3 ms·
The image accompanying the story doesn't seem to be the bond in question. The date on the bond states the year 1944, and the payments also start around that dat
by haarts 11y ago
The image accompanying the story doesn't seem to be the bond in question. The date on the bond states the year 1944, and the payments also start around that date. The last payment was done in 2003. Odd.
- gpvos 11y agoLook at the second image on the page, which is definitely old; I think I can make out year numbers in the 1700s. The first image looks like an extra sheet appended in 1944.
- Turing_Machine 11y agoYes, it looks like the original sheet was filled up. There may be other auxiliary sheets that aren't shown (or are simply missing -- perhaps they went missing in WWII?).
- gpvos 11y agoThe technical term appears to be "allonge", which is also the first word on the added sheet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allonge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allonge
- hydrogen18 11y agoInteresting point. The second image has dates much farther back, I see many from the 1700s. Perhaps the bond was originally issued and in 1944 a companion document was issued with it? So now the single bond consists of two documents. It would make sense to issue a newer document that goes along with the original. I imagine some numbering scheme was introduced between the original issue and 1944. The 1944 document would provide a number in the modern scheme for the original bond.
- mcv 11y agoI can imagine a document from 1648 wouldn't be big enough to keep writing interest payments on for more than 3 centuries.