| Author |
 Replies: 9 / Views: 2,203 |
|
|
Valued Member
Finland
79 Posts |
Hi everyone, Today I received a small package, containing a nice collection of Malayan and Burmese issue JIM banknotes. All was ok, until I started to go through the Malayan set. Now there was supposed to be a banknote, with nominal value of $100 and the seller also stated that it was supposed to be M8b. Take a look at the scan http://www2.lut.fi/~mruohone/M8.jpg. First point that immediately caught my eye, is the fact that (according to Standard Catalog of World Banknotes, 9th issue) M8b should have block letters with the letter 'M' having sloping down- and upstrokes. Well, in the picture you'll see'em being totally vertical. That rules the b-variant out. On the other hand, I cannot definitely say that I see a watermark. It could be there, or maybe it isn't there. That means, this note COULD probably be M8a, if there is a wmk present (I'll have to ask some other person to take a look at the note. But then, last thing, the face color...to my eyes (being a color-blind person) it seems to have some reddish-purpleish color on it and also the color is quite badly offset from the design. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I'd like some opinions about this note; is it M8a, M8b, M8c or even a possible error note M8x ? Thanks, JJ |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4589 Posts |
well cant tell about the color, being a scan id see the offset printing, I think these were printed using the wet intaglio style press which caused the pigment to bleed alittle as for which one I do not know . Thanks for posting and welcome to the forum JJH
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
I know nothing about notes at all but I hope someone would be able to give you the answers you seek and I will keep watching this thread so maybe I can learn something here myself
|
|
Valued Member
 Finland
79 Posts |
Thank you, scoutjim99, for the interesting info about the printing of the banknote.
Then, a little update: I asked my girlfriend about the color (since I know that she isn't color-blind) and she said that the color is a bit more grayish but with a hint of purple and/or brown color.
-JJ-
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4589 Posts |
Edited by scoutjim99
12/21/2006 2:57 pm
|
|
Moderator
 Australia
16810 Posts |
I have two of these notes, both M8a: vertical-stroked M, watermarked. The watermark is present across the entire note; it's hard to miss, especially on the white verge around the edge of the note, when held up to the light (though on worn notes it's harder to see). It seems to be some kind of flowery, swirly thing.
Two things to note: my old (1986! very old!) Pick has a note "M8 is reported in purple as a probable error". There's also a note, at the end of the series, "Many new replicas...in strange colours are entering the market...".
I'd say the "security devices" are key to determining whether this is genuine or replica. My reading is that they used either a watermark (M8a and M8c), or little coloured silk fibres like bits of hair embedded in the paper (M8b). I can't see any silk fibres on your scan, but if it doesn't have either silk threads or watermark, it's probably a repro.
Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Valued Member
Finland
79 Posts |
Some more notes:
The watermark is very hard to see on this note, in comparison on some other JIM notes, that I have, the wmk is clearly visible. But on this note, I cannot definitely say that there is wmk present. But at the white edges I'd say there is a small signs visible that probably could be some sort of wmk.
Also, I compared the color of my note to the notes, represented in the link, submitted by scoutjim99, and the color of my note is way off (in my opinon).
In addition, there is no visible silk threads on this note, I compared this note to another JIM note, that has clearly visible silk threads.
All this combined, I'd say this IS NOT M8b. Because the wmk is so hard to spot, that I can almost say, that there is none, this rules out both a and c -variants. If it's not a, b nor c, it can only be x-variant or repro...
-JJ-
PS. is it possible to check the authenticity of these JIM notes, with black light?
Edited by -JJH-
12/22/2006 02:36 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4589 Posts |
wow good question I know it works on stamps for watermark so I would assume it would for bank notes . But this is only an assumtion, I truley do not have and educated answer for you, but yet intiged by your question. I would love to hear what you find out
|
|
Valued Member
Finland
79 Posts |
I personally believe, that at least the old banknotes have not been printed on bleached paper and thus, they should not fluorecent under black light. A used note might 'glow' if it has been accidentally being washed in a washing machine (and using detergent containing phosphor). I'll check out if I can find me a portable UV light...if I can find one, I'll let you all know what is the result.
-JJ-
|
|
Valued Member
Finland
79 Posts |
Ok, some update once again; I went on and purchased a portable black light. The result was a bit interesting, because I was almost sure that I have encountered a 'cheap' fake. But the $100 banknote does NOT glow under black light and that means that the banknote has not been printed on any regular, bleached, paper!
I cannot be sure, but I'd think that unbleached paper would be more expensive than regular paper and considering that these notes are not very expensive (I paid around 1 usd for this and this 1 dollar INCLUDES shipping too) and thus no-one can make that much profit per note, all this considered I'd say that this $100 note is genuine one...although a bit strange one.
-JJ-
|
| |
Replies: 9 / Views: 2,203 |
|
Posted 12/21/2006 1:07 pm
