Fenntucky Mike

+0 = 4,108

Hello and welcome to the forum. You'll have to sign up for a free account through the PMG webpage. https://www.pmgnotes.com Go to the Collector's society page. https://notes.www.collectors-society.com Cursor over the "MY COLLECTION" tab and click Note Manager. Click Bulk Note Import. Enter the PMG Certification #'s, I find it works best if you enter no more than five at a time. Click "Import" All done, if the notes are not already registered then they should show in your inventory immediately, if they are still registered under the previous owners name they you'll have to wait three days for them to clear. Or email registry@pmgnotes.com and they can help you there. What note do you have? We like seeing notes if you care to post any.

Pretty roached but the price was right. I'll unfold it, stretch it and press it to see if I can make it more presentable before sticking it in an album.

A freebie from the ATM, a radar.

+19 = 4,108 5 Hryven +1 50 Hryven +1 500 Hryven +2 1 Karbovanets +4 1000 Karbovantsiv +5 5000 Karbovantsiv +1 10,000 Karbovantsiv +2 10 Karbowanez +1 20 Karbowanez +1 20 Shahiv +1

I've been told that many post offices used the July 4, cancellation stamp prior to and after the actual date, if requested, finding postmarked notes with the July 4 date is not difficult from what I understand. I remember seeing a dealer with several at one show. Good luck.

Pretty common to find post-marked $2's, especially from '76, but there is a small collector base out there. To me it's worth $2 but you might be able to resell it for above face to right collector, gut feeling is that you'd be lucky to get $20 for it.

You'll have better luck if you email registry@pmgnotes.com

+14 = 4,089 20 Hryven +1 50 Hryven +2 100 Hryven +3 200 Hryven +1 1 Hryvnia +1 100 Karbovantsiv +1 1,000,000 Karbovantsiv +2 20 Karbowanez +1 500 Karbowanez +1 50,000 Karbovantsiv +1

Hello and welcome to the Forum. Yes, the note is worth more than face. From what I'm seeing I'd guess the note to be in the $100-$150 range, maybe a little more on a good day.

Hello and welcome to the Forum. It's most likely an ink mark from a tellers or bank stamp. I would not send this in for grading. It does look interesting in some aspects but I don't think it's a match to any of the design features on the note either.

Definitely an interesting question. I believe ther are EPQ notes in all other denominations printed by I.S.P.. I'm assuming that PMG thought the note was pressed as there were no annotations on the holder as to why it did not receive an EPQ designation.

Nice notes. I particularly like the 1/4 Dinar from '41 too bad it didn't grade EPQ like the 1/2. There are no 1/4 Dinar notes from the '41 issue that have been designated EPQ as of yet by PMG. Good luck with the auction.

+11 = 4,075 10 Hryven +1 20 Hryven +1 200 Hryven +1 1000 Hryven +1 100 Karbovantsiv +1 1000 Karbovantsiv +1 100 Karbowanez +1 200 Karbowanez +1 500 Karbowanez +3

Nice additions to the set, I especially like the Banco de Curico remainder with fancy number. Awesome note!

Nice fancy notes.

A uniface proof makes the most sense to me, that would explain the survivorship and typical condition that these seem to be found in. A color trial would also make sense. It's interesting to note that there are at least two different types of specimens for these notes, one with red overprint, one with perforation, and that the specimens have different color schemes. It is also interesting to note that these varying color schemes appear on the circulating currency, although the contrast between the two is not as obvious as the two notes below make it appear. It makes me wonder if there were not two separate printings for these instead of just one. Most references identify the perforated notes as proofs but not all. I have around a dozen 5 Karbovantsiv notes from 1991, and the control note is the only one with the two different security fibers. I haven't studied the specimens under UV yet, maybe this weekend. I haven't tried to reach out to I.S.B. yet but that is a good idea, hopefully their archivist isn't on permanent vacation like TDL's.

+34 + 4,064 2 Hryven +1 10 Hryven +1 20 Hryven +1 100 Hryven +1 200 Hryven +3 500 Hryven +2 1000 Hryven +1 100 Karbovantsiv +2 250 Karbovantsiv +1 1000 Karbovantsiv +1 1 Karbowanez +4 5 Karbowanez +4 10 Karbowanez +1 20 Karbowanez +5 50 Karbowanez +3 100 Karbowanez +2 200 Karbowanez +1

Having compared scans of the notes, as well as images of the notes under UV light, we'll take a look at the notes with backlighting. All four notes display similar qualities. The parquet watermarks are clear with blocks of four lines running diagonally alternating 90 degrees every other block of four and the back ink is clearly visible through the face and appears violet. I don't particularly see anything off about any of the notes when backlit. Control note. QA note. Second P # 83x Third P # 83x I've also viewed all the notes under IR but the results are the same as the backlighting test, all appeared to be the same with no IR features and no visible ink, blemishes or alteration. I don't have a good way to capture IR images yet so I won't be posting them, you'll just have to take my word on the results. If someone REALLY wants me to post IR images of the notes let me know and I'll see what I can do. I will also add that the notes all measure the same and the paper quality seems to be on par with other 5 Karbovantsiv notes from 1991. In the end I see nothing conclusive and can't say whether or not these notes are genuine. Some of the smudging and staining could lead one to believe that these notes were altered but I tend to think not, I also find the possibility of these notes being missing print errors a stretch. To me the more likely possibility is that these were purposely printed on only one side but for what purpose. The back design seems to be an exact match to other notes, granted it is a simple design and could be easily counterfeited I just don't feel that is the case with these. I might give these another go with PMG but I will have to contact them and see if sending in all three examples, and a certified note if that helps, would be beneficial and perhaps if I submitted them as something besides P # 83x (missing face printing error). We'll see. My best guess at this point is that these are a printer's proof or scrap. Now to see what's going on with the two different security fibers on the control note.

As previously mentioned in Part 1 we're comparing three different Ukrainian P # 83x notes with one another, hopefully they are authentic, and with a control note. We previously examined scans of the four notes now let's take a look at all of the notes under UV. The control note displays all the typical UV features that are to be expected, UV security fibers, background on the face and latent imprint to the left of the depiction of Lybid. There are varieties of notes with and without the latent imprint and the reddish ting in the image, particularly at the top, is due to the UV light reflecting on the PMG holder. Also, unique to the control note is the mix of gold and blue security fibers that are visible on the face, I (literally just now) viewed several other 5 Karbovantsiv notes under UV, including two other certified notes, and the two different colored security fibers seems to be unique with the light face, dark back ink variety. At this point I'm not going to ignore the fact that the missing face print notes do not have the two different colored security fibers that are visible on the control note, and am wondering if I haven't stumbled across an new variety or a way to identify it. The note returned as QA displays the fibers but is missing all of the UV ink on the face, including the latent imprint. The smudge at the top left-center of the face is still visible and on the righthand side, where the UV visible background would be, is a little streak or blotches of what looks like a match to the gold color UV background, or it could be possible contamination, but the gold-color makes me think not. The second missing face print note appears similar to the first, with the only noticeable variance being a smudge at the bottom center on the back of the note. It's lighter in color and is only visible under UV, possibly a UV ink smear or something else that is on or touched the note. It's typical to see smudges that appear under UV at the edges of these notes, possibly from handling but this smudge does not appear to be consistent with handling. The third note does not appear to have any unusual smudges, smears, or otherwise curious marks under UV. I'm not a big fan of the visible smudges and ink in central locations of some of the notes but I wouldn't call any of these deal breakers. I am however very excited at noticing the gold-colored security fibers in the control note, and am looking forward to further investigating that. I love when a new lead turns up while investigating something completely unrelated. Next, I'll backlight the notes and we can check out the watermarks.

On my last submission I mentioned that one note came back as QA "Questionable Authenticity" (1991, 5 Karbovanstiv, Pick # 83x), while not completely shocking I was a little surprised and disappointed. Not so much in that it was not authenticated but that there wasn't a cut and dry decision made, if it had come back as a not genuine, counterfeit or altered note, no problem, but now the note is hanging out in limbo with no clear designation. While the Questionable Authenticity tag does give me a path to go down, meaning I need to try and validate the note, there were no additional comments made which means I'm starting off with pretty much what I had prior to submitting the note which is not much. After the note was returned from PMG I did reach out in hopes of there being some graders notes or other information that they may have logged in their system during evaluation/grading, but no such luck there either. So, what's a collector to do? Well Obviously, acquire more examples of the same note of course. I had actually found another example of this note while the first note was at PMG and as luck would have it I found a third example shortly after the submission was returned, so let's do some side-by-side comparison of the three notes and of the three notes to an authenticated note with face printing. The first four images are scans of the face and back of each note with a black background, #1 is the control note, #2 is the note returned by PMG, #3 is my second example and #4 is the third. Control note, authenticated by PMG, with face printing. Light blue face, dark blue back variety. (Not currently recognized) The first note, returned as QA, has some smudging/staining, possibly ink, on the face. The parquet watermark is clearly visible on both sides and the back printing seems authentic. The note has an overall dingier appearance than the other two but not as much as the below scan makes it seem. The second note, while overall a cleaner example, is very similar in appearance to the first. There is no smudging/staining on the face but beyond that an almost identical note. Some of the color variances in the images are due to variation from scanning, in hand there is not a noticeable color variation on the back printing and the watermarks are just as visible as the first note under normal lighting. The third note is much the same as the second with no discernable differences between the two. I think one of the issues with these notes is that for the face printing to be completely missing the sheet would have had to miss two printings. I'm assuming that the back of the note was printed first, followed by the face printing and finally the third printing with UV ink. For these notes to be true errors I would expect that they would have been released into circulation and missing two printings doesn't seem very possible, add to the mix that the notes seem to be normally found in uncirculated condition. It seems more likely that these could have been printer's proofs or scraps. I can't fit all the images that I would like into one Journal entry so I will be posting two more entries on these notes shortly. The next entry will include images under UV lighting. If anyone notices any differences in the notes let me know, I'm hoping we can crack this.

Party, Party, Party... I'll bring the balloons, you get the booze and food. Togas?

+27 = 4,030 2 Hryven +1 20 Hryven +4 50 Hryven +2 100 Hryven +1 200 Hryven +1 500 Hryven +2 1000 Hryven +3 2000 Hryven +2 1 Karbovanets +1 3 Karbovantsi +1 5 Karbovantsiv +1 10 Karbovantsiv +1 25 Karbovantsiv +1 50 Karbovantsiv +1 100 Karbovantsiv -1 1000 Karbovantsiv +1 5000 Karbovantsiv +1 500,000 Karbovantsiv +1 5 Karbowanez +1 50 Karbowanez +1 200 Karbowanez +1

There is something to be said about collecting a series that is finite. Modern banknotes are bad enough but trying to collect modern bullion series is way worse. That is nuts, I dipped my toe in and got the hell out. Well, not completely but 99%. I looked up ol' Ronnie and yes how'd he get on there. 😆