There's so much wrong with this entry, it's embarrassing. As pointed out, the description is completely wrong, a lazy copy of a different denomination. In addition, it's clearly a printing error but is listed as a standard banknote. When are we going to get someone competent to referee the French banknotes?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
The description on the obverse of this 50 Franc note does not match the picture.
Just a wrongly translated page, the French side was correct. Fixed the text.
Sapientiae plerumque stultitia est comes.
Si c'est un grand plaisir d'être reconnu par ses amis, c'est peut-être encore plus flatteur d'être reconnu par ses adversaires.
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken.
Status changed to Done(pejounet, 24 Tem 2022, 22:03)
So far, I let that that request to the referee. There are four pages (created by previous referees) of 50 francs but not everything is related to a description problem indeed 🙃
The related matter is rather the listing of error notes (not just for France but for any issuer), the discussion is ongoing. 😉
Sapientiae plerumque stultitia est comes.
Si c'est un grand plaisir d'être reconnu par ses amis, c'est peut-être encore plus flatteur d'être reconnu par ses adversaires.
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken.
My understanding is that forgeries should not be in the primary listing slot for a banknote.
They should be in Contemporary counterfeits in Exonumia. Forgeries are not a true representation of the note design.
Imho, the only circumstance where the use of a contemporary forgery would be reasonable to use as an illustration is when the note is so rare that no issued examples are known.
The title of the English language version of the entry does not indicate that the note is a forgery - I have requested a title change.
Additionally, this note should be moved to Exonumia as it is a forgery. Currently it is misleading as to its nature, which indicates that is is a standard issue note.
My understanding is that forgeries should not be in the primary listing slot for a banknote.
Exact on this point: contemporary forgeries are in Exonumia.
What I'm saying is that forgeries and errors are different (I think we are both on the same page here) so in fine cataloguing way will be different.
Sapientiae plerumque stultitia est comes.
Si c'est un grand plaisir d'être reconnu par ses amis, c'est peut-être encore plus flatteur d'être reconnu par ses adversaires.
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken.
The notes in question are listed as forgeries, not errors - I thought they were errors, but the Referee for French banknotes refers to them as forgeries, and made reference to the French title including the term ‘faux’, not mentioned in the English title, hence the current exchange.
Errr..! Quois!
Anyway, no worries - the problem has been flagged.
They are listed as errors - it's my knowledge of French that is a forgery, it would seem!
Anyway, will try and get the title in English to have ‘error’ appended.
Error banknotes should really be in Exonumia - error notes tend to be listed separately in catalogues.
Additionally, there is a vast variety of error notes - I have lots of Irish error notes in my own collection. Many of them are slight variations of each other. Some errors are sufficiently bad to not qualify as a valid banknote at all, those without serial numbers, or missing signatures for example.
I tend to agree with this. But we do not have a dedicated category yet.
Sapientiae plerumque stultitia est comes.
Si c'est un grand plaisir d'être reconnu par ses amis, c'est peut-être encore plus flatteur d'être reconnu par ses adversaires.
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken.
