Re: Gold for VMs (WAS(Re: VMs: Mad Kircher, was (lots))

[Jacques Guy <jguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

17/09/2003 8:08:02 PM, Dennis <tsalagi@xxxxxxxx> wrote:


>	The silver ducats would be less 
>in value, very much is Jacques is comparing *silver* 
>francs to silver ducats.

I expect the silver ducat to be a much heavier,
much bigger coin. In those days, the ratio
gold-to-silver was much less than it is
nowadays too. So I would say that
a silver ducat would have had about the
same value as a gold ducat. Note that the
figures I quoted give the gold ducat at
about half a sovereign, and a sovereign
is a small coin. I have a 500 Balboa
silver coin somewhere in my collection,
and let me tell you, it's a biiiiiig
bastard! Must weigh half a kilo.

>> Now, 100 francs contained 32.258 grams of 90% gold
>> (a British pound, BTW, was 7.98805 grams of 91.(6)%
>> gold (11/12th, so: 22k). I'd count 1 ducat = 10 francs

>	Does this mean that 100 francs *always* contained 
>the amount of pure gold that Jacques mentioned?

>From the 19th century right up to the first World 
War. All European currencies were defined in
terms of gold content. That is why you could
pay your French gas bill in Russian gold rubles
(my encyclopaedia makes that clear). Or in
British pounds. Or in Mexican pesos.

In fact, the gold franc
survived until the New-Hebrides became independent
and called themselves 'Vanuatu'. Until then,
postage stamps were denominated in gold francs
(and the price you paid for one varied with the
price of gold!)


______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list