Author
Topic: NO NEW REPLACEMENTS - CPMS Journal - September 2017  (Read 3076 times)
PaperorPlastic
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
« Reply #15 on: September 22, 2017, 06:48:31 pm »

Much of the sharing of information changed when a few key changes were made. The first was that a small group of people had selected themselves as the only authority for confirming replacement notes. The irony was that most didn't even brick themselves. Not only is their info about this on the forum but it was also published in the CPMS (yes, small world) secondly the info was to now be collected through the forum and no one was allowed access to this info except for them. The process was sold this way, give us non brickers all your info, nobody has access to any of the info, if you do want access please submit a request stating your research idea and if we believe your research worthy we will then grant you limited access. The assumption at the time was that most didn’t have the skills or knowledge needed to make any worthy contributions to the hobby. I strongly felt that this information should be accessed and available to everybody but my opinion was not one that was shared. At this point I did the only thing I could do to protest, the first was that I stopped sharing the vast majority of my info, I even told Gilles that he wouldn’t be hearing from me on a weekly basis anymore and only occasionally. Secondly, I deleted hundreds of my posts from the forum. I will only share if we all shared openly. After this a lot of the bricking info ended up in notebooks and spreadsheets for ourselves and no one else. Anybody who has bricked knows the challenges with doing so very well then you add attacks over finds and being told you can’t access the info you helped supply was a terribly played hand that greatly hurt the hobby. I personally have thousands of bricking info that have never been shared and I am hardly the only one. But again, with the good and bad there was excitement and enthusiasm about replacements.

  I totally understand the feeling one gets when they make contributions or share information for research and then don't even get to see the data.  Not to throw this thread off topic but there seems to be a parallel with the SNDB where a lot of us forum members add our notes to it yet the majority of us aren't allowed to see the data...

 
I strongly agree with what you have said and my biggest concern has always been (and I know many other brickers have voiced this concern to me) that confirmations of replacement notes made by an individual who bricks and sells replacement notes is a total conflict of interest no matter how you look at it and I could never understand how this was allowed to go on with no accountability or transparency
General information is sometimes given but specifics never are so how can the average Joe make an informed decision based on bits and pieces of data...

  Transparency would definitely go a long way in making the issue of insert replacement notes less of a controversial issue in collector's circles.  Not only that it could also bring in more collectors of inserts.  Keeping information hidden only creates doubt in the collectors' minds and even destroys the motivation of others to take part or share their findings with others as has been mentioned here already.  From what others who were on this forum long before I was have said in this thread, it sounds like it was a healthy collector atmosphere.  :)

walktothewater
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,004
  • Join the Journey
« Reply #16 on: September 22, 2017, 08:15:45 pm »

Quote
Transparency would definitely go a long way in making the issue of insert replacement notes less of a controversial issue in collector's circles.

While I can understand (& somewhat relate) to the sentiment of what the most recent posters are complaining about (the "inner circle" contribution/access to insert data) in reality the SNDB (& this forum) has, in my mind, maintained this data & has strived to keep the whole tracking of inserts as transparent as possible.  At least from what I can tell, and I have known many of the dedicated collectors who have contributed data, the whole exercise was to limit extraneous (and likely incorrect data) from messing up the good data that these contributors were searching for.  I witnessed discussions of this sort at one of the Canadian Paper Money Society's meetings several years ago when the transition to unmarked inserts was a hot topic.

I have been collecting for 40 years and I have met many of the data collectors and I have had my data dismissed but I honestly don't feel any grudge to these dedicated individuals who tirelessly collected the data to keep the insert info up to date and available.  Many members have offered lists of up-to-date insert ranges and many have written enlightening articles on the process of insert data collection.  Also the administrator of this forum has extended many invitations for collectors to "step up to the plate" and contribute (or help moderate this forum). So if you stepped up to the plate: great. If you ignored the invitation: than you know who you are- and please don't complain. The hobby is still great! LOL

The reason I'm replying to this post is:
a) Yes, it is historical that insert replacements are now a thing of the past
b) IMO: it may be a bump in the road for insert replacement collectors but I doubt it will change the landscape of collecting Canadian paper money on the whole that much. A previous poster noted it is a vast hobby (true) and I'm sure collectors will find many reasons to keep collecting
c) the market place (for selling notes) is a way off topic in terms of this thread.  Yes- it fluctuates too and most of us don't have a Masters of Economics and don't quite grasp the many variables that will affect it
d) the catalogue value is just a guide and if you're not getting catalogue for your inserts than just stop selling them! No one is forcing you to dump your inserts because they're no longer being issued by BOC. The catalogue is a very useful guide and it doesn't just help us understand the insert ranges/expected price ranges, but offers a vast array of pertinent info on many of the other collectible notes that were issued here over the past 2 centuries.

Now back to the original question: will the lack of inserts affect the number of brick searchers?  Probably, but then again there are many other factors that can also affect "Bricking" as noted by several posters here (costs, time consuming, etc). I searched a few bricks about 15 years ago when it didn't seem that odd to ask tellers for a brick of any 1 particular denomination.  Later, my branches seemed to think I was asking them to sleep overnight in their vaults -so I "toned it down a notch" and just asked for bundles.  Still it seems to be asking for a lot so how long that will last will depend on many more factors than whether there are inserts or not.

When the BOC announced they were releasing a new polymer series: I swore I would never give them a second look.  Yet here I am, still searching for a special number, change-over & collecting them with as much enthusiasm as the good ol paper.

 

PaperorPlastic
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
« Reply #17 on: September 22, 2017, 09:49:58 pm »

  I don't have anything against anyone who runs the processes currently in place.  I can understand moving to a system that is more centralized and controlled in order to ensure that the data inputted is legitimate and not someone trying to make a mess of things.  There is a reason you have to have an account to enter notes in the SNDB.

  But like others have expressed now and in the past the system isn't perfect.  Nothing is ever perfect but its always good to strive for improvement.

  One thing I suggested in an earlier reply was that the process used to authenticate insert note ranges should have a section in the Charlton Catalogue.  Whether people like the catalogue or not it is the book for Canadian government banknotes.  A lot of collectors get this book shortly after they start collecting and I feel like a detailed explanation could go a long way in clearing up any confusion or doubts expressed.  I remember when I first started collecting and the whole concept of insert notes seemed strange to me.  I had only known the X and * notes as being replacements.  I'm sure a lot of collectors feel the same when they start out seeing as how inserts really are just random regular notes with ordinary prefixes and serial numbers that were used as replacements.

  I guess I'm speaking for the beginner and more casual collectors of paper money who may not be as invested and devoted as other collectors but nonetheless share the same passion for this hobby.

Seth
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 876
« Reply #18 on: September 23, 2017, 03:00:35 pm »

I welcome this change. The end of identifiable replacement notes (* or X) finished it for me. I never bought in to the "insert" notes thing, believing the reporting system "by reputable researchers" to be bogus and prone to errors and/or abuse.

I don't mean to knock any particular person who participated in this system, in fact I thank all of those who did participate, for the sake of the insert note collectors out there. It is the system itself I had a problem with. I'm glad it's gone.

Track your Canadian currency online!

http://www.whereswilly.com
walktothewater
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,004
  • Join the Journey
« Reply #19 on: September 24, 2017, 12:12:10 pm »

I must be missing something re: the topic of transparency because that whole CPMF & SNDB were set up to substantially improve transparency.  When "brickers" first discovered insert replacements it was just verified by other "brickers" collectors & those doing the research.  Bricks & bundles can get mixed up, but more importantly, the notes will come out into bank machines and be shuffled.  Many collectors would take out large amounts of cash and assume (because the notes were mostly in consecutive order) that these notes were just like they were when they were released in bricks (untrue).  So: that was the intent to keep the info tight/the stats needed to be verified by other collectors.  That's all there was to it & this has been covered in much older threads here on the CPMF. This info was also covered in your Charlton guide.

Now, for as long as I can remember, collectors have been either "hot," "luke warm" or "cold" when it comes to collecting insert replacements (I know many long-time collectors who shun designated "X" or asterisk replacements!)  So that is why I wrote (IMO) that now the era of replacements is over- that collecting them (& their popularity) may be in for a "bumpy road."  But this could be temporary.  It is also very possible that a new generation of collectors will be very keen on keeping these notes (no longer produced could mean they're more valuable). They may be very keen on the polymer (as a first of its kind in Canada).  Only time will tell. And these are trends that can affect market value.

I think the one thing we are forgetting in this thread are the other implications.  As BWJM noted in another thread on # of notes printed vs # of notes released (in terms of the "150" ten & Jubilee $20 "spoilage" and what was released by BOC) we seem to have unprecedented transparency from BOC.  And we also have other phenomenon occurring in terms of # of notes released.  So, short prefixes ($20 BSW) and change-overs ($10 M/C FTH) may have had much smaller releases than the data suggests.  This is not entirely new but there does seem to be a few surprises yet in terms of what could be the next rare note.

   

 

Login with username, password and session length