Talk:Brazilian real

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Brazil (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Numismatics (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Numismatics articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Exchange Rate[edit]

I have removed the note about the exchange rate of the Real being 3 to 1 (dollar). Since this is always fluctuating, Wikipedia is not the place to list that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quase (talkcontribs) 02:12, 14 March 2005‎

Meaning: "real" vs. "royal"[edit]

This must be relevant: "real" in portuguese can mean both "real" or "royal". Maybe the latter is the meaning of the currency's name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormwatch (talkcontribs) 20:54, 17 May 2005‎

Not really that relevant, at least for the article. It's the currency name, and as such it would not be translated (like the "peso", for instance). Besides, the distinction is not clear in the minds of Brazilians, meaning that, if enquired about this, most wouldn't be sure. Finally, in terms of history, if we considered what the government was thinking, you could say that both senses have applied. Real has now been the Brazilian currency twice. The first time around (1822 - 1942), you could say that it meant mainly "royal", since it was the currency from the times of the monarchy. The second time around (1994 - present), it's leaning more towards "real", since it was implemented to control inflation and stabilize the economy, and I remember someone saying that they wanted to have a "real" currency, with "real" values established. But I reiterate that this is all mainly retorical, since, as I've said, this is not clear in the country, because when saying "Real" people are just referring to the currency, not evoking some sort of national agenda. Regards, Redux 04:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
If it is a name, and as such it would not be translated, then why it was in the article? [The real (meaning "royal"... etc]. So, perhaps it is better to either remove the translation altogether or include both meanings [The real (meaning both "royal" and "real",...]. 80.101.122.48 (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The currency does evoke both meanings. The "royal" refence is indirect, as a return to the name of the original currency of Brazil and Portugal (with the Brazilian monarchy keeping the Portuguese name for its currency in 1822). The "real" refence is quite direct, as before the introduction of the paper currency in 1994 the government created a virtual unit of account called Unidade Real de Valor (URV - "Real Unit of Value") as part of the inflation controlling program. When physical Reais were introduced, R$1 was equivalent to 1 URV. Both of these facts are common knowledge, so the "citation needed" note should be taken out of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.130.75 (talkcontribs) 17:29, 31 August 2012‎

(The above paragraph was unsigned and is not mine.) Uh, I'm sorry to burst the bubble of people who are thinking that there is an actual reference to "royal", but the idea of the unit of currency referring to the monarchy itself is quite ridiculous. The word "royal" refers to a king, and there was never a Brazilian king; we only had Portuguese kings when were a colony, and Brazil wouldn't be too fond of the idea of our currency referencing that. If it was a reference to our monarchy, it would need to be called imperial, not real. The name may indeed be taken as either a historical reference to the old unit (much akin to how the National Order of the Southern Cross is named after the long-extinct Imperial Order of the Southern Cross), but most often it is just taken as having the sense of "real" in the Unidade real de valor, assuming the name's origin is thought about at all. That is common knowledge and common sense to us Brazilian nationals. For those reasons, I am going to be bold and just remove the "citation needed" note. I will also drop a note on the talk page for the person who added it and link them to this, as a token of respect and a demonstration of my good faith belief that the note is unneeded. Vítor Cassol (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"there was never a Brazilian king"?? Vítor, are you aware that Brazil was a monarchy from its independence in 1822 until 1889? And during all this "royal" period, the Brazilian currency was, guess what, the Real? —capmo (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
However, as Vitor points out, there was never a Brazilian king during all of that period of monarchy. The two Pedros were emperors not kings. He makes a good point. Bagunceiro (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
A late reply, but I think it's worth reading this discussion on the difference in meaning between a king and an emperor. According to the definitions presented there, the "emperors" of Brazil should be more properly defined as "kings" instead. —capmo (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Real in this case means actual, reality-based, not royalty. It came from the perception that Cruzeiros meant nothing economically when Brazil was bordering on hyperinflation, and this new monetary unit was "for real". This is the same concept used by the preparatory "Unidade Real de Valor". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.120.203.164 (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Edge of coins[edit]

It's also worth noting that the 50 centavos (and higher) coins from the second family have the Brazilian Progressivist moto "Ordem e Progresso" engraved along the edge of them. However, I can only find the 50 centavo coin in my collection, but the other coins are worth looking into as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.183.99.20 (talkcontribs) 00:48, 1 December 2006‎.

Indeed. But I believe this is a feature present only in the 50-cent coin. It is far "thicker" than the other coins, and they used this space to include the engraving. If I'm not mistaken, though, no other coins feature it. I'll figure out where to include the information for the 50 cent coin in the article. Thanks. Redux 11:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The R$ 1 and the brass coins (R$ 0,10 and 0,25) also have markings on the edge. The brass coins have engraved stripes, and the R$ 1 has five groups of engraved stripes alternating with equal-width plain surfaces. The other (copper) coins have plain edges. Rsnetto74 18:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Why not use the images used in the Portuguese version of this article (in: Real (moeda brasileira) ), in order to expand and enrich the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.104.33.126 (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2012‎

Adoption of Offical Currency in 1790[edit]

Where does the date of 1790 for the adoption of the original real come from? Everything I've been able to find simply shows it as a continuum of the Portuguese real (at least until independence). Banco do Brasil has a page on colonial era currrency [1] but it doesn't mention anything about this: Indeed there are a few things that appear to contradict it, eg:

  1. "As primeiras moedas para uso exclusivo da Colônia, entre 1695 e 1698, eram de ouro, nos valores de 4.000, 2.000 e 1.000 réis" (The first coins for the exclusive use of the colony, between 1695 and 1698, were of gold, in values 4,000, 2000 and 1,000 réis).
  2. "O sistema monetário não sofre alterações durante o reinado de D. Maria I (1777-1816)." (The monetary system did not undergo changes during the reign of Dona Maria I (1777-1816)).

The portuguese wiki page makes no reference to this supposed adoption.

Can anyone substantiate the claim?

ps.I asked this at talk:Brazilian real (old)#Adoption of Offical Currency in 1790 and it's probably more appropriate to have the discussion there. But this page might be more mainstream and visible to those in the know. Bagunceiro (talk) 11:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)