Catalog
10 Tögrög
| Issuer | Mongolian Trade and Industry Bank |
|---|---|
| Year | 1925 |
| Type | Log in to see details |
| Value | Log in to see details |
| Currency | Log in to see details |
| Composition | Log in to see details |
| Size | Log in to see details |
| Shape | Log in to see details |
| Printer | Log in to see details |
| Designer(s) | Log in to see details |
| Engraver(s) | Log in to see details |
| In circulation to | 1966 |
| Reference(s) | Log in to see details |
| Obverse description | The face is printed in shades of red and pink on a fine lace-pattern underprint, with the numeral "10" in large format at each of the four corners. The centre is occupied by three interlocking guilloche rosettes: the left and right rosettes carry the numeral "10" in their respective centres, while the central rosette frames the national coat of arms within a square cartouche surrounded by radiating rays. Traditional script legends in classical Mongolian vertical script are arranged above and below the central vignette, and a serial number appears at upper left and lower right. |
|---|---|
| Obverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Reverse description | Log in to see details |
| Reverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Signature(s) | Log in to see details |
| Protection type | Log in to see details |
| Protection description | Watermarked paper |
| Variants | Log in to see details |
| Comments |
The Mongolian Trade and Industry Bank (Mongol Ardyn Bank in some sources) was established in 1924 as a joint Mongolian-Soviet venture, and these 1925 issues were among the first standardized banknotes circulating in the Mongolian People's Republic — a country that had only formally declared independence from China in 1921. Goznak's Moscow operation was the natural choice; Soviet printing infrastructure was already supplying currency to several client states in the region, and Mongolia had no domestic printing capacity of any kind.
The watermark is the sole security feature, modest by any standard, though counterfeiting was unlikely to be a practical concern in a sparsely populated pastoral economy where barter and Chinese and Russian coins still dominated much of daily trade.