Why are Surinamese coins shown as demonetized [solved]

Hello

The coins from Surinamese Guilders are shown as demonetized even though they are circulating currently and there are no proofs that they have been demonetized 

N#3777 

Only the years have changed, the coin is legal tender in Suriname - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surinamese_dollar#:~:text=Coins%20in%20denominations%20of%201%2C%205%2C%2010%2C%2025%2C%20100%20and%20250%20cents%20from%20the%20previous%20currency%20are%20in%20circulation.

The coin you linked to isn't shown as being demonetized.  

The value doesn't show in the local currency, this means that it is demonetized 

No, this means it was demonetized:

It says right on the coin page, “In 2004, the Surinamese gulden was replaced by the Surinamese dollar. This coin was revalued at 1 dollar.”  What you're showing is more of a system bug.

Changing the currency and denomination of these 6 coins will fix the problem.

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?e=suriname&r=&ct=coin&im1=&im2=&tb=y&tc=y&cat=y&ru=&ca=3&no=&v=&i=&b=&ie=&u=&a=1987-2015&dg=&m=&f=&t=&w=&mt=&g=&se=&d=&c=&wi=&sw=

The 1 cent is integrated into the 1 cent of Surinamese Guilder even though it was supposedly minted under the "Surinamese Dollar" whilst the 100 cents has its own page in Surinamese Dollar

Just why?

Not following. They are both shown with Guilder (1826-2003) currency.

rsirian1

Changing the currency and denomination of these 6 coins will fix the problem.

 

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?e=suriname&r=&ct=coin&im1=&im2=&tb=y&tc=y&cat=y&ru=&ca=3&no=&v=&i=&b=&ie=&u=&a=1987-2015&dg=&m=&f=&t=&w=&mt=&g=&se=&d=&c=&wi=&sw=

That would mean that the coins that were struck before 2004 are also called dollar, and that's not really the truth. As the Gulden was only renamed to Dollar, I think that we should merge Guilder (1826-2003) and Dollar (2004-date) to Gulden (1826-2003) / Dollar (2004-date). It's the same set of coins, only the name of the currency changed.

We did the same thing for Peru with the Nuevo sol (1991-2015) / Sol (2016-date).

Sure. That works. But how does it affect the Guilder (1826-2003) coins that are demonetized?  And do the denominations also have to be merged?

rsirian1

Sure. That works. But how does it affect the Guilder (1826-2003) coins that are demonetized?  And do the denominations also have to be merged?

As far as I understand, they haven't really been monetized, only renamed. Otherwise, why would they continue to mint the same coins as before?

What I mean is like this coin which is demonetized.  N#6046 Does anything bad happen if it now shows being made under the current currency? I don't think so but not sure.

Also, the available denominations will have to be merged unless you want a coin with “10 Gulden” on it to have a value of 10 Dollars listed.

I think that demonetized should not be a property of a currency, but of a coin. In The Netherlands, we used to have 1 cent coins until 1980. After that, they were demonetized, but the currency Gulden stayed until the switch to the Euro in 2002. I think that's what we should also do with the 5 cent coin you mention.

I don't think it's bad if the currency for that coin changes from Guilder (1826-2003) to Gulden (1826-2003) / Dollar (2004-date).

The first thing to point out is that the name of the old currency was the Gulden, not the Guilder. All the coins and notes are correct, even the description of the currency is right. This was correct until recently.

Regarding merging the Gulden and Dollar, that might work for the coins but not for the notes, where the division is quite clear. Suriname presents us with a clear challenge, as it is very unusual for coins to be revalued for use in a new currency. Ideally, the overlapping coins would be ascribed to both currencies (as we can with multiple ruling authorities) but I suspect the database isn't that flexible. If the coins of the Gulden continue to circulate, we must find a way to clearly indicate that. Given how rare this situation is, a one-off solution would seem easiest.

ceh2019

The first thing to point out is that the name of the old currency was the Gulden, not the Guilder. All the coins and notes are correct, even the description of the currency is right. This was correct until recently.

Regarding merging the Gulden and Dollar, that might work for the coins but not for the notes, where the division is quite clear. Suriname presents us with a clear challenge, as it is very unusual for coins to be revalued for use in a new currency. Ideally, the overlapping coins would be ascribed to both currencies (as we can with multiple ruling authorities) but I suspect the database isn't that flexible. If the coins of the Gulden continue to circulate, we must find a way to clearly indicate that. Given how rare this situation is, a one-off solution would seem easiest.

You just described this whole situation understandably in simple words

A similar situation happened in El Salvador with the transition from the Peso to the Colon in 1892. I think we need more than a simple one-off solution.

Some_Nerd

A similar situation happened in El Salvador with the transition from the Peso to the Colon in 1892. I think we need more than a simple one-off solution.

A very good point. I suppose we need to decide how we would want the coins in question displayed. Would we want them to appear under both currencies, only under one (with some way of indicating that they were part of the other as well) or in a separate section to show they were “shared” between the two currencies?

I think it's a good time to ping @dzmitry.huletski about how feasible these changes are.

ceh2019

only under one (with some way of indicating that they were part of the other as well)

Let's not forget this post started because even though the coins were not demonetized the value doesn't show in the local currency.  So this would have to be corrected if done that way.  

Yes, whichever method is chosen, coins still circulating will need to show their current value. Hopefully we can find a way of highlighting that this wasn't always their value. In this aspect, I think the Suriname case is unique.

Not sure if you understood what I was saying.  If you show them only under one (with some way of indicating that they were part of the other as well) (which is kind of what they are now) then the value in local currency doesn't show by default since the currency isn't in use any more.  

would need to become this:  

Yes, an “override” like that would seem the simplest solution (if it's possible) but it does still require users to know to look under the Gulden for coins circulating as dollars. If they could appear under both, would that be too confusing?

A search for coins in use NOW works.  

Most of the coins affected were made under both currencies.  Same design, composition, KM number.  I think the fix needs to be to “tell the truth.”  Don't know if that's technically feasible though.

Slightly off topic but how old are the oldest coins what are officiall legal tender?
I can't find any information online. The Central Bank Van Suriname website says the page is “under construction” and has been like that for years now.
I am guessing all coins since 1962 are legal tender?
Or are pre-1962 coins legal tender?
Or only post 1987 coins legal tender (the most recent change to all compositions, as 10c and above have had changes more recently but the 1c and 5c haven't.)

Suriname presented quite a challenge in this.

I tried to equal both currencies in the database, so they would share currency exchange rate, and thus showing it on pages. Unless that works, I could change Gulden currency code to the Dollar currency code - that works, but it would show wrong code for Gulden currency.

This is clearly a very challenging case for any database. Is there the possibility for a “manual override” in the website to show what we want to show?

AnthonyBoys

Slightly off topic but how old are the oldest coins what are officiall legal tender?
I can't find any information online. The Central Bank Van Suriname website says the page is “under construction” and has been like that for years now.
I am guessing all coins since 1962 are legal tender?
Or are pre-1962 coins legal tender?
Or only post 1987 coins legal tender (the most recent change to all compositions, as 10c and above have had changes more recently but the 1c and 5c haven't.)

Does anyone know?
I am aware such a question is very technical / esoteric but such knowledge is greatly appreciated!

Not sure if this answers your question but Numista indicates these 24 coins are still legal tender.

Edit: forget the link.  https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?e=suriname&r=&st=1-2-3&cat=y&im1=&im2=&ru=&ie=&ca=3&no=&v=&a=&dg=&i=&b=&m=&f=&t=&t2=&w=&mt=&u=now&g=&se=&c=&wi=&sw=

ceh2019

This is clearly a very challenging case for any database. Is there the possibility for a “manual override” in the website to show what we want to show?

For most things, yes. For this… nobody ever thought about it.

My change did not work, I set same code to Gulden as Dolar has now, that should help, but we are still showing wrong code.

rsirian1

Not sure if this answers your question but Numista indicates these 24 coins are still legal tender.

 

Edit: forget the link.  https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?e=suriname&r=&st=1-2-3&cat=y&im1=&im2=&ru=&ie=&ca=3&no=&v=&a=&dg=&i=&b=&m=&f=&t=&t2=&w=&mt=&u=now&g=&se=&c=&wi=&sw=

This is precisely why I asksuch a question :)
I am aware Numista lists some things as legal tender.
Sometimes, the information is old and coins have since been demonetised - and this information is usually only circulated within the country in question, and hard to find for “foreigners” like myself, despite extensive Google searching.
Also sometimes older coins are still honoured by the bank, but it's rarely known by people who aren't bank staff that this is the case, and often they will be marked as demonetised due to the lack of info.

One of my lockdown projects was researching what was legal tender in each country (in terms of both coins and banknotes). I done it alphabetically and got about 1/3rd of the way through, so no where near to “S” for Suriname… 

smvdbrink

I don't think it's bad if the currency for that coin changes from Guilder (1826-2003) to Gulden (1826-2003) / Dollar (2004-date).

I think @smvdbrink had the right solution : in a comparable case, its what we did with mints when they changed of geographical place like Monnaie de Paris

smvdbrink

I don't think it's bad if the currency for that coin changes from Guilder (1826-2003) to Gulden (1826-2003) / Dollar (2004-date).

The problem is that that only works for the coins. The notes underwent a 1000:1 change between the gulden and the dollar. One thing I hope that will come out of this is that the name of the currency is corrected to gulden.