BTS Possible Changeover???

News: Welcome to the Canadian Paper Money Forum.

*says to God* Are you serious? We're at BTS and STILL no changeover?

*says to God* Are you serious? We're at BTS and STILL no changeover?

And all this time I assumed that, since BTR's current high is under 2 million, that BTR would be the changeover.  It almost seems like the current print year for $10s is looking to yield the same quantity of prefixes like the "Printed in 2002" and "Printed in 2004" respectively.

Printed in 2002:  Yielded FEE-FEN (9 CBN prefixes); BEI-BEK (3 BABN prefixes) = 12 Prefixes
Printed in 2003:  Yielded BEK-BER = 6 Prefixes - CBN not involved
Printed in 2004:  Yielded BER-BEY* (7 BABN prefixes); FEP-FEV (6 CBN prefixes) = 13 Prefixes
Printed in 2005:  Yielded BEY-BTF = 8 Prefixes
Printed in 2007:  Yielded BTF-BTS = 11 prefixes, possibly still counting

* Though BER-BET appeared on the 2001 issue, and BEU-BEY appeared on the 2005 issue.

I have a strange feeling that the changeover will probably be in the vicinity of BTT or BTU - or if we're lucky enough, maybe it will occur at BTV.  Then the next printing year (which may be released next summer) will yield roughly the same quantity as the "Printed in 2005" era (hopefully not the "Printed in 2001" era, since there were only 4 full-run prefixes during that era).

If you looked at the Wiki page, the only reason why I didn't think BTP was the changeover was because I found a BTP in the 7 million range. If you click the "History" breadcrumb at the top, you will see that I originally had the changeover expected at BTR.

I was once told that a set of printing plates can print 1.5 to 2 million sheets before they are found too worn to be used, which is equivalent to 60-80 million notes (40 per sheet) or if you prefer, around 7 prefixes.  Since BAI must replace the printing plates, they surely want to use them the most efficiently, so they probably try to change the plates when they need a change of printing year. 

So, if we count, BTS is the 11th prefix printed in 2007.  To go to 14 prefixes (which requires 2 sets of printing plates), the run can go up to BTV before the change of printing year, which makes sense for me and match Platy's prediction...

And remember that the BAI prints to meet the BoC's needs , so if BoC doesn't have any need in 10's this year, we can very well skip over 2008 as printing year and see only "Printed in 2009" next year. 

So we can only wait and see...

That seems like a lot to me.  If you divide the total production of roughly 140 million 1967 $1 notes by 18 face plates, and by 40 notes per sheet, you get just under 195,000 sheets per plate, on average.  That implies a huge improvement in production technology in the past 40 years - perhaps they have made that much progress, I really don't know.  I do know that in the 1800s a steel plate was good for about 50,000 impressions, but needed retouching to achieve even that much.  Even that was a huge advance over the productivity of a copper plate (which might yield 6,000 impressions).

The number I gave is only a kind of rumor.  I never checked its veracity.  Maybe 1.5 million prints is too much for a set of printing plate...But there is another possibility: that there is not one but three sets of printing plates on the revolving drum of the press.  Remember that the tiny numbers are POSITION numbers, not really a PLATE numbers,  so the position number is only a reference for the pressman to spot quickly to a position any problem found on a note during QC.  These is no direct way to know if there is two or three identical printing plates bearing the very same position number.

And I found in many instances the evidence that there is three sets of printing plates since I found tiny errors (blank spot, default) on not consecutively numbered notes, but most of the time, on each three notes.

For example:  a white dot on the reverse can be found on the note ABC****001, then  ****004, then ****007, and so on, but the notes ****002, ***003, ****005, ****006, etc doesn't have the white spot. The pattern is not perfect (since we cannot know exactly how many defective sheets are taken out by the quality control before the serials are printed on the remaining sheets).

If I'm right, we can conclude that a set of 40 plates can print around 500 000 to 600 000 sheets, since a given set prints only one sheet each three.  This number is more in the order of the number you gave (nearly 200 000 prints 40 years ago), notwithstanding the improvement in the printing technology.

But there is another possibility: that there is not one but three sets of printing plates on the revolving drum of the press. 

Not really anything to do with the BTS, but when I found the ink error on the doves they were always 3 apart and the 2 notes between did not have it. That being said, only 3 bundles out of the 10 in the brick had the errors and not many nor the same amoint in each bundle.

I was once told that a set of printing plates can print 1.5 to 2 million sheets before they are found too worn to be used, which is equivalent to 60-80 million notes (40 per sheet) or if you prefer, around 7 prefixes.  Since BAI must replace the printing plates, they surely want to use them the most efficiently, so they probably try to change the plates when they need a change of printing year. 

So, if we count, BTS is the 11th prefix printed in 2007.  To go to 14 prefixes (which requires 2 sets of printing plates), the run can go up to BTV before the change of printing year, which makes sense for me and match Platy's prediction...

And remember that the BAI prints to meet the BoC's needs , so if BoC doesn't have any need in 10's this year, we can very well skip over 2008 as printing year and see only "Printed in 2009" next year. 

So we can only wait and see...

Just a correction, the prediction was FogDevil's, not mine. Mine was BTR.

Anyone who wants gem unc notes of  this possible changeover ,see me at the convention

no cutting cup/ripples, etc.? 

Everyone needs to understand, from what we know from the BOC and all the research:
The BoC does not use "plates" as they did in the multi and pre-multi series.

Just a  reminder- "plates" is the wrong terminology.  It is important, because using plates gives rise to different styles of errors which may not be "possible" with a lithographed note.   ie: misplaced signatures.

This post is just to make sure there is no confusion.

I know that the word "plate" can be misleading, but I think that the word can be extended to a larger sense.  I mean that there is quite surely no more individual note by note printing blocks put together to make a printing matrix.  The advances in technology had surely improved to permit the making of a kind of larger printing plate which contains the 40  images of the notes having each its own position number (for probably all the lithographic printings).

If you don't want to use the term "printing plate", by which word would you replace it?  Possibly the printers themselves use the term "plate"...

Incidentally, I really would like having the comments of someone who has already worked in the BABN or CBN, but the secrecy in these places seems to be much more thightly bound that in any nuclear or military plant...

It is my understanding that all security printing uses plates of some kind; they just don't have to be flat.  Most modern presses today are four-colour rotary presses that run sheets through a series of rollers; inking rollers, moistening rollers, a plate cylinder, blanket cylinders and impression cylinders.  Presses have come a long way from the flat plate mimeographs you always see in Western movies, but something has to touch the paper to transfer the ink (they don't use bubble jets!).