CPM Forum
Special => Insert & Replacement Notes => Topic started by: standeasy on January 23, 2007, 04:31:37 pm
-
How do we (I) keep up with what seems to be a never ending flow of new and claimed new insert notes. I,m going batty trying to do so. I go thru our favorite auction site. I receive regular listings from a couple of excellent dealers but every time I turn around there are a few more notes for me to add to my list of confirmed or possible inserts. Do we have a segment on the CPMF that covers all my puzzlement.
[edit]Thread renamed by request. --BWJM[/edit]
-
Hi There,
Gilles Pomerleau is the foremost expert in Journey Series Inserts in Canada. Everyone reports their findings to him and then that is how ranges are determined. After a certian range has been confirmed by SEVERAL reliable sources and been reviewed by a Senior member of the Canadian Paper Money Society it is then published on the GP List. This list is sent out to Subscribers, and then once the information is then published Brent puts the information in the High/Low Lists for reference by all members. Anything ont he GP List is expected to be published in the next Charlton Edition.
With CBN Printing bank notes they were riddled with errors so there ended up being a large selection of Inserts. The Journey $5 Notes is a PERFECT example.
I agree it is difficult to keep up with by with BABN now printing the 2006 $5 Notes we have seen a large decrease in new ranges being found.
You can post in the Replacements section if you are looking for specific information. ;)
-
How do you subsribe to the list?
-
All the updated confirmed inserts are on the NEW HIGH/LOW LISTS. Or you can go to wiki.bwjm.ca
It' s usually updated every 2 months.
-
Gilles Pomerleau is the foremost expert in Journey Series Inserts in Canada. Everyone reports their findings to him and then that is how ranges are determined.
Really? Everyone? I haven't...and wouldn't even know how to reach him.
moneycow
-
I am on the phone with him (GP) fairly often- if you are looking to get his newsletter, let me know by PM, and I will speak with him directly.
-
Another Option that is the best option for submitting information is to send it to Sudzee.
He complies the information and sends it to Gilles. Many people report to him.
It is VERY important that Brick Searchers get their information to Gilles one way or another as there may be other people who have also found a certian insert but are waiting for more to find it before it becomes official. You might be the missing link....
I would like to Commend and give a big pat on the back to all the Searchers out there. The information you find is VERY Critical and keep up the good work. Please get your information submitted! ;)
-
Indeed, GP has a well of information which he shares happily with whoever calls him. The only problem is these data are not available on internet like this forum and easily accessible. wouldn't it be better if some one could persuade him to allow one or some moderators to create and maintain a complete database of the unscheduled inserts in the forum, containing all details like where the inserts come from, replacing what missing notes ?
-
Indeed it would be a really interesting idea. I am not sure if anyone is up to the task.....
I would vote Oli for the position as he has a good handle on Inserts as well...
I think Brent does a fine job with the current High/Low Lists.
It should be clear that the 2 lists will need to be COMPLETELY separate... This would be CRITICAL. :-X
-
I would like to add something, so here it is.
I volunteer myself for a position like that. In fact, I already do what is described to some degree. Any person here who has ever witnessed another new find or non-find by someone else also is taking part in the collaboration. It takes alot of effort, from alot of people.
For those of you who know about the research I do and what I provide (mostly tentative inserts), my emails to you are exactly what x-savior describes, although probably not complete since there are many more searchers. That is, you get a list of the new findings, with a guarantee of refund if they do not end up being confirmed. All with the exception of one so far have materialized as confirmed findings enough so that they could be put in the letter/catalogue. Those notes were not sold.
I disagree with having the lists separate with a :-X attatched to it, which perhaps implys a deliberate communication blockage? Only in discussing finds with one another can we discover the patterns and oddities that we need to in order to maintain the integrity and accuracy of the lists. One perfect example is the issue of BABN notes being found in sheets as well as singles. If both parties discovered one type of insert (sheet vs single), and did not discuss how and where they were found, then it is possible that opposing conclusions could be the result. Thus, information sharing is key; we are working all for ONE cause, I would like to stress. The described situation is a slim possibility, but a possibility nonetheless.
I know that managing a list like this would only be an extension of what most of us on the forum already know. We have posts and posts about what the insert ranges will be on the next list, what someone's finds were in a new brick. The information is already there, here on this site; agreed though, there are many who do not post, and many finds that do not go into as much detail as they possibly could.
To close, I volunteer myself for this "position". Any objections?
X-savior, could you please elaborate on why they must be completely separate?
Add modified message body:
The information of potential inserts should not be published in a public list.
Why? When the information is available to just anyone, then that leaves an opportunity for "just anyone" to fabricate their own brick and "invent" their own inserts (in hopes of having their stack of notes being recognized as inserts, despite being fraudulent).
The fact is, when we all colaborate our insert finds, AND non-insert finds, the real inserts get confirmed, but any untrue inserts can be easliy disroven with the right information. You could hand me one $20, and I can place with certainty the position in the ream of 360,000 or 270,000 notes that it is a part of. This type of information is what disproves erroneus insert claims, or even validifies some unique findings. I am happy to report that there have not been any claims of regular notes being inserts for a very long time. The ones that were, were disproven through the application of well researched knowledge about the printing process. The bottom line, this is somewhat sensitive information, and for the best interest of hobby, it is best kept rather tight, until absolute confirmation. In saying that, that does not stop anyone from posting their finds here on the forum of course.
Why else would Gilles NOT include this information in his lists... he does have the infrmation to compile a "potential" list already. The reason: so that people are not jumping to conclusions on insert notes before there has been confirmation as per protocol.
Instead of having to backpedal and say "Sorry, there were not enough confirmed findings of this note, so I am striking it off the list" (and risk dissappointing a number of people waiting in high anticipation that their notes were more valuable), it could all be avoided if the ONLY inserts published as inserts were the ones that were officially confirmed, end of story. Seems to make alot of sense.
Thus, to pair up with my voluntary statement,
"For the greatest interest in the Canadian Paper Money hobby, I will only publicly publish information that has been properly confirmed already, and which is scheduled to be on the next mailout list."
In theory, the list that I compile would end up being exactly like GP's at the end of each quarter, when his mailout actually comes. But in the months prior, it would be nice to get the heads up of newly confirmed ranges (which is kind of already happening).
-
The Reason I say keep them separate is that people need to know the difference between ACTUAL Inserts and PROPOSED Inserts. That is why Brent has stated that he will only list CONFIRMED Inserts from the GP List. I don't understand where the concept of Communication Blockage has come into question.... :-/
Something new is being done with insert notes since we have moved the lists from the forums. Now, we do not track insert notes specifically per se, but we do list confirmed and suspected insert ranges. Confirmed insert ranges are those which appear either in the most recent edition of the Charlton Standard Catalogue of Canadian Government Paper Money, or in the lists published by Gilles Pomerleau. This information is reproduced with permission. Suspected insert ranges are those for which verbal confirmation from Gilles has been obtained, but they have not yet been published on paper.
We need a Place for people to go where there will be RELIABLE information on CONFIRMED Inserts and then a separate place to see what the latest finds are and SUSPECTED Insert Ranges (From Forum Members). So then anyone can take the information with a grain of salt, KNOWING ALL THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IS NOT CONFIRMED. Then once confirmed by Gilles on the GP List the information would then be removed from the Suspected Lists and put into the Current High/Low Lists. Thus 2 Separate Lists are Maintained (Completely Separate).
Then for those who DON'T care about Suspected Ranges will not be bothered by them and STILL have a RELIABLE place to go for information.
I Still agree that the Suspected List is a good idea but it should only contain CURRENT finds. So it will be a constantly evolving list of the latest finds by people.
Another issue I have is that the Suspected Lists should NOT become a method of marketing ones notes. In fact I think the individual who Moderates the list should not even be a Brick Searcher (Actively). It should be an individual who is Familiar with Inserts who can Administer the Lists UNBIASED.
I think many people would agree this is the best way to handle this issue.
-
I had never realized what a complex issue this subject could be and I want to thank all of you who read or responded with some very well thought out ideas of what should or could be done. I am not a researcher or a brick researcher but I do find all the information helpful .
CPMS #557
-
It would get known inserts faster to market so to speak. I think it would be OK if SUSPECTED inserts were published and noted in bold and underlined as SUSPECTED. I can certainly apprecate the caution of wanting to wait until confirmation. Who decides that an insert is an insert?
[smiley=beer.gif]
-
It is a valid point. Instead of rejecting out of hand, those notes close to the ranges should be classed as suspected or unconfirmed. This would encourage some to research to prove or disprove a note as insert. Already there are reports of notes that are very close to the ranges or between ranges . Until those notes are identified or proven to be common notes they should remain unconfirmed.
hi, Hudson, I am sure all of us appreciate your efforts.
-
Hi everyone, yes I agree this thread got complicated very quickly.
I will simplify it, and start with delivering in part what is sought out:
Dear fellow collectors (Jan 24, 2007),
Here are some of the new confirmed insert ranges, which have not been published as of yet. They will be on future lists. Some of this information is as new as today, as per direct conversation with GP himself.
a) EZL 8.8 and area -- this is a ream that is 360,000 notes, likely to be 8640000 - 9000000. These inserts ARE CONFIRMED according to direct phone conversation with GP.
b) EZR 9.72 - 9.99. These are inserts, skip numbered by 6000, making them a ream of 270,000. THESE ARE CONFIRMED according to direct phone conversation with GP.
c) AOH 9.45 which falls outside of the most recently published range: THIS IS ALSO CONFIRMED to now be in the range, according to direct phone conversation with GP. Reams of BABN $5s are of 40,000 notes, so adjust the existing range downwards by 40,000.
There is another high range of inserts I found that has not officially been confirmed by enough findings. It is $20s by CBN. PM if you would like to know.
To emphasize a few major points of concern with x-saviors post:
The Reason I say keep them separate is that people need to know the difference between ACTUAL Inserts and PROPOSED Inserts.
This (actual vs proposed) is already clear when people sell new inserts that have been found, but before the newest list is out and the information is disclosed publicly to everyone. You have sold inserts as inserts before they became published, or even confirmed (Specifically HOW 9.84). Thank goodness that they were eventually confirmed.
That is why Brent has stated that he will only list CONFIRMED Inserts from the GP List. I don't understand where the concept of Communication Blockage has come into question.... :-/
The smiley: :-X appears to be amouth with a zipper over its lips. I don't know how else to read that, other than silence of some sort.
Something new is being done with insert notes since we have moved the lists from the forums. Now, we do not track insert notes specifically per se, but we do list confirmed and suspected insert ranges.
You cannot have one without the other. Confirmed ranges are listed based on individual tracking, and suspected ranges are listed by members the moment a new post comes up about a new possible range.
Confirmed insert ranges are those which appear either in the most recent edition of the Charlton Standard Catalogue of Canadian Government Paper Money, or in the lists published by Gilles Pomerleau. This information is reproduced with permission. Suspected insert ranges are those for which verbal confirmation from Gilles has been obtained, but they have not yet been published on paper.
Sorry to say, but the bolded part of your statement is incorrect. Suspected ranges are those that have not been confirmed, but are suspected to be inserts. Gilles obviously cannot put out a list everyday by mail, so in the meantime, other ranges get confirmed. He has information coming to him daily. I want to make sure everyone is clear on that.
The momemt Gilles confirms an insert range verbally, that insert range is no longer suspect. Despite that it might not be published for three months less a day, the insert range is to be deemed CONFIRMED, and will be appearing on his next list, thus showing up on wiki within hours, and then the Catalogue.
We need a Place for people to go where there will be RELIABLE information on CONFIRMED Inserts and then a separate place to see what the latest finds are and SUSPECTED Insert Ranges (From Forum Members). So then anyone can take the information with a grain of salt, KNOWING ALL THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IS NOT CONFIRMED. Then once confirmed by Gilles on the GP List the information would then be removed from the Suspected Lists and put into the Current High/Low Lists. Thus 2 Separate Lists are Maintained (Completely Separate).
Suspect or "potential" insert ranges are often posted up on the forum, in the Journey section, and often in the high low threads. As far as reliable, we can only go off of the integrity of the person posting, plus the fact that fraudulent claims can easily be disproven (ask me if you have questions about that). That is why there is an absolute necessity for multiple finds from reliable sources.
I am not sure, x-savior, if your objection to my handling it has to do with reliability, which you emphasized two times in capital letters, but it appears as such.
I am not here to win votes, or even get the "last word", but those who know me and what I am truly about (FLAWS and all), know the integrity by which I strive for, especially in regards to the health of this hobby. But I digress. I am not here to sell myself, or to hard sell product.
Another issue I have is that the Suspected Lists should NOT become a method of marketing ones notes.
This confuses me, since I again will point out, you were selling inserts, among other things, before they were confirmed (I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you had a provision about that within the sale).
I think many people would agree this is the best way to handle this issue.
I wholeheartedly disagree with you x-savior, I have my reasons which I will keep to myself. The greatest reason however, is that we are all trying to work for one cause here, and sharing is the only way we can accomplish this goal.
Any questions about inserts, or reams, or how ranges are determined, I will be happy to share the knowledge I have gained through my own research and through the many lengthy discussions I have shared with other senior members - on and off the site.
Regards,
Hudson A B
-
:P
-
Confirmed insert ranges are those which appear either in the most recent edition of the Charlton Standard Catalogue of Canadian Government Paper Money, or in the lists published by Gilles Pomerleau. This information is reproduced with permission. Suspected insert ranges are those for which verbal confirmation from Gilles has been obtained, but they have not yet been published on paper.
Sorry to say, but the bolded part of your statement is incorrect. Suspected ranges are those that have not been confirmed, but are suspected to be inserts. Gilles obviously cannot put out a list everyday by mail, so in the meantime, other ranges get confirmed. He has information coming to him daily. I want to make sure everyone is clear on that.
The momemt Gilles confirms an insert range verbally, that insert range is no longer suspect. Despite that it might not be published for three months less a day, the insert range is to be deemed CONFIRMED, and will be appearing on his next list, thus showing up on wiki within hours, and then the Catalogue.
You're taking that bolded statement out of context. The correct context for that statement is the display of the ranges on the Wiki. Ranges highlighted in purple and marked as suspected are those for which some reputable person had said that Gilles verbally confirmed them, however, they have yet to be published in print.
The insert listings on the Wiki site are done in a manner that defers all authority to Gilles and the Charlton. If it is on the list in green as a confirmed insert range, then it is PUBLISHED. Verbal confirmations can be made up. It allows for the possibility of distrust on the part of myself and other forum members. If there is a firm restriction that no insert range will be listed as confirmed on the Wiki unless published by Gilles and/or Charlton, then there is no room whatsoever for anyone to accuse myself or other forum members of making something up or jumping the gun. If it's on the site, then Gilles and/or Charlton has declared it to be confirmed and they have done so IN PRINT, not just verbally. Verbal confirmations come third-party through whoever talks to Gilles on the phone, and then through the person who updates the Wiki site, etc. Although I would never expect it, there is room for some falsification of data. If it's in print, and someone disputes it, I can say "go read the newsletter and if you still have a problem, call Gilles. His number is on the first page."
We changed the way inserts were reported so as to do it in a much more authoritative manner. The data comes from one source, and one that the community trusts: Gilles.
THAT SAID... If someone wants to yank the carpet out from under Gilles and develop a better way of collecting insert information, and if this person or group becomes the leading authority in the collecting community (ie: Charlton publishes their data instead of or in tandem with Gilles' data), then I would be willing to revisit the manner in which the Wiki reports insert ranges. In the meantime, so long as Gilles remains the leading authority in terms of insert ranges, the Wiki will report confirmed ranges as those published in Gilles' lists or the Charlton guide. Suspected ranges will be those which are "verbally confirmed" or otherwise reported from reputable sources.
[edit]NOTE: The above paragraph should NOT be interpreted as a statement on the matter of whether or not to attempt to pursue such an endeavour. It is merely a statement such that should the status quo change in terms of how insert ranges are reported to the community, I will consider following that change.[/edit]
I hope this clarifies the editorial policy of the Wiki site in terms of insert ranges.
-
Now... I'd like to take off my Wiki-admin hat for a moment and toss a few cents in here...
There are drawbacks to the status quo, namely:
- Gilles is not on the Internet, and thus there exists a communication barrier. Being online increases the pool of available data and expedites the release of information to the community. Sending quarterly newsletters by mail is costly and slow. Due to these factors, their frequency is only quarterly.
- Some of the ranges reported have been questioned as to their legitimacy. For example, few people understand where ranges in increments of 11,000 come from. To determine the size of the range, one must understand the complexities of how banknotes are numbered and printed. One needs to know the size of each sheet, how many sheets per ream, the skip factor, and whether or not entire reams are used for inserts, or just a few cut bricks, or a partial ream. All of this information requires going through a LOT of currency on a very constant basis to keep oneself up to date, and it requires a fair bit of advanced mathematics to work backwards from the raw data.
Gilles has been doing this stuff since before I was born. That fact alone earns him my respect. Now consider that he has been an active member of the Canadian Paper Money Society for I don't know how long, a member of the Charlton pricing panel for years, and is presently the CPMS' Regional Director for Quebec. Furthermore, along with his extensive network of collectors and brick searchers that forward him information, he himself searches through a significant quantity of bricks each week. Despite our questions, he seems to know what he's doing.
Can someone else do a better job? I don't know. What about a cooperative effort? Certainly a possibility. I have a few ideas of my own about how such an endeavour should operate, and those ideas all have to do with being trustworthy, reputable, unquestionable and having integrity:
- The operation should be run by one person, with a small board of 2-3 advisors who can monitor the work to maintain accountability and transparency.
- These individuals should avoid conflicts of interest, namely they should not be involved in the direct sale of insert notes.
- These individuals should be respected and trusted within the community.
- Only confirmed insert ranges should be published.
- Suspected ranges should be kept confidential so as to maintain the integrity of the published data.
- Ranges should not be disclosed verbally or otherwise to individuals or small groups prior to publication to the greater community.
- Details about the printing and numbering of current banknotes should be publicized to encourage transparency of the process without laying it all out from A to Z.
- The individuals running and overseeing this operation should have a thorough understanding of the manners in which banknotes are printed and numbered to ensure reliable results.
- The organization of this group and endeavour should not attempt to begin operations without at least the consent or cooperation of Gilles Pomerleau, out of respect for his contributions to this hobby and because doing otherwise is just plain wrong.
Furthermore, there are two groups of people in this hobby... the old school, and the new school. I am firmly footed in the new school. I'm younger than probably 90% of all CPMS members, and just about anyone reading this knows that I am fairly good when it comes to anything technological. The old school tends to not yet collect notes from the Birds Series or the Journey Series. The new school can't afford anything older than those. The old school bought test notes at face by the bundle. The new school is complaining about "cup marks". Where am I going with this? Gilles Pomerleau is part of both schools. He has seen and done more than most people in the new school have, combined. Yet at the same time, he is the leading expert when it comes to insert notes. If we members of the new school get our egos over-inflated and think we can just barge in and do a better job while Gilles is left staring at our taillights, then we are sadly mistaken. We may have good ideas, but the old school has the experience. We need to be able to coexist with each other for the betterment of the hobby. (In an upcoming article of mine for the March CPMS newsletter, I note that despite me thinking that the content of my article is groundbreaking information, it was already published 40 years ago. Not making mention of that would do nothing except show to all members of the so-called old school that I can't do my homework and/or I am disregarding the efforts of others who came before me).
At the present time, I am content with the status quo, however, sooner or later, change is inevitable. I only hope that we can find the best way to do this by planning ahead and not rushing into things.
-
When the big B decided to speak out, either from upstair or downstair, you know someone is in big trouble or it is big.
Indeed, we try to take over the world with our enthusiam, thinking we can always do better. But we should NOT set ourselves up as the standard in the sense we think we have a big reputation to protect; as such, must reject or discard anything that has not been proven. We are not Charlton or even CPMS. Say, someone finds a note just outside the insert range, should we summarily reject it since it out of the range or say 'suspected' or under study ? I believe the purpose of this site, fourm or wiki, is to share imformation, whether or not the infomation could be misused or abused. We can not guarantee every bit of information is true. Until we can definitely prove that that range are common notes (say, someone gets a brick all of that range), there is a probability that it is a insert and stated as such. (Of course, some of you experts could determine and double check through study of position numbers.)
As the contemporary of Giles ( our CPMS membership numbers are no more than 10 apart), I think it is about time, the new school plays a more vital role in CPMS, not just in term of technology. We have talked about the charter, 1937, independent, long enough as if these are the only game in town. Brent mentioned CPMS 90% of membership is old school, that means new school is no more than 10 %. Anyone wonders why ? CPMS needs new blood, and the newer series like the multicolor the bird, which old school disdains, deserve a prominate spot.
I just noticed that when Brent brought up CPMS, postings trailed off, is it CPMS or something else, like to too long too complicated, or defering to Brent. ;-)
also, there is nothing wrong with going ahead and do it in this case, instead of planning and planning (who are doing the planning anyway ?)
BTW, how is the planning for CPMS website going ? Can we see it soon ?
good night.
-
Well put BWJM. Yes you are right - I did take that portion of information you quoted out of context. I apologize for any problems arising from that.
To be clear, I support the system as is now, with GP as lead, hands down. Every bit of information that I get, or figure out with my research about skip numbering, inserts, sheet layouts, printing, whatever, goes straight to him, every time. The only reason I ever started doing serious research was because of people like him, sudzee, BWJM, and everyone else who encouraged me to learn more. Without that info sharing, I would not have near the understanding that I do now (and I am learning more every day from them). I credit and thank them. At first I wasn't sure about how the insert numbers were determined, but after finding out information on the Journey notes in much more detail, through research, which all began from the guidance of the many more experienced collectors, Gilles ranges made sense.
He knows what he is doing and I have complete faith in him, that is the bottom line for me. Establishing the ranges is a difficult task in many cases, I strongly believe that he does the best humanly possible job. I want to make that extra clear, in case my last post was too murky.
Now, wouldn't it be nice if the BOC just sent us an email letting us know exactly what the ranges were ;) All from me. Goodnight. Hudson
-
I agree with both Brent and Lamb.
First of all, Lamb. I am VERY glad to have one of the Senior members weigh in on the conversation. It is agreed that we must preserve the past but embrace the future.
Ultimately I feel that if the system works right now why should it change? Don't try and fix something that is not broken...
This does not mean there will be no change in the next 60 years. Yes there will be planning, and I think Brent has some FANTASTIC ideas in this regards.
I agree that there are the "Old School" and the "New School". Many of the "New School" collectors do not have the appreciation for the older notes just as the "Old School" do not really care about the last few series of notes. What we need is a more unified collective. If things keep going the way they are, the "Old School" will eventually become a memory and their passion for the older notes will go with them. This is the roots of our hobby, we must never forget where it came from, but must also see where we are going.
Gilles qualifications are next to none. But I think we should have the "Prospective" individuals who will continue this service into the future working with him now. It will take years for someone to catch up to Gilles and attain only a portion of his knowledge.
There should be plenty of planning and procedures but there will also need to be action.
People can talk about change until hell freezes over...
So I think there needs to be real co-operation between the "New School" and the "Old School" if this is going to work.
I have said my two cents, but I would like to have more Senior Members AND Newer Members to the Hobby weigh in on their thoughts.
-
I think it would be best if everyone carries on contributing in their own ways, this way the wheel will keep turning and everyone will be satisfied (as best as we possibly can).
I think this is the best gem of wisdom I have read in a long time. We all have our own unique contributions to offer the hobby, which all are valuable, and should be shared.
Thank you x-savior for summing it up so concisely and accurately. Well put. :)
-
...
I have said my two cents, but I would like to have more Senior Members AND Newer Members to the Hobby weigh in on their thoughts.
Ok, as a newer member I will weigh in with my thoughts. I'm new to this forum and just recently sent in my application to the CPMS.
While I respect Gilles' work and dedication, the whole process is a black box. It lacks transperency and it seems to me that those who are in the know (Gilles and his close contacts,) have an unfair advantage over all the other collectors when it comes to insert note collecting. How is a new member, like myself, suppose to know about this whole process? There is no mention of Gilles' work in Charlton. There is no explanation on how inserts are confirmed. How does a new collector even get on his mailing list? Not only is very little information about the process given, very little information about how to obtain his information is available to new collectors.
Secondly, I am inclined to believe that Gilles is missing insert ranges. Not every brick is searched. His list is, and always will be, incomplete. That really bothers me.
Maybe I'm missing the "big picture" when it comes to insert notes. They look exactly the same to me as any other note. There is no distinguishable characteristic on the bill that makes it special. I will continue to collect aseterix and "X" notes, but until the process becomes more transparent and available to more than just those on Gilles' secret mailing list, I will not touch insert notes.
Sorry if that was a bit harsh.
Brad
-
the whole process is a black box. It lacks transperency and it seems to me that those who are in the know (Gilles and his close contacts,) have an unfair advantage over all the other collectors when it comes to insert note collecting
I can understand where you're coming from Brad, as I used to feel this way (a bit) too, before I introduced myself to some of the "key players" in this hobby. I'm a little bit "old school" and a little bit "new school" so I understand where you're coming from ( I too have an affinity for the clearly the designated X- Asterisk notes/ but then really enjoy getting select notes of the last 2 series).
All I can say is that as mysterious as the whole process may seem, it is done with the utmost transparency/legitimacy as can be had (considering the way notes are released by banks and the BOC). As BWJM, Hudson, and others have verified-- all info must pass through one reliable (dedicated) and knowledgable source (Gilles) so that only VALID ranges can be establish. In order to make collecting inserts a worthwhile pursuit -- it is imperative that the process be as prone to as little likelyhood of falling afoul as possible.
The info is gleaned by many established long-standing brick searchers who've paid their dues in proving their integrity. This is what I didn't know when I re-entered the hobby back in 2003. After metting with several of them, I know the kind of time and dedication they devote to such a pursuit. I've tried brick searching but I just don't have the time nor patience! The searchers who do submit numbers build a reputation by submitting numbers that make sense.
If you re-read the previous posts you'll better understand how tracking the inserts can actually be prone to error, and why there is indeed a delay in getting the information out. If info was spilled out as current as it is being collected it would lead to all sorts of chaotic misinformation and abuse. That is why BWJM has cautioned those searchers who thought it would be a service to dissiminate the info on an as come basis.
Maybe I'm missing the "big picture" when it comes to insert notes. They look exactly the same to me as any other note. There is no distinguishable characteristic on the bill that makes it special
The big picture is easy to dismiss. To many a collector the significance of an insert is lost on them. That's why there is such a slow conversion of "old school" to "new school." Some see collecting today's inserts as a waste of time. I personally will only concentrate on select inserts.
On the other hand, others see it as a wonderful opportunity. Its almost like those few who have the 1973 *AA with a serial number above 5M. Only a few exist. The same holds true for certain inserts in various ranges. Serial numbers mean everything to most long time collectors -- and therefore they'll pay a premium for a note within a certain range. It really does take time, patience, and a lot of networking in this hobby to truly understand this.
Hope this helps!
James
-
So, where are we, after the long discussion ? have we come to any consensus or conclusion about the keeping up and sharing ? Is anyone (Hudson?) doing anything ? or do we just move on, as if talk the talk is good enough.
i must have missed something
-
I think I scared everyone away. :o
Hudson is having difficulty posting and has asked that the following be posted:
actuary
While I respect Gilles' work and dedication, the whole process is a black box.
This may seem like the case. I thought that way too at first. It wasn't until I dove head first into trying to figure out how that I realized just how difficult it is to determine ranges.
Having said that, the lack of public knowledge about how they are determined lies mostly in the fact that explaining the details about how they were arrived is very complex. Much more complex than I ever imagined.
Since this above quote was posted, I decided to answer that question as best I could. (And all the others that stemmed from it.) I selected the BABN $5s to talk about, since they are the new thing right now, and already have changed from tentative insert ranges of 45,000, down to 40,000 after my evidence was presented to the man, GP, himself.
I am nearly complete, I hope to have it completed in full (for now) within a few days.
-
I also would like to know where we stand... :-?
We need more people involoved in this conversation. I feel that brent should change the name of the thread (with the original posters permission) to something more prominent to draw more people into the thread for input and conversation.
I would also like to hear from more senior members as well. This issue should not be left to die but it is a great opportunity for everyone "Old and New" to get on the same page. If everyone knows the same thing and everything is presented in the open, it should be much easier for everyone to take the first step and start placing trust in the system.
With Trust, Confidence and equality we can then discuss changes that will still maintain the Integrity of the system. :)
-
I myself have been new to the concept of Inserts and simply took it upon myself to learn whatever I could glean from the forum over the past several months since joining. Yes, it was a sort of grey area more than a black box but I could begin to appreciate how complex and tedious the process could be to provide as accurate information as possible, and accurate information requires time. If an alleged rare range is indicated you can bet it would require more time to verify. A seller or buyer may risk the transaction but there is still a certian degree of risk so it's thier choice to do so and carry a risk in damaging the hobby.
Perhaps we could start to formalize the Insert determination process by writng a comprensive column under the Important Topics or Refernce category titled How Insert ranges are determined. Then post this in an appropriate place on this site. The column should include as much detail as possible in Lay-persons language;
What data is needed.
How the data is found.
Who submits the data and to whom.
How is the data is compiled.
What are the general criteria that determines an insert range as Suspected or Confirmed.
At what point are conclusions drawn up and by whom.
Where and how are the results posted.
Everyone please feel free to to add any more whom, whats, whys and hows too. even use diagrams, flow charts with lots of arrows etc.
This is a big topic but since there are loads of technical aspects as well as educated estimates based on gut feelings, experience, an nuance intangibles especially when data becomes quite sparse.
I think this will at least put some kind of handle on the process for the newer members to get hold of and to those firmly in the old school side enough to appreciate.
PD
-
Perhaps we could start to formalize the Insert determination process by writng a comprensive column under the Important Topics or Refernce category titled How Insert ranges are determined.
I am very excited that you brought this up. I have addressed this. Just adding some finishing touches.
Will be "published" shortly.
-
where are we, after the long discussion ? have we come to any consensus or conclusion about the keeping up and sharing ? Is anyone (Hudson?) doing anything ?
Where are we? What consensus? What conclusion? Are you expecting all brick searchers to divulge all the notes they find out of order willy nilly? Do you think brick searchers have an obligation to share all their information just as it unfolds and never have that very same info scrutinized for confirmation? Just bypass Gilles (his old reliable method of verification) and let if fly into the forum? I fail to understand how that would help the hobby. If I suddenly saw collectors making unverified claims regarding inserts -- willy nilly -- I'd stay far and away from so called "inserts." In fact it would turn me off collecting modern Canadian bank notes in a big way.
Today we're discovering insert ranges in a matter of months.... (suspected ranges even sooner).
accurate information requires time
Very true --and what most of us have been saying all along...
Perhaps we could start to formalize the Insert determination process by writng a comprensive column under the Important Topics or Refernce category titled How Insert ranges are determined.
I think this is a great idea! It would be the best thing that could come out of this thread..
-
Quote:
Perhaps we could start to formalize the Insert determination process by writng a comprensive column under the Important Topics or Refernce category titled How Insert ranges are determined.
I think this is a great idea! It would be the best thing that could come out of this thread..
I agree 100%
-
Before someone drives himself crazy, let me point out the simplest thing: the where,consensus and conclusion is the state and direction of the discussion, in other word, have we decided to do something or nothing. It would be sad if we could not even decide to agree to disagree.
One common characteristic of many posters is some tend not to read the posts they respond to or simply seize on a word or phrase to post their own opinions. Anyone that has followed the discussion would realize quite quickly that no one has suggested bypassing Giles' lists and efforts, rather, the idea has been to complement or assist to make his lists more complete and accurate. Someone has sorted of suggested creating and maintaining a list then would periodically compare the lists to see if both lists come to the same conclusion, i.e. identical ranges. If there are discrepancies, we would try to find out which ranges are accurate.
It is sad to hear that the opinion that brickers WOULD NOT want to share the information. The fact is most them are contributing to Giles' list. If the unwillingness to share is true, maybe Paul should close down the site because it would be meaningless to continue since the main purpose of the site is to share.
-
[size=14]It is time to make a decision then.[/size]
1) I Support a Separate Area on the Forums for "New Insert Discovery's" so individuals can share information and pertinant information will be relayed to Gilles through the New Candidate.
2) This New Area should have a locked Sticky with DETAILED information (Both Technical and Laymans) on WHAT Inserts are, how Inserts are found, the concept behind the placement of Inserts, the proper process of submitting the information and the "Flow Charts" of how their information will be relayed and used. People submitting information should get a response back confirming that the information was recieved. This should be wide open so EVERYONE knows what is going on.
3) I Think We Need an Individual to Support Gilles efforts by providing faster information PRIOR to GP List. Then GP List Will Confirm (As Information will be shared between both). So comparing both Lists. The New list MIGHT include current trend values (A Vote on this would be a good idea)
4) I Think the Individual should NOT be a Brick Searcher or involved in the sale of Inserts. We should also have this individual create their own style of newsletter and through feedback refine the design over time.
5) I Agree The High/Low List should ONLY have Confirmed Inserts (Both Individuals agree it is legitimate). This information will also be submitted for Charlton.
We need Yes/No Decisions to these questions if we are going to proceed. No More Sitting on the Fence.
[size=14]***Again I am requesting this thread be Properly Re-Named To Draw More People Into the Decision Making***[/size]
-
3) I Think We Need an Individual to Support Gilles efforts by providing faster information PRIOR to GP List. Then GP List Will Confirm (As Information will be shared between both). So comparing both Lists. The New list MIGHT include current trend values (A Vote on this would be a good idea)
4) I Think the Individual should NOT be a Brick Searcher or involved in the sale of Inserts. We should also have this individual create their own style of newsletter and through feedback refine the design over time.
I would like to disagree with point 3 in that it undermines the authoritativeness of Gilles' printed lists by confirming verbal or other information.
Finally, point 4, in suggesting that this new individual issue their own list, suggests competition with Gilles as being the authoritative voice on inserts. See my previous post for my thoughts in that regard.
-
Ok, Lets get some more ideas flowing and make more progress. We had to layout ideas to start from...
So, What is the Proposed amendment to point 3 and 4? We need to keep making progress, not just "I Disagree". If something does not seem correct please post a proposed amendment to the point.
This way we will start making definitive progress. It will become a blend of everyone's input to refine exactly what we are looking for.
Thank you! :)
-
I am very excited that you brought this up. I have addressed this. Just adding some finishing touches.
Will be "published" shortly.
Thank you Hudson!! I am sure this will go a long way in unravelling the mystery surrounding inserts for me and many other new members. I look forward to reading this!
Brad
-
So, Are we any closer to making any decisions?
We need more input by members. Any Members, please feel free to put in your 2 Cents on what YOU would like to see and/or if you support any of the ideas put forward.
-
I hope that what we will eventually do is to answer Standeasy's question. Whereas some of us would know where to look and where to find relevant information to draw our own conclusions around Suspected ranges bantered around in the forum, new members may have ready access to the same may not have that same assurance because they don't know how the process works. Hence establishing a educational category How Insert ranges are determined. At least document the current process if everyone is okay with the setup as is. Maybe add a FAQ section.
How do we (I) keep up with what seems to be a never ending flow of new and claimed new insert notes. I,m going batty trying to do so. I go thru our favorite auction site. I receive regular listings from a couple of excellent dealers but every time I turn around there are a few more notes for me to add to my list of confirmed or possible inserts. Do we have a segment on the CPMF that covers all my puzzlement.
One point is that terminology needs to be clear. I've seen plenty of stuff on the auction site that don't fit the terminology used therefore it is not the ideal site to learn the lexicon let alone learning to grade. There were Radars that are not radars, Ladders that are not ladders, near inserts well, are really not inserts. We should provide precise terminology as possible because the newer members need that. Education is part of the mission statement of this site isn't it?
Second point how could we make data passed on to Gilles any more efficient other that buying him a computer and hooking him up to the internet. I don't exactly know how this works but I'm sure that the more information we could provide, the sooner he could come to a firm conclusion. So this means I'll really have to get involved in brick researching and I already got bad eyesight.
My third point is does Gilles have some protege that works with him? I starting to wonder on the way home from work that if something happened to him, would we be collectively hung 'by the petard'. Brent said... he is how old? "Gilles has been doing this stuff since before I was born. " Guess I have been working with too many old people lately. ;)
Forth, I nominate BC for the first national symposium on Canadian journey series insert notes to be here. At least we expect one day of rain this week Sunday. Be sure to bring your collections for the show-and-tell segment. ;) ;D
PD
-
I hope that what we will eventually do is to answer Standeasy's question. Whereas some of us would know where to look and where to find relevant information to draw our own conclusions around Suspected ranges bantered around in the forum, new members may have ready access to the same may not have that same assurance because they don't know how the process works. Hence establishing a educational category How Insert ranges are determined. At least document the current process if everyone is okay with the setup as is. Maybe add a FAQ section.[/qoute]
Oh boy, I can hardly wait to get this article out!!
I agree with PD totally:
Terminology must be very precise and clear.
We have worked through QCIN's (Quality Control Inspection Notes) with success, and we will work through this with success.
I've seen plenty of stuff on the auction site that don't fit the terminology used therefore it is not the ideal site to learn the lexicon let alone learning to grade.
I couln't agree more. The auction site is not the education site, it is the sales site.
Second point how could we make data passed on to Gilles any more efficient other that buying him a computer and hooking him up to the internet. I don't exactly know how this works but I'm sure that the more information we could provide, the sooner he could come to a firm conclusion.
As far as I know, this is being done by the intermediary who we know as sudzee. Sudzee please correct me if I am wrong. But this is why all brick information needs to go to him. Full in accurate in all detail, with FP/BP included.
My third point is does Gilles have some protege that works with him? I starting to wonder on the way home from work that if something happened to him, would we be collectively hung 'by the petard'. Brent said... he is how old? "Gilles has been doing this stuff since before I was born. " Guess I have been working with too many old people lately. ;)
Yes this is an important issue, and I think the best thing about this thread is that this possibility/inevitablility has been brought up.
As Brent mentioned in reply #18, I think this criteria is an excellent base to start from.
Can someone else do a better job? I don't know. What about a cooperative effort? Certainly a possibility. I have a few ideas of my own about how such an endeavour should operate, and those ideas all have to do with being trustworthy, reputable, unquestionable and having integrity:
The operation should be run by one person, with a small board of 2-3 advisors who can monitor the work to maintain accountability and transparency.
These individuals should avoid conflicts of interest, namely they should not be involved in the direct sale of insert notes.
These individuals should be respected and trusted within the community.
Only confirmed insert ranges should be published.
Suspected ranges should be kept confidential so as to maintain the integrity of the published data.
Ranges should not be disclosed verbally or otherwise to individuals or small groups prior to publication to the greater community.
Details about the printing and numbering of current banknotes should be publicized to encourage transparency of the process without laying it all out from A to Z.
The individuals running and overseeing this operation should have a thorough understanding of the manners in which banknotes are printed and numbered to ensure reliable results.
The organization of this group and endeavour should not attempt to begin operations without at least the consent or cooperation of Gilles Pomerleau, out of respect for his contributions to this hobby and because doing otherwise is just plain wrong.
Forth, I nominate BC for the first national symposium on Canadian journey series insert notes to be here. At least we expect one day of rain this week Sunday. Be sure to bring your collections for the show-and-tell segment. ;) ;D
If you can cover my flight, I am there. ;) Actually I am heading out there soon anyway :).
Please everyone have a good night.
Huds
-
Now that we are at it for several weeks, everyone that has something to say or criticize has his/her chance. I am happy to see many have some ideas as to how to deal the updating and determining the ranges of the new inserts. The problem is many of them are quite similar or even identical so if you start to read them you will finish confused. Would Brent or Hudson or anyone be kind enough to go through them and summarize them, so that all of us can decide which method is best and vote on them ?Meanwhile, would Hudson be knid enough to tell us what his plan is ?
-
Hi.
My article is more geared towards the determining of inserts. It is going through some refining, and I have to gettherest of the information in it.
I do not want to rush this thing out and miss something due to trying to be fast. Sooner than later.
Huds
-
Yes, I agree.
We should summerize the points that have been provided so we can then give direction back to the thread.
Again, I am [size=12]KINDLY REQUESTING[/size] that the name of this thread be RENAMED because many members I have talked to have never even read the thread as the name does not even give a clue to that the topic of conversation is about.
It should read something like: "Proposed new System for Determining & Reporting Inserts" or something like that.
Thank You.
Cam
-
Well,
Where are we at?
Is this issue now being left on the side of the road to die? :-/
-
As far as I can tell we haven't got to step one yet. I am still awaiting Hud's article which is based on, more or less taking into account the suggestions in this thread so far. Then when it's published, all members could give it a thorough read. I too would like to see other members get in on this. Suggest that Brent or someone issue a blanket message to all members to solicit some feedback on the key issues. A questionaire perhaps?
-one-
I believe the article should first outline what is the current system we have now. This gives the newer members to see what this 'black box' is and to more senior members confirm what we accept as the current system. State what is the objective of the Insert note system supposed to do.
-two-
Then that would provide the basis for what we have to work with to identify the weaknesses before making any potential beneficial changes where needed. I'm sure Huds would be open to further debate, new suggestions, and revisions before proposing the 'new' system and set some tangible objectives to see if the changes actually meet the objectives.
-three-
Implement the 'new' system. How long before we could we do this?
-four-
Evaluation, that requires feedback from members, especially the newer members. Perhaps tweaking some would happen around here or tightening the objectives a bit. Another questionaire?
-five-
After some time, further evaluation. etc. Step four.
PD
-
PD brings up some good points that will have to be thought about. I think everyone is waiting to see what becomes of this.
I also think that this could be a slipperly slope if it is not handled carefully. I would like to mention a few things in point form. (Because I am tight for time right now):
1) The system right now IS working. It has its glitches i.e. time delays, but any system will have glitches, as long as it is run by human beings.
2) Revamping of the system is not really what is neccessary, the suggestion arose out of a "back-up" plan idea in case something were ever to happen. However, having shared roles and a panel are probably good ideas in case something were to happen.
3) Even with the amount of brick searchers that there are, there are still some things that we will never know for sure in regards to how notes are inserted. I think Gilles does an amazing job at coordinating what he does, with the amount of people he has reporting to him. We must remember that with out his hard work, this branch would not be established as it is (amongst his other contributions).
4) Accountability and accuracy will be ensured by it being a group effort. That is kind of echoing what is realy happening now in practice to some degree.
So, we must be sure not to move too hasty, otherwise decisions might be made that we may regret later. This issue is not left on the side road to die-- an issue as big as this needs time.
In the meantime, I think it would be wise for us to not forget how important it is that we all work together, and all under a common direction. Right now, for inserts, that is Gilles.
Please don't worry, this thread is not left for dead. However, please do not expect this to fly through so quickly. That would not be fair to anyone.
All for now- back to work for me.
H
-
At the risk of disproving the old axom, "there are no stupid questions...just stupid people".
Why is insert information not provided by the BoC? When requested, they provide start and end points for prefixes, year changeovers and signature changeovers. How is this any different? Apart from being a larger quantity of information due to the vast amount of insert ranges.
:-?
moneycow
-
I would think that has to do with the fact that inserts are no longer special editions with unique (asterisk) serial numbers, so they're no longer tracked. All of this phasing out of unique replacement notes was designed to save the printers (&BOC) money.
It is an entirely different system today. I believe that insert replacements are inserted automatically. It would be up to the printers to provide the info-- but BOC doesn't really care about that info-- so long as they have X number of notes delivered. That's the bottom line -- and people who collect inserted notes is not really the concern of the BOC. That's why brick searchers must find the info. Obviously for security reasons-- there's only so much info the BOC are willing to release.
Members more knowledgable-- feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
-
I'll agree with WW, the BoC is primarily concerned with monetary policy. Other than that I believe it boils down to the bottom line. The BoC is not obliged to disclose that kind of information no matter how polite you are, and I don't think the printers would privy us either.
Anyway, has anybody asked the Printers?
Regardless what ever system we use, let's see it as a challenge for all of us to work on together.
PD
-
PD, you are exactly right.
The printers will not diclose this, for it breaches security. The Bank of Canada will not disclose their position for the same reason. The replacement info must come from the printers. The BOC should have an interest in those numbers for their own security. If they do not handle it, I am sure the RCMP would be next on the list to retrive that information if the case was neccessary. I know a bit about this from my robbery in 2005, and plus recent emails from company spokespeople. Even the RCMP may be denied access. The city police were denied this information for my case. Yes, even the city police.
I asked about a certain aspect of notes, and got a very good reply. However, it was unclear if they did not HAVE the info (the printers) or if they were not allowed to speak on it. I asked about that in particular, and here is the most recent response from one of the printing companies:
"I am not in a position, nor is anyone else at
(Printing Company), to answer questions related to Bank of Canada
products. You will have to contact the Bank of Canada directly."
And of course we know that the BoC of hush on these topics.
WW, you are right about the BoC being concerned only with their order being filled. Here is a direct quote from a BoC public relations official addressing this:
In any bundle of notes, the Bank doesn't require the bank notes printers to place the serial number in consecutive order."
However, I personally believe that nothing that is this sensitive goes untracked or documented. If it was automatic, then documentation would be even easier. It could be written into a program and also be automatic. (That stuff would be WAY over my head). For example, the picture attatched is from a group of 4 bricks of $20s. I could be wrong, but from what I understand, each note is tracable from a package that leaves the BoC to a distribution center (usually in a large center). Each note could be traced though the exact delivery trucks it has gone through with these inventory numbers I would think.
Now, I don't know how the printing companies send them, but imagine if a shipment got hijacked. They would need to track the serial numbers. I believe that the printing companies probably have them on hand-- it would be in their best interest. It would also be in the best interest of Banknote security to not have those numbers released.
I guess what I am saying is I believe that they do care about the numbers when they ship them off. It would be irresponsible ofthem to not record exact inventory. Businesses do that for bubble gum, I think they would do it for banknotes ;).
(http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3602/a001uv4.th.jpg) (http://img247.imageshack.us/my.php?image=a001uv4.jpg)
-
Hello everyone.
I have been working hard on a few articles about Solving the "Black Box Mystery" of Journey Inserts. It started out small, then got big. Really big! And I still have only scratched the surface.
The purpose of the article is so that we can better understand just how these numbers are arrived at. My articles only deal with full sheet replacements.
More info in single sheet replacements is coming soon, from Gilles in a few months as he collaborates findings.
When I started this in December, I thought it would be easy. When I finished, I had a new appreciation for all the work that Gilles puts into this hobby as collaborator and researcher.
When you read the papers you will know what I mean!!
For the record, I have Gilles' blessing to officially "publish" these today. :)
His next newsletter which will be mailed out on Tuesday will have further information on inserts- and single sheet inserts (a little bit), and will also be consistent with my research.
I am very excited to present this to you!!
Yours in collecting
Hudson AB
http://www.members.shaw.ca/collectorsgallery/CGPaperJourney.html
This link is also accessible from my member profile.