Cayman Islands Banknote Consolidation

I am looking for people's opinions here. We currently have several entries for Cayman Island banknotes that are very similar in appearance, if not identical except signatures and dates. I am therefore looking to see whether these should be consolidated with appropriate year lines added. I would like people's thoughts and opinions on the matter. Thank you

1 Dollar:

1 Dollar - Elizabeth II (C Series) 1998 (numista.com)

1 Dollar - Elizabeth II (C Series) 2001 (numista.com)

1 Dollar - Elizabeth II (C Series) 2006 (numista.com)

5 Dollar:

5 Dollars - Elizabeth II (B Series) 1991 (numista.com)

5 Dollars - Elizabeth II (B Series) 1996 (numista.com)

100 Dollar:

100 Dollars - Elizabeth II (B Series) 1991 (numista.com)

100 Dollars - Elizabeth II (B Series) 1996 (numista.com)

I would vote for merging them.

I think that generally, for a note to be a new listing there should be a change in its design sufficient to need a new illustration to illustrate the change.

The two 5 dollar notes are similar enough to be merged into a single listing. The only design difference in them I can spot is the text under the signature which varies slightly - not enough to warrant a new image by way of illustration. Same for the two 100 dollar notes, and the 1998 and 2001 1 dollar notes.

The 2006 series 1 dollar has two signatures, with a change in the title of the signatories from the previous series. however, it is imho still not a significant enough alteration in the design to warrant a new image.

Regarding the $5 and $100 banknotes, does the change in the serial number design count?  Just asking, I don't collect banknotes.

rsirian1

Regarding the $5 and $100 banknotes, does the change in the serial number design count?  Just asking, I don't collect banknotes.

Tricky. Based on existing numista banknote entries for various countries, in some cases, yes, in other cases no!

Hibernia

rsirian1

Regarding the $5 and $100 banknotes, does the change in the serial number design count?  Just asking, I don't collect banknotes.

Tricky. Based on existing numista banknote entries for various countries, in some cases, yes, in other cases no!

Well, that explains it.  Yes, except when no.  😁  Thanks.

The $1 notes are all the same type. The differences in the date of the Monetary Authority Law are just that, different dates. The $5 notes have distinct colours, perhaps most notably the flashes of light green on the obverse and red on the reverse. The $100 notes also have slightly distinct colours but the real difference is the replacement of the conch shell with a turtle at the left of the obverse.

I'd recommend merging the three $1 notes and leaving the $5 and $100 notes as they are.

Agree.

I didn't spot the difference of the replacement of the conch shell with a turtle at the left of the obverse on the $100! 

That is a change on its own which needs a separate listing.

The $5 note colours are indeed different - there is an area of green in the centre of the 1996 note which is not present on the 1991 note.

Always good to get second and third pairs of eyes on these things. Will update the $1 and add all your comments to the respective entries to show the differences. 

I have updated the entries, including comment sections and titles accordingly. I have decided to use the 2 signatures as its own entry for the $1. Please have a look and I await any feedback.

peterjhalford

I have updated the entries, including comment sections and titles accordingly. I have decided to use the 2 signatures as its own entry for the $1. Please have a look and I await any feedback.

That's fine by me. Are the other denominations consistently split by number of signatures?

You are correct, I need to now split the 5, 10, 25, 100 at the appropriate year where 2 signatures were introduced to make it entirely consistent.

Maybe we should ask for the guidelines to be updated to ensure some consistency? or at least a discussion on the matter?

I suspect it comes down to the preference of the referee. Personally, I keep notes together if the only difference is signatures, regardless of whether that's the number, the title or the signature itself. Cases like this note would just generate too many variants to make sense of. For me, keeping them together makes it easier for a collector who's interested in signatures to see what's going on. The Cayman case is more clear cut, so it really doesn't make a great difference either way.

Where to split also depends on how people collect the notes.

With Finland, for example, (Finnish) collectors tend to collect print runs (marked Litt A, Litt B etc) - later Finnish notes (1986) also vary in design features with the addition of Litt A, thus needing a new image and a new listing. For consistency, this was applied to older notes also, though some of the design changes were more minor. In some cases, there is no difference in the design of the banknote other than the change of Litt letter from for example Litt B to Litt C - in this case they would both be in the same numista listing.

There are  a great number of signature varieties in Finnish notes, and it would not be practical or useful to create a listing for each one.

[no Litt = first printage] N#331140

[Litt A minor design additions] N#250519

While I am not a banknote expert, it should follow the rule of thumb we were and are using in the coin catalogue. If we have some piece of information, we should have it on the page, regardless of how minor it is. It is then referee decision based on what guidelines allow as to where this information should be placed.