I am considering bidding on this fractional. First, what would you guys grade this at? Second of all, the oval around Washington's face appears to be very dark. The images in my guide book look to be much lighter, transparent even. Anyone have an opinion on this? Thanks in advance!!!
I don't know too much about Fractionals as I do not collect them and have little reference material on them. There is an old thread called Post your Fractionals (see below) that is now mostly missing the images that were posted there. At the time I asked about the oval ring on the face of the note and collected these replies: The oval on the face of the Fractional note was an anti-counterfeiting device, the best ones have a bright Golden color but after 150 years most of those have turned to a dark brown or even dark green. It was devised by Spencer Morton Clarke and made from powdered Bronze and horse glue. This was applied to the paper prior to printing, in a heavy/thick layer I believe. Your note being heavily worn, most has likely rubbed or fallen off. This post by connor1, from the thread I mentioned, has an example of a 5 cent fractional with a much lighter/brighter ring on the face of the note. Some trivia on Clark at papermoneyfacts.com
The one book on Fractional notes that I have is a small booklet from the PCDA by Neil Shafer ©1996 (that you can buy here for a nominal fee), the glossary of this book says the following:
First as far as grade there are several folds going every which way and what look,s Like some tearing at the ends at best this would grade between VG and F which is Not that high and would have a value of between $12 and $15 In regards to the darker images you will find these differences on just about any Fractional, color quality wasent a top priority back then as a matter of fact i Had several fifth issues 50 centers that were all the same but the color was A bit different on all of them.
On the contrary, the era was a very pivotal time and one which many important changes took place in paper currency. The US hadn't even issued paper currency in it's name until the Civil War beginning in 1861. Each series of Fractional notes brought with it significant changes and innovations in printing, design, security features and yes, the paper and color of inks. Spencer M. Clark, whom I mentioned earlier in this thread, was Superintendent of the National Currency Bureau and directed many of these innovations. He indeed did care about such things and made such things as color a "priority back then." Each successive issue of Fractional notes grew more complex in design and the features found on the notes. Each successive issue brought entire design revisions as well. Multiple companies had to be sourced to help with the demand of printing Fractional notes. The Treasury Dept. enlisted the American Bank Note Co. to assist the NCB and later the BEP. There was pressure from private bank note companies vying to take away the business from the Treasury of printing notes at that time, but Clark pressed on the Treasury to handle the work. Certain issues of Fractionals used watermarked paper captured from the Confederacy, others used coarse fiber paper for anti-counterfeiting purposes, there were also those with silk embedded in the paper, and Clark tried experimental processes to actually improve printing techniques and ink quality on these notes, which included the bronze surcharges and other special markings placed on the notes to distinguish them. There you have a bit of history and background (a book report per say) about Fractionals gleaned from some basic information about these notes. For the OP, a couple other online resource to check out on Fractional notes: Fractional Currency.net My Fractional Notes.com
I use to have a huge collection of fractional,s and would consider myself well versed on Them the design,s may well have been complex but many notes for example: the Third Issue 50 Cent Note had 19 variations! each had it,s own KL# and Fr# What makes this kind of sad is that each note was cut by hand causing uneven edges And really odd shapes so you would really be hard pressed to find any in the 67-69 Range.
Sounds like it could be quite some scavenger hunt to attempt to locate and acquire those poorly cut notes to put them back together again as a sheet-- that'd be quite an amazing feat to accomplish even a nearly reassembled sheet-set. It's interesting that the hand cutting then has a direct effect on the grade. I'm a bit surprized to know it factors so highly in terms of grading, but then, it's not really important to strive for the highest grade listed on a chart when the highest notes known have only attained a certain level on that same chart, essentially becoming the highest grades obtainable. Regardless, that gets a bit technical and can waver into collecting labels more than the notes, something that seems to plague registry set competitors of just about any graded numismatics.
Notes were hand cut by scissors causing irregular boarders thus making the notes In to lesser grades this is one of the first things grader,s look at when grading Any note is the centering "for crying out loud man that,s grading 101"
I'm well aware that notes at one time were hand-cut with scissors. My comment was suggesting that these 'unique' cuts lend themselves to being identified as being from the same sheet, that two or more notes could be fit together if they are still in existence and laid side by side. To assemble as many notes like this as possible into a cut-sheet-set would be a serious challenge and achievement if successful. My comment about grading such hand cut notes was to say that hand cutting doesn't mean the notes weren't originally centered well during the printing. I happen to disagree with grading such notes on their centering because of the hand cutting. That is something more applicable, to me, of modern notes with automated print and finishing (cutting) operations. "for crying out loud man" attempt to get what I'm saying...
