Tell me more ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

These days we pretty much take it as a given that gold is more valuable than silver. The obvious example is the Olympics and other such competitions that give "gold" medals for first place and "silver" for second.

When I was younger I read somewhere that silver was actually rarer than gold in Europe, up until the Spanish started exploiting the New World silver mines, and the massive infusion of silver into Europe devalued it.

I haven't ever seen that stated since, so I doubt its true. However, I did find a reference that silver was in fact rarer in Egypt during the Old Kingdom.

So it seems there probably were extended periods in literate areas where silver was more valuable than gold. What (and when and where) were they?

share|improve this question
I'm tempted to suggest checking out Empress Anna Ioannovna's time in Russia, I know for sure they had silver coinage but not certain it was due to higher value than gold. – DVK Jul 24 '12 at 18:50
@DVK - It could just be because silver was much more plentiful (and thus available for making lots of coins). Also, a lot of countries liked to hoard gold in case of war, and making coins out of it would make that tough. I think that's why the British currency was silver-based. – T.E.D. Jul 24 '12 at 19:19
Almost certainly NOT due to plentifulness. Most of the silver used for official royal coin was imported as far as I know. Discover of local silver sources DID happen during Anna's reign (Demidov??? don't recall) but well after the silver coin from imported silver was minted. – DVK Jul 25 '12 at 2:37
I'm pretty sure this happened in ancient Rome for a short time, after great deals of gold plunder were brought to the city. I can't immediately remember which war this was in, sorry. – Charles Aug 2 '12 at 19:30

1 Answer

up vote 12 down vote accepted

From "The origin of metallic currency and weight standards" By Sir William Ridgeway (Google books); University Press, 1892

... We saw that the Arabs of the Soudan down to the present day prefer silver to gold whilst in the earlier part of the present century when Japan was opened to European commerce the Japanese eagerly exchanged gold for silver at the rate of one to three and even less as they possessed no native silver and were charmed with the beauty of the little known metal.

.

... It is almost certain that in all countries at one stage silver must have been of higher value than gold.

Afterwards as its production became greater it became equal in value and finally little by little much less valuable until at last the relation between the metals is 1/22.

All this on pages 145/146; the earlier pages give some historical document references for these.

share|improve this answer
Some points about this answer: 1) Like it in general (so +1). 2) The Marco Polo part I'd say doesn't count, as it still shows gold being worth 5 or 6 times more than silver. 3) I think the last quote is probably true, as silver doesn't appear naturally pure like gold does. – T.E.D. Jul 24 '12 at 19:16
@T.E.D. - #2 - definitely insufficient editing. Removed – DVK Jul 24 '12 at 20:00
2  
+1 like how the answer is sourced – kubanczyk Jul 27 '12 at 8:42
@DVK +1 Before I found this site I had the same question about silver and was unable to find the answer. Great job and thanks for the source. – E1Suave Aug 17 '12 at 19:14

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.