Author
Topic: Some Observations on the $10 Commemorative Notes  (Read 4321 times)
walktothewater
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,071
  • Join the Journey
« Reply #15 on: August 15, 2017, 06:04:13 pm »

IMO: I don't expect CDE to be that tough a prefix to find (though I could be wrong). Maybe slightly tougher than CDA-CDD but I suspect CDF will be the tough one.

Special numbers (radars/repeaters) are tougher to find due to the skip numbering and jumps.  I've come across several "heart breaking" jumps that's meant no radar for me.  Its been a challenging series to search for.

The other numbers which seems to be a bit tougher than usual are notes that end with 000 (or more): not hard to get  notes ending with XXXX100 but I expect million(X000000) hundred thousand XX00000 ten thousand XXX0000 and even thousand (XXXX000) notes to be tougher to find than in the past.
walktothewater
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,071
  • Join the Journey
« Reply #16 on: August 15, 2017, 08:09:54 pm »

Just entered my second batch of new "150" Tens and the numbers were rejected ("# have already been entered into the SNDB")

Obviously tellers are getting to these notes and entering them into the SNDB.  I'm surprised branches are allowing them to do that- but ordered notes from 2 different banks (from 2 different cities) and the numbers were rejected by SNDB (b/c perviously entered)? Never had this happen before.  Very strange (& disappointing) but explains why its so hard to find a radar/repeater or special number. It's either that: or collectors are withdrawing/then bringing them back same/next day? I find that hard to believe - but possible.  Notes were ordered and all- oh well high demand of this new $10- making it a tough time trying to find "keeper" notes!

Small talk from tellers would suggest the first explanation over the 2nd.  This is a highly scrutinized series.
BWJM
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,957
« Reply #17 on: August 15, 2017, 10:17:58 pm »

Just entered my second batch of new "150" Tens and the numbers were rejected ("# have already been entered into the SNDB")

Send me a PM please with the serial number(s) that were rejected.  I can figure out who entered them and when.  It would be nice to know also where you obtained the notes.  Please don't post that info here... just a PM to me would be great.  Thanks!
Rupiah
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 803
« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2017, 11:02:11 pm »

Sorry I don't have a reliable scanner so I didn't respond right away.

I have two left and spent or traded the rest thinking it would be too minor to catalogue.  Hope this helps:


Thank you.

Wonder what paper money would say if it could talk?
Rupiah
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 803
« Reply #19 on: August 17, 2017, 11:03:13 pm »

I got a few bundles of CDD that were dated June 13 2017

I got a bundle of CDE dated June 20 2017


Thank you that is helpful

Wonder what paper money would say if it could talk?
Rupiah
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 803
« Reply #20 on: August 17, 2017, 11:08:44 pm »

The other numbers which seems to be a bit tougher than usual are notes that end with 000 (or more): not hard to get  notes ending with XXXX100 but I expect million(X000000) hundred thousand XX00000 ten thousand XXX0000 and even thousand (XXXX000) notes to be tougher to find than in the past.


I don't know if these are collectibles. One teller in a branch collects anything with at  least three trailing zeros. I was able to give 3x with three trailing zeros (XXXX000), 1x with four trailing zeros (XXX0000) and 1x with one leading zero and four trailing zeros (0XX0000). These were all new 150-10s

Wonder what paper money would say if it could talk?
walktothewater
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,071
  • Join the Journey
« Reply #21 on: August 31, 2017, 05:24:39 pm »

I'm finding it very difficult to get notes in bundles from most branches now.  The majority of staff seem to have a booklet of excuses why they cannot "special order" (or using other similar terms) to get me a bundle of the new notes. It's almost as if the manager has come down on them for providing such a service.  I gotta say its pretty disappointing  :'(
Rupiah
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 803
« Reply #22 on: September 01, 2017, 09:50:20 pm »

I'm finding it very difficult to get notes in bundles from most branches now.  The majority of staff seem to have a booklet of excuses why they cannot "special order" (or using other similar terms) to get me a bundle of the new notes. It's almost as if the manager has come down on them for providing such a service.  I gotta say its pretty disappointing  :'(

Apologies for the blank post.

Hopefully we will get a new series soon.

Wonder what paper money would say if it could talk?
walktothewater
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,071
  • Join the Journey
« Reply #23 on: September 08, 2017, 05:30:22 pm »

Quote
Hopefully we will get a new series soon.

- yeah next year, right? Hope I still have the patience required to scan a few bundles and scoop up some "keepers" with the upcoming Viola Desmond series. Or maybe I should say- hopefully the tellers will have patience with me (though I tend to be good to them!)

Yesterday, was my fifth time I came up empty handed when hitting the right sequence of numbers because of an odd jump in the serial numbers.  This happened twice with the CDE prefix (big jumps in #), and then once with CDC and once when I should have had 1116111 but instead only getting 1116110 and 1116112 (# was skipped). That really hurt.
 
Yesterday, it was CDD 8638327 01 01 then
CDD 8638357 01 01 and then jumped to the 100's (CDD 86383101) and 3 or 4 times the bundles comes up short (like 4-9# off)
Rupiah
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 803
« Reply #24 on: September 13, 2017, 11:21:48 pm »


Yesterday, was my fifth time I came up empty handed when hitting the right sequence of numbers because of an odd jump in the serial numbers.  This happened twice with the CDE prefix (big jumps in #), and then once with CDC and once when I should have had 1116111 but instead only getting 1116110 and 1116112 (# was skipped). That really hurt.
 

You are getting closer to the jackpot.  ;)

Come to think of it you are at least getting pristine bundles. I hear that most notes are now recycled bundles particularly for prefixes CDA, CDB, CDC and CDD.


Wonder what paper money would say if it could talk?
Rupiah
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 803
« Reply #25 on: September 13, 2017, 11:28:02 pm »

I believe that there was an official announcement from BoC that indicated 40 million $10-150 notes.

With 5 seemingly full prefixes and one seemingly partial prefix the tally would be close to 53 million notes.

That is 30% more than the official announcement.

In the case of $20 commemorative I believe there was an initial announcement of 40 million but it was later acknowledged that there were 43 million.

Any explanations for the discrepancy in the counts of $10-150?


Wonder what paper money would say if it could talk?
walktothewater
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,071
  • Join the Journey
« Reply #26 on: September 14, 2017, 08:18:06 pm »

Quote
With 5 seemingly full prefixes and one seemingly partial prefix the tally would be close to 53 million notes.

Each of 5 prefixes is hardly a "full" run since many notes are missing in just about every bundle I've inspected.  I would suspect more like a 75-85% of the typical 10,000,000 run yield (for CDA-CDE).  CDE is probably less than that too. I doubt 53 million notes were printed. I would expect that less than 43 million notes were released for the $20 too.
BWJM
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,957
« Reply #27 on: September 14, 2017, 09:40:49 pm »

Each of 5 prefixes is hardly a "full" run since many notes are missing in just about every bundle I've inspected.  I would suspect more like a 75-85% of the typical 10,000,000 run yield (for CDA-CDE).  CDE is probably less than that too. I doubt 53 million notes were printed. I would expect that less than 43 million notes were released for the $20 too.

The fact of the matter is that the Bank of Canada ordered (in both cases, 2015 and 2017) 40,000,000 commemorative notes from CBN.  CBN delivered 40,000,000 notes to the Bank of Canada.  In their efforts to produce those 40M notes, they had some spoiled notes, as they usually do.  Since there were no replacement notes, the only conclusion I can reasonably draw is that for the 2015 $20 notes, CBN had to print a total of over 43M notes before they hit 40M that were of sufficient quality to deliver to the Bank.  Similarly, for the 2017 $10s, there was some spoilage.  Obviously, there was much more this time - about 10M more.  We all know that this issue introduced a bunch of new stuff including an entirely new transparent window, a cool green/blue/copper security feature, intaglio printing on the reverse for the first time since the early 1980s, etc.  I completely expect that as CBN was getting used to these new features, they inevitably had some increased spoilage.  Thus, it doesn't really surprise me that they had to print about 53M notes in order to hit 40M that were good enough for the Bank of Canada.

TL;DR:  The full runs of notes were printed.  Only 40M of each issue was delivered to the Bank of Canada and thus entered circulation.

Interestingly, this is not really anything new.  What is new is that for the first time ever, the Bank has told us how big their banknote order is: 40M notes.  For all prior issues, that's never disclosed.  The Bank just places a new order for some colossal amount of notes whenever its supplies are getting low.  The other new bit is the lack of replacement notes.  Back in the day, we had asterisk notes, then X notes, then batches of unidentifiable replacements, etc.  But now there are none.  Spoiled sheets or notes are simply removed.  But even prior to all this, if the Bank of Canada wanted (for example) 100 million Birds series $20 notes, they would place an order for such, and eventually, that's what they would get.  The prefixes involved might be 10 full prefixes (for example EVA-EVK printed 0000000 to 9999999), but if some notes were spoiled, those notes were replaced by (for example again) EVX replacement notes.  Let's say 8M of these were produced and used up in that order of 100M notes.  In total, 108M notes were printed, but only 100M got delivered to the Bank and were issued into circulation.  So again, not really anything new here.
Rupiah
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 803
« Reply #28 on: September 19, 2017, 01:07:26 am »

Ok - Bank ordered 40 million spoilage resulted in printing of 53 million to get actual number of 40 million. The spoilage rate is higher because there are new features.

Lets say for a minute that it is true.

Firstly the new features may be new for Canadian notes but are hardly new for bank note printing in general and for CBN in particular.

Two side intaglio
-This has been done for NZ notes that were printed by CBN. If CBN had so much spoilage for BoC print run on this account then there is lot to be desired.

Entirely New Transparent Window
-Firstly the form factor of the transparent window is the same. Secondly CBN already had experience running different window on the NZ notes. The main change was in the metallic stripe but that is a separate process. If the metallic stripe was defective it would not have been applied to the substrate. One would not expect them to spoil the whole sheet finding the metallic stripe to be defective.

Coloured feature on the front
-This is also present I believe on the NZ notes. In fact on the NZ notes printed by CBN it is much more complex than the BoC $10 commemorative note.

I cannot imagine such a high spoilage rate simply because of such new features from a reputable security printer like CBN especially after they successfully printed the NZ notes. Furthermore in any production system one does not wait until completing such a high quantity run before the spoilage rate is determined. Quality control procedures would dictate that things are detected early and fixed through trials before full production.


Even if this were to be true - it has to be recognized that in any production things are planned based on certain parameters. I cannot imagine CBN and BoC ordering 30% more substrate material, metallic stripes, and ink material in anticipation of such a high spoilage rate. The polymer substrate is the most expensive element of the bank note.

So if spoilage were in fact that high in all likelihood the outcome would have been as follows:

Ordered 40 million notes (say with 5% anticipate spoilage). Now if the actual spoilage was higher than 5% then they would have ended up getting lesser than 40 million notes. In this case with 30% spoilage it would be something like 30 million notes. At the very least if they wanted to meet the 40 million target there would some time required to order these extra materials. It is highly unlikely that the BoC really believed that the demand would be so high that there would have been a crunch with 30 million notes instead of the planned 40 million

This does not even factor in the point in the production when the spoilage is determined. Most observers are commenting that the spoilage is high because the serial numbers are being skipped.

The serial numbers are the last thing to get put on the notes. One cannot imagine that the spoilage is because of the problem in printing serial numbers. If the spoilage is indeed in the process that involve new technology then it is most likely that it is affecting the sheets and that those sheets are being removed before the printing of the numbers. In such a case there would be no skipping of numbers.

Most certainly the Single Note Inspection Process that is being used could be picking up defects that were not big enough to be caught on the whole sheet. Since this process happens after the printing of the serial numbers it is possible that many notes were deemed not fit for circulation. But again that would mean that lesser than 40 million would be produced in all likelihood.

No replacement ????
Finally I find the thoughts about replacement very interesting. While we do not have the traditional * and X replacements the catalog is full of inserts even after the * and X ceased to be in existence.

Aren't inserts in principle supposed to be filling the role of the replacement. All be it instead of * and X they are using notes from regular print runs to do so. If this is the case would not the BoC be planning to print more regular notes with some to be used as inserts?

I thought the only difference between inserts and replacements was the difficulty in physically identifying the notes that are inserted in place of spoiled notes. The principle reason for them was the same. Or am I missing something?

Why would we think there are no inserts in the $10 commemorative notes? Just because brick hunters have not been successful in finding them does not mean they do not exist. In fact they must exist otherwise it negates the whole concept of the post * and X inserts IMHO. ??? ??? ??? ??? ???


Wonder what paper money would say if it could talk?
friedsquid
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,842
  • CPMS 1593
« Reply #29 on: September 21, 2017, 10:17:03 am »

Quote
Why would we think there are no inserts in the $10 commemorative notes? Just because brick hunters have not been successful in finding them does not mean they do not exist
Quote

I agree with your statement 100%
As I mentioned earlier, ask any bricker that has bricked on a regular basis
They have found replacement notes but they were never confirmed....
It is just the way it is......

« Last Edit: September 21, 2017, 10:28:00 am by friedsquid »



Always looking for #1 serial number notes in any denomination/any series
 

Login with username, password and session length