CPM Forum
Special => Error Notes => Topic started by: Rupiah on March 22, 2013, 09:26:52 pm
-
This listing on the favourite ;) auction site is baffling:
Item number: 200907344955
It is posted as an error note with a Serial Number on the back and a serial number on the front.
The serial number on the front shows up as a mirror image. The strange thing is that this number is not even close to being a consecutive number to the one on front. So it cannot be ink from an adjoining sheet.
I was intrigued by it and wondered what may have caused it? Is there any way to verify that something like this happened at the time of note production? It could very well have happened after the note production.
-
The two numbers represent notes only two sheets apart, but straddling the ream boundary. Interesting note.
-
If it's not a fake, it's interesting to note that there is a skip of 39002 notes between the two numbers. Exactly as if onte the numbering wheels, once at 2827999 skipped to 2867000 (the ream skip) and continued. The only thing which baffles me is why there is no evidence of the #2867000?
Is it because that the corrresponding sheet was somehow misprinted and withdrawn before the next one (2867001) was put over the #2827999?
-
Images of the actual note appear below.
BWJM is concisely right, the two notes are two sheets apart and printed in the same position of the layout, meaning they would have the same position numbers. Recall that the printer (BAI) uses a skip interval of 1000 and reams are 40,000 notes apart. AHN 2827999 is the last note printed in the earlier ream, and AHN 2867000 would be the first note printed in the following ream. I have seen a number of notes from the first and last sheet of a ream where the serial numbers are inked heavier than normal. This may be due to the printing machine operating at a reduced speed. The ink applied to the press during a reduced speed may be heavy because it's harder to control the flow of ink at that stage of printing, so the excess ink gets applied to the sheet as well.
The fact that AHN 2867000 is missing and ink from AHN 2867001 got onto AHN 2827999 is a bit of a mystery. Maybe the press operators put aside the missing sheet in anticipation that it would cause an ink transfer error. So the second sheet got put directly on top of the sheets from the previous ream and caused the same type of error. That's just my guess. Maybe there was an error with sheet 000 and it got removed for destruction. Whatever the case may be, the note appears to be a genuine error, though the asking price for this type of error seems a bit high.
{http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/4505/error50a.jpg:http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/4505/error50a.th.jpg}
{http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/8687/error50b.jpg:http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/8687/error50b.th.jpg}
-
Thx for the possible and detailed explanations. I guess this is another place where the research on printing layout helps.
But it does raise some more questions.
I always thought that the sheets after printing the numbers would fall print side up. In this case after the number was printed they would fall with the back side (number side) up. So the front of AHN 2827999 would have an imprint of AHN 2827998, the sheet that was printed just before it, unless of course the printing of numbers happens in a descending order or the sheets fall with print side down.
Assuming printing is done from lower to higher number, then in order for AHN 2827999 to get a print of the next number on its front (i.e. AHN2867000) it would have to be positioned with its front exposed to the oncoming next sheet i.e. the number side would be face down (assuming of course that the sheets have to lie flat on a surface). That sounds difficult to fathom (because one would expect print to be exposed to air drying) but possible nonetheless.
Another totally different question is if there exists a possibility that something like this could be done after the fact? It would seem straightforward to lay a print on a note in black ink. After all it is a smear only and not a letterpress imprint. If there exists a possibility that it can be done after the fact then would it not be similar to a note that is smaller in size which could presumably happen by someone taking scissors to it?
Meaning anything that can be presumably done after the fact is not an error? ???
Of course to each their own in terms of how they perceive value in thier collections, but just trying to see how something like this would fit within the realm of GPM terminology and categories.
-
Images of the actual note appear below.
AHN 2827999 is the last note printed in the earlier ream, and AHN 2867000 would be the first note printed in the following ream.
{http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/4505/error50a.jpg:http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/4505/error50a.th.jpg}
{http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/8687/error50b.jpg:http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/8687/error50b.th.jpg}
So I finally saw a bundle of crisp notes with a band around it. The teller tore the band in front of me to give me the change that I had requested.
I noticed that the notes when viewed with the back (serial number side) facing up were in a descending order .
More precisely:
1439999 was on top
1439998 was below it
1439997 was below it and so on.
Now I am assuming that since this was a crisp bundle and the topmost note was 1439999 and the bottom most note was 1439900 that it had not been rearranged between the time it left the printers and the time the teller opened the strap.
My first question which I presume all the brickers could easily answer:
Is this normally how the bundles are laid out?
If indeed that is how the notes are laid out then the situation shown on this e-bay listing is even more puzzling. The printing from
2897001 should be on 2897002 the note that would have its front resting on the number side of 2897001.
For 2897001 to get imprinted on 2827999 the last note on a prior ream would almost be impossible in this scenario.
Am I missing something here?
-
We're all missing something, namely the precise knowledge of what goes on at the printing facilities. I don't think we're likely to come to a consensus and nail down a solution with the evidence we have.
-
Call me naive but I am having a hard time accepting that such knowledge is sparse. I hear this refrain frequently that it is difficult to get information from BOC and yet I see statements in publications confirming verification by the BOC or coming from reliable sources at BOC.
I would have thought that the community of currency collectors after years of fostering the hobby might have at least developed good relationships with the BOC and the printing companies to allow exchange of information at a very basic level and of interest to the collector community.
Do the printing companies and the BOC not have anything to gain from the collective knowledge of the collector community? Is this type of information so secretive that sharing it in some generic way discloses some well guarded secrets?
I guess this may be just wishful thinking :(
In the meantime are there any other instances of this kind of notes in existence? Maybe this note is indeed rare!
-
Call me naive but I am having a hard time accepting that such knowledge is sparse. I hear this refrain frequently that it is difficult to get information from BOC and yet I see statements in publications confirming verification by the BOC or coming from reliable sources at BOC.
I tend to share this sentiment. It's not as if it's State Secrets, or related to national security. Every now and then, one even sees news clips of the actual sheets being produced, although the last clip saw was of Journeys.
I've also wondered why there seem to be proportionally so many more replacement notes than we had when there were asterisk and X notes. Are BABN and CBN really messing up that much? I've become curious how the replacement ranges are actually determined and verified? Especially in the higher denominations, where one might encounter issues with cash reporting regulations? My reasoning makes me wonder if there isn't some inside contact somewhere? Now I haven't actually counted up the numbers of all the replacement notes and compared them to the numbers of asterisk and X notes, but it's begun to make me wonder when we see replacement note ranges seemingly all over the place. Maybe I'm just overly curious?
-
Call me naive but I am having a hard time accepting that such knowledge is sparse. I hear this refrain frequently that it is difficult to get information from BOC and yet I see statements in publications confirming verification by the BOC or coming from reliable sources at BOC.
Obviously, somebody knows what is happening, but here are some tidbits of information that should shed some light:
- The Bank of Canada does not print notes. The printing companies (BAI and CBN) print the notes and ship them to the Bank of Canada.
- Printing of notes is very secretive and secure despite the fact that privately-owned companies are doing the work. The reasons are obvious... The less the public knows about what goes on at the printing facilities, the less likely that counterfeiters will be able to copy the product.
- If having a job printing our circulating legal tender is well-paid, what incentive is there for the workers to do anything to risk their jobs? Any leak of information could put the jobs in peril.
I would have thought that the community of currency collectors after years of fostering the hobby might have at least developed good relationships with the BOC and the printing companies to allow exchange of information at a very basic level and of interest to the collector community.
Define "very basic level". The BoC does provide very general information. However, anything to do with note production processes is not going to be divulged. I have no doubt that many currency collectors have had their expectations raised by how willing the Royal Canadian Mint is to divulge information to coin collectors. But the Mint is in the business of making and selling Mint Products, just like any private company that makes collectible trinkets from figurines to spoons to collector plates to Elvis busts. The Bank of Canada is not in the collectibles business. They are responsible for the financial stability of the country's economy. That they are a public institution explains why they issue any information at all, otherwise we would get zilch from them.
Do the printing companies and the BOC not have anything to gain from the collective knowledge of the collector community? Is this type of information so secretive that sharing it in some generic way discloses some well guarded secrets?
Nothing to gain, everything to lose. Pissing off collectors is a very small price to pay for maintaining the security of our circulating tender. Also, truth be known, the BoC probably doesn't know a lot of specifics going on at the printers. I have a distinct feeling that the BoC does, in fact, take in information from collectors, but it's not a 2-way avenue of communication. For instance, when error notes turn up and are reported by people on this site or listed on ebay, I'm sure someone at the BoC is jotting down information. We are a source of feedback to them, albeit mostly indirectly. We tell them about defective notes, they investigate, but they don't report back to us.
In the meantime are there any other instances of this kind of notes in existence? Maybe this note is indeed rare!
Rare, maybe. But rarity and price don't always correlate. And if this type or "error" could be faked, that will really hold back speculation and interest.
I tend to share this sentiment. It's not as if it's State Secrets, or related to national security. Every now and then, one even sees news clips of the actual sheets being produced, although the last clip saw was of Journeys.
National security? Indeed it is. What do you think would happen if you woke up tomorrow and all of your cash was worthless?
I've also wondered why there seem to be proportionally so many more replacement notes than we had when there were asterisk and X notes. Are BABN and CBN really messing up that much? I've become curious how the replacement ranges are actually determined and verified? Especially in the higher denominations, where one might encounter issues with cash reporting regulations? My reasoning makes me wonder if there isn't some inside contact somewhere? Now I haven't actually counted up the numbers of all the replacement notes and compared them to the numbers of asterisk and X notes, but it's begun to make me wonder when we see replacement note ranges seemingly all over the place. Maybe I'm just overly curious?
The whole point of insert notes is that they are just regular notes issued in a non-chronological order. Every so often, someone voices the idea that there's some kind of master list of inserts being kept somewhere. Given that not every sheet from a replacement range is a true "insert" sheet, keeping such a list would be an organizational nightmare. Insert notes are just not the same thing as asterisk or X-replacement notes. Inserts have no discernible characteristics that identify them as anything other than regular notes. Even back when replacements were all discernible, not every note with an asterisk or "X" was actually issued as a replacement. I'm confident in this assertion through my research, but nobody ever listens to me because the truth it reveals is very scary. It means, basically, every now and then, someone can get their hands on large numbers of notes that happen to belong to insert ranges. Been there, done that, but forgot to buy the t-shirt. O:-)
There does not have to be any logic behind insert note range except that they cannot cross ream boundaries. We use research about serial number printing practices to nail down where those ream boundaries are, and how many sheets belong to each distinct ream. Sheet insert ranges have to conform to this knowledge. However, like I said, not every sheet from a ream where insert notes have been detected ends up being used for replacement purposes. That's why there seem to be more insert notes today than there were replacements in the past. All the Bank of Canada really cares about is getting the exact number of notes it orders. The notes don't have to be in order. There doesn't have to be 10,000 bricks for every prefix. All that matters is that the books have to balance.
-
Hi Guys its being a long time since i post here
but i have the same Error front number ahn2882001 back number ahn2842995
intresting that the not on the auction site have ann2897001 .
Thanks
-
have a look at the pic's
-
have a look at the pic's
{http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/8769/photoon20130416at936pm.jpg:http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/8769/photoon20130416at936pm.th.jpg}
-
have a look at the pic's
{http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/8769/photoon20130416at936pm.jpg:http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/8769/photoon20130416at936pm.th.jpg}
{http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/7687/photoon20130416at934pm2.jpg:http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/7687/photoon20130416at934pm2.th.jpg}
-
{http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/7687/photoon20130416at934pm2.jpg:http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/7687/photoon20130416at934pm2.th.jpg}
Your pictures appear to be backwards. This isn't helping me in my confused state. ???
-
Your pictures appear to be backwards. This isn't helping me in my confused state. ???
This seems to be an amazing conundrum. ???
So the numbers being reported are coming from the same set of sheets i.e. they are within the 40,000 that was suggested for the BAI pattern.
But they are different positions within the sheet. So presumably if the transfer of ink was happening to the last sheet of the ream from the first sheet on the next ream then the following transfers should be happening:
Reverse imprint of AHN2867001 on the front of AHN2827999 (this assumes that the sheet containing AHN2867000 somehow vanished)
If the above is true then the other reported note should have:
Reverse imprint of AHN2882001 on the front of AHN2842999
However the note reported to have an imprint of AHN 2882001 is on AHN2842995
So what gives here?
When I look at the most recent example posted by noon it almost looks not as an ink transfer but a print of the ink (assuming we can sort out the photographs)
-
Hi Guys its being a long time since i post here
but i have the same Error front number ahn2882001 back number ahn2842995
intresting that the not on the auction site have ann2897001 .
Thanks
Hey noon,
It would be interesting to trace the lineage of your note? Do you have a record of where and how your procured it?
-
hi ,
i will scan the note and post the pic's tomorrow i need to find my old scanner
the new 1s don't scan paper money any more .
I did take the pic's from my laptop cam its not the best .
Noon
-
In summary...
The ream intervals are 40,000 notes. It has been determined that the ream groups are as follows:
AHN 2820000-2859999
AHN 2860000-2899999
AHN 2900000-2939999
So the eBay note has AHN 2867001 printed on the front of AHN 2827999.
Noon's note has AHN 2882001 printed on the front of AHN 2842995.
Both AHN 2867001 and AHN 2882001 are notes from the same ream and same sheet.
But AHN 2827999 and AHN 2842995 are from the same ream but 4 sheets apart. That seems to indicate that the sheet that caused the error on both notes came in contact with at least two sheets, maybe more. That is quite unexpected and impossible to explain.