Munro writes

>  Bolton is very ambiguous on whether coins circulated by weight or by tale,

I have not yet read the Bolton book, but applaud Munro’s near single handed
attempt over the decades to staunch what seems to me a avalanche of
propaganda on this matter.  I recall Munro’s previous stands against
Miskimin, and Velde, and Sargent, and my own puny attempts to assist (contra
Bates Bacherach and Buttrey).

In that connection, I would be less willing than Munro to accept the
“monetarist” label for our position, since I believe “historian” serves well
enough.

Rather I would seek a label for the erroneous position Munro criticises, and
I would chose not bullionist, nor commodity money whatever, but rather
“mercantilist”.

I presume to licence this usage via Adam Smith IV, vi, 20-32

Here Smith argues for the return to the normal traditions of coin issue,
incorporating a seigniorage. (abandoned in England in 1666, but subsequently
re-adopted for silver in 1816).

Surely in the passages cited Smith views the sanctioning of the passing of
coin by weight, free of seigniorage, as unstatesman like?   ‘A vulgar
prejudice of the mercantile system’?

And if we accept that, then surely there is a whiff of mercantilism about
perpetuating the same error in historical writings?

Rob Tye, York, UK