(Emphasis added). Other jurisdictions, interpreting similar statutes, have concluded that an instrument must be endorsed to provide a basis for prosecution. See, e.g., State v. Haas, 433 So.2d 1343, 1345 (Fla. Dist. Ct.App. 1983) (blank cashier's checks did not violate forgery statute); Smith v. State, 7 Md. App. 457, 463, 256 A.2d 357, 361 (1969) (blank check which contained no payee's name, no payor's signature, no date, and no specified amount "without legal efficacy" and thus not a forgery); Annot., 65 A.L.R.3d 1307 (1975); 36 Am.Jur.2d Forgery § 24 (1968). Three reasons, taken together, lead us to conclude that the lack of endorsement is not fatal to a charge under the Iowa statute.