The difference is that the 1915 £1 notes have six lines of branch names whilst the 1918 £1 notes have seven lines. That was the basis on which I split them. Perhaps that's too fine a detail?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
It's too fine a detail, beyond the current scope of numista.
These are rare notes, few people ever see one, much less get the chance to collect them by sub-variety.
I think that keeping the listings by P-number is more relevant, as there are many sub-varieties by number of branches in the notes of the Ulster and Northern banks, so if a precedent is established you may find it necessary to have many listings for each denomination of each of these banks in the 1900-1919 era. For the future perhaps.
I definitely agree that we shouldn't split pages based solely on the number of branches. That's going too far. We needn't follow SCWPM too closely but I'm happy to combine these two. Are there any other dates to add to 1915 and 1918 for this type?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Citeer: "ceh2019"The difference is that the 1915 £1 notes have six lines of branch names whilst the 1918 £1 notes have seven lines. That was the basis on which I split them. Perhaps that's too fine a detail?
Citeer: "BCNumismatics"Definitely should be split.
Aidan.
Is there any difference other than the number of lines of branch names? I should mention that I also split the £10 and £20 notes on this basis. This was largely done because they are on separate pages of irishpapermoney.com but it is a pretty small difference (unless something else also changed).
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
If you split it on this note, that could create a precedent, that it should be split similarly on all other entries where extra branches occur.
This would potentially create many more entries for some of the other banks where there are lots of branch variations on notes that are otherwise of the same type.
The catalogue would be in danger of becoming bloated with empty entries that have little relevance as very few people would come across an example of these scarce notes.
It doesen't matter how scarce a banknote is, we don't create a catalog just for the common notes. The entries will not be empty if all the differences are explained.
It is more a matter of where it is more useful to put in time and effort.
I think a more useful usage of time and effort would be in the creation of a separate entry for each signature variation of the Irish Legal Tender Notes, many of us collect these notes by signature.
For example, this entry: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note230092.html
This should be expanded to seven entries to account for the three signature variations and four war code letters used in 1943-44.
This would be far more useful to the catalogue than doing separate entries for branch additions on older notes, imho.
Citeer: "Hibernia"It is more a matter of where it is more useful to put in time and effort.
I think a more useful usage of time and effort would be in the creation of a separate entry for each signature variation of the Irish Legal Tender Notes, many of us collect these notes by signature.
For example, this entry: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note230092.html
This should be expanded to seven entries to account for the three signature variations and four war code letters used in 1943-44.
This would be far more useful to the catalogue than doing separate entries for branch additions on older notes, imho.
I am also collecting the Lady Lavery notes onwards by date as well as by signature.
Of course, notes prior to the mid-1950's are very hard to find - especially in decent order!
The E.T.O. code notes should definitely be listed separately.
Regarding the Lady Lavery notes, I certainly wouldn't agree with separate pages for different signatures or different code letters. That really would put the Irish listings at odds with the rest of the catalogue.
Whether we keep notes with and without code letters in a single entry is another matter. I chose to put them together to streamline things a little but made sure that the differences were clearly marked both in the comments field and the individual year lines. However, I had no information on what letters were used, so that is something that could certainly be added. If we do want to separate notes with and without code letters, we should make a decision soon, before members add these notes to their collections and moving things becomes much more difficult.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Different signatures cand be added on the same page, if someone is willing to make a chart an crop the nicely. I did that for some countries I referee and someday they will be added to the catalog. Different pages for the code letters is to much. This can be added on the same page with comments. You guys know more than me about Irish notes but I think we should be consistent with the rest of the catalog, otherwise we will have a mess like France. The main point, in my opinion, is to make the catalog easy to work with for everybody not just for the Irish collectors.
With reference to the notion I mentioned of expanding to separate pages for different signatures on notes for consistency, with Irish notes, extra branches being added to the old notes is a more minor change in the note design than a change of signature in later notes. It would be inconsistent to create separate entries for a change in the number of branches, and then to not create separate entries for changes of signature in later notes.
Citeer: "Hibernia"With reference to the notion I mentioned of expanding to separate pages for different signatures on notes for consistency, with Irish notes, extra branches being added to the old notes is a more minor change in the note design than a change of signature in later notes. It would be inconsistent to create separate entries for a change in the number of branches, and then to not create separate entries for changes of signature in later notes.
Yes, it's a fair point that changes in branch names is no more of a distinction than changes in signature. Unless there's a strong objection, I'll merge the pages with six and seven lines of branch names over the weekend.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I really think that this should be discussed further. Are you saying signatures shouldn't have their own lines? Or that notes different wording combinations should be on combined pages? What is the basis for combining pages? I'm just confused.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
I am not convinced that you were wrong CEH to have split the pages, and I am not persuaded that we should be limiting the scope of Numista. I am on the side of Allexis in this.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
@Oklahoman
In proposing this change, I was considering the current scope of Numista, and the precedent that would be created by not merging the pages I suggested.
I think Numista is better to create a complete general listing of a broad range of Irish notes first rather than focusing on a degree of fineness that is beyond the scope of most collectors and many catalogues. Note: there is one example known of a large size Irish National Bank £1 note dated 1918 with seven lines of branches, and fewer than 5 known examples of £1 notes of this bank dated 1915-1917. These are extraordinarily rare notes.
Also, I draw your attention to this proposal under consideration regarding the expansion of the Irish notes section to include separate entries for the Irish World War 2 issues. These issues are regarded as separate Types by most collectors.
With regard to the branch names, these were changing all the time. Some were even added by a hand stamp initialy. I was of the mind to split when the number of lines changed but if we want to split for every change in the branches I think we'd virtually have a separate entry for every date. In the long run, we might look to more comprehensive descriptions of the branches but, with so few known examples, I don't know how easy it will be to get a comprehensive list. As it stands, the new merged page indicates the number of lines of branch names in the year lines and the comments to make the text searchable. Perhaps we might revisit this in the future when the catalogue is a bit more established but I hope this is sufficient for now.
I'm planning to add the new pages for the war codes very soon, so if you have any thoughts on that, please let me know.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Citeer: "BCNumismatics"We should also be including the T.B.B. catalogue numbers as well.
Mixing types with different Pick numbers is NOT a good idea at all.
1 listing per Pick number is the way to go.
Aidan.
I'm all for adding TBB numbers but, given the number of errors in SCWPM, I'm not prepared to rely on them at all. If we split the notes with the war codes on them (as is the current plan) it's because we've decided they are sufficiently different, not because Pick (eventually) gave them separate numbers.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Citeer: "BCNumismatics"We should also be including the T.B.B. catalogue numbers as well.
Mixing types with different Pick numbers is NOT a good idea at all.
1 listing per Pick number is the way to go.
Aidan.
I'm all for adding TBB numbers but, given the number of errors in SCWPM, I'm not prepared to rely on them at all. If we split the notes with the war codes on them (as is the current plan) it's because we've decided they are sufficiently different, not because Pick (eventually) gave them separate numbers.
The Standard Catalog of World Paper Money is so error-ridden beyond belief - & Owen Linzmayer is in the process of trying to rectify this with The Banknote Book.
I do not see any necessity to rely on anyone’s catalogue numbers. We should look at what people collect, and why.
It is a fact that the war code notes were produced as a result of a redesign of the printing process with the addition of the war code special marking in the underprint of the notes.
It is also a fact that the war code notes are collected as a separate type by collectors.
The accepted progression of Irish note Types up to the first signature change is:
Type 1 1928, fractional prefix
Type 2 1929-1937 ‘Currency Commission Irish Free State’
Type 3 1938-1940 ‘Currency Commission Ireland’.
Type 4 1940-1942 ‘Currency Commission Ireland’ with war code.
Type 5 1943-1944 ‘Central Bank of Ireland’ with war code.
Type 6 1945-1952 ‘Central Bank of Ireland’ with war code discontinued.
Type 7 1951-1953 Serial numbers extended to 1,000,000 from 100,000 on 10 Shilling, £1, £5 notes.
Types 1-6 were first classified by Derek Young in his book Guide to the Currency of Ireland (1972), and used with the classification of Type 7 (based on the Central Bank of Ireland’s own classification) in MacDevitt, ‘Irish Banknotes’ (1999), and continues to be used in ‘The Banknote Year Book’ (Token Publishing, and in ‘Paper Money of Ireland’ (2009).
