Jump to content

Talk:Deutsche Mark/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

comment

I have this coin but I don't know who to sell it to — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandyLAllison (talk • contribs) 02:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment

The picture of the 20 Mark bill (added by Quadell) is not a Deutsche Mark note.The DM was only issued by the Bundesbank after WW2. The picture shows German money from WW2, ie. Reichsmark. Lschulz 12:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I cut the following bit from the spelling note:

"because in German you cannot put an adjective and a noun together"

That's nonsense. Just think about words like "Grünspan" (verdigris). Grün is an adjective (green) and Span is a noun (chip/swarf/splinter). -- Ashmodai 17:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Survey

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Not moved: No consensus, common English form, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Style does not specifically apply. —Centrx→talk • 03:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Page move: German mark → German Mark

Support

Oppose

Abstain

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Does anyone know?

You may have seen those sales pitches, selling the new Iraqi Dinar notes. Many of these promotions claim that speculators were able to buy up severely devalued Deutschmarks (and Yen) right after WW2, subsequently earning sizable profits as the defeated Axis powers stabilized and their currencies appreciated. Is this true or false? Rearden Metal 07:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This is certainly false - there was no Deutschmark right after WW2. The currency of Germany was the Reichsmark through WW2 and until 1948. Buying up Reichsmark would have been of no use since it indeed was worthless after WW2, but it never recovered. Instead it was abandoned and the new Deutsche Mark was issued in 1948, but there was no free market to exchange it into Deutsche Mark at any profitable rate. Every citizen could exchange a small amount of Reichsmark at a good rate (to get them through the time until their next payday arrived), but the remaining amount of Reichsmark was practically worthless. Anything else would have dragged the new D-Mark down into hyperinflation instantly, ridiculing the whole exercise. So, to conclude, no, as as far as the Deutsche Mark is concerned, this is almost certainly a fraudulent claim. I don't know about the Yen, but frankly, I wouldn't expect any more truth to those claims concerning post-WW2 yen. 84.148.115.173 02:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but again - Proposed move to "German Mark" (with capitalizaton)

Sorry, I just came aware of the survey conducted in August 2006, about this very some proposal. As I do have one new, but I really think quite significant argument, I'm going forward to propose the move to "German Mark" again.

The point is, that I did come across quite a lot of different articles in English Wikipedia that apply the same capitalization to other topics as well. Most prominent examples that I'm aware of are "British Empire" and "United States", and none would say this has anything to do with German spelling :-). So in fact, the capitalization should be applied, because it can be correct in English, it definitely is correct in German, and we should apply the same capitalization rule to all articles consistently. Additionally, the title should match the predominant usage within the article.

So, I'm ready for your arguments. Cheers, MikeZ 12:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Euro changeover

One sentence in the beginning of the text states:

"The Deutsche Mark ceased to be legal tender immediately upon the introduction of the euro — in contrast to the other eurozone nations, where the euro and legacy currency circulated side by side for up to two months."

OK, so all DEM banknotes and coins became invalid on 1999-01-01.

However, the next sentence states:

"However, DM coins and banknotes continued to be accepted as valid forms of payment in Germany up until 28 February 2002."

OK, so all DEM banknotes and coins became invalid on 2002-02-28.

Can anyone check the correctness of these statements? It would be impossible to use the euro banknotes and coins already in 1999 (because they weren't printed or minted at that time), so I suppose it's the second one that's correct? (58.188.97.134 14:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

Well, in my understanding neither of these statements are completely correct. On 01-Jan-2002 the euro banknotes and coins were introduced. Until 28-Feb-2002 both the old German Mark banknotes and coins, as well the new euro ones, were legal tender. All goods could be bought by any combination of currencies, and the seller was obliged to accept both currencies during these two months. After 28-Feb-2002 the German Mark did not exactly became invalid, but ceased to be legal tender. The Bundesbank will exchange old German Mark denominations (banknotes and coins) into euros for indefinite future, so the German Mark banknotes and coins are not invalid. However, the acceptance of German Marks is up to the seller's decision. If he's willing to accept the burden of exchanging at the Bundesbank, customers might be able to buy something for old German Marks even now. In fact, several companies did some marketing actions ("we still accept your old German marks"), to benefit from people still in procession of German Marks. I do understand, that there are still billions (!) of German Marks out in the world, that haven't been exchanged as of now, 5 years after to introduction of euro banknotes and coins. - So, just my two cents. Cheers, MikeZ 19:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Pfennig markings

The Pfennig coins bear a letter between the oak sprigs on the reverse side. Does anyone know what these letters represent. I have identified "D", "F", and "G" so far. 168.103.228.69 19:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

These letters indicate where the coin was minted - according to this, D indicates Munich, F Stuttgart, G Karlsruhe and J Hamburg. The letters were present on all German coins from the pre-Euro period, not just on the Pfennings (and a quick glance in my wallet confirms that the same letters still appear on German Euro coins, presumably indicating the same mints) -- Ferkelparade π 21:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
A is for Berlin, B for Vienna during WW2 and M for another place, but I forget where is eastern germany. Enlil Ninlil 02:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I have a Großchen (10 Pfennig) from 1875 and it has two small "H"s under both claws of the Prussian Eagle, what mint is that? If I can get a picture on my computer I will post it. I have the picture posted below with the "H"s highlighted where they are on the coin --JonnyLightning 22:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
File:Großchen.jpg
It's “Groschen”, by the way. Großchen would mean something like “little big one”, but would certainly not make anybody think of money. :-) — Mütze 14:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:200-DEM-REV-162x67.jpg

Image:200-DEM-REV-162x67.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 23:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:200-DEM-OBV-162x67.jpg

Image:200-DEM-OBV-162x67.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 23:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:20-DEM-REV-138x68.jpg

Image:20-DEM-REV-138x68.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 23:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:20-DEM-OBV-138x68.jpg

Image:20-DEM-OBV-138x68.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 23:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1000-DEM-REV-178x83.jpg

Image:1000-DEM-REV-178x83.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 01:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1000-DEM-OBV-178x83.jpg

Image:1000-DEM-OBV-178x83.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 01:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:100-DEM-REV-154x74.jpg

Image:100-DEM-REV-154x74.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 01:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:100-DEM-OBV-154x74.jpg

Image:100-DEM-OBV-154x74.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 01:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:10-DEM-REV-130x65.jpg

Image:10-DEM-REV-130x65.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 01:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:10-DEM-OBV-130x65.jpg

Image:10-DEM-OBV-130x65.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 01:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:500-DEM-REV-170x80.jpg

Image:500-DEM-REV-170x80.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:500-DEM-OBV-170x80.jpg

Image:500-DEM-OBV-170x80.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:50-DEM-REV-146x71.jpg

Image:50-DEM-REV-146x71.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:50-DEM-OBV-146x71.jpg

Image:50-DEM-OBV-146x71.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:5-DEM-REV-122x62.jpg

Image:5-DEM-REV-122x62.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 05:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:5-DEM-OBV-122x62.jpg

Image:5-DEM-OBV-122x62.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 05:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Pfennig Plural

i was taught that "Pfennige" refers to a number of 1-pfennig-coins, whereas "Pfennig" would be the correct plural to talk about a pfennig amount. i think you have pretty much the same thing with pennies and pence in the UK. any second opinion on that?

XMCHx 00:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a strange aspect of the German language, money is mostly given in singular form, even when the number is larger than one, f.e. "Das kostet 23 Pfennig." ("This costs 23 pfennigs.") The term "Pfennige" isn't wrong, but it is considered unusual in that meaning. If the number is undefined, "Pfennige" would be the correct form: "Das wird dich einige Pfennige kosten." ("This will cost you some pfennigs.") --32X 08:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
To give an historical perspective, before the unification of Germany in 1871, some states used Pfennige as the plural form on their coins.
Dove1950 14:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

First 2 DM coin

Simple question, did this circulate?
Dove1950 (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Simple answer, is yes. It was a regular issue despite the different portraits. Like the 25 U.S cents, 1 U.K pound. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The reason I asked is that it is very rare today. Having lived in Germany, I know that it is a very expensive coin to purchase and one that is rarely seen at dealers. Hence, it has always struck me as unlikely that this coin circulated, at least not in the kinds of numbers as the 1 and 5 DM coins from the same period. My question had nothing to do with the change of design.
Dove1950 (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Check here http://sammler.com/muenzdb/index.html aparently there were 75.3 million issued from four mints. Could be because of desirability that it is rare.Enlil Ninlil (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
That's it! It states that, due to confusion with the 1DM, this coin was withdrawn in 1958. Thanks a lot. I've been wondering about this for more than 20 years!
Dove1950 (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to Deutsche Mark

I'm not entirely opposed but this should have been discussed here first as the name doesn't quite follow the standard set by Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Style. It's an awkward one, as the style would give us German Deutsche Mark which looks silly once you know that Deutsche means German. Any one got any comments?
Dove1950 (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Common sense should trump arbitrary style guidelines. When we have guidelines that give silly results, logical and reason should prevail. I think the original logic for having an article called French franc is that the French qualifier was added because there is more than one currency that uses "franc". In this case, there is no other currency officially named "Deutsche Mark", so adding the qualifier German is redundant. I've even noticed in most articles where it is referred to, the abbreviation "DM" or words "Deutsche Mark" are piped to "German mark" which is really redundant effort, calling it a Deutsche Mark in the article, then redirecting that to German mark article which then calls the currency Deutsche Mark again all through it. It isn't quite sensible. Additionally, having been involved in some other naming discussions about foreign things, it is generally agreed that the common usage in English should be the article title, and in English Deutsch Mark is much more commonly used than German mark, (a terribly non-specific title) especially due to the fact that more than one entity considered "Germany" has used at least four different currencies containing the word "Mark". pschemp | talk 19:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Common sense can also mean keeping to simple guidelines and thereby maintaining consistency. None-the-less, Deutsche Mark presents a possibly unique case study. The fly in the ointment as things currently stand is that there have been two distinct Deutche Mark, one in West Germany and later the reunited Germany, and one in East Germany. Even calling the article German Deutsche Mark doesn't solve that problem. Suggestions?
Dove1950 (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • While the East German currency was briefly also called Deutsche Mark, that wasn't how it was referred to commonly in English, even from the beginning. Since that article is at it's name in English, East German Mark, I think the difference is clear. When someone refers to DM, they mean West. East was always quantified. pschemp | talk 14:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
To compound the issue is the fact that it commonly got called Deutschmark in English Agathoclea (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy to discount Deutschmark as an aberation (though it should be mentioned in the text). Any more comments?
Dove1950 (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I request that this discussion be taken up once more? Editors have started linking to this new article title and, if we decide that Deutsche Mark is not acceptable, we'll have to change the links again.
Dove1950 (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the lack of outcry speaks for itself. pschemp | talk 14:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


Move to German Deutsche Mark

I know it's "bold", but I've moved this article to German Deutsche Mark as this is the proper name according to the standard adopted by Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics. Let's see if there's any more discussion now. If you want reasons beyond complying to the standard, then one is that not everyone will know that Deutsche means German.
Dove1950 (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Bold but wrong. Please don't move it again. Relying on people to be ignorant is not exactly the best reason I've ever heard for an article name....in fact it's a bit offensive considering that English speakers aren't isolated in the world. I'm sorry but this is a place where common sense trumps arbitrary standards. Deutsche Mark *is* the most commonly used name in English period, and is only used to refer to the Western and later reunified currency. East German mark was always referred to in English with the East qualifier and there never was any confusion. You can see in the history of this page that the person who undid your move agrees with that. We should strive for simplicity and clarity on this encyclopedia and when abitrary guidlines get in the way, exceptions are made, especially when they advise such silliness as the equivalent of "German German Mark". pschemp | talk 14:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
At least you're not being so dismissive any more. You're right that Deutsche Mark was a commonly used name for this currency, although Mark was probably as common if not more common in spoken English and German. No matter, Deutsche Mark was the official name and that trumps common. However, we should not assume that Deutsche is immediately understood as meaning German, nor should we assume that there is no good reason for sticking to a perfectly good standard (it's far from an "arbitrary guideline"). We should strive for accuracy and clarity. Both are served by German Deutsche Mark, hence my move. Just because you know what German Deutsche Mark can be translated as doesn't mean that others know that. Wikipedia must be clear to all, not a select minority. I'm not relying on people being ignorant, rather allowing for those who are, as any good encyclopaedia should. At the very least, I've added a note at the top to clearly indicate that this article does not cover all Deutsche Mark issues. That's needed whatever we call this article.
Dove1950 (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

British Armed Forces Special Voucher (BAFSV)

British forces serving in Germany post war were issued with BAFSVs (pronounced "baffs"), instead of D-Marks. A quick web search confirms they were still in use in the early 1960s, and that they had denominations in D-Marks etc. They had been withdrawn by the late 1960s when I served there. I understand that their purpose was to prevent black market activities. Presumably the US and French forces in Germany also had such arrangements. Should these be mentioned in D-Mark article, with a link to a separate article about the BAFSVs etc? Can anyone help? I do not know enough to be able to contribute more than a stub article.GilesW (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Bizone

I changed the link from Bizone. The text read "bizone" but the link took one to trizone then redirected to bizone. A pointless redirect. There is no article for trizone the link should be a direct bizone link. --Brideshead (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the dates and the DM was created before the bizone was extended to form the trizone.
Dove1950 (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Coin obverse and reverse

I've always thought of the side of the coins with the oak or the eagle as the reverse and the side with the value as the obverse. What is the decision which side is which based on? On the German wikipedia this ("the lady on the reverse of the 50Pf) and this agree with me. "Eichenlaub auf der Vorderseite und der Bundesadler auf der Rückseite." translates to "Oak leaves on obverse and the Federal Eagle on reverse."--ospalh (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Found a link to the Bundesbank. The 'number' sides images are called 'vs' for Vorderseite or obverse. As the Budesbank can pretty much define which side is which. i'll change it in the article.--ospalh (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Very well done, I would say. Only that in the link given, I cannot find a statement saying The 'number' sides images are called 'vs' for Vorderseite or obverse. Did you want to link to another page at Bundesbank?

Independent from the above, I would also answer the obverse revers question as you did. Tomeasy T C 16:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The 'vs' is hidden (if you will) in the file name:
But i guess i should have spent a moment longer on the search, and than linked to this page. That's from the Bundesbank as well and it plainly states 'obverse' and 'reverse'. (And i don't have to scramble to undo my change to the article.)--ospalh (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, now it's perfect. Tomeasy T C 13:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

1948 currency reform

Currently, the article reads "The Deutsche Mark was introduced on Sunday, June 20, 1948 by Ludwig Erhard. He did this, as he often confessed, on Sunday because the offices of the American, British, and French occupation authorities were closed that day. He was sure that if he had done it when they were open, they would have countermanded the order."

Huh? The reform was carried out with the full knowledge of the occupation authorities - after all, they had to issue the laws, print the money, and supervise the enactment of the reform. The German population had been informed about the upcoming reform two days before (on June 18) by radio, newspapers etc.; if the occupation authorities had any will to counteract the reform, they could have done so.

If anything, this refers to Erhard's controversial (with the occupation authorities) decision to abolish fixed prices and rationing of goods together with the currency reform. If that's what is meant, the article should be changed to reflect this. If there are no objections, I'll do it myself in a few days. Varana (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly agree and furthermore: Erhard was informed only a few days before the reform, it wans't him, but the OMGUS who made the currency reform. And the abolishing of fixed prices didn#t happen a few weeks later but on the very same June 20th. Further Information: See e.g. cite#9 (Roesler and Fuhrmann)

The German mark's role in German reunification

"East German marks were exchanged for German marks at a rate of 1:1 for the first 4000 Marks and 2:1 for larger amounts." is incorrect!

  • people until 14 years (children): 2000 Mark 1:1, than 2:1 (East German Mark : Deutsche Mark)
  • people from 15 to 60 years (adults): 4000 Mark 1:1, than 2:1
  • people up to 60 years (pensioner): 6000 Mark 1:1, than 2:1
  • foreigner (not GDR-people){West German Too!}: 3:1
  • All! Debits 2:1
  • earnings, rent, lease, stipend and all other frequently payings: 1:1

That has some strange aftermath: ALL children (including babies) has at once (over night) bank accounts (most with 2000 Mark ;-) ) And ALL pensioners had at least minimum 6000 Mark assets. Even if they had relative or not... 77.189.149.41 (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have sources for what you write here, feel free t add this information along with a reference to your source. Tomeasy T C 08:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

germank central bank printing DM2?

I'm working at the Deutsche Bank in Germany. Today we delivered 1 container with new Deutsche Mark notes and new coins. I will present a photo from the new banknotes tomorrow morning. The curencychange will be the night from Saturday to Sunday 5/16/2010. On Friday, 19.00 GMT Angela Merkel the germany chancelor, will speach to the german nation. http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1062655/pg1


also french franc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MEA-MrwwhA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.7.156 (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.33.193 (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Since there is name on Albanian I will add Serbian as well!

By Kosovo constitution Serbian is official language as well so if there is Albanian there should be Serbian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.196.115.6 (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Source Chapter I article 5

http://www.kushtetutakosoves.info/repository/docs/Constitution.of.the.Republic.of.Kosovo.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.198.52.236 (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Old and new 5 DM coins

Your picture shows a new 5 DM coin in cupro-nickel. It says, that it was made of silver before. It does not show a picture of the old 1951-1974 5 DM silver coin, which had an entirely different design. The ugly new 5 DM cupro-nickel coins show the 5 framed by a "TV tube", as shown and the whole design is modernistic. The silver coins had an old fashioned look. Does somebody have a picture? 70.137.131.101 (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I totaly agree. Your picture of the "commonly" disliked new 5 DM coin is misleading! It should be easy to get an image of the older - 1974 coin. This was the "right" eagle! The new was called "fette Henne" ;)

Achim1999 (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Replacing fairytales with history

The statement about goods appearing in the shops 'overnight' as if by magic in June 1948 suggests some sort of miracle or supernatural intervention. Some rational explanation should be attempted. I find, for example at this link, "Factories had been producing in advance for Day X. But they held back the finished articles until the currency changeover had taken place and they would receive new, hard money for their produce." In other words the previous shortages had been, in part, artificially sharpened by the expectation that the new currency would be introduced. Tdent (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Mark or mark?

Is the name properly capitalized as "Deutsche Mark" or can this article be moved to the currency-name standard of "Deutsche mark"?

AlbertR 19:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Either "Deutsche Mark" (correct in German) or "German mark" (correct in English). Definitely not "Deutsche mark". ナイトスタリオン…ㇳ–ㇰ 20:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Ahhh, now I see. For the record, I prefer "German mark". AlbertR 21:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Since this is the English wikipedia, so do I. (Notwithstanding my native language. ;)) ナイトスタリオン…ㇳ–ㇰ 21:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I always thought currencies were generally capitalized as proper names, but a quick look through our various currency articles seems to indicate I've been wrong all my life :P . Anyway, I agree it should be either Deutsche Mark or German mark, although I have no special preference for any of the two versions -- Ferkelparade π 13:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
It ought to be added that, descriptively, deutschmark (no space, lower case) was in common use in the news media as the English-language term for the currency: see [2]. This appalled some Germans and was deprecated by a few prescriptive English reference works. While it may have been "cod German" by origin, it evolved into a phenomenon of educated English usage. 80.171.183.49 13:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Deutschmark was in common usage amongst English speaking people (or UK residents at least), but it is pretty incorrect. I think a redirect would be valid, but it's not an official name for the currency in any way. It did appear in Monty Python's money song tho ("the deutschmark's getting dearer" or something along those lines). Ashmodai 12:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
As I know, Deutschmark was known and used in the US long before Monty Python's. It came up by the time of change from Reichsmark to Deutsche Mark. I will look for more details. --Grabert 02:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
What about Rentenmark and Reichmark? How should we write them?
  • Rentenmark
  • rentenmark
  • pension mark
  • something else?
The spelling is getting out of control. Let's have a consistent style, and I will volunteer to clean up. --Chochopk 05:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I say "rentenmark", unless "pension mark" was in use in English. —Nightstallion (?) 10:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Not as standard usage, which is "rentenmark"

I'm proposing changing all mark to Mark. More detail on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics#German unit --Chochopk 22:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If nobody responds, I will just do it. --Chochopk 12:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Afaik, "pension mark" is wrong as in "rentenmark" the word "Rente" does not refer to "pension". Otherwise you (all you English-speaking people) should stick to your rules ("Deutsche mark", that is) as we Germans capitalize your pounds and dollars according to our rules aswell. --A native German

Next thing coming to my mind: What about the plural? Is it "Deutsche marks" or "Deutsche mark"? (In German, the latter one is correct - there is no plural form) --see above
Mark, of course. —Nightstallion (?) 11:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I was told by a native German speaker that using a different plural form has different connotations - that apparently, one form is related in some way to Communism. However, I cannot remember whether it was a modified form (i.e. "Marke"/"Marks") that connoted this - which I suspect it was - or otherwise. I will not make any alterations myself, but was wondering if anyone has any knowledge of this (whether it is a fallacy, or a common stereotype). Lordrsb 14:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

First: ALL German Nouns are capitalized–no matter what. Second: It's pluralized in the English version but not the German (2 Deutsche Mark = 2 German Marks) but it should be noted that they'd typically just say "2 Mark" just as we don't usually say "2 US Dollars" unless there's ambiguity.·:RedAugust 12:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

@Lordrsb: I never ever heard of "different connotations using a plural form" of (German) mark/s. When i think about the relation to communism; marks does sound like Marx, but that connection is not readily made, especially not in the context. Your native German speaker either told you a joke, or his own, private observation that you are highly unlikly to encounter somwhere else. Regards, Gott (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

@Gott - You're right, of course. Funnily enough, the Marx/Marks pun only just occurred to me in early 2013, some 11 years after it was told to me. That's certainly the longest joke-telling-to-recognition gap of my life. Thanks - Rob — Preceding undated comment added 11:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

5 DM banknote rarely used?

The column on the righthand side states "Banknotes, Rarely used: 5 DM, 500 DM, 1000 DM". If I remember correctly 5 DM banknotes were quiet common in day to day business at least in Germany itself. Just as common as €5 notes are today and with 1.5 billion €5 notes circulating (compared to 2 billion €10 notes) I wouldn't call them rare. 80.237.234.152 (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

~As I remember, 5 DM banknotes were rare. 5 DM coins were much more common. Sorry I am not a native speaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.219.231 (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

As a child, I remember 5 DM notes were extraordinarily rare, and when I once saw one, I wondered why it should exist, given that there are the 5 DM coins after all. 500 (and 200) DM were rare too; yet 1000 DM were precisely used as much as can be expected with notes over such amounts. (Which of course is not too often, and roughly identical to the 500 € note today.)--93.135.34.116 (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
As per above. The 5 DM banknotes were rather scarce, up to the point that people collected them. On the contrary, the 5 EUR note is VERY common; this may be attributed to there being a 5 DM coin along the bank note, and the 5 EUR note equaling roughly 10 DM. Regards, Gott (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I lived in West Germany from '81 to '91 and remember 5DM notes being common, and 5DM coins were not exactly rare either.Yevad (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Rolledback redirect

To the IP user who redirected Deutch Mark to German Mark- I'm not sure you made the move you intended. Your edit summary stated that -- "German" mark can refer to any of the currencies called "Mark" used by Germany. Moved to avoid confusion, and to official name. Even in English, Deutsche Mark is more commonly used -- yet you in effect erased the Deutche Mark article and redirected it to German Mark. Furthermore, I would think a move/redirect of this nature (magnitude) would require some discussion. --Godot13 (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Greek drachma, Italian lira, French franc - why not German mark?

With, for instance, Greek drachma, Italian lira, and French franc, German mark would be consistent. Why not? --Mortense (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Good question and as it's used in other languages as "Duitsche Mark" in Dutch or "Marco Alemán" in Castilian (also called Spanish) but also called "Deutsche Mark" in French so it would probably have to do more with WP:COMMONNAME than anything else, if more media sources would report on it by its native name we'll see this become the name, this happens to cities on Wikipedia all the time, though we'd still say things like the Hague, Moscow, St. Petersburg, other names have been changed like Peking -> Chung-Ch'ing -> Chong-Qing, Etc. so it would probably have to do with the fact that most sources refer to it as the "Deutsche Mark" in contrast the East German currency is called the "East German Mark" and not the "Ostdeutsche Mark". I hope this helps.
Consistency is not something you'll find here on Wikipedia.
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Currency after number

Germans do write their currency after the number. For example 5€ or 5 DM. DM 5 or €5 is very unusual.

"Pfennig" is usually written as "Pf."

--79.255.111.176 (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Chart colours don't match legend

The colours in the chart in the section "Reserve currency" don't match those in the legend. --Taejo|대조 09:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. We seem to have a bit of WP:ENGVAR situation, which, combined with WP:TITLECHANGES, does not justify the move. No such user (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


Deutsche Mark → Deutschmark – Turning this informal request into a proper RM to gather more opinions — JFG talk 23:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Sam Sailor Talk! 11:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC))

Move back to Deutschmark

(original proposal to restore the original title Deutschmark after it had been moved to Deutsche Mark)
I think it should be moved back to Deutschmark, per WP:common name. The current title is in German, so elsewhere it sticks out in lists such as French franc, Italian lira, Portuguese escudo, Dutch guilder, Spanish peseta, East German mark, Deutsche Mark. Rothorpe (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support moving back to Deutschmark, which is the attested common spelling in the English language, so it should be the title for the English Wikipedia. Proof here: [3], pay attention to the second diagram called "Regional interest": if you select the "Deutschmark" spelling you see a rate of 100 in the UK and 34 in the USA (indidentally 78 in France so their spelling is the same as the English one), whereas if you select "Deutsche Mark" you see a rate of 100 in Germany, 33 in Austria and 28 in Switzerland (German-speaking countries) but only a meager 8 in the UK and 6 in the US. So Deutschmark dominates by a factor 8 for British readers and a factor 6 for those in the USA. Clear case for Deutschmark by WP:Common name policy. Can we get consensus here? — JFG talk 21:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as proposer. Deutschmark is the usual spelling, and 'doichmark' still the usual pronunciation, without the German schwa sound in the middle. Rothorpe (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Deutsche mark" has the edge in this ngram. American English is "deutsche mark"[4][5] while the British prefer "Deutschmark."[6][7] The Google Trend result seems to have been misread. It shows an overwhelming preference for "deutsche mark" in every region. In Britain, "deutsche mark" is favored 19 to 11.[8] Gulangyu (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Gulangyu. Slightly more meaningful nGrams (singular, plural) confirm both "German mark" and "Deutsche (m/M)ark" have overall been preferred to "Deutschmark". --PanchoS (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Gulangyu. Given the present form has a slight edge, fits better with our usual currency naming, and is technically more accurate in terms of German usage than the "doychmark" usage, we should stick with this,  — Amakuru (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Whats your concept of "common"? Deutsche Mark is an historical currency and after 17 years of using € now thers no Mark in anyone's pocket anymore. Also keep in mind our english wikipedia in not only for british or us-american readers, where "deutschmark" may have indeed been a wide spread name for deutsche Mark 20 years ago. --Kharon (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Every time I hear a BBC business programme discussing the euro's troubles and a possible return to the deutschmark and others in my list above, I am reminded that the word is in current use. History is still with us, as any user of an encyclopedia knows. Rothorpe (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Im a German, living in Germany. You have your referendum to leave EU upcomming in UK and roundabout 50% EU-Critics as i read, so maybe ther is some popular fantasy in UK about Germany leaving too. Btw. not going to happen here, trust me. So that is an uk specific claim of current common use that isnt even very convincing at that. --Kharon (talk) 04:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm an Englishman living in Portugal and opposed to Brexit. But current discussions have nothing to do with it; the word lives on. You wouldn't want us to misspell ducat or farthing, would you, just because they're not very common? Rothorpe (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I wouldnt care, its always comedy when native english speakers try to impose germans. Strangely enough the hole world speaks out "Volkswagen" and "Mercedes Benz" almost prefect like a German. Audi too but thats to easy to count. I doubt anyone here minds how you spell deutsche Mark as long as everyone keeps buying the cars for €uros :) --Kharon (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
You like it when English folk say "Volks Wagon"? Clearly then, you must be able to accept 'deutschmark' as a proper English word. Rothorpe (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
No sorry this sounds more like what you english folk make out of Be eM We, which is also more than we can take. Please just remember your own preconception of us Germans, of being pedantic, and follow your own logic. :) --Kharon (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, I suppose the feeling we have watching poor Germany stuck in the EU and being overrun with refugees is better described as schadenfreude than as schaden freude. Gulangyu (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

File:FRG-2a-Allied West Germany-1 Deutsche Mark (1948).jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:FRG-2a-Allied West Germany-1 Deutsche Mark (1948).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 14, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-08-14. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Deutsche Mark
A one Deutsche Mark banknote issued by Allied-occupied Germany and circulated by the United States Army Command in 1948. This was the first of three issues of West German currency introduced that year. The Mark remained the official currency of West Germany until German reunification in 1990, then the official currency of Germany until the adoption of the euro in 2002.Banknote: Allied-occupied Germany (image courtesy of the National Numismatic Collection, National Museum of American History)
Archive – More featured pictures...

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deutsche Mark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

conversion rate to reichsmark

I challenge the conversion ration to reichsmark written in the article (100 Reichsmark = 4.75 Deutsche Mark), germannotes.com, which looks like a well done website states "Each person received 40 Deutsche Mark and was able to exchange Reichsmark for Deutsche Mark at a fixed rate of 10 to 1". And an article by Global Financial Data says "The western Allies introduced the Deutsche Mark (DEM) on June 20, 1948, allowing conversion at 1 Deutsche Mark equal to 10 Reichsmark, though with limits on the rights of conversion. The black market rate was around 1000 Reichsmark to the Deutschemark." And Global Financial Data currency histories table listed it as "1 DEM = 10 DER", although I personally question the accuracy of Global Financial Data as well. --Chochopk 06:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Bond Conversion of 600RM to 50 DM] German information on the conversion The 60 DM was the maximum limit at a conversion rate of 1RM = 1DM. The exchange seems very complex, and depended on who was exchanging the money.In english Ok u are right, so please change it la. Enlil Ninlil 09:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, thouse who didn't have their 60 RM (or, at first, 40 RM) to convert them 1:1 usually would have got them as a present from their neighbors or friends. After all, the RMs would soon be, for all practical purposes, useless. The image people took away from it was a "distribution of 40 DM" (and later additional 20 DM) to each person.--2001:A61:260D:6E01:4506:68F3:AE30:F562 (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

1989 series images

The back of the 1989 series banknotes have a copyright sign: I’m not sure if the images of the 1989 series (mostly uploaded by user YavarPS) meet the government works criteria. Any leads? --Minoa (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

"this expression is unknown in Germany"????

The summary of this article contains the following sentences: 

In English it is commonly called the "Deutschmark" (/ˈdɔɪtʃmɑːrk/); this expression is unknown in Germany. The Germans usually called it D-Mark when referring to the currency, and Mark when talking about individual sums.

Almost all of this is wrong. It may be called the Deutschmark in England, but that term definitely originates from Germany. I am German, and all of my relatives call it the Deutschmark. "My relatives" isn't a super strong source, but as it stands these statements lack a source at all. In fact, I would wager that all of Germany calls it the Deutschmark. "D-Mark" is not uncommon, but it is definitely not the most used phrase compared to Deutschmark. Furthermore, I have never heard the term "Mark". I propose that the sentences are changed to: 

In German and English it is commonly called the "Deutschmark" (/ˈdɔɪtʃmɑːrk/). Germans may also refer to it as D-Mark.

I have put a citation needed after the sentences in question. Waxworker (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The German return to the mark rumours

Needs to be recorded as their are so many need to state it is curently a rroumour but cant ignore can we.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deutsche_Mark/Archive_1&oldid=1144748655"