Provincial Bank or Bank of Hindostan?

Investigation Report by Nilaish


CASE OF FALSIFICATION OF INDIAN PAPER MONEY HISTORY

Anthony passed a message on social media (facebook) on 11th Feb. 2016, 16:35 hrs from Dubai:

Bank of Hindostan / Provincial Bank.

Message from Ramkumar:

For people who don’t know me, I am Ramkumar from Dubai, a collector and a researcher of Indian Paper Money. Since I don’t use FB, I asked Anthony to send this message on behalf of me.

The topic of PMG Certifying PROVINCIAL BANK note as Indian note, and whether PROVINCIAL BANK note has any relationship with Indian paper money are two different topics to discuss.

As I said in my previous message via Anthony, the responsibility of PMG is to ensure the note is Authentic and to determine the grade of this note. As for as Pick # is concern, they are totally relaying on the information’s provided by catalogers. Since NO catalog has listed this note, except IPM 2000 (as additional info) and 2012 edition (as pick), they used that reference. This is clarified by PMG in their reply to Mr Rezwan’s email. Prince Jaiswal has mentioned that he is going to send the note back to PMG for re stabbing, and lets wait for the result.

A request to Prince Jaiswal: Kindly share the new stab info in this group, for knowledge purpose.

Now, Does this note have any relationship with Indian paper money?. My answer is YES. This note is very important, because it is reveling information about the FIRST INDIAN BANKNOTE. We all know, BANK OF HINDOSTAN was the first bank to issue banknotes in the year was 1770. Unfortunately NO notes have been survived, or I can say, not sighted by a collector or a researcher till now.

Testing a bank note on a watermark paper of a totally unrelated bank or country, is a common practice by the printers to see the effect of the note in different conditions. It has happened in India as well.

In Page# 534 / Pick# 14.10 of Jhun/RR book, you can see a Queen Victoria portrait, Bank of England 5 Pounds note which was tested on a watermark paper of Government of India, 5 Rupees. (Foreign note on Indian Watermark)

In Page# 529 / Pick# 14.3, you can see a Bank of Hindostan note printed on Watermark paper of OSWESTRY BANK (Indian note on Foreign bank watermark)

Also French Indo China notes were designed based on the designs of FRENCH INDIA notes. I remember seeing a FRENCH INDIA 10 Rupees note, which was altered by pen in Chinese language, to create the basic design of FRENCH INDO CHINA note. Mr Rezwan is having a specimen of it.

PROVINCIAL BANK, looks like a familiar name, but There is NO bank by name PROVINCIAL BANK exist till 1997. The year is not a typo error, it was established just 19 years back. There are many banks by name ‘XXXX PROVINCIAL BANK’ or ‘PROVINCIAL BANK OF XXXX’, But not just PROVINCIAL BANK. That’s why there is no Pick# available for this note under World Paper money Catalog, or any other recognized catalog under any country. So far, the only note from this bank that have been noted is 5 Pounds without date, which is printed on a Bank of Hindostan watermark paper or on a banknote paper WITHOUT watermark. Hence, the bank called PROVINCIAL BANK should be an imaginary bank for test purpose ONLY.
The assumption in this case is, in 1770’s British decided to create bank notes for India, and the name finalized as BANK OF HINDOSTAN. Irrespective of denominations and the size of the notes, the watermark is going to be the same. Hence would have produced watermark paper, before the designing of the notes. Since this is going to be the first note for India, they would have used the fictitious PROVINCIAL BANK, 5 Pounds to check the effect of watermark. Later they designed the FIRST INDIAN NOTE, similar to 4/10/20 Sicca Rupees as per Jhun / RR book page # 12, Pick# 1A.1.1.1 to 1A.1.1.3. If you compare the design of this pick and the Provincial Bank 5 Pounds note, you can easily make out that Provincial Banknote should be the base for creating this pick. I don’t have any confirmed evidence about this story, but this is just a logical assumption. Any of you can come up with a different assumption as well.

Not sure how many of you would have noted, If you compare the Pick Numbers of any notes in Jhun 2000 edition and Jhun/RR 2012 edition, mostly it will be the same, except the chapter number added as prefix, so that any software can use this unique pick number as a primary key. But this note was classified as THIRD TYPE in Jhun 2000 edition and FIRST TYPE in Jhun/RR 2012 edition.

I hope Mr Rezwan remember this. I was in Mr. Rezwan’s office at that time, along with Kishore Jhunjhunwalla, and when we discussed the hot topic of which type should come first under BANK OF HINDOSTAN. On the basis of PROVINCIAL BANK note printed on BANK OF HINDOSTAN watermark paper, we discussed all possibilities and finalized that logically THIRD type in the old book should be the FIRST type in the revised edition. In the whole chapter of Private Banknotes, no other types have been interchanged in the revised edition, except BANK OF HINDOSTAN. Hence the PROVINCIAL BANK note is the start of Indian Paper Money History.

I have attached images from both old and the new book, that are related to this topic.

Your comments are welcome.

Regards,
Ramkumar.

PICTURES USED: 

1

2

3

4

Images are used from books:

1, 2, 3 from:

Razack, R., Jhunjhunwalla, K. (2012) The revised standard reference guide to Indian Paper Money, Currencies & Coins, Mumbai. 

4 from:

Jhunjhunwalla, K. (2000) The standard reference guide to Indian paper money, Currencies & Coins, Mumbai. 

Final PMG Slabbing! 

PMG's certification remains challenged and a close scrutiny

Image Courtesy: Prince Kumar Jaiswal  

Issues:

1. A similar example:

Date of Auction: 06/09/2015. 

Auction 150

Category: English Banknotes. 

Lot 140: Provincial Bank Trial proof, an ornate William Congreve design issued ca. 1820. Estimate: GBP 120. This makes the situation very clear that, this Provincial Banknote is trial proof made by William Congreve, who is a noted known English engraver for banknotes in UK. However, the design of Bank of Hindostan notes with colourful ornates and Mahout, was engraved by Harry Ashby. This concludes the matter that, this proof has no relation with Bank of Hindostan or Indian Paper Money. However, the case shown here is based on the assumption that Provincial Bank never existed, is a wrong statement to believe. To refer the information please click here!  

2. Rezwan Razack (Chairman, IBNS-IBCC) replied in the post: 

The information conveyed by Ramkumar, on the PMG Certification of the 5 Pounds note of Provincial Bank as an Indian Banknote and his explanation and understanding of this is incorrect. Any novice can definitely say that a banknote denominated in Pounds is not for India.

Ramkumar’s admission on the responsibilities of a Grading Company:
1. Authenticity.
2. Grade.
3. Country of Origin.
4. Bank.
5. Denomination.
6. Type or Reference Number.

When he states the Pick #, does he mean a reference number? The Revised Standard Reference Guide to Indian Paper Money has unique Type numbers without any reference to Pick #s.

He has stated “Since NO catalog has listed this note, except IPM 2000 (as additional info) and 2012 edition (as pick), they used that reference”.

Ramkumar agrees:
a. That the Provincial Bank does not exist.
b. That is it not listed in any other catalogue.
c. PMG has erred using 2012 edition of IPM as Pick #

He states, “Does this note have any relationship with Indian paper money?. My answer is YES. This note is very important, because it is reveling information about the FIRST INDIAN BANKNOTE. We all know, BANK OF HINDOSTAN was the first bank to issue banknotes in the year was 1770. Unfortunately NO notes have been survived, or I can say, not sighted by a collector or a researcher till now.”

It is understood that no banknotes of Bank of Hindostan of 1770 are known to have survived to be seen by any Collector or Researcher till date. How could Ramkumar arrive at the conclusion that this Provincial Bank note of 5 Pounds graded by PMG reveals information about the first Indian Banknote or its connection with Bank of Hindostan? More importantly, the technique of Multicoloured Banknotes came into existence in only 1820.

He states, “Testing a bank note on a watermark paper of a totally unrelated bank or country, is a common practice by the printers to see the effect of the note in different conditions. It has happened in India as well.” Does he mean “Trial Prints” when he says “testing”? The various reasons for printers to make samples or trial prints is aptly explained by Phillipa Hubbard in the British Museum website. You can read this explanation http://www.britishmuseum.org/.../perkins_security...

He writes, “The assumption in this case is, in 1770’s British decided to create bank notes for India, and the name finalized as BANK OF HINDOSTAN.” and “Since this is going to be the first note for India, they would have used the fictitious PROVINCIAL BANK, 5 Pounds to check the effect of watermark. Later they designed the FIRST INDIAN NOTE, similar to 4/10/20 Sicca Rupees..”
This assumption is incorrect because the Provincial Bank trial notes were printed from 1820 onwards and was never the first trial note for India /Bank of Hindostan. Ramkumar himself has agreed “fictitious PROVINCIAL BANK, 5 Pounds”

Ramkumar also writes, “Irrespective of denominations and the size of the notes, the watermark is going to be the same. Hence would have produced watermark paper, before the designing of the notes.”
I am not sure from where this information was sourced.

“If you compare the Pick Numbers of any notes in Jhun 2000 edition and Jhun/RR 2012 edition,”
The Pick numbers were never referred to in ‘The Revised Reference Guide to Indian Paper Money’. Only ‘Type Numbers’ have been provided.

I am not getting into the debate on Ramkumar’s references of other occurrences in quoted in ‘The Revised Reference Guide to Indian Paper Money’ as they are not relevant to this debate.

With this I conclude,
a. The Provincial Banknote of 5 Pounds is an English Banknote.
b. It is a trial print post 1820 on unwatermarked paper.
c. This particular note certified by PMG is erroneously certified by PMG as an Indian banknote.
d. The PMG certification requires to be corrected.

3. The Provincial Bank, 5 Pounds proof in question:

Please check the illustrated design. 

This illustrated pictures are well explained. In the Provincial Bank note trial the right side oval frame has Coat of Arms of Congreve with information page no. 221 of book, "The General Armory of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales... by Sir Bernard Burke: "Congreve, crest, A falcon wings expanded over it." I am sure that people can add more to it. I will give a brief essay on this topic. But still my deduction is... this Provincial Bank trial has no relation with IPM. To read this book, please click here!  

4. The Design of Bank of Hindostan note compared: 

The illustration is explained in the picture. 

5. Provincial Bank is no other than National Provincial Bank! 

National Provincial Bank was a British retail bank which operated in England and Wales from 1833 until its merger into the National Westminster Bank in 1970; it remains a registered company. 

Original carved headstone surviving at the Holyhead branch in Anglesey.

Image Courtesy: Wikipedia. 

It was common practice in England by Printer to make essays with short names. This Provincial Bank is a similar example of the Congreve design. Please read information about name changes. 

Recognising its enlarged scale, the Bank’s name was extended to the National Provincial and Union Bank of England but in 1924 the name was shortened to the National Provincial Bank. Further acquisitions followed the 1918 merger, in particular the prestigious London Coutts Bank in 1920. Significant regional banks included Bradford District Bank (1919), Sheffield Banking Company (1919) and Northamptonshire Union Bank (1920). In 1924 the small Guernsey Banking Co. was to be the Bank's last domestic acquisition until 1961 and National Provincial’s progress came from continued branch opening, particularly around the London area.

National Provincial did have a small overseas operation in the form of 50 per cent of Lloyds and National Provincial Bank inParis, which it had acquired in 1917 (sold to Lloyds Bank in 1955). However, its more substantive overseas move came in 1924 with the acquisition of Grindlays Bank, a London-based institution with offices in India and specialising in serving the Indian army. Grindlays had been affected by the failure of competing banks and sought a larger partner. Grindlays was allowed to operate independently and it was sold to the National Bank of India in 1948.

In 1961 National Provincial acquired the Isle of Man Bank but the major acquisition came in 1962 when the District Bank was bought, creating a company with over £1.4 billion in assets and 2,100 branches. The District, being the one-time Manchester and Liverpool District Banking Company, gave the National Provincial valuable exposure to the north west. The District (as well as Coutts) maintained its separate identity until the merger with Westminster Bank.

Conclusion:

After a research and close study ... Provincial Bank has no relation with Bank of Hindostan. The matter is now very delicate...needing to understand few things here which are listed below: 

1. Is PMG has a valid expert to support their slab? 

2. What evidence is used to attribute this proof of Provincial Bank, 5 Pounds to Bank of Hindostan? 

3. Now the matter is clear that PMG has used a wrong catalogue number: INDJhun14.5p, if you see the reverse. I guess that they do not have any expert for this ... then they would have used the revised edition ...not the old edition full of errors! PMG is wrong! Collectors we need to investigate the matter. I don't believe that this note has any relation with Bank of Hindostan!

After research...I am saying that this note is not related to India at all! Please scrutinize the matter collectors. PMG has to respond for every move they are making! Collectors will loose belief in them!