Design C - the backside looks like the worst soulless corporate landing page graphics (Corporate Memphis style?).
Design D and E, H are okayish.
Design F has very strange coloring, the watercolor and sketch effect looks nice on screen, but I think more filled and more monochrome notes are more conventional and accepted, also some are bicolor. Not bad, but I'd not like it in everyday use probably.
Design G is somehow not good looking, I cannot phrase it. Both the font, and also the backsides scenes are meg, even the modernist buildings are better on some other series.
Design J : the creepy abstract cartoon people on the backside ruin it. Also somehow not aesthetically pleasing, but the not catastrophic.
Not sure if it is much better, the images are tiny on that version and the companion text explaining the designs seems to be missin (though that sort of text you can usually do without).
For me, across all of them only two felt actually decent for a bank note (B & E, I is okay, just not used to bank notes in that orientation, same for J, but that one should be more monochrome). Either they were too vibrant or the design was too busy/had unnecesary elements.
I also feel like the notes that had buildings (like we have now) are just.. better. The initial run of 2002-2013 remains the best aesthetically, imo.
I prefer the Birds & Rivers theme because nobody is expecting a specific bird to meet some arbitrary ideal whereas if you put identifiable humans on a banknote people start to mistake their inevitable flaws for a desirable property. I feel this more strongly for statues, but it seems desirable for the Euro or any potential international currency too.
I'm partial for statues, and birds and rivers is a good theme. I feel like if they sticked to the semi-monochrome of the previous notes I'd be more favorable to them aswell. Monochrome might be the wrong word, ESL.
Why is it all either the same people or the same birds?
Was that an explicit part of the brief artists were given?
I feel like the selection of motifs is more interesting and where more of the creative process in defining a representation of Europe lies than just how to draw and layout those motifs.
As an Austrian, it feels a bit annoying that the Germans got their one famous composer - they're kind of our thing! Why not Mozart, Strauss, Haydn, Schubert?
It's also unfortunate that the nice peaceful bird motif was paired with the ugly modern buildings on the other side.
I'm sure most countries will have their pet peeves with this; I've seen a bunch of Polish people being upset about the phrasing of Marie Curie's name already.
The people and birds (and I think the buildings as well) were selected by a committee beforehand, to make sure they represent all of the EU, aren't controversial, yadayada...
Yeah, the motifs was probably part of the brief as picking the symbols to represent the entire EU is incredibly political and its just best to separate that discussion from the deeply subjective "what looks best" discussion.
Yeah, I don't know why the cleaners of the parliament buildings aren't putting forward their own economic proposals either, clearly they have time to sit sometimes, might as well write proposals for new regulation.
I wonder why do we need new notes... but I guess running some competition is not a tragedy.
You can see all side-by-side here: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/banknotes/future_banknotes/ht...
My takes:
Design C - the backside looks like the worst soulless corporate landing page graphics (Corporate Memphis style?).
Design D and E, H are okayish.
Design F has very strange coloring, the watercolor and sketch effect looks nice on screen, but I think more filled and more monochrome notes are more conventional and accepted, also some are bicolor. Not bad, but I'd not like it in everyday use probably.
Design G is somehow not good looking, I cannot phrase it. Both the font, and also the backsides scenes are meg, even the modernist buildings are better on some other series.
Design J : the creepy abstract cartoon people on the backside ruin it. Also somehow not aesthetically pleasing, but the not catastrophic.
A better link might be https://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/banknotes/future_banknotes/ht..., which has all of the proposals on a single page for easier browsing.
Not sure if it is much better, the images are tiny on that version and the companion text explaining the designs seems to be missin (though that sort of text you can usually do without).
The actual images are pretty big so you can just use your browser's native zooming capabilities.
I found that much nicer than constantly clicking to show the reverse sides, but to each their own!
The article one also misses on the size differences across notes. Not the biggest deal, but should be shown.
For me, across all of them only two felt actually decent for a bank note (B & E, I is okay, just not used to bank notes in that orientation, same for J, but that one should be more monochrome). Either they were too vibrant or the design was too busy/had unnecesary elements.
I also feel like the notes that had buildings (like we have now) are just.. better. The initial run of 2002-2013 remains the best aesthetically, imo.
I prefer the Birds & Rivers theme because nobody is expecting a specific bird to meet some arbitrary ideal whereas if you put identifiable humans on a banknote people start to mistake their inevitable flaws for a desirable property. I feel this more strongly for statues, but it seems desirable for the Euro or any potential international currency too.
I'm partial for statues, and birds and rivers is a good theme. I feel like if they sticked to the semi-monochrome of the previous notes I'd be more favorable to them aswell. Monochrome might be the wrong word, ESL.
For reference, the two previous runs at the top of the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_banknotes
Birds are clearly superior.
Are they going to switch to plastic while they're at it?
That's the only thing I'll miss if Romania ever switches to Euro. Cash you can launder. Literally.
They really shouldn't be people. Birds are fine, but I like the bridges, why are the moving away from those?
There were some clearly superior suggestions they left out: https://xcancel.com/The_Davos_Man/status/2080383908823081426
;)
Why is it all either the same people or the same birds?
Was that an explicit part of the brief artists were given?
I feel like the selection of motifs is more interesting and where more of the creative process in defining a representation of Europe lies than just how to draw and layout those motifs.
Yes, the motifs were selected ~1.5y ago: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2025/html/ecb.pr2501...
As an Austrian, it feels a bit annoying that the Germans got their one famous composer - they're kind of our thing! Why not Mozart, Strauss, Haydn, Schubert?
It's also unfortunate that the nice peaceful bird motif was paired with the ugly modern buildings on the other side.
> Germans got their one famous composer
I think you just made J.S. Bach roll over in his grave.
And don't forget: Brahms, Handel, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Richard Strauss, Wagner.
The competition is not so one-sided.
I'm sure most countries will have their pet peeves with this; I've seen a bunch of Polish people being upset about the phrasing of Marie Curie's name already.
The people and birds (and I think the buildings as well) were selected by a committee beforehand, to make sure they represent all of the EU, aren't controversial, yadayada...
Yeah, the motifs was probably part of the brief as picking the symbols to represent the entire EU is incredibly political and its just best to separate that discussion from the deeply subjective "what looks best" discussion.
nothing better to do in their hands
Yeah, I don't know why the cleaners of the parliament buildings aren't putting forward their own economic proposals either, clearly they have time to sit sometimes, might as well write proposals for new regulation.