragraph. 81.152.169.30 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC).