"Remainder" (i.e., unsigned or partially-signed) notes have long been considered to be the “poor relations” of fully-issued notes, perhaps with some justification. However, I’m beginning to wonder whether we should consider removing the “stigma” attached to remainder notes.
I’ve attached an image of a rather nice AU/UNC Westmorland Bank one-signature remainder note for discussion purposes. It is identical in all respects to a fully-issued note except for (1) the absence of a second ink signature at the left-hand side, and (2) the fact that the condition is far superior to any fully-issued note likely to be encountered(!)
This note was evidently “ready to go”, i.e., it had been pre-signed by the Bank President and was ready to be signed by a cashier and released to the general public but it didn’t quite make it out of the
front door of the bank. I’m beginning to wonder why the
“actually issued to the general public” criterion should carry so much weight with regard to the historical significance, deemed desirability, and financial value of any particular note.
Personally speaking, I would much prefer an AU/UNC one-signature note to a heavily circulated two-signature note although I fully appreciate that others may disagree with me, and some may disagree strongly. However, my personal feeling is that the “desirability factor” goes up exponentially because of the superb condition and that this would more than compensate for the lack of a second signature.
More to the point, perhaps, are we collecting notes as historical artifacts or are we more interested in the ink signatures appearing on the notes?!
What say you??
« Last Edit: February 13, 2007, 09:48:43 pm by BWJM »
Logged
" Buy the very best notes that you can afford and keep them for at least 10 years. " (Richard D. Lockwood, private communication, 1978).
