I answer Ron Michener’s criticisms of my article on colonial Maryland’s paper money regime coauthored with James Celia and published in Economic History Review in 2016. I deconstruct Michener’s criticism and locate where in the article it does and does not apply. I sort out Michener’s position on what determines a money’s value and question its coherence and logic. I also show that his position leads to an outcome that supports our position more strongly than does our own conservative approach. Finally, I explore in detail beyond the 2016 article what determined the fiat money portion of colonial Maryland’s paper money.