Please add banknote new types

I suggest to add new banknote types, as are needed to better catalogue them:

1) Circulating commemorative: maybe there are not too much on banknotes as on coins, but they exist. On my side, Uruguay 50 Pesos Banco Central Anniversary, obviously is commemorative, but with a mintage of 10,000,000 and face value about USD 1.20, or € 1, is circulating hard. I have posted it as commemorative, so I was allowed to add the commemorated event, but is not correct. Maybe there are other similar issues in other countries.

2) Foreign exchange certificate. Were used at Cuba from 1985 to 1994, when Peso Convertible was created. In this forum thread is showing a list of other countries that used them, and also in the same manner.

Thanks in advance.

More banknotes types would be nice, but this is under the wrong ticket. Would you be able to change it to a 'Suggestion for Numista'? This thread should not get lost under there.

How does the catagory of commemorative not include a commemorative that circulates? I think it is an encompassing catagory. And it is correct. The term commemorate has nothing to do with whether an item circulates or not. The term commemorate has more to do with an honor and a remembering of an event. I think the category commemorative is adequate whether the note circulates or not.

We do not want to be married to Pick is often stated, we should not necessarily do things on the banknote side just because it is done on the coin side either.

There are 2 types of commemorative notes - those that circulate at face value, such as this one from Fiji, which was snapped up very quickly;





The other type of commemorative note - a non-circulating notaphilic product, which is sold at a premium above their face value.

Poland has been releasing a few of those non-circulating commemorative notaphilic products over the past few years.

We should distinguish between the 2 types of commemorative notes in their listing.

Aidan.

They are both commemoratives. The commemorative currency is already inclusive.

I am also puzzled about the Haitian goud. The series which is now circulating is stating a commemorative event, Bicentennial of Independence of Haiti (1804-2004). But since these are still being printed, lasted printing date is 2016 I believe,it feels weird to still call it a commemorative note.

What do you think?

Cita: "ngdawa"​I am also puzzled about the Haitian goud. The series which is now circulating is stating a commemorative event, Bicentennial of Independence of Haiti (1804-2004). But since these are still being printed, lasted printing date is 2016 I believe,it feels weird to still call it a commemorative note.
​
​What do you think?

​I think most of circulating banknotes commemorate something, in spite they are not officially commemoratives, but is more scarce a commemorative (non circulating) banknote than a coin. And it does not make sense to mark as not circulating to be able to add the series. Or not detailing commemorated event and/or series, just to mark it as circulating.

When I see the Haitian notes, and air collect them by date, I often think of the Washington quarter of 1932. It was a commemorative. There was no quarter issued in 1933, but then the design was brought back in 1934 and was used until 1998. Few remember that the 1932 is a commemorative. Same with the US 2 dollar bill, the 1976 issue was commemorative, but the later issues with the same design are not.

Which brings me back to Haiti...

I tend to want to call it a commemorative for several thoughts:

Circulating or not has nothing to do with a designation of commemorative.

Terminology means something...in this case bicentennial...this term is used in a sense of remembrance...

Haiti is a very poor nation. I imagine they spent too much money on the fantastic designs that honored this special occasion...and might have continued with the design as a budget concern.

Was the Banknote dates part of the plate, or were they added as an overprint? Because maybe they were all printed at once and overprinted with date when the printed notes were used?

I'm not sure about the last one...but I also do not think having a commemorative note with a date should be segregated from every other note with the exact design...

In the case of Haiti, it seems safe to call the entire bicentennial series as a commemorative note, because it uses commemorative language and dual dates.

The banknotes are not dated, except for the 1804 • 2004 date, which is a part of the bicentennial print "Bicentenaire de l'independence d'Haïti / Bisantnè endepandans Dayiti 1804 • 2004", which I see as an overprint and could easily have been removed for the continuing prints.

You are the ref. But you are wrong. They are dated. To the right of the vignette that appears on the face on the left. They all have the year of issue. I am referring to the commemorative series that also have the additional dual date of the Bicentennial.

I dont support a circulating commemorative versus a non circulating commemorative listing. They are both commemorative and a non circ or circ designation can easily be placed in the dateline comments. My imagination may be getting the best of me, but I imagine a lot of people would wonder which listing to put the coin under. I dont support this for the same reason I do not support a separate page for replacements or specimens. Color trials...I would support a separate page for that...

I fully support a foreign exchange certificate listing.

Cita: "Oklahoman"​I dont support a circulating commemorative versus a non circulating commemorative listing. They are both commemorative and a non circ or circ designation can easily be placed in the dateline comments. My imagination may be getting the best of me, but I imagine a lot of people would wonder which listing to put the coin under. I dont support this for the same reason I do not support a separate page for replacements or specimens. Color trials...I would support a separate page for that...

​
There needs to be distinctions between a circulating commemorative note & a non-circulating notaphilic product.

Both Replacement & Specimen notes should be listed separately as well.



Aidan.

You say that. But no compelling reason is ever given. A replacement, a specimen, a circulating commem, a non circulating commem all with the same catalog number? It isnt going to happen. Designations on the date line are more than adequate and not confusing. Xavier may decide otherwise. But he hasnt yet.

Replacement & Specimen notes don't have the same catalogue numbers as for a normal note.

P1r. & P1s. is NOT the same catalogue number as P1a. or P1b.

Aidan.

Cita: "BCNumismatics"​Replacement & Specimen notes don't have the same catalogue numbers as for a normal note.
​
​P1r. & P1s. is NOT the same catalogue number as P1a. or P1b.
​
​Aidan.
​
​

​We do not split banknote types based on external references, so this is not a valid reason.

A, B, R, and S are all letters. I'd say those are definitely within the same catalogue number because they themselves are not the numbers. P#1 is the number. The letters are sub-types.

In fact, if you look at the Euros, 's' is not even used to show Specimens. Regular notes issued by Italy have the 's' letter. While 's' usual means a Specimen, it is not always, so splitting a page just because of an 's' would not make sense. Same applies to 'r'.

Cita: "Oklahoman"​You are the ref. But you are wrong. They are dated.

​Yes, of course! Sorry, it had been a long hot day in the sun, and I had been working with many projects during the evening so I just confused everything.

Still, I don't like listing the 2016 issue as "Bicentennial of Independence of Haiti 1804-2004".

About the other issue, it seems like the sub-types are being confused with the main pick. To be frank, we really just need, eg Pick 1. P-1a and P-1m only refers to different year of issue of the same type. P-1a.1 and P-1a.22 only referes to different signature(s) for the same year of issue. P-1r refers to a note that has replaced another note of the same type. The only difference is a specifically chosen prefix/suffix to mark this replacement. No need to seperate all of these since they all stem from the same main type.

The Specimens are not as certain though, I reckon. Sure, they are still part of the same family, but they differs more in features. They either have a stamp saying SPECIMEN in either English or the native language. They could have either a normal serial number, or a serial number with only zeros. So in one way the Specimens can have a sub-type. After all, they are separated in the coin section, like this one.

All of which can be detailed in the comments on the date line.

Cita: "ngdawa"​About the other issue, it seems like the sub-types are being confused with the main pick. To be frank, we really just need, eg Pick 1. P-1a and P-1m only refers to different year of issue of the same type. P-1a.1 and P-1a.22 only referes to different signature(s) for the same year of issue. P-1r refers to a note that has replaced another note of the same type. The only difference is a specifically chosen prefix/suffix to mark this replacement. No need to seperate all of these since they all stem from the same main type.
​
​The Specimens are not as certain though, I reckon. Sure, they are still part of the same family, but they differs more in features. They either have a stamp saying SPECIMEN in either English or the native language. They could have either a normal serial number, or a serial number with only zeros. So in one way the Specimens can have a sub-type. After all, they are separated in the coin section, like this one.

​

I hate it how Pick has a date range, but not a list of the confirmed dates within that date range. The same thing applies to where 'x number signature varieties' are listed - patently lazy!

Specimen notes usually have all-zero serial numbers in addition to being overprinted or perfinned 'SPECIMEN' or their native language version.

Aidan.

Cita: "BCNumismatics"​​​I hate it how Pick has a date range, but not a list of the confirmed dates within that date range. The same thing applies to where 'x number signature varieties' are listed - patently lazy!

​Yes, Pick lacks a lot of information. Unfortunately it's still one of the best and most widely spread sources. This is the only available source I have, for instance.

This is just another reason why we should have our own numbers. Sub-numbers are really not necessary, unless when one year has more than one signature.

We should be using T.B.B. catalogue numbers instead of Pick numbers.

Aidan.

Cita: "BCNumismatics"​We should be using T.B.B. catalogue numbers instead of Pick numbers.
​
​Aidan.

​Still, it's not as accessable and as widely known as Pick. Yet.

You are unhappy with Pick...but the replacements and specimens in the Banknote Book are just sub listings of a main type number. Just like Pick.

Regardless. We are doing it the way we are presently doing it for replacements and specimens. And if they ask, I will share my views on commemorative notes as well.

Cita: "Oklahoman"​I fully support a foreign exchange certificate listing.

​
They should be in a sub-section under each country's listings.

Of course, 'FX' catalogue numbers need to be used for them.

Aidan.

Old topic, but this is still under the wrong ticket--it is a suggestion for Numista. With this being out of my power, I am going to mark this done, but if you would like to change the ticket of this thread or repost it under the correct ticket (so it will not get lost and be findable by those who have the power to deal with this thread), that would, of course, be appreciated.

Cita: "Sulfur"​Old topic, but this is still under the wrong ticket--it is a suggestion for Numista. With this being out of my power, I am going to mark this done, but if you would like to change the ticket of this thread or repost it under the correct ticket (so it will not get lost and be findable by those who have the power to deal with this thread), that would, of course, be appreciated.

​Well, this is not marked as done, but as rejected (I feel none of them, "done" or "rejected" was your intention).

I never changed the ticket, as I did not find a way to do it. Only i could do was edit the post, but there is not a "suggestion for Numista" ticket in the list at Banknote Catalog section. Only I was able to find was on Numista Website section, as "Suggestion to improve Numista" (that after posted shows as "suggestion for Numista"). I think this is what you meant. I think the correct section is banknote catalog, but didn't work there, so I followed your line.

New thread is posted and hope this time this works better

I should have used the wording 'close this thread'--that would be more appropriate. My apologies for that.

The issue here is that, under this ticket, your request is a task that is impossible to complete. And with this being an impossible task, there are two options: leave this topic open indefinitely and let it be lost under the wrong ticket, or close it. The only ways to close threads are to set them to Rejected or Done, and while neither are quite accurate to this situation, no pages were changed as a result of this thread (because it is impossible to do so). But again, that is just because of the ticket it is under.

I forgot there was no "Suggestion to improve Numista" in the Banknote Catalogue forum, so reposting it was the correct thing to do. Now your thread will not be lost and can properly be dealt with.

And I do still think this suggestion is a good one--more banknote types would be nice.

Not a problem for me. I understood it from the beginning. And same as you , I used the most closest option available, as I still think it really is about banknote catalog.

I can't move post within treads, so maybe I should have to look for someone who could have placed it in the correct section. Hope now can be seen by who can take care of it (crossing fingers).