Ping Owen.

The new Clydesdale Bank £20 note dated 24 June 2006 is a split prefix with
the previous date of 6 June 2005 at A/EJ.

They do like to make it interesting for collectors as this means that two
notes with the same prefix, but different dates, have completely different
back designs.

Their habit of having split prefixes makes their note issue surprising, what
are they going to do next? Billy

Billy,

I'm not sure what you mean by "split prefix" as I'm mostly a type collector
myself. Can you explain?

I have the new note described as follows: 20 pounds (US$39.10), 24th JUNE
2006. Front like P229E, back like P221, but new date.

Do you think I should change this description in any way?



On 1/21/08 8:00 AM, in article ,
"note.boy" wrote:

The new Clydesdale Bank £20 note dated 24 June 2006 is a split prefix with
the previous date of 6 June 2005 at A/EJ.

They do like to make it interesting for collectors as this means that two
notes with the same prefix, but different dates, have completely different
back designs.

Their habit of having split prefixes makes their note issue surprising, what
are they going to do next? Billy

The last prefix for 6 June 2005 and the first prefix for 24 June 2006 are
the same, A/EJ.

Rather than start the new date with prefix A/EK at number 000001 they
started part of the way through the run of A/EJ.

I have A/EJ 067160 of the earlier date and A/EJ 633487 of the later date,
the first number of the later date may have started at 600,001.

I don't have Pick but I presume that your info regarding the back designs is
correct. Billy


"Owen W. Linzmayer" wrote in message
...
Billy,

I'm not sure what you mean by "split prefix" as I'm mostly a type
collector
myself. Can you explain?

I have the new note described as follows: 20 pounds (US$39.10), 24th JUNE
2006. Front like P229E, back like P221, but new date.

Do you think I should change this description in any way?



On 1/21/08 8:00 AM, in article ,
"note.boy" wrote:

The new Clydesdale Bank £20 note dated 24 June 2006 is a split prefix
with
the previous date of 6 June 2005 at A/EJ.

They do like to make it interesting for collectors as this means that two
notes with the same prefix, but different dates, have completely
different
back designs.

Their habit of having split prefixes makes their note issue surprising,
what
are they going to do next? Billy

Ah, thanks for the explanation. I don't collect minor differences such as
prefix changes, but I realize some people do. I'll try to note that info
whenever I can substantiate same.


On 1/21/08 2:07 PM, in article ,
"note.boy" wrote:

The last prefix for 6 June 2005 and the first prefix for 24 June 2006 are
the same, A/EJ.

Rather than start the new date with prefix A/EK at number 000001 they
started part of the way through the run of A/EJ.

I have A/EJ 067160 of the earlier date and A/EJ 633487 of the later date,
the first number of the later date may have started at 600,001.

I don't have Pick but I presume that your info regarding the back designs is
correct. Billy


"Owen W. Linzmayer" wrote in message
...
Billy,

I'm not sure what you mean by "split prefix" as I'm mostly a type
collector
myself. Can you explain?

I have the new note described as follows: 20 pounds (US$39.10), 24th JUNE
2006. Front like P229E, back like P221, but new date.

Do you think I should change this description in any way?



On 1/21/08 8:00 AM, in article ,
"note.boy" wrote:

The new Clydesdale Bank £20 note dated 24 June 2006 is a split prefix
with
the previous date of 6 June 2005 at A/EJ.

They do like to make it interesting for collectors as this means that two
notes with the same prefix, but different dates, have completely
different
back designs.

Their habit of having split prefixes makes their note issue surprising,
what
are they going to do next? Billy

The last note dated 6 June 2005 is A/EJ 400,000.

So 400,000 dated 6 June 2005 and 600,000 dated 24 June 2006 with the A/EJ
prefix.

The Clydesdale make their notes very interesting for collectors even if they
don't mean to. Billy


"Owen W. Linzmayer" wrote in message
...
Ah, thanks for the explanation. I don't collect minor differences such as
prefix changes, but I realize some people do. I'll try to note that info
whenever I can substantiate same.


On 1/21/08 2:07 PM, in article ,
"note.boy" wrote:

The last prefix for 6 June 2005 and the first prefix for 24 June 2006 are
the same, A/EJ.

Rather than start the new date with prefix A/EK at number 000001 they
started part of the way through the run of A/EJ.

I have A/EJ 067160 of the earlier date and A/EJ 633487 of the later date,
the first number of the later date may have started at 600,001.

I don't have Pick but I presume that your info regarding the back designs
is
correct. Billy


"Owen W. Linzmayer" wrote in message
...
Billy,

I'm not sure what you mean by "split prefix" as I'm mostly a type
collector
myself. Can you explain?

I have the new note described as follows: 20 pounds (US$39.10), 24th
JUNE
2006. Front like P229E, back like P221, but new date.

Do you think I should change this description in any way?



On 1/21/08 8:00 AM, in article
,
"note.boy" wrote:

The new Clydesdale Bank £20 note dated 24 June 2006 is a split prefix
with
the previous date of 6 June 2005 at A/EJ.

They do like to make it interesting for collectors as this means that
two
notes with the same prefix, but different dates, have completely
different
back designs.

Their habit of having split prefixes makes their note issue surprising,
what
are they going to do next? Billy

New info, the last note dated 6 June 2005 is A/EJ 450,000 not 400,000.

I got A/EJ 400,986 in circulation which is as close to the split that I'm
likely to find. Billy


"note.boy" wrote in message
...
The last note dated 6 June 2005 is A/EJ 400,000.

So 400,000 dated 6 June 2005 and 600,000 dated 24 June 2006 with the A/EJ
prefix.

The Clydesdale make their notes very interesting for collectors even if
they don't mean to. Billy


"Owen W. Linzmayer" wrote in message
...
Ah, thanks for the explanation. I don't collect minor differences such as
prefix changes, but I realize some people do. I'll try to note that info
whenever I can substantiate same.


On 1/21/08 2:07 PM, in article ,
"note.boy" wrote:

The last prefix for 6 June 2005 and the first prefix for 24 June 2006
are
the same, A/EJ.

Rather than start the new date with prefix A/EK at number 000001 they
started part of the way through the run of A/EJ.

I have A/EJ 067160 of the earlier date and A/EJ 633487 of the later
date,
the first number of the later date may have started at 600,001.

I don't have Pick but I presume that your info regarding the back
designs is
correct. Billy


"Owen W. Linzmayer" wrote in message
...
Billy,

I'm not sure what you mean by "split prefix" as I'm mostly a type
collector
myself. Can you explain?

I have the new note described as follows: 20 pounds (US$39.10), 24th
JUNE
2006. Front like P229E, back like P221, but new date.

Do you think I should change this description in any way?



On 1/21/08 8:00 AM, in article
,
"note.boy" wrote:

The new Clydesdale Bank £20 note dated 24 June 2006 is a split prefix
with
the previous date of 6 June 2005 at A/EJ.

They do like to make it interesting for collectors as this means that
two
notes with the same prefix, but different dates, have completely
different
back designs.

Their habit of having split prefixes makes their note issue
surprising,
what
are they going to do next? Billy