100 Syrian Pounds banknote verification [Risolto]

Hello,

I hope I'm posting in the right place.

I'm new here and while uploading my swaps, I noticed one of my Syrian banknotes looks legit, it has all the security features, but the UV results don't correspond to the ones shown in here (there are “shiny hairs”, but the geometric figures don't lighten up). Does this mean it's a fake or am I not using the right UV light?

I have the same issue with a Nigerian banknote, the rest so far look OK.

Thanks in advance for the help.

The problem is your UV light.

The note in the catalogue that you are comparing yours to, is mine and so is the image.

Some of the combo lights sold online (white + UVA, sometimes UVC also) have very bad UVA bulbs. I was able to duplicate the image you got, by using one of those:

Only the UV fibres show up and that is with the light held up close.

Here's a view of the end of this device where the UVA light comes from:

That device (and many others like it) are useless for checking the UVA appearances of banknotes.

You need to get a light that has a wavelength of 365nm. Here's the same note illuminated with my everyday UVA light:

That's under semi-daylight conditions, so the test is fair.

When I photograph these notes for the catalogue, I use a much better process than I did when I first joined. Here's what I do lately:

1. I wait for dark and I have a camera mounted on a tripod

2. The background for the note is a piece of black acrylic plastic, matte side up

3. I hold the UVA light up as high as I can with one hand and then start the camera focus with the other hand. This is with light squarely on the note.

4. I then back the light off the note until the correct range of fluorescence can be seen. This is because some notes have such a strong response to my light that if I leave it squarely lit, the bright features drown out subtle “textures” in the design.

5. This is a new process for me: I noticed that all my camera images have a pincushion distortion. I now take that out with Photoshop.

Here's an example, first the plain photo:

And now the adjusted one:

Here the two images are being cycled, so you can see the difference:

There are a lot of bad quality UV images in the catalogue (some are mine from when I first joined!)

But gradually all the images get replaced with better ones.

In a few years time, probably some UV fanatic who is even more addicted than I am, will come and replace all my uploads with better quality examples. 

That's the nature of the beast.

The one thing that should be mandatory though, is that the person uploading the image must specify what wavelength the UV light was. That's because there are many notes with different appearances under UVA vs UVC. 

UVA is around 365nm and UVC is around 254nm. 

The cherry on top is to specify what year or version note is being shown, if multiples exist of that type. 

Wow, thanks for the thoroughly explanation, it makes a lot of sense and gives me peace of mind. I will try to get another UVA light with 365nm wavelength.

Thanks again @odd job !