Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Sandbox/Currency table

=Coin tables= I found a user that added a lot of images to commons.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cocoloi

Cypriot pound
A more detailed data on composition is necessary.Timur lenk 20:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a new proposal as to what to do with the inscriptions like "CYPRUS·ΚΥΠΡΟΣ·KIBRIS". Instead of using, what about something like what I've done with Nicaraguan córdoba, except that the word "Note" will be replaced with "Remark" to avoid confusion at the table of content. The advantage of doing is that it will not mix with true references, and is immediately next to the table. The draw back of that is the ordering must be maintained manually, and there is no "back link". --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yea, it's an existing problem that it interfers with real references. But it is simply very unconvenient to maintain notes manually, especially when there are many (forint, pengő etc). What if we used this ref system for notes for coin and note articles but a separate "source" article for the cited books, webpages etc?Timur lenk 12:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a work-around that reversed the purpose of. I looked at the forint and pengő tables again, and they are 7 or 8 inscription translations. And the tag is only on the first appearance of each. It doesn't seem to hard to maintain. Plus, other currency table will usually have fewer entries. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 15:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's true. I think too it can be maintained that way.Timur lenk 07:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Moved to Coins of the Cypriot pound --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

=Banknote tables=

1960 series
Only the images are missing...Timur lenk 09:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

source:
 * www.geldscheine-online.de
 * www.bundesbank.de

1989 series
There are two varieties for the 50, 100, and 200 Mark, with or without the hologram on obverse. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 15:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I know but I don't consider them to be different types (unlike pick catalog). I think only those banknotes should be handled as separate types which were handled as such by law (se 1000 and 5000 Czech koruna bills).Timur lenk 23:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, but the difference is much greater than that of Czech koruna. I would compare the German mark with New Taiwan dollar. The hologram is visible even at this thumbnail size. But if we were to differentiate them, this table would need another column - "remark" - to note the difference. This table is already crowded. I don't know..... --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the difference is much more significant, however, if the national bank makes no difference between them, I think we should consider them as same type of banknote. In a separate article, the subtypes could be described in detail. Do you have anything to add to this table? I think it can be moved to the article.Timur lenk 09:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This table is complete, although I do suggest making a "remark" on the hologram like the way I proposed with coin inscription above. Another thing, which does not interfere with this table, I have plans to include different levels of exchange deadline for pre-euro currencies into the infoboxes. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Moved. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

source:
 * www.bundesbank.de (withdrawal, lapse data)

Lithuanian litas
Images should be split into two to fit into the table.Timur lenk 10:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

1991 SERIES
Plenty of info on this, would be nice if arranged into a table and maybe into individual banknote articles.Timur lenk 23:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

1993 SERIES
source:
 * www.lb.lt

1947 series
source:
 * w.russianbon.nm.ru

1961 series
This series lasted three decades, a rare long lasting series in the history of modern banknotes. This series also demonstrate the traditional denominations lineup and colours.


 * comment I have nothing else to add to this series. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 15:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a pity. I hoped you can find some dates regarding the circulation of these banknotes. Watermark is missing too 1-25: five-pointed stars pattern (throughout the whole banknote), 50, 100: lenin (in the watermark field).Timur lenk 16:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

source:
 * size: own measurements
 * description: own search

Be careful, there is a policy against original research. I find that rule silly. My own measurement shows that 1 ruble is 106 × 53. But 104 would make 1, 10 and 100 ruble evenly "spaced". And I just found http://88.nm.ru/r1961.html --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 20:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I supposed that width:length ratio is 1:2 (like in the case of 1960 German mark series). I found that catalogs also publish own measurements - and the Soviet technology does not seem to be capable for producing banknotes with similar size... (I have more pieces of these notes)


 * Just want to call your attention to see the similarities of the 1961 Soviet ruble, the 1952 Romanian leu and the 1953 Czechoslovak koruna redenomination and paper money composition. The reason was rather to confiscate money from the people than practical (highest denominations were 100 rubles, 1000 lei and 5000 Kč, so not something imposible to handle), the typical Russian 1-3-5-10-25-50-100 denomination system was adopted (only a 50 lei note is missing, but I bet it exists as printer's proof) with 1-3-5 being state note (=treasury note) and the rest banknotes. We know that the 1953 koruna series was printed in SU, I am curious about the source of 1952 lei notes... The 1964 Albanian lek series contains the same denominations (I am note sure where these were printed and small denominations also bear the name of the State Bank of Albania). 1951 Bulgarian lev series is the same with additional 200 and 500 leva denominations. 1-3-5 bills do not bear the name of the national bank - I think they are state notes, too. Bulgarian notes were printed in Russia during the socialist times. Hungary is an interesting exception from this view of point: We entered the communist era in 1949 with the same series with which we left it in 1989. Only the coat of arms changed...Timur lenk 23:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, I didn't realize the treasury note-banknote difference on koruna and leu. I sent you 2 files in email that illustrates banknotes influenced by the traditional denominations. However, I didn't write which ones are influenced on wiki, because I insist on completeness (until I do the same research on coins). I really hate half-complete job, like the splitting of Russian and Soviet ruble that is taken place "now". I don't understand why a redenomination is a confiscation. How is it different from what happen in Romania in 2005? Forint is indeed a rare example, not influenced by the traditional ruble style, and lasted 50 years if you don't consider the coat of arm change! I will be taking a wiki break for a few days. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting collection - no question that this is just a result of Soviet-Russian influence. Confiscation was executed through inequal exchange of different amount of currencies. Coins were sometimes not changed, small amounts of money was exchanged to new denomination at a much better rate than high amounts, and there was a limit per person for the old money possible to exchange to new. Since this was a special kind of redistribution, it can be considered as confiscation. The aim was to weaken richer classes - considered capitalist or counter-revolutionarist.Timur lenk 00:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

How silly of me not to think about the differential rate. We still need to resolve the size of 1 ruble. I agree that a ratio of 2:1 is reasonable. If you have multiple instances of this 1 ruble, and 104 × 52 is closer to average, then I have nothing to say. On my catalog, it says there are 2 varieties of 25 rubles But I don't have much faith in my catalog when it comes to minor detail like this. According to the website I quoted above, and with babelfish, it seems that this series was issued on 1961-01-01. But it is still possible that only a subset of the denominations was issued on that day. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) lilac tinted paper, 124 × 61 mm
 * 2) white paper, 121 × 62 mm

Well, I read that the redenomination took place in spring or something but I cant cite any source. I try to find the site again...Timur lenk 23:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If I have time in the near future, I will be spending my effort on separating Soviet and Russian ruble, something I started and should have finished long ago. (That includes succession relationship with the 14 republics).


 * You are right, the sources regarding the 1961 currency reform mention 1 jan as the date of change.Timur lenk 20:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * source


 * www.russiancoins.by.ru (translated by babelfish - indeed very useful!) it turns out that the 1947 series banknotes remained in circulation till 1 April 1961 (which I think is 31 March 1961)Timur lenk 21:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does. However, there is no "hard proof" that all 7 demoninations were issued on 1 Jan. Although it is logically possible that 50 and 100 rubles were issued in 2 Jan, that hypothetical scenario is highly unlikely, and I don't believe it is the case. But we must keep in mind of that.

But I don't understand why you said you think it's 31 March. Babelfish just failed on me. From what I can tell, 1 января is 1 Jan, 8 мая is 8 May. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 21:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * cos they usually say banknotes cease to be legal tender 1 april - which means the last day you can use it is the last day of the previous month. Just a theory. Another useful site (where I found the designers: "The sketches of the face side of the treasury and bank notes OF THE USSR model 1961 are executed by the artists S. pomanskiy and Yu. Lukyanov, and reverse - by deserved worker of the skills OF THE RSFSR I. dubasov.") is: www.statesymbol.ru Timur lenk 21:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Some info on the recall of soviet notes: www.globalfinancialdata.com


 * I have encountered Global Financial Data numerous times. I found its research not very rigorous. However, on the instance of Russia, there is a crucial piece of information. It says "On 24 July 1993, Russia announced that Soviet and Russian notes issued before 1993 would become invalid as of 26 July... Russia's demonetization of notes issued before 1993 notes marked the end of attempts to keep the former USSR largely intact as a ruble zone." Tables of Modern Monetary History: Asia (TMMH) appears to agree. You can find the almost identical quote in the info about former Soviet republics. However, TMMH has yet to published info on Europe. I have yet to find precise date on 1991 and 1992 series. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)