CPM Forum
Special => Error Notes => Topic started by: canada-banknotes on March 22, 2010, 07:16:49 pm
-
I have been gathering data on the 1954 $5 Modified bank notes with duplicate serial numbers.
To date the following duplicate pairs have been reported:
E/X 2054001 (page 366, Charlton 22nd Edition 2010
E/X 2041001 and E/X 2042001 (see post below)
1954 BC-39b five dollar notes UNC. S/N E/X 2041001 Found by my sister when she counted bills as a teller in Trenton Ont. Ottawa Herald article June 26 1976 cites find of two E/X 2042001 notes. There may be others of this series.
E/X 2068001 (National Currency Collection)
http://www.currencymuseum.ca/collection/artefact/view/1995.0022.00001.000/canada-bank-of-canada-5-dollars-1954 (http://www.currencymuseum.ca/collection/artefact/view/1995.0022.00001.000/canada-bank-of-canada-5-dollars-1954)
http://www.currencymuseum.ca/collection/artefact/view/1995.0022.00002.000/canada-bank-of-canada-5-dollars-1954 (http://www.currencymuseum.ca/collection/artefact/view/1995.0022.00002.000/canada-bank-of-canada-5-dollars-1954)
Based on research to date it appears that all of these notes have a common serial number ending in 001. I am hoping that someone can provide an explanation as to how this error may have occurred and how many duplicate pairs may have been printed, based on this data.
-
That's easy... Taking Graham Esler's article into consideration from I believe the September 2006 CPMS Newsletter, along with a bit of take-my-word-for-it estimation based on prefixes, notes were printed 40/on at the time and skip-numbered by 1,000 throughout the series.
Normally, serial number errors occur as a result of one numbering head being mis-set or otherwise not on the proper number. For example, a wheel has jumped ahead a couple spots. This will stay out of sync until reset by the press operator, and the result is a vertical stack of serial number errors in only a single position.
However, it is clear from the information available that it was in fact two whole sheets that were numbered identically. How it would come to be that two sheets were numbered identically, I don't know. The 001 sheet is the second sheet in the stack, assuming the changeover from 001-1000 to 000-999 numbering occurred at A/X as the catalogue suggests.
So that would mean there should be 40 pairs of these errors. Four are already accounted for. I would estimate, again based on those seen so far, that the numbers will be 2040001 through 2079001 with only the bolded digits changing.
-
I've got a pair! e/x 2069001 just acquired. :)