Ostrubel (
German,
Polish) ostrublis ( Latvian, Lithuanian) острубль ( Russian) | |
---|---|
Plural | The language(s) of this currency belong(s) to the Slavic languages. There is more than one way to construct plural forms. |
Denominations | |
Subunit | |
1⁄100 | copeck (копѣйка) |
Banknotes | 20, 50 copecks, 1, 3, 10, 25, 100 rubels |
Coins | 1, 2, 3 copecks |
Demographics | |
Date of introduction | 17 April 1916 |
Official user(s) | |
Unofficial user(s) | |
Issuance | |
Central bank | Darlehnskasse, Posen |
This infobox shows the latest status before this currency was rendered obsolete. Circulated alongside
German Ostmark, with 2 Ostmark = 1 Ostrubel |
Ostrubel ( German and Polish: Ostrubel; Latvian and Lithuanian: Ostrublis; Russian: Острубль) is the name given to a currency denominated in copecks and rubels, which was issued by Germany in 1916 for use in the eastern areas under German occupation ( Ober Ost and the Government General of Warsaw). It was initially equal to the Imperial rouble. The reason for the issue was a shortage of currency. The banknotes were produced by the Darlehnskasse in Posen (now Poznań) on 17 April 1916.
From 4 April 1916, the Ostrubel circulated alongside the Ostmark in the Ober Ost area, with 2 Ostmarken = 1 Ostrubel. In the Government General of Warsaw the Ostruble was replaced by the Polish marka on 14 April 1917.
The banknote denominations available were:
The front sides of the banknotes carry a warning in German against forging banknotes. On the reverse sides is the same warning in Latvian (with old style orthography), Lithuanian and Polish.
There were also 1 copeck, 2 copeck and 3 copeck coins, made out of iron.
The Ostrubel circulated in Lithuania together with the Ostmark until 1 October 1922, when it was replaced by the litas.
It was also still in use in a part of the Second Polish Republic during the first months of independence, until 29 April 1920.
This article includes a
list of references,
related reading, or
external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks
inline citations. (September 2017) |
Ostrubel (
German,
Polish) ostrublis ( Latvian, Lithuanian) острубль ( Russian) | |
---|---|
Plural | The language(s) of this currency belong(s) to the Slavic languages. There is more than one way to construct plural forms. |
Denominations | |
Subunit | |
1⁄100 | copeck (копѣйка) |
Banknotes | 20, 50 copecks, 1, 3, 10, 25, 100 rubels |
Coins | 1, 2, 3 copecks |
Demographics | |
Date of introduction | 17 April 1916 |
Official user(s) | |
Unofficial user(s) | |
Issuance | |
Central bank | Darlehnskasse, Posen |
This infobox shows the latest status before this currency was rendered obsolete. Circulated alongside
German Ostmark, with 2 Ostmark = 1 Ostrubel |
Ostrubel ( German and Polish: Ostrubel; Latvian and Lithuanian: Ostrublis; Russian: Острубль) is the name given to a currency denominated in copecks and rubels, which was issued by Germany in 1916 for use in the eastern areas under German occupation ( Ober Ost and the Government General of Warsaw). It was initially equal to the Imperial rouble. The reason for the issue was a shortage of currency. The banknotes were produced by the Darlehnskasse in Posen (now Poznań) on 17 April 1916.
From 4 April 1916, the Ostrubel circulated alongside the Ostmark in the Ober Ost area, with 2 Ostmarken = 1 Ostrubel. In the Government General of Warsaw the Ostruble was replaced by the Polish marka on 14 April 1917.
The banknote denominations available were:
The front sides of the banknotes carry a warning in German against forging banknotes. On the reverse sides is the same warning in Latvian (with old style orthography), Lithuanian and Polish.
There were also 1 copeck, 2 copeck and 3 copeck coins, made out of iron.
The Ostrubel circulated in Lithuania together with the Ostmark until 1 October 1922, when it was replaced by the litas.
It was also still in use in a part of the Second Polish Republic during the first months of independence, until 29 April 1920.
This article includes a
list of references,
related reading, or
external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks
inline citations. (September 2017) |