In further researching the subject of Type 1 & 2 notes of the second series control coupons of 1992, 500 Karbovantsiv notes only, and acquiring and examining roughly 75 circulated notes and a dozen uncirculated, in addition to viewing another 100 or so examples online, there appears to be additional identifying markers between the two variants. Whether these markers are due to plate, ink or production variations is not known, by me anyway,  but they have so far held true when used with the original fractional prefix denominator number ranges given in my previous Journal entry for T1 & 2 notes and the initial indicators used i.e., gapping between prefix and serial number and light or dark shading in the area of the prefix and serial number. 

In addition to the original diagnostics, it would appear that the T1 notes with denominators of 5,6,7,8 &15 were more heavily inked, or a darker ink mix was used in certain areas, specifically, on the face, the word КУПОН (COUPON) and the numerical denomination 500 located immediately below, on the back, the ornamentation has the same light and dark variations. On the face of T1 notes the word КУПОН is darker than on the T2 notes, as is the numerical denomination below, and on the back of the T1 notes the ornamentation around the numerical denominations is lighter than on the T2 notes, also, the central ornamentation on the back of T1 notes is again lighter than on the T2 notes. Also, all replacement notes (denominator 99) seem to be universally of the T2 variety, having the same diagnostics that are associated with the T2's.

T2 notes (including replacements) are much more easily found in uncirculated condition which would suggest a common printing date/production after the T1 notes and this would follow an ascending numbering sequence for the denominators. T2 notes with denominator 28 seem to be rare at best, as I have yet to cross paths with one. Of the 75 circulated notes I have 48 are T1's and 27 are T2's, this falls in line with the number of denominators used for T1 and T2 circulating notes, five denominators for T1 notes and three for T2 notes, 5:3, assuming all production runs with unique denominators were of roughly the same size.

Unfortunately, even though additional diagnostic markers have been found to differentiate between T1 and T2 notes I am no closer to figuring out what is going on with the UV ink in the numerical denomination and background on the face of the note, as all of the circulated notes either have none or only slight traces of UV in those areas. Most of the circulated notes show no signs of UV, leaving me to believe that it has worn off? The uncirculated notes that I have are too few to come to any conclusions on what notes may have UV ink and which do not. The only notes of this type that have had UV ink in the denominator and background every time are the replacement notes, this would lead me down the path that all T2 notes would also have UV ink since they share everything else in common and yet the circulated notes do not reflect this assumption.   More on that later, I hope, as I have another hundred circulated notes from a different source on the way. 

Just for fun I took a pic of the face and back of a mix of twenty-four T1 and T2 notes, not having been previously identified in this journal entry, and I wonder if anyone wants to take a shot at identifying the T1 and T2 notes in the image. Most of the prefix and serial numbers are covered up so you'll have to use the second set of diagnostics given in this Journal entry to identify them.   Although I guess you could go back, using the totals and notes I've already posted, to come up with the numbers.  So no cheating.  I'll post the answer key later in the week, all notes are in the same location in each picture. Good luck.