Talk:Manx pound

Is Manx currency sterling?
The article says "The Isle of Man pound is not sterling", but http://www.isleofman.com/tourisminfo/faqs/ and http://www.douglas.org.im/Spot.asp both say it is sterling. Who is right?


 * The IoM government refer to the Manx pound interchangably with Sterling, and the Department of Trade and Industry specifically state: The Island's currency is pound sterling.82.152.96.238 15:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The intro to the article is not ideal. The article is titled "Manx pound", and yet the first sentence is "The pound sterling[1] is the currency of the Isle of Man." So what is the Manx pound then? Ideally the article should begin "The Manx pound is... ". Matt 21:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC).


 * Hell, I just changed it. If it's wrong then hopefully someone can correct it. Matt 21:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC).


 * Considering that the currency is not legal tender in Britan or Northenr Island, I would consider it as tied to the Pound sterling and not part of the Pound Sterling. And here Manx Pound the treasury stats the currency as being equivalent to and not Sterling.Enlil Ninlil 05:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC).


 * Scottish notes are not legal tender in Scotland or England. British coins are legal tender on the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands (e.g. see Decimal Currency (Jersey) Law, 1971). The position of the governments of all Crown Dependencies, and the position in law, is that all are the same currency. The Isle of Man goverment specifically state that 'The Island's currency is pound sterling'. Note that saying that the coins and notes are 'equivalent in value' is 'not the same as saying that it is 'not pound sterling'.82.152.178.137 23:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That reference is a little vague, it doesnt say the manx pound is pound sterling, just that the sterling circulates there. If the manx pound was sterling it would be legal tender in England! Enlil Ninlil 04:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understood properly. There's a difference between banknotes and currency. Scottish banknotes are definately sterling, but are not legal tender (in Scotland or England). The Manx Pound is a variant of GBP, and is noted as such under ISO 4217 which denotes global currencies. Also, that reference couldn't be clearer: "The Island's currency is pound sterling". It doesn't say anything else, nothing about circulating, nothing about 'Manx pounds as well'. Basically, both Bank of England pounds, Scottish banknotes, and Manx pounds are all Pounds Sterling. Mauls 13:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, please read legal tender for more information on that subject. Mauls

I don't think it is part of the Pound Sterling. See this Freedom of Information request response from the Bank for more information: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/24900/response/65167/attach/3/Services%209347205%201.PDF.pdf

Banknotes issued on the IOM 'do not form part of the currency base of the UK's sterling currency'. There are no restrictions on the amount of currency which can be issued by the IOM government, no requirement to back it with deposits at the BOE and no obligation on the part of the UK govt to underwrite the notes issued.

The IMP seems to exist in a bit of a legislative black hole, which is I suppose what you would expect of an ancient arrangement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.131.161 (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Queen's head on Isle of Man coins
The article currently says "The coins show Elizabeth II with crown as the cost of removing it would have been prohibitive according to The Treasury". Is this really correct? It sounds like a rather implausible reason to me. Matt 19:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC).


 * Firstly, it should be remembered that although the obverse of the coins doesn't change often, the reverse is regularly changed for special issues, and there's no reason to believe that the obverse would cost much more to redesign.


 * The coins currently use the Ian Rank Broadley effigy, as used by all the other countries that issue coinage with an effigy of the Queen on (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, etc.) since 1998. There is a more recent (and very modern/stylistic) alternative by Tom Phillips that was used on the UK's special 2003 £5 coin - that does not include a crown, and would presumably cost little more than the current design as it's also already available. Might not be to the Treasury's liking though! See for an example on a commemorative (UK) crown.


 * Only two monarchs have appeared on Isle of Man coins before. They were George III and Victoria. Both were depicted without crowns, but this was exactly the same portrait as used on the UK coins of the time. The preceding Lords of Man were depicted by symbols, not effigies, and one of those symbol was the Ducal Crown of the Lords of Man.


 * The Isle of Man Treasury website notes the appearance of the Queen on the money using the style 'Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II', and does not include 'Lord of Man' (the proper style is 'Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Lord of Mann'


 * In addition, the 2006 coin set commemorating the Queen's 80th birthday had an image of the Queen presiding over Tynwald in 1979 - head and shoulders only, and another is an adaption of Pietro Annigoni's official portrait of the young Queen. These images don't include a crown and could surely have been adapted for the obverse as easily as they were placed on the reverse.


 * Furthermore, it's questionable that the correct depiction of the 'Lord of Mann' is the Queen without a crown. The Crown is used atop the Royal Cipher on some Manx stamps (when the Queen's effigy is omitted, for example this year's 'Natural History' issue), suggesting that the Crown is tied up in the Lordship of Man, not seperate and absent. The Crown is also part of the Coat of Arms of most Manx Government departments.


 * Finally, the only place on the web (according to various Google searches) that claims that the Lord of Mann is depicted without a Crown is this article on Wikipedia.


 * In summary, the claim seems dubious and I haven't been able to find anything to back it.


 * 82.153.96.176 21:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This claim crept back in in, with a claim on the edit that the 'reversion wasn't discussed'. Seems to be the other way around to me, so I've removed it again. A citation or explaination to back-up any counter-claim should be provided. Mauls 10:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

King George III coin - Expert help requested
The help of a subject matter expert is requested.

I've been wikifying this article - tying in links, etc., - and doing some general cleanup. I've noted two issues with the paragraph about the George III coin issue of 1786: Since I'm not certain of the facts on either of these two points, I left them intact, but noted them with wiki comments inside the text. --Eliyahu S Talk 00:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The description calls both faces of the coin the obverse -- one is obviously the reverse, but I'm not 100% certain of which
 * 2) There is no Lewis Pingo article, but there is a (brief) Thomas Pingo article, that states that he did a George III coin, and also that he had a son, Lewis, who took over from him

Remove the Stub?
It seems to me that this article is no longer a stub, and that the money-stub should be removed. What do others think? --Eliyahu S Talk 01:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added a request for (re-)assessment of this article to the WikiProject Numismatics/Assessment page. I hope some kind soul will tell me to get rid of the Stub rating! --Eliyahu S Talk 03:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 *  Jo e I  gave us a B rating on 06:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC). Good job, everyone!  --Eliyahu S Talk 07:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Assesment
This article is almost ready to go to GA I think. The intro needs expansion, and inline refs added. I'm goin to add it to Numismatic Collaboration of the Month to see if we can get more exposure for it. Jo e  I  23:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Supposed Sans "Danger" vs. correct Sans Changer on the 1709 coinage
Mauls, I'm the one who edited your 'Sans Danger' reference out. I've specialized in the early Manx coinage for years and have never come across this claim before. My guess is that you've repeated it from this online transcription of A.W. Moore's 1900 History of the Isle Of Man without understanding that the '[sic]' there refers to an error in the text, not an error on any coinage. No other reference mentions "Danger", because it was just a typo, not a mistake on any coinage. If you still doubt me, here are photos of the 1709 coinage, clearly showing the CHanger. See Plate 1, left side, center.

So whats the point of this currency
Seems like a big cost to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.68.33 (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, if it's anything like the currencies of the Channel Islands, it's profitable. Man vyi 15:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect statement text removed from original posting
The Isle of Man is in currency union with the United Kingdom, and the Manx pound is not a separate currency but is a local issue of coins and banknotes denominated in pounds sterling, in a similar way to the banknotes issued in Scotland and Northern Ireland (see Sterling banknotes). It can be exchanged at par with other sterling coinage and notes (see also Sterling zone). The Isle of Man Treasury states that the locally issued currency, United Kingdom coinage and Bank of England notes are all legal tender within the island.

For this reason, ISO 4217 does not include a separate currency code for the Manx pound, but where a distinct code is desired IMP is generally used.

UK notes and coins are generally accepted in the Isle of Man. Although there is no legal impediment, Manx notes and coins are generally not accepted in the United Kingdom, and travellers are advised to exchange them before leaving the island. The Manx coins do, however, sometimes creep into general UK circulation as they have identical size and shape to the corresponding UK coins. Many banks and Bureaux de Change in the UK will convert Manx notes to British notes at no cost. To assist those travelling, the ATM machines at the Sea Terminal, Douglas, and at Isle of Man Airport both issue English notes only.

--Garigolf Talk 13.25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The Isle of Man Pound is NOT sterling and does not claim to be anything other than the "pound". There is no promise to repay other than that of the Isle of Man Treasury. It IS the currency of the Isle of Man and shoppers will well know that they can pay with GBP Sterling but seldom receive it back in change. Whilst the Manx accept all UK and Channel Islands pound currencies (and often give it out in change) THE COMMON EVERY DAY CURRENCY IS THE MANX POUND (IMP) When talking of a separate country (which the Isle of Man is) there is no "basically" or choice as to how one regards that country and the Manx "CROWN" dependence for protection and worldwide representation is secondary to this fact.

De juris facts are not "regardable". They are facts and as stated. --Garigolf Talk 13.35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I fear this argument will take some time. I've edited and tidied Garigolf's changes without changing the meaning. The problem now is that the article contradicts itself, since it states that in 1839 An Act was passed declaring that "...the currency of Great Britain shall be and become, and is hereby declared to be, the currency of the Isle of Man", and this remains Manx law to this day. We probably need an expert on Manx law to sort this out. Dove1950 14:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That statement wasn't incorrect, and was referenced. To quote the Treasury: "The currency used on the Island is the British Pound (GBP) [...] the Island also prints its own bank notes which is [sic] of equivalent value." That's in a technical document, rather than a brief touristy website which is being loose with the term 'currency' - plus it doesn't explicitly say that it's not GBP, whereas the Treasury link I've referenced does explicitly say that it is.


 * Furthermore, your statement that 'IMP is the official abbreviation' is erroneous. Official according to whom? It's not in ISO4217, and just because some banks use it it doesn't make it official.


 * The 'promise to repay' isn't especially relevant - that's a banknote promise, and Scottish banknotes have a 'promise to pay' made out in the name of the respective commercial bank. That doesn't mean there's a 'Clydesdale Bank pound'.


 * Finally, the Isle of Man isn't an independent country, it is a Crown dependency. That means a lot more than defence and international representation. I fear there is some misplaced nationalistic sentiment creeping in here - being a distinct banknote and coinage issue doesn't mean that the Manx pound is of any less status than the banknotes issued by the Bank of England, or those issued by Scottish banks in Scotland; just as Manx passports are a special but variant of the British passports, equal to the UK ones.


 * All the best, Mauls 21:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Trust me, there's no "misplaced nationalistic sentiment" coming from me. However, on consideration, I think that the two apparently distinct views may (and I stress, may), in fact, be two different ways of saying the same thing. A currency union does not necessarily imply that there is only one currency. Take, as an example, the Latin Union. Member countries had their own currencies which they fixed in value to one another's. This was distinct from, say, the euro, which is a single currency. The source  seems to suggest that this might be the case but the only clear statement I've seen (e.g., ) states that there are two currencies of equal value, however "touristy" that website might be. I'd agree entirely that IMP is not ISO and I've only seen it on that one website. We really need something more authoritative. I'd particularly like to know what's in the Currency Act of 1992. Dove1950 22:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is true that 'currency' can be a somewhat difficult word to pin down exactly. In view of that, I've removed the words "[The Manx pound] is not a separate currency" from the article. Mauls 00:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Title of article and introductory definition
There have been perennial problems with the opening to this article. Here are the options as I see them:

1. If there is an entity whose full and correct name is the Manx pound then the article should be thus titled and the introductory definition should read "The Manx pound is...."

2. If there isn't an entity whose full and correct name is the Manx pound, but this article is simply about the use of the pound in the Isle of Man, then the article should be titled Pound (Isle of Man), or perhaps Isle of Man currency, or whatever seems best.

The combination of article title Manx pound and introductory definition "The pound is ..." does not work. The definition does not actually define what the article purports to be about. Matt 14:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC).


 * So that the definition is consistent with the rest of the article I have changed the opening to read "The Manx pound or Isle of Man pound is a local issue of the pound sterling, issued by the Isle of Man Government." In case it wasn't clear, in my comment above, "entity" does not necessarily mean the same as "currency", which is why I didn't use that word. I just mean that there is something that is called the "Manx pound", and that "something" needs defining in the opening sentence. I am agnostic about whether the Manx pound is or isn't a separate currency, and happy to defer to someone who understands the legalities. I just want the article to define what it's talking about in the opening sentence. Matt 20:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.109.35 (talk)


 * I didn't realise when I wrote the above that this style convention is an issue across many currency articles, not just this one. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics, so if anyone has any comments it would probably be better to make them there to keep it all together. Matt 14:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.245.219 (talk)

I think that's a rather neat and appropriate solution. Mauls (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fonzie and the 20£ note
This sounds like a complete hoax IMO. Here's what the back side of the note looks like. -93.106.16.35 (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for showing the link to the banknote scan. There certainly appears to be a character dressed out of historical context and with a cheeky pose on the extreme left. There is a Wikipedia editor who is an Isle of Man Treasury official. Perhaps he will comment on this?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manx pound. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061031165137/http://www.lloydstsbcorporatemarkets.com/glossary/currencies.asp to http://www.lloydstsbcorporatemarkets.com/glossary/currencies.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081008095333/http://aes.iupui.edu/rwise/countries/isle_of_man.html to http://aes.iupui.edu/rwise/countries/isle_of_man.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

2017 pound coin
The 2017 Manx pound coin differs from the description of the older decimal coins given in the article. The edge is fully milled and the Queen's portrait is a different design, including a necklace. It is, of course, round and not bimetallic. 195.10.114.196 (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)