Northern Ireland - Pound Sterling needs to be divided.

The Pound Sterling needs to be divided for the Northern Ireland banknote section;

1929-71 - Pound Sterling - Pre-decimal.

Since 1971 - Pound Sterling - Decimalised.

Aidan.

Citeer: "BCNumismatics"​The Pound Sterling needs to be divided for the Northern Ireland banknote section;
​
​1929-71 - Pound Sterling - Pre-decimal.
​
​Since 1971 - Pound Sterling - Decimalised.
​
​Aidan.

​Did Northern Ireland issue its own pound pre-1971? If not, only the decimalised pound is needed.

Citeer: "BCNumismatics"​The Pound Sterling needs to be divided for the Northern Ireland banknote section;
​
​1929-71 - Pound Sterling - Pre-decimal.
​
​Since 1971 - Pound Sterling - Decimalised.
​
​Aidan.

​Why?

All the countries of the British Isles decimalised their Pound currencies on the same date - 15 February 1971.

Have a read here;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_Day .

Both Northern Ireland & Scotland still have trading banks that issue banknotes.

The Scots banknote section after 1707 has the Pound Sterling divided into 2 sub-sections - Pre-decimal (1707-1971) & Decimal (since 1971).

Yes, the Republic of Ireland was in a de-facto currency union with the U.K. - right until 1979.

Aidan.

I'm sure this will amaze you but I know all of that as, I'm sure, do the vast majority of collectors of banknotes from the British Isles. What I asked was why we should split the Northern Irish section into predecimal and decimal sections.

Citeer: "ceh2019"​I'm sure this will amaze you but I know all of that as, I'm sure, do the vast majority of collectors of banknotes from the British Isles. What I asked was why we should split the Northern Irish section into predecimal and decimal sections.

​
We have done that with other Pound currencies that were pre-decimal, but were decimalised - especially the Cypriot Pound & the Maltese Pound.

Aidan.

So your argument is that NI should be changed to be consistent with other places?

Citeer: "ceh2019"​So your argument is that NI should be changed to be consistent with other places?

​Yes, as it makes total sense.

Aidan.

I'm not sure it does make all that much sense. For a start, unlike the other places you've mentioned, the Northern Irish banks never issued any notes below £1, so there aren't any notes in shillings or new pence to be separated. (We don't currently list any of the Scottish notes below £1 but there were some issued in the 18th and early 19th centuries.) Second, Malta changed the name of it's currency to the lira when it decimalized, there was no such change in Northern Ireland, so the comparison there is a little unfair. Third, there are several notes which straddle the day of decimalization by several years, e.g., https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note222905.html (1968-1972), https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note221944.html (1970-1988). Which side of the divide do we put these? Finally, does it really make the catalogue more useful to implement this split? I'd personally prefer to see no split for the Scottish notes either, but that decision was made before I became referee there.
As referee for Northern Ireeland, it'll be me that has to go through and move the notes (I'm not inclined to wait months for the robot to do it). That's not an argument against the move and I'll make sure it's properly implemented if the decision is taken to split but I simply don't see the benefit.

Notes from Northern Ireland dated 15 February 1971 & later are all decimal notes, whereas, those dated before then are all obviously pre-decimal notes.

As for Malta, the first 2 decimal issues are described as both 'Pound' & 'Lira', as they are bilingually inscribed in both English & Maltese. From Decimal Series 3 onwards, the Maltese notes are inscribed in Maltese only.

Cyprus also had its decimal Pound notes inscribed as 'Lira' in both Greek & Turkish - as well as 'Pound' in English.

Even Maltese people still called their decimal Pound the Pound, & used the traditional Pound sign - in addition to calling it 'Lira / Liri' & using 'Lm'.

Aidan.

So you propose splitting up notes like https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note222905.html and https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note221944.html into two entries because they straddle decimalization day?

Citeer: "ceh2019"​So you propose splitting up notes like https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note222905.html and https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note221944.html into two entries because they straddle decimalization day?

​
Yes - & the same thing applies to the Republic of Ireland's banknote listings as well.

Aidan.

Citeer: "BCNumismatics"​

Citeer: "ceh2019"​So you propose splitting up notes like https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note222905.html and https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note221944.html into two entries because they straddle decimalization day?

​​
​Yes - & the same thing applies to the Republic of Ireland's banknote listings as well.
​
​Aidan.

Two separate entries for notes that are identical apart from their dates? How could that possibly make this catalogue better?

The catalogue should also be built to be an educational resource as well as a listing with some photos.

Aidan.

How is it "educational" to introduce divisions that do not exist? The fact is that the banknotes of Northern Ireland did not change in the slightest on the 15th of February 1971. The coins did and this is, of course, recognized in the coin section for the UK.

There is nothing educational in splitting those notes. There is no difference but the date, it will create confusion.

Not if there was one listing per date.

Aidan.

Are you really suggesting separate pages for every date? The individual years are already listed within the pages.

I must agree that this would actually made NI confusing.