Reading the Master’s column In Britain, what’s the difference between a pound and a guinea?, he states
So, 1 guinea in '63 is 20 shillings, and then 1 guinea in '95 is 30 shillings. This is then called an “inflationary” trend. Why is this inflationary? Inflationary means money is worth less, not more. In this case your 1 guinea can buy 50% more than it could originally. That’s deflation, not inflation.
Did the editor mess up Cecil’s column yet again? Or am I missing something here?
This is a bit ambiguous because it refers to two currency units. Cecil chose to use shillings as “money” in an intuitive sense and focus on the metal aspect of guineas. After all a guinea can be seen as just a piece of gold of a standard weight. From this perspective a shilling could buy less gold (metal) and so you have inflation.
Ah, so shillings were the common currency rather that guineas. And apparently shillings were not a gold currency (maybe silver instead?). Inflation/deflation sure is more complicated when you have metal-standard currencies.
The basic problem was that shillings were silver and guineas were gold. Whenever market conditions caused the prices of silver and gold to change relative to one another, the coinage got screwed up. This was a basic problem for most of history. The first workable solution was the Victorian Gold Standard, whereby gold coins were made of just enough gold, and silver coins were intentionally made worth less than their value. You had to trust that the government would continue to treat a shilling as one-twentieth of a pound (or that the US government would continue to treat a silver dollar as exactly equal to a gold dollar), but it cut off a lot of craziness in the markets. The modern solution, of course, is that all money is intrinsically worth less than it is supposed to be, and we trust the government for all of it.
Slight error in the column: the old penny, thrupenny bit, and sixpence were killed in 1971, but the one-shilling piece and the “florin” (two-shilling-piece) continued to circulate as exactly equal to five and ten New Pence.
Actually, more properly it was a threepenny bit, pronounced (‘thrup-e-ney’), thrupenny is a variant of threepenny (rather the other way around) – so both are correct but the first is the more usual spelling by a considerable margin.
The other thing about the article that popped out was the terminology in the first sentence of Para two:
“The guinea hasn’t existed as an actual unit of currency since 1813, when the last guinea coin rolled off the production line at the English mint.”
I have no idea of the dates but one could argue the guinea still “exists as an actual unit of currency” because, for example, horses are still traded in that unit at sales. Of course, “actual” cash and notes don’t change hands – which, I believe is Cecil’s point - but it is still a living currency in the sense that a horses sold for 100,000 guineas actually costs the owner the equivalent in £’s e.g. £105,000 (plus auction fee, etc).
But sure, I take the point the guinea has not been a physical currency for nearly two hundred years - would something like ‘physical’ be more appropriate than ‘actual’, I wonder ?
Bloody code! Smiley unintentional.
Slight nitpick … the old sixpence was re-denominated as 2.5p from 30 August 1971, although I can’t remember, nor find a cite for, when it was finally withdrawn.
In that case, it is no longer a unit of currency. It is a unit of account.
Sounds reasonable. But I think the point could be qualified to assist the reader in avoiding an oversimplified conclusion.
Interesting. I found on another page that it remained in circulation “for some years”, but I know that in August of 1972, I spent two weeks in London without encountering one of them (and they’d been the most common coin except the penny before decimalization), so I can only conclude that they must have disappeared at once into the hands of collectors. I suppose the shilling and florin were demonetized in 1990 and 1993 when their lookalike 5p and 10p brethren were replaced by the current small versions.
And shame on the webmaster at the Royal Mint for not listing farthings! I know they were demonetized long before decimalization, but it wasn’t that long before.
I just wonder what the illustration has to do with the column. It looks like an organ grinder (w’ monkey) holding a giant carrot.
Manduck is correct. It’s a stereotype “Italian” organ grinder beating himself on the head with a carrot.
I really don’t want to speculate on how that would be connected with “Guineas”…
I think he’s supposed to be "pound"ing himself…
Come to think of it, “guinea” is a slang epithet for an Italian. Pejorative, I think, but I dunno. I still don’t get the carrot, though.
“24 carrot”. :rolleyes:
Real bad. 
I would like to know where you got this from as I have never seen an advert that used the term ‘guinea’ to advertise anything seeing as no-one would have any idea of what they were on about.
Speaking from memory, I think I spent my last “tanner” (sixpence) around 1975. From hearsay, I think farthings bit the dust around 1963 (I was born in 1960).
As for guineas, I think shops used the term (for 21 shillings) right up to decimalisation in 1971. It made prices appear lower, because people always mentally converted a guinea to a pound. And my grandmother used the term until she passed away in 1997. 
Cecil wrote this column in 1977, when guinea may still have been used in advertising.
I can say from my own memory that this was true as late as 1969. I remember in particular a common Underground advertisement for Phillishave (that’s “Norelco Shavers”, this side t’pond) featuring a stereotype bearded Scotsman in a greatkilt; it quoted the price in guineas and then added some nonsense on the order of “Hoot, mon, that’s only a few bawbees.”
“Make it guineas!” was also something of a traditional auction overbid.
And, of course, if I called myself “foolspound,” it would make no sense to the ear at all. Then again, for most people, there’s no difference there…