Over the past months, several requests for new types of banknotes have popped up in various threads. I am centralising all these requests in this thread for an open discussion and feedback from everyone on what new types are necessary. If anything is missing, let me know:
I think we should aim for a small selection of types, and have some correspondence to the coin types.
• Standard circulation banknote ⟷ Standard circulation coin (✓)
• Commemorative note ⟷ Circulating commemorative coin (✓)
↪︎ for circulating and non-circulating commemorative notes.
• Reserve/Non-circulating note ⟷ Non-circulating coin (add) ↪︎ to be added for reserve notes.
• Trial note ⟷ Pattern (✓)
• Token ⟷ Token (add) ↪︎ To be added for coupons, rice rations, exchange certificates, etc. If there will be a distinct section for tokens in the future, we can then create individual types there.
• Provisional note ⟷ ∅ (add, maybe for coins too) ↪︎ I think a category for complementary, provisional and emergency notes is necessary, and possibly this could be useful for coins as well, such as for notgeld, siege coinage, etc.
• Local note⟷ ∅ (remove) ↪︎ I don't think this is necessary. We have issuers that define how "local" the circulation of that note is. If the issuer is "Commune of Oran", that is specific enough and we can have the type set to standard / token / provisional .... We don't have a "local coin" category either.
• Fantasy note ⟷ ∅ (remove/rename) ↪︎ Again, I would get rid of this type. There are also fantasy coins and we don't have a category for them. I think these belong to exonumia, and probably a type called "exonumia item" would work better to combine other sub-types as well: hell notes, replicas, ATM test notes, postal orders, etc.
• Military notes ⟷ ∅ (probably not necessary) ↪︎ I think occupation notes should be listed under the occupied country, with the ruling authority mentioning the occupation period. Notes that only circulated in military bases and war camps should be described as tokens and listed accordingly. War currency that was in general circulation in a territory, can probably be described as provisional or standard and we can use the issuing entity to list "British Armed Forces" for example.
To sum up, this is what I would go for: banknote types ⟷ coin types, with new ones in bold:
If a banknote is listed under an existing issuer is totally fine to remove local notes. But we need more subsections for countries like Russia and Philippines. I am sure there are others too.
Quote: "allexis"If a banknote is listed under an existing issuer is totally fine to remove local notes. But we need more subsections for countries like Russia and Philippines. I am sure there are others too.
Notgeld-type notes should be listed under separate subsections.
This applies to the Italian 1970's Mini-Assegni notes.
Quote: "stratocaster"I think we should aim for a small selection of types, and have some correspondence to the coin types.
• Standard circulation banknote ⟷ Standard circulation coin (✓)
• Commemorative note ⟷ Circulating commemorative coin (✓)
↪︎ for circulating and non-circulating commemorative notes.
• Reserve/Non-circulating note ⟷ Non-circulating coin (add)
↪︎ to be added for reserve notes.
• Trial note ⟷ Pattern (✓)
• Token ⟷ Token (add)
↪︎ To be added for coupons, rice rations, exchange certificates, etc. If there will be a distinct section for tokens in the future, we can then create individual types there.
• Provisional note ⟷ ∅ (add, maybe for coins too)
↪︎ I think a category for complementary, provisional and emergency notes is necessary, and possibly this could be useful for coins as well, such as for notgeld, siege coinage, etc.
• Local note⟷ ∅ (remove)
↪︎ I don't think this is necessary. We have issuers that define how "local" the circulation of that note is. If the issuer is "Commune of Oran", that is specific enough and we can have the type set to standard / token / provisional .... We don't have a "local coin" category either.
• Fantasy note ⟷ ∅ (remove/rename)
↪︎ Again, I would get rid of this type. There are also fantasy coins and we don't have a category for them. I think these belong to exonumia, and probably a type called "exonumia item" would work better to combine other sub-types as well: hell notes, replicas, ATM test notes, postal orders, etc.
• Military notes ⟷ ∅ (probably not necessary)
↪︎ I think occupation notes should be listed under the occupied country, with the ruling authority mentioning the occupation period. Notes that only circulated in military bases and war camps should be described as tokens and listed accordingly. War currency that was in general circulation in a territory, can probably be described as provisional or standard and we can use the issuing entity to list "British Armed Forces" for example.
To sum up, this is what I would go for: banknote types ⟷ coin types, with new ones in bold:
• Standard circulation banknote ⟷ Standard circulation coin
• Commemorative note ⟷ Circulating commemorative coin
• Non-circulating note ⟷ Non-circulating coin
• Trial note ⟷ Pattern
• Token ⟷ Token
• Provisional note ⟷ Provisional coin
• Exonumia item ⟷ Exonumia item
+ remove "local banknote" and "fantasy banknote"
- Narrowing down the collection types (by a drawing correlation from the coin types) makes perfect sense to me. While it is true there are so many types out there it is important to categorize them in appropriate categories. With a catalogue, "less is more."
Non circulating - is perfect for bank specimens
Trial note - is perfect for colour trials, proofs, and notes (like a sub-category of non-circulating)
Token/Coupon - is perfect for postal orders, cheques, money orders & store coupons
Provisional Note - is ideal for J.I.M., military certificates & notegeld (any temporary or emergency cash)
Exonumia - these are Zero euros, fantasy, Disney, etc
Sorry, I meant it for the wider discussion maybe this time I should have used a quote.
And yes postal orders aren't vouchers they are just a money transfer orders.
I really don't understand this extreme fixation of yours.
They can't be transferred (at least they shouldn't be transferable as it reads on them, you have to write your name and the place of redemption on it) even a stamp would be more of a banknote then a postal order (you can give it anyone who would except one [as such "spend" it potentially anywhere] and it also has the noggin of the queen on it).
Quote: "ngdawa"I'd say that Postal Orders are tokens, just like local coins are classified as tokens. We can't have seperate categories for each special type.
Postal orders are not tokens, as they are issued by a state's postal administration - such as Royal Mail in the U.K..
Postal orders have the monarch's portrait or a Coat-of-Arms on them, depending on the country that issued them.
Postal orders are sometimes printed by the same printers that print banknotes as well.
Maybe a new forum rule is needed, based on Basil Fawlty:
"Don't mention the postal order"
I indeed agree it is impossible to make categories for every type of printed paper with some kind of monetary value, so I do like the above proposed types. Thanks for bringing al discussions together!
Just call me Bram
No new swaps for the moment, still too many half-ongoing swaps to clean up!
I see a small problem. While adding notes to the catalog I followed SCWPM, in most cases. They list specimens, color trials and proofs as subcategories of the issue banknotes.
Do you think is better to remove those year lines and add them as new entries to trial banknotes?
And also to remove specimen year lines and create a new entry as non-circulating notes?
Let's just take this example: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note259597.html
There is a proof and a specimen line. Are you saying we should split this one in 3 entries? I think the comments are enough to make a difference. Also sometimes is impossible to find a decent photo of a note so I used a SPECIMEN one. Color trial are scarce also, difficult to find photos...
Or maybe..you were just saying that notes that were issued as proof or specimen only should be listed in those categories.
Quote: "allexis"I see a small problem. Will adding notes to the catalog I followed SCWPM, in most cases. They list specimens, color trials and proofs as subcategories of the issue banknotes.
I think this is exactly the same issue as we have in the coin section ...
For now probably better to keep them together (as in the coin section), but in future get some possibility to give yearlines a specific type and have the ability to filter those yearlines according to your own wishes.
Just call me Bram
No new swaps for the moment, still too many half-ongoing swaps to clean up!
"There is a proof and a specimen line. Are you saying we should split this one in 3 entries? I think the comments are enough to make a difference. Also sometimes is impossible to find a decent photo of a note so I used a SPECIMEN one. Color trial are scarce also, difficult to find photos..."
- I feel that most of the banknote entries have been well done including the Zaire example you provided a link to. Regular issues should come first, followed by Replacements, Change-overs (if known), Specimens and then Proofs. Order them in the way people collect (from the most common to the least).
- Details (&/or a photo) would be nice to add on how to identify a replacement since each nation has different codes (typically prefixes, such as ZZ, or symbols such as an asterisk * or star) to signify replacement function.
- I don't believe additional photos for either Specimens or Proofs are necessary but I'm sure that they would be welcomed additions. Specimens usually have either "Specimen" or punch holes &/or all naughts 00000 as their serial numbers. Proofs are used to test the printing plates & like colour trials, are also usually easy to identify since their colours or some design element may be different from the final issued banknote).
- I believe that there could also be additional entries for uncut banknote sheets (category "Non-circulating note"). These can come in various matrixes (4 X 8; 1X3, etc) but are typically sold by the central banks as a non-circulating novelty item.
But that doesn't make it a different type of note.
I don't say we should omit the "knowledge" that such replacements exit but putting this information in the comment box how to recognize them or at the most make an extra year line is more than enough in my opinion.
I'm on the fence about the specimen notes but they fall in the same situation as the proof variants of coins but right now I lean more to keep them together and don't flood the catalog with unnecessary pages.
So because AU is replaced with AZ we should have another listing... Yes I see it now, the difference is huge indeed. Why use the comments section, or the year lines when we can have probably more than half of the catalog duplicated because of a serial prefix change? And afterwards we can do it again for specimens. Here is a better idea, let's create a different page for each serial number of every banknote... you know, for educational purposes!
Quote: "allexis"So because AU is replaced with AZ we should have another listing... Yes I see it now, the difference is huge indeed. Why use the comments section, or the year lines when we can have probably more than half of the catalog duplicated because of a serial prefix change? And afterwards we can do it again for specimens. Here is a better idea, let's create a different page for each serial number of every banknote... you know, for educational purposes!
Replacement notes only require 1 line, but normal notes would require a number of lines, depending on what serial number prefixes have been confirmed.
What I would go for:
- specimens and replacements → datelines on the same sheet with the regular issues; type: "standard circulation note"; I do see merit in Idolenz's suggestion to have specimens separate too.
- essays that have different designs to regular issues → on their own sheets; type: "trial note"
- notes that only exist as proofs → on their own sheets; type: "trial note"
- plate and colour proofs of regular issues → on separate sheets; type: "trial note"; Pick is not consistent here, most are listed under the same P#, but some have separate numbers, for example Argentina P#267 / 267A, P#268 / 268A.
Quote: "stratocaster"What I would go for:
- specimens and replacements → datelines on the same sheet with the regular issues; type: "standard circulation note"; I do see merit in Idolenz's suggestion to have specimens separate too.
- essays that have different designs to regular issues → on their own sheets; type: "trial note"
- notes that only exist as proofs → on their own sheets; type: "trial note"
- plate and colour proofs of regular issues → on separate sheets; type: "trial note"; Pick is not consistent here, most are listed under the same P#, but some have separate numbers, for example Argentina P#267 / 267A, P#268 / 268A.
The Banknote Book has both Replacement & Specimen notes in separate listings from those listing the normal notes.
Owen Linzmayer can be contacted at owen@banknotenews.com .
Quote: "stratocaster"What I would go for:
- specimens and replacements → datelines on the same sheet with the regular issues; type: "standard circulation note"; I do see merit in Idolenz's suggestion to have specimens separate too.
- essays that have different designs to regular issues → on their own sheets; type: "trial note"
- notes that only exist as proofs → on their own sheets; type: "trial note"
- plate and colour proofs of regular issues → on separate sheets; type: "trial note"; Pick is not consistent here, most are listed under the same P#, but some have separate numbers, for example Argentina P#267 / 267A, P#268 / 268A.
This is how i see it:
1. Specimens, replacement and proofs notes on the same sheet with the regular issue.
2. Essays as you suggested.
3. Notes that ONLY exist as proofs and specimens are already on different sheets because there is no regular issue here, but the type has to change as you suggested. I have to mention that this category should not include proofs of regular issue notes (those need to be in the first category).
4. Plate and color trial as you suggested, but... I think is important to have photos for this listings. So maybe keep them on the same sheet as the regular issue if no photos are available?
This means that we will need to delete only the year lines for the color trial notes and move the members (if any) to the new listing. Deleting year lines and creating listings for specimens and proofs of regular issues will take ages, and there is no point really, comments can be written in the year lines, eventually photos can be added on the same sheet.
Quote: "allexis"Deleting year lines and creating listings for specimens and proofs of regular issues will take ages, and there is no point really, comments can be written in the year lines, eventually photos can be added on the same sheet.
Yes, I agree! let's not rush into doing something like this. I think photos are important for specimens, especially if there are multiple types of specimens for the same note. This can be done in the comments, but this is often not very clear, and each contributor does it differently.
I think there could be a nicer way in Numista to list such varieties more consistently: be they material, design, specimens, colour proofs etc. This would benefit the catalog in many areas. But I don't know if, how, and when this would be implemented. And until there is a clearer idea about this, we should stick to specimens and proofs in datelines, you are right.
We have quite a few notes already listed which were never issued into circulation but which can never-the-less be collected quite readily, e.g., Cambodia P#15 (https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note210122.html). However, at present, we have no equivalent to the type "Non-circulating coin" for such notes. We do have "Trial banknote" but some referees feel that should be reserved for notes actually marked as such. We can add "(Not issued)" to the title but can I request that a new type is added to the banknote section called "Unissued banknote"?
I feel still some notes that not fit on any of the types proposed:
1) At Bolivia were issued Management checks as circulating checks (P# 172 to P# 194), due to shortage of standard notes. I think they are not standard notes, since checks should not be considered as banknotes, and as I know they were not accepted as currency outside the country. So far I have marked them as "local notes" but this type seems to be deleted. Not sure if it would fit in Provisional note, as provisional issues usually were accepted as currency on other countries, but not the circulating checks.
2) Also at Bolivia, some of previously mentioned circulating checks were overprinted as provisional issues, for currency reform (P# 197 to P# 201). As before, circulating checks, now overprinted were not a valid currency on other countries.
3) At Cuba, and I know in several other countries, were issued Foreign Exchange Certificates (FX - later replaced by the now extinct Peso Convertible). At Krause they are catalogued as fantasy notes, same as Convertible Peso, but of course is a mistake, since they were valid currency within the country, with certain conditions. I should consider FX nearly as circulating checks, and Convertible Peso as standard banknotes, in spite at start there were limitations on who could use them (basically non residents of the country).
4) I don't know if still exist the Traveller's checks, as the current technology and level of communications make them totally obsolete. But I can't determine in which of the proposed types can fit. Traveller's checks were check issued by a bank, that could be exchanged in other countries for the local currency, usually at a branch of the same bank in other country, or in a different bank that had an agreement to accept said checks. The meaning of this document was that they had printed the name of the owner, and only could exchanged by that person, making it void if other person tried to exchange them. If lost or stolen, could not be exchanged. Nowadays, credit or debit cards cover in better way the issue. I can't figure in which of the types it fits.
Just 10 options: you understand binary, or you don't.
Catalog Referee Coins, Banknotes & Exonumia: Uruguay, Cuba, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, Zamunda, Parva Domus and more.
Unissued banknote is a common name for banknotes that were officialy designed and printed by the rulling issuing authority but has never been used in circulation. Because of war, big devalvation, government change...
"Not circulating" can also be used for that but not everyone will understand the meaning at first. Because it is not a commonly used term. But it is OK, in USA they call this kind of banknotes "remainder".
One of the conclusions of this discussion was the need for “Non-circulating note” as a type but this still hasn't been implemented. Any chance that this might happen soon?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Still none of the new types of notes discussed here have been added. I've just had to reject a request to switch a note stamped “Specimen” to Trial banknote (since that isn't an accurate description) but I can't currently do better than Commemorative note despite the type never circulating. Would it be so hard to add Non-circulating note or Unissued note?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
In the past, unnisued notes happened often in cases when they were officialy prepered and printed but never released in circulation because of inflation, war, rulers changes, etc.
Now in modern time national banks started to issue commemorative notes in folders. That notes exists only in folder. We cannot say those were released into circulation but they were issued. Hm…
Not released in circulation could be a common term for both cases.
