Catalog
5 Pesos 1/2 Condor
| Issuer | Banco Central de Chile |
|---|---|
| Year | 1932-1942 |
| Type | Log in to see details |
| Value | Log in to see details |
| Currency | Log in to see details |
| Composition | Log in to see details |
| Size | 145 × 70 mm |
| Shape | Log in to see details |
| Printer | Log in to see details |
| Designer(s) | Log in to see details |
| Engraver(s) | Log in to see details |
| In circulation to | Log in to see details |
| Reference(s) | Log in to see details |
| Obverse description | Printed in blue. A portrait of Bernardo O'Higgins appears at right, without a name inscription below the portrait. The note carries the issuing bank name and denomination text across the face, with convertibility clause referencing the law of July 3, 1935. |
|---|---|
| Obverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Reverse description | Log in to see details |
| Reverse lettering | BANCO CENTRAL DE CHILE 5 CINCO PESOS (Translation: Central Bank of Chile Five Pesos) |
| Signature(s) | Log in to see details |
| Protection type | Log in to see details |
| Protection description | Log in to see details |
| Variants | Log in to see details |
| Comments |
Chile's decision to print its own currency domestically — through the state-operated Talleres de Especies Valoradas — rather than contracting abroad was a direct consequence of the peso's collapse during the Great Depression and the foreign exchange crisis that followed. By 1932, importing printed banknotes from Europe was both expensive and politically unacceptable. The Talleres had been established precisely to insulate Chile from that dependency.
The 5 Pesos / ½ Condor dual denomination reflects the transitional monetary arithmetic of the period, when the Condor unit — set at ten pesos — was being phased into everyday use alongside the older peso scale. Guillermo Subercaseaux, who appears across the later signature combinations, was a well-known economist and former rector of the Universidad de Chile, an unusual background for a central bank signatory.
The catalog date discrepancy for the June 1933 issue — 7th versus 17th — remains unresolved in published references.