Merge France P#72 and P#83? [solved]

These two French notes, P#72 and P#83, differ only in one signature title, Caissier Principal on the first, Caissier Général on the second. Is this enough to split the types? If it is, let's at least mention why they are separated on the pages.

I would consider this to be enough of a difference to have then as separate entries. It is a significant alteration of the printing plates, which I would classify as two different types for collecting purposes.

Hello! I think we should keep the records separate, as they are.

The difference only in the subscription title is small, but the circulation periods are different. According to the registration information, the second type only started in circulation when the first type demonetized.

Is there still any defense in joining the records?

Regards,

Vladimir.

The demonetization dates are wrong. Both notes were demonetized on 1/1/2004. A full list can be found here. I think that helps justify the merger and suggests we need to check all the other demonetization dates for similar errors.

ceh2019

The demonetization dates are wrong. Both notes were demonetized on 1/1/2004. A full list can be found here. I think that helps justify the merger and suggests we need to check all the other demonetization dates for similar errors.

I disagree. I don't see the demonitization dates as being relevant. 

The differences in signature title, Caissier Principal on the first, Caissier Général on the second, warrant separate listings, imho.

Could a comment be created in the two records that would clarify the differences, similar to what was done in two other similar cases (which are being discussed in this forum)?

Hibernia

I disagree. I don't see the demonitization dates as being relevant. 

The differences in signature title, Caissier Principal on the first, Caissier Général on the second, warrant separate listings, imho.

The problem is that we have many notes (e.g., this one) where different signature titles (and even numbers of signatures) are not used as the basis for separate entries. Unfortunately, Pick is thoroughly inconsistent on this score. For me, since we don't split when a signature changes, we also shouldn't split when a signature title changes.

I invite the arbitrator who will be responsible for issuing French banknotes to mediate this request. =)

@Eagle68, can you please pay attention to this forum?

The demonetization dates are correct but the banknotes were exchangeable at the Bank of France until 2012

Exchanging national cash

Eagle68

The demonetization dates are correct but the banknotes were exchangeable at the Bank of France until 2012

This is mixing up two distinct concepts. Demonetization means the notes can no longer be exchanged. The dates currently listed are when the notes lost their legal tender status. We need to distinguish between the two.

It's clear there was a six-year gap in production of these notes. Whether that demands a separate page when the only difference is a signature title, I'm not convinced.

@Eagle68, any verdict on whether or not to merge the records?

The lines are entered according to the reference catalog in the matter "FAYETTE" so the lines must be left. Only perhaps the lines of the "SPECIMEN" could be removed for more clarity

Eagle68

The lines are entered according to the reference catalog in the matter "FAYETTE" so the lines must be left. Only perhaps the lines of the "SPECIMEN" could be removed for more clarity

Okay. So let me know what needs to be done and let me know when it's necessary for us to act to help with this.

Regards,

Vladimir.

Thanks

Hello.

This topic will be closed and we will continue to wait for the referee to review the entries and adjust things. Thanks to everyone who contributed to the discussion.

Regards,

Vladimir.