• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

I've Been Everywhere Man! (Supplemental, Part 1)

1 1
Fenntucky Mike


For the first time in quite a while I was able to sit down and spend some time with my collection. With temps in the low 40's yesterday, and a constant drizzle staring me in the face as I looked out the window, it wasn't a difficult decision. :whee: Even though I've not had time to sit down and enjoy my notes that doesn't mean I haven't had time to make a few additions, and I've been busy. More on that later in a future Journal entry. :ph34r: One of my recent purchases was another Ukrainian 1,000 karbovanstiv, P35, banknote with black ink used for the prefix and seral number. (Pictured below) The color difference of the background from front to back is due to the scanner, it was giving me some heartburn today. doh!


I won this one at auction for a really good price and this is the second one in my collection. As is typical of me, once I acquire a duplicate, I will compare the two, or three or.... lol and in doing so I often notice some variances, or something will catch my eye, and this time was no exception. (My first black ink serial number note below.)


Upon inspection of the new note, I noticed some red ink around the prefix and seral number. It wasn't much, but I could see a few spots and kind of a red halo effect around a couple of the numbers. See Red arrows.


The red ink looks kind of light brown in the above image, some of that could be due to the black, but it is definitely red when inspected in hand. I also noticed that there were some strange markings that seemed to match the number font, you can see them in the image above, most noticeably at the top of the numbers. See Blue arrows. I thought perhaps embossing but they appear to be raised. Extra ink from printing? Possibly. I'm now wonder if the overprint was done twice. Printed in red, then again in black.? hm Back to the first note!


Well snap! Red Ink! So, what does this mean? hm Time to make a list of possible causes for the "black" ink.

1)     A modern counterfeit/altered note?

2)     A contemporary counterfeit/altered note?

3)     The red ink reacted/faded and changed color (black)?

4)     The black ink reacted/faded and changed color (red)? 

5)     Environmental conditions / improper storage?

6)     A reaction to a substance or thing contacting the note and altering the color?

7)     The same prefix and serial numbers were reprinted over the originals?

8)     Red ink remnants after black ink was applied?

9)     They ran out of red ink during printing?

10)   The wrong typeset/font was used and had to be redone?

11)   Printing method was changed?

12)   This is actually purple ink that turned black/red?

13)    Purple ink that reacted/faded and changed color (black) or darkened?

14)    I'm seeing things?

Well, the paper of both notes appears authentic when compared to other notes with red prefix and serial numbers. Both are printed on paper with wavy lines (Rheinwellen or wellen) watermark and have the АГ prefix as they should, if the black ink variety, per available references and my own research. Also, the print quality seems to match other notes and I placed both notes under UV and IR lighting with everything looking good there.

My observations are that the red ink appears to be under the black, and that the red ink is much 'thinner' or weaker than the black, and in fact is much thinner than what is normally found on notes with red ink exclusively used on the prefixes and serial numbers. I don't believe that the font has changed, from the red to the black, and I tend to think that the same type was used as I can see red at the edges of some of the black prefixes and numbers as well as those raised areas of ink (I think) in the body of the same digits and letters. The black ink appears to have flaked off (possible due in part to the red ink below) from serial # 263394 or was insufficient or didn't adhere to the paper, in part due the red ink below. I tend to think it flaked off, when comparing the common numbers between the two notes, 2, 3, and 6, you can see what the numbers looked like fully inked and what they look like with the missing ink, in addition the edges of where the ink stops on those numbers appears jagged and in places sporadic, but I suppose that insufficient ink could appear similar. I also notice quite a bit of blue ink around some of the numbers

My conclusions, based on the above observations, is that red ink was used for the first overprint application of prefix and serial numbers, then at some point the supply of red ink or application was exhausted or insufficient and it was decided (after the red ink had dried) to reapply the overprint, this time with black (maybe purple) ink as there was no more red. This narrative fits in with the supply issues at the printing facilities in Kamianets-Padilsky, after the move from Kyiv, but is far from being substantiated. The next possible scenario would be that this is some sort of contemporary counterfeit or unauthorized printing similar to the 100 Karbovantsive notes of 1917 or the Odessa, 50 Karbovantsiv notes (pictured below) printed by General Denikin of the White Russian Army using the captured clichés. The Denikin notes are identified by the serial number used, serial numbers AO 209 and lower were authorized by the Ukrainian Government, serial numbers AO 210 and higher were printed by Denikin and quickly denounced by Ukraine.  Another theory is that this is not really black ink but purple that has turned, I say this based on the presence of blue ink on both notes in the areas of the prefix and serial numbers, this again would suggest these notes being printed at Kamianets-Podilsky as there was already produced a "violet" back variety at that location.  


While there are still other possibilities such as these notes being modern counterfeits, I need a second opinion to completely rule that out, I feel pretty good about the conclusions I've drawn so far. Next, I need to get more familiar with how the overprint was applied to these notes, as there may be more information to be gleaned there. It's worth checking out at any rate. With that being said I welcome input from other collectors. I've probably left out a possible scenario or reason the black or purple ink was applied or not or am completely off base with my thinking. (shrug) Bring it on people. :tonofbricks:

I'll probably send these off to PMG at some point, but first I need to see if they will even consider this a variety (black ink variety) or if there is already a Pick # assigned for it. If there is not a Pick # or if PMG won't consider the black ink as a variety, then I'll probably forgo sending them. We'll see.


1 1


Recommended Comments

Here are some closeups of the individual numbers, that I couldn't fit in the OP. I'm really wondering if this was purple ink that turned black/brown, over the red. I'm leaning that way. And maybe the the thinner areas of 'purple' ink turned more of a red color as opposed to the thicker areas that turned/stayed darker? How difficult would it be to run the sheets through for a second overprint and get the alignment right? Now I'm second guessing myself. Were the prefix and serial numbers applied one time using purple ink that turned color, different shades depending on the amount applied to the note, and was just poorly inked on some notes? hm





IMG_0093 - Copy.JPG

Edited by Fenntucky Mike
Link to comment

Fascinating details as some of the Mexican notes have red or black numbers!

I would go for a change in colour due to thickness (concentration) and/or age due to oxidation/polymerisation/exposure to light/reaction with the paper which usually results in pigments going darker with time - my chemistry background means I now want to figure this out xD Any idea what the inks were?

Link to comment
On 3/22/2022 at 6:19 PM, ColonialCoinsUK said:

I would go for a change in colour due to thickness (concentration) and/or age due to oxidation/polymerisation/exposure to light/reaction with the paper which usually results in pigments going darker with time - my chemistry background means I now want to figure this out xD

I agree, now. doh! I feel my initial theory/s seem to have missed the target a bit and that a color change is a far more likely explanation for the "Black" prefix and seral numbers. I am also wondering, now that I'm looking at this again today, if the press wasn't fully "inked up" for the lower serial number note and where the new, presumably purple, ink didn't cover the type entirely that some red, still present, transferred to the note. The "red" is just so red that I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the possibility that this is purple turned red when looking at how dark the rest of the ink is. But maybe. (shrug)

On 3/22/2022 at 6:19 PM, ColonialCoinsUK said:

Any idea what the inks were?

I can probably find that out, I read somewhere that the inks were purchased from Hostmann-Steinberg specialty inks when the printing works were in Kyiv. Since everything was moved to Kamianets-Podilsky, where these were presumably printed, I would assume that the same ink was used. I should have some time this weekend to dig into this further.

Edited by Fenntucky Mike
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