0

99 (100!) Luftballoons

1 1
Fenntucky Mike

284 views

Recently I acquired a P127b banknote for one of my Ukrainian sets, NBU 1991 - Date, normally this would not result in much fanfare but it just happened to be the 100th note in the set. :banana: A somewhat noteworthy lol achievement in my book and a short time coming in the grand scheme of things. Having started this set in February of 2019, it took only a miniscule 28 months to reach 100 banknotes a goal that I would have anticipated being much more drawn out and that there was submitted such a variety of notes so as to allow me to sit here today writing about my 100th note with no submissions of my own is a testament to some of the alert sellers I've purchased from over this time. Really, how many people collect Ukrainian banknotes in a serious manner? I currently tally three, myself included, who I would consider ardent collectors of these notes. 

747666032_2018PMG68EPQObv-Copy.png.f844fc9c9b56db9f844031cc1480dcb5.png

280816286_2018PMG68EPQRev-Copy.png.02244805d59ee48091c896c71a420927.png

In the meantime, since the purchase of this note, I've added three more to the fold and am currently residing at 103 total notes in the set with only 14 more to go. I know at some point I will have to submit raw notes to complete this set and I have already began gathering them in anticipation of this. Of the 14 empty slots left I have 7 raw notes waiting patiently to be sent in and another 5 that are currently not listed in the set that will be added once I, or whomever, send examples in to be graded. So, including the notes not currently listed in the registry set, that would bring the total number of notes required to complete this set to 122! Which is a ridiculous number of notes for a newcomer to try and obtain, I think it would be nice if there were short sets by series for collectors to utilize as well as the complete set but I doubt this will happen unless more Ukrainian banknote collectors appear. Maybe I could help facilitate this but we'll see.

Collecting by minor Pick number (a, b, c, d, etc..) is really a Signature set lol as that is often the only difference between Pick numbers. For modern Ukrainian notes some Pick numbers climb up to "f", that's six notes of the same design the only difference being the signature. I never fancied myself an autograph collector but in essence that is what a majority of this set is. (shrug) I guess I never thought I would be that fanatical about collecting Ukrainian banknotes. But I am. :bigsmile:

PICK # 127 signatures to date. 

1996678979_Pick127Sigs.png.4d515e4a3d2294c8140d4533303bcf59.png Update 8/3/2021: The 2021 note with Shevchenko signature is now officially Pick #127c.

The funniest thing to me about this note is that I already had one graded by PMG and hadn't entered it into my set because it wasn't showing up as available, probably due to the fact the Pick number was unlisted at the time of grading, so now I have two and I could have hit 100 notes sooner. (shrug) Meh, at least the newer one was a higher grade, if I had bought a lower grade duplicate. doh!  

1 1



6 Comments


Recommended Comments

Way to go. I remember the feeling when my Zimbabwe set hit 100 notes - although some of those where US dollars that I include for my narrative on dollarization - and then it passed up 100 Zimbabwean notes later. :insane:

Link to comment

Side note, but I do agree that most of the a/b/c notes are signatures but you don't get some where it's a change in watermark or a change in another security feature. :)

Link to comment
On 7/21/2021 at 7:48 AM, Revenant said:

Side note, but I do agree that most of the a/b/c notes are signatures but you don't get some where it's a change in watermark or a change in another security feature. :)

Absolutely, there are a lot of small changes that will facilitate a new Pick #. In this set a few are a Latent image was added, a change to the serial number prefix (letters to fractions) and watermarks as you said. All very cool stuff but mainly signatures on any notes after 1992 (issued 1996) for this set.

EDIT: Taking a quick look at this set, specifically Pick 103, the P103a has a notation on the label "Sign. #1"  and P103b has a similar notation "Sign. #3". What happened to Sign. #2 and no slot for a P103c? I'll have to check this out later, something isn't quite adding up.

Edited by Fenntucky Mike
Link to comment
On 7/21/2021 at 7:41 AM, Fenntucky Mike said:

EDIT: Taking a quick look at this set, specifically Pick 103, the P103a has a notation on the label "Sign. #1"  and P103b has a similar notation "Sign. #3". What happened to Sign. #2 and no slot for a P103c? I'll have to check this out later, something isn't quite adding up.

My guess would be there was a 2nd signer in the middle but that denom wasn't issued / printed during that person's brief tenure.

The RBZ notes have the signatures of the governor and you have some sub-picks that have a signature for a governor that was only in office a few months, making those types relatively rare.

Link to comment
On 7/21/2021 at 10:23 AM, Revenant said:

My guess would be there was a 2nd signer in the middle but that denom wasn't issued / printed during that person's brief tenure.

The RBZ notes have the signatures of the governor and you have some sub-picks that have a signature for a governor that was only in office a few months, making those types relatively rare.

That was my initial thought but the 3rd signer had several signature variations, I think it more likely that Sign #2 is a variation of Sign #3. I'll have to look it up this evening but if I remember right there was not another signer between #1 (Hetman) and #3 (Yushchenko), as I don't think there was another chairman/governor of the NBU in between. Or the SCWPM wasn't sure and left a gap just in case.

Link to comment

I don't see any additional signatures or signature varieties listed for this note in any reference, there are notes of the same series with a third signature (Matvienko) who would have predated both the other signatures. I took a quick look at a lot of other P103's online and I have only found the two signatures, my guess is that the SCWPM either had an incorrect signature listed and then removed it or they purposely left a gap between 1 and 3. I tend to think there was a correction made by the SCWPM and Sign #2 was removed, thus the gap and the Pick # alignment of a/b and Sign #1/Sign #3. 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now