Egyptian banknote dating bracket classification is arbitrary, proposal to change

Hey there, I primarily specialize in modern Egyptian numismatics, and I wonder what basis of classification it is that which we use for the Egyptian banknotes catalogue? I am talking specifically about the date brackets of “Pound 1834-1916”, and then “Pound, 1916-Present.” This seems like a completely arbitrary classification to me. From what I can surmise, 1916 is supposed to be the date of transition to the Egyptian Sultanate in place of the Khedivate, but this really has nothing to do with the issuing of banknotes. It's also an odd choice of date because the sultanate was declared in 1914, in the first year of World War I. I further assume that 1916 is the first date in which coins were issued under an Egyptian sovereign (Hussein Kamel's coinage was struck in 1916, and bore his name rather than that of the Ottoman Sultan, as was the case before on all Egyptian coinage in the 19th century). This dating convention is also an issue, because it is a purely coin-centric one, and does not apply to the banknotes issued by Egypt.

I propose that we should use a simple and sensical convention, “1898-Present.” The Egyptian Pound, as a paper currency, has been used consistently throughout Egypt from 1898 onwards (1898 was when the banknote law was passed, allowing for the first paper Egyptian currency), and there have been no major alterations or outright changes of currency. Livre Egyptienne (L.E.) remains the currency throughout all political transitions in Egypt, whether it be from Khedivate to Sultanate, to Kingdom, to Republic, to UAR and what not. It's the Egyptian Pound by any other name, the only change I can note that is worthwhile (but I don't encourage using it, simply for the sake of simplicity and because it's too minor) is the transition from the issuing authority being the Egyptian National Bank (al-Ahli al-Misri) to the Central Bank of Egypt (al-Bank al-Markazi) some time after the Egyptian Revolution of 1952.

I hope that this can encourage a change of periodization, especially because no paper currency existed until 1898 (why is 1834 the start date?) and so that the catalogue can be simplified for the sake of reference. Frankly, I find the arbitrary dating to affect how the banknotes are displayed on the catalogue in an inconvenient way, as many early banknotes are a pain to find in the larger list because I have to go back to the earlier periodization bracket, and some banknotes issued over a longer period of time are cut off from the wider list in the earlier bracket (see the second series Egyptian 1 Pound note, issued from 1914-1924)

I wish for the referees to consider this and elicit a change. I am quite pleased that we have a banknote database on Numista now, and it helps especially as a collector of Egyptian currency. There is much work to be done though, and I hope to help how I can, as I have helped with some entries in the past back when this catalogue was first created. I hope that if this change is put in, it can be a good first step towards encouraging more rectification and improvement in this catalogue.

You are correct that nothing changed in 1916 as far as the banknotes are concerned. However, the subdivisions used on the coins did change. This is the basis for the distinct currencies, which are common to both the coin and banknote catalogues. At present, I don't think there's any appetite to have distinct currencies for the different kinds of money, but others may think this should be explored.

If there are distinctions between the structure of coin and banknote issues, then surely it would be sensible to make adjustments to the available structures so that both coins and banknotes can be accommodated accurately.

I agree that we ought to, but I also understand the previous point about there needing to be a harmony between the coin and banknote databases. I don't foresee that much of a problem for doing it to Egypt though, just because while it is the same currency, there are different periodizations and laws that brought specific eras of coinage and paper money into place that not many countries necessarily have. The 1834 start date is purported because of the law on bimetallism signed into the country, but it's not a good start date for banknotes like that of 1898 (which did not exist, for all practical purposes, beforehand – unless you count the Gordon Khartoum banknotes of the 1880s, which are a one-off). 

There's also the issue of the entries on Egyptian coinage being inconsistent too, because 1916 doesn't signal any major legal monetary change in the Egyptian Pound, except for the fact that Egyptian rulers are named on coinage, which I contend is only really an aesthetic change (Egyptian monetary policy was largely independent from that of the Ottomans anyway). I think this 1916 date is a vestige of when the Egyptian coin catalogue used to be classified based on the different political periods (Sultanate, Kingdom, Republic), which is gone now, but I still remember when that was the standard. I didn't mind it that much when it was around, but now we have to make up our mind if we want the ENTIRE Egyptian catalogue's periodization to be rooted in political changes, or legal ones. If so, then 1916 needs to be shed altogether, there's no use in having it! Personally I prefer retaining the 1834 date, and getting ride of 1916 – that seems to me like it would accommodate both coins and banknotes without any issue. If you don't consider political and ruling authority changes, then a purely currency-based, legal based periodization can work if applied consistently.

The split at 1916 is due to the replacement of “oshr-el-qirsh” with "milim". You can see the discussion here. The old “political” split was in 1914 when the Sultanate began.

Ahh, that makes sense. Aware that the Egyptian Sultanate was declared in 1914, but I assumed the 1916 start date was because the first coins of the Sultanate were issued only then. That still leaves the issue of the Egyptian banknotes though I guess, I still feel that the cut-off date negatively affects the catalogue's organization, and is still a coin-centric application over banknotes.