Written 7/29 

The events to the overall theme of this Journal entry will be playing out over the span of a few weeks and since that is the case and since posting "real time" Journal entries could affect the overall outcome of these events (negatively for me) I'll be logging Journal Entries and then posting them once the chain of events has ended. Here we go.

I just bid up a note (actually two), BIG TIME, for no good reason other than too (1) be a jerk.  (2) test a theory based off of data I've been gathering from tracking the weekly PMG, Ukrainian Population Reports of graded banknotes. (3) Acquire a higher graded banknote at a lower price. See my Journal entry "Where have all the (Ukrainian banknotes) gone.?" for my population report tracking entries and comments.

The note/s in question were a Ukrainian 10 Shahiv and to a lesser extent a Ukrainian 20 Shahiv banknote, both were being auctioned off by the same seller along with 40 & 30 Shahiv banknotes and 100 & 250 Karbovantsiv banknotes. The 40 & 30 Shahiv are of the same series and type as the 10 & 20, the 100 & 250 Karbovantsiv are a completely different animal from the Shahiv but would fit nicely into my set along with the Shahiv notes.  I felt all the notes were a little pricey as none were below $43 and two started at over $148 but we'll see if they all sell. The Shahiv are the same size, shape and design of stamps of the same period, most are perforated, but without glue, on thicker paper and the national symbol, Tryzub or Trident, on the back. The postage stamps that circulated at the same time as the notes did not have the Tryzub displayed on the back and were adhesive backed for placement on envelopes, neither were they perforated as they were cut from sheets. Shahiv were issued in denominations of 10, 20, 30, 40 & 50.

Stamps - imperforated, no Tryzub, adhesive backed, on thin paper.

Banknotes - perforated, Tryzub, no adhesive, on thick paper.

These Shahiv issues are well known to me and with the addition of monitoring the Population Report, I feel that I have a pretty good grasp of the situation at hand. This seller listed 10, 20, 30 & 40 Shahiv notes at the same time, since I've been tracking the Population Report there was an increase in the population of the 10, 20, 30 & 40 Shahiv banknotes graded by PMG. On the weekly update of June 15 there was an increase of +2 in each of these categories, along with an increase of +1 in the 100 & 250 Karbovantsiv banknotes. The increase in population along with all the holders having matching PMG Submission numbers indicates to me the possibility that the seller might be holding back additional Shahiv banknotes. The timing is right, listed June 15 in the Population Report then listed on ebay a month later, there was only one graded of each note prior to June 15th and the chances of another individual having graded the exact same Shahiv notes at the same time is slim to none. The person who listed the notes is absolutely a seller, one from whom I've purchased before, and is probably holding back duplicates.  I went ahead and made the assumption that this seller had two each of the Shahiv banknotes graded and was only listing one set at a time. If true I should be able to determine if the seller is holding back higher, lower or identical grade notes. The 20 & 40 Shahiv notes that are being auctioned have populations of 1/2 (one with two graded higher), according to the Population Report, so both are the lowest graded notes of those denominations. Similarly, I'm able to deduce that the 30 Shahiv listed is a Top Pop (1/0). The 10 Shahiv is 1/1 meaning that since there are three graded it is in the middle, so if the seller is holding back another note I don't know if it is a higher or lower grade. I have a feeling that the seller listed two high and two low notes, a total guess on my part.  

Based on this info and a quick look at my Ukrainian set and I knew that none of these notes were really on my radar if better notes were to be had in a few weeks but to hedge my bet I placed a few bids on the two notes whose auctions were ending today, both of which would be either an upgrade or fill a hole in my collection. I was thinking a few lowball bids just to be safe, one per note, if I loose no big deal as there should be another note right behind this one. If I win I get to check a note off the want list or upgrade, what can go wrong.  The first note had a starting bid of $43 and one current bidder, I already had this note but it would be a slight improvement, I placed a bid of $57 which was not enough to beat the current bid so I shrugged my shoulders and moved on.

The names have been removed to protect the innocent.

The next note is a pretty good note and one that I currently don't have a graded example of, the starting bid was $86 with one bidder who had placed two separate bids. Ok, sticking to my lowball guns I place a bid of $97. "Huh. It wasn't enough to overtake the first of two bids from the same individual? Well, I should place at least one more bid to see if I can leapfrog the lower of the two bids and I do need this note. I can go a little higher." I thought to myself and placed another bid. Then another and again and so on until I was up to $281 having still not passed the first of two bids by my now hated rival. Well I had enough at that point and not wanting to get stuck with this note now and kind of feeling a little bad for having driven the price to what I thought was an unreasonable level I left frustrated, relieved, curious and feeling a little bad all at the same time. Why was this note so important to this individual?

Now with two of the four Shahiv notes gone and not in my collection I'm really hoping I'm right about this seller having duplicates of these in higher grades. There is another Shahiv ending tomorrow and no one seems to be interested in it as there are no current bids on it. It's a note I don't currently have and it's low grade with no EPQ designation but again to hedge my bet that there are more I'll place a lowball bid on it and see what happens.  To whomever won the 10 Shahiv note I apologize, bidding up that note was a bad bad thing.