For some reason, “LSD” is showing as the currency abbreviation for United Kingdom banknotes and pre-decimal coins. Since this stands for Libra, Solidus, Denarius, it's hardly an appropriate symbol. What's wrong with GBP, as used on English notes and decimal coins?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
“GBP” is not appropriate either since this is an ISO code, and these did not exist in 1971. Personally I am fine with LSD, I would prefer “STG”, but it is still much better than “GBP”. I would recommend “LSD” (or “STG”) be used for all pre-decimal Sterling denominations throughout the site. Had Sterling never been decimalized it is likely instead of just one ISO code three would have been used to properly use all three units of account. A single ISO code can only support decimal fractions, not the duodecimal LSD system.
“GBP” is not appropriate either since this is an ISO code, and these did not exist in 1971. Personally I am fine with LSD, I would prefer “STG”, but it is still much better than “GBP”. I would recommend “LSD” (or “STG”) be used for all pre-decimal Sterling denominations throughout the site. Had Sterling never been decimalized it is likely instead of just one ISO code three would have been used to properly use all three units of account. A single ISO code can only support decimal fractions, not the duodecimal LSD system.
If we aren't going to use the ISO 4217 code, we can't start inventing new codes out of thin air like LSD, which could just as easily be applied to any of the currencies based on that of Charlemagne. STG is listed as a non-standard code on Wikipedia, so is hardly appropriate. GBP represents sterling with no mention of its sub-divisions so, if we're using a code, that's the only one we can use.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
“GBP” is not appropriate either since this is an ISO code, and these did not exist in 1971. Personally I am fine with LSD, I would prefer “STG”, but it is still much better than “GBP”. I would recommend “LSD” (or “STG”) be used for all pre-decimal Sterling denominations throughout the site. Had Sterling never been decimalized it is likely instead of just one ISO code three would have been used to properly use all three units of account. A single ISO code can only support decimal fractions, not the duodecimal LSD system.
If we aren't going to use the ISO 4217 code, we can't start inventing new codes out of thin air like LSD, which could just as easily be applied to any of the currencies based on that of Charlemagne. STG is listed as a non-standard code on Wikipedia, so is hardly appropriate. GBP represents sterling with no mention of its sub-divisions so, if we're using a code, that's the only one we can use.
“GBP” is not capable of supporting duodecimal sterling because it did not exist until 1978, so is itself entirely inappropriate because it is ahistorical. Personally I do not think any coin or banknote issued prior to 1978 should be marked with ISO codes.
“GBP” is not capable of supporting duodecimal sterling because it did not exist until 1978, so is itself entirely inappropriate because it is ahistorical. Personally I do not think any coin or banknote issued prior to 1978 should be marked with ISO codes.
GBP stands for "Great Britain - Pound", so it has nothing to do with the sub-divisions. However, if ISO 4217 specifically excludes all currencies prior to 1978, it cannot be of any use in a field that stretches back to ca. 650 BC. As it stands, the codes are used for currencies that existed in 1978. This includes the pound.
Entirely off topic, but it's “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds”.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
“GBP” is not capable of supporting duodecimal sterling because it did not exist until 1978, so is itself entirely inappropriate because it is ahistorical. Personally I do not think any coin or banknote issued prior to 1978 should be marked with ISO codes.
GBP stands for "Great Britain - Pound", so it has nothing to do with the sub-divisions. However, if ISO 4217 specifically excludes all currencies prior to 1978, it cannot be of any use in a field that stretches back to ca. 650 BC. As it stands, the codes are used for currencies that existed in 1978. This includes the pound.
As of 2008 there is a Minor unit code in ISO 4217. For GPB it it is a “2” which indicates the minor unit is 1⁄100 of the major unit. So it technically doesn't apply before decimalization. (Much as I would like it to.)
As of 2008 there is a Minor unit code in ISO 4217. For GPB it it is a “2” which indicates the minor unit is 1⁄100 of the major unit. So it technically doesn't apply before decimalization. (Much as I would like it to.)
Can you post a link for that? I assume the 2 means 1/102 but I would be nice to check. If that is the case, we need to remove all codes for currencies that changed before 1978. Either way, “LSD” needs to be removed, regardless of the triple-entendre.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
GBP stands for "Great Britain - Pound", so it has nothing to do with the sub-divisions. However, if ISO 4217 specifically excludes all currencies prior to 1978, it cannot be of any use in a field that stretches back to ca. 650 BC. As it stands, the codes are used for currencies that existed in 1978. This includes the pound.
Entirely off topic, but it's “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds”.
Strictly speaking, its an algorithm, not an abbreviation and the letters are entirely meaningless. ISO's intention with these codes is a pretty crude attempt to extrapolate the methodology of abbreviating the US dollar to apply to every currency with varying degrees of success.
Search engines treat STG and GBP as synonyms of each other and they are regarded as such by the banking sector so I'm sure it could be grandfathered in to Numista by virtue of frequent use. I would say the same for renminbi ('RMB'), it would probably be easier than trying to find all the spurious ones.
It's clear there's been an attempt to extend the list beyond ISO 4217. I don't really see the point of this for a defunct currency but I suppose it could help link states in currency unions. Either way, none of these are as bad as "LSD". The issue with numbers appearing instead of currencies is hopefully being dealt with here.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
It's clear there's been an attempt to extend the list beyond ISO 4217. I don't really see the point of this for a defunct currency but I suppose it could help link states in currency unions. Either way, none of these are as bad as "LSD". The issue with numbers appearing instead of currencies is hopefully being dealt with here.
So would you be willing to support STG and RMB (and possibly also “NIS” for the New Israeli Shekel) if we are to ditch LSD? Because we might be finding common ground if so. I find these far more pleasing to the eye than the official ISO codes and STG would work for all sterling denominations whether duodecimal or decimal. These code-like abbreviations are fully synonymized and are not likely to be misinterpreted.
It's clear there's been an attempt to extend the list beyond ISO 4217. I don't really see the point of this for a defunct currency but I suppose it could help link states in currency unions. Either way, none of these are as bad as "LSD". The issue with numbers appearing instead of currencies is hopefully being dealt with here.
So would you be willing to support STG and RMB (and possibly also “NIS” for the New Israeli Shekel) if we are to ditch LSD? Because we might be finding common ground if so. I find these far more pleasing to the eye than the official ISO codes and STG would work for all sterling denominations whether duodecimal or decimal. These code-like abbreviations are fully synonymized and are not likely to be misinterpreted.
I would prefer that nothing that looks like an ISO code be used. (Both to prevent confusion, and to prevent conflicts with a future code.) How about 4 character codes starting with N for Numista? Or N-xxx (in which case N-GBP could be used).
It would be nice if all the codes (ISO and non-ISO) provided information – a link, a hover text, a ?, something – that says either “This is an ISO 4217 currency code. See <link> for information on currency codes.” or "This is a Numista currency code. See <same link> for information on currency codes.”.
So would you be willing to support STG and RMB (and possibly also “NIS” for the New Israeli Shekel) if we are to ditch LSD? Because we might be finding common ground if so. I find these far more pleasing to the eye than the official ISO codes and STG would work for all sterling denominations whether duodecimal or decimal. These code-like abbreviations are fully synonymized and are not likely to be misinterpreted.
We need to be careful if we use something like STG to cover all “sterling” denominations, both pre-decimal and decimal. This is because, after sterling left the gold standard in 1931, Australia devalued it's pound relative to sterling and maintained a peg of 1 Australian pound = 16 shillings sterling until 1966. It's issues like this that make me question the utility of having any codes after the face value. My issue with LSD is that it stands for the currency system as a whole, not just the chief unit of that system.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
So would you be willing to support STG and RMB (and possibly also “NIS” for the New Israeli Shekel) if we are to ditch LSD? Because we might be finding common ground if so. I find these far more pleasing to the eye than the official ISO codes and STG would work for all sterling denominations whether duodecimal or decimal. These code-like abbreviations are fully synonymized and are not likely to be misinterpreted.
We need to be careful if we use something like STG to cover all “sterling” denominations, both pre-decimal and decimal. This is because, after sterling left the gold standard in 1931, Australia devalued it's pound relative to sterling and maintained a peg of 1 Australian pound = 16 shillings sterling until 1966. It's issues like this that make me question the utility of having any codes after the face value. My issue with LSD is that it stands for the currency system as a whole, not just the chief unit of that system.
I'm well aware of the Australia issue; this is already solved by using the construction “AUP”.
I would be happy to help work on this.
bjherbison
It would be nice if all the codes (ISO and non-ISO) provided information – a link, a hover text, a ?, something – that says either “This is an ISO 4217 currency code. See for information on currency codes.” or "This is a Numista currency code. See for information on currency codes.”.
This would be excellent.
Here are my personal suggestions for some Numista codes:
AMR - Armenian Rouble AUP - Australian Pound AZR - Azerbaijani Rouble CAP - Canadian Pound FJP - Fijian Pound NGP - Nigerian Pound NIS - New Israeli Shekel RMB - Renminbi SAP - South African Pound STG - Sterling, both for historic duodecimal and current decimal sterling. (only for denominations unambiguously and always at total parity, such as pre-1970s Malta, pre-1910 South Africa and Australia etc.)
I see no issue with this at all considering that Numista seperates the coins into the two different catagories for pre and post decimalisation.
1 Penny LSD would mean 1/240
while 1 Penny GBP would mean 1/100
It has its uses and its just a numista website quirk, I don't think theres a need for making new fake ISO codes or whatever and making this website more complicated than it needs to be. LSD and the (current) GBP money systems are different and it can help to have different letters to show what's being used.
If anything, alot of the entries for United Kingdom coins and banknotes probably just say “Pound” anyway.
I see no issue with this at all considering that Numista seperates the coins into the two different catagories for pre and post decimalisation.
1 Penny LSD would mean 1/240
while 1 Penny GBP would mean 1/100
It has its uses and its just a numista website quirk, I don't think theres a need for making new fake ISO codes or whatever and making this website more complicated than it needs to be. LSD and the (current) GBP money systems are different and it can help to have different letters to show what's being used.
LSD is a “new fake ISO code”. ISO codes are three letter currency identifiers, and Numista is using LSD where it uses ISO codes.
FlyingRedPanda
If anything, alot of the entries for United Kingdom coins and banknotes probably just say “Pound” anyway.
The code display doesn't depend on whether the entry says “Pound”. The LSD isn't something put the listing by an editor, it's something added to the page by the web site based on the currency selection.
In the way i'm seeing LSD being used on the website, it's fine.
it's displayed as ( for LSD) Pound sterling (1158-1970) or (for GBP) Pound sterling (decimalized, 1971-date)
LSD is fine for an ISO code, as it seems to represent a currency that no longer is in use, as opposed to GBP which is currently in use, so it makes sense to make a distinction between the two.
In the way i'm seeing LSD being used on the website, it's fine.
it's displayed as ( for LSD) Pound sterling (1158-1970) or (for GBP) Pound sterling (decimalized, 1971-date)
LSD is fine for an ISO code, as it seems to represent a currency that no longer is in use, as opposed to GBP which is currently in use, so it makes sense to make a distinction between the two.
How is “LSD” fine for an ISO code when this code doesn't exist in ISO 4217? We can't create up new codes. ISO does that.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
In the way i'm seeing LSD being used on the website, it's fine.
it's displayed as ( for LSD) Pound sterling (1158-1970) or (for GBP) Pound sterling (decimalized, 1971-date)
LSD is fine for an ISO code, as it seems to represent a currency that no longer is in use, as opposed to GBP which is currently in use, so it makes sense to make a distinction between the two.
How is “LSD” fine for an ISO code when this code doesn't exist in ISO 4217? We can't create up new codes. ISO does that.
There are ISO-style abbreviations used for currencies that do not have ISO codes or when the user personally dislikes the official ISO code. Duodecimal Sterling never had an ISO code, and had decimalization never taken place it is likely three ISO codes would have been used (potentially something along the lines of XSL, XSS and XSD: for example XSL 10: XSS 6: XSD 4 for £10:6/4)
There are ISO-style abbreviations used for currencies that do not have ISO codes or when the user personally dislikes the official ISO code. Duodecimal Sterling never had an ISO code, and had decimalization never taken place it is likely three ISO codes would have been used (potentially something along the lines of XSL, XSS and XSD: for example XSL 10: XSS 6: XSD 4 for £10:6/4)
We clearly do have “ISO-style” codes in other parts of Numista. That would seem to be because there is no clear guidance as to what the code should be. Regarding duodecimal sterling, why do you think three codes would have been required when there was only one currency?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Regarding duodecimal sterling, why do you think three codes would have been required when there was only one currency?
A single code simply cannot support a non-decimal currency because they are based on strict decimals.
The code is for currencies, not for currency units. ISO 4217 it not intended to describe the intricacies of each currency system.
ISO 4217 does have a feature to identify how sub units related to the base unit, but that can't actually be used for anything as it isn't accurate. (For the Malagasy ariary and the Mauritanian ouguiya the code is “2” which is supposed to mean the sub unit is 1⁄100 of the base unit. For those systems the sub unit is 1⁄5 of the base unit.)
The code is for currencies, not for currency units. ISO 4217 it not intended to describe the intricacies of each currency system.
I entirely disagree; the esoteric notion of currency cannot possibly be divorced from expressing its value in terms of units and how they interact with each other.
The ariary and the ouguiya are bad examples because they are of such low value that sub-units are not used in practice.
The code is for currencies, not for currency units. ISO 4217 it not intended to describe the intricacies of each currency system.
I entirely disagree; the esoteric notion of currency cannot possibly be divorced from expressing its value in terms of units and how they interact with each other.
Since the first five editions (at least), the first 30 years (1978-2008 at least), of ISO 4217 had no information about subunits and the standard was used it appears there is a use for a currency specifier that doesn't describe the intricacies.
But this is getting off topic. You previously stated you didn't think ISO codes should be used for coins or banknotes issued before 1978. (I almost agree, I would allow it to be used for earlier items if there was no change to the currency, the currency units, or the subunits).
So what should Numista do for earlier items?
Don't list any currency code.
Use fake currency codes (LSD) which look like ISO 4217 codes.
Use codes that aren't three letter codes so they can't be confused with present or future ISO 4217 codes (NLSD, N-LSCD, xLSD).
Use names “UK Pound”.
Something else?
I'm in favor of 3), just like we don't make up new KM numbers. (But I admit ISO 4217 codes are created much less often than new KM numbers.)
Since the first five editions (at least), the first 30 years (1978-2008 at least), of ISO 4217 had no information about subunits and the standard was used it appears there is a use for a currency specifier that doesn't describe the intricacies.
I am not entirely familiar with the history of these codes or how they were used; they do not seem to have been common before the mid-2000s, but it sounds like this was simply something they did not bother officially addressing until 2008. Had Sterling not been decimal in 1978 they would surely have had to come up with some sort of solution to represent shillings and pence since Sterling could not be appropriately represented with decimal fractions. Online LSD calculators (such as this one) use three columns for duodecimal sterling and one column for decimal Sterling.
bjherbison
But this is getting off topic. You previously stated you didn't think ISO codes should be used for coins or banknotes issued before 1978. (I almost agree, I would allow it to be used for earlier items if there was no change to the currency, the currency units, or the subunits).
That is indeed my standard position, until I noticed quite a large number of spurious pseudo-ISO codes are already used and would prefer to avoid too much restructuring.
bjherbison
So what should Numista do for earlier items?
Don't list any currency code.
Use fake currency codes (LSD) which look like ISO 4217 codes.
Use codes that aren't three letter codes so they can't be confused with present or future ISO 4217 codes (NLSD, N-LSCD, xLSD).
Use names “UK Pound”.
Something else?
I'm in favor of 3), just like we don't make up new KM numbers. (But I admit ISO 4217 codes are created much less often than new KM numbers.)
The simplest solution would probably be to use abbreviations contemporary to the time; such as “Rthl” for “Reichsthaler”, “£SA” for South African pounds and such. I could probably come up with a decent list.
I still don't see the purpose of the having a code in the first place. If it's an ISO 4217 code, that at least links to other things, but a new code links to nothing, so I see no point in it at all.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I still don't see the purpose of the having a code in the first place. If it's an ISO 4217 code, that at least links to other things, but a new code links to nothing, so I see no point in it at all.
Then would you be fine with using signs or abbreviation that were actually used when the currency was in circulation?
It would certainly have some significance to include symbols as they were used but we may find it difficult to pin down one symbol that was used consistently in every case. To me, something like this has more value than a modern code but it may go beyond the scope of this catalogue.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I still don't see the purpose of the having a code in the first place. If it's an ISO 4217 code, that at least links to other things, but a new code links to nothing, so I see no point in it at all.
A number by itself provides no information, a number needs context to be useful. For example: On the page for N#7181 almost every number has units. Years don't, mintage doesn't (but the column heading “Mintage” provides context), fineness doesn't (should it?). Here is the features box:
The value is “½ Crown = 2 Shillings 6 Pence (⅛ LSD)”. If it were “½ Crown = 2 Shillings 6 Pence (⅛)” the ⅛ would confuse some people.
I agree with you that a new code that links to nothing is pointless. The LSD is confusing – it isn't defined anywhere on that page, or anywhere on Numista. (I just searched the documentation centre.)
(Looking at Wikipedia the standard use isn't LSD but “Lsd or £sd” with the latter being the page name.)
Also, if Numista is using LSD as a currency code, why isn't it in the Currency line?
Currency: Pound sterling (LSD) (1158-1970)
The ⅛ is relative to the base unit of the currency system (which is commonly used as a proxy for the currency system). Currently the LSD (the currency system code) is being used as a proxy for the base unit. Why not use the base value explicitly? A value of “½ Crown = 2 Shillings 6 Pence (⅛ Pound sterling)” would be straightforward.
Units are, of course, very important. Perhaps I'm too close to it to find the link to the base unit hard to see. In the absense of an ISO-4217 code, I'd agree that the base unit needs to appear.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I still don't see the purpose of the having a code in the first place. If it's an ISO 4217 code, that at least links to other things, but a new code links to nothing, so I see no point in it at all.
A number by itself provides no information, a number needs context to be useful. For example: On the page for N#7181 almost every number has units. Years don't, mintage doesn't (but the column heading “Mintage” provides context), fineness doesn't (should it?). Here is the features box:
The value is “½ Crown = 2 Shillings 6 Pence (⅛ LSD)”. If it were “½ Crown = 2 Shillings 6 Pence (⅛)” the ⅛ would confuse some people.
I agree with you that a new code that links to nothing is pointless. The LSD is confusing – it isn't defined anywhere on that page, or anywhere on Numista. (I just searched the documentation centre.)
(Looking at Wikipedia the standard use isn't LSD but “Lsd or £sd” with the latter being the page name.)
Also, if Numista is using LSD as a currency code, why isn't it in the Currency line?
Currency: Pound sterling (LSD) (1158-1970)
The ⅛ is relative to the base unit of the currency system (which is commonly used as a proxy for the currency system). Currently the LSD (the currency system code) is being used as a proxy for the base unit. Why not use the base value explicitly? A value of “½ Crown = 2 Shillings 6 Pence (⅛ Pound sterling)” would be straightforward.
The Half Crown would thus display as “½ Crown = 2 Shillings 6 Pence (£stg ⅛)”
Only if £stg is defined at that point (link or symbol showing there is a hover text). But why define a special symbol – not used anywhere else in or out of Numista as far as I can tell – to mean “Pound sterling” instead of just using “Pound sterling”?
The Half Crown would thus display as “½ Crown = 2 Shillings 6 Pence (£stg ⅛)”
Only if £stg is defined at that point (link or symbol showing there is a hover text). But why define a special symbol – not used anywhere else in or out of Numista as far as I can tell – to mean “Pound sterling” instead of just using “Pound sterling”?
£stg would not be remotely unique to Numista, the World Bank's style guide lists it as a disambiguating abbreviation (specifically under symbol as “£ or £ stg”). I am also thinking of how it would affect denominations of £1 and above, such as this coin for example, if your idea were followed the value would read “5 Pounds (5 Pounds sterling)", which would be rather redundant, whereas my suggestion would give “5 Pounds (£stg 5)”.
£stg would not be remotely unique to Numista, the World Bank's style guide lists it as a disambiguating abbreviation (specifically under symbol as “£ or £ stg”). I am also thinking of how it would affect denominations of £1 and above, such as this coin for example, if your idea were followed the value would read “5 Pounds (5 Pounds sterling)", which would be rather redundant, whereas my suggestion would give “5 Pounds (£stg 5)”.
Do you have a link to a list of abbreviations the World Bank uses?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I found the World Bank style guide. I find it interesting that I can only find English – does the bank only use English? (I found a short guide on translating into Spanish from 2004.)
Whatever approach we take for currency symbols/currency units it would be nice if we don't add any additional translation burden. (I don't think this is an issue with any of the current proposals.)
One note about the style guide (unrelated to this discussion): It uses “cent” as the sub-unit for Euro, not “Euro cent”.
This list does a fairly good job but it gets some things wrong. Most glaring is “guilder” for Curaçao, it should, of course, be gulden. It could be the basis of a comprehensive list but there's a lot of work to be done. Perhaps we'd be better off reviewing how the face value is displayed?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
This list does a fairly good job but it gets some things wrong. Most glaring is “guilder” for Curaçao, it should, of course, be gulden. It could be the basis of a comprehensive list but there's a lot of work to be done. Perhaps we'd be better off reviewing how the face value is displayed?
I am aware there are issues with the list, I was just citing it as a contemporary example that uses “£ stg” for Sterling. It isn't easy to search for because Google doesn't include “£” when entered as a search result. “£ stg” and “STG” appear in Bank of England and Board of Trade publications and several central banks identify Sterling as “STG POUND” on their FOREX pages, such as the Central Bank of Kenya. I am rather keen on STG because it is fully synonymized with GBP. For example entering “convert STG to EUR” into Google brings up the Sterling / Euro exchange rate. STG and RMB are not ISO codes but they are entirely synonymous with the official ISO codes, hence I feel it would not be completely out of the question to use those on Numista, particularly as the official ISO codes are two of the least intuitive.
The main reason I had trouble finding references to £stg is that search engines tend to ignore symbols. I just tried six search engines and all treated a search for “£stg” as a search for “stg”. Adding quotes in the search field didn't help.
This doesn't affect the discussion of what characters we should use, but if we use something other than letters it reinforces my view that Numista should explain the symbols used.
The main reason I had trouble finding references to £stg is that search engines tend to ignore symbols. I just tried six search engines and all treated a search for “£stg” as a search for “stg”. Adding quotes in the search field didn't help.
Same issue I had.
bjherbison
This doesn't affect the discussion of what characters we should use, but if we use something other than letters it reinforces my view that Numista should explain the symbols used.
Numista associates a code to some currencies. These codes are used on the coin/banknote pages to display a unit next to the numeric face value. We also store whether the code is from ISO 4217 or not, even if it is not displayed.
Example of display of the currency code
For a long time, only ISO 4217 codes were displayed. It was changed recently so that the code GGP for Guernsey can be displayed, without enough consideration for the side-effects with other codes.
The goal of displaying the codes is to facilitate understanding by showing a unit next to the value. There is no point in making up new codes or using codes that are not well known.
My preferred solutions are:
Showing a more common code or symbol when it exists, even if it is not unique. For example, we could use “£” instead of “LSD”. There is no ambiguity, since the currency is anyway mentioned just below.
Not showing codes that are not part of ISO 4217 (the codes in the historical list of ISO 4217 would still remain). We could review the display so that it looks less weird when no code is shown.
Showing a more common code or symbol when it exists, even if it is not unique. For example, we could use “£” instead of “LSD”. There is no ambiguity, since the currency is anyway mentioned just below.
Not showing codes that are not part of ISO 4217 (the codes in the historical list of ISO 4217 would still remain). We could review the display so that it looks less weird when no code is shown.
Whatever solution is decided, LSD should definitely be removed since it is a currency system and not a currency unit.
Just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it isn't there - Anon.
For the moment, I removed the code “LSD”, reverting to the same display as we always had until recently.
Thanks for this. Displaying the value as a multiple or fraction of the base unit has real meaning when the base unit doesn't appear, since we can sort by this number. However, we do need some way of showing units. I have noticed this number sometimes disappears (e.g., here) but I've not been able to work out when that behaviour is triggered. If it were possible to only show it (with appropriate units) when the denomination doesn't include the base unit, that would avoid cases like “1 Pound (1 Pound Sterling)”.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I have noticed this number sometimes disappears (e.g., here) but I've not been able to work out when that behaviour is triggered. If it were possible to only show it (with appropriate units) when the denomination doesn't include the base unit, that would avoid cases like “1 Pound (1 Pound Sterling)”.
The “numeric” face value appears only when it is not already mentioned in the “text” face value. For example, N#224546 shows just “100 Pounds” because it's useless to repeat “100 Pounds (100)”.
The “numeric” face value appears only when it is not already mentioned in the “text” face value. For example, N#224546 shows just “100 Pounds” because it's useless to repeat “100 Pounds (100)”.
I see ‘1 Pound’ not ‘1 Pound (1)’ and the currency conversion is a completely different line ‘1 GBP = EUR 1.16’.
Edit: if its your own currency then the conversion gets compacted '1 Euro (1 EUR)', so a solution (if one even would be necessary) would be to hide the conversion completely for the selected own currency.
Showing a more common code or symbol when it exists, even if it is not unique. For example, we could use “£” instead of “LSD”. There is no ambiguity, since the currency is anyway mentioned just below.
I approve of this!
RM for the Reichsmark is appropriate since this was a widely used symbol.
It is a shame the full list of ISO codes and pseudo ISO codes isn't directly available for review.
I have some suggestions: Australian Pound: £A (eg. “£A 10”) South African Pound: £SA (eg. “£SA 100”) New Zealand Pound: £NZ (eg. “£NZ 50”) Palestine Pound: £P (eg. “£P 100”) Sterling Pound: STG (for both historical duodecimal and present day decimal sterling, this abbreviation is fully compatible with ISO because software considers them synonyms) (eg. “50 STG”) Renminbi Yuan: RMB (eg. “100 RMB”) First Brazilian Cruzeiro: Cr$ (eg. “Cr$100”) Argentine Moeda Nacional Peso: m$n (eg. "m$n 100") First Finnish Mark: FMk (eg. “FMk 100”) Russian Imperial Rouble: Rbl (eg. “Rbl 100”) First French Franc: Fr (eg. "Fr 100") First Austrian Schilling: Sch (eg. “Sch 100”) First Yugoslav Dinar: Din (eg. “Din 100”) French Livre Tournois: ₶ (eg. "125₶") Ottoman Turkish Pound: £T (eg. "£T 100") First Polish Republic Zloty: zl (eg. “zl 100”) Polish Mark: Mp (eg. “Mp 100”) First Greek Drachma: Dr (eg. “Dr 100”) Ionian obol: ob (eg. 6 ob) Hungarian Pengo: P (eg. “P 100”) German Reichsmark: RM (eg. “RM 100”) First Czech Crown: Kc (eg. “Kc 100”) First Estonian Crown: EKr (eg. “EKr 100”) Straits Settlements Dollar: S$ (eg. "S$100")
All of these are contemporary abbreviations from period documentation.
Not in English sources though, where “zl” is used.
ngdawa
I'd also say that Greek Drachma had ₯, but maybe it needs to be in Latin script?
I am not sure whether this symbol was ever actually used or if it is one of Unicode's spurious code points, I have never been able to find any examples of actual use.
EDIT: On further research, it appears the currencies that were assigned the least intuitive ISO codes resisted them the longest. Ones like “USD” start appearing fairly early on; but “GBP” basically doesn't appear until the early 2000s . “GBP”, “PTE” and “ESP” are the three worst in my humble opinion, I'm constantly mixing up the latter two because they look the wrong way round (they look like they should be read as “EScudo Português” and “PeseTa Español”).
Search engines treat STG and GBP as synonyms of each other and they are regarded as such by the banking sector so I'm sure it could be grandfathered in to Numista by virtue of frequent use. I would say the same for renminbi ('RMB'), it would probably be easier than trying to find all the spurious ones.
Please refer to wiki currency ISO codes not in use. It explains many of these codes.
I've no idea where some of the dubious ISO codes came from, like “RHP”; the Rhodesian pound was no longer current when ISO came into existence, and given Rhodesia's international isolation they would not have been assigned a code.
In summary, my opinion is that ISO codes are appropriate when the machine code resembles an actual abbreviation of the currency name (thus “USD” is fine), but when they differ significantly (like sterling or renminbi) an abbreviation ought to be used.
“GBP” is not appropriate either since this is an ISO code, and these did not exist in 1971. Personally I am fine with LSD, I would prefer “STG”, but it is still much better than “GBP”. I would recommend “LSD” (or “STG”) be used for all pre-decimal Sterling denominations throughout the site. Had Sterling never been decimalized it is likely instead of just one ISO code three would have been used to properly use all three units of account. A single ISO code can only support decimal fractions, not the duodecimal LSD system.
If we aren't going to use the ISO 4217 code, we can't start inventing new codes out of thin air like LSD, which could just as easily be applied to any of the currencies based on that of Charlemagne. STG is listed as a non-standard code on Wikipedia, so is hardly appropriate. GBP represents sterling with no mention of its sub-divisions so, if we're using a code, that's the only one we can use.
“GBP” is not capable of supporting duodecimal sterling because it did not exist until 1978, so is itself entirely inappropriate because it is ahistorical. Personally I do not think any coin or banknote issued prior to 1978 should be marked with ISO codes.
Rhodesia had 2 currencies from 1964 - Rhodesian Pound (RHP) & Rhodesian Dollar (RHD).
L.S.D. sounds very Roman - not very British or British Commonwealth!
“GBP” is not appropriate either since this is an ISO code, and these did not exist in 1971. Personally I am fine with LSD, I would prefer “STG”, but it is still much better than “GBP”. I would recommend “LSD” (or “STG”) be used for all pre-decimal Sterling denominations throughout the site. Had Sterling never been decimalized it is likely instead of just one ISO code three would have been used to properly use all three units of account. A single ISO code can only support decimal fractions, not the duodecimal LSD system.
If we aren't going to use the ISO 4217 code, we can't start inventing new codes out of thin air like LSD, which could just as easily be applied to any of the currencies based on that of Charlemagne. STG is listed as a non-standard code on Wikipedia, so is hardly appropriate. GBP represents sterling with no mention of its sub-divisions so, if we're using a code, that's the only one we can use.
“GBP” is not capable of supporting duodecimal sterling because it did not exist until 1978, so is itself entirely inappropriate because it is ahistorical. Personally I do not think any coin or banknote issued prior to 1978 should be marked with ISO codes.
Rhodesia had 2 currencies from 1964 - Rhodesian Pound (RHP) & Rhodesian Dollar (RHD).
L.S.D. sounds very Roman - not very British or British Commonwealth!
Aidan.
not British!? here's Dickens -
“…Why money should be so precious to an Ass too dull and mean to exchange it for any other satisfaction, is strange; but there is no animal so sure to get laden with it, as the Ass who sees nothing written on the face of the earth and sky but the three letters L. S. D.—not Luxury, Sensuality, Dissoluteness, which they often stand for, but the three dry letters. Your concentrated Fox is seldom comparable to your concentrated Ass in money-breeding.”
Jamais l'or n'a perdu la plus petite occasion de se montrer stupide. -Balzac
