Merge Egyptian 20 pounds

Hello every one,  both   20 Pounds 2001-2018 & 20 Pounds 2016-2024 have the same exact design, the only different lies in the security thread and watermarks which I do not think mandates a new page. I think they are like this because in  Krause catalog separated them without no apparent reason, please I request to merge both pages together and indicate the different Krause references in the lines references. 

Hello!

Let's wait a few days to hear from some users here what they think about this. In principle, since you are the referee of this issuer, I tend to agree with your proposal. =)

If there are no objections here in a few days, you can organize things yourself there, merging the two registrations; and then we will enter the user adjustments in their proper places.

Regards,

Vladimir.

The watermark is completly different, this is from the guidlines:

Banknote types are split on independent pages when they feature:

• Different security features, including different watermark designs, except for different watermark patterns:
  
  • 1 Real (Flag watermark)  ||  1 Real (Effigy watermark)

There any many examples like this one in the catalogue.

Posted by allexis on 1 Apr 2025, 07:43

The watermark is completly different, this is from the guidlines:

 

Banknote types are split on independent pages when they feature:

• Different security features, including different watermark designs, except for different watermark patterns:
  
  • 1 Real (Flag watermark)  ||  1 Real (Effigy watermark)

Interesting, I did not know that, as I passed by number of banknotes page already had different watermarks within them and I have seen discussion about it as well. However I do not think that this is the reason why the split happened at the first place, as the Watermark feature changed in 2006 and yet the same page continued to 2018. 

And that means we will have to move the lines (from 2007 to 2018) to the other page. 

It seems like there is a debate regarding the splitting for pages regarding different watermarks, I found a number of topics, this is the most recent topic and , I honestly go with the no splitting but adding different lines.

So some catalogue referees decide to not split the notes despite what the banknote master referee says. Why do we have guidlines then? 

Hello, @Dr_Teek!

As the issuer's arbitrator, you have always tried to find the best solution for the issuer's records in question. I had supported you in merging the records, because for Egyptian banknotes, the more we can simplify things, the better.

In the case of these two banknotes, in addition to the watermark, I noticed a small difference in the security strip (number of "windows"). These two differences, despite the guidelines, might not make that much of a difference in a single record. There are always cases and cases that we need to check to make the best decision. But in the case of these two Egyptian issues, we also have a considerable number of annual lines, signatures, etc. in each one. Perhaps merging them, in this case, is not the best solution.

If you agree, we can keep the records as they are, improving whatever we can - and I know how hard you are working to fix things there. =)

I await your return on this case.

Regards,

Vladimir.

Hello @allexis , First of all I truly do not intend to break the guide lines, which are made to facilitate the creation of the catalogue and maintain high quality information for the professional user. From my side, I believe we can always discuss the guide lines to understand it and enhance it as we go, and of course what the master referees agree on I will follow. 

@vladthiengo,the current situation we have right here does not uphold to the guide lines as well. Basically the Watermark was never the issue to begin with (My fault I did not update it before requesting the merge ), the water mark changed in 2006 so the only thing that changed in 2016 is the security thread, which does not mandate the creation of a new page. That's why I suggested merging the two pages to avoid any confusion for the user. 

Nonetheless, I fully adhere to your final decision and appreciate the thoughtful dialogue :).

There's nothing to thank you for! That's what dialogues and conversations are for! =)

The last adjustments have been made and everything should be ok now in both registrations.

Greetings,

Vladimir.

Dr_Teek

Basically the Watermark was never the issue to begin with (My fault I did not update it before requesting the merge ), the water mark changed in 2006 so the only thing that changed in 2016 is the security thread, which does not mandate the creation of a new page. That's why I suggested merging the two pages to avoid any confusion for the user. 

 

So as far as I understand we just decided to keep a situation that does not comply with any of the rules, just because of a split by Krause?

The 2 pages will not be merged …

BUT, the pages will also not be split by watermark (2006-2016 should then be moved to the second page) …

The split is solely based on a change in security strip (as by Krause)

To me this is the worst possible option …

BramVB

So as far as I understand we just decided to keep a situation that does not comply with any of the rules, just because of a split by Krause?

 

The 2 pages will not be merged …

BUT, the pages will also not be split by watermark (2006-2016 should then be moved to the second page) …

The split is solely based on a change in security strip (as by Krause)

To me this is the worst possible option …

I do agree that is not the perfect option, yet I do not understand why do we split at different watermarks and we do not split at different security threads ??