Talk:Coins of the New Zealand pound

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Freedom4U talk 23:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that fridges filled with "frozen duck" sent to Britain actually contained illegal coins? Source: Pg 144, https://www.britnumsoc.org/images/PDFs/2005_BNJ_75_9_nz.pdf "The classic example, however, appears to have been the consignment of cases of silver coins as 'frozen duck' and conveyed in refrigerators to England."
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Morris–Jumel Mansion

Created by Generalissima (talk). Self-nominated at 23:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Coins of the New Zealand pound; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Will review later. —Panamitsu (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article is new enough, long enough, well cited, no copy-vio and neutral. Hook is cited and interesting. QPQ done. Comment: it would be great if an image could be included in the nomination. Lajmmoore (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• Hello @Panamitsu: I'm really apologetic that I jumped on this nomination - I msiread your comment that you would do it, as belonging to the nomination and referring to doing a QPQ. Totally my fault and I apologise. Lajmmoore (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @Lajmmoore: That's ok! There are plenty of other nominations that I can review. —Panamitsu (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Coins of the New Zealand pound/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 11:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Going to take a look at this article. As an initial question, I note this article is not too long, and has been nominated alongside a number of its subarticles. What was the broad framework behind determining the broadness/summary style balance of this article? On the same topic of broadness, while there is no article of the same scope, similar articles on old currencies seem to have a section on rarity and collectability. I would also off the top of my head be interested in any legacy/impact, eg. if the coins left a legacy in cultural motifs or similar. Best, CMD (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Howdy! Thank you for starting the review. My framework for the summary style was to try to recount information that would be relevant to all the individual coins. So the individual design processes of the coins would be too narrow for its scope, but the general history and reasoning behind New Zealand's adoption of a domestic coinage, alongside what denominations and designs it contained would fall into the scope.

As for collectability, I feel that would fall into the scope of the subarticles. New Zealand coinage is a fairly niche collectors' field as far as numismatics is concerned, and the Waitangi Crown is the only piece truly notable for its rarity or collectability. However, now that I'm thinking about it, there were proof sets made, so I think those deserve a subsection due to encompassing the whole set of coinage.

As for long term influence, I can't say there's much documentation. There was some demand to maintain the old penny design as mentioned in that article, but beyond that the coinage seems to not be very notable within modern New Zealand national symbolism.

Thank you very much for your advice! Will add a section on the proof sets. Generalissima (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

While as mentioned there are no high quality articles with the same scope, I've had a look at similar ones to get a feel for what I might want to look for. Apollo 11 50th Anniversary commemorative coins and Panama–Pacific commemorative coins are specific limited releases, but their structure of background, legislation, designs, striking/distribution seems useful. This article has good background, it touches upon legislation designs and striking/distribution to some extent, although there are clear gaps for each. Compared to Banknotes of Zimbabwe this article is similar aside from the Collection/Numismatic/Legacy type section already discussed. (Nothing additional from Singapore Portrait Series currency notes or Currencies of Puerto Rico.) Unless something pops up in sources, I'd probably on balance this as passing broadness if there is some coverage of legacy/collectability. Will look at other criteria now, although noting that the "Commemorative coinage" section appears entirely unsourced. CMD (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for catching the lack of cites on commemorative coinage! Split that from the other table in development and forgot to add cites. Fixed that up. I'll add a subsection for legislation, that's a good idea as well. Generalissima (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Images pass. File:Token - 1 Penny, John Gilmour, New Plymouth, New Zealand, circa 1866, obverse (cropped).jpg and File:Token - 1 Penny, John Gilmour, New Plymouth, New Zealand, circa 1866, obverse (cropped).jpg are marked as CC BY 4.0 on the original source. If they are in public domain at this point, so much the better. File:Kruger Gray kiwi shilling design, 1933.png is marked as public domain, which I have no reason to doubt. The 14 images in the Denominations section have the same ultimate source (Museums Victoria) as the first two, they do not have specific source pages but I AGF the copyright is the same on their specific pages. The same applies to the 8 images in Commemorative coinage. File:Coin-6-pence-new-zealand-1965-537613-large.jpg and File:1965 New Zealand Sixpence Reverse.jpg link to the specific pages which show CC BY 4.0. CMD (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• File:NZ types.webp licenced as CC 1.0.

More detailed review

The lead should be a summary of the article, covering the article's main points while not introducing new information on its own.

• "after devaluation of Australian and New Zealand exchange rates relative to the pound sterling", true in a way per the text, but the body does not imply the introduction was linked to the Australian devaluation. The article body actually says the Australian demonitisation led to an influx of coins into the country, whereas the section of smuggling is concerned about the movement of coins out of the country (including back to Australia!).
• "It became the last British dominion to introduce independent coinage", not fully supported by the body.
• "Coinage Act 1933" has a comma, as "Coinage Act, 1933", in the body. Minor point, but they should probably be aligned. If the redlink in the lead is valid, I would add it to the body as well.
• "corresponding to anniversaries of the New Zealand centennial." Is "anniversaries" meant to be plural? I could see why technically it could be, but "the centennial" is singular. As a related note while here, this general phrasing is good for the lead, but the body should note that the anniversary in question is that of the Treaty of Waitangi rather than just mentioning the treaty without explanation of its importance (for readers unfamiliar with NZ history/politics). Perhaps the coin is just for 1840 in general, encompassing both the Treaty and the proclamation of sovereignty, will have to check the source, but again that's a matter for the body.
• "the New Zealand pound decimalised in 1967" A philosophical semantic issue here perhaps, just checking if sources agree its the same currency as is written here, or if the dollar is a new currency replacing the pound.
• There should be consistency in whether bronze or copper is preferred, the lead here uses copper but the header (and thus ToC) uses Bronze (both could be used in prose perhaps, but for navigation the lead should align with the ToC).
• The lead touches upon all current sections and subsections of the article.
  • Made fixes to lede! Thank you very much so far. Generalissima (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Source check: "The Legal History of Money in New Zealand" fully supports the multiple sentences it backs at the start of the Background section, with no close paraphrasing identified. "Coinage" from An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand passes similarly.

• "formalised the Crown sole monopoly over coinage" Is there a word or two missing here?
• Not fully understanding how the country can use British currency but not rejoin the gold standard with Britain did. If any sources explain that would be a good add, but not a GA issue.
• "nothing came of them until the 1930s", this suggests that the later proposals were linked to/directly inspired by the 1910 effort (efforts?)? Is this the case? If so, this should perhaps be mentioned explicitly in the 1930 proposals.
• "Deputy Master" should be fully expanded to "Deputy Master of the Royal Mint" here as it is later in the article.

Sidebar: Johnson's objection doesn't make much sense to me, but perhaps I am viewing it from a modern lens when coin production is much more regular?

One key piece of missing background is the link between domestic banknotes and foreign coins, part of the wider information on what exactly was happening to the currency. The article states that the British currency was the assumed currency and then confirmed as legal tender, but when did that change? Were early coins/tokens/notes meant to represent British Pounds, and if so at what point did they transition into representing New Zealand Pounds? (Is this related to the Gold Standard change?) There does not need to be a detailed explanation here, but there should be some grounding, otherwise the information on currency devaluation is lacking some explanation. It seems key to establish this in background, so that the first paragraph of "Introduction of national coinage" where the NZ pound is devalued while there are no coins to devalue is easier to understand. (The parent New Zealand pound article is not helpful here!) CMD (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Made changes per review! For your question, New Zealand was devaluing *British silver coins circulating in New Zealand* relative to the same coins circulating in Britain. Yes, this was a very silly economic move - I clarified what exactly happened a bit more. Generalissima (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Source check on "'A Very Satisfactory Series': The 1933 New Zealand Coinage Designs" and "An Economic History of New Zealand in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries". for the first two sentences in Introduction of national coinage found no issue. (Specific page number is not there, but not needed for GA.) Checking this found "NEW Zealand was the last Dominion to adopt her own coinage", perhaps where the apparently uncited lead mention originally came from.

• Nothing to say on Legislation, aside from perhaps the subsection title being a bit too narrow for the content.
• Not much to say on Design conflicts either GA-wise. I feel a bit more could be taken from the sources, but that's beyond the GACR. (However, I have previously mentioned that the article should touch on legacy, and the A Very Satisfactory Series has a bit on the design popularity during the shift to decimal coinage that could fulfil that in the Decimalisation and legal status section.)
• "by the centennial" as mentioned above is not accessible by itself to a general audience.
• Unclear whether the design competition applied only to the hapenny and penny, or also to the half-crown. "the new coinage entered circulation in 1940 alongside the commemorative half-crown" suggests the half-crown was not part of the new coinage.
• No comments on Proof coinage, other than that feeling like a very small number of sets.
• In Denominations/Commemoratives, I'm not sure about having the Crown in two sections unlinked. Perhaps in the Description "Various" could be slightly expanded to "Commemorative only" or similar, with at #Commemorative coinage pipe. I would also include a note here on which ones circulated, as all the other coins in Denominations were circulating. The Commemoratives section might also use a note on what circulating, although this is a minor point [beyond GACR] as it is explained above, and you can infer from mintages somewhat.
• Decimalisation and legal status is the section where I feel broadness is lacking. I mentioned above the note on design legacy. Also missing is how long the coins remained in circulation after decimalisation, were they taken out within a few years or did some hang around like in the UK?

All in all, mostly meets the GACR. The main outstanding issues are on 1a regarding understandable to a broad audience, and on 3a on some missing aspects of the topic. I still don't really understand how the overall monetary policy worked regarding gold standard divergence and devaluation within the same currency, but that is not a matter for this article. CMD (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: So sorry for the delays! I made the remaining fixes suggested. Generalissima (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Generalissima, noted on the additions. What's still missing is a clear statement on what happened to the coins, were they withdrawn or were they left to run (until 2006 I guess?). However, I can't find a source on this very easily. I did find that the sizes of decimal coins were made the same as the pound coins, which could be indicative that the old coins could still circulate, but nothing stated. At any rate, if this isn't prominent enough to appear after some looking, it likely does not merit being required for broadness, so the article passes GACR. Good luck with the related articles, CMD (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)