Should these Peruvian notes be combined? [solved]

There are a number of very similar Peruvian notes which I think we should consider combining. These are

5 soles: P#92 and P#99, the only difference I can see is the law under which the notes were issued.

10 soles: P#93, P#100 and P#106, just different laws and printer.

50 soles: P#101 and P#107, different number of signatures.

100 soles: P#95, P#102, P#108, just different laws and number of signatures. (The first two are already joined.)

1000 soles: We seem to be missing P#98 which should be merged with P#105.

The addition of a third signature is a significant modification to the design of the note, and would justify a separate entry imho. 

Additionally, the locations of the signatures have been altered slightly on the notes, and a quick glance at the 5 Soles shows a difference in the text under ‘Cinco Soles De Oro' on the face of the note.

Hibernia

The addition of a third signature is a significant modification to the design of the note, and would justify a separate entry imho. 

Additionally, the locations of the signatures have been altered slightly on the notes, and a quick glance at the 5 Soles shows a difference in the text under ‘Cinco Soles De Oro' on the face of the note.

These are the differences that Pick has used to separate the notes but we don't make separate entries elsewhere for these kinds of varieties. Peru seems to have been edited for Pick by someone with a much greater willingness to create new P# than other countries.

I would subscribe to the notion that an alteration of the plate to change the note warrants a new entry, as both versions are collectible as separate entities, and both ought to have an image to illustrate the change.

You have done it yourself here for Ireland:

N#315524

N#315525

If you merge these two Peru entries under discussion, then these two Ireland entries should also be merged for a similar reason.

I'm note sure the comparison is fair but, as we only have images of one type, it's hard to know just how extensive the changes were.

For the Peruvian notes, the changes amount to a different law and changes to the number of signatures. We already group P#95 and P#102 which are differentiated in exactly the same way.

ceh2019

I'm note sure the comparison is fair

Why not. 

You created the entry on the Irish banknotes section.. You must have based it on something.

The difference on the Irish note is a relatively minor re-engraving of the plate, an analogue of the changes to the Peru note, imho.

Details here, along with pictures:

https://www.irishpapermoney.com/old-irish-bank-notes/belfast-banking-company-old/belfast-banking-company-1851-general-issue.html

Linked pages show a larger image of the Irish 1920 note.

My understanding of these two Irish notes is that the whole of the panels at either edge were redesigned to accomodate more branch names. This is different from other changes around the same time where extra branch names were added to the previous design. It's a small change and I'd argue on the limit of what we split.

With the Peruvian notes, the changes are in the date of the law (or the replacement with an “organic” law) and the number of signatures. There are many examples where the number of signatures changes and we don't split (e.g., N#211893) and we should never split on date alone. When the law is removed (as it was here for the 10 soles), we should keep the split.

On the Irish notes, extra branches were added as an overprint with out a re-engraving of the plate. When the panels on the two sides were redesigned to accommodate the extra branches in alphabetical order the plate was re-engraved to achieve this.

I would argue that a change that warrants an image by way of explanation and would be collectible as a separate entity in a basic collection should be a separate entry. Were I collecting Peru notes by type, I would have an example of a two signature and a three signature note in my collection. It is a big change from a collecting perspective, imho, and ought to have separate entries, as it does.

Hibernia

I would argue that a change that warrants an image by way of explanation and would be collectible as a separate entity in a basic collection should be a separate entry. Were I collecting Peru notes by type, I would have an example of a two signature and a three signature note in my collection. It is a big change from a collecting perspective, imho, and ought to have separate entries, as it does.

We could certainly construct a catalogue based on that first principle. However, I don't feel that applies to the number of signatures, since that doesn't require an image. Having said that, plenty of other changes occur regarding signatures, such as titles, not to mention the actual signatures themselves. For me, signatures are to banknotes what dates are to coins. Some people collect every date/signature variety, others (myself include) see such varieties as part of a single type. Drawing a completely consistent line is impossible but, given what has been done elsewhere (including in Peru's notes), it still seems to me better to combine these particular notes.

I agree that signatures are more about type versions than separate entries.

I would rather merge those types and use the possibility to attach the signatures names and images directly to yearlines.

WDYT @adanieluy @Jasanche 

Good evening,

While I am not a banknote referee, I think they should remain separate due to the laws that issued them. 

I was going to write a long reasoning, but I am not an expert on banknotes, so I'll let the one who know better educate me as to why not.

John

I'd like to see the existing pages kept as they are, although I'm not particularly fond of pages with the same title. Perhaps the page titles could draw attention to other differences in the text, such as presence of "pagará al portador and “ley organica” or lack thereof? Also wondering if some might not have a security thread embedded? Looking at the 5 Soles pages, there appears to be a minor difference in the guilloche around the state emblem. As for the 10 Soles, P#106  is shown to have different dimensions from P#91 and P#100 and thus deserves a page of its own. I've catalogued notes with different legal decrees and signature titles on the same page. I see that P#95 and P#102 both have two signatures. In this case, it seems that the issuing laws also correspond with the issuing year, which would make more sense keeping together on the same page.

Hello.

Again I will reason about Pick: There is not a clear rule for split or merge types; sometimes they make new types just for be different issuing years, in other cases they are merged in a single reference number and in other they are merged, but with a different suffix (##a, ##b, etc.). Same thing about printers, some are merged, some are split; and even they split owing to very subtle differences, or merge even if the differences are noticeable.

My mind is about make a page for each different GENERAL DESIGN it is very usual subtle changes are added on the different issues, but at first glance notes look the same, you need to search for the details to realize they may be different.

On the other hand, collectors may use different criteria for their collections, some look for types only, so if text have a small change, there are different number of signatures, serial# has 1 more digit, different series, different years, and the signatures combination…. We must detail them, but we should have a clear rule of what to merge or split. When a collector looks for “all variants” will be the same if they are split or merged; for those looking for “types”, merging them would ease things; and when someone looks for a particular criteria, having they merged would ease things too; they would have all the variants in same page, and is easier to determine what they need to find.

As collector, I use different criteria on different ranges of collection:

I only collect coins and notes from Latin América and Caribs, but with different “rules” for regions or countries:

Uruguay: All types and series, but I don't care about combination of signatures.

Cuba: All notes, whichever be the variant, series, years, signatures, types, etc.

South America: types and printers, but don't care about signatures, series or years.

Rest of América and Caribs: types, I don't care about signatures, series or years: if I may get different printers is OK, but nor critical for me.

And for South América (coins): 21st Century (2001 to date); every coin and variants, including years, minthouses, etc.

I think creators of catalogs have a great problem determining how to assign codes and sub codes (variants).

As example:

In my country, Rotondaro catalog have 2 versions; one for notes issued by Banco de la República Oriental del Uruguay (1896 to 1967) and the other for notes issued by Banco Central del Uruguay (1967 to date).

In the first one he used a code of 3 parts: using a combination of Arab and Roman numbers in the form of AAA.RRR.AAA. First number (AAA) was for the group of notes printer under a Law. (Law of 1935=9; Law of 1939=10); second number (RRR) was the face value of the note, and the last (AAA) was the variant, maybe different series or signatures combinations, and also overprints, etc., but with the particularity they were added in sequence for series and serial #s, even if the series and signatures repeated other previous. 

ROT# 9.II.1: Law of 1935, 50 Cents, series A, signed by Bank President and Government delegate, # 00 000 001 to 02 197 964; 

ROT# 9.II.2: Same as previous but signed by Bank Vicepresident, # 02.219.765 to 02 696.794;

ROT# 9.II.3: Same as previous, but again signs Bank President, but is other person #02 758 094 to 02 298 719;

ROT# 9.II.4: Exactly the same as variant 2, # 02 906 181 (only known); this variant is caused by serial is not following the 2nd.

Total 10 different variants.

ROT# 9.III.1 to 9.III.15: Law of 1935, 1 Peso, series A, 15 variants; again some repeated.

ROT# 10.III.1 to 10.III.27: Law of 1939, 1 Peso Series A, B, C, D, 27 variants.

Now, on the second catalog, about Central Bank, changed the rules:

In this case he used number, letter and number

First number was consecutive for the order of appearance, but the same for same face value and general design. Letters were for the series, adding “R” for reposition issues; and the last numbers were the variants, if they existed; if no variantes may not be added. In this case, variants were assigned due to different years or signature combinations.

In resume: I would like to merge notes when they have the same general design, unless important changes, like currency reform or different size and/or material (paper/hybrid/polymer). This way, users will be able to know there are variations on a note, if they mind, and will have them all in same place. 

Last: Other reason to have them merged is, if a user search for an issuer=>face value=>year, if they are split will not know if there are similar notes with other years.

Regards,

Daniel,

Uruguay.

Hello

I am of the opinion that because there are some major differences, they should stay separate. To combine them will confuse people.

Gumardee

Hello

I am of the opinion that because there are some major differences, they should stay separate. To combine them will confuse people.

What are the major differences? We don't split according to the number of signatures or laws elsewhere. We'll still list the Pick numbers, so no information will be lost.

And also, we now have a gallery of examples as new feature, allowing images per yearline :-)

Gumardee

Hello

I am of the opinion that because there are some major differences, they should stay separate. To combine them will confuse people.

All opinions are valid, and valuable, and I always accept them to know if I missed something on making my POV.

But, in this case, I think if there are major differences, there is low chance of confusion, cause major differences are meant to be very noticeables. 

On the other hand, as referee for different issuers (46 so far), I noticed there is usual the confusion on split items; I receive frequently requests to add a new missing variant line, but in most cases the user requests in the wrong page; similar notes, coins or exonumia that have different pages for look like items. Is very usual I need to explain variety belongs to other page where it is already included. 

This would be precisely avoided if we have all similar items in same page, so users can see all the variations together, and we MUST (most of times we do) include a good description of the variations that cause the different lines. I don't see the point of having several pages for several items very similar, that we need to check all pages to find the details.

Please look this search: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?e=uruguay&r=&st=147-148&cat=y&im1=&im2=&ru=&ie=&ca=3&no=&v=20.&a=&dg=1994-&i=&b=&m=&f=&t=&t2=&w=&mt=&u=&g=&se=&c=&wi=&sw=

As I see, only last one should be split, cause of has different material and size. The other 4 are obviously the same, with only some details that were changed on the new issues of same note. If they are all in the same page, and we include a good description, table or graphics of the variations, this will avoid the confusions.

You are coming at this from an experienced collectors perspective, which like all subjects does not help with the topic. Everyone was new collector at some point, and to have everything lumped together is actually discouraging, as it is frustrating. 

Hello,

Our guidelines specify that the change of a date (including date of the law) or of signature titles should be included on the same page:

https://en.numista.com/help/banknote-types-143.html

The same type may include:

• Different dates
• Different printers that use the same process, but not different printing processes
• Lettering and font variations, only when they refer to the date, signatory titles, imprint, serial number, or engraver
• Different signatures
• Different serial numbers or serial number formats
• Different catalogue reference numbers
• Small and unintended size and shape variations, especially for hand-cut banknotes
• Minor and unsignificant changes to the design (for example, small colour or alignment variations)
• Different security features, when they result in no visible changes to the naked eye in daylight
• Different issues (for example, regular issues, replacements, specimens, unissued remainders, and proofs)

Gumardee

You are coming at this from an experienced collectors perspective, which like all subjects does not help with the topic. Everyone was new collector at some point, and to have everything lumped together is actually discouraging, as it is frustrating. 

What is it you are worried about being lumped together? When I was a new collector, having a number of apparently identical notes listed separately caused a lot of confusion, particularly when the reasons for the splits were not explained. If these notes are combined, we will annotate the list to explain the minor variations and, as Xavier points out, we'll be able to add images to each year line.

I didn't propose these mergers to confuse anyone, rather to help clarify things.

By the way, when separate pages are needed, we should try always having links to each other (or via the series when applicable) and have something between brackets in the title to help understanding the difference.

What is discouraging to beginners and non specialists are mile long sub variants (for banknotes I dislike many of the [to me] irrelevant serial number combinations that don't correspond with design changes that are often written in overly complicated shorthands to not overflow the comment box) as well as micro and nano variants, not long lists with simple years in my experience.

I will not count if my coin has 192 or 194 edge groves, 553 or 532 berries or the date is 0.1235448666 micrometer smaller then the average under normal pressure and a room temperature of 20° nor do I want to switch very fast between 3 or four open tabs to find the difference on some banknotes were nothing is written why this note is different from the others (at the end nothing was and it is just a different printer or worse just another printing process that you can't see on a picture). 

Done according to guidelines, thanks

Thanks. I hope we can find a way of presenting these notes in a way that satisfies everyone. One thing I noticed is that the catalogue numbers appear to be lifted from the year lines but the list is truncated. For example, we have “P# 94a, 94s, etc.” for this note which contains all P#94, P#101 and P#107. That's far from ideal, especially given the conversation we've been having. Can that be fixed? If not, we really need to reconsider the way catalogue numbers are “summarized”.

ceh2019

Thanks. I hope we can find a way of presenting these notes in a way that satisfies everyone. One thing I noticed is that the catalogue numbers appear to be lifted from the year lines but the list is truncated. For example, we have “P# 94a, 94s, etc.” for this note which contains all P#94, P#101 and P#107. That's far from ideal, especially given the conversation we've been having. Can that be fixed? If not, we really need to reconsider the way catalogue numbers are “summarized”.

It's an improvement request for @Xavier 

ceh2019

 “P# 94a, 94s, etc.” for this note which contains all P#94, P#101 and P#107. That's far from ideal, especially given the conversation we've been having. Can that be fixed? If not, we really need to reconsider the way catalogue numbers are “summarized”.

The references are not summarized from the year lines because there are pick number references in the top reference fields. But I don't see a problem here because they are all P#94, 101 variants and you can still find the dub variant in search if anyone would ever search for that. If we had a situation where not all variants are in one page I could see a reason to have them at the top.

I know that these are all minor variants of the same type but the point is that some people will be looking for all three P# and scrolling down the list of notes they won't see the other two. We can't correct Pick so, if we're going to use P#, we have to show them clearly.

Hm, yes but when I search P#94a and for what ever reason scroll through the whole catalog instead of using the search I would expect a person with a health mind to conclude that when I see P#94 this most likely is relevant to my search.

An example we have some pages with very many variants that have shortened references like KM#1.1-12 (done automatically through searchable yearline rederences) and if I got it right you would like it to be KM#1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12 + all additional different references?

I am all for simplifying but dropping down to the absolute lowest denominator we end up in a bad place.

Idolenz

Hm, yes but when I search P#94a and for what ever reason scroll through the whole catalog instead of using the search I would expect a person with a health mind to conclude that when I see P#94 this most likely is relevant to my search.

An example we have some pages with very many variants that have shortened references like KM#1.1-12 (done automatically through searchable yearline rederences) and if I got it right you would like it to be KM#1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12 + all additional different references?

 

I am all for simplifying but dropping down to the absolute lowest denominator we end up in a bad place.

Not quite. If we have split KM#1 across two different pages, we need to list the individual numbers, e.g., “KM#1.1, 1.2” and “KM#1.3, 1.4”. If KM#1 is alone on a single page, we just need to have “KM#1”. If KM#1 and KM#2 are on a single page, we just need “KM#1, 2”. I have no problem with “KM#1.1-1.12” or similar but that won't always work. In the current case, we just need "P# 94, 101, 107".

I've added some comments to the combined pages to clarify the differences. The 5 soles catalogue number is now sorted. There were no numbers specified in that page, so a list was generated from the year lines. Now the page has catalogue numbers given, they override the auto-generated list.

There's just one more thing to do, which is to move owners of this note to the first year line of this combined page for the 1000 soles, then the old page for P#98 can be deleted.

I think we should rely on the clasification by the issuer itself. In this case, The Central Reserve Bank of Peru. They consider P#98 a separate banknote than P#105. But P#111 is considered a different date and version of P#105. Added to the fact that P#98 has 3 signatures while P#105 and P#111 both have 2 signatures.

Please refer to: https://www.bcrp.gob.pe/docs/Publicaciones/Libro-Billetes/Libro-Billetes-BCRP.pdf

Page 95 for P#98 and Pages 131 to 135 for P#105 and P#111

I think P#98 should remain separate while P#105 and P#111 should be the same.

That's a great resource and we should definitely study it carefully to see if any variants have been missed. With regard to P#98, P#105 and P#111, it looks to me like the differences are the number of signatures and the legislation. For me, that makes them sub-types. However, I'd like to take a good look through the document and see what can be gleaned overall before making a final judgement.

There are 2 more details.

P#98 Indicates the law number. P#105 and P#111 do not. They just indicate “According to the Organic Law” without specfying the number.

P#98 is very rare. Most were destroyed and few went into circulation. This is due to a spelling mistake in the name of “Francisco Bolognesi”. It was misspelled “Francisco Bologñesi”.

I have studied carefully the official documents from the Central Reserve Bank of Peru and the banknotes themselves. In my opinion, the Numista catalog is missing separate entries for the 1968: 5, 10, 50, 100 and 500 banknotes. The 1968 200 and 1000 banknotes should remain separate as they are.

This is why:

Series 1

In 1968, under law 13958, a new series of banknotes was issued.

These where: 5, 10, 50, 100, 200, 500 and 1000

These banknotes had:

- 3 signatures: President, Director and General Manganer

- The wording “WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND”

- The wording “ACCORDING TO LAW 13958”

The 1000 banknote had a spelling mistake and most were destroyed. Only a small number made it into circulation.

Series 2

Between 1969 and 1975, under a new law, the series of banknotes was reissued.

These where: 5, 10, 50, 100, 200, 500 and 1000

There were 2 versions of this series.

Version 1 (1969-1974) had the following changes with respect to the 1968 Series:

- 2 signatures: Executive President and Director

- The wording “ACCORDING TO THE ORGANIC LAW”. The text changed and the law number was dropped.

Version 2 (1975) had the following changes with respect to Version 1:

- 3 signatures: President, Director and General Manganer

The 5 and 200 banknotes were only issued in Version 1.

The 200 Banknote was only issued in 1969, 1973 and 1974, making it more rare.

Series 3

Between 1976 and 1977, under a new law, a limited version of the series of banknotes was reissued. These were only the 10 and the 50.

These banknotes had the following changes with respect to the previous series.

- Dropped the wording “WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND”

- Dropped the wording “ACCORDING TO THE ORGANIC LAW”

It could be argued that Versions 1 and 2 of Series 2 should have different entries given that the number (and description) of the signatures changed. But there should definitely be new entries for all the 1968 banknotes.
 

We could split based on the law cited or the number of signatures. All these details certainly need to be clearly indicated for each note. However, for me, a change in the law or the number of signatures isn't enough to split on. There are plenty of examples where such differences are not split. This Scottish note underwent several changes in signature titles and the number of signatures. This Hungarian note has two variants citing different laws.

It is not just the number of signatures or the law under which they were issued. The description of one of the positions under the signature changed. The wording on the banknote about the law also changed.

Numismatica1978

It is not just the number of signatures or the law under which they were issued. The description of one of the positions under the signature changed. The wording on the banknote about the law also changed.

You describe exactly what the guidelines state, changes in signature titles and laws do not ask for a separate page.

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic127398.html#p1209197

However Series 3 also has a change in the top of the note where the “EL” disappears. Adding that to the disappearance of the reference to the law, that would make a separate page for these 1976-1977 notes.

And what do you know, the pages have been changed to join all 1968-1975 notes and separate pages for the 1976-1977 notes. So all is as it should be. If other differences in the design of the Series 1/Series 2 notes would surface, we can surely continue this discussion. 😁

I don't think all my concerns have been addressed. 

I am calling for all 1968 banknotes in this series to have their own pages, for a reason beyond the signatures. And for the 200 and 1000 1968 banknotes to keep their current separate pages.

All of the 1968 banknotes in this series have text that specifies the actual law number.

From !969 to 1975 this changed. The text is different. It only says according to the law without specifying the law number.

It is a similar reason why these Argentinian banknotes are considered to be different.

N#202619

N#207144

And with respecto to what the guidelines say about the signatures, you are right about the signatory titles; but it does not say anything about the number of signatures

Numismatica1978

I don't think all my concerns have been addressed. 

 

I am calling for all 1968 banknotes in this series to have their own pages, for a reason beyond the signatures. And for the 200 and 1000 1968 banknotes to keep their current separate pages.

 

All of the 1968 banknotes in this series have text that specifies the actual law number.

From !969 to 1975 this changed. The text is different. It only says according to the law without specifying the law number.

It is a similar reason why these Argentinian banknotes are considered to be different.

N#202619

N#207144

 

And with respecto to what the guidelines say about the signatures, you are right about the signatory titles; but it does not say anything about the number of signatures

 

First we should know the meaning of the phrases Ley Nº 13958 and Ley Orgánica. They have nothing directly about the notes, the laws are about the description and rules about the Central Reserve Bank of Perú (BCRP); in fact, Law 13958 is the Law that created the BCRP, and Ley Orgánica is an explanation of the original law; it does not modify nothing relevant, mostly is about to explain the rules, why they were stated, and the point of them. Both series notes are based on the same origin, just with a different wording.

In the Argentinian case you mention, is partly different Law # 18.188 is the currency reform that changed the old Peso Moneda Nacional to Peso Ley 18.188, with a conversion rate of $ MN100= $ Ley1. It is directly related with the banknotes and the currency. On the other hand, Decreto-Ley 18.188/69 is the explanation of the mentioned law; again it does not change anything, but explain the point of the Law and the meaning of the articles in it. I personally think they are variants of the same note, and there is no much reason to have them split.

As always, the point is to decide what to take in consideration to split or merge pages; I feel both excessive fragmentation or excessive merging are not the best, but is hard to decide rules that may be applied to every country, state, kingdom, etc.

Think this way: First range we have is the country, but they may be split in different ways: by issuers, by rulers, by countries. Currently we have all Latin American countries split by the current ones, but in fact, countries were not the same in past; from discovery to Independence of countries, they were part of Portugal (Brazil), the Netherlands (Suriname), France (Guyana, Haiti), Great Britain (most Caribbean countries), etc.; but in fact you can see Colonial coins bearing “Hispaniarum et Indie Rex” (King of Spain and India), but none saying Spain and America King or something alike. The Colonial coins could be split on New Spain Vice-royalty (current México and south states on North America), General Captaincy of Guatemala (Central America from current Guatemala to Chiapas state of México); General Captaincy of Venezuela, Vice-royalty of New Granada, Vice-royalty of Perú, Vice-royalty of Río de la Plata, General Captaincy of Chile, and island territories. None of the regions correspond exactly with the current countries borders. The point is that, in fact we split the coins and notes on countries that didn't exist at the time, mostly for practical reasons. Where you live was “owned”  by France in colonial times, and Great Britain “owned” very close to you territories, I don't know many of Canadian history, so will not say more, obviously you know much more of it than I may.

If we tend to split pages, there is the uncertain chance to end splitting on one-year pages (or, as a joke, one page for each serial number 🤣). Hard splitting is reasonable for a local catalog, where may be explained separately differences for each batch of notes issued, by printers, dates, signatures combinations, etc. Main notes catalog follows this method, giving a different code for each year/date, and showing variants for small details, like different signatures, titles of them. 

As conclusion: Split/not split pages is relevant with regards to the collecting style of each; if Numista catalog is used to manage collection, will depend on the variants wished or not. If collector just want to search for all different notes (no matter of years, signatures, variants, etc.), then hard merged would be the best; and laso would be good for those who look for all the possible variation, years, types, etc. But most of collectors are in middle of the range, some want to collect by printers, other by dates, signatures combinations, etc., so there is not a chance to have rules that fit to all. So far, the only solution I think of, is the possibility to select wished/not wished on variety lines, that would make easier to select what is looked for, but still will be the problem when a new variety is added, it will not be marked as wished/not wished.

The 1968 banknotes were issued according to law 13958.

The 1969-1975 banknotes were issued according to law 17044.

The banknote design changed from specifying the actual law to just indicating that whatever law is valid at the time is being followed. 

https://www.bcrp.gob.pe/en/publicaciones/libro-billetes-emitidos-por-el-banco-central-de-reserva-del-peru.html

The new law apparently changed the name of one of the offical positions and required 2 signatures instead of 3; but then reverted in late 1975.

I agree with you that the Argentinian banknotes (and many others) have been unnecesarily subdivided. In the Argentinian notes it looks like the reference to the law was printed affter the offset printing processn, the way the serial numbers are printed. On these Peruvian banknotes, the difference is part of the plate and was printed during the offset printing process. A decission has to be made, either we treat them as versions of the same type and get rid of the individual entries for the 1968 200 and 1000 banknotes, or we treat them as different types and create separate entries for the 1968 5, 10, 50, 100 and 500 banknotes. Just keep in mind the plenty of other banknotes are treated as being different types for much less.