Good observation. I also found no evidence of the existence of P#136e with a watermark with arms. Interestingly, we have hundreds of registered users for both!
I'm going to ask some people I know to look at their ballots and tell us what they have in their hands.
I can confirm I do not have the notes with arms watermark.
With that many registered users and also my 4 notes for swap marked on a wrong yearline, I'm assuming this yearline might have been described differently at some point. Maybe it was the original yearline before any of the subtypes were added?
Just call me Bram
No new swaps for the moment, still too many half-ongoing swaps to clean up!
I can confirm I do not have the notes with arms watermark.
With that many registered users and also my 4 notes for swap marked on a wrong yearline, I'm assuming this yearline might have been described differently at some point. Maybe it was the original yearline before any of the subtypes were added?
That's my best guess, my dear Bram! At some point, a line was added that must not have been carefully checked.
I will wait for one or two more conformations and, as appropriate, I will join the two lines. =)
Thanks, Bram!
Vladimir
Catalogue Administrator and Banknote Master Referee.
I see I have marked mine as a watermark with arms. I doubt this is correct, and I think there has been some changes since I registered the banknote here, since I don't recognise that description at all. I will check when I'm back home, though.
Everything indicates, in fact, that there is an error in the addition of the annual line ND (2004) with Coat of Arms watermark. We have around 540 users registered on the correct line and around 300 members registered on the line that, it seems, is incorrect.
It will be impossible to consult the 300 users to check, but based on sampling, it appears that the error is occurring. Let's wait a few more days for more people to speak out.
Regards,
Vladimir.
Vladimir
Catalogue Administrator and Banknote Master Referee.
As we don't know what the original description of the line was, I suggest moving users to undetermined. One of the two notes up for swap that have pictures at least shows another note … so more might be mislabeled.
Just call me Bram
No new swaps for the moment, still too many half-ongoing swaps to clean up!
I see I have marked mine as a watermark with arms. I doubt this is correct, and I think there has been some changes since I registered the banknote here, since I don't recognise that description at all. I will check when I'm back home, though.
Will keep you posted.
I've checked, and the watermark is Khoneini.
I've notoced that when members want to add a date line, they first edit an existing one to the one they want tobadd, and then they add the already existing one. This results that the members who already have marked that year line as in their collection, now have another type, all of a sudden. I have never heard of a watermark with arms, so this must've been edited at a later stage.
Anyway, I have edited my note to the correct line.
Hi @BramVB. Placing these users on the undetermined line doesn't seem good to me, since it is divided into signatures. So, with high probability, the users who registered there at least checked their signatures. So, the most coherent thing would be to move them to the correct year line (Khomeini watermark).
@ngdawa, that seems to be the route. I will arrange the arrangement. =)
Thanks to everyone who responded!
Vladimir
Catalogue Administrator and Banknote Master Referee.
イラン • 200 Rials
