I suggest adding a check box in page edit mode where you can select if that coin/note can still be exchanged at national bank for current currency. where possible, show the value in every user's selected currency.
Quote: "ceh2019"We need to make the distinction between notes which have been demonetized from notes which are still exchangeable but which have had their legal tender status withdrawn. Currently, the single "demonetized" box is being used to indicate both of these entirely distinct concepts. To remedy the situation, can I suggest creating a new box "Legal Tender"? This will require the following options:
Legal Tender
Ceased to be Legal Tender with Date if known
Never Legal Tender
Unknown
The third is required as some banknotes (e.g., those from Scottish and Northern Irish banks) have never been legal tender anywhere. To give an example of why legal tender status needs separating from demonetized, consider a German 100DM note and an Italian 100,000L note, both worth about €50 at the start of 2002. Neither are legal tender any more but the first can still be exchanged for about €50 and so remains an expensive note for a collector to buy whilst the second has been demonetized and can be picked up for a few euros.
Quote: "radrick007"As far as I am aware, paper currency or promissory notes have a slightly different monetary status from coins. Banknotes can be withdrawn from circulation and cease to be legal tender, which means that they can no longer be used for regular purchases, but they can still be taken to the issuing bank and redeemed for their face value. Consequently, could we please change the wording on the 'Demonetized' field that is used for coins so that it now reads 'Withdrawn' in the banknote catalogue. Obviously, the date field can remain as is.
In answer to Radrick's suggestion, I would point out that banknotes from several countries (including France) have already been entered with demonetized dates entered correctly and to assume that this is the date at which legal tender status was withdrawn is (a) unlikely to be correct in all cases, (b) conflating two distinct concepts and (c) only going to lead to problems down the line when two dates need to be added, one for the end of legal tender status, the other for demonetization.
As I mentioned in my earlier post, domonetization generally leads to a decrease in a note's value. By contrast, withrawal of legal tender status often increases a note's value, as examples are no-longer available from circulation. I'm sure collectors will appreciate us making this distinction.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Pre-euro currencies of current eurozone could still be changed to euro at national banks but coins and banknotes have different status on that.
If we look into Slovenia (my home country) we then consider:
- Tolar coins as withdrawn from 15.1.2007 to 31.12.2016
- Tolar coins as demonetized from 1.1.2017 (current status)
- Tolar banknotes as demonetized from 15.1.2007 (current status)
I am trying to show and withdrawn status can change to demonetized at any time. Money has its buying value as long the county central bank is willing to change it.
Numista referee for Liechtenstein, Ragusa and Saint Barthelemy
Another nut. Japan has something called nonredeemable legal tender
I am not sure of by that is meant they are still worth face but can't be exchanged for modern currency or if they simply mean those old convertible bills can't be exchanged for gold and silver.
Sadly, my confidence in the dates of demonetization in our French section was rather misplaced, as many of them were either the dates at which the withdrawal from circulation began or entirely incorrect. The following link gives the correct information:
Début du retrait OU Privation du cours légalon est en train de voir
which I take to mean that Eagle anticipates a merger of these two distinct concepts. Apologies if my interpretation is in error. Of course, it may be that "début du retrait" does not match "cessation of legal tender status" but I had hoped that it would be clear that neither equate to "privation du cours légal" or "demonetized". If it is true that a change is underway to combine these concepts, can I request that this be halted until it has been explained, in this thread, why Numista is taking this path?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Lucky I still kept the links and references for the withdrawal dates.. Looks like some edits will have to be done.
I just took sample of a few notes and thought that it is a consensus that "demonetization date" in Numista is the date when the notes simply ceased to be legal tender.
We should have and extra field to differentiate these 2 conditions.
If I understand well, the best way to manage the 2 different concepts would be to split the current "Demonetized" field in two:
Demonetized: Date when the coin or banknote ceased to be legal tender, i.e. it cannot be used to pay anymore
Exchangeable: For a demonetized coin or banknote, date until which the central bank would still accept and exchange the coin or banknote.
For example the banknote 50 francs Saint-Exupéry was demonetized on 17 February 2002 (you could not use it in a shop after this date) and was exchangeable until 17 February 2012 (the central bank accepted to exchange the banknote for euros until this date but not after).
Are the definitions still applicable for non circulating coins? The Royal Mint states the following (same link as above): "Please note that whilst [the Royal Mint silver commemorative coins] are legal tender, they are not designed for general circulation, so banks and shops are unlikely to accept the coins. The Royal Mint cannot accept returns of such coins outside of the 14 days return policy." This actually echoes to adanieluy's comment about Uruguay commemorative coins.
If we split and define two dates, I'll need to keep the date entered in the current the field "Demonetized" for one of the two new fields. Which one?
Thanks for taking the time to look at this, Xavier. I suggest the two fields are called "Withdrawn from Circulation" and "Demonetized". In French, the terms could be "Retrait de la Circulation" and perhaps "Retrait Definitif" (taken from the Banque de France https://www.banque-france.fr/emission-et-retrait-des-billets). These should hopefully prove unambiguous across all countries. In English, exchangeable is the same as not demonetized, so I'm afraid your terms can't be used without creating ambiguity.
To take your other points in order.
1. Legal tender means that, if you owe someone a debt, offer to pay it with legal tender and the repayment is refused, you can't be sued for non-payment. It rarely comes up but is perhaps most relevant in preventing people in the UK from trying to pay taxes with large piles of small coins (since these have limited legal-tender status). Consequently, legal-tender status can be a good guide to whether a coin or note is still in use but is unreliable. For example, no Scottish or Northern Irish note is legal tender, yet they are widely used.
2. Non-circulating coins generally have legal-tender status but this doesn't mean they are usable in shops for practical reasons (such as being worth much more than their face value). I think adanieluy is saying that Uruguay is unusual in not having any truly non-circulating coins but I must admit I struggled to follow his line of reasoning.
3. This is the real problem. Most of the "demonetized" dates I've seen are actually when the pieces were withdrawn from circulation, so it probably is most practical to copy it over to that field. Unfortunately, that means that those referees who have got it right will have to enter the dates again. Since this was my suggestion in the first place, I'm happy to volunteer to plough through those pieces that have dates entered and fix them where possible.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
This would clear up some of the mess because like you said some coins and notes from older currencies like the Spanish peseta have not been used in daily transactions since 2002 but Juan Carlos era coins and notes are still exchangeable till later this year. Plus technically the Soviet Ruble is still exchangeable because some cafes in Russia have allowed customers to pay in Soviet money instead of their current money but it did say in the article that most of them pay in high value Soviet notes due to the inflation of value since 1991.
Also just imagine that we was talking about this exactly 10 years ago the 50 Francs note like you said wasn’t in daily use since 2002 but still exchange till 2012 so would it be categorised as withdrawn 2002 demonetised 2012?
Hi to whoever is reading this. Did you know that TYPEWRITER (on a QWERTY keyboard) is the longest word you can type using only the letters on one row of the keyboard.
I'm happy with the names "Withdrawn from circulation" and "Demonetized". Just to save some space, do you think that "Withdrawn" could replace "Withdrawn from circulation" on coin and banknote pages?
Taking the example of the Austrian Schilling banknotes, Numista would show:
Withdrawn: 1 March 2002
Demonetized: No
Can you please help providing a definition for these two notions?
For non-circulating commemorative coins, I guess that the date of "Withdrawn from circulation" is not applicable.
For ancient, medieval and early modern coins and banknotes, I'm not sure to which extend both notions are applicable. I guess it depends from one state to another and it would vary between fiat currency (bronze coins, etc.) and silver or gold coins. Today we show "Demonetized: Yes".
Regards name, I guess we could try just using withdrawn and see how it goes? As for definitions, is this something that would appear when you hover over the term or just something for instructions? Withdrawn is somewhat nebulous but could be:
"This coin/banknote has been declared by the issuing authority to no-longer be intended for circulation. Demonetized status (see below) indicates whether or not the piece can be exchanged for currently circulating money by the issuing authority."
Then we would have demonetized as:
"This coin/banknote is no-longer exchangeable for currently circulating money by the issuing authority."
For older pieces, we could put a blanket "demonetized" against anything from a currency no-longer in use (barring those replaced by the euro) where the status hasn't yet been set. This would avoid British crowns from being listed as demonetized but ensure all sestertii are shown correctly.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Just for the sake of discussion, how about:
1st term: Demonetized
2nd term: Exchangeable
I am not that proficient in these terms, but "Demonetized" sounds much the same as "Withdrawn", which means that money/currency is being denied its status as official payment currency (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demonetize). This way current field Demonetized stays as it is and new (Exchangeable) is added. I wold still like to ask whether it would be possible to have for the field options like:
YES (would probably need a fixed date added along)
Demonetization means the withdrawal of the legal tender status (what is and isn't legal tender is widely different between and even within countries).
Then we have for example Canada were the 1 and 2 dollar bills are withdrawn and replaced by coins but they still retain there legal tender status. In the UK a withdrawal usually also means demonetization but the issuer is still liable and the money is exchangeable for new currency indefinitely.
Maybe I also could throw in the hat for "Start of issue" (not that it's important maybe a nice to have).
We could have something like: Start of issue : XX-YY-ZZZZ End of issue or Withdrawal : XX-YY-ZZZZ Exchangeable : No / Yes until XX-YY-ZZZZ
I also think these concepts should only be applied to modern money and there it is complicated enough.
In medieval times the money had intrinsic value but there were still many laws that prohibited the use of unauthorized coin. The money could be withdrawn once a year or at times up to four times a year and you had to exchange like 10 old coins for 9 (often more debased) new ones.
Quote: "Idolenz"Demonetization means the withdrawal of the legal tender status (what is and isn't legal tender is widely different between and even within countries).
Then we have for example Canada were the 1 and 2 dollar bills are withdrawn and replaced by coins but they still retain there legal tender status. In the UK a withdrawal usually also means demonetization but the issuer is still liable and the money is exchangeable for new currency indefinitely.
Maybe I also could throw in the hat for "Start of issue" (not that it's important maybe a nice to have).
We could have something like:
Start of issue : XX-YY-ZZZZ
End of issue or Withdrawal : XX-YY-ZZZZ
Exchangeable : No / Yes until XX-YY-ZZZZ
I also think these concepts should only be applied to modern money and there it is complicated enough.
I agree that explains how I managed to exchange older pound coins to current ones in late 2019 even though they were withdrawn in 2017. Plus I think how the withdrawn/demonetised notes should be set out similar to your example but the coins should just have the last two while the notes how all three.
Hi to whoever is reading this. Did you know that TYPEWRITER (on a QWERTY keyboard) is the longest word you can type using only the letters on one row of the keyboard.
Sorry, Idolenz, your example is out of date. Canadian $1 and $2 notes lost their legal tender status on 1/1/21 (https://www.bankofcanada.ca/banknotes/about-legal-tender/).
Demonetization does not mean the withdrawal of legal-tender status. It literally means that the piece is no longer money. As long as the issuing authority will accept it at face value, it's money. The two concepts are quite distinct, although both can occur at the same time. This is more common for coins than notes. Remember that not all current money is legal tender (e.g., Scottish and Northern Irish notes), so this concept can't be used as a general indicator.
I do like your idea of a start date, perhaps we could use the term "Introduced"?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Sorry the example was from an older website and I haven't checked if it is still true but the example still rings true.
In modern times almost everywhere on the globe 'legal-tender' = 'what colloquial is considered money' but for the state, the only entity that can issue legal tender and always has to accept it to cover depts it is not the same. Cash is the only legal tender that exists, other forms of "money" like cheques, card pay etc are just ways to get legal tender. A private business or person can refuse let's say a 500€ bill or a wheel-barrow full of cents as payment but a tax collector can't. So in a way you are right and wrong at the same time but I don't think that this matters that much here.
At the end I think we just want to know if a coin/note has a remnant of potential value other then material or numismatic if we can somehow exchange that thing somewhere.
I agree that "legal tender" is used colloqially to mean "money I can spend" but the corellation doesn't always exist, hence relying on that status is misleading. A tax collector (at least in he UK) can refuse a wheel-barrow full of pennies (because only up to 20 are legal tender) but that doesn't stop pennies being money/cash.
Your point about a "remnant of potential value" is the key issue here. A demonetized coin or note has no remnant of value other than what we numismatists will pay for it. That's why it's so important we get it right, as it can have a huge influence on prices.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "ceh2019"Demonetization does not mean the withdrawal of legal-tender status.
Do you have a reference for this?
These are the dictionary definitions for demonetize: wiktionary:
"To withdraw the status of legal tender from a coin (etc.) and remove it from circulation." OED:
"To deprive (a type of coin, note, currency, or precious metal) of its status as money;to withdraw from use as legal tender."
The Künstner catalogue uses a field called In circulation ("Im Umlauf"). So we could avoid this confusion of what demonetisation is, by having two fields for circulation coins:
In circulation: 01-01-2001 to 31-12-2009 Exchanged before: 01-01-2020
And "in circulation" would be displayed as "legal tender" for NCLT:
Legal tender: 01-01-2001 to 31-12-2009
Edit: I really support Idolenz's proposal for a start date. For example, this coin was minted in 1968, but is legal tender only since 1969.
You chose to highlight the second part of the OED's definition but look at the first: To deprive (a type of coin, note, currency, or precious metal) of its status as money
That's the meaning we need to use here as it is unambiguous.
I like your idea of "in circulation", just replace "Exchanged before" with "Demonetized" and I think we're there.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "ceh2019"You chose to highlight the second part of the OED's definition but look at the first:
To deprive (a type of coin, note, currency, or precious metal) of its status as money
That's the meaning we need to use here as it is unambiguous.
I like you idea of "in circulation", just replace "Exchanged before" with "Demonetized" and I think we're there.
Even if you want to use only half of the definition, how does it fit the 50 francs note? This was withdrawn from circulation in 2002 and was not money anymore, i.e. it was "demonetized" according to OED.
In any case, "In circulation", "Exchanged before" and "Demonetized" are all too long so would mess up the "Features" panel. Maybe:
(i just used composition as a reference to the longest feature). And it would look like this in other scenarios: Circulation . . . . . . 01-01-2001 to 01-01-2001 Circulation . . . . . . 01-01-2001 to date Legal tender. . . . . 01-01-2001 to date #only for NCLT
Also, I saw some references to ancient coin - indeed this is irrelevant for most of them, but some have well-documented demonetization dates, like the pre-Elagabalus Antoniniani in AD 219.
Perhaps I should explain why I'm not keen on "Exchanged"? It immediately poses three questions.
Exchanged for what?
Exchanged where?
Exchanged by whom?
We'd need to specify that we meant "exchanged for current money by the issuing authority" and not necessarily anywhere else. In other words, exchanged (or exchangeable) is simply too ambiguous.
As for the 50 franc note, it was withdrawn from circulation when the euro was introduced. It remained money because it could be exchanged for euros but was demonetized in 2012, when it ceased to be exchangeable by the Banque de France for euros. What's the problem? I'm open to suggestions for another term that works even better than demonetized but I really don't see exchanged as the answer.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "ceh2019"Perhaps I should explain why I'm not keen on "Exchanged"? It immediately poses three questions.
Exchanged for what?
Exchanged where?
Exchanged by whom?
We'd need to specify that we meant "exchanged for current money by the issuing authority" and not necessarily anywhere else. In other words, exchanged (or exchangeable) is simply too ambiguous.
As for the 50 franc note, it was withdrawn from circulation when the euro was introduced. It remained money because it could be exchanged for euros but was demonetized in 2012, when it ceased to be exchangeable by the Banque de France for euros. What's the problem? I'm open to suggestions for another term that works even better than demonetized but I really don't see exchanged as the answer.
Agree with you that we have to make sure that "Exchangeable" means "(still/was) exchangeable in the issuing authority (until [date])" . But I don't think there is a single term for that.
Status changed to Accepted(Xavier, 13 Nis 2021, 16:58)
Quote: "ceh2019"It remained money because it could be exchanged for euros but was demonetized in 2012, when it ceased to be exchangeable by the Banque de France for euros. What's the problem?
The problem is that it was demonetized and was not money anymore. Look at the definition of "money", and you will find "generally accepted as payment for goods and services". Exchanging the banknotes at the central bank is far from general acceptance as a medium of exchange. You couldn't use it anywhere else anymore.
Quote: "ceh2019"Exchanged for what?
Exchanged where?
Exchanged by whom?
Yes, "Exchanged" is not ideal, it's a compromise for something that fits the tight space. But demonetized doesn't answer these questions either, and it's anyway not the proper term.
To help with clarity, there could be a pop-up tooltip to explain what "exchanged" means (like for references), or it could be like this: Composition . . . . Silver Circulation . . . . . . 01-01-2001 to 01-01-2010 Exchanged . . . . . . before 01-01-2011 by the issuer
I do agree with this but I think there would be some confusion because for example the Spanish peseta they stopped circulating back in 2002 but you can exchange them until June 2021. This covers Peseta notes issued from 1939 and coins that was used in 2002 but what does that mean?
Because on the the banks website it only covers the last coins that were issued so why can’t you exchange coins from 1939-mid 80s? (by the way Franco coins were withdrawn in 1997).
Hi to whoever is reading this. Did you know that TYPEWRITER (on a QWERTY keyboard) is the longest word you can type using only the letters on one row of the keyboard.
The OED's definition of money opens with the following: Any generally accepted medium of exchange which enables a society to trade goods without the need for barter; any objects or tokens regarded as a store of value and used as a medium of exchange.
How is something that the central bank will accept at face value not money (a store of value)? You claim that francs couldn't be used once the euro was introduced but of course they could and were for some time after. It wasn't illegal to do so, their use simply dwindled over the course of a few weeks. If they were still money after the 1st of January 2002 (by any sensible definition), then the next point at which they could have ceased to be so was in 2012. Demonetized is the English word used in legislation to describe the process by which a coin or note ceases to be "exchangeable by the issuer", so why not use one word rather than four? It is unquestionably the proper English term. What the proper French term is may be another question, since the Banque de France uses "Privation de Cours Legal", a direct translation of which simply doesn't work in English.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "ceh2019"Any generally accepted medium of exchange which enables a society to trade goods without the need for barter; any objects or tokens regarded as a store of value and used as a medium of exchange.
How is something that the central bank will accept at face value not money (a store of value)?
"and" means that both conditions need to be satisfied at the same time.
Quote: "ceh2019"You claim that francs couldn't be used once the euro was introduced
I never claimed this. Euro was introduced 1 January. Francs were demonetized 17 February. As Xavier explained, after this day you could no longer use the 50 franc note in a shop.
Quote: "ceh2019"Demonetized is the English word used in legislation to describe the process by which a coin or note ceases to be "exchangeable by the issuer", so why not use one word rather than four?
Any source for this? and because Numista is not English legislation.
The OED states any objects or tokens regarded as a store of value and used as a medium of exchange.
If they are a store of value (since the issuer will exchange them for current issues at face value) and they are a medium of exchange (since the issuer will exchange them) then the "and" is satisfied.
Francs were not demonetized on 18/2/02. The French term is debut du retrait de la circulation, which I would translate as "start of withdrawal from circulation", i.e., not the final withdrawal. Depending on which term in the table heading applies to these final notes, they either remained "cours legal" until 2012 or were only definitively withdrawn on 17/2/12.
As to a legislative source, how about this? The Irish Central Bank also uses the term. The point of bringing up legislation is to show what the proper term is in English.
You want to use "exchanged" but that is fraught with difficulty unless you define very carefully what you mean, since exchanged could easily be confused with legal tender, a totally different concept. Demonetized says it all without the need for qualification. I just hope we can find a similarly concise term in French. Is demonetiser used at all? It doesn't bring up anything useful in a quick Google search.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "ceh2019"You want to use "exchanged" but that is fraught with difficulty unless you define very carefully what you mean, since exchanged could easily be confused with legal tender, a totally different concept. Demonetized says it all without the need for qualification.
I have to remind you of the definition of "demonetise":
"To deprive (a type of coin, note, currency, or precious metal) of its status as money; to withdraw from use as legal tender."
You cannot pick parts of a definition and exclude others. The entire definition has to be satisfied. Semicolons simply separate clarifications, not optional conditions. And even if it were okay to pick one part, then you would need to clarify what you mean by demonetizing too.
This was raised and dealt with earlier, so I won't bother repeating myself.
Let me ask you a question. What do you consider the French franc banknotes to have been between 2002 and 2012? You claim that they were demonetized in 2002, so they weren't money, despite the Banque de France accepting them in exgchange for euros. In thst case, what were they?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Why not use demonetized? It does all you want unambiguously in a single word. The problem is that Numista has been misusing the term demonetized for years and it seems there is a reluctance to admit this. Instead, the term is denigrated with frankly spurious semantic arguments.
Let me remind you that not all money is legal tender (e.g., Scottish and Northern Irish notes), so any argument trying to imply a direct link between the terms money and legal tender holds no water. It's also worth remembering that, in the UK, all demonetizations have been of coins and all have coincided with the end of legal tender status (probably explaining the OEDs apparant linkage of the two concepts). However, the reverse is not true, as many banknotes have been deprived of their legal tender status without being demonetized, since the BoE will still honour them. This is the whole point I've been trying to get across for months but which is being ignored.
This discussion has produced the very good idea of the "circulated..." field which I hope will be implemented but it must be accompanied by an accurate demonetized field, otherwise notes and coins will wrongly be thought worthless outside of numismatics and consequently undervalued.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "ceh2019"We need to make the distinction between notes which have been demonetized from notes which are still exchangeable but which have had their legal tender status withdrawn.
The dates I have added in the demonetised field is when the note was demonetised. If it's not demonetised it shouldn't be marked as demonetised, and therefore this is a none issue. The date of removed from circulation and date for demonetised are not the same thing. Usuaslly there's like 10 years between these two events.
Quote: "ngdawa"The dates I have added in the demonetised field is when the note was demonetised. If it's not demonetised it shouldn't be marked as demonetised, and therefore this is a none issue. The date of removed from circulation and date for demonetised are not the same thing. Usuaslly there's like 10 years between these two events.
Yes, this is key. In some instances, they occur on the same day but we must have the flexibility to represent all possible circumstances.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Because to demonetize has different meanings for different issuers, as you've very well demonstrated above. You cannot expect users to know which part of which definition you want to use.
Quote: "ceh2019"Let me remind you that not all money is legal tender
I am not proposing to use legal tender anywhere either:
In circulation . . . . . . . 01-01-2001 to 01-01-2010 Exchangeable . . . . . . before 01-01-2011
If it's not clear what exchangeable means, this could be clarified in a tooltip.
For non circulating types and exonumia, we only need one field "Date of issue"
Trinidad and Tobago: "$100 notes [...] will cease to be legal tender (demonetized) from January 1, 2020. [...] the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago shall redeem at face value any of the specified notes that are presented within the period of three months after the appointed date (January 1, 2020) if it is satisfied that ..."
Both these national banks consider demonetisation the end of circultion and the coins/notes can be exchanged after the demonetisation.
That's very disappointing to see. I wonder if the term was also misused in the relevant legislation? However, it can't be entirely ignored, which is why a clear definition of demonetized will need to be in a tooltip. Sadly for your idea, the term "exchangeable" is completely absent, so I think we can dismiss that once and for all. Both use the term "redeem", which could make part of the description we have in the tooltip. However, whilst one country allows indefinite redemption, the other only allowed it for three months, illustrating that both are using the term demonetized wrongly in different ways.
I can't help noticing that you're dragging out this discussion, taking a month to reply. I do hope you don't imagine I'll give up on getting this right if you delay it enough.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Quote: "ceh2019"Sadly for your idea, the term "exchangeable" is completely absent, so I think we can dismiss that once and for all. Both use the term "redeem", which could make part of the description we have in the tooltip.
"Demonetised" is also completely absent in the case of many other banks. Shall we also dismiss it then?
Both "redeemable" and "exchangeable" are fine in my opinion. They are intuitive and it's pretty clear what they mean, even with no tooltip.
The problem with "demonetised" is well illustrated in this thread and in the way it's been sometimes misused in Numista so far. It has different meanings, and collectors may be familiar with a particular one, maybe based on their country of origin. In these cases, they won't even check a tooltip, and simply assume they know.
Regarding the term redeemable, the OED has these relevant defnitions
Originally Scottish. Of property, stock, etc.: able to be repurchased or redeemed. Also figurative.
Originally of a monetary bill or note: exchangeable for gold or silver (now historical). Now of a coupon, voucher, etc.: able to be exchanged for cash, goods, or services.
It's obviously not perfect, since there have been periods when a note was still money but payment in gold or silver was suspended for a time (e.g., Bank of England notes during the Napoleonic wars) making the notes temporarily (by the contempory understanding) non-redeemable. However, if we set thing up like this, perhaps it will work. We have a box for "ceased circulating". If that's ticked, we have two additional boxes, one for a date and one "non-redeemable". If that second box is ticked, an extra box appears asking for another date (which could be the same). We then display Circulated XXXX-YYYY and either Still Redeemable or Redeemable until ZZZZ.
I'd still much prefer "demonetized" to "non-redeemable" and it should be a cause for great concern if past abuse of this term on Numista is causing us to use a less than perfect term going forward.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
In terms of nomenclature, I suggest the addition of an option 'Redeemable' in addition to 'Demonitized' to cover demonitized banknotes which remain exchangeable at their face value.
This topic is marked ‘Accepted’, though it has not yet been implemented. Is it likely to happen, I wonder.
In terms of nomenclature, I suggest the addition of an option 'Redeemable' in addition to 'Demonitized' to cover demonitized banknotes which remain exchangeable at their face value.
This topic is marked ‘Accepted’, though it has not yet been implemented. Is it likely to happen, I wonder.
I think that we should refrain from using the terms “legal tender” and “demonetized” altogether, as they have vastly different definitions between jurisdictions. For example in Costa Rica, every coin that has been issued that is not on this list has been demonetized, but are still exchangeable for current coins and banknotes. Meanwhile in Honduras, coins and banknotes that have been removed from circulation are still legal tender and exchangeable. After the redemption period is over, they are officially demonetized.
The use of these terms is so confusing that it would be best to avoid using them. I am in favor of stratocaster's proposal (perhaps with the addition of "unissued"):
In circulation . . . . . . . 01-01-2001 to 01-01-2010 Exchangeable . . . . . . before 01-01-2011
For non circulating types and exonumia, we only need one field "Date of issue"
Master Coin Referee
Coin referee for CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN, and SLV.
Revisor principal de monedas
Revisor de Numista para monedas de CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN y SLV.
I think that we should refrain from using the terms “legal tender” and “demonetized” altogether, as they have vastly different definitions between jurisdictions. For example in Costa Rica, every coin that has been issued that is not on this list has been demonetized, but are still exchangeable for current coins and banknotes. Meanwhile in Honduras, coins and banknotes that have been removed from circulation are still legal tender and exchangeable. After the redemption period is over, they are officially demonetized.
The use of these terms is so confusing that it would be best to avoid using them. I am in favor of stratocaster's proposal (perhaps with the addition of "unissued"):
In circulation . . . . . . . 01-01-2001 to 01-01-2010 Exchangeable . . . . . . before 01-01-2011
For non circulating types and exonumia, we only need one field "Date of issue"
I agree in part. The term “legal tender” is a complete red herring when it comes to the question of whether or not something is money and we should definitely avoid it. However, demonetized has a very clear linguistic and legal meaning but is sometimes misapplied to mean "withdrawn from circulation". I couldn't find the term on the Costa Rican website, so it isn't clear if it has actually been applied there or not. Do you have another link where that term is actually used for coins not on the list?
Having said that, whilst I have reservations about the use of the rather vague term “exchangeable”, what you propose would still represent a huge step forward. What would you have appear if a piece has been withdrawn from circulation but not demonetized?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
A lot of pre-Euro coins are no longer legal tender - & therefore, they have been demonetised.
This is true for the banknotes & coins of both the Cypriot Pound & the Maltese Pound.
The Irish Pound's banknotes & coins are still cashable into Euros - but only at the rate that was set in 1999 between the Euro & the Irish Pound though.
Legal tender is just legalese (in Germany): “Legal tender, i.e. types of money with legal acceptance requirements, such as banknotes and coins, which every creditor of a monetary claim must accept as fulfilment of his claim.”
For example, when you pay your groceries with coins they magically lose their legal tender status after a certain number and the cashier isn't require to accept your sack of 1 ct coins. The same when you pay a fine with a wheelbarrow of small change they aren't legal tender either.
The Irish Pound's banknotes & coins are still cashable into Euros - but only at the rate that was set in 1999 between the Euro & the Irish Pound though.
Aidan.
All the Eurozone currencies had their exchange rates locked when they joined to form the Euro. The rate to the Irish Pound is 0.787564 Irish Pounds to the Euro.
The Irish Pound's banknotes & coins are still cashable into Euros - but only at the rate that was set in 1999 between the Euro & the Irish Pound though.
Aidan.
All the Eurozone currencies had their exchange rates locked when they joined to form the Euro. The rate to the Irish Pound is 0.787564 Irish Pounds to the Euro.
That means you will get 1 Euro for every 78 Irish Pence.
I agree in part. The term “legal tender” is a complete red herring when it comes to the question of whether or not something is money and we should definitely avoid it. However, demonetized has a very clear linguistic and legal meaning but is sometimes misapplied to mean "withdrawn from circulation". I couldn't find the term on the Costa Rican website, so it isn't clear if it has actually been applied there or not. Do you have another link where that term is actually used for coins not on the list?
Having said that, whilst I have reservations about the use of the rather vague term “exchangeable”, what you propose would still represent a huge step forward. What would you have appear if a piece has been withdrawn from circulation but not demonetized?
I had a verbal conversation with a representative at the Central Bank, so I don't have any documents to cite. In this case, demonetized means withdrawn from circulation.
As for how this would appear:
For coins (and banknotes) that have fallen into disuse due to inflation or unpopularity (such as the Argentine 1 Centavo or the United States 1 Dollar), they would be listed the same as circulating coins:
In circulation . . . . . . . 01-01-200x to date
For coins that have been withdrawn, but are not exchangeable (such as French Franc coins), would read:
In circulation . . . . . . . 01-01-199X to 01-01-200X Exchangeable . . . . . . before 01-01-201X
For coins that have been withdrawn, but are exchangeable (such as German Mark or old Costa Rican coins and notes), would read:
In circulation . . . . . . . 01-01-199X to 01-01-200X Exchangeable . . . . . . yes: 0.5 DEM = USD $0.26
Master Coin Referee
Coin referee for CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN, and SLV.
Revisor principal de monedas
Revisor de Numista para monedas de CRI, GTM, HND, NIC, PAN y SLV.
I like the idea, but would this be affected in scenarios where certain currencies continued circulating widely in different territories such as the Soviet ruble in most post soviet states after the demonetisation of Soviet coins and banknotes in 1993 or where Farthings in mainland U.K. was demonetised on January 1961 it continued to circulate in its dependencies until October 1970 (same with decimal halfpennies).
Plus according to these articles Soviet and Russian banknotes post 1961 and coins from post 1961 (even low denomination coins from pre 1961) could be exchanged up to 2002.
Hi to whoever is reading this. Did you know that TYPEWRITER (on a QWERTY keyboard) is the longest word you can type using only the letters on one row of the keyboard.
