What I noticed differently about these issues is the date of the law authorizing the issuance of banknotes (it is on the right side of the obverse).
Maybe that's why Krause chose to separate the records. Depending on how many variants there are in each record, it might even be worth joining. But if there are many variants on each page, it might be better to keep it that way and break down the pages better.
Regards,
Vladimir.
Vladimir
Catalogue Administrator and Banknote Master Referee.
We have this N#210140 white building on reverse, the others have orange building. For this N#204059 the building is white but is larger than the other.
N#418895 and N#418888 seems to be very similar the only difference I notice is the law text at right in different colour and style.
For this 2 N#418893 , N#215127 can't say anything, this should not have been approved in the first place….
We have this N#210140 white building on reverse, the others have orange building. For this N#204059 the building is white but is larger than the other.
N#418895 and N#418888 seems to be very similar the only difference I notice is the law text at right in different colour and style.
For this 2 N#418893 , N#215127 can't say anything, this should not have been approved in the first place….
I noticed now that the entrance to the lower building (the one on the right) is different.
Also the main building on the left is a bit taller, protrudes over the “Banco de Guatemala” writing…
The current arrangement is strictly by Pick number but some of the pages are very low quality. P#73 (1990-1992) and P#99 (1998) are clearly distinct. This leaves us with
All types were printed by different companies, which is probably why they are split up in Pick. There are small differences between them but these can't currently be seen due to the lack of information (and even images) on two of the pages. Good images can be found on Bank Note Museum. I'd suggest tidying up what we have and adding clear descriptions of the differences. Then we can decide if any mergers are warranted.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
The current arrangement is strictly by Pick number but some of the pages are very low quality. P#73 (1990-1992) and P#99 (1998) are clearly distinct. This leaves us with
All types were printed by different companies, which is probably why they are split up in Pick. There are small differences between them but these can't currently be seen due to the lack of information (and even images) on two of the pages. Good images can be found on Bank Note Museum. I'd suggest tidying up what we have and adding clear descriptions of the differences. Then we can decide if any mergers are warranted.
That was more or less what I meant to say 😀
Thank you for explaining what was so clear inside my head 😂
I've requested images for the two poor-quality pages and done some tidying on all four. It looks like we used to have a single page for these which was rather ineptly split up. The other denominations have also been split up, though not with so many errors. I suspect there's still a lot of work to do here.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Hello all, I am referee for Guatemala from few time, and in spite country is within my collecting range, I have not looked the pages, nor noticed the disaster on these mentioned. I agree there is work to do on them.
About merging, as suggested, I feel is better to add missing information, and then decide if merge or leave them split.
IMO the method to order in catalog is too complicated, as there are so many variables to consider for “coding” the order of them. This is the reason why different catalogs have different ordering methods, and each one have their own rules (if there are, in some cases).
In general Pick orders first by issues or group of issues; then by face value, but sometimes they split types cause of different printers, or they keep merged, most of times adding variations using a “last letter” (P# “###a”, “###b”), sometimes they group year issues on same “last letter”, or they give different variation for each year. They usually give a consecutive number for the new issues, and maybe leave some unused if they think will be one to include between (Perú P# 193 - 20 Soles 2016 & 2018; P# 194 not used; P# 195 - 100 Soles 2015; they must have guessed 50 soles would be included later; it was issued on 2018), but when they find is needed to add something they may use capital letter on already used code (Peru P# 151A was added for 20 Soles printed by IPZS on 1992, to split from P# 151 - 20 Soles by TDLR on 1991).
I think Pick was overflowed by work, when they were active, and was very possible different people took part on updates, and each one had their own idea on how to manage it.
I have two different books from Bank of Guatemala, so I will work on them to fix this pages, later we may decide that to merge or keep split.
Finally, as said, I think is very hard, if not impossible, to design a coding method that covers all collecting styles; overall I think we should start by a higher level where all notes with same general design be grouped; I mean when it is obvious they are variations of a certain design; change of issuer or country name, distribution of images and main details would mean different types. On some countries issuer gave them names to series of notes: Chile and Bolivia “familia de billetes #” - notes family #; Uruguay: Emisión 1935, Emision 1939, Serie Armónica - Issue 1935, issue 1939, harmonic series.
Then I would go for issuing date, but now the problem is many countries issue undated notes, like Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Older Uruguayan notes… and also some add the Law, Decree or Resolution of creation or authorization for issue, like Bolivia, older Uruguayan notes, Some Argentinian notes.
Also face value may be used as second level coding, as it exists on every note, and after country, is the most used data to identify.
Then, say third level, would be printers, minor details, like serial #s styles, changes or adding of security features, like threads, UV activity, signatures combinations, included titles, and overprints to modify them.
The method would be very hard to decide, and owing to different styles used on each country, I would say nearly impossible, but if we create certain rules, it may be useful for the different collecting styles.
Well, looks like I like to chat… but this is the point of forum, so we can contribute to better catalog.
Regards,
Daniel.
(to be continued)
Just 10 options: you understand binary, or you don't.
Catalog Referee Coins, Banknotes & Exonumia: Uruguay, Cuba, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, Zamunda, Parva Domus and more.
The first two notes listed by the OP have dramatically different engraved backgrounds. The second note shows a basket weave pattern, on the face, while the first note does not. Both have the same engraved backgrounds on the back note image which causes me to question the back note.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
As a rule, I am not at all in support of combining for the sake of combining. The different imprints are uniquely engraved, and we diminish the artistry and skill by lumping all notes that “look alike” to the untrained eye.
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
Vladthiengo and I are working on Guatemalan notes. We found an impressing and very detailed catalog from Guatemalan notes (only about Banco de Guatemala issues).
We also are adding the missing notes of that country and fixing and improving data.
This update will be on all the denominations, and deciding which notes must be merged (not all in one, since some have differences that make it better to keep separate.
Regards,
Vladimir and Daniel.
Just 10 options: you understand binary, or you don't.
Catalog Referee Coins, Banknotes & Exonumia: Uruguay, Cuba, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, Zamunda, Parva Domus and more.
Hello everyone! I'm going to post the images of the six types that SCWPM separated into six different reference numbers.
These (perhaps) small variations don't only occur in the 1 Quetzal notes - they also occur in the 0.50 Quetzal notes from the same periods.
I'm going to mention the difference that, for me, would be the only one that makes sense: in P#73, the background is plain; while in the others, we can see horizontal and vertical lines (lined background). Maybe, very maybe, this one could be separated from the others (which could be together in a single register).
Honestly, I don't see the orange tone on the building (as well as one being a little wider than the other) as a big difference. The printing houses are different and naturally these variations appeared.
Anyway... the images are all here, together, so that we can hear more opinions and evaluations. I thank @adanieluy for all his willingness to help in these cases in Guatemala.
Have a good week everyone!
Vladimir
P#73
P#80
P#87
P#90
P#97
P#99
Vladimir
Catalogue Administrator and Banknote Master Referee.
Please do not do this. This battle is fought again every few years.
The names of imprints are either not listed, fully written out, or have initials on the plate. The bird has green head or brown head…the date is in either red or black. The signatures are centered or off centered. The bank building has different colors. The mountains are light or dark. The serial #s are 7 digitsor 8 digits.
There is either simple back ground lines, or basketweave lines that are horizontal and vertical, or basket weave designs that are horizontal, vertical, and oblique.
Are you prepared to have all of these images in the comments, as well as the exhaustive differences apparent on each type?
I collect this series and find it ridiculous to place each type in a same listing.
I think I don't go and buy a car. I chose a specific make and model year. I don't order a steak. I chose a ribeye ,NY strip, or flank. I don't buy an apple, I buy a golden delicious, red delicious, or Fuji.
So why would I go to numista and shove my entire collection of quetzals into a single listing? I think this might be what lesser online catalogs might do. But if Numista knows better than it should do better.
This condensing of listings will cause numista to lose the war of words and will remove any appeal we have or could use to recruit experts to this platform
Rather than keep condensing, we should review and seperate listings that have been condensed.
Oklahoman
Master banknote referee
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
We musn't condense listings for the sake of condensing. We should do it when we can demonstrate that SCWPM has made an error and split up identical types. In this case, the colour of the building on the reverse clearly separates P#73 and P#99 from the others. That leaves P#80, P#87, P#90 and P#97. They are very similar but I think differences can be seen between each type, particularly on the building. If we keep the current arrangement, we need to demonstrate these difference on the pages. If we decide to combine, we need clear images showing the sub-types. For me, the differences are just enough to maintain the separate pages.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
One thing is for sure: no matter what is done, it will not please all users.
Are differences in color tones important? Yes, we cannot deny it. But in this case, since we have different printing houses, it is natural for this to happen. I only mentioned the difference in P#73, due to the design of the background and the position of the signatures. Having a different color in the date is less bad than when we have serial numbers with different colors (and we have several and several cases of registration together, just to explain this variation).
Do I agree with mixing several types? In most cases, no. We here are experienced collectors and of course we are able to see the differences between similar issues. Our eyes are trained. But is Numista a catalog only for this type of collector, or can we reach more people who are not as experienced? Would a collector who is just starting out be able to quickly identify his different type?
For this specific example, we still have the date in each different subtype, which makes identification much easier. But we have some cases in which it is very difficult to identify a subtype.
Our analysis needs to be detached from the SCWPM separation, which is what we are used to (and this is a fact). Let's continue to argue and listen to opinions.
Regards,
Vladimir
Vladimir
Catalogue Administrator and Banknote Master Referee.
Hi everyone, I'm the guy that started it all with my proposal 😀
I'm surely one of those "inexperienced" collectors who don't recognize differences… moreover, I don't want to, I mean : I collect banknotes just for fun, by type, I don't have money to spend on every single banknote type just because the printer got out of bed wanting to change a single detail keeping the rest of the design intact.
I frankly don't care if the building in the back of one type has a shadow that the other banknote doesn't have, I don't care if the bird has a different plumage than another one.
That is, except if there are serious historical motivations behind - for example, the change of a ruler, or a political party, or a régime.
sometimes I wonder “why did they put different issues entries without any logical reason ?”
one example for all is the following note :
Please note that the P# number is the same for all 3; they are literally the same banknote - why should I collect the one without black wire or the third one, to the bottom ?
Differences literally are :
are signatures combinations an important detail, enough to create different types ? In my opinion, no, they're not.
yet, the 100 Francs is way funnier - we even have 4 types !! (the P# number is the same for 3 out of 4) :
now I'll explain the opposite reasoning : Romania coins, for example, even if quite identical, need to be collected all, because I read that, in those years, there were many changes, like the denomination of the Country, political changes and whatever, I don't remember now.
One is brass, another aluminium, another has a star, another doesn't have, another has a different reading, etc… all those changes were for a SPECIFIC reason, and it is historically significant to collect them all :
of course, I tell it for the sake of clarity, I don't mind if the vast majority decides to do 34 entries for the same banknote : I simply X cross the ones I don't want, like I did for the 20 Francs, and that's fine by me in any case 😉
First sentence of Vladimir is the only nobody can argue ("One thing is for sure: no matter what is done, it will not please all users."); maybe it should be the 11th. Commandment (Please nobody feel offended, it's just a joke 😬).
I have browsed loads of catalogs, and I notice the assign of the codes, and thus the structure and order of the catalogue is based on three basic rules:
1) Group of variations of obvious similar basic design: The different date issues, printers, change of typography, color tones, etc. are just variations.
2) Strict differentiation: Minimal differences make them a separate item, printers, typography, change of secondary elements, color of signatures, number, series, even change of issuing dates may split the coding.
3) Dice throwing: Sometimes mayor variants are grouped, while other subtle changes are split.
I don't think any of them be wrong (at least 1 and 2), and they have pros and cons for each collector, depending on their collecting style.
1) Pros: Most appropriate for collectors of types, they can determine easily when they have at least one item of the type or not.
Cons: Complicated for Marathon collectors, they need to inspect every variation described, to see if they already have it.
2) Pros: The best for variant collectors, easier for them to check, while they have the same criterion of what must be considered a difference as the author of catalog.
Cons: For collector of types, they need to browse several pages to see if they have at least one of them.
3) Pros: Easier for catalog author.
Cons: More complicated for collectors; they need to decide by themselves what and how to collect.
I know how feels using each type of catalog, as I collect on different styles, depending on the country, so I think at end, coding will be perfect only to author of catalog.
On my opinion, Numista catalog will be useful if we tend to a middle point, where it fits to average collecting styles of users, and give them the best, more accurate and complete information that is possible.
Keep tuned, congratulations and angry comments will come soon.
Regards,
Daniel.
Just 10 options: you understand binary, or you don't.
Catalog Referee Coins, Banknotes & Exonumia: Uruguay, Cuba, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, Zamunda, Parva Domus and more.
First sentence of Vladimir is the only nobody can argue ("One thing is for sure: no matter what is done, it will not please all users."); maybe it should be the 11th. Commandment (Please nobody feel offended, it's just a joke 😬).
I have browsed loads of catalogs, and I notice the assign of the codes, and thus the structure and order of the catalogue is based on three basic rules:
1) Group of variations of obvious similar basic design: The different date issues, printers, change of typography, color tones, etc. are just variations.
2) Strict differentiation: Minimal differences make them a separate item, printers, typography, change of secondary elements, color of signatures, number, series, even change of issuing dates may split the coding.
3) Dice throwing: Sometimes mayor variants are grouped, while other subtle changes are split.
I don't think any of them be wrong (at least 1 and 2), and they have pros and cons for each collector, depending on their collecting style.
1) Pros: Most appropriate for collectors of types, they can determine easily when they have at least one item of the type or not.
Cons: Complicated for Marathon collectors, they need to inspect every variation described, to see if they already have it.
2) Pros: The best for variant collectors, easier for them to check, while they have the same criterion of what must be considered a difference as the author of catalog.
Cons: For collector of types, they need to browse several pages to see if they have at least one of them.
3) Pros: Easier for catalog author.
Cons: More complicated for collectors; they need to decide by themselves what and how to collect.
I know how feels using each type of catalog, as I collect on different styles, depending on the country, so I think at end, coding will be perfect only to author of catalog.
On my opinion, Numista catalog will be useful if we tend to a middle point, where it fits to average collecting styles of users, and give them the best, more accurate and complete information that is possible.
Keep tuned, congratulations and angry comments will come soon.
Regards,
Daniel.
Totally agree with You.
PS : Hope nobody gets offended by my upper reply, I was just being sarcastic/ironic 🙏
I gave ample reasons why the notes should remain on their own pages. imprints, initials, absence of imprints, background lines, serial numbers, colors of the birds, buildings, pyramids… never mind the convenient lack of discussion as to whether this would short circuits the search function. What catalog number will the bloated page be assigned? How many times will people recreate and submit a new page because they can no longer find their note through searches?
The notes are unique by Pick. That's why they had their own pages. The uniqueness is visible to the naked eye. It is not just theoretical.
Leave well enough alone. Krause did not make a mistake in this situation. However, Numista will if they condense the listings.
Oklahoman
Master banknote referee
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
I gave ample reasons why the notes should remain on their own pages. imprints, initials, absence of imprints, background lines, serial numbers, colors of the birds, buildings, pyramids… never mind the convenient lack of discussion as to whether this would short circuits the search function. What catalog number will the bloated page be assigned? How many times will people recreate and submit a new page because they can no longer find their note through searches?
The notes are unique by Pick. That's why they had their own pages. The uniqueness is visible to the naked eye. It is not just theoretical.
Leave well enough alone. Krause did not make a mistake in this situation. However, Numista will if they condense the listings.
Oklahoman
Master banknote referee
Please tell me, if Pick (which I must assume P# stands for) is the reference catalogue for banknotes, why are there different listings for the French banknotes I showed You ?
Shouldn't we decide ONE single cataloging system and adhere to it, no matter what ?
Please discuss French notes and catalog in a different thread. This one is about Guatemala. Pick is the most widely used catalog in the world. That being said, the French use a different catalog, and organize it differently. The Russians like things a certain way, Brazil does, Bolivia does a certain way. I think it would be great if numista became the world standard, but not if we are going to shoehorn everything into single listings…
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
I don't really mind if a catalog merges many varieties, or if is split in thin slices, while the descriptions are good and accurate, and, of course if it fills muy expectations.
Numista is not Pick, in fact we give load more information, and when we have mistakes, we fix them. But this is not new to you. I would not waste my time to make a catalog identical to Pick.
All what we are doing is trying to follow the Guidelines for the catalog, in the best way we can do it.
For other readers, I repeat what is stated there:
“Similar banknote types are listed on separate pages in certain cases. The same type of banknote may include several varieties, the differences of which do not constitute the basis for the creation of a new page.”
Cases mentioned to split:
"Banknote types are split on independent pages when they feature:
Different materials,
Differences in physical dimensions,
Significant design differences visible to the naked eye in daylight:
Differences in the design of a device, or the presence or absence of a design device,
Differences in the orientation, size, or position, or colour of a device,
Different security features, including different watermark designs, except for different watermark patterns.
Different lettering or overprints,
Trial runs,
Different printing processes, but not different printers with the same process."
Cases
"The same type may include:
Different dates
Different printers that use the same process, but not different printing processes
Lettering and font variations, only when they refer to the date, signatory titles, imprint, serial number, or engraver
Different signatures
Different serial numbers or serial number formats
Different catalogue reference numbers
Small and unintended size and shape variations, especially for hand-cut banknotes
Minor and unsignificant changes to the design (for example, small colour or alignment variations)
Different security features, when they result in no visible changes to the naked eye in daylight
Different issues (for example, regular issues, replacements, specimens, unissued remainders, and proofs)"
I omitted de examples to make it shorter, but they can be seen HERE
Note: about the difference of color, it is specified “of a device”, I understand as different color, not just different tone. I mention it cause sometimes is not easy to determine a tone; there are variations on how scanners and cameras work, so tones may vary, and also the image processing may modify it, the amount of circulation of a note, how it was handled, also may vary the tone of colors; even in notes from the same batch sometimes subtle variations may be found.
Again, I am not trying to teach you how to make things, is your job to guide us, the referees; but the mention of the Guidelines is to show we are trying to follow them; and, of course we may do mistakes.
We will keep thinking about, and hearing opinions, and of course, Numista team guide will be welcome.
Just 10 options: you understand binary, or you don't.
Catalog Referee Coins, Banknotes & Exonumia: Uruguay, Cuba, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, Zamunda, Parva Domus and more.
I see no point in arguing further. if a bird with a red head vs birds with green heads are ok, or buildings that are different colors are ok, or the three different arrangements of lines in the background are ok, or no concerns that the search algorithm is impacted, or that collectors statistics and green checks are disregarded…
Do any of you actually have these notes in hand? Because I do. I feel like you are disregarding everything I said and can see with my naked eye. This should not be a vote.
Please do not condense these pages. It will just need correcting at a later date when people who actually own the notes look at them and marvel that they were even condensed in the first place.
For the record, the imprint, and initials of the imprint should be enough to cause different pages. Every list of differences exist because each print house carves its own plates, sources its own substrate, and sources its own ink. Those are all things visible to the naked eye. We should not think we are making things better by forcing different notes into bloated pages.
Oklahoman
Master Banknote Referee
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
Merge when need it and that is it. I gave up fighting a long time ago. But let's say you do. How many different pages will result from this?
Hi, Allexis.
From my point of view (which is not the only one and far from being the one that will determine anything), I would divide these six issues into two pages. At most, three. But we are still reading and gathering more information about it.
Allexis, don't be discouraged... you are a good observer and great at the contributions you make to the catalog. =)
Best,
Vladimir.
Vladimir
Catalogue Administrator and Banknote Master Referee.
I gave ample reasons why the notes should remain on their own pages. imprints, initials, absence of imprints, background lines, serial numbers, colors of the birds, buildings, pyramids… never mind the convenient lack of discussion as to whether this would short circuits the search function. What catalog number will the bloated page be assigned? How many times will people recreate and submit a new page because they can no longer find their note through searches?
The notes are unique by Pick. That's why they had their own pages. The uniqueness is visible to the naked eye. It is not just theoretical.
Leave well enough alone. Krause did not make a mistake in this situation. However, Numista will if they condense the listings.
Hello, Oklahoman.
As for user searches, there will be no problem. All pick codes will appear in the page registration (currently we can put several codes for the same registration).
Regarding small nuances of color or small differences, I think it has already been discussed above.
We do not have a verdict yet, but having different Pick codes is not an impediment to having them together in the same registration.
Regards,
Vladimir.
Vladimir
Catalogue Administrator and Banknote Master Referee.
Merge when need it and that is it. I gave up fighting a long time ago. But let's say you do. How many different pages will result from this?
Hi, Allexis.
From my point of view (which is not the only one and far from being the one that will determine anything), I would divide these six issues into two pages. At most, three. But we are still reading and gathering more information about it.
Allexis, don't be discouraged... you are a good observer and great at the contributions you make to the catalog. =)
Best,
Vladimir.
Leaving aside the differences Oklahoman speaks about there are still 3 clear types visible. Large building, smaller building and oramge building.
If we can provide a simple list of the differences for each of these types, we can use that as the basis for retaining the types according to P#. If we can't, then we need to consider merging. Here's my attempt:
P#73 - White building, single door
P#80 - Brown building, left-hand tree top above mountain
P#87 - Brown building, left-hand tree top below mountain
P#90 - Brown building, left-hand tree top above mountain
P#97 - Brown building, left-hand tree top below mountain
P#99 - White building, multiple doors
As you can see, I'm struggling to see any definable differences between P#80 and P#90, nor between P#87 and P#97. I can't see any differences between the birds' heads or the pyramids for these pairs. If anyone else can, please edit my list. Regarding allexis's point, P#80 and P#90 were printed by the same company, FC Oberthur, so perhaps we should expect them to have used the same plates?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
I say merge 80 and 90, also 87 and 97. The rest should have their own pages.
On the current evidence, I would support this. If it's done, we need a good explanation on each page. It might help if we remove the text concerning Orellana that's repeated on all of them.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
That type of comment I've seen on alot of pages. Has nothing to do with the banknote itself. You want to know more about a person on a banknote use Google.
Got it. Going to do what they wanted in the first place in spite of facts and what can be seen by the naked eye.
Allexis...it can be fixed someday when others are referees …
The current proposal is to combine P#80 and 90 into one page, and P#87 and 97 into another, far less than the original proposal. What can be seen by the naked eye that is being ignored? As far as I can see, P#80 and P#90 differ in the horizontal position of the signatures and the date of authorization text. P#87 and P#97 differ in the date of authorization text and the width of the serial number. If those are the only differences, combining them makes sense. If I've missed something, please tell us what it is.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Η κατάσταση άλλαξε σε Ολοκληρώθηκε.(Jarcek, 1 Σεπ 2025, 08:34)
Η κατάσταση άλλαξε σε Ανοιγμένο.(Jarcek, 1 Σεπ 2025, 08:35)
The current proposal is to combine P#80 and 90 into one page, and P#87 and 97 into another, far less than the original proposal. What can be seen by the naked eye that is being ignored? As far as I can see, P#80 and P#90 differ in the horizontal position of the signatures and the date of authorization text. P#87 and P#97 differ in the date of authorization text and the width of the serial number. If those are the only differences, combining them makes sense. If I've missed something, please tell us what it is.
I've been talking to Daniel about the topic of this forum. For now, there will be no merging of the pages. Even though very small, there are differences in the most recent 1 Quetzal (and other) issues that, even though very minor, we believe can be kept on separate pages.
Thank you to everyone who commented on these issues. We can discuss some things here again in the future regarding Guatemalan banknotes. =)
Regards,
Vladimir
Vladimir
Catalogue Administrator and Banknote Master Referee.
Η κατάσταση άλλαξε σε Απερρίφθη.(vladthiengo, 28 Νοέ 2025, 18:55)
P#73
P#80
P#87
P#90
P#97
P#99
P#73
P#80
P#87
P#90
P#97
P#99
