British pounds
 

Just found out recently that Britain discontinued the one pound note sometime in the early 80s, replacing it with a one pound coin. Since the U.S. has both a one dollar note and a one dollar coin, I wonder why Britain felt they had to get rid of the note. Any ideas?

very simple - you do notice that almost no one uses the US$1 coin. Why - because there are still bills. <BR><BR>Coins would save the treasury millions of dollars a year, but if they do not withdraw the paper versions they will never fly . . . .

<BR><BR>Thank you janis. That makes sense.

Because of inflation, the pound note became small change. The notes wore out very quickly and got very dirty. I worked in a post office and packs of one pound notes stank to high heaven.<BR>It wouldn't surprise me if the five pound note went the same way.

Because the Brits have brains; something sorely lacking in the US.<BR><BR>The treasury would save millions if they discontinued the one dollar bank note; it makes absolutely no sense given what things cost and the necessity of setting up bill receptacles in vending machines....if our Treasury Department had any brains they would discontinue the $1 and $2 bank notes and mint $1 and $2 coins that looked substantial...not like the stupid half assed coin they put out. A British one pound coin is nice and thick and feels like something and can't possibly be confused with a smaller coin. You certainly can't say the same about US 1 dollar coins. We should do just like Canada where they have a $1 coin called the looney and a $2 coin called the twoney...<BR><BR>At the same time, the US should get rid of the imbecilic Farenheit scale and the even more imbecilic imperial system of measure. It's abpit time the US stopped acting like its way is always best (far from it with coins and measures).....

Every time I return from visiting Canada or England, I return home concluding that life would be so much simpler here if we followed their lead regarding coinage.

Again with the &quot;Americans are so stupid&quot; rant? <BR><BR>Americans, like the British people, strongly prefer notes to coins. They are easier to carry around and don't make noise in your pocket or weigh you down. Is that really so stupid?<BR><BR>The difference is that Americans have a choice-- coins or bills-- and the Brits don't have a choice.<BR><BR>I suppose that it is &quot;smart&quot; to take popular choice away, right XYZ? That is what the British government did-- they had to eliminate the pound note, because if they didn't those stupid British people would have insisted on continuing to use those stupid notes.

Let's not forget that until 1971 the British had pounds, shilling, and pence instead of decimal coinage. I guess they were as stupider than Americans until then, but suddenly their IQs skyrocketed.<BR><BR>BTW, in Scotland there are still pound notes.<BR><BR>

Sometimes people have to be led, like it or not, into the 21st century. It simply no longer makes sense to continue having a $1 bank note. As stated, it would save the treasury millions. The point is sometimes you can learn something from others rather than continuing to do it your own way.<BR><BR>Best example....in New York, you get buy a metrocard to get 11 subway fares for the price of 10...you can also use a machine that dispenses metrocards. Finally there is a one day metrocard available for 24 hour period for $4...3 rides cost more if bought as sigles. Yet if you dip your head into the New York subway, you will see ignorant people continuing to queue with empty metrocard vending machines feet away to buy token which cost $1.50 each and swear they won't be caught dead using metrocards. Believe me, two days after the city did away with tokens, nobody would be complaining. Same thing with the one dollar bank note......a week after it was done, people would wonder why it took so long to join the 21st century.

to Give me a break: MOST of the people who have posted on this thread ARE Americans. We have traveled to the UK and Canada and find it ludicrous that the US Treasury thinks the $1 coin can work without withdrawing the dollar bill. A $1 coin makes much more sense.

XYZ if the Brits are so fabulously 21st century with their coins, temperatures and measures, why do they refer to their body weight in &quot;stones&quot;? I was in England in 2001, 2002 and monitor ananova.com and the use of &quot;stones&quot; is still common. I'm not sure but I think a stone is 14 pounds. Where's the sense in that?

&quot;not so fast&quot;<BR><BR>We agree that if the Treasury does not withdraw the dollar bill the dollar coin will never be widely used. That is precisely my point. <BR><BR>When people have a choice, they overwhelmingly prefer dollar bills to dollar coins. When the government robs people of the choice, as they did in Britain, then the government's subjects (I use that term deliberately) will accept the dollar/pound coin only because they no longer have an alternative.<BR><BR>To disregard public opinion on this point strikes me as cheap and tyrannical.<BR><BR>Can you explain why you think the overwhelming public preference for dollar bills rather than coins is so stupid? Do you enjoy walking around with lots of coins in your pockets? I don't.<BR><BR>The ONLY argument in favor of the dollar coin-- what apparently makes it so &quot;inevitable&quot; and so &quot;21st century&quot;-- is that they are cheaper to make. Big deal.<BR><BR>Australia and some other countries are now starting to use plastic bills instead of paper. Now that might not be a bad idea. But take your dollar coins. Please.

In Australia we also replaced our 1 &amp; 2 dollar notes with coins years ago. I quite like teh plastic style notes too - they;re very durable (&amp;in a funky range of colours!)

In Australia we also replaced our 1 &amp; 2 dollar notes with coins years ago. I quite like the plastic style notes too - they're very durable (&amp; in a funky range of colours!)

In the UK we now have a 5 pound coin - not widely in circulation, rather like the 1 dollar US coin - but it's there. I always thought the 1 dollar bill was still in circulation purely for bar tips!!

&gt;BTW, in Scotland there are still pound &gt;notes.<BR><BR>No there aren't. We kept them a bit longer than the English but gave them up probably for the same reasons.<BR>The Welsh, Scotttish and English pound coins are all different with differeny symbols on them but of course are legal tender all over the UK.<BR>

Scot - yes there are still pound notes in Scotland, I have one in my wallet that I got there a couple of weeks ago. Only the Royal Bank of Scotland prints them, though - the others gave up about 10 years ago.<BR><BR>I think the only reason RBS kept them was for some sort of nationalistic point - the Bank of England technically doesn't control currency supply in Scotland and RBS is just underlining this point.

&gt;I'm not sure but I think a stone is 14 &gt;pounds. Where's the sense in that? <BR><BR>By the same token, where's the sense in having pounds? 16 ounces to the pound, what's the sense in that? Perhaps we should all measure our weight in ounces.<BR>

We've regularly changed note designs, notes to coins, and coin sizes and designs on grounds of cost-effectiveness and keeping ahead of the forgers. There are always complaints, because no-one likes having to adjust. <BR><BR>As for stones, well, wouldn't you rather be 11 or 12 of something than 150/170, or whatever?<BR><BR>But we are stuck between imperial and metric measures for quite a lot of things. Building supplies, timber and so on have been metric for years, but people still ask for 1200 mill (oh yes, it's all millimetres, not metres or centimetres) of four by two, or vice versa. We get by.

Patrickw, I like your view! I'd much rather be 11 or 12 of something because then I could round DOWN almost 14 pounds.

Here in Canada we wer one of the first to replace our Northern Peso (sorry, the mini-dollar) with a coin. Rumour has it they mailed the dies from Ottawa to the mint in Winnipeg- and Post Canada lost them in the mail. Hence, they went to plan &quot;B&quot;, and we have a loon on the coin instead of a voyageur canoe like our old silver dollar.<BR><BR>Of course, when people started calling the coin a &quot;loonie&quot;, the no-sense-of-humour treasury people had to decide on a design for the two dollar coin that couldn't be made fun of. They picked the polar bear for the opposite side from the ueen's head. This lead to the suggestion that it be called a &quot;moonie&quot; - there's the queen face on the front with a &quot;bear&quot; behind.<BR><BR>Actually, it's widely known as the twoonie, hence the explanation about Canada's loonie-twoonie economy.<BR><BR>Then there's the joke that when the British pound coin first came out, it was suggested that it be called the &quot;thatcher&quot; - because it's thick and brassy and thinks it's a sovereign. (what was a sovereign? A gold coin worth 21 shillings? Gotta be british to truly appreciate the joke, I guess...)<BR><BR>A far less politically correct joke surrounds the &quot;Sagamach&quot;(?) US dollar coin's political corrrectness, where a &quot;buck&quot; is replaced by a... (well, you figure it out).<BR><BR>As far as shillings, pence, and pounds - 4 farthings to the pence, 12 pence to the shilling, 20 shillings (240 pence) to the pound; back in the middle ages, when many were hard of counting and couldn't do math, and didn't have calculators...<BR>The pound was divisible by 2,3,4,5,6,8,10, 12, 15, 20... obviously very practical. For 7 and 9, you could use sovereigns (21 shillings?). This historical trivia is part of the charm of visiting foreign countries. Unfortunately, the old system did not work as easily as decimal with computers.

Maurice - a great overview of pre-decimal coinage! Just one point, a guinea was 21 shillings (still seen in the name of various horseraces), and a sovereign the original pound coin, when it was made of gold. <BR><BR>Half crowns (2 shillings and sixpence) were nice coins too. Worth quite a lot in 1972! 12.5 p now....

OK, the definitive answer is.... Coins last longer than notes, and therefore stay in circulation longer. The average lifespan of a banknote is six months. There is no real life expectancy of a coin. An example is the 10p and 5p. Until the smaller versions of these coins were introduced in the 1990's, some coins from the 1940's onwards were still legal tender (shillings were 5p and florins or two shilling coins were 10p).<BR>As for arguments as to who are smarter; as a Brit, I love the way that you can put dollar bills into soda vending machines in the US. We are very muddled here with regards weights and measures. We buy petrol in litres but still talk about the price of a gallon and drive in miles (imagine the stupidity in working out lites per mile). It is now law to have our meat/cheese etc measured at the delicatessen in grammes but still ask for half-pounds etc!<BR>One genuine question for you Americans - why do you never use the Kennedy Half Dollar?

TTT

I can give you a partial answer to your question. My parents must have more than $500 worth of Kennedy fifty cent pieces at home in various jars. People just hoard them and don't circulate them-- the Kennedy mystique, perhaps.

The pound coin in the UK would not have been used by very many people if the pound note had been withdrawn. I know many people who are still annoyed by this. But you have to admit, the coins are much more convenient than the bills.<BR><BR>That's the only way we'll switch to the dollar coins here in the US.<BR><BR>We don't always like what's good for us.

What a stupid thread. There is such great value in arguing the IQ of Americans vs. Brits.<BR><BR>The real reason we haven't eliminated the $1 bill is to keep strippers poor. With no $1 bill, we'd have to start slipping fives into their g-strings. It's an evil plot, a vast right/left wing conspiracy. The right wants to keep them poor, the left just wants a better deal.

Rachel:<BR><BR>If I bought your &quot;convenience&quot; argument then you would have a point. But I don't agree that coins are more convenient; just the opposite is true.<BR><BR>Dollar coins are clearly inconvenient for the vast majority of ordinary people-- if they were more convenient we would use them and paper money would die a natural death.<BR><BR>It may be true that we should do some things not because we want to but because they are good for us. That might apply to eating vegetables, but it has little to do with why I should have to fill my pockets with more heavy change... how is that good for me?

Because it is a hell of a lot easier when a soda costs $1.25 in a vending machine to put in a dollar coin and a quarter than to try to stuff a bill into one of those contraptions which reject half the bills put in any way or to put in 5 quarters. It's a lot easier to reach into your pockets to get coins rather than to have to take out your billfold, showing the world where you keep it, to fish out a $1 bank note.

Dear &quot;Genius&quot;<BR><BR>You are perfectly free to use dollar coins if you want to. All I ask is that you give me a choice.

ttt

Thought this was obvious!<BR>Every country must get rid of lower denomination notes &amp; replace with coins - inflation forces this.<BR>No developed country uses notes regularly for small amounts like $1.<BR>The only odd man out is the US - even though they have introduced a coin NO PRESIDENT WILL BE THE ONE TO END THE DOLLAR BILL!<BR>Simple.

Poland and Hungary still use 1 notes - they have not gone to coins yet.

Poland &amp; Hungary will soon be changing to the euro coin.

When exactly Frank?? Poland and Hungary have applied to join the European Union. Their application (along with other states such as Cyprus and Turkey) have yet to be agreed, although the &quot;yes&quot; vote in Ireland recently will make that ratification almost guaranteed. BUT, what makes you think that they are soon to adopt the Euro? Countries have to satisfy economic rules to join the Euro - which is one of the reasons Britain has not joined(the other main reasons are that the UK was not in the ERM as we came out on &quot;black wednesday&quot;, and that the people of Britain simply do not want the Euro - as the Norwegians didn't). Perhaps you have some information that could be of use to George Brown (UK Chancellor of the Exchechor)?

Jeff:<BR><BR>I have had the impressio that there is agreat deal of sentiment in the UK not to adopt the Euro for person prestige reasons that being the loss of the pound wouldjust be another indication of how the mighty have fallen. Others tell me that's not the case that the average person in the street couldn't care less....<BR><BR>I'm just curious of your feeling and the feeling of other UKers about the adoption of the Euro.....

Jeff - Poland &amp; Hungary would use the Euro in a second if they were invited.<BR>This is because they have weak economies &amp; weak currencies and are desperate to secure the protection of the EC.<BR>Its also why they should not be compared with the US vis-a-vis the lowest value notes - which is the main subject of the post.I still say the US is the last developed country to use low-denomination notes, because the pres is scared.<BR>If you believe that the UK isn't being allowed to join the Euro you are crazy.The &quot;economic rules&quot; are internal to the UK &amp; are only there to avoid the gov having to confront its critics until they have they people on their side.The rest of the EC would LOVE the UK to join.<BR>The people dont want to because...well what would be the reaction in the US if they were told to convert to the peso?Get it?

Hi Jeff<BR><BR>I think you may be a little confused about many things in you message. George Brown being one of them, perhaps you mean GORDON Brown the Chancellor, easliy confused with Eddie GEORGE the Governor of the Bank of England.<BR><BR>Anyway, in answer to the question Coins last, notes don't...(as previosuly suggested) and I don't find it an infringement of my rights not to have pound note. They were tatty and smelly.

Staying out of the Euro makes sense for Brits because:<BR>#1 Politics. We dont feel entirely European, we are an island race and most people have no great desire to be in a United States of Europe, which is what many European politicians are building towards.<BR>#2 Economics. Britain is the either the 4th, 5th or 6th (depending on who you believe) largest economy in the world. Therefore it is more than big enough to sustain its own currency. Staying out enables us to set our own interest rates and be more free with our economic policies.<BR><BR>Reasons for joining the Euro:<BR>#1 Politics. It makes us &quot;Good Europeans&quot;. Whatever that means and what it offers I don't know...<BR><BR>#2 Economics. Couple of valid pro's here. We do a lot trade with EU countries, and the introduction of a single currency would make that easier. Inward investment is very very high into the UK from outside the EU, there are strong arguments that say it will start to slide if we remain outside the Euro.<BR><BR>So there you have it. I know what way my vote would go if we ever get into a referendum, and it would be to stay out...<BR><BR>...and BTW ditch the $1 note, and we should ALL start using the metric system - stones, pounds, gallons, and miles should be consigned to history!

I listened to a political commentator yesterday call Gordon Brown &quot;George Brown&quot;, and I thought - &quot;What an idiot&quot;, and then I go and do it myself!!!!<BR>There is always the stupid argument in the UK that we do not want the Euro because we won the war! But there is also the reasoned argument that most people use. If there were to be a referendum on the issue today (and I'm making an assumption that the question would not be a loaded one by Blair), then about 65% of the British would vote against. Alistair makes the point very well as to the reasons. The British do not want to see a &quot;United States of Europe&quot;, which was again proposed last week (dual nationality along with 2 passports was the suggestion). We also do not think that you can standardise economies from, say, Ireland to Greece to the Netherlands - that includes interest rates, inflation and VAT. This is the point with the Eastern Bloc countries attempting to join - the economies are not always stable enough. Each country DOES have to satisfy economic criteria, although the rules change when it's Germany or France in trouble (as happened recently when the German GDP did not add up).<BR>There is talk that the British would prefer a trade triangle with the US/Canada and Australasia. One thing is for sure - if a Federal Europe was suggested tommorow, then the UK would come under pressure to quit the EU. After all, it has not done Switzerland any harm to never join.