Organizing Latin American Reales [solved]

Currently, Latin American Reales are all over the place regarding organization within the catalog. 

Cob Colonial, Milled Colonial, and Post-Independence are all under varying categories. 

Here's what I've seen so far: 
Mexico: Cob Colonial, Milled Colonial, and Post-Independence Reales are all under the same category. (Weirdly there's a “Colonial Real” category with only one coin in it.)

Guatemala: Both Colonials are in the same category, Post-Independence is separate. 

Colombia: Both Colonials are in the same category, Post-Independence is separate. 

Peru: Both Colonials are in the same category, Post-Independence is separate. 

Chile: Both Colonials are in the same category, Post-Independence is separate. 

Bolivia: Cob Colonials and Milled Colonials are in separate categories. 
Ecuador: Milled Colonial and Post-independence under the same category but Ecuador only has 1 colonial issue so this one makes more sense. 

We could make it so that all of them only have 2 categories: Colonial and Post-Independence (the easy solution) or we can make them have 3 categories: Cob, Milled, and Post-Independence (the hard solution). The former would only require separating the Mexican and Ecuadorian Reales, and combining the Bolivian Colonial Reales. 

If there was no difference in value between the reales issued during different eras, surely they should be put together into single currencies? We have ruling authorities to separate the different time periods.

Well, even if that is the case, it's still very inconsistent across the various countries. 

JoshuaM83215

Well, even if that is the case, it's still very inconsistent across the various countries. 

I agree entirely.

Some initial thoughts are that “cob” and “milled” are production techniques, and it doen't strike me that these should be differentiated in the currencies (unless there was … separately … a reform of the currency, too).

It seems to me that the solution of Real (Colonial) and Real (for post-independence period) would be enough.  As pointed out by ceh, we have ruling authorities and periods to cover slices of time, rebellions and such.  

JoshuaM83215

….

 (Weirdly there's a “Colonial Real” category with only one coin in it.)

…. 

This one has been corrected. 

For Mexico, I agree we should set up a post-independence real.  What do we call this?  Real (Federal)?  And what is the date range?

I am away from my KM catalog, but maybe this has answers?

For now, I assume we only attach the issues of Agustin?

Edit:  The currency Real, Federal (1822-1823) has been created and the coins of Agustin I moved to it.  The date range can be changed if needed, and if there are other coins that belong on this currency, they can be submitted as Modification requests.

@adanieluy , @infierno 

Are you OK if we combine the two early Bolivian currencies?  

So we would have just one currency, Real (1572-1825) since both the cob and milled coinage was in the Real currency system.

This will make it consistent with the other parts of the Spanish New World.

tdziemia

@adanieluy , @infierno 

 

Are you OK if we combine the two early Bolivian currencies?  

So we would have just one currency, Real (1572-1825) since both the cob and milled coinage was in the Real currency system.

 

This will make it consistent with the other parts of the Spanish New World.

 

 

In fact that Real system was not from Bolivia, Chile, Perú… etc. They were Spanish colonies, so they were part of the Spanish currency system. For convenience they are listed on each country, that at the time they still did not exist. Also, the colonies were organized with different borders than the current country limits, and coins were valid on all of them. Most common is that the new countries, when gained their independence from Spain, soon they created their own currency or in the meanwhile accepted currencies from other countries, even European, North American, or Brazilian currency. 

I see Spain has Real and Real de Vellon currencies, on the time lapse of colonial period on Latin America. At first, I see coherent to simplify the currency division, now that we have the difference on the coin type (cob, milled); after all being cob or milled was only  about minting process, not about different currencies.

I'm a bit busy right now, but I will find some time in next days to review the currencies on my countries (Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Puerto Rico, Uruguay, Venezuela), and will add what I find.

Thank you!

Yes, I agree absolutely that before independence it is simple because it is just Real everywhere (same currency as Spain, as you say).

This would allow us to simplify the Bolivia currency before their independence, compared to what we currently have. 

If you can look at what we have just after independence, this would be helpful to see if any further modifications are appropriate.

Summarizing where we are (I think):

- The Real currencies pre-independence have been cleaned up (as agreed by adanieluy), and all given the same name, Real.  The Bolivian coins have been moved so that cob and milled are in the same curremcy system.

- A new Mexico currency “Real, Federal (1822-1823)” has been set up, and the Agustin I coins moved there.  This can be changed if needed (including adding any other coins that fit).

- Referee for many of the affected countries will do some further research in due time on any other needed changes to the post-independence currencies. 

tdziemia

Summarizing where we are (I think):

 

- The Real currencies pre-independence have been cleaned up (as agreed by adanieluy), and all given the same name, Real.  The Bolivian coins have been moved so that cob and milled are in the same curremcy system.

- A new Mexico currency “Real, Federal (1822-1823)” has been set up, and the Agustin I coins moved there.  This can be changed if needed (including adding any other coins that fit).

- Referee for many of the affected countries will do some further research in due time on any other needed changes to the post-independence currencies. 

Noted, thank you.

tdziemia

- A new Mexico currency “Real, Federal (1822-1823)” has been set up, and the Agustin I coins moved there.  This can be changed if needed (including adding any other coins that fit).

I don't understand the need for this. How was this real different to those which preceded or followed it in México? I'm also concerned about the idea that the colonial real was equivalent to the Spanish real, as they were often issued at different metallic standards. Part of the problem may be a failure to recognize how complicated the Spanish currency system was in the 18th and early 19th centuries. “Real (1497-1833)” glosses over a lot of changes.

ceh2019

tdziemia

- A new Mexico currency “Real, Federal (1822-1823)” has been set up, and the Agustin I coins moved there.  This can be changed if needed (including adding any other coins that fit).

I don't understand the need for this. How was this real different to those which preceded or followed it in México? I'm also concerned about the idea that the colonial real was equivalent to the Spanish real, as they were often issued at different metallic standards. Part of the problem may be a failure to recognize how complicated the Spanish currency system was in the 18th and early 19th centuries. “Real (1497-1833)” glosses over a lot of changes.

As I see it, Colonial Real and Independent era Real are different in the same way as U.K. Crown is different to Malawi Crown, and Crowns from many other countries: they are issued by different government authorities.

In the case of Spanish and Colonial Real they were different, as you say cause of being used modified alloy and unit weights, but “officially” they were (or should be) the same.

This modification is not merging Spanish Real with Colonial Real, just making 1 or 2 currencies on Colonial Real for each Latin American country, as needed, and separating it from the Real issued by them after Independence (which already was apart).

If I understand correctly, the Agustin Iturbide issues are the first issues under an independent Mexico.  This is why this currency has been differentiated from the earlier Real.  It has been issued under the authority of a new sovereign entity, not just a new ruler.

For the colonial period, using simply “Real” was just an attempt at standardizing in the simplest possible way.  If there is consensus that “Colonial Real” or anything else is a better approach, it can be changed with very little effort from Admin perspective.

Yes, I think “Colonial Real” is an apropiate name, in theory, Real at America colonies was the same as Spanish Real, but in fact there was differences (fineness of alloy, weight, and of course design) that make it a bit different.

Yes, a UK crown is different from a Malawi crown. However, Malawi wasn't using the UK currency before independence, it was using the currency of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. This has to be separate because it was issued for a larger political entity. The question here is whether it makes sense to split two Mexican issues based on a purely political change. We don't split the currency of Hong Kong between its time as a British colony and its current status as a Chinese SAR, nor do we split many other currencies when countries gained independence but continued with the same currency (e.g., the Seychelles, Mauritius, Finland). We must remember that by splitting the currency we are implying an inequivalence that simply didn't exist in this case.

I can see why you might want to create the term “Colonial Real” for all the Spanish colonies to indicate that these were equivalent to one another (and inequivalent to the Spanish real) but if that means splitting the currencies at independence when no change occurred, it isn't appropriate. Instead, we should consider a concise comment to indicate the equivalence.

OK, the early currencies have been standardized as “Colonial Real.”  

I have posed the question to other admins on whether the Mexico currency should change from Colonial Real to something different on independence.  

Hello,

It would be coherent with the new standards in Latin American Reales, if the Peruvian Reales could also be separated between a “Colonial Real” and a “Republican Real” period.

Regards 

So we now have the following for México:

Colonial Real (1535-1822)
Real, Federal (1822-1823)
Peso (1823-1992)
New Peso (1992-date)
 

but the coins in the first currency extend to 1897 and the coins in the third only start in 1863. I realise this may be a work in progress but it's a mess right now. Can I ask what the ultimate plan is?

Regarding Perú, it's clear that we can't have the “colonial real” extending to 1858. However, given no currency change occurred at independence, we need to remove the word “colonial” from this currency. It's clear that this change has not been thought through properly and its consequences considered.

Thanks for pointing out the inconsistencies.  It helps to get it right (eventually 🙂).  The coin you pointed out that had incorrectly been assigned the Colonial Real currency has been edited, and the date ranges of the post-independence Real and the Peso have been modified to make them correct.  Question of Colonial Real versus Federal (post-independence) Real is styill pending. 

The goal is to have a set of currencies that reflect what was in place over time in each issuing entity, and which fit with our guidelines.  In this particular instance, we also want there to be consistency across all the issuers.

How we get there is often a combination of database changes, and editing of individual entries.  So, the first response was to the initial post, which was largely about consistency of nomenclature, and to some extent about time ranges.  

The admins aren't perfect (especially me), or knowledgeable about every issuer where we need to do some fixes, so we rely on help from everyone.  Sorry if that looks chaotic.  

Now that the sun has risen over Denver I'll get my second cup of coffee and look into Peru.  

So the coin you moved is now listed under a currency dated 1863-1992 but was issued between 1824 and 1897. It's also denominated in reales but is listed under peso! What we need is the following:

Real (1535-1897)
Peso (1863-1992)
Nuevo Peso (1992-date)

Ther's no need to split the real but the real and peso need to overlap for 34 years. I could be wrong but I think we had that working fine until the current tinkering began. I know we all want to get this right (and I remember how difficult the ruling authorities for México proved to be) but we just need to pause and consider the effects of changes before we start applying them.

Thanks for the guidance.  Yes, I now see the overlap (Real/Peso) is needed … not intuitive.  Presumably this also means there is an equivalence 1 Peso = 8 Reales (1863-1897)? 

And as we will have the Real bridging both the colonial and the post-independence eras in a number of places, it seems the name is best standardized as Real.  

tdziemia

Thanks for the guidance.  Yes, I now see the overlap (Real/Peso) is needed … not intuitive.  Presumably this also means there is an equivalence 1 Peso = 8 Reales (1863-1897)? 

 

And as we will have the Real bridging both the colonial and the post-independence eras in a number of places, it seems the name is best standardized as Real.  

 

 

No, it's an odd situation, I think caused by the international use of the 8 reales coin which caused the Mexicans to keep on issuing them. I do think a single real currency is best except where a clear change occurred.

ceh2019

 

 

Regarding Perú, it's clear that we can't have the “colonial real” extending to 1858. However, given no currency change occurred at independence, we need to remove the word “colonial” from this currency. It's clear that this change has not been thought through properly and its consequences considered.

Hi, 

Yes, we can't have the “Colonial Real” extending to 1858 , but it's not so clear to solve this problem only removong “Colonial”.

Regarding other threads, Numista has to make clear what criteria will be followed:  That of  the “curreny”?  That of the “issuer” (in it's very ample and curious sense given by Numista)?

Don't forget that, inspite of using the same "currency" (Real), the issuer in the “colonial” period in Peru was the government of the Kingdom of Spain (the King), and the issuer for the “republican” period was the government of the independent Republic of Peru (the President of Peru).

Regards

P.S.: BTW, the “8 Reales” coins were indeed known as “1 Peso” (un peso de a ocho) pieces.

christianvl

ceh2019

 

 

Regarding Perú, it's clear that we can't have the “colonial real” extending to 1858. However, given no currency change occurred at independence, we need to remove the word “colonial” from this currency. It's clear that this change has not been thought through properly and its consequences considered.

Hi, 

Yes, we can't have the “Colonial Real” extending to 1858 , but it's not so clear to solve this problem only removong “Colonial”.

Regarding other threads, Numista has to make clear what criteria will be followed:  That of  the “curreny”?  That of the “issuer” (in it's very ample and curious sense given by Numista)?

 

Don't forget that, inspite of using the same "currency" (Real), the issuer in the “colonial” period in Peru was the government of the Kingdom of Spain (the King), and the issuer for the “republican” period was the government of the independent Republic of Peru (the President of Peru).

 

Regards

 

P.S.: BTW, the “8 Reales” coins were indeed known as “1 Peso” (un peso de a ocho) pieces.

 

 

The change of political authority behind the issues can be shown by the ruling authority. I suppose we could introduce a view by “form of government” to separate colonial and republican issues but I can see this causing all kinds of problems in other places.

ceh2019

 

The change of political authority behind the issues can be shown by the ruling authority. I suppose we could introduce a view by “form of government” to separate colonial and republican issues but I can see this causing all kinds of problems in other places.

It seems to me you may have a confusion of the roles:

A change of ruler doesn't mean to change the issuer, unless it is caused for the change of government, the ruler is the visible head of the same government. 

“Colonial Real" was issued by Spain to be used on the colonial region of America, with different (Spanish) rulers.

“Independent Real" was issued by the new independent republics after they separated from Spain, the issuer now was the new government of each country (Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, etc.). The ruler also changed, being the President or Government Joint, etc. in each case, cause of the change of government/issuer; therefore, the currency is not the same. 

In most cases, the currency of the new country was created some time after the date of independence, cause the new government had to solve loads of problems; create their new constitution, choose the members of government, organize army, etc. The creation of the new currency was not the highest priority, cause the coins had their value based on its contents of metal; silver, gold, copper… The new currency creation was then a matter of identity; in the meanwhile, the use of foreign coins was an acceptable alternative, including the Spanish coins. Some started very soon minting their own coins, like Peru and Bolivia, cause they already had the minthouses, and others countermarked foreign coins, or just accepted them in first times, and also is usual when creating the new currency, to list the “exchange rate” to other country's coins.

At my country, Uruguay, there was not a Colonial currency, being used Bolivian and Peruvian colonial coins, and later Argentinian and Brazilian ones, till the start of minting of coins. Independence was on 1825, Constitution on 1830, first coins on 1831 (used Buenos Aires 1/10 Real dated 1822 and 1823, that were already demonetized), first minted coins on 1840.

adanieluy

It seems to me you may have a confusion of the roles:

 

A change of ruler doesn't mean to change the issuer, unless it is caused for the change of government, the ruler is the visible head of the same government. 

 

“Colonial Real" was issued by Spain to be used on the colonial region of America, with different (Spanish) rulers.

 

“Independent Real" was issued by the new independent republics after they separated from Spain, the issuer now was the new government of each country (Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, etc.). The ruler also changed, being the President or Government Joint, etc. in each case, cause of the change of government/issuer; therefore, the currency is not the same. 

 

In most cases, the currency of the new country was created some time after the date of independence, cause the new government had to solve loads of problems; create their new constitution, choose the members of government, organize army, etc. The creation of the new currency was not the highest priority, cause the coins had their value based on its contents of metal; silver, gold, copper… The new currency creation was then a matter of identity; in the meanwhile, the use of foreign coins was an acceptable alternative, including the Spanish coins. Some started very soon minting their own coins, like Peru and Bolivia, cause they already had the minthouses, and others countermarked foreign coins, or just accepted them in first times, and also is usual when creating the new currency, to list the “exchange rate” to other country's coins.

 

At my country, Uruguay, there was not a Colonial currency, being used Bolivian and Peruvian colonial coins, and later Argentinian and Brazilian ones, till the start of minting of coins. Independence was on 1825, Constitution on 1830, first coins on 1831 (used Buenos Aires 1/10 Real dated 1822 and 1823, that were already demonetized), first minted coins on 1840.

The coins before independence in both México and Perú were produced and issued in those places under the authority of the Spanish Crown. That makes them Mexican and Peruvian, not Spanish, just as the coinages of other European colonies belong to the colonies and not the colonial powers.

There are plenty of examples where a “ruling authority” (a term created by Numista) is used to indicate a change in both government and ruler. For example, when Finland became independent, both the government (Russian Empire → Republic) and the ruler (Nikolai II → President) changed but we don't split the currency. You talk about “creating a new currency” but we need evidence that the new coins were a new currency and not a continuation of the currency issued before independence. If that evidence exists, we split. However, in most cases, the colonial coinage continued to circulate alongside the new coins which were issued to the same metal standards.

ceh2019

adanieluy

It seems to me you may have a confusion of the roles:

 

A change of ruler doesn't mean to change the issuer, unless it is caused for the change of government, the ruler is the visible head of the same government. 

 

“Colonial Real" was issued by Spain to be used on the colonial region of America, with different (Spanish) rulers.

 

“Independent Real" was issued by the new independent republics after they separated from Spain, the issuer now was the new government of each country (Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, etc.). The ruler also changed, being the President or Government Joint, etc. in each case, cause of the change of government/issuer; therefore, the currency is not the same. 

 

In most cases, the currency of the new country was created some time after the date of independence, cause the new government had to solve loads of problems; create their new constitution, choose the members of government, organize army, etc. The creation of the new currency was not the highest priority, cause the coins had their value based on its contents of metal; silver, gold, copper… The new currency creation was then a matter of identity; in the meanwhile, the use of foreign coins was an acceptable alternative, including the Spanish coins. Some started very soon minting their own coins, like Peru and Bolivia, cause they already had the minthouses, and others countermarked foreign coins, or just accepted them in first times, and also is usual when creating the new currency, to list the “exchange rate” to other country's coins.

 

At my country, Uruguay, there was not a Colonial currency, being used Bolivian and Peruvian colonial coins, and later Argentinian and Brazilian ones, till the start of minting of coins. Independence was on 1825, Constitution on 1830, first coins on 1831 (used Buenos Aires 1/10 Real dated 1822 and 1823, that were already demonetized), first minted coins on 1840.

The coins before independence in both México and Perú were produced and issued in those places under the authority of the Spanish Crown. That makes them Mexican and Peruvian, not Spanish, just as the coinages of other European colonies belong to the colonies and not the colonial powers.

There are plenty of examples where a “ruling authority” (a term created by Numista) is used to indicate a change in both government and ruler. For example, when Finland became independent, both the government (Russian Empire → Republic) and the ruler (Nikolai II → President) changed but we don't split the currency. You talk about “creating a new currency” but we need evidence that the new coins were a new currency and not a continuation of the currency issued before independence. If that evidence exists, we split. However, in most cases, the colonial coinage continued to circulate alongside the new coins which were issued to the same metal standards.

It is turning to be a political argument, so I will just point a couple points, and will not talk anymore about it, cause this site is not about politics, but about numismatics (I reckon currencies are deeply influenced by politics, but is not our study target).

Spain, England, Portugal, and a few more countries took part of the Colony system. They went to “discover” new territories (that already were discovered many centuries before by the native people living there). The claimed the land on their ruler's name, took possession of the resources, and became owners of everything, without taking into account the resident people of the places. They took all kind of goods, food, species, leather, metals, even human beings (AKA slavery). 

With regards to metals, most of gold, silver and copper was carried to Europe, and a minor amount were minted as coins, for local use. There are plenty of studies about of the amounts of silver and gold taken form colonies. If something slowed the transport of metals were, the excessive amount would lower the metals value.

By Spanish Law, the silver and gold deposits found in colonies were property of the king; the exploit of resources were given to enterprises against a payment of 1/5 of production, 20% ("Quinto Real"= King's fifth). Part of this portion was coined, but was not property of the local people, was used for payments needed, and remains went to King's funds. The other part (80%) neither was from local people, after payment of operation costs, went to the shared enterprise or individual.  According to tax records, 1550 to 1820, Potosí produced nearly 23 000 metric tons of silver. After independence, Bolivia, Perú and the rest of countries kept using the circulating coins, and eventually started producing their own money.

Resume: During Colonial period, Spain (Spanish king) was the owner of the resources, and Spain issued the coins, after the person of the king; when a king died or resigned, Spain continued issuing money, thru the new monarch. Coins were minted in the local minthouses (Potosí, México, Lima, etc.), but ordered, ruled and managed by Spain. Why? cause of was more convenient to mint coins in each place, than transport metal to Spain, mint, and take it back. 

After independence, each country started to issue their own money; so it was not Spanish money, anymore. 

Why many countries kept using the Real system? was easier to copy the system to create a new one; also it was “standardized”. Coins had their value backed by the metal contents; for this reason on 15th. to 18th. centuries the main currency was the “Real de a 8” (8 Reales, also known as Peso), on 19th. century was the British Pound, and on 20th. century was U.S. Dollar.

CIRCUMIT ORBEM PECUNIA TOTUM

All of that is true but it doesn't mean thet there was a currency reform upon independence. If you think the issuers should be split at independence, that's a different matter. I'm not sure it can be justified but it might be the solution you are looking for.

Sorry for having created confusion with the terminology on this topic.

Consulting with other admins, if the parameters of the currency (weights, purity …) did not change on independence, the currency can continue across the two periods.  So we are back to just calling it Real.  I understand this seems strange in the context of such a large political change, but it is consistent with how we have treated other places.

The “cob / milled” categorization has been removed for Bolivia, and a few other listings corrected.  For the Mexico Real, and for the Peso, an equivalence “8 Reales = 1 Peso (1863-1897)” has been added to address questions about the period of overlap.

If anything else was missed, please post, but I will mark this Done.

That solves Mexico, but what about Chile and Guatemala? 

JoshuaM83215

That solves Mexico, but what about Chile and Guatemala? 

Agreed, both have multiple reales.

For Chile, we could have the peso from 1817. There's one later 8 reales coin but the first peso was issued in 1817. This would replace “Republic Real (1817-1852)” and would need "8 Reales = 1 Peso, 2 Pesos = 1 Escudo" as a description. We still need a separate decimalized peso from 1835, this is currently called “Old peso”.

For Guatemala, we can merge the two existing reales into “Real (1733-1912)”. This overlaps with “Peso (1859-1925)”. It's an unusual situation but that's what happened, so we must record it accurately.

ceh2019

JoshuaM83215

That solves Mexico, but what about Chile and Guatemala? 

Agreed, both have multiple reales.

For Chile, we could have the peso from 1817. There's one later 8 reales coin but the first peso was issued in 1817. This would replace “Republic Real (1817-1852)” and would need "8 Reales = 1 Peso, 2 Pesos = 1 Escudo" as a description. We still need a separate decimalized peso from 1835, this is currently called “Old peso”.

For Guatemala, we can merge the two existing reales into “Real (1733-1912)”. This overlaps with “Peso (1859-1925)”. It's an unusual situation but that's what happened, so we must record it accurately.

Chile: I believe they are the same Peso, decimalized or not, all the Republic Reales would go under “Old Peso”

Guatemala: I believe the Reales after 1859 also were made under the Peso system, so those should be added there. Guatemala did issue some coins denominated in Reales after the Spanish and before 1859, so those could go under “Real”

Hi

Chile: the republican “Old Peso” is a currency which belongs to  the decimalized system; the republican currency used before the introduction of the “Old Peso” is NOT, because the Real-currency belongs to the octal  system.  The “Peso” of the early republican period since 1817 used as fractional coins the Real : ½ Real, 1 Real, etc. The fact that a piece of 8 Reales was also called  “Peso” didn't transform it in an decimalized coin!

If Numista wants to keep the “currency” as the main criteria for the catalogue -which I think is absolutely nonsense and unhistorical- well, go on. But please, don't forget to adapt all other issuers / countries/ states (or whatever you are trying to call them) to that system, including, for example, Germany since the introduction of the Mark in 1870 till its replacement by the Euro : Reichsmark, Rentenmark, D-Mark , Mark (DDR) is all the same “currency”!!  

I think this discusision is a big mess, as the whole restructuration is.  The catalogue is unnecessary  getting more and more complicated to follow, inspite of its great  technical improvements!

Regards.

JoshuaM83215

 

Chile: I believe they are the same Peso, decimalized or not, all the Republic Reales would go under “Old Peso”

Guatemala: I believe the Reales after 1859 also were made under the Peso system, so those should be added there. Guatemala did issue some coins denominated in Reales after the Spanish and before 1859, so those could go under “Real”

The inherited Real system from Spain was based on fractions of power of 2: ½ Real, ¼ Real, 1/8 Real and even 1/16 Real,  and multiples, also on power of 2: 2 Reales, 4 Reales, 8 Reales (equal to 1 Peso or 1 Peso Fuerte, depending on the region or new country), and 16 Reales, that was 1 Escudo. 

In the case of the use of hundredths, (Uruguay, Paraguay) the currency was Peso, but the hundredths (centavos, céntimos or centésimos) were from Real, so 1 Peso was equal to 800 hundredths (centavos, céntimos or centésimos).

The decimalized system, used currently, changed the fraction to be of the currency unit, no more Reals involved; so 1 Peso= 100 Centavos, Céntimos or Centésimos). Of course some countries used other names for their currencies, when first decimalized currency was created, or on later currency reforms, but all of them kept into the decimal system.

So not, Peso on Real system was not the same as on Decimal system; fractions and higher denominations were not the same.

adanieluy

JoshuaM83215

 

Chile: I believe they are the same Peso, decimalized or not, all the Republic Reales would go under “Old Peso”

Guatemala: I believe the Reales after 1859 also were made under the Peso system, so those should be added there. Guatemala did issue some coins denominated in Reales after the Spanish and before 1859, so those could go under “Real”

The inherited Real system from Spain was based on fractions of power of 2: ½ Real, ¼ Real, 1/8 Real and even 1/16 Real,  and multiples, also on power of 2: 2 Reales, 4 Reales, 8 Reales (equal to 1 Peso or 1 Peso Fuerte, depending on the region or new country), and 16 Reales, that was 1 Escudo. 

 

In the case of the use of hundredths, (Uruguay, Paraguay) the currency was Peso, but the hundredths (centavos, céntimos or centésimos) were from Real, so 1 Peso was equal to 800 hundredths (centavos, céntimos or centésimos).

 

The decimalized system, used currently, changed the fraction to be of the currency unit, no more Reals involved; so 1 Peso= 100 Centavos, Céntimos or Centésimos). Of course some countries used other names for their currencies, when first decimalized currency was created, or on later currency reforms, but all of them kept into the decimal system.

 

So not, Peso on Real system was not the same as on Decimal system; fractions and higher denominations were not the same.

I understand how the Peso/Real system works, i'm saying that the way it was used in Guatemala/Chile is the same way how its shown for the Venezuelan/Honduran Peso. They use both Real and Decimal subdivisions, but the overall currency is the same.

JoshuaM83215

Chile: I believe they are the same Peso, decimalized or not, all the Republic Reales would go under “Old Peso”

Guatemala: I believe the Reales after 1859 also were made under the Peso system, so those should be added there. Guatemala did issue some coins denominated in Reales after the Spanish and before 1859, so those could go under “Real”

For Chile, we could put everything until 1960 under a single currency but this would be at odds with the way we arrange other countries, where a reform of the subdivisions causes a split. The problem for Chile boils down to the ½ and 1 centavo coins issued in 1835. But for them, there would be a clear split in 1851 when the reales ceased production and the decimos began. Since we can't change history, we have to put the 1835 ½ and 1 centavo coins somewhere and the most obvious place is in with the later decimalized currency.

For Guatemala, the split at 1859 works since that's when the first pesos were struck. An alternative would be to have two pesos, one from 1859-1912 encompassing all the reales and early pesos and another from 1869-1925 encompassing all the centavos and the base-metal pesos from 1923. This would work for the coins but we would need to consider the banknotes as well.

As for the suggestion that we are creating something “unhistorical”, the key is to recognize that it isn't just the currency's name that matters but also its value and subdivisions. Germany underwent hyperinflation, causing the replacement of the Mark with the Rentenmark, later renamed the Reichsmark. This was then replaced by the Deutsche Mark with only small amounts of cash convertible at parity. Hence, we split them.

For Chile …

• My paper KM catalog (12th edition, 1986) lists the Republic Monetary System as 8 Reales = 1 Peso, with types ¼, ½, 1, 2, 8 Reales, 1 Peso, 1, 2, 4 and 8 Escudos, and the dates of the coins ranging from 1817 - 1851.
• It then lists the Decimal Coinage System as 10 centavos = 1 decimo, 10 decimos = 1 peso, 10 pesos = 1 condor,  and starts with the ½ and 1 centavo coins of 1835.

So, what we have in place right now is what Krause has.  We don't always follow Krause on Numista, but in this instance, I am not sure I see a strong reason to change?

For Guatemala after the Central American Republic …

• Krause has a section “Countermarked Coinage 1838-1841” all of which are denominated in reales, followed by
• Republic, Monetary System, 8 Reales = 1 Peso which includes ONLY the Reales denominated coins 1859 - 1912, followed by
• Decimal Coinage 100 Centavos (Centimos) = 1 Peso, which includes Centimo/Centavo denominated coins from 1869, but also includes the Peso denominated coins from 1859.   

So, again, the system we have in place is the same as what is in Krause, even though the co-existence of binary and decimal coinage systems seems bizarre.

So, again, do we need to change anything?

Do we need to change anything?

For Chile, we need to combine “Real (1541-1817)” and “Republic Real (1817-1852)”, change “Old peso (1835-1959)” to “Peso (1835-1959)” and change “New peso (1975-date)” to “Peso (1975-date)”. The words “old” and “new” never appeared on the coins or notes. It would be much better if the exchange rates between the currencies were indicated but this is not yet a field in the database.

For Guatemala, we have two options. The coins pre-1859 all need to be together, that much is clear. For the coins post-1859, we could either have a single currency “Peso (1859-1925)” or two, “Peso (1859-1812)” for the pesos and reales and "Peso (1869-1925)" for the centavos and 1923 pesos. If we split, the early pesos need to be with the reales that were issued alongside them. In this respect, KM creates the impression of a difference that didn't exist. The only note I can find less than 1 peso is a 50 centavos dated 1900, so that shouldn't cause any issues. Indeed, the notes seem to start in 1874, so could all go in "Peso (1869-1925)".

For Guatemala, there's a wonderful book called “A Monetary History of Central America” by Brian Stickney. It you all would give me a few days, I can see what that's says.

ceh2019

Do we need to change anything?

For Chile, we need to combine “Real (1541-1817)” and “Republic Real (1817-1852)”, change “Old peso (1835-1959)” to “Peso (1835-1959)” and change “New peso (1975-date)” to “Peso (1975-date)”. The words “old” and “new” never appeared on the coins or notes. It would be much better if the exchange rates between the currencies were indicated but this is not yet a field in the database.

For Guatemala, we have two options. The coins pre-1859 all need to be together, that much is clear. For the coins post-1859, we could either have a single currency “Peso (1859-1925)” or two, “Peso (1859-1812)” for the pesos and reales and "Peso (1869-1925)" for the centavos and 1923 pesos. If we split, the early pesos need to be with the reales that were issued alongside them. In this respect, KM creates the impression of a difference that didn't exist. The only note I can find less than 1 peso is a 50 centavos dated 1900, so that shouldn't cause any issues. Indeed, the notes seem to start in 1874, so could all go in "Peso (1869-1925)".

To me it looks like KM is calling the earliest Republic currency for Chile a Peso of 8 Reales ("Monetary System: 8 Reales = 1 Peso"), or using adanieluy's framework, it's a “binary” peso (has divisions of ½, ¼, 1/8, 1/16 etc).  Unless I am mistaken, the first coin struck after independence is an 1817 1 Peso coin.

So, it could be argued that the currencies are Peso of 8 Reales (1817-1852), then the (decimalized) Peso (1835-1959), then New Peso.  So we change the name of the 1817-1852 currency, and adjust the values of the coins relative to the peso (so a 4 Reales coin would be 0.5 instead of 4, etc.).

Agree on Guatemala currency being Real to 1859.  At 1859 Krause says (as for Chile) Monetary System: 8 Reales = 1 Peso, and as you point out, the 1 peso coin (KM# 178) goes with the reales denominated 1859 types (#131-133).  So if we follow KM, we would have Peso of 8 Reales (1859-1912) then (decimalized) Peso (1869-1925).  Similar changes as for Chile.        

I currently agree with the above change for Guatemala, at least until I get my hands on that book.

OK, the new currency names and date ranges for Guatemala are in place; it means moving a fair number of coins.  

The countermarked coins from the 1830s need to be moved back to the Real (1733-1859).  I started, but there are still a bunch of 8 reales coins left.

And, as Ceh2019 said, there are a bunch of silver 1 peso types (1859 - 1897) that needed to move to the Peso (not decimalized).  I think I've gotten these done, though I may have swept up some that should have remained on the decimalized peso.  If any look like they've been wrongly placed, please move them (I put all the 1894 counterstamped type in the non-decimal peso).

Lastly, using adanieluy's “powers of 2” rule, I figured the gold 2, 4, 8 and 16 reales belong to the Peso of 8 reales, and I left the 5, 10 and 20 peso coins on the decimalized Peso.

If we discover any of these assumptions are incorrect, we can edit the individual listings.

I will be offline for most of the next week, but can continue to work on this when I return. 

The face values are a bit scrambled at the moment but I think it's just that the database needs an overnight refresh. The only changes I'd suggest are as follows:

N#49175 → Peso (1859-1925) as it predates the centavo,

N#75203 → Peso (1859-1925) as it's part of the “binary” system,

N#75228 → Peso (1859-1925) to put it with the other overstamped pesos.

Three coins were missing denominations, so I requested for those to be added. Once the ordering by face value settles down, we should be able to see if there are any anomalies.

How can I introduce photos and new coins, banknotes and medals that do not appear on the Numista website, I would like to be able to collaborate, I am specialized in Peru and I would like you to inform me what I should do.

The Collectors History

How can I introduce photos and new coins, banknotes and medals that do not appear on the Numista website, I would like to be able to collaborate, I am specialized in Peru and I would like you to inform me what I should do.

Welcome to Numista!

I will contact you via PM, so we can chat about your target.

thank you

ceh2019

The face values are a bit scrambled at the moment but I think it's just that the database needs an overnight refresh. The only changes I'd suggest are as follows:

N#49175 → Peso (1859-1925) as it predates the centavo,

N#75203 → Peso (1859-1925) as it's part of the “binary” system,

N#75228 → Peso (1859-1925) to put it with the other overstamped pesos.

Three coins were missing denominations, so I requested for those to be added. Once the ordering by face value settles down, we should be able to see if there are any anomalies.

Thanks for checking.  Those three are corrected.  

Shouldn't the counterstamped 8 reales coins form 1839-1841 be in the real? Otherwise, it all looks right now.

Thanks for stayng on top of this.  I think those are now all changed to the correct currency.

After gaining access to “A Monetary History of Latin America” I propose the following for Guatemala's currencies:

Real (1733-1859)

16 Reales = 1 Escudo

Peso (1859-1869; 1871-1912)

8 Reales = 1 Peso

Peso, decimalized (1869-1871; 1881-1924)

100 Centavos = 1 Peso

Quetzal (1925-date)

100 Centavos = 1 Quetzal

I'm willing to discuss any questions that arise from the above table.

Does this book indicate that there was an aborted attempt at decimalization between 1869 and 1871? It certainly fits with the coins and implies that this peso was part of that attempt.

You are correct. There was an attempt to introduce a decimal currency in 1869. However, the president at the time was ousted and the decimal currency was withdrawn from circulation.

I'm not sure if we should include the decimalized currencies and fractional currencies in under the same listing. I am willing to hear either side on this one.

Some_Nerd

You are correct. There was an attempt to introduce a decimal currency in 1869. However, the president at the time was ousted and the decimal currency was withdrawn from circulation.

 

I'm not sure if we should include the decimalized currencies and fractional currencies in under the same listing. I am willing to hear either side on this one.

That will teach ya to try and mess with the currency! 😁

And it explains the messy stuff we noticed at that time.  I had wondered what currency some of those patterns pertained to, so maybe we look at those, too?

Let's see what other feedback comes on this.  It is easy enough to change the date ranges which are attached to the currencies, and if we only need to move one coin, that's great.

@tdziemia is it finished?

Thanks for the bump. I have closed it and if new issues come up, then new request can be opened.