The official, 1 Dinar polymer notes (1993 & 2001) issued by the "Central Bank of Kuwait", under Collectors Series (ie, Non-Circulating notes) in the folder were classified under exonumia.
No, these are to stay in the Exonumia section; as already mentioned several times in the rejected creation requests these are not legal tender banknotes…it is even written on them.
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.
On the back it stated that this is a Souvenir Money
Would this means not legal tender too?
Thanks
When I lived in Vietnam for awhile in 2017, these notes were still available at a few different banks and sold for higher than the face value (I don't remember what price though). At the time 100 dong notes were really not used anymore as inflation had made them obsolete. The 1000 dong notes were about the smallest denomination used although back in 2017, if you were lucky you could get some 500 dong notes in places. The 200 dong notes that I got were freebies from a few shop keepers who couldn't use them anywhere and were essentially unwanted. In reality these 100 dong notes really were never meant for circulation. Whether you call them a numismatic product or a non-circulating commemorative, I think there is strong enough argument to move these to Exonumia.
That they cost more then their face value puts them under ‘non-circulating commemorative’. If ‘Tiền Lưu Niệm’ really means souvenir note and not commemorative not (I don't trust online translators for such a language) then it's exonumia otherwise it should stay under ‘non-circulating commemorative’.
The point is not about commemorative or design itself, but about a note being legal tender or not.
A note can have basically “any” text on it “souvenir of the independence”, “commemoration of our dear president”, etc. it can still be legal tender.
Here it is clearly written “not legal tender” on these two items from Kuwait, then these are not banknotes but collectible items only; no matter who print them.
For the Vietnam note, I didn't find info about it being legal tender or not. The SBV mentions it is a souvenir note sold as collectible for 20,000 VND or 25,000 VND depending on the packaging. It was not intended for circulation but to advertise technological progress.
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.
Please allow me to open up a bigger can of worms here.
The key words are - ‘Not Legal tender’
Would this be one too?
According to SCWPM, the translation is - Non Negotiable aka NLT. Should this and the remaining 8 notes be listed under under exonumia too?
This is my personal opinion. As long as the so called ‘banknotes’ issued by the central bank, be it legal tender, numismatic or NLT aka souvenir, I would still consider them as banknotes, just like that 2 Kuwati 1 dinar notes. These notes were issued by the authorised institution in the country, and it is up to them to decide if it has any face value or not. For me (imo) those Exonumia aka fantasies are those private prints (also I called them home made) you can find them selling on eBay like those Aldabra Islands, Pitcairn Islands, Federation of North America, Kerguelen, and the list can go on, including those issued by someone to promote his/her graphic skills. You can also find one for Sarawak (Malaysia) note signed by a dealer in US too. How good is that.
I used the SCWPM as my guide. I know that this catalogue is not perfect, and that is why the last one I bought was the 1997 edition. In this catalogue, it also listed those Franklin Mints colector's series, and I have the full sets in my collection. I consider these as genuine banknotes as these were authorised the issuing central banks.
If the key words here is NLT, how would you classify those banknotes that have been demonetised by the central banks? I know, I am getting pedantic here now 🤪.
And coming back to this interesting topic, what about this one?
N#201583 - Please refer to the last issue 2020. Initially, it was referred to as fantasy, until the owner/distributor produced a letter from the central bank stating that they have authorised for the reprint. The reprint also matched the 1967's signature too!
Why is this 2020 reprint get to mention on the banknotes section? Are these legal tender too? I do not have one yet. Where do we draw the line?
The line has been drawn with the Kuwaiti issue. It is in exonumia.
That says it all. 😁
Not legal tender = exonumia.
Not legal tender reprint = exonumia with a link to the original note using the “Reference” section of the page and intended for such use.
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.
