Fenntucky Mike

I second that motion! There are a few catalogs and websites with UV images for SOME notes but it is few and far between, I'd like to see images of the notes backlit showing watermarks as well. It wouldn't be that difficult for an individual to do this on there own and "publish" a document for a series of notes or Country. I may tackle this in the very near future starting with modern Ukrainian notes, I pretty much already have most of the images needed already. Great idea my friend. For the UV images I take pictures of my notes using a digital camera or my phone. I'll block out as much light as possible in a room, turn on my UV light and snap a few pics. It works well for the most part, although I wish I had a larger UV light so as to be able to have multiple notes under it.

I'll take it! I sent another batch of notes to PMG recently and they were received in a few days ago. I've never used/scanned a QR code so while I'm sure it's a nice feature for some people and could be in someway helpful I'll probably never use it. I'd be much happier if additional information was added to the labels. Maybe you'll be able to use the QR code to access additional info, specific to the note, in the future. Hopefully everyone down there is ok, , hurricane Ian looks like it turned into a monster storm.

+13 = 3,615 20 Hryven +1 50 Hryven +2 100 Hryven +2 200 Hryven +1 500 Hryven +2 1000 Hryven +1 1000 Karbovantsiv +4

....Frome above. Fin.

...Frome above. Continued in next post...

...From above. Continued in next post....

@Iowa Silver Baron BammerI'm glad others are enjoying this thread, I appreciate the kind words my friend. Yes, PMG now grades most bond and stock certificates but I haven't had any graded myself, nor do I plan on doing so. The vignettes on these old bonds are beautiful a credit to the artists at the time and a talent seemingly lost in today's world of laser engravings, yuck. I don't have many stock/bond certificates so I only post one every few weeks or so, hopefully others will join in. Here's another one just for you buddy. Continued in next post....

+32 = 3,602 20 Hryven +1 200 Hryven +1 500 Hryven +17 1000 Hryven +6 2 Hryvni +1 100 Karbovantsiv +2 1000 Karbovantsiv +2 5 Karbowanez +2

With the war in Ukraine having entered its six month, and with the taking and retaking of territories within Ukraine, there has been a need by nonmilitary personnel to get out of said areas quickly, as the need arises, sometimes at a moment's notice. That being said, such evacuations mean that there is little time for preparation and items must be left behind and along those lines the NBU has instructed the banks in the warzones to deface/deliberately damage all banknotes in the event of an evacuation. The statement from the NBU reads as such, "Taking into account the conduct of military (combat) actions or their possible threat, in accordance with the requirements of the regulations of the National Bank, in case of impossibility to take out cash, banks must damage it in order to bring the banknotes into non-payment condition.", in addition to being ordered to deface/damage the banknotes the NBU has also given instructions as to the methods for the defacing/destruction of the notes, "Banknotes can be damaged mechanically (cutting off at least half of the banknote and destroying it; cutting it in half or into three parts; drilling three or more holes in the banknote) or by using special solutions or other coloring substances with coloring of at least 50% of the total area of the banknote.". See the press release from the NBU here. https://bank.gov.ua/ua/news/all/pid-chas-rozrahunkiv-gromadyanam-krasche-vidmovlyatisya-vid-banknot-z-otvorami-ta-inshimi-poshkodjennyami It is also illegal to spend such banknotes once they have been defaced/deliberately damaged, and that seems to be an issue in areas near the war zones. As occupying forces move in they, or others of an unscrupulous nature (looters), will confiscate the defaced/damaged notes and ether intentionally put them back into circulation in hopes of destabilizing the local economies or spend them as if they were their own. The 500 Hryven banknotes in the image above, taken from the NBU press release, are of the old design last used in 2015 (3rd generation Hryvnia) meaning that both old and new notes (4th generation) could be, were, defaced/intentionally damaged. It is unknown at this point if the NBU has serial number ranges for new notes that were defaced/intentionally damaged at occupied/abandoned banks, but I assume that information is available to them, nor is it known if there are records for older notes pulled from circulation that were defaced/intentionally damaged, but it's doubtful. Please, if you see such notes online, specifically for sale, report them and the sellers as these notes are illegal to own at this time and directly impact innocent people. Furthermore, any jamoke or jabroni can pop three or four holes into a banknote, or deface it in any manner described above, and claim that it is the real article. Stay away from these folks!

I think the condition holds it back and that it is worth under $50, that's my guess based on past sales that I'm seeing online. No, the condition is too poor.

That is a radar! I have seen radars with matching prefix and suffix, I believe they are called "true" radars and are much scarcer.

Gotcha. Historical dates are fun to find and some, very few, can command a premium. Looks like Hef was the only famous person born on this date. Maybe some one would be looking for this to add to their Hugh Hefner or Playboy collection.

So what happened on April 9th, 1926? I'm not seeing much online, nothing relating to the U.S. at any rate.

+11 = 3,570 5 Hryven +1 20 Hryven +1 100 Hryven +1 200 Hryven +1 500 Hryven +1 2000 Hryven +1 3 Karbovantsi +1 100 Karbovantsiv +1 250 Karbovantsiv +1 2000 Karbovantsiv +1 1 Karbowanez +1

I'm sorry to hear that you did not receive your notes. I have been fortunate in that, so far, all the notes from international sellers have arrived safe and sound and are now residing in my collection but I know I'm taking a risk with some of these individuals, especially from some countries that have a bad reputation. I have to weigh the risk/reward and make a decision knowing I could be out the full amount, I'm sure you did the same. I have not come across this seller but will certainly think twice before dealing with them.

Not really, but I thought I'd share a few of the lesser-known varieties of Ukrainian Control Coupons from the second series, what I consider the second series (P#88-93, excluding 91A & 91B, issued 1992, '93 & '95), not found in the Standard Catalog Of World Paper Money and draw a few conclusions along the way. Descriptions of the second series from the latest, probably last printed, edition of the SCWPM. 2019, 25th edition, try to ignore the notations I've added many more since this image was taken. One day while searching for Ukrainian notes I stumbled across a listing for two 1992 500 Karbovantsiv banknotes, nothing unusual about that per se, but upon further examination of the seller's listing they provided an image of both notes under UV lighting where one of the notes mas missing some UV features when compared to the other, in addition the seller was offering to send a free article on two, unlisted, varieties (I checked to verify) and I was sold. I picked up the two notes forthwith, the asking price was miniscule, and requested a copy of the article which the seller sent without hesitation. Nice! Images of the two 500 Karbovantsiv control coupons under UV lighting and scanned. The note with serial number 236/27 414059 is lit up like a Christmas tree when compared to note 088/6 316174. The fractional prefix and serial number (236/27 414059) are much more illuminated under UV, the repeating pattern behind the numeric denomination and the word КУПОН (COUPON, not illuminated) along with the numeric denomination (500) are also illuminated under UV, while those features are completely missing on the top note (088/6 316174). What's going on? The article I received was written by Dmitry Zagorenko and Evgeniy Likhatsky, sorry if I got your names wrong guys, it is written in Russian/maybe Ukrainian (I translated it both ways and the Russian translation from Google was more coherent, I kind of mashed bits of both together in my English version ), and I had to translate it so there might have been a few of the finer details lost in translation but for the most part the translation was a success. I'll be referencing this study several times here and will refer to it as the "article" moving forward, if anyone wants a copy of the original or my English translation let me know and I'll send you a copy. In the article there is no mention of a difference between varieties involving the UV features but instead lists two other differences between the notes along with numerator and denominator ranges for the Type 1 (S# 236/27 414059) and Type 2 (S# 088/6 316174) notes. In short, the article details a contrast difference between the T1 & 2 notes in the background behind the prefix and serial number, and a spacing difference between the fractional prefix and serial number. Also mentioned in the article is that T1 & 2 notes are not confined to this denomination and that they are also found in the 100, & 1000 Karbovantsiv notes of this series (issue) as well. T1 & 2 notes of the 200 Karbovantsiv denomination in the same series are reported to exist but had not been confirmed at the time of the article's publishing and they did not include the 2000 or 5000 denominated notes in the study, although early research on my part indicates that the same "varieties" exist in those denominations and perhaps the third series notes as well. T1 notes have a lighter background behind the fractional prefix and serial number and wider spacing between fractional prefix and serial number, T2 notes have a darker background behind the fractional prefix and serial number and closer spacing between the fractional prefix and serial number. I'm only going to detail the 1992 dated, 500 Karbovantsiv second series notes in this Journal entry, as space for images is limited. The lightening of the background mentioned in the article is present in the note with serial number 088/6 316174, along with wider spacing between the prefix and serial number. The note with serial number 236/27 414059 exhibits the darker background behind the prefix and serial number and closer/no spacing between the prefix and serial number that was described in the article. The note with S# 088/6 316174 is a T1 variety and the note with S# 236/27 414059 is a T2 variety. The background behind the prefix and serial number has been clearly lightened on both varieties, presumably to increase the visibility of the prefix and serial number, with an approximately 38 x 3-millimeter rectangle relieved in that area of the design. The authors of the article speculate that the original lightening of the design was not sufficient to improve the visibility of the prefix and serial number and a second attempt at lightening the design was undertaken. I don't necessarily disagree that the lighter background was done after the original relief, but I would have changed the variety designation in that regard, calling the darker background note T1 and the lighter T2. Regardless, I think their thinking is sound in the order of how these were printed. Composite image of the area between the prefix and serial number of the T1 note. Composite image of the area between the prefix and serial number of the T2 note. Some might question that the plates were modified and suggest the application of the ink is the reason for the lightening of the area behind the prefix and serial number but that does not appear to be the case to me. At least I'm not sure how it could be done by solely adjusting the ink in a 38 x 3mm rectangle during production? Purely a guess on my part but my initial thought on how the printing plate was/could have been modified would be that the engraving was lowered/relieved lessening the ink transfer in that area.? Having to modifying every single point in the engraving seems like a nightmare to me and something I would try to avoid. Or maybe some sort of chemical, or wax(?), was applied to that area of the plate to limit the amount of ink that adhered to it, thereby further lightening the area behind the prefix and serial number? If that was the case I would still lean towards a variety. Just thinking out loud... The second difference noted in the article is the spacing between the fractional prefix and serial number, in the T1 notes there is a noticeably wider gap between the fractional prefix and serial number, almost one complete digit or one complete digit. This does seem to ring true overall, based on the small sample size of notes in my collection, three dozen or so, and images of other notes available online, although the spacing is not consistent. Without knowing the sequence of steps in the printing process for these notes it's difficult to say with any certainty the reason for the gap variance but my initial theories would include that the fractional prefix was overprinted independently of the serial number and the serial numbers added after the prefix, (whether the process was retooling and running the sheets through again or maybe that the tooling for the prefix and serial number applications were inline but independent of one another) or that both were applied via a numbering wheel with a fractional prefix attachment where the spacing varied. Of the two I would think the prefix and serial number being added separately in some manner is the most likely due to small variances within the large and narrow gap varieties, which would most likely be a result of the printed sheets being slightly misaligned or "floating" as the prefix and serial numbers were added. It is a very normal thing to see serial number placement on notes vary and float around in the general location that they should be in. I'm not completely sold on the spacing between the prefix and serial number being a 100% accurate identifier for T1 & 2 notes as it does not seem consistent enough to my liking. More on that in a future journal entry. In addition to the two variations already mentioned between T1 & 2 notes, the authors of the article try to identify within which fractional prefix ranges the T1 & 2 varieties exist/were produced. In the article they identify all T1 notes as having a numerator of between 001-108 and all T2 notes with numerators between 201-250. The authors also give a range of denominators, series, in which the T1 &2 varieties exist for each denomination, below are two tables from the article. Below, table of denominators of T1 notes. Below, table of denominators of T2 notes. This would mean that for the 500 Karbovantsiv control coupons dated 1992 all T1 notes would have numerators between 001-108 and denominators of 5,6,7,8 and 15, all T2 notes would have numerators between 201-250 and denominators of 26,27 and 28. These number ranges seem to be accurate based on my small sample size of notes but there is much work to be done in this area in regards to refining the ranges for all denominations. The article also touches on specimens (of which there have been no T1 & 2 varieties found within the same denomination), replacements (for which both varieties have been found, T1's being rarely found in uncirculated condition and T2's being rarely found in circulated condition), and tries to correlate the serial number (first three digits) with either how/where they were produced, order of release and which bank branches the were sent to, but I'm not going to touch on any of those topics at this time. All in all the article was an interesting read, with some interesting thoughts on these notes, and I enjoyed it. The real question is are the T1 & 2 notes really varieties? I tend to lean towards yes based on what seems to be a modification to the printing plates, not so much the prefix and serial number spacing, and time will tell if these become accepted as such. If the T1 & T2 note varieties are verified and do become accepted/collected in by individuals then that will mean there will be at least three new varieties in need of Pick #'s, for the 100, 500 & 1000 denominations, and in all likely hood based on what I'm seeing new Pick #'s for the 200, 2000 & 5000 as well. This will mean six new Control Coupon varieties. Time to add some new notations to my copy of the SCWP. Now, back to the missing UV ink on the T1 note, prefix and serial number 088/6 316174! Where is it and is this note another variety? Well, it seems to have nothing to do with the T1 & 2 varieties of these notes, which I had initially thought when first purchasing them, as I have sufficient T1 & 2 notes WITH the UV features. So my only conclusions are that the non-UV note is either an error with missing UV ink, or the UV ink was intentionally removed to make it appear as an error, or the UV ink faded somehow. I see no evidence of tampering at this time, and I've not heard of the UV ink fading/waring over time, so in my mind that really only leaves one option. An error. That's how I'll be labeling it in my collection at any rate, along with the T1 designation and maybe a question mark or two on the label. I went ahead and picked up a few quarter bundles of 1992, 500 Karbovantsiv banknotes, fifty notes total, and they are all circulated with varying prefix and serial numbers. I figure that this will give me a better sample size and with the notes in hand I'll be able to examine them and place all of them under UV. I'll report back if I find anything interesting.

I'm not affiliated with PMG I just posted the Cert # in hopes of helping you get an answer from PMG since they, @MattM CS , asked the question. It could be as simple as PMG didn't track the population of these notes, with no Pick # being listed on the label it certainly didn't appear in the population report when it was graded and is still not listed as you mentioned. For some notes PMG does not publish the graded populations, like Test notes, scrip, notgeld, (and previously) U.S. obsoletes. This is the right section of the Forum to contact a PMG representative, if sometimes takes a little while for a response, give it a day or two and see what happens. Good Luck.

Looks like cert # 1622845-002.

+36 = 3,559 5 Hryven +2 10 Hryven +1 20 Hryven +4 50 Hryven +4 100 Hryven +2 200 Hryven +2 500 Hryven +2 1000 Hryven +2 1 Hryvnia +3 1 Karbovanets +1 3 Karbovantsiv +1 5 Karbovantsiv +1 50 Karbovantsiv +3 100 Karbovantsiv +1 250 Karbovantsiv +1 500 Karbovantsiv +1 500,000 Karbovantsiv +1 10 Karbowanez +3 50,000 Karbovantsiv +1 Lots of very interesting notes getting graded lately and you know what that means, right.

Most of my graded notes are in PMG holders, like 99.9%, but on occasion I will pick up a note from an "off brand" slabber or PCGS, not because there is a great note housed in the holder but for the holder itself. Buy the note not the holder, not in these instances. I just find it interesting/funny/weird when I see Ukrainian notes housed in "off-brand" holders and since they are all dirt cheap, I'll pick them up from time to time and add them to my collection. Some of these actually have a few nice features which the PMG holders don't, the ACG holder actually had a protective film over the holder (which can be removed) protecting the holder from scratches and rubbing during shipping and while handling. Nice. The other thing I like about some of these is the information on the label, notes or descriptions on the labels like "With latent imprint "КРБ" at left on front" and "Printing: ISPB-France" are nice to have and really help collectors, I think. I guess the more information on the label the greater the opportunity for a "mechanical error", and probably cost, but you would think that most of the labels are saved as templates for each Country and Pick #, and that the templates can be adjusted as notes come in or by some other method. Displaying letter prefixes as they are printed on the note, in the native language/text, instead of translating them to English would be nice as well. Sorry got off track there for a moment. Back to the off brands. There are a bunch out there and I'll pick up more from individual companies as they become available, one per is plenty, and the worse the note in the holder the better, I think. It just makes the thought process behind the question of "Why would you slab that note in that holder?" that much more of an enigma. This is probably my favorite. Just why? Anyone have any notes in atypical holders? Post'em if you do!

+24 = 3,523 2 Hryven +2 5 Hryven +1 10 Hryven +2 20 Hryven +2 50 Hryven +1 100 Hryven +3 200 Hryven +4 500 Hryven +3 1000 Hryven +1 1 Hryvni +1 3 Karbovantsi +4

Anything other than a circle is a little unusual for a cancellation punch, also that they are not over a signature or date is a little unusual as well in my experience. They took a pretty good bit out of that lion's hiney, looks like it hurt.

Assuming that at the root of the question is, is this note worth more, the same, or less than a similar note without the "As Made Inclusion" comment? My thought is that there would be more people who would pass on a note like this than be attracted to the note because of the inclusion. So in that sense I would think this note would be worth less to the broader collector base than a comparable note without the inclusion, but (assuming that an "As Made Inclusion" is somewhat unusual) there will be those who might pay a premium because of this, or because it tells a story, or fits into their collecting niche. If I found a note, in areas that I collect, with an As Made Inclusion I would pick it up without hesitation, assuming the price wasn't astronomical for the grade, and include it in my collection. To me your note tells a story of the production/printing process, is unusual, interesting, and I something I could build a set around but that's just me. Is this a problem note? Not in my book, especially with EPQ, but others may feel differently. The Inclusion probably didn't hold the grade down much, if at all, either.

Similar to the as made wrinkle comment on the previous note you post IMO, some people will like it some will not. They also put comments on the back of the label for error notes, not that this note is an error note per se. What if that inclusion was a Del Monte sticker?