Options
How do you feel about Nationals without signatures?
Constantine
Posts: 2,351 ✭✭✭
Please discuss as I am curious to what you guys think. I am talking about notes that were unsigned, not faded. Thanks!
0
Constantine
Posts: 2,351 ✭✭✭
Comments
Bernie
Always looking for material from the Niagara river region.
Please discuss as I am curious to what you guys think. I am talking about notes that were unsigned, not faded. Thanks!
Constantine, I am not a Nationals collector so I suppose these would be called 'remainders'?
If the note is unsigned and the note is rare/very desirable does it really matter? Heck, I can
remember buying U.S. Obsolete remainders for $5-$20 and now they are being "slabbed" and sold for many $$$; maybe this will happen to Nationals.
Looking for CU $1 FRN 20160523 - any series or block. Please PM
Retired
Bernie
Always looking for material from the Niagara river region.
Very few large size Nationals ever made it out into circulation that were not signed. Many notes have faded or lost signatures over the years due to type of ink used, wear, and washing or having become wet ( intentionally and otherwise.)
+1 in general but there are exceptions. I know of 2 banks in "my" area what where unsigned nationals in high grade are encountered from time to time. One is the 3rd title of 12220. Local lore suggests that the bankers were so tightfisted that they diluted the ink to overprint sigs (many do in fact have very light violet sigs) and also issued some with no sigs at all. I have two $5s on the bank (bought in the day for cheap) that are high grade with absolutely no evidence that sigs were ever applied.
The other is 6924 (O'Fallon IL) where there is a small group of basically unc 3rd charter $20s with no sigs. I think these may have been found at some point when the vault was being cleaned out, perhaps due to the bank's move and were dispersed, ending up in the hands of collectors. I have a few $5 and $10s on this bank with nice sigs that were both autographed and stamped but haven't felt the need to buy one of the unsigned 20s to complete the "set."
My interest in nationals is as much to do with the banks' personalities as with the currency so I don't find unsigned notes appealing and generally avoid buying them unless they are very cheap or from a scarce/rare bank. I am more than happy to have a nice signed XF or even clean VF than an unsigned, technically CU note.
Just MHO.
Very few large size Nationals ever made it out into circulation that were not signed. Many notes have faded or lost signatures over the years due to type of ink used, wear, and washing or having become wet ( intentionally and otherwise.)
Also, I could see it happening out of necessity. If cash was needed and officers weren't in town that day, notes without signatures might have been paid out by necessity, even if not proper and/or legal.
Since they are rare and unusual, I could even see some valuing these at a premium, although many other collectors appear to disagree. I probably wouldn't want to pay a premium but I might not discount such a note, either.
As noted, the vast majority of signatureless notes once had signatures but they have faded. I think that we all agree that such notes are worth less than those with clear signatures.
Re Constantine's note above, does or will PCGS (or PGM) indicate "Unsigned" on the holder? If you ask will they? Inasmuch as the discussion mentions fading or washing of sigs, when the grader gets one of these it would be helpful to have the attribution on it. Or not?
Vietnam Vet 1968-1969
Interesting. I don't collect them but am tempted.
Re Constantine's note above, does or will PCGS (or PGM) indicate "Unsigned" on the holder? If you ask will they? Inasmuch as the discussion mentions fading or washing of sigs, when the grader gets one of these it would be helpful to have the attribution on it. Or not?
Unless one knew the source of a note (eg bank hoard) or it is in very high grade, I think it could be very difficult to tell the difference in most cases. In addition to wear, some notes were laundered, both at the time and since, and the ink used for some stamped sigs could have easily disappeared as a result. Consequently, "missing signatures" would seem to be a more accurate designation rather than "unsigned" in most cases since the latter would generally be speculative. Just mho.
I would guess that it's possible that nationals could be put into circulation without signatures by mistake and this might account for some.
Also, I could see it happening out of necessity. If cash was needed and officers weren't in town that day, notes without signatures might have been paid out by necessity, even if not proper and/or legal. .
In terms of legality, I don't remember exactly when it occurred but in the late 1800s the Comptroller reversed their position and made it permissible to stamp/overprint sigs rather than autograph them. The Comptroller also made unsigned notes the obligation of the issuing bank which effectively meant that it was perfectly legal to issue them without sigs. I don't recall seeing evidence that any bank actually did that routinely tho.