Something weird with BSV - Do you have BSV above 5.5?

News: Registration is free here at the CPMF!

Based purely on the information in my database I am finding that something strange is happening with BSV.

Based on my database BSV upto 4.5 (million) follows the same skip interval as the ones found for other BI* and BS* notes up to 9.0.

After 9.0 the skip interval of BI* and BS* is different for the remaining 1 million (less some) notes.

Interestingly enough BSV starts doing that after 4.5.

If I were to extend this rationale than I can speculate (with good reason) that BSV range was from 0 to 5.5 (million). If notes above 5.5 were printed then they were not meant to be in the same way as other BI* and BS* notes.

Interestingly from the information available to forum members from SNDB the high note is listed as 5.844768. There is  no image with it so I cannot verify if this is for real or an erroneous entry. If my reasoning was correct than either this is a wrong entry or it is something worth looking at closely.

Is there any way the information in SNDB be available to verify the skip numbering of notes above 4.5 in BSV and also how many notes above 5.5 million are reported.

If you have a BSV above 4.5 I would appreciate if you can kindly share with me its serial number (I just need the first 4 numbers after the prefix) and the PN.

Thank you

BSV seems to have two reams of 50,000-skip (instead of the normal 4), followed by one ream of 22,000-skip, bringing us up to 5489999.

There is a single note above this number in the SNDB.  If a second ream of 22,000-skip was used, the PN recorded for this note would not fall in line, but it would if you consider it may have been a squinting error (83 vs. 88).  It may also be the case that the prefix is wrong, or the serial number.  As this note is not confirmed, I'm tempted to consider this an outlier and potential data error.

BSV seems to have two reams of 50,000-skip (instead of the normal 4), followed by one ream of 22,000-skip, bringing us up to 5489999.

There is a single note above this number in the SNDB.  If a second ream of 22,000-skip was used, the PN recorded for this note would not fall in line, but it would if you consider it may have been a squinting error (83 vs. 88).  It may also be the case that the prefix is wrong, or the serial number.  As this note is not confirmed, I'm tempted to consider this an outlier and potential data error.

Thank you for confirming this. I very much suspected this based on the information in my database. I am willing to make a call that BSV was only printed to 5489999.

Which brings about an important question:

When SNDB or Charlton GPMC report a certain prefix to be printed to a certain range are they not basing it on confirmation from Bank of Canada? Has the Bank of Canada confirmed that BSV was printed to 9989999 to anyone?

The reason why I also say this is because there is some physical evidence that seems to suggest that BSW was not printed after BSV but probably before BIE. While I base this on one BSW owned by a collector that I was graciously allowed to examine, the physical evidence was very compelling. Incidentally the PN of BSW note that I was able to examine did not have a skip number that would be along the lines that would be logically supported by the skip numbering approach used for BI* to BS*. For example I used 270000/45 which gives me 6000 as the skip number. We know that the BI* to BS* are numbered from 91 to 99 and then from 81 to 89 and so on. If I were to use that along with 6000 as the skip number the PN of the note that I saw did not match.

Do BSW notes reported in the SNDB provide any sense of the skip interval and the print layout for BSW? I realize there are only a limited number of notes reported but they are also in a very short range of less than 75,000?