Talk:Peruvian real

Stub

I think the article is completed. Maybe, the title can be changed to Peruvian Peso, because the unit of trade was the peso.--Ernesto Linares 04:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference for when the peso became the unit of trade? Currently, all the early South American currencies are listed under real, since only real and escudo appeared on the coins. However, in some cases the early paper money was denominated in pesos well before the peso appeared on the coins. As long as the information is accurate, it doesn't matter too much whether a system of reales, pesos and escudos is discussed under the title real or peso (or even escudo for that matter) but it would be nice to know if there was a point at which a clear shift occurred, for instance in the official unit of account.
Dove1950 23:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Image

I think the image are too small. I prefer at least of 200px.--Ernesto Linares 21:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, especially when the pictures are so nice.
Dove1950 23:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, actually there is not that much of a difference between the Wikipedia default size (180px) and your proposal (200 px). Furthermore, as not all users have monitors of the same size, it's better to leave pics unsized so they can be shown at the width specified on the user preferences. Greetings, --Victor12 01:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

But at the same time, unlogged in users are stuck with 180px regardless of the size of their monitor. FYI, about 50% users are 1024 × 768, 7~10% are 800 × 600. The rest are higher. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Even so, Wikipedia seems to be designed to be 800x600 friendly. For instance: Larger images should generally be a maximum of 550 pixels wide, so that they can comfortably be displayed on 800x600 monitors at WP:IUP#Displayed image size. As for this article, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images: Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended, a guideline which should be followed in the absence of a compelling reason not to. --Victor12 03:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Banco La Providencia notes

I have a 1990 copy of Standard Catalog of World Paper Money which disagrees with some of the details in this article. As other books are listed that I can't access, I just want to check that the details are correct. SCWPM states that the Banco La Providencia issued notes for 5, 25, 50, 100 and 500 pesos but not 10 or 200 pesos. Are these extra denominations definitely attested to in the other books?
Dove1950.

These banknotes are in two museums in Peru: BCRP and (Banco de Crédito del Perú) BCP. In Zarauz's book (is in the reference) you can chek up. --Ernesto Linares 20:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Just to check (I can't get Zarauz's book), these two denominations did circulate and aren't just proofs?
Dove1950 09:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

They weren't proofs, they circulated only in 1863. The others bills of pesos circulated until 1866, althought the currency was the Sol. They are extremely rare (3R). Regards.--Ernesto Linares 02:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

iw

Should this article be linked to es:Sol de Plata or es:Sol de Oro? What about links to English articles from these Spanish articles? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

To none of the above. This articles says The real was the currency of Peru until 1863. The sol de plata was adopted in 1863, and the sol de oro in 1931 so none of them are appropriate as interwiki links. --Victor12 13:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

1 sol = 8 or 10 reales?

According to Krause & Mishler, the transitional coinage issued between 1858 and 1861 included ½ and 1 real coins with the same silver contents as the later ½ and 1 dinero, together with a 25 centavos containing 2½ times the silver content of the 1 real. This indicates an exchange rate of 1 sol = 10 reales. Can anyone give information to indicate that the rate was, in fact 8 reales?
Dove1950 (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)