CPM Forum

Highs and Lows => Two Dollar High/Lows => Topic started by: golddigger on July 16, 2015, 11:55:33 pm

Title: EGU
Post by: golddigger on July 16, 2015, 11:55:33 pm
I have a 1986 $2 note  with the prefix letters EGU and the signatures of  Thiessen - Crow. The checklist of prefix letters shows EG denom. Letters and series letters from A-P and  EGR. EGU.  Is  shown but with Bonin- Thiessen signatures. Any information would be helpful.

So here are some pictures,  # on the note is EGU 6658246 with the signatures of Thiessen - Crow. The front of the note is out of register printing... when i put a second note with it you can see the signatures clearly.

{attach:3511} {attach:3512} {attach:3513}
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: JB-2007 on July 18, 2015, 12:15:22 am
I find it very strange that you have a Thiessen-Crow EGU note as there have been no anomaly (good-over) notes reported in that prefix. Yet there is a first for everything and there have been several good-over notes reported in the $2 and $5 bird series.
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: venga50 on July 18, 2015, 06:44:52 pm
Would you be able to take a photo of the back of the note held up to a bright light source? This should allow us to see the signatures and confirm the photos below are the front and back of the same note.

EGU is one of the prefixes of the uncut sheets of $2 notes that were sold by the Bank of Canada to the public in 1995-96. Therefore it would have been possible for a bogus EGU cutting error to be made after the sheets left the BoC. However what's puzzling is that the uncut EGU sheets have the Bonin-Thiessen signatures, not Thiessen-Crow.
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: golddigger on July 19, 2015, 12:04:18 am
{attach:3513}
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: golddigger on July 19, 2015, 12:05:47 am
{attach:3518}
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: golddigger on July 19, 2015, 12:15:25 am
I understand about the bogus cutting error, but the back of the note is centered and the face is off center with part of the other note showing. So i don't think it is a bogus cutting error.
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: venga50 on July 19, 2015, 02:05:57 pm
{attach:3518}

Wow this is a fascinating note. So yes, it is clearly an out-of-register printing error.  My 25th (2013) edition of the Charlton catalogue values it at $200 in UNC condition.  However I wouldn't accept this value until we solve the mystery of why your EGU note has the Thiessen-Crow signatures. Maybe you should contact the Bank of Canada directly and e-mail them the last photo you uploaded here.  I think there are a few forum members here who might be able to give you a contact with the BoC.

Title: Re: EGU
Post by: golddigger on July 19, 2015, 02:53:55 pm
Thank you, and if someone can give me the information i will contact the bank of Canada
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: mmars on July 19, 2015, 04:52:14 pm
The note is worth $10,000+.  Let's not beat around the bush... if that note is what it appears to be, it would be the highlight of any major paper money auction, regardless of whether it's from sheet issue or circulation issue.

"Good overs" from the Bird series are not without precedence.  Five dollar sheets with Bonin-Thiessen signatures apparently found their way, years after being printed, into prefix HNB at the end of the series when notes carried the signatures of Knight-Dodge.  Given this precedence, it's not a huge stretch of the imagination to see the same thing happening to a misprinted $2 Thiessen-Crow sheet finding its way into the Bonin-Thiessen sheets at the end of the series.  Deliberate mistake or not, the note is what it is, and you should only entertain offers north of $10k.
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: golddigger on July 19, 2015, 10:03:31 pm
Thanks for that news, but am a collector at heart, so it won't be for sale any time soon. But would like to  see it in a  book one day.
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: JB-2007 on July 19, 2015, 10:48:53 pm
Very interesting note indeed but like they say "if its too good to be true, it probably is". Have you checked the security features on this note? Keep in mind that many $2 notes were produced for collections back in 1996 when they changed over to the coin, its likely that many fake twos were also produced. My best advise is if the security features are there, have your note evaluated and confirmed by a professional grader.
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: golddigger on July 19, 2015, 11:25:22 pm
What things should i look for.
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: Gary_T on July 20, 2015, 08:33:04 am
Looks real to me. I would say just bring it in to BCS to get graded. The only reason someone would fake a note like this is to make alot of money if you paid next to nothing for it it's real. Good for you.
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: golddigger on July 20, 2015, 09:33:58 am
$150.00 is what i paid.
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: venga50 on July 20, 2015, 11:58:48 am
Looks real to me. I would say just bring it in to BCS to get graded. The only reason someone would fake a note like this is to make alot of money if you paid next to nothing for it it's real. Good for you.

Has BCS changed their policy about grading error notes? I thought they didn't accept error notes for grading.
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: canada-banknotes on July 20, 2015, 05:02:42 pm
Don't forget the 1973 $1 notes that suddenly showed up several months back with inverted backs.  They turned out to be "too good to be true" when it was discovered that someone was splicing banknotes and gluing them back together as an inverted error.

I'm not insinuating that this is the case here but a definite possibility considering the value that a newly discovered cut out of register "good-over" note could realize at auction.

It is astounding to what lengths some people will go to in an effort to deceive and make a buck at the same time.
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: canada-banknotes on July 20, 2015, 05:05:39 pm
Has BCS changed their policy about grading error notes? I thought they didn't accept error notes for grading.
BCS will grade error notes (see attached example).

{attach:3520}
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: mmars on July 20, 2015, 07:30:54 pm
Since this note is not in the catalogue, it is very likely that BCS will not certify it.  At least you have to tell them ahead of time what you have.  If you just show up at their doorstep with this note in hand, even if you have an appointment, they may not be willing to stake their reputation on authenticating and grading this note.  You could get an informal opinion, for sure, but they may not want to slab it.

I think the person who would be the best to see this note is the catalogue editor.  From there, getting an article (or even just a picture) published in the CPMS Journal would go a long way to getting information about this note distributed publicly.
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: golddigger on July 20, 2015, 08:38:06 pm
Are you refining to Charlton standard catalogue editor?
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: JB-2007 on July 20, 2015, 10:08:04 pm
Or have your note looked at by a reputable coin/paper money dealer.
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: golddigger on July 21, 2015, 01:45:27 am
Yes i will take it to a dealer soon , i am in a small town on the west coast of B.C. so there is no one around here.
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: mmars on July 22, 2015, 04:48:53 pm
Are you refining to Charlton standard catalogue editor?
No, I was refining referring to the Sears catalogue editor.  :D  Wait, I better follow forum rules and clarify that this was sarcasm, just in case somebody reading this actually believes that Sears publishes numismatic catalogues.  There is only one paper money catalogue, the Charlton catalogue.
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: Manada on July 22, 2015, 05:15:17 pm
No, I was refining referring to the Sears catalogue editor.  :D  Wait, I better follow forum rules and clarify that this was sarcasm, just in case somebody reading this actually believes that Sears publishes numismatic catalogues.  There is only one paper money catalogue, the Charlton catalogue.

LOL, actually Sears kinda does...

http://www.sears.com/search=coin
 (http://www.sears.com/search=coin)
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: CA_Banknotes on July 23, 2015, 10:42:36 pm
The note is suspicious to me for the following reasons:

The intaglio (for the portrait and numbers on the front) and lithographic processes (for the background) are separate processes.

When the lithographic process is done - typically both sides are printed simultaneously. That's the first red flag to me about this note.

Passing that, I would find it hard to believe that the intaglio process is then messed up in the same spot to align with the misaligned lithographic printing.

Typically when there's an error with the intaglio being out of register but the lithographic process is normal - you see the "ghost" lithography in the background.

But who knows - crazy things can happen...  :-*
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: Rupiah on July 27, 2015, 12:28:55 am


When the lithographic process is done - typically both sides are printed simultaneously. That's the first red flag to me about this note.

Passing that, I would find it hard to believe that the intaglio process is then messed up in the same spot to align with the misaligned lithographic printing.

Typically when there's an error with the intaglio being out of register but the lithographic process is normal - you see the "ghost" lithography in the background.



The offset printing with both sides simultaneously printed has been necessary for good registration of the front with the back on the journey series and polymer series. I am not sure if such a process was used for the bird series.

A note like the reported EGU can be possible if:

a) The offset on both sides were not printed simultaneously.
b) The intaglio on the front was printed after the offset on the front which was either followed by or preceded by the offset on the back. This would make the front offset and the front intaglio in register but with both being out of register with the back.





Title: Re: EGU
Post by: Rupiah on July 27, 2015, 12:41:43 am
Thank you, and if someone can give me the information i will contact the bank of Canada

The  Bank of Canada will always answer a question on the matter of the authenticity (i.e. whether it is counterfeit or not) of the note. I have had good success simply writing to the public information e-mail address on their website (info@bankofcanada.ca.

Raised ink and dots (planchettes) that cannot be scratched off the surface were the two publicly recognized security features.
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: golddigger on July 27, 2015, 01:49:07 am
Thanks for all the information.. The  Planchettes don't come off and glow under UV  light.  There is light raised ink on the two on the face.
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: canada-banknotes on July 29, 2015, 01:44:34 pm
Now I am convinced that the 1986 Bird $2 EGU cut out of register "good-over" is a forgery.   ???

I just discovered it was sold on eBay by the same seller who is currently selling the 1973 $1 inverted back design error (see eBay item # 181776541539)

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/1986-Canada-Cutting-Error-Paper-money-UNUSED-/181776541539?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a52b9e763 (http://www.ebay.ca/itm/1986-Canada-Cutting-Error-Paper-money-UNUSED-/181776541539?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a52b9e763)

Coincidence ?  I doubt it.   Another example of "if its too good to be true, then it probably isn't".

{attach:3536}    {attach:3537}
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: coinsplus on July 30, 2015, 12:56:53 am
The other items for sale seem to be high quality forgeries of bank notes and Chinese stamps.   Anything goes in China and pretty much ANYTHING and EVERYTHING can be counterfeited and copied.   
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: JB-2007 on July 30, 2015, 09:36:12 am
And the worst part about it is that it got 24 bids and ended at $540 US when we can pretty much conclude they are worthless forgeries.
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: Rupiah on July 30, 2015, 09:00:25 pm
pretty much ANYTHING and EVERYTHING can be counterfeited and copied.   

That is correct.

However how well do these copies hold up to even simple scrutiny is of more interest. At an event sponsored where at a talk was given by BoC rep, they showed some counterfeit notes. They were good counterfeits but anyone with even a little knowledge of the security features and making of the notes could lead anyone to know that they were counterfeits.

I suspect that the $1 note from this same vendor when handled at a show did indicate evidence of something not being right.

The bigger question for the $2 note in my mind would be whether they go to this length to do a simple error or in this case a signature-serial combination that makes such a rare note.

CA_Banknotes had rightly picked up the anomaly of the intaglio/offset being out of register at the same time on the front of the note.




Title: Re: EGU
Post by: JB-2007 on July 30, 2015, 10:18:40 pm
The bigger question for the $2 note in my mind would be whether they go to this length to do a simple error or in this case a signature-serial combination that makes such a rare note.
That's most likely what the intent is, and it worked, the seller got over $700!
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: ShareBear on August 01, 2015, 11:39:06 am
Didn't the current owner state that the purchase price was $150 in a previous post on this thread?   
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: friedsquid on August 01, 2015, 04:27:17 pm
Didn't the current owner state that the purchase price was $150 in a previous post on this thread?   
I do believe that the original poster said he paid $150 for the note but I'm not sure if the note he has is the one that sold on ebay...I believe that was another one, but I may be wrong...I didn't look at the serial numbers
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: coinsplus on August 01, 2015, 07:50:20 pm
The serial numbers are identical for the $2 EGU note.  Most likely, this seems to be high quality copycats.
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: CA_Banknotes on August 02, 2015, 05:44:41 pm
Hmm so my spidey senses were right for once.  :o

Too much of a coincidence with such a bizarre printing screw up which was suspicious enough as it is + a good-over.
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: golddigger on August 04, 2015, 10:16:01 pm
LOL, all i can say "some days your the dog and some days  your the hydrant ....Any one want to buy a $2 bill
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: canada-banknotes on August 04, 2015, 10:37:51 pm
LOL, all i can say "some days your the dog and some days  your the hydrant ....Any one want to buy a $2 bill
Don't give up on that note so quickly.  I know a numismatic auction house that will take it as a showcase lot for their next auction - Wink wink nudge nudge  O:-)
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: friedsquid on August 05, 2015, 08:50:57 pm
LOL, all i can say "some days your the dog and some days  your the hydrant ....Any one want to buy a $2 bill
for 2 bucks and free shipping :)
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: Rupiah on August 14, 2015, 09:26:25 pm
LOL, all i can say "some days your the dog and some days  your the hydrant ....Any one want to buy a $2 bill

Sent you a message.

Title: Re: EGU
Post by: golddigger on August 20, 2015, 12:48:11 am
Returned the seller for refund.
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: friedsquid on August 20, 2015, 11:34:25 am
Returned the seller for refund.
will be interesting to see how that goes...now that you are holding a counterfeit note the RCMP should be knocking at your door soon  :D
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: mmars on August 20, 2015, 04:16:09 pm
will be interesting to see how that goes...now that you are holding a counterfeit note the RCMP should be knocking at your door soon  :D
Did I miss something?  How is the note counterfeit?  Assuming it is made from two different notes that have been cut and spliced together, it's not really counterfeit as much as it is a Frankenstein note.  Clearly, the note is not "as issued", but I think it is still technically redeemable for face value.
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: golddigger on August 20, 2015, 11:01:04 pm
Lol i returned it the the seller on ebay for a full refund.
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: friedsquid on August 21, 2015, 07:23:00 am
Lol i returned it the the seller on ebay for a full refund.
congrats....I wonder how fast it will be posted again
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: mmars on August 22, 2015, 04:09:13 pm
congrats....I wonder how fast it will be posted again

... or how much it will sell for when it invariably DOES get relisted.
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: canada-banknotes on October 24, 2015, 06:32:17 pm
... or how much it will sell for when it invariably DOES get relisted.

I know we have all waited in anticipation to see if this "error" note would get relisted on eBay and what it would sell for the second time around.

Well wait no longer................it's back !!

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/1986-Bank-of-canada-error-Unused-Rare-/121794020125?hash=item1c5b7d431d:g:F4wAAOSwwbdWKB1B (http://www.ebay.ca/itm/1986-Bank-of-canada-error-Unused-Rare-/121794020125?hash=item1c5b7d431d:g:F4wAAOSwwbdWKB1B)

Already at over USD $100.  What a bargain.  :-D
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: comox on October 26, 2015, 11:51:37 am
Current bid is now over 500.00 Canadian.  :o
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: canada-banknotes on October 26, 2015, 04:43:19 pm
Current bid is now over 500.00 Canadian.  :o

This seller always uses a private listing for his/her items which hides bidder identities.  This creates an opportunity for shill bidding that artificially inflates the final sale price.

I never bid on private listings for this reason.
Title: Re: EGU
Post by: venga50 on October 26, 2015, 04:53:08 pm
Think it would do any good to report this item to eBay?