Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/German External Loan 1924

German External Loan 1924

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 May 2024 at 19:54:32 (UTC)

Reason: High quality reproduction of a document. Provides a lot of EV in the only article which it appears in, in that it is a direct relic of the Dawes Plan itself. Good POTD for October 15 2024 (100th anniversary of this document).
Articles in which this image appears: Dawes Plan
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War I
Creator: Unknown authors and graphic artists; Scan from Ersten Deutschen Historic-Actien-Clubs e.V.

Support as nominator – ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Kentuckian |💬 01:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are the colours natural? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 16:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support- A good nomination with adequate EV, but (per Adam's query) I came across File:Dawes Anleihe 1924 1000$.jpg and saw the colors are way off in the nom. I am not sure which is closer to the original because a Google search also returned at least half a dozen color reproductions of the bill. If we could get a very good source or a scan (maybe the nomination itself) to prove the current nom is the original/closer to the original color, I'd support. Good luck. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now, after searching across various sources, I have discovered many variant scans of this document, even by auction houses. Here is a list of the variants I have discovered:
Every one of these scans have slightly different colors, contrast, brightness, whatever. And I am not sure which is the true correct version as I am no scripophile myself. Is it possible that during the printing of the loans that different colors were used? Is it possible that most of these scans are of forgeries? I was unable to find any definitive source for any questions, but a good place to look might be German Dollar Bonds issued between 1924 and 1937 by F. Paul Seabrook. However, I am not able to access the book as it appears the book is not available online or print in any way, shape, or form. This blog post on Tumblr attests to its existence and describes it, but I can't find an entry on Google Books, or WorldCat, or even an ISBN. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of these notes were issues ~~over many years~~. It makes sense that not all had identical color tones, fine details, etc. The uploader seems legit. They have 2000+ uploads of similar (historic) documents. Translating some of their talk page posts Here shows the uploader is part of a group or informal organization (also see their file 'source' descriptions). I doubt the uploads are manipulated in any significant way. But I don't know much about old prints though. Perhaps Adam can judge the integrity of the uploader's work by looking at some of their other uploads. Bammesk (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As someone who has scanned aging documents extensively, the colours look reasonable to me. The marks along the top edge are in the same range, indicating that whatever has caused the lightening of the paper happened before the damage that resulted in the brown spots. The greens at the top are slightly lighter, while the blacks seem to have held their tone better; if this were artificial, I'd expect the blacks to likewise be lighter. I do feel that the cutout could have been a bit better, however - the bottom still has some unnatural straight lines. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't find the purple-to-yellow-to-purple gradient off for the background paper? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 22:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely feels more like some sort of uneven fading due to sub-optimal storage than a technical flaw with the scanner. I no longer have the documents, due to changes in my situation, but this certificate and this poster (also on the other side) both had uneven fading. Admittedly, those were on a much browner paper (and indeed the fading is skewed yellow, rather than the green tone of the nomination). I personally don't think the image is FP quality, due to the blemish, but I don't feel like it's beyond the realm of possibility for this scan to be reflective of the document. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the available images of these documents online, it does seem to be a common issue. This one is clearly not a reproduction of our digital copy (has the full emblem, as well as the tickets) and has similar fading issues. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for "Dawes Anleihe 1924" on Goggle images returns many similar examples. This being a banknote, could the background paper gradient been in part intentional (a security feature)? Bammesk (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially? I'm also seeing images like this, which notably has a black instead of a red emblem, and this, which was overstamped. There could have been different printings, with some variants to show series, but I'm not sure. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The note itself says $110 million was issued, and the denomination is $1000, with 1924 technology. It's plausible that several batched were printed over time, and that the color tone and other fine details weren't exactly identical. For instance among the examples linked to above I see at least two similar, but different, hand written signatures on the lower left corner. Bammesk (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summing up, the exact legitimacy of the bill is still disputed and none of us are sure how close this is to the original. I'm okay with the fine details and prints, but it's the legitimacy of the color that is bothering. Is there any way, like some noticeboard in German Wikipedia or Teahouse or helpdesk who can dig up more about this? The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]