From Ha’pennies to a Farthing: Britain’s Pound Hits Historic Low

At primary school we chanted: “Two ha’pennies make a penny, 12 pennies make a shilling, 20 shillings make a pound.”

Generous aunts gave me half crowns. These were chunky silver coins worth two shillings and sixpence. They had a coat of arms on the reverse and would buy a mountain of sweets at Mr Keefe’s shop. Crowns were only minted for jubilees, but the half-crown enjoyed regular circulation. Pre-1920 ones were sterling silver – 92.5% pure – and those from 1920 to 1946 were 50% silver. As were the shilling, sixpence and the florin (two shillings). The modern 10p, successor to the florin, is half the size and is made of cheap steel, as you can test with a magnet. It’s coated with cupro-nickel so that it doesn’t go rusty.

Our coinage, I learnt, was based on Charlemagne’s magic number: 240 pennies to a pound. It’s magic because it’s divisible by so many other numbers – 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 20, 24, 30, 40, 60, 80, 120 – as well as itself. One hundred, the basis of the decimal system, is less versatile, being exactly divisible only by 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 25, 50 and itself. Hundreds and decimals better serve accountants. But, if you’re splitting loot among your war band, you can’t beat 120, 240, 480 and 960. You don’t need to keep chopping pennies into thirds.

There were ways to handle calculations with pounds, shillings and pence too. My father taught me, having lost patience with my primary school. I was nine or 10 at the time and decimalisation was still a few years away.

“You buy 1500 shares at ten shillings and sixpence,” he’d spring on me after dinner, looking over the broadsheet Daily Express. “How much is that?” 

“Er… 15,000 shillings… plus 1,500 sixpences, which are half a shilling, so that’s another 750 shillings… That’s 15,750 shillings… Now divide by 20 which is… um…” I’d blank, attempting long division in my head. Which you can’t do.

“What have I told you, David? Break the sum up. Ten bob (shillings) is half a quid. Fifteen hundred 10 bobs are £750. Yes? Then sixpence is 5% of 10 bob, so we add 5%. Ten percent would be £75, but it’s half that – £37 10s. Add £37 10s to £750 and you’re there – £787 10 shillings.”

“Now the broker charges you 2%. So how much is that?”

“If it was £800, it’d be £16 – £2 for every hundred, but the last hundred is an eighth short. So, that’s five bob less – £15 15 shillings.”

“Better. There’s 1% tax. How much is that?”

“Half of £15 15s. But it’s easier to halve £16 and subtract half a crown – so £7 17 shillings and sixpence.”

By the time I went to grammar school, I was as quick as he was. I forgot the logarithms and trigonometry that the grammar school taught me, along with the Latin. But the Old Man’s mental arithmetic remains.

His own father had grown to manhood before the Kaiser’s war, when you could enter a bank with a five pound note – there were no one pound notes until 1914 – and come out with five shiny sovereigns. Gold coins were routine. The penny was divisible too and would remain so until after Hitler’s War. Not only were there two ha’pennies to a penny, but also four farthings, meaning 960 to the pound.

And here is the point of this article. For a few days in January and now, more continuously, is has cost over £960 to buy a gold sovereign. In other words, the relationship of the ‘Pound in your Pocket’ to that old gold pound is now the relationship of the farthing to the sovereign in 1914: 960 to 1.

In terms of purchasing power, it’s not quite so bad. If you are buying goods, the Pound in your Pocket is still worth around tuppence ha’penny (i.e., 1p) according to the Bank of England. You might think that means that gold is ten-fold over-priced (1p = almost 10 farthings), but that’s debatable. House prices are now around 1000-fold higher than 1914, more or less matching the pound’s decline to a farthing. Admittedly, you do now get an inside toilet.  

What’s more, logic says that, if the supply of goods becomes more efficient whilst the gold supply is constant, or grows more slowly, then the price of goods in sovereigns should fall. Those were the conditions of the long 19th Century, from the end of Napoleon’s War (1815) to the start of the Kaiser’s (1914). Industrialisation made goods cheaper to produce. The steamship and the railway made them cheaper to transport. And – most vitally – innovation flourished.

Fiat to gold convertibility had been suspended during the French Wars and prices roughly doubled from 1790 to 1815. They then began to fall from 1816, when the first sovereigns were minted – replacing the pre-War guinea (21 shillings). In 1821, full convertibility was restored. By then consumer prices were around 11.5% of those that would prevail in 1974, when the modern price index was constructed. Across the subsequent 94 years to 1914, there were 48 years where prices rose and 46 where they fell. But the falls were, on average, bigger. On the eve of the 20th Century’s seminal disaster, in 1914, the index stood at 9.6, almost 20% lower than in 1820.

This downward drift was despite large – and potentially inflationary – increases in the supply of gold, from finds in California (1849), Australia (1850s), South Africa (1884) and the Yukon (1898). And, for anyone who asserts a deflationary gold standard stifles the economy – consider the progress of the 19th Century… What a gold standard does stifle is the ability of politicians to print and squander money.

Since the Kaiser’s War it has all been downhill. Unlike in 1821, the 1925 attempt to restore the Gold Standard was a failure, abandoned in 1931. On the eve of Hitler’s War, in 1939, a sovereign cost £2/2/10 (£2.14), meaning that the Pound in your Pocket stood at a little over nine shillings. Under the Bretton Woods system, which prevailed from 1945 to 1971, gold was set at $35 per ounce and the pound was progressively devalued from $4.00 to 2.40. Consequently, relative to a sovereign, containing just under a quarter ounce of gold, the Pound in your Pocket apparently declined from nine bob to five and sixpence. In truth it was worse. Exchange controls meant that the market was artificial. You needed a licence to own more than four gold coins.

Nixon’s abandonment of Bretton Woods ended this era and currencies began to float. By 1973 a sovereign cost over £8, meaning that the Pound in your Pocket was worth what half a crown had been worth in 1914. It went below the florin (two shillings) in the same year; under one shilling in 1977; and under sixpence in 1979, when the incoming Thatcher Government repealed the Exchange Control Act. From 2000 until the late Noughties – with Gordon Brown busily selling off gold reserves then promoting quantitative easing to save the world – the Pound in your Pocket hovered around three to five old pence, enjoying a period of heavily devalued stability.

It then resumed its slide.  

By 2019 the Pound in Your Pocket was consistently worth less than one old penny, with a sovereign costing over £240. The ha’penny barrier fell in 2024 and now the farthing. No lower value coin was ever in regular circulation in England.

David Livermore is a retired Professor of Medical Microbiology at the University of East Anglia.

Subscribe
Notify of

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

21 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
FerdIII
1 month ago

Our currency has lost 90% or so of its value in 100 years. But remember kids, inflation is always ‘2%’. No deviation from that ‘scientific fact’. And flooding the country with 30-40 million Muslims, Africans, Indians and whoeverians means costs go down, house prices decline and affordability of all products increases. You know it. BBC say, Teacher say, AI say, ‘Science’ say. Baa.

JXB
JXB
1 month ago
Reply to  FerdIII

2% inflate “rate”. Boasts by the current Muppet Chancellor that “inflation” is down is a lie. The rate might be reduced but inflation itself isn’t and continues, as you say, ever upward.

transmissionofflame
1 month ago

I’ve never really understood the obsession with money/currency. It’s just a means of exchange. What matters is what you can buy with what you earn, and how long it takes you to earn what you need/want.
Some aspects of life may well have got worse since the era of the farthing, but it seems obvious to me that the material aspects have got better. With different decisions those aspects would arguably have been even better.
I think the problem with fiat currency is that it’s more open to manipulation for political purposes and it is used to obscure the truth from the economically illiterate.

EppingBlogger
1 month ago

The reason it is so important is two fold.

Firstly many contracts (including the one with the Bank of England) are denominated in nominal money terms. If the elites devalue the money all asset holders lose but creditors gain unfairly. The biggest creditor to gain is the government. It borrows vast amounts to spend without accountability and cheats those who lend to it, Under Gordon Brown and successive Chancellors insurance companies and pension schemes have been all-but forced to inbvest in government bonds so losses through inflation are assured.

Secondly, because all financial transactions and values are expressed in money terms, the material change of its value deceives the public as well as economists, all journalists and most politicians. They see larger numbers today and assume that makes us better off.

transmissionofflame
1 month ago
Reply to  EppingBlogger

They see larger numbers today and assume that makes us better off.”

Shocking but sadly true.

Jack the dog
Jack the dog
1 month ago

I think the point is that debasing the currency TPTB aim to obfuscate the extent to which they are f***ing us.

Note to ferdiiii the currency has lost 99% of its face value in 100 years, not 90%.

transmissionofflame
1 month ago
Reply to  Jack the dog

I am not sure this “By 1973 a sovereign cost over £8, meaning that the Pound in your Pocket was worth what half a crown had been worth in 1914.” is overly relevant because you would have been getting paid more pounds. It just seems a silly argument to me. You ideally want the money supply to keep pace with the expansion of economic activity so I think you’d want to create some new money, just not too much. I don’t know what “TPTB are f***ing us” means in this context. I mean, I agree they are, in many ways, but I don’t know what exactly you intend here. My view of the ways they are “f***ing us” is too much taxation, regulation, welfare, immigration, net zero – all of those things have a real negative effect on our material wellbeing. I suppose there are people who think money and value are the same thing and think that printing it makes us better off, and I suppose if we had something more fixed it would be harder to think that, but I don’t think we can go back to that. It would be nice to think that people will become… Read more »

Howard Arnaud
Howard Arnaud
1 month ago

Not only does engineered inflation (i.e. money printing) represent a massive transfer of wealth from the productive class to the parasitic one (i.e. government), the financialisation of the economy, especially since the Big Bang, ensures that the main beneficiaries of unrestricted money creation are those who already have assets (shares, property), since this is where the excess flows to. That’s why we have extreme levels of wealth inequality in this country (and in the US of course).

The huge irony is that Socialist government, with the creation of a welfare state, inevitably leads to ever increasing national debt, which they try to inflate away by money printing, which leads to greater wealth inequality.

transmissionofflame
1 month ago
Reply to  Howard Arnaud

Exactly how does money printing disproportionately benefit the government and those who already have assets? Don’t most people own assets anyway at least through their pensions – most in the UK anyway?

What is “the financialisation of the economy”?

transmissionofflame
1 month ago

Most/many people in the UK own property, at least in part.

Howard Arnaud
Howard Arnaud
1 month ago

It was most, but I don’t think it is any more. Property is actually the biggest part of the picture, because most credit creation is extended by banks for the purposes of buying property. The banks make money by charging the borrower more in interest than the they incur if they borrow themselves.

Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why immigration is kept high, because without continually bidding up house prices (it’s really land speculation) the economy collapses.

And to get back to the point of the original article, property (house prices) are now losing money relative to gold.

transmissionofflame
1 month ago
Reply to  Howard Arnaud

Well the bubble does not seem to have burst just yet.

Howard Arnaud
Howard Arnaud
1 month ago

In the simplest possible terms, it’s using money to create more money, rather than using money to invest in productive capacity or things like spending on infrastructure which enhance productive capacity (if done right).

The switch from a manufacturing economy to a service-based one is the result. The UK economy is now dominated by things like banking, insurance, and related things like accountancy, all dubbed “financial services” and mostly concentrated in London and the SE.

You mentioned pensions. Everyone with a private pension or investment account will be paying an opaque annual management fee for the privilege. Whether those fees bear any relation to the cost of providing the service is impossible for the payer to ascertain. In effect what you end up with is the modern form of rent extraction, and as always, the money flows upwards. Why do you think executives in financial firms get such large salaries and bonuses?

transmissionofflame
1 month ago
Reply to  Howard Arnaud

Some of the money will be used to invest in productive capacity.

Executives in lots of firms get paid lots, and the cost of providing services and goods of all sorts is impossible to ascertain.

I’m a simple soul. If we continue to do useful work (and by useful I mean things people are prepared to pay for with their own money) we will prosper. If we do nothing, or dig holes and fill them in again, we will not.

I do agree though that if credit is too easy to obtain/too cheap or money is spent on rubbish by the state, our prosperity is undermined.

I think you have made the points that are important and need to be debated and understood better than the article did. Thanks for your answers.

CrisBCTnew
1 month ago
Reply to  Jack the dog

Around 99% is totally true. It’s indeed not just 90%

JXB
JXB
1 month ago

As inflation increases, asset prices increase with it, purchase power “what you can buy with it” decreases.

This is why a house bought for, say, £100 000 40 years ago now has a price of probably £1 million, and the mortgage of say £80 000 at the time, over its term has been reduced by inflation.

Whereas if the £100 000 had been kept in a suitcase it would have a purchase power of maybe around £10 000.

And that £80K mortgage might be three-times income, whereas today the £800 000 mortgage needed to buy the same property would be many times income. This is why so many young people cannot afford to buy.

Since inflation boosts price of assets, people with plenty of assets are least affected, people with fewer or no assets are affected most.

This is why Government policy of welfare funded by taxation, debt and money-printing supposedly to help the ubiquitous poor, actually makes them and the lower Middle-Class both groups having few if no assets poorer, and the wealthier with more assets, richer.

transmissionofflame
1 month ago
Reply to  JXB

Inflation also boosts wages of course, and the prices of other things that you may want to buy with your assets.

ChrisA
ChrisA
1 month ago

Having an overvalued currency doesn’t do you many favours, this is why Germany wanted the Euro as if i recall the Deurchmark was over valued limiting exports.
When I was young a pound would buy 5 chocolate bars, now it will struggle to get you one. The amount if work required to earn the equivelant hasn’t gone up in fact with excessive minimum wages its really gone down.
What is an issue is shrinkflation taking another cut and Net Zero.and deindusrialisation pushing up the cost of everything.

EppingBlogger
1 month ago
Reply to  ChrisA

Neither an over or undervalued currency is good over the medium or longer term. If the economy is fundamentally sound (ie, when it was – past tense) short term market changes or variance from fair value FX cause no problems.

NeilofWatford
1 month ago

Superb article, best I’ve seen on DS.
I was told the lifecycle of every civilisation can be measured by the quality of its coinage.
Rome, Greece etc also followed the pattern of lesser metal quality, and we know what happened to them …

JXB
JXB
1 month ago

6d bought a Mars Bar in the 50s/60s and 15/- bought the Sunday roast of beef. (That’s 2.5p and 75p respectively in today’s money.)

“… and the pound was progressively devalued from $4.00 to $2.40.”

In the 1950s it was cool among youngsters to call the half-crown, a half dollar, since $4 to £1 meant a crown was $1, thus 2/6 was half-a-crown and half-a-dollar.

I wonder if pre-decimal currency and imperial weights and measures and the mental acuity required to use them and make calculation, for every day things and in science and engineering, made for children and adults with better, more agile, analytical minds, and more intelligent thinking? Slide rules, log tables, reliance on mental arithmatic , etc instead of computers needed learning and exercise in order to use them.

Dividing by ten is effortless yet many cannot do it without a calculator, and computer programmes do the rest. Is this why we have a nation of dullards?