Like many, @JFrankelEcon here treats the 1873-96 deflation under the gold standard as a serious defect. But numerous studies suggest that that period's downward price trend (an average annual rate of 2.3%) was not itself a cause of any serious strife. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/24/price-of-gold-should-not-determine-us-monetary-policy 1/2

Friedman and Schwartz--neither of whom was a gold bug-- reached that conclusion in their Monetary History. And So have many other monetary historians, most notably Bordo, Lane, and Redish: https://www.nber.org/papers/w10329 

A similar point has been made about Great Britain's deflation of that period: https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9780333049723 (See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Deflation).

There are also good theoretical reasons why mild deflation need not be harmful so long as it is driven by and reflects real productivity gains. https://www.amazon.com/Less-Than-Zero-Falling-Growing/dp/1948647109

It doesn't follow, of course, that a revived gold standard would only or mainly permit"good" deflation only, or that there aren't reasons why such deflation would be more problematic today than it was in the 19th c.

Still, it's important to not exaggerate the historical old standard's shortcomings in forming an opinion of its merits.