Help with Mexico 2000 Pesos Banknote

I have two of these bills, but don't see a listing for their series in the catalog.  One is 24 Feb 1987 Series DB.  The other is 28 Mar 1989 Series DR.

You can request these additions directly.  Click the link at top right or the Modify or add data on this page link at the bottom.  Add the two new series and include proof (pictures) in the Sources field at the bottom.

I have two of these bills, but don't see a listing for their series in the catalog.

Most catalogues don't list every prefix or every series - but simply the ranges. In fact, many don't even do that as most collectors know that they actually typically identify just uncommon (change over/column/short) prefixes or replacements. I'm not sure why we see this so often with the notes from Mexico (& several other Central American nations) but we do.   Perhaps, like Portugal, there were so many signature varieties. 

Banknote Museum's entry for this P-86 shows an image for Series DA & then DD because at DD the signatures change. Your DB Series note is still P-86b.  These are images of notes that volunteers have sent into the Banknote Museum (much like Numista uses volunteered info). It actually shows an example of Series DR (below) which has been labelled as P-86c. Numista could clarify that there are ranges eg: DA to DD (or DA - DD) but it makes sense to me.

Maybe I'm not completely understanding your post. I checked for ranges that would include the OP's banknotes but didn't find any. It looked to me like every series was intended to be listed. That's why I suggested the OP submit a CR to add his.  Is that not what should be done?

I checked for ranges that would include the OP's banknotes but didn't find any. It looked to me like every series was intended to be listed.

Some countries have every series listed in catalogues while others (most in fact) don't have such extensive coverage. Some countries print each date a new release of series runs on the note (as it is issued) but most printers don't provide this detail are “ND” (No Date) which I think is preferential. Usually, catalogues don't detail each series date but if printers provide it, sometimes catalogues will go into elaborate details (for reasons unknown!)

Okay, to be more explicit with the Mexican 1000 Pesos example: not only would there be a DB Series but a DC series as well. But the volunteers providing images for the Banknote Museum didn't provide images for the DB & DC series. ( I really don't know how more explicit I can be with this!) The Pick catalogue only list the “DD” series b/c this was when the signatures actually changed.  However, it is not really that significant to a collector because so many 10's of millions of these notes were released.   When there's that many series, they become like common prefixes (& they wouldn't be listed in most catalogues) but just the Series/prefix ranges. 

The Standard Catalogue of World Paper Money, which carried on the Pick # system was great for providing extensive details/coverage for some nation's series, while glossing over several other nations (with very little to no detail). I guess it depended on who they had working on each global area. 

NO: I do not think modifications are necessary for P-86. It is a common note extensively covered as it is. 

Thanks.  Appreciate the reply. Now to play devil's advocate, which of those “year lines” should the OP enter their banknotes?

rsirian1

Thanks.  Appreciate the reply. Now to play devil's advocate, which of those “year lines” should the OP enter their banknotes?

I’m going to expand your devil’s advocate question. Why isn’t there separate lines for each series since most of them have different signature sets and some even hav different color seals. I was under the impression that Numista aimed to be a comprehensive guide to banknotes. This seems to be true with USA notes and all the different reserve bank letters and what not. The Indian inset letters have separate line listings. It seems that South American notes are second class citizens compared to USA notes. Often times banknote museum has no photos because people haven’t discovered those varieties. I have varieties that aren’t pictured in BM  because I have no means to submit them. At some point, some of these common design notes may yield unique varieties of signatures because all others have been lost to time. I think Numista should strive to document the varieties as much as possible. There is much to research and document. The only problem I see is the referees who have let the pages become an editing nightmare with duplicate lines and lines for banknotes that don’t even exist. As rsirian1 asked, where to enter those notes if OP wants a more detailed accounting of their banknotes?