Talk:£sd

message: 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)
thread_title:  Untitled 2004 comments 

message: £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)
thread_title:  Writing Conventions - addendum 

message: ::Like every historical metrology entry I notice on Wiki this one is just a mess.  walraiad has read very few accounts - nor has anyone I notice trying to contribute to wiki.  I have no wish to turn myself into a wiki editor - but am happy to advise if anyone wants to try fix any of the current mess Rob Tye (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: 2022

message: £14.8s.2d (fourteen pounds, eight shillings and twopence – pronounced 'tuppence'  – in columns of figures.
 Commonly pronounced as "fourteen pound(s) eight and two")
 Commonly read "fourteen pound(s) eight and two")
There appear to be two points to settle here:
* The disputed phrase refers to the way the sum is spoken.  I was not responsible for the original word "pronounced", indeed I think "spoken" or "said" would be better.  The way any individual actually reads it is slightly subjective, depends upon the extent to which they internally verbalise and I would suggest to you irrelevant in this context.
* "fourteen pounds, eight shillings and twopence" is not the same as "fourteen pound(s) eight and two", the shillings and pence have disappeared, any Briton used to the old currency would silently understand them from the context.  I further suggest to you therefore that the "as" is not illogical in your terms.  At the risk of opening a can of worms, an "as" would not sound incorrect to British ears before the "tuppence".
I have a feeling that there is an AmE/BrE conflict here, hence my reference to WP:TIES which would indicate that an article on a British currency ought to follow British English.
Kwamikagami and myself are clearly in disagreement here, can other editors please review the matter and help us reach consensus.  Thanks, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "pronounced as" vs "read" 

message: It seems that there are one character BSI representations for shillings and pence, but I don't know where to find them. I suspect mostly used for computer, likely punched card, data entry. There is also an IBM representation for pence. Gah4 (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that some is in Collected Information on Punched Card Codes, though I don't know the answer above yet. Gah4 (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ¶4.4 seems to have the answer.  For shillings (0-19) row 11 (IBM) or X is punched for 10/-, so that for instance 15/- would be punched as X-5.  For pence (0-11) X is 10d and Y 11d. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: IBM calls the top row zone 12, at least since S/360 in about 1963, but here it is called 10. The IBM PL/I compilers from OS/360 days know how to do this, but don't document the codes, other than call it BSI. There is also a different IBM code for pence. Gah4 (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: IBM Operating System/360 COBOL Language page 143, indicates that Sterling is an IBM extension to COBOL. It also describes the picture descriptors.  For Pence, there is BSI form and IBM form, which exchange the meaning of the 12 and 11 punch rows. IBM uses two digits for Shillings, BSI uses one, as noted above. What I didn't consider above, though, is that 10 shillings is just the 12 punch, not 12 and 0. Decimal fractions of pence are also allowed. Gah4 (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  representation 

message: No 3p coin was issued (other than as part of Maundy).  Monetarily it could neither replace the 3d bit (1.25p) nor the tanner (2.5p).  Please stop adding reference to this illusionary coin. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: And there's loads of other anecdotal stuff being added by the same user, all unreferenced. I've tagged the section. Bazza (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  3p coin 

message: I don't recall ever seeing the decimal point or full stop used in old money (e.g. £14.8s.2d in our article).  I would have used spaces or solidi.  Have I forgotten this usage because of decimalisation.  Was it common?  Dbfirs 19:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Unusual, but IIRC not unknown. Probably best not to call it a decimal point though, it's more a case of using a full stop as a separator.  Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The full stop was used after the abbreviations s. and d. but I regard it as very unusual after a number of £.  Does anyone have any objection if I replace it with spaces in the article?  Dbfirs 20:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't use spaces.  Remember that most money amounts at that time would have been hand written or typed and the risk of confusing £11 8s 2d with £1/18/2 or of confusing £14 18s 2d with £141/8/2 was very real.  Personally I always used the solidus, but then as a youngster I rarely met pounds outside maths lessons.  You could argue that a solidus separating pounds from shillings is etymologically unsound, in which case use central dots (£14·8·2), hyphens (be ready for the EmEn brigade) or the centralised '"' sign if you can find it on a computer. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Central dots would be even worse because that's where a written decimal point went.  You are correct that the usage does appear in old documents occasionally.  What about adding a space after the dot to reduce possible confusion?  (£14. 8s. 2d.)  I used to use a long dash on cheques so that nothing could be inserted. Dbfirs 21:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's much better.  I've just been reading a set of 13thC city accounts and the transcriber included things such as £1 17s. in a list.  It is incredibly easy to misread that when scanning the list for the most significant items. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The Drury Lane price list photo at £sd shows both solidus and hyphen in use. The hyphens are so short, though, that they could be mistaken for interpuncts. Given the choice, I'd opt for (IOOP) £14/8/2, £14-8-2, £14·8·2, or £14.8.2. Nice images at  show dots in various imprecise positions being used for handwritten amounts, including the satisfying 7321.6.1. Googling for images shows a varied set of options depending on units needed: £14-8-2, £14/8/2, even £14:8:2. For a lesser number of units, 8/2, 8/2d, 8/2; single units generally showing a suffix 8s, 2d, 2. Most often a hyphen was used for signifying absence 8/-. Bazza (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

text: The full stop, when used, simply denoted that the "s" or "d" was an abbreviation, so should be followed by a space.  There should not be a full stop after the pounds amount (nor after the £ symbol).  Spaces were usual, although I do seem to recall full stops sometimes being used as separators when there were no 's's or 'd's, as in your £14.8.2.  The oblique stroke should only appear after the shillings: where there were no pence, it was often written "/=", as in £2 8/=, or a 10/= note.  Someone suggested that the oblique is a corruption of a long S, which has a certain plausability.  I note that in the Drury Lane board shown, the obliques are dropped when pounds are quoted, decoratively replace by somethinglike inverted commas.  Simon 90.241.238.38 (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of decimal point in £sd 

message: The old pennies, the denarii, is a Latin word, so should be in italic, ‘d’ not ‘d’. Ideally the wikitext “d” would produce the italic or oblique. JDAWiseman (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  £sd were always treated as ordinary type.  Some 19C books seem to use 6d, but every 20C one I've seen would set it as 6d.  What were you taught in primary school?  I was certainly shown it as Roman. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I’m just too young to remember using old pence. But in writing a book on Vintage Port, many if not most of the quoted prices, when using old pennies, seemed to italicise the d. But even if that’s so, your opposition is enough to ensure that it isn’t consensus. JDAWiseman (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a case of familiarity.  Who these days would italicise "etc"?  It may have originally been an abbreviation for et cetera, but today is virtually an English word in its own right.  Likewise if you travelled to Dover via London it would look strange. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If it’s familiarity, well, nowadays who is familiar with d? Hence must be italicised. JDAWiseman (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's nothing to do with familiarity. WP works using references. Here are three showing catalogue entries for stamps with non-italicised "d" in the catalogues' text:    . And three more for coinage, similarly presented:    Bazza (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very fair. Interesting mix of ‘d’ and ‘D’. JDAWiseman (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  By familiarity I was meaning how the language and typography changes generally, not my personal familiarity.  : who is familiar? – anyone over the age of 60 which is not that ancient. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

text: I am familiar with 'd', and I do not recall it ever being italicised. Simon 90.241.238.38 (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typesetting d 

message: So, I rewrote parts of the lede and completely rewrote the origins section, to underline its history beyond Britain. I have references to add, and will be adding them shortly. I might also expand the "decimalisation" section to summarize the various competing proposals circulating in the 19th C. Britain to decimalize the currency, but it might overwhelm the article a bit, so I might spin it into a separate article.  In the meantime, I want to ask the lede to be revised and shortened, moving some of the content to a different parts of the article, as some of it (particularly the history) is repetitive.  I also think the ordering should be revised - decimilisations section should really be at the end, and bottom sections on specifically British usage should be brought up and expanded with material from the lede.  Walrasiad (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please consider a section on how it affected the reasoning, ahead of the introduction of the €, of the switch from the national currency units. JDAWiseman (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: quote "Charlemagne defined the Carolingian "libra", as a new measure of weight equivalent to around 489.6 grams (substantially larger than the old Roman pound of 328.9g). Charlemagne ordered 240 silver units known as "denarius" to be struck from the new Carolingian pound of pure silver, each denarius containing 22.5 grains of silver."
- so one new Carolingian libra is 489.6 grams and is divided into 240 denarius then that makes 489.6 g/240 = 2.04 gram per denarius
- one denarius "contains 22.5 grains" but 22.5 grains = 1,451496 grams
-- so clearly that doesn't work. what is it? both can't be right
mar178.202.247.212 (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hm. You're right. It mixes two different sources, at two different times, with two different pounds. The Carolingian dictate is as above (489.6/240), which would have been a denarius of 31.5 grains. The 22.5 grains of silver refers to the later standardization of the denarius by William the Conqueror. Although the L.s.d. accounting was imported, the heavy Carolingian pound of 489.6 did not last and Anglo-Saxons came up with a lighter pound.  Offa's penny during Anglo-Saxon times fluctuated between 18 and 27 grains.  After the conquest, Bill ordered it standardized at 22.5 grains.  So post-conquest English used a lighter "Tower pound" of 350g. That yields 350g/240 = 1.458333g, which is 22.51 grains (William's 22.5).   William's standardization was not really liked at the time, as it was below the Saxon penny of 24 grains on the eve of the conquest which many were used to.  So many English dealers and artisans, notably silversmiths and jewelers, eschewed Bill's pound and adopted the "pound of Troyes" (used in Champagne fairs) as their own.  The "pound of Troyes", or "Troy pound", was 373g, which yielded ratio 373/240 = 1.554g = 24 grains of pre-conquest times (but with Troy accounting in 'ounces' inverting the Carolingian shilling ratios, i.e. it is 20d to 1 Troy ounce and 12oz. to 1 Troy pound).  Walrasiad (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  math doesn't add up 

message: Now that consensus has restored the name of this article, I'm thinking it would make more sense to create a separate article from the redirect at Carolingian monetary system which would focus on the monetary reform instigated by Charlemagne and its subsequent impact and development into the various European systems. That would naturally include the £sd system, but as an overview only, with this as the main article which I will leave to other editors to improve as they see fit. Let me know if there are any objections, otherwise I'll begin work on that, taking note of the helpful comments above. Bermicourt (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving forward 

message: In light of the consensus to restore the title of the article to "£sd" I've reverted my edits to restore the article to its original state before I began editing it. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration of original article