What's With The Bank Notes?

In a quick survey of the kinds of stamps that get discussed here, the most attention seems to be given to the 1c and 3c stamps of the 1851 and 1857 issues, and the various stamps of the Washington-Franklin designs (Third Bureau Issue). There are comparatively few topics involving the Banknote Issues, with most comments revolving around paper identification.

So what's the deal with the Banknotes that few people seek to discuss them? They were in production for 23 years (1870-1893) and created the largest number of major catalog listings for any series of designs. The old definition of "classic" stamps cut off at 1869, so by that measure they are the first issue just after the classics, and the last stamps of the 19th century to be produced by private companies before the BEP took over in 1894.

How do you look at the Banknotes? Who finds them calling for study?

I think it may have to do with the complexity of the early non-banknote issues and W-F's. Between plating and type IDing the early Franklin and Washington's and correctly identifying the W-F's when it comes to watermarks/perfs/printing methods/design types etc. there is much to cover.

I do love the Banknotes and find the grills to be challenging.

Here are the things I see. 1) In just about every collection of Banknotes I've ever seen there many stamps that are misidentified. 2) They don't sell for anywhere near catalog on ebay. I find there is nothing harder to sell than a nicely centered banknote with no faults. They'll go for 1/10 of cat if you auction them. I have a few I listed in 2018 that never got a nibble. One of these days I need to do something about those.

I have a sense that a lot of collectors find the identification process frustrating - especially the paper types and they just move on to other areas.

In order to learn banknotes one has to really see a LOT of them over time. There really is no other way to learn them. Reading up on them helps, and having a mentor really helps, but the key is study. Look at dozens, then hundreds, then thousands. The same with grills. There is simply no substitute for seeing a lot of them.

Agreed. 100%

Thanks for the replies, guys.

From what you've said is it then that the Bank Notes are discouraging, or just plain boring?

If it is the former, there may be some hope for those who would want to know some of the tricks.

If it is the latter, then perhaps de gustibus non disputandum est. Or it might be that they are not being seen for what they really represent. i.e. initially a solution to a problem, and finally the archetypal regular issues for the rest of their century. Knowing how they came about helps with the appreciation of that.

Maybe?

Same reason I avoid Washington / Franklins, they are a minefield of misidentified stamps and I don't have the knowledge to play there.

For myself the Banknotes are not nearly as daunting as W-F's with some notable exceptions. The Special Printings speak for themselves and most of the "secret marks" are straightforward. Grills can be a challenge.

It always comes back to the paper and color. The darned make me curse paper and color. The 30 cent Hamilton's and 90 cent Perry's are the best examples of this. Scott 154 vs 165 and Scott 155 vs 166. Drive me bonkers. Black vs gray black and carmine vs rose carmine. Hard, white, wove, thin to medium thickness vs hard or soft, white, wove, thin to thick.

Washington/Franklins are somewhat easier to learn. Read a few books (Johl, Armstrong, the Experts book, How to tell Altered Stamps). Learn the reasons for what exists, and learn the best method of checking. Perf check, then watermark check, then type check if needed.

I wasn't comparing the two. I just avoid them for similar reasons, many are misidentified and I don't have the knowledge to play with the nicer items. With banknotes it's the paper types and printings. With W/F's it's the single line watermarks that make me stuff them into a stock book.

Amen to the watermark ID problem. What a pain in the XXX.

85% of the time they are not a problem. That other 15% is a real pain.

I also have to add to the above. You would think that in the year 2022... we would have "tech" that can:

1) Easily determine paper types.

2) Easily see watermarks (including on postal cards) without fluid.

3) Easily measure and count the grills (even the faint ones).

4) Colors ... well due to oxidation, time, sunlight and color changelings... there will always be a problem even with tech.

Concur with this subject. I absolutely love the challenge to study and look at them ... but ... wow! why can't there be a better mousetrap for paper types or watermarks etc.

I even think that there should be an invention of a "bulk" perf checking machine for large volumes of wash franks (instead of measuring or eyeballing them one at a time...1000's ... I don't think so).

Maybe one day in the future someone will use/modify existing tech to take the guessing and opinions out of some of the above. :)

Collectors have to come to grips with the fact that there will always be some stamps which simply cannot be classified for certain. We are dealing with 100-150 year old items which have multiple possibilities which either overlap to some degree (banknotes) or were created on imperfectly spaced equipment (W/F), which makes some identifications all but impossible. Fortunately, most examples can be identified. It does take a lot of work over time to gain the knowledge necessary, but that is part of the fun of the hobby, solving puzzles.

Exactly. I think that a "magic" machine would benefit dealers but be shunned by most collectors that actually enjoy challenges.

For 4) color, we have the technology, as demonstrated by the continued series of articles by Harry Brittan in the US Specialist. For the others, one of the reasons that we don't have "the tech" is the lack of an economic case to produce it. These problems are not simple and there is a limit to the free time that people will devote to it. The Institute for Analytical Philately has induced some significant advances but the fact remains that the capital cost of the needed scientific equipment is high.