Correct, the border on mine matches Obama's border.
2. She has an embossed seal, Obama's doesn't. (does yours?)
Mine has an embossed seal, but it is extremely faint on the front of the BC. (The impression was applied from the back.)
3. She has a signature. Obama's doesn't. (does yours?)
Mine has a signature, on the back. This signature may or may not be visible from the front on various copies. On mine, there are a few points of minor bleed-through. It is signed by "Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D.", the State Registrar.
4. She has a certificate number. Obama's doesn't. (does yours?)
Mine has a certificate number. It apears Obama's does too, but it is blacked out. Why it is blacked out is a mystery.
Also, mine says "FILED" not "ACCEPTED."
KJCI, Would you mind doing me (actually all of us) a favor? Would you call the Hawaiian Vital Records and ask them why your birth certificate says filed, while others say accepted? I am really curious to know why the wording is different on some.
The reason why I am asking you, specifically, is in case they ask for your certificate number, etc. to look up any necessary info to give you a definitive answer on the difference.
It appears that since yours has the Seal and Signature on it, it is more like DeCostas because those things are NOT visible on Obama's.
I think the boarder is no big deal. Also I think the difference between accepted and filed is based on the fact DeCosta was born when Hawaii was still a territory. They are just stating that all the information provided was accepted.
In the other Hawaii samples, in the case of certificates that are dated "filed on" as opposed to "accepted on", the filed on certificates are all dated the birth date except for Obama's. Is yours dated on the birth date?
Thank you.