Re: [CR] Making sense of old British prices---addendum photos

(Example: Framebuilders:Tony Beek)

Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 07:04:23 -0800 (PST)
From: "Peter Jourdain" <pjourdain@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [CR] Making sense of old British prices---addendum photos
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
In-Reply-To: <81312.3373.qm@web52611.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


Thanks, Alan, for the clarification on the Churchill CROWN. You are most certainly correct. I guess I subconsciously tilted toward "pound" when I typed instead of "crown." Glad I never had to work with the old money system, though the coins back then were much prettier, as were the bicycles.

Peter Jourdain
Whitewater, Wisconsin USA


--- On Thu, 12/4/08, Alan Lloyd wrote:


> From: Alan Lloyd <adl2k@yahoo.com>

\r?\n> Subject: Re: [CR] Making sense of old British prices---addendum photos

\r?\n> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org

\r?\n> Date: Thursday, December 4, 2008, 9:18 AM

\r?\n> It isn't a "Churchill pound coin", it is a

\r?\n> (Churchill) crown: five shillings (5/-), four to a pound.

\r?\n>

\r?\n> The pound coins weren't introduced until quite a while

\r?\n> after decimalisation in 1971 (when?) and led to the

\r?\n> replacement of the pound note, a move that still hasn't

\r?\n> been made successfully in the USA with the dollar bill!

\r?\n>

\r?\n> And in answer to an earlier question about crowns (NB: the

\r?\n> slang for these was a dollar, from when the exchange-rate

\r?\n> was 4.03 dollars to the pound in the 1940s), they were still

\r?\n> legal tender (IE: they could be used) but were actually only

\r?\n> issued for 'ceremonial' purposes and, as such,

\r?\n> collected.

\r?\n>

\r?\n> Alan Lloyd

\r?\n> Schaumburg, Illinois, U.S.A.