I just got a new banknote from Jordan and I noticed something different. The numbers didn't match. I thought that this was an error for just about a second and then I thought I had better compare the other notes in this new series as well. Sure enough, my suspicion was right. The newer series from 2002 on has a slightly different order to the matching serial numbers on the dface of the note. The first two characters are transposed on each of the three new design notes that I have. Here's an example: Just thought I'd share it with whoever might find this interesting.
Resu Eman,that's a very interesting error you've depicted.I can't read the Arabic prefix,but the number is 239736.I used the number chart in my battered copy of the 1981 Krause catalogue. Aidan.
you've just noticed one of the interesting aspects of written arabic. when arabic is read, it's always read from right to left...opposite of how we always read english starting on the left side and finishing on the right. with the newer design, one of the serials took a vertical format. in that format, it's read from top to bottom. these rules don't apply to numbers though...numbers are always read from left to right and top to bottom, just like we read ours.
I think he means that 12345679 on the left is 123456798 on the right :-D (Just wanted to note- thats NOT a typo I made! Look carefully!)
according to his images, he has serial number 239736 in both images. the only thing that is "reversed" are the prefix letters. i'll describe them as looking like "bE". it only looks reversed to us because we're only used to reading a particular direction. it's a perfectly normal looking note to arabs, and nothing is out of the ordinary.
I knew about the text being read right to left andbottom to top, but I didn't know about the direction of the numbers being read the same - thanks. But I still think it is a strange change in their serial numbering scheme even if it is only the prefix. Take a closer look at them - one is written in order for a left to right - top to bottom reader.... the other is not. Just seems 'different' to me. I don't think it an error, as all the notes in this series are in the same format. Thanks for all the input, guys!
