Catalog
Why register? Just to keep bots out of our catalog. Your email stays private - we will never share it or send you anything uninvited. We guarantee you that!
| Issuer | State Bank of Michigan |
|---|---|
| Year | 1859 |
| 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 | American Bank Note Company |
| Designer(s) | Log in to see details |
| Engraver(s) | Log in to see details |
| In circulation to | Log in to see details |
| Reference(s) | Log in to see details |
| Obverse description | Log in to see details |
|---|---|
| Obverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Reverse description | The reverse carries a finely engraved intaglio vignette at right of a young lady facing left, set within an oval frame, against a red-tinted guilloche underprint. Numeral "3" counters appear at each corner of the note, with the remainder of the surface left largely plain, consistent with the back design convention for Lyman's Protection issues of this period. |
| Reverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Signature(s) | Log in to see details |
| Protection type | Lyman's Protection overprint |
| Protection description | Log in to see details |
| Variants | Log in to see details |
| Comments |
Michigan's free banking era produced hundreds of short-lived institutions, but the State Bank of Michigan was a state-chartered entity operating under stricter oversight than the wildcat banks that plagued the region through the 1840s and 1850s. By 1859 the American Bank Note Company, recently consolidated from several competing security printers, was producing notes for dozens of Midwestern banks from its New York facilities.
The Lyman's Protection overprint — a patented geometric lathe-work screen applied over the note's face — was marketed specifically as a counterfeit deterrent, making chemical alteration and photographic reproduction visible. Its presence here suggests the issuing bank paid the additional premium for the security feature, not all customers did.