Australian ten-pound note

Ten Pound
(Australia)
Value	10 Australian pounds
Width	1913–24: 171 mm,; 1925–present: 180 mm
Height	1913–24: 103 mm,; 1925–present: 78 mm
Security features	patterns
Material used	cotton
Years of printing	1910–1966
Obverse
Design	Coat of arms
Reverse
Design	Wagons with bags of grain at Narwonah railway station

The Australian ten-pound note was a denomination of the Australian pound that was equivalent to twenty dollars on 14 February 1966. This denomination along with all other pound denomination is still legal tender = twenty dollar note.

It was first issued in 1911 onover printed banknotes issued by the various commercial and state banks of the time. In 1913 the first Australian banknote was issued. It featured a scene of the carting wheat at Narwonah in New South Wales.

Timeline

1910

These banknotes were overprinted on private issue from various banks, signatures were Jas R Collins and Geo T Allen. A total of 152,675 banknotes were issued.

1913–1925

Signatories: Collins/Allen (1914–1917); Cerutty/Collins (1918–1924)

The first ten-pound note was issued in 1913, with 2,039,188 being printed. The reverse of the note possessed horizontal red/yellow bands.

1925–1934

Signatories: Kell/Collins (1925–1926); Riddle/Heathershaw (1927); Riddle/Sheehan (1933)

Designed and printed by Thomas S. Harrison, the note was made longer and narrower to improve printing efficiency (six notes could fit onto a sheet instead of four) and further security features were added: a basketweave watermark was used around the borders and the denomination appears in watermarks in the center of the note. 3,610,000 of these notes were printed.

1934–1966

Sheehan/McFarlane (1940); Armitage/McFarlane (1943); Coombs/Watt (1949); Coombs/Wilson (1952)

These were all legal tender and included two basic designs, those of 1934–40 has 3,076,000 issues, 1940–54 with 21,924,000 and 1954–66 with 61,151,000 banknotes issued.

gollark: Because that's new thing, and new thing bad.

gollark: Old thing was around when I was growing up. New thing was NOT. The implications are obvious.

gollark: > i dont get why people think that just going back to the old days before phones and computers and shit would make anything betterBecause new thing bad old thing good, OBVIOUSLY?

gollark: I mean, cheap zero-carbon-dioxide power wouldn't fix EVERYTHING, but it would solve many of the climate-change-y issues we have, more so over time as many of the solutions to things require plentiful electricity.

gollark: Environmental damage is partly a fixable technical problem and partly a social one, because people are SILLY DODECAHEDRA who will not accept the obvious solution (to some things) of nuclear power. I'm also not convinced that reverting to horrible premodern living standards would *reduce* depression.

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.