gross content of the piece is calculated from ( i.e. with or without allowance for alloy). As a matter of fact, hardly any two authorities or sets of calculations agree. See, for instance, duplicate sets of figures for Holland in Appendix 1. to Schimmel's Geschiedkundig overzicht ; or again, compare Soetbeer's figures with those deduced by Köhler in his Grundliche Nachricht ; or by Dr. Arnold Luschin, in the Proceedings of the Congrés International de Numismatique , 1880, p. 443; or with those deducible from Le Blanc's tables ( infra , Appendix VI.). It is to this difference that must be attributed the discrepancy Page xv in the statement of the ratio by the French Mint authorities in 1640 (see text, infra , p. 92 and note, ibid. ). The difficulty of calculating the European Mint ratio at any moment can be judged from the experience and statements of persons so widely apart as Sir Isaac Newton in England, Mirabeau and Calonne in France, and Morris and Hamilton in the United States (see infra , pp. 172-3, 229-30, and 251).
With regard to the scope of the present work, it is confined entirely to the history of metallic currency and standard. There is no reference to the paper-money experience of any country, not even America or Austria. Such a subject must form matter for a separate treatment. The