50 Colones - Costa Rica - 1993 - Serial Numbers.

Dear members.

I'm requesting your support to check the serial numbers related to this Costa Rican banknote of 50 Colones, 1993.
(I already surfed from Forum -> Banknotes -> Reference sites for banknotes, and checked all the available sources provided by Frenchlover et al, there, without getting any information related to the serial numbers).

According to the Numista page of the 50 Colones, serial numbers for 1993 go from E35000001 to E50000000, but, as can be seen in the attached pictures, I have two banknotes with serial numbers above E50000000, specific serials are E50395272 and E50893064.



Kindly, if you could provide an accurate source for this purpose, it would be great, as the info and correction will be shared in the catalog so nobody will miss the information, again.

Thank you in advance for your support.
Ilandy.

I don't know where that information comes from. It's probably just copied from Colnect without any thought of checking its source. Yours obvisouly KM# 257. Maybe it's a 257b - if that number exists?

Quote: "ngdawa"​I don't know where that information comes from. It's probably just copied from Colnect without any thought of checking its source. Yours obvisouly KM# 257. Maybe it's a 257b - if that number exists?

​Hi, ngdawa.
Although Colnect is a very complete database (maybe is the best from all the provided sources) it does not manage serial numbers.

I'm not even sure that 257b applies and here is why.
According to the same Numista banknote page, years, printers, and serial numbers come as:

(Please note that I'm omitting banknotes printed by CdM-Brazil as both years appear as P#253 and the Specimen printed by TDLR as it appears as P#257s).
1991 - TDLR - P#257a - 19.6.1991 - E15000001-E18550000
1991 - TDLR - P#257a - 28.8.1991 - E18550001-E20000000
1992 - TDLR - P#257a - 29.6.1992 - E20000001-E25000000
1993 - TDLR - P#257a - 2.6.1993 - E25000001-E35000000
1993 - TDLR - P#257a - 7.7.1993 - E35000001-E50000000

Basically, all the banknotes printed by TDLR are 257a.
Maybe my serial numbers were not considered in the late 1993 release.

Not sure where to find the info that I'm looking for.
Anyways, thanks very much for your interest in the post.

I don’t fully understand the question, but here are 2 dated similar notes, maybe it helps?

Quote: "gyoschak"​I don’t fully understand the question, but here are 2 dated similar notes, maybe it helps?
​

​The question/concern is a that the serial number is higher than 50,000,000, and it's therefore not listed.

Quote: "Ranger Merc"​(Please note that I'm omitting banknotes printed by CdM-Brazil as both years appear as P#253 and the Specimen printed by TDLR as it appears as P#257s).
​1991 - TDLR - P#257a - 19.6.1991 - E15000001-E18550000
​1991 - TDLR - P#257a - 28.8.1991 - E18550001-E20000000
​1992 - TDLR - P#257a - 29.6.1992 - E20000001-E25000000
​1993 - TDLR - P#257a - 2.6.1993 - E25000001-E35000000
​1993 - TDLR - P#257a - 7.7.1993 - E35000001-E50000000

​Is this info from Colnect of from a Krause?

Another thought that just hit me: Could numbers higher than "E50000000" be replacements?

Serial # ranges can be inaccurate & I suspect this to be the case with P-257 as 'Ranger Merc" observed. When I checked eBay, I found at least 2 sellers who had 50 Colone 1993 E series banknotes with serial numbers north of 50,000,000. Here's the one I patronized offering several consecutive numbered notes in the 54,000,000 range. I would suspect that the upper range should be 55 -60,000,000 range (not 50,000,000) as P-257 is very common.

LOL! I just realised that my Costa Rican 50 Colones note has the serial number E 50819260. I guess we should skip the whole serial number comments altogether in the catalogue.

Quote: "ngdawa"​

Quote: "gyoschak"​I don’t fully understand the question, but here are 2 dated similar notes, maybe it helps?
​​

​​The question/concern is a that the serial number is higher than 50,000,000, and it's therefore not listed.

​Exactly.
That's my concern =)

The question still is, where to consult/check the serial numbers related (at least) with this type of banknote.

Quote: "ngdawa"​

Quote: "Ranger Merc"​(Please note that I'm omitting banknotes printed by CdM-Brazil as both years appear as P#253 and the Specimen printed by TDLR as it appears as P#257s).
​​1991 - TDLR - P#257a - 19.6.1991 - E15000001-E18550000
​​1991 - TDLR - P#257a - 28.8.1991 - E18550001-E20000000
​​1992 - TDLR - P#257a - 29.6.1992 - E20000001-E25000000
​​1993 - TDLR - P#257a - 2.6.1993 - E25000001-E35000000
​​1993 - TDLR - P#257a - 7.7.1993 - E35000001-E50000000
​
​

​​Is this info from Colnect of from a Krause?

​Not sure.
I got it from the same Numista page related to the banknote.

This is the only info available that I have found so far.

By any chance, does it come to your mind a website to check this info?
As before, I could not find any serial number info related inside Colnect (maybe I do not know how to use, properly).

But seriously, do we really have to list all serial numbers? Everything is 257a anyway. Just put one year line per date, that's enough. No need for sub-numbers when they're all the same.

Quote: "ngdawa"​Another thought that just hit me: Could numbers higher than "E50000000" be replacements?

​That thought came into my mind as well.

In my short experience checking banknotes, usually, replacements come marked as different serial numbers/mark/series, but in this specific case, I'm not sure.

Maybe, and just maybe those banknotes from 7.7.1993 could be replacements from the years 1987 (5,000,000 pieces produced), and 1988 (10,000,000 produced), that are also not P#257, but P#253 and produced by CdM-Brazil.

1987 - CdM-Brazil - P#253 - 15.07.1987 - E0000001-E5000000 = 4,999,000
1988 - CdM-Brazil - P#253 - 26.04.1988 - E5000001-E15000000 = 9,999,999

​1991 - TDLR - P#257a - 19.6.1991 - E15000001-E18550000 = 3,549,999
​1991 - TDLR - P#257a - 28.8.1991 - E18550001-E20000000 = 1,449,999
​1992 - TDLR - P#257a - 29.6.1992 - E20000001-E25000000 = 4,999,999
​1993 - TDLR - P#257a - 2.6.1993 - E25000001-E35000000 = 9,999,999
​1993 - TDLR - P#257a - 7.7.1993 - E35000001-E50000000 = 14,999,999

The info also comes from the Numista banknote page cited before.

Quote: "ngdawa"​But seriously, do we really have to list all serial numbers? Everything us 257a anyway. Just put one year line per date, that enough. No need for sub-numbers when they're all the same.

​I'm not sure.
Of course, I'll follow the recommendation if that is the best practice, of course.

Just will add my banknotes in the very last section and will add my serial numbers in public/private message, maybe, that will help others to figure out how to handle the situation if they get a banknote with a serial number not listed.

What do you think, guys?

Quote: "Serial_Number_8"​Serial # ranges can be inaccurate & I suspect this to be the case with P-257 as 'Ranger Merc" observed. When I checked eBay, I found at least 2 sellers who had 50 Colone 1993 E series banknotes with serial numbers north of 50,000,000. Here's the one I patronized offering several consecutive numbered notes in the 54,000,000 range. I would suspect that the upper range should be 55 -60,000,000 range (not 50,000,000) as P-257 is very common.

Wow, even higher serial numbers than mine.

And that's why I'm obsessed with trying to get official info from Costa Rica =)

We have a SNDB hosted by the CPMF in Canada which has a number of dedicated collectors, like myself, who have contributed (tracked) Serial Numbers (& prefixes/signatures) for the past 15 years of BOC series. There's also the Charlton Catalogue which has excellent tables that shows all the serial number ranges for each prefix. Despite all that, there's still considerable inconsistencies & discrepancies. You might assume that would be true going further back in time but in actual fact, there are many more irregularities found recently. For example, the BOC reported 10,000,000 2003 BEL $10 printed yet few got issued (according to data on the SNDB). I really got hooked around 2002 when we were discovering all this with the new upgraded Journey series release and the phasing out of the original series.

Similar observations have occurred for the new polymer Macklem-Carney $10 FTH change-over (8.3M were supposed to be issued but only 13 have been reported). This was 2013, so while the stats can be useful, no collector can consider them 'gospel.' For me, that's what makes collecting banknotes so interesting (the serial number, prefix & signature combinations). Any collector who tells you that the note's serial number (prefix/signature) are irrelevant just hasn't collected long enough to know better.

I think it is admirable to put the ranges down on Numista & preferable to put an * when higher ranges have been observed. I would not trust data from Colnect.

What I mean is that it's better to just put everything together instead of posting incorrect lists. If the list would've been complete and correct we wouldn't have a problem, but now we do since it's incomplete, and therefore incorrect, and therefore creates confusion instead of clarification. There's really no need for high pedestals and "those who don't understand this" speeches.

Quote: "Serial_Number_8"​We have a SNDB hosted by the CPMF in Canada which has a number of dedicated collectors, like myself, who have contributed (tracked) Serial Numbers (& prefixes/signatures) for the past 15 years of BOC series. There's also the Charlton Catalogue which has excellent tables that shows all the serial number ranges for each prefix. Despite all that, there's still considerable inconsistencies & discrepancies. You might assume that would be true going further back in time but in actual fact, there are many more irregularities found recently. For example, the BOC reported 10,000,000 2003 BEL $10 printed yet few got issued (according to data on the SNDB). I really got hooked around 2002 when we were discovering all this with the new upgraded Journey series release and the phasing out of the original series.
​
​Similar observations have occurred for the new polymer Macklem-Carney $10 FTH change-over (8.3M were supposed to be issued but only 13 have been reported). This was 2013, so while the stats can be useful, no collector can consider them 'gospel.' For me, that's what makes collecting banknotes so interesting (the serial number, prefix & signature combinations). Any collector who tells you that the note's serial number (prefix/signature) are irrelevant just hasn't collected long enough to know better.
​
​I think it is admirable to put the ranges down on Numista & preferable to put an * when higher ranges have been observed. I would not trust data from Colnect.

​I couldn't agree more. In a way, Numista has a chance to become a reliable source of info on banknotes especially serial number, signature,date and replacement note varieties.

Here in Thailand finding out any information regarding such topics is almost non-existent. I have been doing serial number studies and have found some very interesting things regarding serial numbers. Some signature sets are extremely scarce due to low printings (less than 200 million). A large majority of notes are used, collected and destroyed. In reality 200 million is a low print run, not like coins that don't "wear out". If collectors started taking a closer look at serial numbers and such they would discover some recent stuff that could be quite valuable if demand ever caught on. Right now in Thailand the 100 baht note has been discovered with finance minister Preedee Daochai who was on the job for 26 days. I suspect a very low print run. If the 50 and 500 were printed with his signature I am sure they will be extremely rare as those denominations are printed in low quantities to begin with.

Yes, I'm all for keeping reports in the comment section about serial prefixes and number runs.

Quote: "blue-m"​​I couldn't agree more. In a way, Numista has a chance to become a reliable source of info on banknotes especially serial number, signature,date and replacement note varieties.
​
[...]
​
​Yes, I'm all for keeping reports in the comment section about serial prefixes and number runs.

​Regardless if the information provided is correct or not?
Because what we're talking about here is flawed and incorrect information. Hence my comment to delete it altogether, or make it right.

Quote: "ngdawa"​

Quote: "blue-m"​​I couldn't agree more. In a way, Numista has a chance to become a reliable source of info on banknotes especially serial number, signature,date and replacement note varieties.
​​
​[...]
​​
​​Yes, I'm all for keeping reports in the comment section about serial prefixes and number runs.

​​Regardless if the information provided is correct or not?
​Because what we're talking about here is flawed and incorrect information. Hence my comment to delete it altogether, or make it right.

​If we own the notes and provide photographic evidence, how would the info be incorrect?

Quote: "Serial_Number_8"​We have a SNDB hosted by the CPMF in Canada which has a number of dedicated collectors, like myself, who have contributed (tracked) Serial Numbers (& prefixes/signatures) for the past 15 years of BOC series. There's also the Charlton Catalogue which has excellent tables that shows all the serial number ranges for each prefix. Despite all that, there's still considerable inconsistencies & discrepancies. You might assume that would be true going further back in time but in actual fact, there are many more irregularities found recently. For example, the BOC reported 10,000,000 2003 BEL $10 printed yet few got issued (according to data on the SNDB). I really got hooked around 2002 when we were discovering all this with the new upgraded Journey series release and the phasing out of the original series.
​
​Similar observations have occurred for the new polymer Macklem-Carney $10 FTH change-over (8.3M were supposed to be issued but only 13 have been reported). This was 2013, so while the stats can be useful, no collector can consider them 'gospel.' For me, that's what makes collecting banknotes so interesting (the serial number, prefix & signature combinations). Any collector who tells you that the note's serial number (prefix/signature) are irrelevant just hasn't collected long enough to know better.
​
​I think it is admirable to put the ranges down on Numista & preferable to put an * when higher ranges have been observed. I would not trust data from Colnect.

​I'm not well familiarized with Colnet.
Could you explain briefly how to consult banknotes in Colnet (as far as I understood that's possible, isn't it?)

Quote: "ngdawa"​What I mean is that it's better to just put everything together instead of posting incorrect lists. If the list would've been complete and correct we wouldn't have a problem, but now we do since it's incomplete, and therefore incorrect, and therefore creates confusion instead of clarification. There's really no need for high pedestals and "those who don't understand this" speeches.

​Yes, that's my intention.
The question remains, where to check that information?

I've posted in different Numismatic Latinamerican groups if someone can help to provide accurate info, but so far nothing.

I hope to get the info soon, so at least I could complete that specific bracket of Costa Rican banknotes, then, if we are lucky, maybe the others.

Quote: "ngdawa"​

Quote: "blue-m"​​I couldn't agree more. In a way, Numista has a chance to become a reliable source of info on banknotes especially serial number, signature,date and replacement note varieties.
​​
​[...]
​​
​​Yes, I'm all for keeping reports in the comment section about serial prefixes and number runs.

​​Regardless if the information provided is correct or not?
​Because what we're talking about here is flawed and incorrect information. Hence my comment to delete it altogether, or make it right.

​I'd rather put an "*", instead of deleting everything, I think we should show that some work was made and at some point, we had to stop, and maybe someone out there will find the topic and can address it correctly and complete the information.

Perfection is something that is not made from one day to the other, and that's OK.

Quote: "blue-m"​

Quote: "ngdawa"​
​

Quote: "blue-m"​​I couldn't agree more. In a way, Numista has a chance to become a reliable source of info on banknotes especially serial number, signature,date and replacement note varieties.
​​​
​​[...]
​​​
​​​Yes, I'm all for keeping reports in the comment section about serial prefixes and number runs.

​​​Regardless if the information provided is correct or not?
​​Because what we're talking about here is flawed and incorrect information. Hence my comment to delete it altogether, or make it right.

​​If we own the notes and provide photographic evidence, how would the info be incorrect?

Yes, but in my experience, that does not help us at all.

​I have seen such errors before in my country (Mexico).

For the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City, there was a Circulating Commemorative Coing of 25 pesos (silver coin) (https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces3855.html), there are, so far, 3 to 5 different types, and the worst is that nobody knows how many of what type were made.

That's only an example of many more coming from my country or any other, like this 50 Colones banknote.