ceh2019
Joined: 4-Jan-2019
Posts: 2415
Posted: 9-Apr-2021, 12:56
#
Posted: 9-Apr-2021, 12:56
#
The recent 5, 10, 20 and 50 leva notes come in three similar but distinct types that we ought to consider separating. These types can be seen on the Bank Note Museum pages:
5 leva -
http://banknote.ws/COLLECTION/countries/EUR/BUL/BUL0116.htm
10 leva -
http://banknote.ws/COLLECTION/countries/EUR/BUL/BUL0117.htm
20 leva -
http://banknote.ws/COLLECTION/countries/EUR/BUL/BUL0118.htm
50 leva -
http://banknote.ws/COLLECTION/countries/EUR/BUL/BUL0119.htm
The differences are most obvious to the left of the obverse portrait. The second types have colour changes in the border whilst the third have undergone a more significant redesign in that region. The 100 leva note comes in two distinct types:
http://banknote.ws/COLLECTION/countries/EUR/BUL/BUL0120.htm
which also differ in the same region as well as changes on the reverse.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
ngdawa
Joined: 18-Oct-2011
Posts: 5587
Posted: 9-Apr-2021, 16:17
#
Posted: 9-Apr-2021, 16:17
#
This is the trickiest part with the banknote catalogue. What should be kept together, and what should be split.
I hate to say it, but here Colnect is brilliant.
I would say we should keep them together, since they have the same KM-numbers, and since the date is printed on the note it's easy to see what year one has. If the year wouldn't been printed on the note, then we would either have to post pictures in the comments field for distinguish the different issue, or we split them in different listing. But to me, I reckon that as long as the year is printed on the note, there's really no need to split the listings.
Coin referee for: AZE, FRO, GRL, US-HI, KOR, KGZ, MLI, MHL, MMR, PRK, UZB, SML, TAT, TWN, TJK
Banknote referee for: AGO, AZE, BLR, ECS, GEO, HTI, KAZ, KGZ, KOR, MNG, MRT, PMR, PRK, ROK, SWE, TJK, TKM, TUR, UZB, WSM, ZWE
Abhi5233
Joined: 29-Jan-2021
Posts: 9
Posted: 9-Apr-2021, 22:40
#
Posted: 9-Apr-2021, 22:40
#
These banknotes have totally different designs which are clearly visible and can be clearly identified and even they have been introduced in different years despite of having same denomination or value. So in my opinion I think they deserve to be in different catalogs like the other banknotes which have been cataloged differently on the basis of their designs and date of issue.
Sulfur
Joined: 11-Jun-2016
Posts: 3690
Posted: 14-Aug-2021, 20:44
#
Posted: 14-Aug-2021, 20:44
#
I agree that these pages should be split.
When it comes to splitting/combining, neither external references nor dates matter--we need to look at the banknotes' designs. And these banknotes clearly look different to me.
Abhi5233
Joined: 29-Jan-2021
Posts: 9
Posted: 14-Aug-2021, 21:24
#
Posted: 14-Aug-2021, 21:24
#
Thanks for approving it finally 😊😊
Sulfur
Joined: 11-Jun-2016
Posts: 3690
Posted: 14-Aug-2021, 23:15
#
Posted: 14-Aug-2021, 23:15
#
These should all be done.
ceh2019
Joined: 4-Jan-2019
Posts: 2415
Posted: 15-Aug-2021, 11:41
#
Posted: 15-Aug-2021, 11:41
#
Thanks for these. I've added details to all these notes with distiguishing features and links. Hopefully these will be approved and then everything should be clear.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.