Would This Be A Desirable Serial Number?

I'd call that a "close but no cigar" serial and no value above face IMO. If it were 998899 or solid 9's then you'd have something.

Darn right is is.

I mean, technically it's the equivalent of the serial number 000002 because it's the second from last (unless they made them up to 999999 for this series (can't find the answer online but maybe someone will know). It was also my great grandma who put it in the donations, and she's since passed so I'll forever cherish it.

I did indeed get it for face - in fact over many years of attending fairs, events and checking every coin and banknote I came across I got the chance to acquire rather a lot of interesting coins and banknotes for face (also have a 000034, which again probably isn't very desirable nor is it valuable but hey it's cool).

The one trouble with British notes is that despite the fact that only the 6 digit number code is the serial number, something like AB12 786687 will look tarnished because of the 12 before it - even though the serial number is a radar. Is it common practise on UK notes to still call it a "radar" in this instance or would it have to be something like AB12 344321?

Many thanks for the helpful replies everyone




Though I'm guessing the writing on it pretty much ruins any value it might have had? Not just one bit either - someone has written "450" on the watermark and someone has also written "280 50 330" in the margin - think this is bank workers? If only they'd check the serial number before writing on them...

I've gone through my folder and made a list of the serial numbers (besides the ones already stated) I think might be most interesting (they interested me, anyway).
Can I get your expert opinions on these?

£10:
777999

£5:
555525 (I know, a heartbreaking near miss but I felt it was too good to let slip away)
721721
529925

Also have a few nifty sets, which whilst perhaps not very valuable I like to look at.

Set 1 - containing only 3s and 7s
£10 373373 (this must have some value though, right?)
£10 373733
£5 777373

Set 2 - X026262
£10 026262
£5 726262

Also have a £10 note missing part of the left serial number - the 4th digit is very faintly visible but the 5th and 6th aren't there at all. Think this might be an under-inking error?

Now for the heartbreakers...
I once came across a £5 note starting XB whilst helping on an entrance somewhere...and not wanting to ask my parents to swap it out (I was young and was scared they'd think I was an eejit for wanting to), I let it go...it seems to be part of a rare experimental run and I never saw another
Also definitely had a £10 428428 once which seems to have gone missing...though it's possible I do still have it and I just misplaced it.

Thanks again for your help everyone, it's much appreciated

Just to clarify, I don't actually own AB12 344321 - it was just an example to illustrate my point (though you probably gathered that anyway)

I'll have to give them another look, but I very much doubt any are what would be described as near uncirculated - these are coming from ordinary circulation and considering the vast majority of people don't check serial numbers, you can bet these circulated for a while. Perhaps their only selling point would be they are the older design notes, not the newer polymer (though even that's grasping at straws a bit in terms of any value). 373373 is a repeater radar, which sounds cool

I do have a small amount of crisp, old design notes, which might see some value well in the future. Heck, I've even snagged an Elgar £20 and a Dickens £10 from people not knowing they were phased out ages ago. Amazing what people try and pay for things with - though of note perhaps is that both of these were old people using them (and thankfully family saved them for me), so potentially they dug into an old stash or something.

I could perhaps try and figure out a way to upload pics, since I'm curious as to whether my £10 note that is missing part of the serial number is legit and not some sort of science experiment (though I'm fairly convinced it is a legitimate error, there's no evidence of smudging which you might expect if chemically removed). It's got some rather nasty folding but it must hold at least some premium if genuine?

I'm not at all interested in selling, but have been wanting some other opinions on things lately and this community seems good for that

I'm very well aware of this - I did state this in my post

I've been more focused on my penny collection of late, but I will look to scour the banknote market at some point in the near future.