Talk:French Indochinese piastre

Merge or redirect proposal

• Either this should be merged, or should redirect, to Piastre, I think. 15:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC) Iinag

  Most certainly not, IMO. We've got articles for a lot of historic currencies, and are in fact trying to split articles which are about more than one currency... A merger would be contraproductive. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 21:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Vietnam's official currency before the piastre?

Does anyone know what Vietnam's official currency was before the piastre? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.194.155 (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was Vietnamese cash. In addition to those, they also had some small silver and gold bars, but those were not so much used in regulay every-day transactions, as far as I understand. There were also beautiful silver and gold (round) coins, but those were generally used as some kind of medals, rather than coins in the ordinary sense. Alfons Åberg (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Changes to the table

I made some changes to the third column in the table at the bottom of the page. The third column describes the role of the piastre during its final phase, i.e. during the years of the puppet governments of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, prior to independence. The column used to have a "North Vietnam" and a "South Vietnam" section. However, Vietnam was divided into North and South only in 1954. For instance, the Northern cities of Hanoi an Haiphong were controlled by the French during 1946-54. Speaking of a separate "Northern" part of the country makes sense only in the case of the Viet Minh movement, which did issue its own currency. That currency, however, is a successor currency and thus belongs in the appropriate column: column 4 covers successor currencies. Alfons Åberg (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Currency

• 100 Centimes = 1 Piastre = 1 Franc
• 1 Xu = 1 Centime
• 10 Haos = 1 Piastre
• 1 Dong = 1 Piastre Böri (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

2022 - 1$ changed to $1

Hi user:TheCurrencyGuy I revised your currency styles here from 1$ to $1 given documentary evidence that French commerce may have legitimately yielded to 19th c British banking convention $1. Your illustration also says $1.

On one hand, 1$ = one dollar appeals to my logic just like 1m = 1 metre. However French Indochina had to pay bills and transfer funds via banks in British HK and India. Hence the preponderance of 19th-20th c English-language memos, cheques etc written $100 - they must have used 100$ inside the colony but 100$ was a clerical missend risk via British money transfer. And yes, that $1 banknote too.

You can revise this if you find evidence HSBC etc yielded to French 100$ convention in English correspondence, but historical documents for $100 are ubiquitous for reasons explained above. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppa gangnam psy (talk • contribs) 16:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• 
  $1 (1927-1931), notice the Cifrão sign.
• 
  1$ (1942-1945), again a Cifrão sign two (2) bars and not one.

Well, there's literally documentary evidence from the banknotes themselves and as far as I can tell they changed position sometime during the 1930's, at least by just looking at these 2 (two) banknotes above. --Donald Trung (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

After looking for more contemporary documents I found these:

• 
  This receipt uses "$35$00", the first Piastre sign is standard while the second was manually added, meaning that it was intended to read "$35,00".
• 
  This lottery ticket uses both "1$" and "$1".
• 
  The reverse side does show "100.000$".

These contemporary documents tell me that both "$1" and "1$" were acceptable. Personally I have a preference for "$1", but I don't have an issue with the other style being used. --Donald Trung (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)