1988-11-24 note with different UV activity

Does anyone have a November 1988 version of this note? Can you check it under UV and tell me if it has the central fluorescent flower like the other years?

This is my May 1988 note:

I got a November 1988 note today that doesn't have the yellow fluorescent flower, it has the green fluorescence and the fibres only. I am wondering if that was a mistake or a deliberate change.

Here's the November 1988 note:

I bought a second November 1988 note and it is the same, no central flower fluorescence. How strange!

This may be an example of a point at which UV activity was being introduced to the particular banknote issue mid-way through a design.

The interesting part here is that the previous issues all have the UV flower: May 1988, 1987, 1986.

But the November 1988 does not have it.

Is it on later issues?

That November 1988 date is the last one in this series. I have two notes with the same signatures and the UV isn't on those.

There are six notes issued with that same date and different signatures though. 

Definitely interesting.

It would be useful to check an example of every date (and to check through a random bundle of a thousand or so notes - not really feasible though).
Also would be useful to check replacement notes.

The notes without UV features could be older stock left over which was used up on the last date, or stock set aside for use as hand-numbered replacement notes, which would also be generally older, which were used to replace errors after the notes had been cut down into single banknotes.

It could also be an error in printing that missed the UV stage.

I'll post all the ones that don't have that central UV flower here, beginning with these two

I'm going to get some more of those November 1988 notes, the other signature varieties.

Those two are from different sellers and they have different serial prefixes. 

Something else I just found: all the notes I have except the November 1988 examples have red and blue fibres in the paper. 

The November 1988 notes don't have the red fibres (so far).

Today I got the last of the other dates: the 1987 December variety. That one has the expected UV appearance and also the red fibres.

So it is only the November 1988 notes involved. Strange!

The issue is confined to the last date.  It would be more strange if it was not confined to a single date.

I got another three notes today, they are different signatures from 1986, May 1988 and November 1988.

Unfortunately the November 1988 note is going to be returned because it has glue or some other residue on it, nevertheless the UV appearances of these three notes matches what I found already.

The November 1988 note has no flower fluorescing and has no red fibres in the paper.

I will get one more 1988 November note, a third signature type and if that also doesn't change, I'll have to assume they are all alike under UV.

Counterfeit perhaps?

Not counterfeit. I have bought three of the November 1988 notes from three different sellers and they have three different prefixes. All three have the same UV appearance. The UV rose is missing and the red fibres in the paper are missing. To me, it looks like all of these notes with that date will have the same appearances under UV.

If you have checked several notes with a random spread of serial numbers, then I think it is unlikely to be an error in the UV active inking stage. I wonder if specimen notes of this design include the UV features.