» Quick access to the last post
Good question…probably same dates as the bank? This is just a trial note with no date on it
Shouldn't this be in exonumia? No notes were issued in the name of the Gold Coast.
Then all other trial banknotes should be in exonumia too.
allexis
Then all other trial banknotes should be in exonumia too.
The reason I suggested this wasn't because they're trial notes but because the Bank of Gold Coast never existed.
Also can Queen Elizabeth II be added as a ruler?
Spink disagree with you (hence my earlier comment)
https://www.spink.com/department/3
“A unique essay for a bank that never was! Bank of the Gold Coast £100 trial note, to be sold in September 2012”
but it seems the bank at least existed as a commercial bank.
I still question the inclusion here (rather than in exonumia) as the bank never issued any notes. We can hardly claim a currency existed when the Gold Coast was using the BWA pound throughout this period.
I don't understand Spink comment ‘the bank that never was’. For me is quite clear that the bank existed and issued this trial note. I will leave it to the master referees to decide on this.
No, it seems odd that they should have missed the bank's existence. However, they focus on banks which issue notes, not commercial banks, so maybe that's why? I suppose my biggest concern is that this would open the floodgates to a whole barage of trial/fantasy notes in the main banknote section. That said, I'd never come across these before so, regardless of where they end up, thanks for bring them to our attention.
Well the bank existed and those were trial banknotes, I don't see any reason why the currency can't be added.
If the bank had permission from the ruling authority to issue notes, then I think the currency should be added.
I think the text on the banknote is enough:
THIS NOTE IS ISSUED ON BEHALF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE GOLD COAST AND IS LEGAL TENDER OF THE GOLD COAST FOR THE PAYMENT OF ANY AMOUNT
Also if you will add the currency don't forget to add QEII as ruler.
It is not. It doesn't demonstrate that the bank had the right to issue the notes.
It doesn't indicate whether the banknotes were aspirational, or trials of an actual future issue that had legislation behind it. The relevant legislation stating that the bank had the right to issue notes would be needed, imo.
This is the bar that I am apply to the decision of what category to put various Finnish banknotes of the 1918 period into, and also those of banks other than the Bank of Finland.
Banknotes of some countries actually state the legislation in small print.
So is it possible that the banknote was printed with that text but without the government permission? Is that legal?
Yes, but it depends on the circumstances of the printing, and the rules in place for the development of the banknotes.
The note in question is an essay - pre-proof stage. A fully worked out idea for a banknote, but still subject to change or cancellation. This could be a unique example, or one of a very few. I have seen examples of Irish banknotes which are similar, almost complete designs for notes which were not proceeded with.
The £100 note in question has no signatures, and might not be on watermarked paper. Without being completed, it would not be a valid note with a face value.
“The bank that never was is a colourful title” - Spink 2012, that is a catalogue that should have. I am away on safari at the moment, but will look up the listing when I get back home in a week or so, and see what they said about it.
I know some people I can ask who might know more about this particular note, and its circumstances, and the £5 note.
I am getting interested in it now!
The Gold Coast was part of the British West African currency union - which also included The Gambia, Nigeria, & Sierra Leone.
These printer's trials may have been authorised, but as they were never put into production, they can be classed as ‘Essays’ - a banknote version of a ‘Pattern’.
Aidan.
Used time zone is UTC+2:00.
Current time is 07:05.