To split this page or not - circulation note vs. reprint

The 1963 £5 Samoa note was reprinted in 2020, and to me it messes up the page:
N#215578

The currecy is not in use anymore in 2020, the bank and country have changed names, the manager is probably also not at work anymore and it for sure is not a circulation note. To me it is a replica that belongs in the exonumia section where we have a specific spot for reproductions … https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?ct=exonumia&tpre=y

The guideline state that on one page we can have different issues (for example, regular issues, replacements, specimens, unissued remainders, and proofs), but nothing about a replica being issued 60 years later (https://en.numista.com/help/banknote-types-143.html).

I vote to split … even though it looks identical.

Please add your opinion on this issue. Also information on printer (Bradbury Wilkinson is not printing anymore) and issuer (I cannot find any info on Central Bank of Samoa website)  is welcome. To add: the bundles seem to come in non-descripts white paper strips, so no info there either (https://www.ebay.com/itm/335183815458).

If your information is correct, then I agree it is simply a replica & thus the 2020 issue should be in exonumia.

If it is in banknotes, it should be (or have been historically) something you could spend.

Just to comment on it, coin restrikes are on the same page.

Bump for more views …
To me it is still an unofficial (but decently done) reprint of an old note with no relation to current Samoa … just a piece of printed paper that does not belong on this page.
 

Posted by Idolenz on 3 Jun 2024, 20:02

Just to comment on it, coin restrikes are on the same page.

Were those restrikes not mostly made with the same dies and by the same mint? If I'd produce one of those coins, they'd be called “fake”.

Yes and no … they are not necessarily made by the exact the same mint and new dies of Austrian ducats get produced every year (they would not last for so many decades at these volumes). The same is likely the case here too and De La Rue used original plates they got from their purchase of Bradbury Wilkinson. 

But personally I don't care what happens to this line either way.

Idolenz

The same is likely the case here too and De La Rue used original plates they got from their purchase of Bradbury Wilkinson. 

Would De La Rue pack their notes with just a nameless white ribbon? The same kind appears with several sellers who offer bundles, so looks like they were packed like that by the printer … Just trying to figure out what the note is about (including the issuer and printer).
https://www.ebay.com/itm/276093909892

https://www.ebay.com/itm/235165272961

https://www.ebay.com/itm/166294936469

https://www.ebay.com/itm/295980998847 (even a 1000 pieces available)
 

Interesting thread, I have one of those new notes. It seems weird they would go to the trouble of printing that 2020 and its not valid currency. What would be the point of that?

odd job

Interesting thread, I have one of those new notes. It seems weird they would go to the trouble of printing that 2020 and its not valid currency. What would be the point of that?

Please read this

https://banknotenews.com/?p=29669

I think we should also remove the pick number for the reprint (15CS), cannot find it on PMG so it looks like invented

1963 Western Samoa 5 Pounds values and price guide

NumisMaster |

@ngdawa is referee, but maybe has not yet seen this topic

The reprint notes are officially done with permission of the Central Bank of Samoa.

Still, they warrant listing separately.

Aidan.

If the reprint is just a replica, an not valid currency, then I agree that it should be listed separately in exonumia.

Hibernia

If the reprint is just a replica, an not valid currency, then I agree that it should be listed separately in exonumia.

I don't agree with that.

Aidan.

Why isn't it exonumia?

odd job

Why isn't it exonumia?

These were authorised by the Central Bank of Samoa.

Aidan.

odd job

Why isn't it exonumia?

It should be. Unlike the Fiji 88 and 100 cents notes, these notes have no value whatsoever even though these were authorised by the Central bank. Don't waste your hard earned money on them.

ahkai

odd job

Why isn't it exonumia?

It should be. Unlike the Fiji 88 and 100 cents notes, these notes have no value whatsoever even though these were authorised by the Central bank. Don't waste your hard earned money on them.

Kai, I think Owen Linzmayer will list them in his catalogues under a ‘Collector Series’ sub-section.

Aidan.