Confederate States Of America 5 Dollars And Repro.

Thank you for that site. I was able to check the serial number of the Confederate $10 that I bought for a dollar. But frankly, notwithstanding what the website says, I would still present your note to someone with experience with Confederate currency. An in-hand expert is more authoritative than a website.

One website might be wrong, or lying; a dozen websites are less likely to be. And there are more than a dozen websites out there that list the known serial numbers of faked Confederate notes; I think this one is the oldest and most authoritative there is on the Internet. Since the genuine articles with those numbers are usually from a museum someplace, there's virtually no chance that a note you have with a "fake number" is going to be the one genuine example amongst the thousands of replicas. 1864 $5 #68771 is on the list; therefore, that note is fake.

On the subject of "tell-tale signs", besides the serial number, another good indicator is the signature ink. After 150 years, iron-oxide-based fountain-pen ink has usually "rusted" right through the thin paper used to make these notes. We see this on your genuine note, where the signatures are clearly visible back-to-front on the back of the note. On the fake, they're just as clearly completely missing.

Thanks for that info sap. Very useful.

As for the ink bleeding through the paper that is great to know. On my "genuine" note the bold left hand signature and hand written serial number have both bled through however I assume that the right hand signature being much lighter and a finer nib used has not.

I have now also examined my 1864 10 Dollar note and yes you've guessed it. Even though that serial number isn't listed.




No bleeding = fake, sorry I mean reproduction.

You can see part of the second signature: the part that is heaviest, the long, upward curving end letter that pokes up into the portrait. You can see this same curve, in reverse, on the back beneath the F of FIVE.


The "ink-bleed test" is more an assurance of authenticity, rather than definitive proof of fakeness. As seen in the example of the left-hand-signature on the first note, a weak, faint signature won't bleed through much, if at all. On the second (fake) note, the right-hand signature is very dark and heavy, and I would have expected much of that to bleed through, if genuine. On your third (formerly dubious) note, both the signatures are fairly light and thin. Yet even here, the darkest parts - the slanted strokes of the first two letters of the right-hand signature - have bled through, faintly; I can see them to the left of the lower arabesque, below and slightly to the left of the T in TEN.

Finally, of course, there was a war going on, and the Confederacy was under blockade. High-quality black fountain-pen ink may have been in short supply on occasion, and they may have watered it down or tried to use whatever cheap substitutes may have been on hand; we don't know. Writing in such inks might look "better" today than iron gall ink, or they may look even worse.