Here are a number of significant errors with the historical data here : Humboldt quoted an 1801 Spot-prices in Choco & Paris, not the actual 1819 price.
The local price was in piastres (effectively, USD $1.) and weighed in local Spanish pounds (not avoirdupoids, etc.) But if we carefully recalculate from original sources with correct weights & currencies, some useful information about crude platina prices may be gleaned. For example, if Johnson & Matthey paid $25./pound avoirdupois for the refined output of the Russian mint, that wholesale (Russian) price was a low for the last 150 years.
The local price was in piastres (effectively, USD $1.) and weighed in local Spanish pounds (not avoirdupoids, etc.) But if we carefully recalculate from original sources with correct weights & currencies, some useful information about crude platina prices may be gleaned. For example, if Johnson & Matthey paid $25./pound avoirdupois for the refined output of the Russian mint, that wholesale (Russian) price was a low for the last 150 years.
1867: 1 Troy Oz. Platinum (refined, producer) = $ 1.56
and the price rose to
1877: 1 Troy Oz. Platinum (refined, producer) ~ $ 2.50
Citation: Journal of the Franklin Institute, Vol. 174, By Franklin Institute (Philadelphia, Pa.) p.548
It's ironic but not surprising that Gold or Silver partisans in the great currency debate misunderstood the failure of Platinum coinage in Russia. While the price record shows that platinum rose & fell several times, this late 19th Century commentator presumed the Russian coinage failed because of a rising price.
At the time, Russian platinum was smuggled out for industrial uses, but that wasn't the reason the coinage failed. Contrary to his suggestion, Rus resistance to the coins and a global price Crash panicked the Russian govt; the coinage was liquidated ("welded into masses") decades later, far below $8./oz. as imagined.
Citation: Common sense currency: A practical treatise on money in its relations to ... By John Phin (1894)
No comments:
Post a Comment