Some Interesting Facts About the 1787 Shillings and Sixpence.

BillJones

A 1787 King George III sixpence

A 1787 King George III shilling

If you have collected British coins from the reign of King George III, you are probably aware that the 1787 shilling and perhaps the sixpence, which is a little scarcer, are common coins. Not only is the 1787 shilling common, but it’s also often available in high grade, EF or better with Mint State pieces not that hard to find.

Many collectors assume that this was a feeble attempt by the British Government and Mint to alleviate the severe coin shortage which England was facing at that time. During King George III’s reign, the mint issued a shilling in 1763 and did not issue another one until 1787. It would not issue another shilling until the coinage reform era starting in 1816. The only other silver coins that British Government issued were the Maundy coins. Their mintage was so limited that it hardly made a dent in the coin shortage.

So why did the British issue shillings in 1787? The answer was that the Bank or England ordered them. The bank’s customers had been asking for coins that they could give as gifts at Christmas time. Silver pieces like the shilling and six pence were also cooked into plum puddings as “lucky surprise” the guest who found in his or her desert during the holiday season. When these requests came, the bank found that it had few coins to offer them, and most of those pieces were worn and unattractive. So the bank ordered the two silver coins.

One other problem that prevented the widespread requests and usage of British silver coins during this period was that they contained too much silver. The British were operating under the incorrect assumption that coins derived their value from their melt value. Economists call this “The commodity theory of money.”

Therefore the weight of the British silver was at little less than melt, given a small allowance for the expense of striking them. As soon as the price of silver increased, the coins naturally disappeared from circulation. Something similar happened to U.S. silver coins that are dated 1964 and earlier.

That was what happened to the 1787. The shillings and sixpences were given out as gifts, but they didn’t circulate. Therefore the coins are common today.

An 1816 King George III "reform sixpence"

An 1817 "reform shilling"

In 1816 the British finally realized that a coin did not derive its value from its melt value. The new, lower weight silver coins when into circulation and stayed there. The British would not need to address the issue again until the World War I era.

UpGrayedd

As always great write up. I love the history and information you bring to this forum.

pruebas

Interesting.

My Scottish ancestors always told me they used silver thropney bits (3P) for Christmas puddings, and I just read that this was indeed the case from after WWI until 1937, when the 3P was changed from silver to brass.

I still have a bunch of old silver 3P from them that they "rescued" from puddings in their childhood years.

Being so small, I wonder how many were accidentally swallowed (and passed through the digestive tract)?

It's pretty amazing how the world's economy was so stable for the hundred years prior to WWI.

SaorAlba

@pruebas The silver three bits were minted until 1945, the brass threenubs were first minted in 1937 and continued on through 1967. The three bits were .925 silver until 1920 then .500 silver until they stopped minting them in 1945. I literally own hundreds of them.

Clio

This is a great bit of history. I am unsure how I missed the post but happy to have found it. Thanks for the story!

MrEureka

If coins did not derive their value from the value of the metal contained, what gave them value? I can answer that question with respect to the modern world, but not sure the same answer works for 18th century Britain.

Sapyx

@pruebas said:
Being so small, I wonder how many were accidentally swallowed (and passed through the digestive tract)?

The "threepence in the pudding" tradition had one noteworthy side-effect: people always ate their pudding-slice very slowly and carefully, so as not to accidentally swallow the coin. Certainly taught the kids not to gulp down the dessert in a couple of bites.

When Britain switched to cupronickel sixpences in 1946, people found that the new alloy did not "cook" well at all. Many surviving silver threepences and sixpences were kept as the family hoard of silver "pudding coins", and such coins bear the marks of repeated baking and cleaning.

With the rising population and ever-increasing tendency to toss these "baked coins" into the scrap metal bins, people wishing to uphold this tradition have had to get creative. The RAM has in the past even made little silver threepence-sized and sixpence-sized "tokens" specifically for use in puddings. eBay example

Sapyx

@MrEureka said:
If coins did not derive their value from the value of the metal contained, what gave them value? I can answer that question with respect to the modern world, but not sure the same answer works for 18th century Britain.

The Coinage Act of 1816 pegged the pound to the gold standard, and limited the amount of silver money that could be exchanged in a single transaction. So gold sovereigns had "full metal value", but silver coins thus became a token coinage. They contained some of their value in intrinsic metal, but the rest came from faith in the British Empire and its ability to remain the dominant global superpower and keep winning wars. The surge in gold supply following the Australian gold rush and later in South Africa meant that Britain could keep up with the gold standard, exchanging overvalued silver coins for gold sovereigns on demand.

That "silver content" and "value of the currency" would become fully decoupled can be clearly seen in the relationship between the British pound and the Australian pound in the mid 20th century, once the gold standard finally collapsed after the Great Depression: despite the Australian coins having a higher silver content, the Australian pound was pegged to be worth less than the British pound.

Nap

I have this 1787 shilling, which is certainly unspectacular grade-wise, but which has this interesting die break on George's lower lip, making for a rather impressive 'soul patch' appearance.

SimonW

I love this post! Thanks for the history.

BillJones

@MrEureka said:
If coins did not derive their value from the value of the metal contained, what gave them value? I can answer that question with respect to the modern world, but not sure the same answer works for 18th century Britain.

Money works because people accept it. This has been true as long as there has been money, which is a substitute for barter. If the coins melt for more than their face value, they will not circulate. They will be hoarded and perhaps melted. Think of what happened to the vast majority of the U.S. gold coins that were issued before August 1834. Think of why the government reduced the weight of silver coins in 1853.

One of the reasons why gold coins did not have a value marked on them was that they were traded by weight, not face value. That’s why U.S. gold coins that had been filed or otherwise had reduced weight were rejected and not accepted at their face value.

Economists call the idea that a coin has to contain medal equal to their face value, “the commodity theory of money.” It’s an invalid theory for the reasons I mentioned.

ajaan

Nice informative.