Armenia 500 Dram “Noah’s Ark” – with factory defect

I would like to share a 500 Dram banknote of Armenia (2017 issue, mintage 300,000) that appears to have a factory-related printing anomaly.

The note was examined by a specialist from the Central Bank of Armenia, who confirmed it is genuine, and that the observed anomaly is likely of factory origin. However, the bank cannot issue a formal written report to private individuals.

Description of the defect:

• In the area of the UV security feature, there is an additional element printed in black ink.
• This black element exactly matches the shape and contour of the UV feature, showing no misalignment, distortion, or accidental overprinting.
• The rest of the note is original and unaltered; all security features are intact.

Additional information:

• I currently have high-resolution photographs of the 500 Dram note.
• To confirm the origin of the defect, we sent a letter to the banknote manufacturer, Giesecke+Devrient (G+D), with descriptions and photos.
• As of now, we have not received a reply from the company.

I am posting this here for numismatic classification purposes and to gather insights from the community.

Questions for forum members:

1. Have you ever seen this type of printing anomaly on banknotes?
2. How would you classify this defect: misprint, misregistration, or paper/printing error?
3. Could it be considered a rare or valuable specimen for collectors?

Any opinions, examples, or references would be greatly appreciated!
 

Thank you in advance

500 Dram (Noah's Ark) - Armenia – Numista

I suspect that is a contamination of the UV ink at the factory. Maybe if you could get other notes close to that early serial number, those would also look like that.

I also have two of those notes but they are later serial numbers.

Here's one:

This is a limited-edition banknote with a print run of 300,000 pieces, and the company made significant efforts to minimize production defects.

I purchased more than 100 of these banknotes with different serial numbers (low and high ) and have never encountered such a defect before.

The UV ink on my notes is fine: it is in the correct places and not smeared. However, an identical element was printed over the UV ink using black ink, making it visible to the naked eye.

Thank you for sharing your experience.

That's interesting! Can you post pictures of one of the other 98 notes you have, close to the serial number of the note in question?

have a factory-related printing anomaly.

I think you identified it perfectly. 

A printing error occurs in the normal production of banknotes when 1 or a few sheets experience a problem. Errors are not whole runs of thousands of banknotes! 

For example, I have a Jersey ONE Pound P-8c missing the signature. It was part of an entire batch of notes issued without signatures & while it is a visible error (in terms of something unusual & can clearly be seen) it not really considered a “printing error” by most collectors/the calogues, but more of a production anomaly since so many were released. Even the PMG label has  included “Without signature” on their label rather than “Missing signature error”

I don't think it was black that was printed on the note, I think it was a contaminant in the UV ink. It doesn't fluoresce like the other note either.

Put it this way: what printing error could there be that prints an identical black pattern on the note which exactly matches and overlays an existing UV print of the same pattern? I can't see that happening. That one area alone would have to have been printed twice: once with black ink and another time with UV.

So the black area must have been printed only once, in the normal process of printing the UV pattern on the note.

Now we have a dark area that doesn't fluoresce properly. That's why I don't think this is an additional print or a print in the wrong place on the note. I think it is a problem with the ink that went in that area. If that is the case it is likely that more than one note is involved.

Either ink that is not mixed right or contaminated and is now visible in the visible spectrum or something got on the note when the ink was still wet (not impossible but rather unlikely).