Modify currency and denominations: Real de vellon (1808-1848), from Spain [解決]

We have these coins, banknote and exonumia.
Currency code: 4298 • espagne

Subdivisions: 1 Real de vellon = 34 Maravedis

I am referring only to the English names.

Title
 

Replace:

Real de vellon (1808-1848)

→

Real Vellon (1808-1848)

The name is a copy from the Spanish Real de vellón. According to guidelines https://en.numista.com/help/add-or-modify-a-currency-in-the-catalogue-194.html the name to use is Real Vellon https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=real+vellon

Also it matches with the denomination used by N#326742

About the plural form can be Reals or Reales https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/real

Here is used Reales

Denominations

The numeric values of denominations are correct, and match with:

• Subdivisions: 1 Real de vellon = 34 Maravedis
• 1 Peso Fuerte = 20 Reales Vellon http://www.aldeadelpinar.com/costumbres/monedas/monedas.html

If this is wrong, the numeric values should be revised.

There are denominations in Maravedi/Maravedis and Pesos Fuertes, correct, but denominations in Real Vellon use the two forms: Real and Real Vellon

5749 • 4298 → 1 Real
5992 • 4298 → 2 Reales
3561 • 4298 → 4 Reales
7346 • 4298 → 10 Reales
3373 • 4298 → 20 Reales
4889 • 4298 → 80 Reales
23123 • 4298 → 160 Reales
4890 • 4298 → 320 Reales
60549 • 4298 → 4000 Reales Vellon

I would add Vellon to all:

5749 • 4298 → 1 Real Vellon
5992 • 4298 → 2 Reales Vellon
3561 • 4298 → 4 Reales Vellon
7346 • 4298 → 10 Reales Vellon
3373 • 4298 → 20 Reales Vellon
4889 • 4298 → 80 Reales Vellon
23123 • 4298 → 160 Reales Vellon
4890 • 4298 → 320 Reales Vellon

 (or remove Vellon to all, but the name of the currency is Real Vellon)

oynbcnHere we could add the values of 100, 200, 500, 1000 and 2000 Reales vellon for banknotes still not in the catalog (very difficult to find any picture of them) but there will be in the catalog in the future (even without pictures).

Denominations to add (title – numeric value):

100 Reales Vellon -- 100

200 Reales Vellon – 200

500 Reales Vellon – 500

1000 Reales Vellon – 1000

2000 Reales Vellon – 2000

Subdivisions

Add the Peso Fuerte:

1 Real de vellon = 34 Maravedis

→

1 Real Vellon = 34 Maravedis • 1 Peso Fuerte = 20 Reales Vellon

Hi David, great compilation job, as always!! 

My opinion would be the following: 

1. For the currency I would use Real Vellon, and the subdivisions you propose seem perfect to me. 

2. For values or denominations, I would also use Real (or Reales) Vellon instead of just Reales. I would leave the titles of the coin pages as they are, using only Reales, since the word vellon was never used on the coins (I think). For the titles of the banknotes, I would add vellon (as they are) since it indicates so on them. Summarizing:

Title
 

Real Vellon (1808-1848)

Denominations

5749 • 4298 → 1 Real Vellon
5992 • 4298 → 2 Reales Vellon
3561 • 4298 → 4 Reales Vellon
7346 • 4298 → 10 Reales Vellon
3373 • 4298 → 20 Reales Vellon
4889 • 4298 → 80 Reales Vellon
23123 • 4298 → 160 Reales Vellon
4890 • 4298 → 320 Reales Vellon
60549 • 4298 → 4000 Reales Vellon

Here we could add the values of 100, 200, 500, 1000 and 2000 Reales vellon for banknotes still not in the catalog (very difficult to find any picture of them) but there will be in the catalog in the future (even without pictures).

Subdivisions

          Real Vellon (1808-1848)

1 Real Vellon = 34 Maravedis • 1 Peso Fuerte = 20 Reales Vellon

Title of the banknotes pages: Now is Reales de Vellón in all the pages of banknotes. Should it be Reales Vellon instead?

About the titles of the coins/banknotes pages, I don't really take it into account at the moment... But these can be fixed, of course (e.g. sending modification requests).

oynbcn

I would leave the titles of the coin pages as they are, using only Reales, since the word vellon was never used on the coins (I think). For the titles of the banknotes, I would add vellon (as they are) since it indicates so on them.

I have no opinion on this: should the titles of pages should include the denomination, or the text (translated according the interfaz language) used on the coin/banknote?

Oh, yes, I have a more drastic opinion: 😈 I would remove the denomination from title (here is redundant), and the system display the denomination attached to the title. https://en.numista.com/forum/topic142370.html#p1138408

If this is done, the discussion ends.😆

oynbcn

Denominations

Here we could add the values of 100, 200, 500, 1000 and 2000 Reales vellon for banknotes still not in the catalog (very difficult to find any picture of them) but there will be in the catalog in the future (even without pictures).

Yes, I guess we can add denominations that are not used at this moment and that can be used later. I add to my suggestion.

oynbcn

Title of the banknotes pages: Now is Reales de Vellón in all the pages of banknotes. Should it be Reales Vellon instead?

In my opinion, yes. In the English side, of course. Modification requests can be sent.

davidhs

 

oynbcn

Title of the banknotes pages: Now is Reales de Vellón in all the pages of banknotes. Should it be Reales Vellon instead?

In my opinion, yes. In the English side, of course. Modification requests can be sent.

Don't worry, if this must be done, I will do it myself (I'm the referee) ;)

We should also look at the next period (Title of currency -Real or Real Vellon decimalized) and denominations-values. Is in this period where most of the banknotes are.

• Real (decimalized, 1848-1873)

oynbcn

Don't worry, if this must be done, I will do it myself (I'm the referee) ;)

 

We should also look at the next period (Title of currency -Real or Real Vellon decimalized) and denominations-values. Is in this period where most of the banknotes are.

 

• Real (decimalized, 1848-1873)

My next step! Now I am seeing the previous, Real (1497-1833)

davidhs

oynbcn

Don't worry, if this must be done, I will do it myself (I'm the referee) ;)

 

We should also look at the next period (Title of currency -Real or Real Vellon decimalized) and denominations-values. Is in this period where most of the banknotes are.

 

• Real (decimalized, 1848-1873)

My next step! Now I am seeing the previous, Real (1497-1833)

👍

You are basing this name on only part of the OED entry. As you can see from the full entry below, there are several different forms quoted. Combined with the fact that the definition is incorrect, I see no reason to follow this form (or any of the others). All this demonstrates how difficult it is to find “translations” for names. This is one of the reasons why we need to use the real names throughout (excuse the pun).

I do support the addition of the Peso Fuerte, which was indeed worth 20 Reales de Vellón. I look forward to tackling the earlier currency. My reckoning from 1737 to 1833 is as follows:

34 Maravedís = 1 Real de Vellón

2 Reales de Vellón = 1 Real de Plata Provincial

2½ Reales de Vellón = 1 Real de Plata Nacional

15 1/17 Reales de Plata Nacionales = 1 Escudo (1737-1779)

16 Reales de Plata Nacionales = 1 Escudo (1779-1833)

Since the coins only show reales as the denomination, there are a lot of issues to be overcome in order to get all this across accurately.

ceh2019

You are basing this name on only part of the OED entry. As you can see from the full entry below, there are several different forms quoted.

 

Yes, that is a list of how the words real vellon were spelled along the time, in the past:

1680: rlls vellon

1681: vellion

1728: rial of vellon

1817: reals vellon

1839: reals vellon

If you see the years, quotes found since 1817 say reals vellon, the same as the current OED entry (and, in any case, the valid one is the current entry, how these words are written now).

So, I do not see the problem. This list only say that these words evolved from rlls vellon to reals vellon.

ceh2019

Combined with the fact that the definition is incorrect, I see no reason to follow this form (or any of the others). All this demonstrates how difficult it is to find “translations” for names. This is one of the reasons why we need to use the real names throughout (excuse the pun).

I do not find any incorrect in the OED entry

real vellon
Copper, as used in Spanish coinage. Used esp. in the denomination of certain coins, as real (of) vellon 
 

Ok, the (ES) vellón (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billon_(alloy) in English) is not only copper, it is an alloy of copper (or another non-precious metal) and silver (or another precious metal), but we must take into account that

• OED is not specialized in materials, alloys or coins, it is a dictionary of English.
• The official dictionary of Spanish has this entries of vellon https://dle.rae.es/vellón#bUTAQVU
  1. m. silver and copper alloy with which coins were made in ancient times.
  2. m. Copper coin used instead of that made of silver alloy.
  This second definition is similar to the OED entry
• Real vellon are just the words used in English for the currency, evolved from the Spanish words. Otherwise, the words should be real of billon.

ceh2019

I look forward to tackling the earlier currency. My reckoning from 1737 to 1833 is as follows:

34 Maravedís = 1 Real de Vellón

2 Reales de Vellón = 1 Real de Plata Provincial

2½ Reales de Vellón = 1 Real de Plata Nacional

15 1/17 Reales de Plata Nacionales = 1 Escudo (1737-1779)

16 Reales de Plata Nacionales = 1 Escudo (1779-1833)

Since the coins only show reales as the denomination, there are a lot of issues to be overcome in order to get all this across accurately.

Yes, it is complex. I take these conversions into account.

If you want to translate real de vellón into English, it's either billon royal or royal of billon. Neither of these are used anywhere that I've come across. Cherry picking “real vellon” from the various terms quoted by the OED doesn't make any more sense. As you say, “OED is not specialized in materials, alloys or coins, it is a dictionary of English.” so why should we use it for the name of a Spanish coin? Your Spanish dictionary seems equally ignorant. I cannot find a single real struck in copper. Can you? However, if we use the real name, everyone can see and understand what we're talking about and use that term to find out more about the denomination in the relevant literature.

As you can see from the denominations used in the 18th century, there were many different reales. We can't expect to get this complex system right if we start inventing new names for everything.

ceh2019

If you want to translate real de vellón into English, it's either billon royal or royal of billon. Neither of these are used anywhere that I've come across. Cherry picking “real vellon” from the various terms quoted by the OED doesn't make any more sense. 

The OED only say one term: real vellon

As I said before, the various terms quoted by the OED are a list of texts along the time, with the terms used in the past. The actual term is real vellon

The discussion about translating all the words into English on the English side was already had some time ago https://en.numista.com/forum/topic142264.html and Xavier proposed a partial solution https://en.numista.com/forum/topic142370.html 
To continue that discussion it is best use those topics.

The question is not whether or not to translate these terms into English, but rather finding the correct translation if it exists. And one of the most important references in English is the OED. If the OED says that real vellon is the denomination of certain coins used in Spain, I assume that it refers to the currency that in Spanish is known as real de vellón.

You're right that this is part of a wider discussion. Xavier's “partial solution” seems to have stalled. Given that the OED also quotes “Rial of Vellon”, it cannot be said to be definitive. At the end of the day, we shouldn't be using foreign names for anything. The fact that a single translation can't be identified is one of the reasons why.

ceh2019

Given that the OED also quotes “Rial of Vellon”, it cannot be said to be definitive. At the end of the day, we shouldn't be using foreign names for anything. The fact that a single translation can't be identified is one of the reasons why.

I don't see it that way… or I don't understand the OED information. I don't know.

I interpret this

a document written on 1680 says: rlls vellon
a document written on 1681 says: vellion
a document written on 1728 says: rial of vellon
a document written on 1817 says: reals vellon
a document written on 1839 says: reals vellon
the current OED entry say: real vellon
term used now: real vellon

Someone who uses the OED to clear our doubts, please.

I use the OED regularly. None of these quotations is recent (the last is from 1839) so we can't use the OED to establish a “current” name. If more recent uses were available, the OED would include some. As I say, though, this discussion shouldn't be relevant, since we should be using the real, Spanish name. The very fact we are having this discussion (and failing to agree) is because using a foreign name doesn't work.

Original request done, thanks!