Cyprus: currencies

26 posts

» Quick access to the last post

In 1983 there was a reform coinage in Cyprus. Before 1983 1 pound was 1000 mils, after 1983 1 pound is 100 cents. Why are these currencies not separated in our catalogue? Now the cents and mils are between each other and in my opinion that's not the way it should be.

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/chypre-1.html#devise116
are the mils written out on the page correctly? a cent would be 0.01 while a mil would be 0.001. If the mils ( a thousandth of a pound) are written correctly, and the cents(a hundredth of a pound) are written correctly, then the indexing would be correct. and then it would make sense that mils and cents are mixed up. but they are still in value order.

Were they just new denominations, or did they completely do away with the currency and install a new pound?
This is interesting , because when the US was establishing its currency, initially the small coins were mils. And during the wars, the tax tokens you had to use for purchases were based on mils. communities and counties still sometimes levy taxes as mils.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
The Cyprus Pound did not change but still I'm in favour of splitting the Mil and Cent coinages. Otherwise we might even throw the non-decimal Piastres and Shillings in the mix.
Mil is decimal.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
Mil= 1000th of a pound cent= 100th of a pound... they are the same currency. They belong in the decimal currency. Your piasters and shillings are pre- decimal. Why shouldn't the mils be in the decimal? A mil is a decimal denomination. [Edited for spelling]
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
Unless they were demonitized, mils are right where they need to be. Poor mils so unloved...and unwanted. The coinage reform added denominations, but unless mils were demonitized then they shouldn't be removed. They would still be a valid part of the decimal pre euro system, I would think. 10 mil=1 cent. Some British predecimal coins still circulated for a time with decimal values but you don't see Numismatists include predecimal coins with decimal coins. I would think it would be unusual to exclude a decimal denomination from other decimal denominations because it doesn't sound right or it is annoying. And adding piasters and shillings to the mix seems as silly as taking mils out of the mix. Numista does it right. Predecimal together...decimals together...
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
Quote: "Oklahoman"​They would still be a valid part of the decimal pre euro system, I would think. 10 mil=1 cent.

​That's just the problem. 10 mils are not 1 cent. Mils were struck before 1983, cents were struck after 1983, so there is no correlation between mils and cents. Separating currencies has nothing to do with decimal or predecimal, but with different currencies and 1000 mils = 1 pound is another currency than 100 cents = 1 pound, even when the "pound" has still the same name.
And it has also nothing to do with "poor mils so unloved....and unwanted". I love the mils as much as the cents. It's just much easier to find all the coins back while adding when all the mils are grouped together and all the cents are grouped together.
And it's not important either if the mils were demonitized or not. Just like you said, in the UK some British predecimal coins still circulated for a time with decimal values, so there was definitely a correlation between them. Yet they are in a different currency in our catalogue. What makes that so different from the Cyprus coins who don't deserve their own currency in your opinion?
Mils and cents are in the same money system. They are all denominations and divisions of the same pound. Your division would be artificial. 10 mils are one cent. A 10 mil and a cent are of the same value. The 5 mil and half cent circulated side by side. The mil and the cent are subunits of the pound. The bank of Cyprus and the Wikipedia page on Cyprus coins support the logic of mil and cent as sub units of a pound. The SAME pound.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
I have kind of similar situation in Bohemia/Moravia. Denar and Bracteate systems (interchangeable, just unsure how) existed alongside each other. People were actively using both, but I made two currencies for those. It would be terrible mixup, if they were together.

Here, I believe it creates some problems - I remember myself trying to understand Cyprus coinage for first time, so maybe we could split them.

I am not sure of this, but was not British Pound the same Pound before and after decimalization? Just different form of division?
Catalogue administrator
It will probably make it clearer. How unusual for you Jarek to want Numista to look more like Krause and me to argue for the status quo. Lol.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
Krause has it divided? (8 I did not know.
Catalogue administrator
Quote: "Oklahoman"​Mils and cents are in the same money system. They are all denominations and divisions of the same pound. Your division would be artificial. 10 mils are one cent. A 10 mil and a cent are of the same value. The 5 mil and half cent circulated side by side. The mil and the cent are subunits of the pound.

​In the UK shillings and cents are divisions of the same pound sterling. 2 shillings = 10 new pence, they have the same value and they circulated side by side. The 2 shillings and the 10 new pence are subunits of the same pound sterling.
So the Cyprus case is identical with the UK case, yet we treat them differently. And that's exactly one of the big flaws of Numista: inconsistency. Similar cases need similar treatment, and that's something we too often don't do on Numista.
Thanks for this confirmation, I guess we should gather opinion of Cyprus referee now.

EDIT: Wrote to him now.
Catalogue administrator
The goal should be ease of use. Cyprus has great coins. I have lots of them. If separating them works for Numista it will work for me. Seems that there was only one "bridge" coin after all, the 5 mil and the 1/2 cent. Sorry I was unable to see with clarity the other side of the argument. I too wonder about Numista consistency Esser Prof. If I stepped on toes I apologize.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
Quote: "Oklahoman"​If I stepped on toes I apologize.
​If you think you stepped on my toes, don't apologize because you didn't. There is nothing wrong with a healthy discussion between opinions. But if I think I'm right, I don't give up easily and I will use all the arguments I can think of to convince my opponent. So don't worry, my perseverance has nothing to do at all with feeling stepped on my toes.

But like you said, the goal should be ease of use. And in my opinion it's much easier to find a coin when the same coins are grouped together. Click on the right currency and you'll find the coins you look for immediately. If you merge the mil coins and the cent coins, it will take longer to find it, especially because they changed from 1000 = 1 to 100 = 1. I challenge you: how long will it take for a novice collector, and how much will he scroll to find a Cyprus 1/2 cent between those mixed mils and cents coins? A novice collector doesn't know there are 1000 mils in a pound, but only 100 cents in a pound. If you separate the currencies, he only has to click on the right currency and the 1/2 cent will appear as the very first coin.

Another example of ease of use: I know there is some resistance against Krause, and I know the last decade(s) there are more and more mistakes in Krause. Nevertheless, most world coins collectors use Krause, all over the world. I'm no exception. So I guess, a lot of world coins collectors classify their collection, according to Krause. And Krause separates the mils and cents for Cyprus too. I know a lot of collectors make their own Excel files. If they follow Krause, like I do, there is no ease of use if Numista and Krause differ too much. I certainly don't say you have to follow Krause blindly, but if you don't there must be a very good and well-founded reason.
All excellent and logical points. I actually do my collection by Krause. But while I have lots of small change, I do prefer crowns. But I agree about Krause.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
Dear Oklahoman and Dear Essor Prof,

It was great pleasure to read you hot discussion and many valid points well rightly highlighted. You both made valid suggestions, but let me a bit clarify here as a Referee for this beautiful country with amazing coins

Cyprus was declared an independent republic in 1960 and became a member of the British Commonwealth in 1961. The first coinage of the Republic, issued in November 1963, comprise 5 coins in denominations of 1 mil, 5, 25, 50 and 100. The monetary unit of the Republic of Cyprus was the Cyprus pound which was initially divided into 1.000 mils. It was following the recent (1955) reform introduction of decimal coinage during Queen Elisabeth II rule. it was decided that two considerable changes in row for the people will too complicated and coinage system 1,000 mil = 1 Pound started by British were followed during first years of Independent Republic. But it had become a different state with different money.

In 1983 the mil was replaced by the cent and the Cyprus pound became denominated into 100 cent. The Queen Elizabeth II coinage (1955-1957) and Republic Issues upto 1982 continued to circulate alongside the new coinage until May 1985 when only cents / pounds remains.

Therefore, if we will go to split, we need to split to Cyprus under British administration and Republic of Cyprus. And yes, Piasters and Mills in the first and Mills and cents in the second to be split as well.

Moreover, every time I'm typing Cyprus in the catalog list, I'm in deep puzzled surprise looking into "Kingdom of Cyprus" appears recently. it is following Crusaders states chain somehow.

In fact, Cyprus coinage became known 6th century B.C. and onwards.

To be fair, it should be rather moved to a separate currency / country named as Ancient and Medieval Cyprus starting from Egyptian Conquest, 569-525 B.C. when the first known Cyprus coin was minted in 538 B.C. Periods are:
- Egyptian Conquest, 569-525 B.C.
- Persian Rule, 525-333 B.C.
- Alexander the Great 333-323 B.C.
- Cyprus under Ptolemis, 295-58 B.C.
- The Roman Occupation 58 B.C. - 395
- The Byzantine Period, 395 - 1184
- Isaac Commenos, 1184 - 1191
- Cyprus under Lusignans, 1192-1489 (now separated as Kingdom of Cyprus in Numista)
- Famagusta under Genoese Occupation, 1372-1464
- The Ventian Occupation, 1489-1571

All these periods coins were struck here, some are rarely known, i.e. only one coin having Cyprus mintmark is known for Byzantine period. Last coins struck before long interruption during Turks was the Famagusta siege piece in 1570.

Then Turks took Cyprus and until British establish their administration here no coins were struck and coinage resume in 1879 having Queen Victoria on it.

That would be a fair and truth splits for Cyprus on my humble opinion

My warmest regards
Andrey
 !!! It is even more complex than I imagined!!! But I think you must do what the fine folks of Cyprus would do...but such complexity...wow. I love the money from there though. I was pleased to get some handfuls of coins when I visited Israel as a university student. We travelled in the footsteps of Saul who became Paul. I found them for sale at a monastery gift shop. The priest who worked there laughed at the small tussle between me and an aggressive German lady. And I remember I was struck by his smile because the orthodox priests I have seen are so serious! And then of course the most beautiful coin in the world is from Cyprus. The wood nymph who was turned into the tree...sigh...I must visit your dear island someday. I promise to avoid the dangerous fuzzy caterpillars.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
The currencies of post-1878 Cyprus should be listed as follows;

Colony of Cyprus - 9 Piastres = 1 Shilling & 180 Piastres = 1 Pound (1879-1949).

Colony of Cyprus - 1,000 Mils = 1 Pound (1955-57).

Republic of Cyprus - 1,000 Mils = 1 Pound (1963-82).

Republic of Cyprus - 100 Cents = 1 Pound (1983-2007).

Republic of Cyprus - 100 Euro-Cents = 1 Euro (since 2008).

Aidan.
Quote: "mowc"​Moreover, every time I'm typing Cyprus in the catalog list, I'm in deep puzzled surprise looking into "Kingdom of Cyprus" appears recently. it is following Crusaders states chain somehow.

​In fact, Cyprus coinage became known 6th century B.C. and onwards.

​To be fair, it should be rather moved to a separate currency / country named as Ancient and Medieval Cyprus starting from Egyptian Conquest, 569-525 B.C. when the first known Cyprus coin was minted in 538 B.C. Periods are:
​- Egyptian Conquest, 569-525 B.C.
​- Persian Rule, 525-333 B.C.
​- Alexander the Great 333-323 B.C.
​- Cyprus under Ptolemis, 295-58 B.C.
​- The Roman Occupation 58 B.C. - 395
​- The Byzantine Period, 395 - 1184
​- Isaac Commenos, 1184 - 1191
​- Cyprus under Lusignans, 1192-1489 (now separated as Kingdom of Cyprus in Numista)
​- Famagusta under Genoese Occupation, 1372-1464
​- The Ventian Occupation, 1489-1571

​All these periods coins were struck here, some are rarely known, i.e. only one coin having Cyprus mintmark is known for Byzantine period. Last coins struck before long interruption during Turks was the Famagusta siege piece in 1570.
​Haven´t seen this discussion before now! I have argued before that the coins of Cyprus should be gathered under Cyprus, but i didn´t get far with that.

I am the referee of Kingdom of Cyprus and i actually agree that these issues should be separated, as these can be clearly identified as crusader issues.

Furthermore, i added the coins of the Venetian occupation of Cyprus under Venice, but these get too obscure when "hidden" in the Italian states and Venice issues. My proposal is that these issues should be moved in order to more accurately include them as part of the history of Cyprus.

I´ve added the issues of the usurpation of Cyprus by Isaac Komnenos in the Byzantine empire catalogue and these are also mixed in with the rest of the issues. In this case, i also think that these should be separated by the standard issues of the Byzantine empire, as these were not official and were just an attempt by Isaac Komnenos to legitimise his usurpation of the island.

Finally, i´ve started adding issues that you call Persian rule to the ancient greece catalogue. I´ve haven´t gotten very far with adding these coins, due to referee inactivity, but this is an other subject. In this case, i do agree that these issues should be in the ancient greece catalogue. This is because scholars refer to these issues as Ancient greece and it would be wrong for Numista to split these. I would actually prefer to call these coins as Ancient Kingdoms of Cyprus because the kingdoms were quite autonomus and they minted their own coins. I am really interested in these coins, that much that i have made a catalogue of all the issues i have found after research and currently i number 294 coins in my catalogue and still some are missing! Have a look at this research project on the silver issues of this period. It has both an online catalogue and research articles.

As i originally come from Cyprus i found the coinage history of Cyprus really interesting and i would love to see all these issues gathered in one catalogue!

PS. Sorry for deviating from the original topic! I just couldn´t help it! 0:)
Referee for Ancient Greece,  Norway and the Kingdom of Cyprus
Stavros,
Don't forget about the coins of Cyprus from 1879 onwards as well.

I have an interest in collecting the coins of Cyprus since 1879,as Cyprus is now a British Commonwealth republic.

Aidan.
Quote: "Stavros"
Quote: "mowc"​Moreover, every time I'm typing Cyprus in the catalog list, I'm in deep puzzled surprise looking into "Kingdom of Cyprus" appears recently. it is following Crusaders states chain somehow.
​​
​​In fact, Cyprus coinage became known 6th century B.C. and onwards.
​​
​​To be fair, it should be rather moved to a separate currency / country named as Ancient and Medieval Cyprus starting from Egyptian Conquest, 569-525 B.C. when the first known Cyprus coin was minted in 538 B.C. Periods are:
​​- Egyptian Conquest, 569-525 B.C.
​​- Persian Rule, 525-333 B.C.
​​- Alexander the Great 333-323 B.C.
​​- Cyprus under Ptolemis, 295-58 B.C.
​​- The Roman Occupation 58 B.C. - 395
​​- The Byzantine Period, 395 - 1184
​​- Isaac Commenos, 1184 - 1191
​​- Cyprus under Lusignans, 1192-1489 (now separated as Kingdom of Cyprus in Numista)
​​- Famagusta under Genoese Occupation, 1372-1464
​​- The Ventian Occupation, 1489-1571
​​
​​All these periods coins were struck here, some are rarely known, i.e. only one coin having Cyprus mintmark is known for Byzantine period. Last coins struck before long interruption during Turks was the Famagusta siege piece in 1570.
​​
​​Haven´t seen this discussion before now! I have argued before that the coins of Cyprus should be gathered under Cyprus, but i didn´t get far with that.

​I am the referee of Kingdom of Cyprus and i actually agree that these issues should be separated, as these can be clearly identified as crusader issues.

​Furthermore, i added the coins of the Venetian occupation of Cyprus under Venice, but these get too obscure when "hidden" in the Italian states and Venice issues. My proposal is that these issues should be moved in order to more accurately include them as part of the history of Cyprus.

​I´ve added the issues of the usurpation of Cyprus by Isaac Komnenos in the Byzantine empire catalogue and these are also mixed in with the rest of the issues. In this case, i also think that these should be separated by the standard issues of the Byzantine empire, as these were not official and were just an attempt by Isaac Komnenos to legitimise his usurpation of the island.

​Finally, i´ve started adding issues that you call Persian rule to the ancient greece catalogue. I´ve haven´t gotten very far with adding these coins, due to referee inactivity, but this is an other subject. In this case, i do agree that these issues should be in the ancient greece catalogue. This is because scholars refer to these issues as Ancient greece and it would be wrong for Numista to split these. I would actually prefer to call these coins as Ancient Kingdoms of Cyprus because the kingdoms were quite autonomus and they minted their own coins. I am really interested in these coins, that much that i have made a catalogue of all the issues i have found after research and currently i number 294 coins in my catalogue and still some are missing! Have a look at this research project on the silver issues of this period. It has both an online catalogue and research articles.

​As i originally come from Cyprus i found the coinage history of Cyprus really interesting and i would love to see all these issues gathered in one catalogue!

​PS. Sorry for deviating from the original topic! I just couldn´t help it! 0:)
​Stavros, can we raise again this problem in the separate thread? Seems the issue is not moving and might be someone from the team can help?

My best regards
Andrey
I am not totally sure how to solve the issue of gathering all the coins of Cyprus in one place.

As the rules of Numista state, the split of the coinage periods of Cyprus is done correctly. And as always there are two sides to the issue. The first one is when you see it from the side as a complete catalogue, then the way that the catalogue stands today is correct. But from the viewpoint of a person that is interested in the coinage of Cyprus from every period, then it can be seen as a mess.

So as a person that has special interest in Cypriot coinage I would prefer the second way of organizing the catalogue.. But as a referee in Numista I also get why these are split.

I know I am not helping things, but these are the arguments you are facing if you go forward with the idea to unite the coinage periods.

Best regards,
Stavros
Referee for Ancient Greece,  Norway and the Kingdom of Cyprus
I still think that the Mils coins should be listed separately from the Cents coins.

Of course,the pre-1983 Pound denominated coins should be listed with the Mils coins.

The Pound denominated coins dated 1983 & later should be listed with the Cents coins.

Aidan.
Just a little thing; shouldn't the 1955-1982 decimalised Cyprus currency be moved to after the 1879-1955 Piastre Cyprus currency?

Or combined with the one that's dated 1955-2007?
Quote: "CassTaylor"​Just a little thing; shouldn't the 1955-1982 decimalised Cyprus currency be moved to after the 1879-1955 Piastre Cyprus currency?

​Or combined with the one that's dated 1955-2007?
When new currencies are created, they tend to appear at the top of the list. So yes, it needs to be moved, and the 1955-2007 one needs to be edited to say 1983-2007. I already made a (currently open) request to do all that, so in time, the currencies should appear properly. ;)

» Forum policy

Used time zone is UTC+1:00.
Current time is 00:40.