Please let me know your opinion on split or group banknotes

I'm trying to decide if banknotes should be grouped or split when there are different Pick#s, but notes are very similar.

On some of the countries where I'm referee, they don't print the notes themselves, but are printed outside. So, sometimes there are some different year issues, with small differences (out of signature combinations), mostly cause is common each year be printed by different printers; therefore, at first sight are the same, but if you compare, they have several small differences, like different typography, size of lettering, elements slightly moved, serial colors, and many more.

Obviously, the different years are not meant to be a new design of the note, but usually Pick#s change, mostly owing to they take into account the different printers.

I have asked some months ago the move of owners of banknotes, for I have split them, but never was done; it was those threads:
Need to move owners of a Paraguayan banknote
Need to move owners of a Paraguayan banknote (2)
Those requests never were done.

Personally, I think similar banknotes should be merged, but now the problem is we only have 5 ref# slots, so in some cases, maybe will be missing ref# of some of the "variants".

Would like to hear your comments about this issue.

Pick# certainly has never been extensive enough to reveal the full story of any series' issue- especially when it comes to short prefixes & signature change-overs. They chose to distinguish between the CBN & the BABN Co printed notes but I know absolutely no CDN collector who collects by printers & the difference between the total # produced for the 1954 series is pretty moot (in my mind). It makes sense that the SCWPM treat each nation with a very general (vague) overview of world currencies but there are many scarce types that serious collectors will seek. It's just a matter of whether the info is available & it can be revealed in a clear manner.

I consulted with 'Galor' for the identification & clarification of the 2000 Canadian Journey $10 (P-102) & $5 just as a "case in point." Pick (& most catalogues) roughly lump all the signatures together just like the Banknote Museum's entry for P-102 (which lump all the YEAR the notes were produced together). Yet FDY was short prefix (1M) & there were a number of prefixes, year & signature change-overs for that series.

Some of the details are listed here:

& he chose to list the minority (smaller) change-overs & not the larger ones.

US currency also has its unique variations though they use an entirely different Block system. The Euro has its own unique system of release. If you've got the info then it would be great to document- but just be clear why it's a variant (try to be as explicit as possible).

I'm just not sure that they need to be necessarily split into 2 groups (or separate headings?) If you are suggesting there be separate (or sub category #) than I'm not a fan of that. I think the one entry (P#) is enough, and that the variants should be listed (as above).

My opinion is to put similar notes on the same page. I collect notes by “type” and there are many P#s that are different, yet one note is nearly indistinguishable from another. I consider those the same type. Those should be combined where it is difficult to tell the difference. For example I have an unresolved thread open here where the only P# difference is 2 signatures vs 3 signatures. I do not collect those because they are too similar to notice a difference. However there is a fine line here where one collector would say they are similar and someone else would say they are not.

There are other notes that have noticeable differences, such as a security feature addition. I feel those should have separate pages. I do collect different notes in this case, and consider them different types.

Maybe the master referees could discuss it and draw the lines...

Citeer: "Serial_Number_8"​Pick# certainly has never been extensive enough to reveal the full story of any series' issue- especially when it comes to short prefixes & signature change-overs. They chose to distinguish between the CBN & the BABN Co printed notes but I know absolutely no CDN collector who collects by printers & the difference between the total # produced for the 1954 series is pretty moot (in my mind). It makes sense that the SCWPM treat each nation with a very general (vague) overview of world currencies but there are many scarce types that serious collectors will seek. It's just a matter of whether the info is available & it can be revealed in a clear manner.
​
​I consulted with 'Galor' for the identification & clarification of the 2000 Canadian Journey $10 (P-102) & $5 just as a "case in point." Pick (& most catalogues) roughly lump all the signatures together just like the Banknote Museum's entry for P-102 (which lump all the YEAR the notes were produced together). Yet FDY was short prefix (1M) & there were a number of prefixes, year & signature change-overs for that series.
​
​Some of the details are listed here:
​
​& he chose to list the minority (smaller) change-overs & not the larger ones.
​
​US currency also has its unique variations though they use an entirely different Block system. The Euro has its own unique system of release. If you've got the info then it would be great to document- but just be clear why it's a variant (try to be as explicit as possible).
​
​I'm just not sure that they need to be necessarily split into 2 groups (or separate headings?) If you are suggesting there be separate (or sub category #) than I'm not a fan of that. I think the one entry (P#) is enough, and that the variants should be listed (as above).

​Not sure if you understood my explanation.

I will give this example:
Peruvian notes 100 Nuevos Soles are very similar on different issues, but produced by different printers; Krause gave them different pick#s, P# 155, P# 161, P# 165, P# 172, P# 178, P# 181.

The problem I see is that we only have 5 slots to add ref#, so one ref will not be added.

They should be split.

Aidan.

Citeer: "BCNumismatics"​They should be split.
​
​Aidan.

​Because...reasons.

Having only five slots for P# it shouldn't be a problem. You can add the missing one in the year lines and probably soon we will have the possibility to add more then 5. Just look at this page: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note201805.html there should be over 10 P#'s listed.
In my opinion I don't like it the way it is because only a couple of year lines have P#'s but it is what it is. Also what Serial_Number_8 was saying about listing different prefixes... I don't like it to be honest but it seems that's the way Canadian collectors do it...
I must admit, at first, I was against grouping notes but later I realized there is no point in having same banknote multiple times just because the date is changed. Same thing for signatures and printers, this information can be added in comments and it is easier to distinguish between similar banknotes.

Citeer: "allexis"​Having only five slots for P# it shouldn't be a problem. You can add the missing one in the year lines and probably soon we will have the possibility to add more then 5. Just look at this page: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note201805.html there should be over 10 P#'s listed.
​In my opinion I don't like it the way it is because only a couple of year lines have P#'s but it is what it is. Also what Serial_Number_8 was saying about listing different prefixes... I don't like it to be honest but it seems that's the way Canadian collectors do it...
​I must admit, at first, I was against grouping notes but later I realized there is no point in having same banknote multiple times just because the date is changed. Same thing for signatures and printers, this information can be added in comments and it is easier to distinguish between similar banknotes.

​About the page you mentioned: those that doesn't have P#s, they don't have one? ... strange.

Well, with regards to the theme of this thread, is not only years and/or signatures that change, is that some countries don't have their own printer company, so each bulk of notes usually are made by different companies, in different countries. So, the general design is the same, but you can find small differences, like typography is not the exact one, the elements are moved a few millimeters, serial #s maybe on upper part instead of lower, and change of colours, some elements are added, deleted or replaced.

As we only have 5 slots for ref #s, if there are more, if we group the issues, is very possible you can't find some by Pick#, or other ref#. Same as you said, I don't like, but is what we have.

So far, I think is better to group alike notes, as the interest of the issuers was to add more notes for newer years, not to make a new banknote.

I would like to hear some admin's opinion, if they have a moment to let us know.