Swiss Francs, legal tender how far back?

JoesMaName

A couple things I really like about collecting Swiss coinage is that it's still legal tender and that they didn’t switch to the Euro. I should correct myself - as far as I know their coinage is still legal tender... If I’m not totally all wet about this, does anyone know how far back it is spend able? I know you’d be just as nuts to spend a Frank from 1900 as you would be for spending a Barber dime - but could you?
Another thing - With the Swiss Franc's current rise to parity with the dollar I imagine both interest and value have risen!

lordmarcovan

I don't know about their current legal tender status, but if they are still legal tender (as I guess they would be if Switzerland hasn't gone Euro), then the coins well back into the 1870s (if not earlier, say perhaps to 1850 at least) would still be theoretically legal. Some of those designs are among the longest running in world history, having been initiated in the 1870s.

JoesMaName

Yes and very little change has occurred in the way of relief and design tweaking.
I got hooked pulling out Gem BU examples of the 5, 10 and 20 rappen pieces from the teens, 20's and 30s, from junk boxes.

Does anyone know if they are contemplating a switch to the Euro? (That would be sad...)

MrEureka

Switzerland is notoriously quick to demonetize its obsolete paper money.

As for coins, technically, I believe that all of the formerly circulating silver coins were demonetized long ago. But I'm not 100% sure, so somebody else needs to chime in.

farthing

He!! will likely freeze over before Switzerland would switch to the Euro. A switch would have to be voted on by the people.

The English will switch to the Euro from the pound before the Swiss will.

JoesMaName

<< <i>... I believe that all of the formerly circulating silver coins were demonetized long ago. But I'm not 100% sure, so somebody else needs to chime in. >>



I don't get it, why would they bother? The paper money I can understand.

Automan

Switzerland is not even a member of the European Union. Why should they use the currency of EU when several member states don't even use it?

Auto

SYRACUSIAN

<< <i>Switzerland is not even a member of the European Union. Why should they use the currency of EU when several member states don't even use it?

Auto >>





Several member states don't use it because their economy has yet to reach the minimum limits set to join, not by choice.The new members with a healthy economy, such as Malta and Cyprus started using it already.

I'd guess that the post 1875 francs are still legal tender. Switzerland is the only country that was honest about their commemorative coins. When the Fribourg 1934 100 gold francs was issued, its weight was less than the previous 100 francs (1925), so the Swiss Central Bank, decided to give the buyers the possibility to redeem it until the end of August of that year for 100 francs, after which it would go by weight.Therefore, the coin was indeed legal tender for a period, and the same principle was applied to silver commems. Unlike all other world mints who sold and shamelessly still sell commems at a much higher value than their intrinsic one.

JoesMaName

Yes I agree Syracusian, to me it appears the Swiss take great pride in their coinage. Based on that feeling I was guessing that legal tender status would stretch quite far back.

Automan

The political game behind the adoption and non-adoption of the Euro is really quite interesting. By census Sweden decided to join the EU but the government decided that there was insufficient public support for joining EMU and adopting the Euro and decided on a policy of "wait and see". A few years later, Sweden held a census tedarding the Euro, the outcome of which was that the people voted for non-adoption (in spite of the fact that all EU countries must adopt the common currency as soon as they fulfil the requirements of convergence, all according to the Maastricht treaty). Sweden does (and has for 10 years) fulfill(ed) the basic requirements regarding inflation, interest rates, budget deficit and national debt ratio (better than several member states might be added), but technically the currency has to be pegged to the Euro for two years prior to adopting the Euro. The Swedish government has decided against pegging the currency, and, thus, on a technicality avoids join the Euro, in accordance with the public census. The situation for Denmark is more or less similar. At first there were a lot of discussions about the commission brining legal action against Sweden for not joining the Euro, but now it really is a question of not rocking the boat...

There are, in fact, non-EU countries that use the Euro as their currency, but they are not part of the European Central Bank and have no right to issue bills or coins (Montenegro, e.g.).

Auto

SYRACUSIAN

<< <i>The political game behind the adoption and non-adoption of the Euro is really quite interesting. By census Sweden decided to join the EU but the government decided that there was insufficient public support for joining EMU and adopting the Euro and decided on a policy of "wait and see". A few years later, Sweden held a census tedarding the Euro, the outcome of which was that the people voted for non-adoption (in spite of the fact that all EU countries must adopt the common currency as soon as they fulfil the requirements of convergence, all according to the Maastricht treaty). Sweden does (and has for 10 years) fulfill(ed) the basic requirements regarding inflation, interest rates, budget deficit and national debt ratio (better than several member states might be added), but technically the currency has to be pegged to the Euro for two years prior to adopting the Euro. The Swedish government has decided against pegging the currency, and, thus, on a technicality avoids join the Euro, in accordance with the public census. The situation for Denmark is more or less similar. At first there were a lot of discussions about the commission brining legal action against Sweden for not joining the Euro, but now it really is a question of not rocking the boat... >>




Automan, I knew that you were referring to Sweden and Denmark, who have of course much healthier economies than many euro using members such as Greece.

I'm a very democratic person by nature and if I was a US citizen, I would probably be voting for Obama this year, unless my friend Chuck advised me otherwise. But Denmark, a deeply democratic country just like Sweden, started a bad precedent with the referendum on the European Constitution, that was followed by others. In these cases, I don't think that the referendum is the right choice because the citizens don't know the facts prior to voting. Several European citizens understood the benefits of joining the EU and the euro years later and especially now. Sweden in particular, I believe would benefit from the euro, due to the huge expenses of its helth care system.None of the two countries are big enough (like England) nor their currency is widespread, and they can therefore become pray to blood thirsty US hedge funds, something that they wouldn't have to face under the euro umbrella. But left wing parties tend to image the European central command as a bad monster who'll take away their personal liberties and national identity, something the US couldn't be happier about. IMO, it is a matter of time until both countries join the currency.



<< <i>There are, in fact, non-EU countries that use the Euro as their currency, but they are not part of the European Central Bank and have no right to issue bills or coins (Montenegro, e.g.).

Auto >>




And that should give you a clue. Just like when half of 19th century Europe switched their coinage to Latin Union standards without ever officially joining...

Automan

While economists debate the issue, in the short term it might actually have been beneficial for Sweden not to joint EMU. Both inflation and interest rates have been lower in Sweden than in the Euro countries for the past years (which is a first since Sweden has traditionally been a high inflation country, prioritizing low unemployment). This meant that the Swedish economy grew more quickly, and tax revenues increased, making tax cuts possible (Denmark now holds the position as the world leader in taxation, a position otherwise held by Sweden for most of the past 3-4 decades). All this also had the unfortunate side effect that house prices increased dramatically (more than EU average) and in the major city areas house prices are terribly inflated and we may be facing a crisis like the one in the US (although on a much smaller scale, and probably with less severe consequences for the banking system). In the long term, though, not adopting the Euro will probably be very bad for Sweden, since it does distance us from the rest of Europe and exposes us to attacks on our currency (like in the early 1990s, which led to a long recession).

As Dimitri implies, debates concerning joining the EU and adopting the Euro tend to focus around emotional rather than rational arguments. The problem is that when some (typically the more right-wing) parties present rational arguments, other (typically more left-wing) parties counterattack with emotional arguments. Since most people don't understand the rational arguments they embrace the emotional and often trivial arguments ("I don't like the Euro because I want the head of our king on the coins").

Auto

Sapyx

Back to the original topic.

I don't know if the silvers have been formally withdrawn, but in 2004 the pure nickel coins issued pre-WWII were formally demonetized and withdrawn. I'm not sure if it was for financial reasons (recovering the "bullion value" of the nickel) or for health reasons (several other European countries have withdrawn nickel from their coinage because a small proportion of the population are allergic to the metal). Maybe both.