Home Q & A Forum

Obsolete currencies

Greetings I am new to the forum and the hobby. Looking for any information on this banknot

e I have.

Comments

  • Namvet69Namvet69 Posts: 9,263 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Omnihemoic Welcome, carefully remove note from pouch and take in focus pics, for best feedback. Good luck. Peace Roy

    BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW

  • I included some better quality macro pics, I hope this helps.



  • @Namvet69 said:
    @Omnihemoic Welcome, carefully remove note from pouch and take in focus pics, for best feedback. Good luck. Peace Roy

    I posted better pics. Please take a look.

  • element159element159 Posts: 546 ✭✭✭

    Thanks for posting better pictures. I am not familiar with Utah currency, but I suspect that yours is a more modern fantasy, and not an actual issued note.
    According to Don Kelly, Obsolete Paper Money, the Great Salt Lake City Corporation did indeed issue notes, and some of them looked kind of like this one. But Kelly does not list a $3, or anything with that Emery County rock formation vignette. The fact that yours has a printed serial number, date, and (I think) signature is not typical of obsolete notes, and does not seem to be the case in the notes with photos in Kelly. (The photos in that book are not very large, and do not show the back). Based on this, I am very suspicious that you have a genuine issue. It would be nice to look at a more thorough Utah reference though.

  • JBKJBK Posts: 16,424 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The signatures and other elements that should be in ink look like they are printed like the rest of the note.

    Also, the tears and wear at the fold also don't look right right to me. Yes, an authentic banknote can tear and wear but this looks like cheaper paper than what would be used for a real banknote.

    These are just my random observations, not expert opinions.

  • GreenstangGreenstang Posts: 1,395 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 10, 2025 5:00PM

    The number 8 should be in ink and the date and signature should be faded as these were
    hand written in ink which would fade over the years.

  • @element159 said:
    Thanks for posting better pictures. I am not familiar with Utah currency, but I suspect that yours is a more modern fantasy, and not an actual issued note.
    According to Don Kelly, Obsolete Paper Money, the Great Salt Lake City Corporation did indeed issue notes, and some of them looked kind of like this one. But Kelly does not list a $3, or anything with that Emery County rock formation vignette. The fact that yours has a printed serial number, date, and (I think) signature is not typical of obsolete notes, and does not seem to be the case in the notes with photos in Kelly. (The photos in that book are not very large, and do not show the back). Based on this, I am very suspicious that you have a genuine issue. It would be nice to look at a more thorough Utah reference though.

    It's a bummer to say I agree with you but still interesting either way. Just on side note the paper feels very similar to today's circulated money and there is a very clear what seems to me like a watermark. However I will file this one under educational. I certainly appreciate your thorough answer and your time.

  • @Greenstang said:
    The number 8 should be in ink and the date and signature should be faded as these were
    hand written in ink which would fade over the years.

    Would crossover points in the signature appear darker the same as it printed? I only ask so I know what to look for in the future...

  • @JBK said:
    The signatures and other elements that should be in ink look like they are printed like the rest of the note.

    Also, the tears and wear at the fold also don't look right right to me. Yes, an authentic banknote can tear and wear but this looks like cheaper paper than what would be used for a real banknote.

    These are just my random observations, not expert opinions.

    So by definition this would be a counterfeit banknote correct? And has there been any other known example?

  • JBKJBK Posts: 16,424 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think of a counterfeit mostly as a forgery meant to circulate, or to fool modern collectors. This could be a more modern reproduction or even a fantasy note (not a copy of a real note) as suggested above.

    You could post this in the Currency section of the forum and they will likely know more.

Sign In or Register to comment.