Merge Belizean Currencies [solved]

Hello,

The current Belizean Dollar is split at 1973. This is leftover from the merging of Belize and British Honduras. There was not actual change in currencies. Therefor the currencies should be merged from:

Dollar (1885-1973)
Dollar (1973-date)
into
Dollar (1885-date)

Thank you for your time,
Theodore

Theodore, I don't agree with you there.

Belize was created in 1973 as a British colony to replace the Colony of British Honduras.

Therefore, having the Belizean Dollar's start date at 1973 is correct.

The same also applies to the Rupee in Sri Lanka, which has a start date at 1972 to replace the Ceylonese Rupee.

Aidan.

Hello Aidan,

You are correct that Belize changed it's name from British Honduras to Belize. However, they did not change their currency. In the catalog guidelines, it states "Currencies are not created for... Minor name changes (for example, “new Turkish lira” became “Turkish lira” in 2009)." The Belize dollar is a clear example of a minor name change and not a change in currency.

Also, this debate is totally separate from whether or not Belize and British Honduras should be listed as separate issuers, as they used the same currency.

The nationality of the currency changed from the British Honduras Dollar to the Belizean Dollar.

Belize became independent in 1981, & remains an independent Dominion in the British Commonwealth with Queen Elizabeth II as Queen of Belize.

British Honduras is listed as a separate country in Krause.

Aidan.

Yes, the currencies are the same. However, as it currently stands, the only separation that we have between British Honduras and Belize is the separate currencies. Therefore, when British Honduras and Belize are separated, a single currency can be applied to both. Not before.
It isn't a separate debate because one lead to the other.

But that doesn't matter. If Belize changed it's name to "Union of Sentient Meatballs" and still kept the Dollar, it would still be "Dollar (1885-date)."

Belize and British Honduras used the same currency, period.

Agreed. What's wrong is the merger of British Honduras and Belize. Fix that and this little section of Numista will be just fine.

Quote: "ceh2019"​Agreed. What's wrong is the merger of British Honduras and Belize. Fix that and this little section of Numista will be just fine.

​
Belize is NOT the same as British Honduras - like Ceylon is NOT the same as Sri Lanka.

They are all listed separately in Krause.

Aidan.

Quote: "BCNumismatics"​
​Belize is NOT the same as British Honduras - like Ceylon is NOT the same as Sri Lanka.
​
​They are all listed separately in Krause.
​
​Aidan.

​Nobody here is claiming that they are. We are simply saying that they used the same currency.

I'll give you the example of Israel. Before they became independent, they were a part of British Palestine. During that time they used the Palestine Pound and after independence Israel continued to use the Palestine Pound until 1949. Even though there was a major change in government, there was no change in currency.

Belize and Sri Lanka continued to use the Colonial currency after they became independent. With no change in currency there should be no duplicate currency on Numista.

I think that in this discussion you are all partly right. Two different topics are being discussed here:

1. Should Belize and British Honduras be two separate issuers? I suppose that is the first step that should be analyzed. Numista has made the decision to put them together under the same name, and I think that we will not be able to modify that, although in my humble opinion it is a mistake, and let me explain: the Numista Catalog has something very interesting which is the concept Country / Issuer, that is, under the same entity (Country) there can be other associated entities (Issuer). This is not in other online catalogs and I think that, as in this case, it is not well used, as it would be the occasion to be able to separate the two entities. As in the case of Ceylon / Sri Lanka or of many former colonies that, even in many cases, modified their monetary unit.

2. Should Belize have two separate monetary periods? In no case, even if Belize and British Honduras were two separate issuers, there should only be a common monetary period for both, since this has remained unchanged and is the same since 1885. I think that there can be no differences in criteria.

Quote: "oynbcn"​I think that in this discussion you are all partly right. Two different topics are being discussed here:
​
​1. Should Belize and British Honduras be two separate issuers? I suppose that is the first step that should be analyzed. Numista has made the decision to put them together under the same name, and I think that we will not be able to modify that, although in my humble opinion it is a mistake, and let me explain: the Numista Catalog has something very interesting which is the concept Country / Issuer, that is, under the same entity (Country) there can be other associated entities (Issuer). This is not in other online catalogs and I think that, as in this case, it is not well used, as it would be the occasion to be able to separate the two entities. As in the case of Ceylon / Sri Lanka or of many former colonies that, even in many cases, modified their monetary unit.
​
​2. Should Belize have two separate monetary periods? In no case, even if Belize and British Honduras were two separate issuers, there should only be a common monetary period for both, since this has remained unchanged and is the same since 1885. I think that there can be no differences in criteria.

​

Belize & British Honduras are listed separately in Krause - as is both Ceylon & Sri Lanka.

Therefore, the currencies should be listed separately.

The Belizean Dollar should be listed as starting in 1973, not 1885.

Aidan.

Quote: "oynbcn"​I think that in this discussion you are all partly right. Two different topics are being discussed here:
​
​1. Should Belize and British Honduras be two separate issuers? I suppose that is the first step that should be analyzed. Numista has made the decision to put them together under the same name, and I think that we will not be able to modify that, although in my humble opinion it is a mistake, and let me explain: the Numista Catalog has something very interesting which is the concept Country / Issuer, that is, under the same entity (Country) there can be other associated entities (Issuer). This is not in other online catalogs and I think that, as in this case, it is not well used, as it would be the occasion to be able to separate the two entities. As in the case of Ceylon / Sri Lanka or of many former colonies that, even in many cases, modified their monetary unit.
​
​2. Should Belize have two separate monetary periods? In no case, even if Belize and British Honduras were two separate issuers, there should only be a common monetary period for both, since this has remained unchanged and is the same since 1885. I think that there can be no differences in criteria.

​Well put. My case is that, as long as the error of hiding British Honduras within Belize persists, keeping the separate currencies allows the two different names to be kept separate. I only disagree on one thing, that this mistake can't be fixed. Look at Djibouti, still split into French Somaliland, French Afars and Issas and Djibouti. Why? Because the French side of the website wouldn't stand for this kind of vandalism and has the power to stop it.

Quote: "BCNumismatics"​​​Belize & British Honduras are listed separately in Krause - as is both Ceylon & Sri Lanka.

​You keep mentioning Krause. Krause is an excellent reference, but it isn't perfect. We shouldn't automatically assume that everything in Krause is correct.

Quote: "BCNumismatics"​​​Belize & British Honduras are listed separately in Krause - as is both Ceylon & Sri Lanka.
​
​Therefore, the currencies should be listed separately.

​France and Germany are listed separately in Krause. Therefore the Euro currency entry should be split into separate currencies by country. Or maybe not, but that seems to be the result of your ​​​Belize and British Honduras argument.

SIX currently maintains the list of currency codes[1]. They also have a document describing historic currency codes[2] which doesn't include an entry for British Honduras. What evidence do you have that there was a *currency* *change* when British Honduras became ​​​Belize?

(I'm asking because I am truly interested. I thought I had evidence for a change, but upon review I don't trust my notes.)0

On the overall issue of identifying splits in countries the 1973 name change is significant, but it isn't as significant as the 1981 independence which is also ignored in Numista because the currency didn't change.

[1] https://www.six-group.com/en/products-services/financial-information/data-standards.html#scrollTo=currency-codes
[2] https://www.six-group.com/dam/download/financial-information/data-center/iso-currrency/lists/list_three.xls

There was no change in currency. There was a change in the name of the country. From a cataloguing perspective, that's more important than independence in 1981, which could be taken as a change in ruling authority (although Elizabeth II remained monarch, whch is why it's currently ignored). The only split we currently have in 1973 is due to an erroneous split in the currencies. However, since this separates the two different country names, I'm proposing keeping it until the proper country names are restored.

For what it's worth, I can bring my personal experience here. When I was in Belize in June 2015, as a good numismatist, I went to the bank to be able to take a good batch of circulating coins and, among the many of Belize that I got, there were some with the legend British Honduras, so I imagine there were no change in the monetary system in 1973, since I found in 2015 coins in circulation prior to independence and the change of name of the country.

Quote: "oynbcn"​For what it's worth, I can bring my personal experience here. When I was in Belize in June 2015, as a good numismatist, I went to the bank to be able to take a good batch of circulating coins and, among the many of Belize that I got, there were some with the legend British Honduras, so I imagine there were no change in the monetary system in 1973, since I found in 2015 coins in circulation prior to independence and the change of name of the country.

​Exactly this.

Quote: "ceh2019"​There was no change in currency. There was a change in the name of the country. From a cataloguing perspective, that's more important than independence in 1981, which could be taken as a change in ruling authority (although Elizabeth II remained monarch, whch is why it's currently ignored). The only split we currently have in 1973 is due to an erroneous split in the currencies. However, since this separates the two different country names, I'm proposing keeping it until the proper country names are restored.

​
Independence in late 1981 actually created a major constitutional change - as an independent Dominion with Queen Elizabeth II as Queen of Belize.

Prior to independence, Queen Elizabeth II was represented by the Governor of British Honduras from 1952 to 1973, then by the Governor of Belize. She had no separate royal title for Belize, as Belize was a British colony.

Have a read here;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Belize .

I have a 2017 25 Cents from Belize, whose design is the same as that of other Belizean & the British Honduras 25 Cents - a case of recycling & adaptive reuse of older designs.

Aidan.

Quote: "BCNumismatics"​
Independence in late 1981 actually created a major constitutional change - as an independent Dominion with Queen Elizabeth II as Queen of Belize.
​
​Prior to independence, Queen Elizabeth II was represented by the Governor of British Honduras from 1952 to 1973, then by the Governor of Belize. She had no separate royal title for Belize, as Belize was a British colony.
​
​Have a read here;
​
​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Belize .
​
​I have a 2017 25 Cents from Belize, whose design is the same as that of other Belizean & the British Honduras 25 Cents - a case of recycling & adaptive reuse of older designs.
​
​Aidan.

​By this logic, Cyprus should be split between British Cyprus and Cyprus, Fiji into British Fiji and Fiji, and Hong Kong into British Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Where do you want to draw the line?

Quote: "Some_Nerd"​​​By this logic, Cyprus should be split between British Cyprus and Cyprus, Fiji into British Fiji and Fiji, and Hong Kong into British Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Where do you want to draw the line?

​Absolutely right. It's the name that matters, not the political status. It's no wonder this mess hasn't been fixed when someone keeps muddying the waters.

You're really having fun, aren't you?

Quote: "Sjoelund"​You're really having fun, aren't you?

​No, trying to prevent vandalism is rarely fun.

Quote: "ceh2019"​

Quote: "Sjoelund"​You're really having fun, aren't you?

​​No, trying to prevent vandalism is rarely fun.

​But it's so obvious, you're right, you have won the argument a few time already

And yet nothing has been done to fix it. It's easy to prove this is right but something will only get done if we keep up the pressure on the vandals. If you have another approach that you think will bring a quicker resolution, I'm all ears.

PM sent

Two questions - now that the Belize is settled (hopefully), 1) Can we merge the Ceylon and Sri Lanka Rupee the same way; 2) Can we merge New Hebrides and Vanuatu the same way we merged East Timor and Timor-Leste.
Sri Lanka would be Rupee (1872-date), just like Belize.
For Vanuatu, when those East Timor and Timor-Leste were merged, the distinct currencies remained distinct. Pataca (1894-1959), Escudo (1958-1976) and US Dollar (2003-date) are listed under Timor-Leste. New Hebrides and Vanuatu should be the same: Vanuatu: Franc (1921-1982), Vatu (1982-date).
I know I am throwing gas on an already blazing fire, but this needs to be done for catalog consistency.

Quote: "JRo69"​Two questions - now that the Belize is settled (hopefully), 1) Can we merge the Ceylon and Sri Lanka Rupee the same way; 2) Can we merge New Hebrides and Vanuatu the same way we merged East Timor and Timor-Leste.
​Sri Lanka would be Rupee (1872-date), just like Belize.
​For Vanuatu, when those East Timor and Timor-Leste were merged, the distinct currencies remained distinct. Pataca (1894-1959), Escudo (1958-1976) and US Dollar (2003-date) are listed under Timor-Leste. New Hebrides and Vanuatu should be the same: Vanuatu: Franc (1921-1982), Vatu (1982-date).
​I know I am throwing gas on an already blazing fire, but this needs to be done for catalog consistency.

​
Totally NOT in favour of this - totally dumb idea!

Aidan.

Quote: "BCNumismatics"​

Quote: "JRo69"​Two questions - now that the Belize is settled (hopefully), 1) Can we merge the Ceylon and Sri Lanka Rupee the same way; 2) Can we merge New Hebrides and Vanuatu the same way we merged East Timor and Timor-Leste.
​​Sri Lanka would be Rupee (1872-date), just like Belize.
​​For Vanuatu, when those East Timor and Timor-Leste were merged, the distinct currencies remained distinct. Pataca (1894-1959), Escudo (1958-1976) and US Dollar (2003-date) are listed under Timor-Leste. New Hebrides and Vanuatu should be the same: Vanuatu: Franc (1921-1982), Vatu (1982-date).
​​I know I am throwing gas on an already blazing fire, but this needs to be done for catalog consistency.

​​
​Totally NOT in favour of this - totally dumb idea!
​
​Aidan.

Many people think inconsistency and inequality are totally dumb ideas.

Quote: "JRo69"​Many people think inconsistency and inequality are totally dumb ideas.

Many people think inaccuracy is a dumb idea. That's why it's so important to record correctly the country which issued a coin or note. The splits in currencies are a sign that the people merging country names didn't know what they were doing. Merging the currencies now makes things a little worse. Please stop giving the vandals ideas they might act upon.

For what it's worth, I agree with @oynbcn that British Honduras and Belize (as well as British Guiana and Guyana, Portuguese Timor and Timor-Leste...) should really have remained (or became, in the British Guiana/Guyana case) separate issuers in the first place. (And I wouldn't necessarily be against separating Cyprus and Fiji into British and post-independence issuers too, though in that case the name didn't change.)
IIRC there's a bunch of examples in German states where issuers are separated into stuff like Duchy of X and Archduchy of X, which are the same place but with slightly different titles.

I somewhat disagree with @ceh2019 because I believe that as long as they continue their extreme terminology they're only going to make everyone else think it's a bad idea even if they would have agreed otherwise, but terminology aside, their point appears to be correct.
I also somewhat disagree with @BCNumismatist because I do not believe that Krause should be the only authority for what qualifies as a separate issuer, even within the period it covers. In this specific case, though, Krause's choice appears to be the correct one.

That said, name splits are tricky because (IIRC) sometimes the name written in English and the name written in the local language(s) have changed at different times.

Is it the term vandal that bothers you? I use that term because I can't come up with a better description. I spent quite a bit of time putting the Ceylonese and Sri Lankan notes in their proper places (it isn't straight-forward as the central bank retained the name Ceylon for several years) and that work is now going to be negated by having the two merged. If that isn't vandalism, what is?

Quote: "ceh2019"​Is it the term vandal that bothers you? I use that term because I can't come up with a better description. I spent quite a bit of time putting the Ceylonese and Sri Lankan notes in their proper places (it isn't straight-forward as the central bank retained the name Ceylon for several years) and that work is now going to be negated by having the two merged. If that isn't vandalism, what is?

​What's the difference between British Honduras/Belize and Ceylon/Sri Lanka? Split them both or merge them both. Just treat them the same.

Quote: "JRo69"​​​What's the difference between British Honduras/Belize and Ceylon/Sri Lanka? Split them both or merge them both. Just treat them the same.

​The difference is that we are creating a catalogue. This must be a record of the pieces issued. You cannot record a piece issued by Ceylon as having been issued by Sri Lanka. It's simply inaccurate. You and I know that British Honduras became Belize and that Ceylon became Sri Lanka but we can't assume every user of this site will know that. Hence, accurate recording of the pieces is essential.
We musn't fall into the trap of thinking that simple is better. History is complicated and a catalogue must accurately reflect this complexity, not dumb it down. If you want to write an article about the coins or notes from these places, it makes sense to describe the pieces issued under both names to indicate the continuity, but that isn't a catalogue.

Quote: "ceh2019"​

Quote: "JRo69"​​​What's the difference between British Honduras/Belize and Ceylon/Sri Lanka? Split them both or merge them both. Just treat them the same.
​
​

​​The difference is that we are creating a catalogue. This must be a record of the pieces issued. You cannot record a piece issued by Ceylon as having been issued by Sri Lanka. It's simply inaccurate. You and I know that British Honduras became Belize and that Ceylon became Sri Lanka but we can't assume every user of this site will know that. Hence, accurate recording of the pieces is essential.
​We musn't fall into the trap of thinking that simple is better. History is complicated and a catalogue must accurately reflect this complexity, not dumb it down. If you want to write an article about the coins or notes from these places, it makes sense to describe the pieces issued under both names to indicate the continuity, but that isn't a catalogue.

​I am not seeking to dumb the catalog down; in fact, quite the opposite. Consistency is not stupidity, it's accuracy. I just want consistency. If the catalog has one country listed one way and another country listed another way, it's not consistent and it's not an accurate catalog. We're getting too caught up in name changes. The currency remains the same and should be reflected in the catalog. If you want to change ruling authority, use that search term vs. face value.

Consistency only enhances accuracy if what's being done consistently is accurate. You are correct that both countries must be treated the same. The only accurate way to do that is to correctly indicate the name of the country at the time the individual pieces were issued. I'm not arguing that consistency is stupid. I'm arguing that using the wrong name is inaccurate.
You're also right that we're getting caught up in name changes. That's because they are vital to the proper cataloguing of a piece. If you are trying to identify a coin or note, the single most important piece of information is what state issued it, something that is usually indicated on the piece. If we get that wrong (as we are at the moment for both British Honduras and Ceylon) we aren't producing an accurate catalogue. Being consistently wrong is still wrong.
Using the ruling authority to indicate changes in country name really doesn't work because that doesn't appear on the main index. Compare Belize and Djibouti. The latter has been left alone (so as not to annoy the French users) and the three distinct names are clearly indicated in the main index. In contrast, British Honduras has vanished.

Quote: "JRo69"​

Quote: "ceh2019"​Is it the term vandal that bothers you? I use that term because I can't come up with a better description. I spent quite a bit of time putting the Ceylonese and Sri Lankan notes in their proper places (it isn't straight-forward as the central bank retained the name Ceylon for several years) and that work is now going to be negated by having the two merged. If that isn't vandalism, what is?

​​What's the difference between British Honduras/Belize and Ceylon/Sri Lanka? Split them both or merge them both. Just treat them the same.

​
Merging them is worse than putting lipstick on a pig, then saying it is another animal, when it is still clearly a pig!

Coins for British Guiana, British Honduras, & Ceylon should be listed separately, as should the banknotes.

Aidan.

Thank you,
Just merged these. The name of the country will be displayed soon like for Ceylon.

There is an error in the system on Belize coins now: 

 

When first you click on ‘Colony of British Honduras’ and then ‘search’ you get 28 coins, when next you click on Belize one still gets the same 28 old coins, but not the Belize ones.

 

When first you click on Belize, then search, then ‘Colony of British Honduras’ and then search again, you get those coins plus the Belize ones as well.

stratocasterThank you,
Just merged these. The name of the country will be displayed soon like for Ceylon.

And is that a good thing? I just saw this for the member “stratocaster”:

How is that possible? I hope stratocaster will report that as a bug?