UV activity and watermark question on 100 drachmai note

Hi,

I have 2 different banknotes with 2 different UV reactions and watermarks. I can read in the description that the banknote is not supposed to have any UV activity, but one of the ones I have does. Also, the watermark is slightly different on each of them, one of them being more defined than the other.

Could both be authentic?

Thanks in advance!

Hello,

Thanks for posting this. I was not aware that there were 2 different varieties of UV activity on this note. They're both of the lithographed variety, which makes this even more confusing. I will have to look into this further and update you when I have more. I would attribute the watermark difference to differences in paper stock from sheet to sheet, but I myself don't have enough examples to compare to. These notes were of rather low face value, so they probably weren't even worth faking (I believe I've seen counterfeits of the 1000-drachma note and no smaller).

If you would be willing to, please contribute your image to the catalogue page. I have never seen this documented before, so any information helps.

Thanks

Update: I just checked the five banknotes in my collection, and none of them had any UV ink whatsoever.

They were of the following prefixes:

Intaglio print: 05Α, 27Ρ 

Lithography print: 41Η, 41Υ, 00Α (replacement)

I may consider buying a cheap lot of these notes to see if any others have UV activity on them. Maybe it only applies to a certain prefix range? If any other members have examples of their notes, please share them here.