What's your opinion on Pick numbers?

Of course when I look up a note I'm interested in its value, but once I have
one of a particular type, I don't acquire any more of that type just because
the date has changed or the signatures are different.

When I am first trying to acquire a type, I prefer to buy the rarer variety
as it will have a better chance of appreciating in value. But I don't always
trust the values printed in the catalog because I've seen them fluctuate
wildly from one edition to the next.


On 6/29/06 10:32 AM, in article
,
" wrote:

Of course, even if you're a type collector, aren't you interested to
know whether you have a more or less scarce variety of the type?

Case in point: Recently I donated a bunch of my spare notes to a
worthwhile cause. They weren't from the Middle East (what I collect),
and having gone through Pick, none was worth much. Until, of course,
the next edition of Pick came out, and one of those "throwaway" notes
was a rare date variety of a common type, worth many times more.
That'll teach me! (Kind of an neat story, actually. If you're
interested, e-mail me off newsgroup and I'll tell you about it...)

I look forward to your article!

A : )

Owen Linzmayer wrote:
Excellent comments. I agree, the present system isn't perfect, but it's
unlikely to be toppled by anything else because it is so entrenched.

As a type collector myself, I'm not interested in subtle date and signature
changes. I only want a new note if it's clearly different from the previous
issue when held at arm's length. I know there are others, however, who want
every slightly different note, and that's fine.

I interviewed George Cuhaj, whose job it is to assign the Pick numbers and
letter varieties for new notes and newly discovered notes. It's a tough job
trying to keep everyone happy, to be sure.

I also agree, Aaron, that renumbering of notes should stop. Period. It's
infuriating to have to go through a collection of a 1,000+ notes every year
to see if their numbers have changed, and it leads to confusion when some
dealers are using the old numbers while buyers are using new numbers.


On 6/29/06 9:46 AM, in article
,
" wrote:

Hi Owen,

Interesting subject! My two cents: No numbering system is perfect,
clearly, and Pick is no exception. At this point, though, changing to
anything else would be horrendously confusing and most likely rejected.
For example, take Egyptian notes (which I collect). As you may know,
an excellent guide to Egyptian notes was recently published by Magdy
Hanafy. Hanafy has provided what may very well be the definitive guide
on Egypt. On the one hand, it lays bare a key problem with Pick: even
when types don't change -- and I think there's a consensus that Pick
numbers should only be assigned to type/denomination changes alone --
there can be a lot of variation within types, including (in the case of
Egypt) dates, signatures, security devices, typeface, watermarks, etc.
Pick numbers just can't handle this level of detail without becoming
cumbersome. On the other hand, Hanafy's attempt to come up with a
comprehensive numbering system for Egypt is pretty opaque, confusing,
and of little utility to other countries. I guess what I'm saying is
that Pick ain't great, but it's what we've got. It's the only way I
know to communicate with dealers worldwide and be clear about what
mean.

So how much does a note have to change to warrant a new Pick number?

First, I'm realistic. The Pick guides are not meant for the
superspecialist in a given area/country, nor should they try to be.
Putting all informaiton in one guide would make the thing 10 times as
big as it already is. Restricting Pick numbers to new
types/denominations is fine. Where signature varieties (or other
varations) have dramatically different values, they should be
sublistings (e.g., 21a, 21b, etc.). This raises obvious difficulties
when signature varieties and other variations overlap (e.g., 3
signature varieties with 2 security device possibilities and 2 date
formats), but they are not insurmountable.

Second, there's no way to make this process foolproof. After "state of
the art" knowledge is published, new information will come to light
that may change the way we classify notes. It's likely impossible to
know ahead of time how to structure a numbering system that can easily
incorporate all potential changes. My vote, however, would be to avoid
renumbering. Period. Bahrain notes underwent some renumbering between
the last few editions for reasons I can't figure out. It seems as if
anticipated new issues were assigned numbers, but when they came out,
there were changes here and there that messed up the numbering. I
would simply not assign Pick numbers until the notes have been
released, even if this causes delays.

I'll have to think about this more...

Yorus, Aaron

Owen Linzmayer wrote:
I'm writing an article for Inside IBNS on the subject of Pick numbers.

I'd like to hear from actual collectors on what they think of the Pick
numbering scheme, especially if they have complaints or ideas for
improvements.

For example, how much does a note have to change to warrant a new Pick
number? Is it sufficient to have a change in the security strip, ew date of
issue, new serial number prefix, new signature variety, or do you think the
overall design must be changed.

Owen Linzmayer wrote:
I'm writing an article for Inside IBNS on the subject of Pick numbers.

I'd like to hear from actual collectors on what they think of the Pick
numbering scheme, especially if they have complaints or ideas for
improvements.

For example, how much does a note have to change to warrant a new Pick
number? Is it sufficient to have a change in the security strip, ew date of
issue, new serial number prefix, new signature variety, or do you think the
overall design must be changed.

Although I am relatively new to this subject, I think two systems I've
seen in the books
from Nepal and Bangladesh where note denomination e.g.100 and order of
issue 1,2,3
for example 100:1 100:2 50:1 50:2 and so on
seems to be the most logical way of numbering this way in case of later
discovery
there is still the possibility to add a subletter a,b,c with an
explanation, this way every note, gets it's due whether you collect
faces,signatures, dates or any other oddity you might want.so when you
look at the listing you can follow the graduating changes, or
compleate overhaul.
Just because there is a monopoly on one system,and it wont change, is
no reason to
sit back and take it year after year,same mistakes in signatures and
issues and skips.
this is my buck and a half.
J.Armannsson