This is not a logical name for the section, imho, and the contents of the section do not fit together.
It mixes three entirely different kinds of notes.
Only the Treasury notes would qualify as a 'United Kingdom' issue.
I propose that the Treasury Notes be listed on the main England page, https://en.numista.com/catalogue/england-banknotes-1.html and filed according to their SCWPM references; and that the Military notes remain where they are, with the 'Banknotes from the United Kingdom' section renamed 'British Military Issues' or something similar and appropriate.
The problem isn't where the Treasury notes are. They have the name United Kingdom on them because they replaced gold coins across the whole of the UK, not just in England and Wales. However, whilst correct, this is different from SCWPM, so the P# need modifying to reflect this.
The problem are the military issues, which should be in Exonumia. Military tokens are already there but we're still waiting for a section to be created for the paper vouchers.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
This discussion has been rather overtaken by events. All the NAAFI vouchers are now in Exonumia. All that remeains are the BMA notes, issued for general circulation in various areas controlled by the British Military, as now detailed on the individual pages. I suggested to the referee putting them in a separate section called “British Occupied Territories” but he wasn't keen on the name. I'm open to suggestions as to what an appropriate name would be for this issuer but I wouldn't want to see them split up, as the area of issue did not necessarily correspond to the only area of circulation. One thing is for sure, they never circulated within the UK.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Would it be possible to make the British Military Authority notes appear together by means of the ‘Series’ field, so that if they are listed under the countries they were issued in, they would all appear if the user clicks on the 'Series' link.
Would it be possible to make the British Military Authority notes appear together by means of the ‘Series’ field, so that if they are listed under the countries they were issued in, they would all appear if the user clicks on the 'Series' link.
No need for series for this purpose, sharing ruling authorities does the same :-)
If some of them circulated in a specific country, they should go there.
If others were circulating in larger ad hoc areas like North Africa or else, we should create specific issuer indeed
The areas of issue were as follows:
Tripolitania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, mainland Greece, the Dodecanese Islands, mainland Italy, Sicily and Yugoslavia.
Other than having a coastline on the Mediterranean, there's not much else that links them geographically. The different areas of issue (identified by the series letter) are split in the year lines. Given that they are denominated in sterling, they don't link directly to any of the other issues in those areas, hence our inclusion of the exchange rates where known. A specfic issuer seems best to me, we just need a name.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
If some of them circulated in a specific country, they should go there.
If others were circulating in larger ad hoc areas like North Africa or else, we should create specific issuer indeed
The areas of issue were as follows:
Tripolitania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, mainland Greece, the Dodecanese Islands, mainland Italy, Sicily and Yugoslavia.
It is likely that the notes circulating within each area were not interconvertible with those in the other areas, that is, a Tripolitania note could not be spent in Greece etc. As such, the notes carries area specific markings.
This is not correct. I propose this be fixed by moving them under the countries in which they were issued and linking them by means of ruling authority - British Military Authority.
Before that, we'd need your confirmation that notes are distinguishable and not circulating equally everywhere, then creation of versions of these separated by area of circulation
We need to be very careful here. Given that the differences were only in the series letter, are we really suggesting people had to check what letter was on the note before they accepted it in payment? It isn't as if “TRIPOLITANIA” or any of the other regions of issue were stamped on the notes. One pound notes do exist with “FRANCE”, "GREECE" and “BULGARIA” stamped on them but these were never issued.
If I remember correctly, the referee prefered the term “Liberated” to “Occupied” but I felt that, while appropriate to Italy, Greece and Yugoslavia, that wasn't appropriate for the north African areas that remained colonies after the war.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Issued by the British military during WWII in North Africa, Italy, Greece and Yugoslavia:
Series A, B, C, D, E, F and L were issued in Tripolitania. Series K was issued in Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. Series R was issued in mainland Greece and the Dodecanese Islands. Series S was issued in mainland Italy and Sicily. Series X was issued in Yugoslavia.
However, this is not a complete listing of the notes, or of the special markings on them which were used to distinguish them.
Leave it with me, and I will get back to the topic when I have the book and other references to hand.
For me, we need a new single issuer for these notes but retaining the current organization. All the evidence I can find indicates that, although the initial areas of issue can be distinguished by the serial numbers (6 pence excluded), there was no restriction on where they circulated.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
The catalogue is over 400 pages, and I will need to read it carefully.
A quick skim reveals the following: Series T was issued in Tripolitania, with mention of Tripolitania in the heading. Other Series letters not mentioned in the list above were destroyed unissued. The following letters were not used: I J V.
The overprints were printed only as test notes, 25 examples with each overprint. Some of these survived, and have turned up in auction.
These notes were issued over a long period, with specific series being issued at different times and in different locations, Each series was promptly withdrawn after its issue. Series A–D: issued 23 Jan 1943, withdrawn, 15 Sept 1943. Series E, F were issued in 1943 and also withdrawn, 15 Sept 1943.
Series K: issued 8 Nov 1942 withdrawn, 31 Dec 1942 Series L: issued End 1942 withdrawn, 26 Oct 1944
Considering that specific Series were withdrawn on certain dates, it cannot be concluded that notes issued in different areas were interchangeable unless there is actual evidence to suggest that they were circulating interchangeably in different areas.
By all means, take your time. We want to get this right.
A few of observations. I think the Series “T” notes are the lira-denominated notes such as this one. Also, shouldn't the introduction of series A-F be 1942? That would match this list and the comments on page 247 of this report. Finally, that report also mentions the notes' use on troop ships, whilst this article talks about exchange of these notes between Italy and Italian Africa (note 24 at the bottom of page 16), suggesting there was no fixed area of circulation.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
