No prefix series must start at zero (as far as I have heard).

True - Except that the record states that HBG started at 0000000.

That's the reason for this post. Something does not add up with respect to HBG M-C serial number start point.

In other words if HBG 000000 was printed then it is likely that it was printed in a run that was separate from the run of the notes that are reported in the SNDB. It is possible that a separate run of HBG 000000  up to HBG 0197999 was printed and then the reported run started from HBG 0200000. So there is a gap of 2000 notes or in terms of the 200 skip number there is a skip of 2000/200 = 10 PN's

Sheets of polymer are printed and then the printers add the serial numbers at their discretion.  Where the printers actually start their prefix serial numbering of sheets is entirely up to them.  Typically 0000000 notes have been reserved for specimen notes (& usually this is either the first prefix).  No prefix series must start at zero (as far as I have heard).

No, we certainly should not treat such notes (where first 3 digits are arbitrary) as year notes.

- I agree. 

there's lots of FTV's in ottawa area, found 2770963 today

Ok, I am interested to see these features. I had just found that lightly circulated FTV so I posted it to see if that feature was on that note too (just out of curiosity)

The GPMC catalog uses the term birth year serial numbered notes. In the 30th edition 2018 on page 395 it refers to serial numbers 1900 to 2013 (I hope that this has been updated in the 2019 edition)

I find the use of the term birth year rather limiting because people may have any reason to collect such notes (anniversaries, graduation etc.) But that's not what this post is about.

Its about what the Governor of Bank of Canada considers a "year" note.

I don't know if anyone watched the video of events when the vertical Viola Desmond $10 was put into circulation.

The Governor of the Bank of Canada Stephen Poloz presented a plaque to Viola Desmond's sister Wanda Robson and another to John Young, President and CEO of the Museum of Human Rights. The plaque consisted of two notes and an engraving of Viola Desmond (for Wanda Robson) and the museum (for John Young).

Governor Poloz said that the two notes on each of the plaques had years as serial numbers:

For Wanda Robson - 1946 and 2010

For John Young - 2014 and 2018 (2014 date the Museum opened and 2018 date when Museum was put on the note)

Now to get to the point.

I thought that Governor Poloz was following the interpretation in the GPMC and that the notes would actually be the following serial numbers:

0001946
0002010
0002014
0002018

I was curious about the prefix of the bank notes so I made an inquiry to the Bank of Canada. Although I found out that the prefix was FFB, to my surprise the serial number was not as per GPMC protocol. Here is the exact text of the response I got:

So if BoC can treat a note ending in 2010 without regard to the first three digits as a year note then should not the collecting community adopt it.

For those curious about the plaque presentation please see the link to the video and start from time stamp at approximately 36:50

https://youtu.be/7g2aU4wLRN0

No, we certainly should not treat such notes (where first 3 digits are arbitrary) as year notes. These notes were simply the easiest for the BOC to find given the request, and they never consulted the GPMC or were going to. I am sure that by presenting these notes the BOC did not mean to establish the new collecting standard!

The GPMC catalog uses the term birth year serial numbered notes. In the 30th edition 2018 on page 395 it refers to serial numbers 1900 to 2013 (I hope that this has been updated in the 2019 edition)

I find the use of the term birth year rather limiting because people may have any reason to collect such notes (anniversaries, graduation etc.) But that's not what this post is about.

Its about what the Governor of Bank of Canada considers a "year" note.

I don't know if anyone watched the video of events when the vertical Viola Desmond $10 was put into circulation.

The Governor of the Bank of Canada Stephen Poloz presented a plaque to Viola Desmond's sister Wanda Robson and another to John Young, President and CEO of the Museum of Human Rights. The plaque consisted of two notes and an engraving of Viola Desmond (for Wanda Robson) and the museum (for John Young).


Governor Poloz said that the two notes on each of the plaques had years as serial numbers:


For Wanda Robson - 1946 and 2010

For John Young - 2014 and 2018 (2014 date the Museum opened and 2018 date when Museum was put on the note)


Now to get to the point.


I thought that Governor Poloz was following the interpretation in the GPMC and that the notes would actually be the following serial numbers:


0001946

0002010

0002014

0002018


I was curious about the prefix of the bank notes so I made an inquiry to the Bank of Canada. Although I found out that the prefix was FFB, to my surprise the serial number was not as per GPMC protocol. Here is the exact text of the response I got:

Good day,

 
Please find below the complete serial numbers of the framed bank notes presented by Governor Stephen S. Poloz to Wanda Robson, as well as the notes presented to the Canadian Museum for Human Rights.
 
•   Wanda Robson: FFB3842010, FFB3831946
•   The Canadian Museum for Human Rights: FFB3842018, FFB3842014

So if BoC can treat a note ending in 2010 without regard to the first three digits as a year note then should not the collecting community adopt it.

For those curious about the plaque presentation please see the link to the video and start from time stamp at approximately 36:50


https://youtu.be/7g2aU4wLRN0

Do you have a picture of the damage?  I found one in a higher range (attached)

I will do so in the next couple of days. Need to dig into my image database. But it would not be found in the note in the serial number range that is shown.


I would not call it damage but a condition. And if you had a note with that condition you cannot miss it.


Just give me a few days.

If i understand correctly almost all the prefixes start at 0000000 but are discarded before entering into circulation.

So if we were to say that HBG 0000000 was in fact printed (and later discarded or whatever - which is a separate story unto itself) and its PN was 41/41 then the PN of the HBG's observed would be different than what they are showing.

In other words if HBG 000000 was printed then it is likely that it was printed in a run that was separate from the run of the notes that are reported in the SNDB. It is possible that a separate run of HBG 000000  up to HBG 0197999 was printed and then the reported run started from HBG 0200000. So there is a gap of 2000 notes or in terms of the 200 skip number there is a skip of 2000/200 = 10 PN's


The question then becomes why would the BoC do something like that for such a short run? Could it be that it was part of a test?

Do you have a picture of the damage?  I found one in a higher range (attached)