If so, I thought banknotes were one paper and also, what would be the cause? This is supposed to be a specimen banknote from 1926 in South Africa.
Thank you for your replies. I have checked the actual note and had it authenticated. The note is 100% legitimate. The paper is correct, watermarks are correct, dimensions are correct so are all the fonts. I have no doubt about its authenticity. I received a call from someone who said they suspected that this may in fact be two uniface notes stuck together. Apparently, this is done in the process before the actual specimen is printed, and could be a possible draft specimen. If so, this note should have been destroyed. Don't know if this is indeed the case.
I remember way back when, that con men were "splitting" notes and gluing $20 faces and backs to split $1 bills and passing them as the higher note.
Ah, yes, I remember reading up on this some time ago. Luckily for me, this is not the case as the 10 Shilling was the lower denomination and no need to split it into anything. I think mine may actually be a printer proof note, from which the actual specimen was made, instead of an actual specimen itself.
My comment was simply to show that paper currency can be split, although I've never seen one "come apart" like yours.
And perhaps it is paper and not a linen/cotton blend like US money. In which case the split would be easier if that's how they manufactured their bank notes in the first place. What does the cancellation mean?
It appears to be a printer's proof. Note the direction to raise the right serial number up on the note. I don't agree that it was supposed to be destroyed. Printers usually kept the examples from all steps in the process.
Initially thought this was a specimen note, since locally specimen notes are numbered as 000,000 or 123,456. Also due to the fact that there were annotations on the note that indicated that the note was used in the decision-making process. The note is printed on the actual linen/cotton like paper the same as what notes were printed on back then. But, as it turns out, I agree with lettow, this appears to be a printer proof note, but they probably used it in the process of deciding upon notes.
No, you are right lettow. This is definitely a printers proof note. Yes, I have seen and bought a number of progressive note sets before. They were all uncirculated, not stuck together and not annotated. I just think they probably stuck this note together and used it when deciding upon the actual specimen note. The problem I had with this note is that it is extremely scarce. According to a guide on Banknotes and Papermoney in South Africa, this note is not recorded, but a small footnote made mention that all specimen notes this issue came out dated, but not numbered. There only existed one single dated and numbered specimen note in a bank museum in Africa. Hence the reason I bought this note when I found it and my concerns for the peeling.
As you know, there is a difference between a specimen and a proof. A specimen is generally a complete note in its final form. A proof may also be a complete note in final form but may also be a partially printed note. If you are an IBNS member I encourage you to post thos note on the IBNS discussion board. You will find some fairly advanced South Africa collectors there who can give more feedback on this note.
I kinda get how that could work occcasionally, but wouldn't you have to be pretty stupid not to look at both sides of a bill when you got and say 'hey, wait just a minute'? This makes my brain hurt...
I'm talking back in the 50s and they were passing the notes to teenage clerks, not people experienced in handling money. It would probably work on teen clerks today as they have no clue and put the bills immediately in the drawer without even looking at it.
