The problem is the last currency, Rupia (1911-1957). I thought we'd sorted these out a while ago but apparently someone has messed them up again. I shall request all coins in this currency be moved to Rupia (1880-1958) and would then asked that Rupia (1911-1957) is deleted so it can't be used again. Thankfully the banknotes are not messed up.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Status changed to Done(Jarcek, 29 May 2023, 12:58)
I've put in the move requests. I see the currency to go has been modified but can the end date of the rupee being kept go back to 1958? The notes weren't introduced until 1959, so this makes more sense.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Unfortunately, the referee has rejected all the moves I requested with the response
The currency is correct: The coin belongs do the Republic period.
It sems the referee does not understand the difference between a currency and a ruling authority. Should I appeal these rejections so that an admin can pass them?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
The creation of currencies for the Portuguese India from 1505 to 1960 is an unprecedented work and only applied in the pages of NUMISTA.
It was based on a lot of fragmented and not always correct information as this study has never been done before. Furthermore, the original documents were lost in fires and other occurrences or are simply inaccessible.
The work is not yet finished, especially in the first 100 years in which new coins were created based on those that already circulated in that space. Values and equivalences varied over time and from place to place. The values indicated in our first two currencies are average values and that allow us, above all, to relate the different denominations. To make things easier, the RUPIA has been divided into four periods:
Public accounting was done in provincial Réis (Goa) that were worth about 20% less than the strong Réis (of Portugal). After 1910, accounting began to be done in strong Réis.
In the first 24 years of the Republic, only one Rupee coin was issued in 1912, completely identical to the one previously issued by King Carlos.
The coins issued from 1934 onwards have a totally different typology. Therefore, their separation from the monarchy ones makes consulting our pages much simpler.
Are you saying that there was a new rupia introduced in 1911 that was worth about 1.2 earlier rupia? If that were the case, why were there no new coins or notes issued to reflect this change? As you say, the 1912 rupia was the same weight and silver fineness as the earlier rupias but you fail to mention that the 1934 rupia was also the same. Only in 1947 did the silver content fall. For the notes, those issued both before and after 1911 are “moeda corrente” with no currency reform indicated. If public accounting changed in 1911, where's the evidence that the currency changed as well? Coin typology is not the same as a currency.
We do need to merge the earlier hammered and milled coinages, since there was clearly no currency change there, but let's get 1911 sorted first.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Regarding the proposed number of currencies, I believe that we should apply a general mathematical principle when it comes to measurements: -The greater the precision of the measuring instrument, the more accurate is the result.
Thus, by dividing the Rupee into several sections (currencies), I would rather err on the side of excess than on default.
The mintage of Portuguese India is complex and the state of conservation of the oldest specimens does not help either. Thus, by dividing the currencies into a greater number of sections, we facilitate the work of research and cataloguing for collectors.
Therefore, I suggest that it remains as initially proposed, but with a little more detail:
I agree that precission is essential. That is why I see no reason to split in 1871 or 1910. No change in the currency occured in either of these years, as your list shows. To do so would wrongly imply that a change in the currency happened when, in fact, a change in manufacturing technique occurred in 1871 and a change in ruling authority occured in 1910. We have ways of registering both changes without needing to split the currency and we should use them.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Currencies should not really be split when there is a rulling authority or manufacturing technique change. That is quite artificial change.
I see that my appeals have now been accepted. I shall now request the movement of the 1871 coins to the earlier currency and would request that this earlier currency be changed to Rupia (1706-1880). Then the two redunadant currencies can be deleted. I hope the referee is now able to see the logic behind these changes.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
The referee (not unreasonably) would like the currency dates changed first before the moves take place. Can we therefore change Rupia (1706-1871) to Rupia (1706-1880)?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
