"UV features" section for banknote pages

Hello,

I would like to propose the addition of a UV section to the banknote listings, similar to the watermark section. Users could provide information about what types of UV features exist and attach an image. I think this could really help differentiate this site as UV images of banknotes are not well documented and I haven't found any catalogs or websites which provide images. Obviously it requires a bit of extra equipment to get such images, but I'm sure many in the community (such as myself) would be eager to help catalog this information. At the very least, the text description of UV features that Pick and other catalogs provide could be put in this section by anyone and then images added over time.

Curious what others think of this idea and if there are any other feedback to improve the idea.

Thanks

The problem I see here is where do you stop ... IR images, magnetic field distribution?
There are a dozen different security features a normal person doesn't know about and maybe also shouldn't in detail, at least for current notes.

Thanks for your comment and feedback!

If I had the equipment I'd be all over IR images as well (at least for my own personal cataloging)!

I do see your point though. However, I feel UV security features are a "common" enough aspect of banknote security features (considering most banks will provide pictures/info in counterfeiting awareness material) that I think it's worthwhile to consider including. While obviously not as easy as a quick watermark/security strip check, it only requires a cheap light to see the effects, so I don't think it's overly specialized or obscure. IR and magnetic field security features are a bit more expensive to look into and I also agree there is something to be said about keeping these advanced features more obscure to the general public who normally wouldn't have equipment to check this.

However, in my opinion, there are three good reasons to consider including a UV section and why it is a bit different than IR/magnetic features:

1. UV features are already typically mentioned in SCWPM, so having accompanying images seems like a natural pairing. Furthermore, UV features can occasionally even form a variant of a note (i.e., some variants have active UV in some places and others do not) - see Belarus P#27a.1 vs P#27a.2. Providing images of the UV activity for these notes can assist people to better catalog their collection and assess value. To my knowledge, this is not the case for IR/magnetic security features.
2. UV features, in my opinion, are just as much of an artistic component to the note as the note itself! Some notes are particularly striking under UV light and it is clear the designers put effort into this effect. I've seen people write entire articles on notes with beautiful UV features. It adds a new and exciting dimension to notes you may have seen a hundred times before. See for yourself!



(this note is pretty cool, it will show different images/colours depending on if you use UV-A or UV-C light!)



(this one is a fantasy note FYI but it highlights just how creative UV designs can get)

The same can not really be said in my opinion of IR and magnetic security features (not designed to be an artistic or beautiful component of the note - strictly intended for security).
3. It is a valid way to help authenticate genuine notes. There have been many times where I've received a note that I wanted some extra confirmation that it was authentic (for example rare notes without other security features) and I relied on UV features to do so.

In my opinion, this is why I personally would include UV images in the listings and not more advanced/obscure ones such as IR/magnetic.

Of course, there are some new considerations with UV that you don't have to think about with watermarks. As I mentioned on the note from Hungary, the type of light source (namely, wavelength or UV-A vs UV-B vs UV-C) you use can have quite an impact. Also, if you use a weaker flashlight vs a stationary outlet-powered lamp will impact what you see and how bright it reflects.

Thank you again for your feedback! I'm curious what you think of my above points, have I managed to sway your opinion?

Verweis : "Idolenz"​The problem I see here is where do you stop ... IR images, magnetic field distribution?
​There are a dozen different security features a normal person doesn't know about and maybe also shouldn't in detail, at least for current notes.

​I agree (the moderators/caretakers of this site have to draw a line) although the suggestion seems great at first glance. But should the UV features of each banknote be listed with the banknote's listing? I don't think that's necessary (& it entails a LOT of extra work, special equipment, for questionable returns).

It's just that UV ink happens to comprise only a portion of a banknote's security features these days. This is the realm of collector-researchers who may look into any particular banknote's security features. There is a section for watermarks but no section for the microprinting, paper threads, planchettes (SN fonts, etc, etc). Should there be added details re: the security threads embedded or other features (braille embossing for the blind)? What about the type of paper (or polymer) or even the holographic strips? Watermarks are pretty easy to see (like SN with no prefix, signatures, etc) so they can be detected by nearly anyone (with good eyes & know how) but even these are just an added bonus (not a requirement of a listing). Detecting the UV features requires special lighting (& documenting them -decent photographic skills).

I think the OP could be in the Banknote section & it would be interesting to see other's UV images. I would love to see more topics (or area of collector interest) in the Banknote section.

George Cuhaj and I got together and embarked on a multiple year project to get UV effects updated and listed in the catalog. I enjoy them a great deal and would support there inclusion here. But a standard must be established. I discovered that depending on light, freshness of battery, or avarice of nature, that colors could change...even on the same note...so there is that.

Verweis : "kingofxbox99"​​
​(this one is a fantasy note FYI but it highlights just how creative UV designs can get)

This one was really cool! Maybe I should get a UV lamp.....

Interesting debate.
Watermarks, I think, was the first security feature to be added to banknotes, nowadays there are many others.
Maybe the banknote section instead of Watermark, should have a section for "Security features" where watermark is one of them, UV-picture another and text to describe what else might be.
I don't know if its legal to make complete descriptions on recent notes, if not we should make some rules to the referees about the amount of details in description of recent notes.
Yours
dampe54

I’ve started to upload UV photos to the Numista comments section. It sure would be nice to have a UV section!

.

Thanks gyoschak for your work! I just got a nice UV lamp that gives good results so I'll try to add some images of my notes too. :)

I think if a separate UV & Watermark section is not favoured, a separate Security Features section might be a nice compromise. Then we could keep Comments for things like the note's history, interesting facts, or information on the people/locations/things featured on the notes.

Just my two cents!

gyoschakI’ve started to upload UV photos to the Numista comments section. It sure would be nice to have a UV section!

 I would certainly would like to see the UV photo section implemented in the Numista catalogue, it certainly adds a new and unique dimension to it.

 

I noticed some of the pictures you have uploaded about notes that I own and this has encouraged me to acquire one such lamp, not for the sake of security but for the beauty that appears before our eyes under a UV light, just as @kingofxbox99 states in his ‘reason 2’ above.

 

For this reason, I initiated last summer a thread to assist me in the search of  a suitable device and received very useful tips and insights:

 https://en.numista.com/forum/topic123009.html#p1001120

 

Now, after several months traveling and away from Numista (15 Aug-Dec 30, 2022), I am renewing my search for a suitable/economical UV device. Your suggestions are most welcome and appreciated, here or in the above-mentioned thread.

 

Thank you

gyoschakI’ve started to upload UV photos to the Numista comments section. It sure would be nice to have a UV section!

Agreed! We have a seperate Watermark section, so what would be the argument for not having a UV section be?

Seems like it’s time to finally add a banknote UV activity section in addition to the already existing Watermark section. I’ve added nearly 100 UV images in the last two days, and I’m not even halfway through countries beginning with “A”

I think the way to go on this would be a ‘Security Features’ section in addition to the watermark section.

Hibernia

I think the way to go on this would be a ‘Security Features’ section in addition to the watermark section.

Isn't a watermark a security feature?

bjherbison

Hibernia

I think the way to go on this would be a ‘Security Features’ section in addition to the watermark section.

Isn't a watermark a security feature?

It is indeed. I would propose to distinguish it from other security features for a few reasons.

Water marks are a very old security feature, used on many banknotes since before the 1800s, and would generally benefit from a separate image in the description. It is also a security feature which is present in almost all modern paper banknotes, whereas the usage of other security features may vary depending on different notes of a particular series.

It might also be easier to add a section ‘Other Security Features’ to existing listings rather than integrating water marks into a new ‘Security Features’ framework - my main thought here would be orphaning and possible loss of images in the process.

This is something I would love to see in the future on Numista. A field called SECURITY FEATURES that will have all known types of security features used on banknotes arround the world. Not allowed to write anything, just to select all used features (same like for manufacturing techniques).

 

My opinion is that must be a separate field, not inside the Manufacturing technique(s) field. Neither in Additional field above. It will be the best to place it here like:

 

Manufacturing technique(s)

                   Additional details

                   Security features

 

I will start with types I know. I believe there are more existing and we can opet the discussion here in this topic.

 

relief printing (embossed) this can be added instead to manufacturing techniques

guilloché (geometric lathe)

dry seal

 

optically variable ink (iridescent color)

prismatic coloration

thermochromatic ink

UV color (fluorescent dye)

phosphorescent dye

infrared color

magnetic ink

anti-copying marks

 

security thread

fibers in paper

UV fibers in paper

micro-perforation

 

mini text (visible and readable to naked eye)

micro printing (visible only with magnifying glass)

 

hidden image (latent image, halo image)

see through register

see-through window

 

hologram

void pantograph (copy evidence)

 

About images for UV it is enough to add images in the commect box I believe but if admins wants it can be arrange another image uploader in a special field UV, with obverse and reverse options.

There can be one problem here. Sometimes one type of banknote with its page by P# have more that one variants of UV ink.

For example:

N#202372 

Slovenia 1000 tolars 1993

Serial numbers with prefix begining with C have UV: feather and 1000

All other prefixes have UV: only a feather

 

If Numista team create an obverse/reverse image box here can be added only one type of UV.

It is better to create a box like general comment box to add there as many images needed for UV, IR and other. But why can't we simply use the general comment box for that like we can already do?

 

Same problem exist sometimes with watermarks.

Like for this banknote:

N#206245 

It exists with 2 type of watermarks.

It would be better if we can add more that one image with its own description.

 

But cases like this are probably rare and it can be explained in the general comment box.