Interpretation of Field study on RS test notes

News: Welcome to the Canadian Paper Money Forum.

On April 23rd 2004 Paul Wallis added a link to a
[highlight]"Technical Report #10" [/highlight]

RESEARCH INTO THE EXTENSION OF
THE LIFE OF BANK NOTES:
RESULTS OF 1973,1975 and 1976 FIELD TRIALS

By
AH Gillieson
Scientific Adviser
Department of Administrative Operations

Please see the thread on 1954 S/R Test notes or go to http://www.cdnpapermoney.com/images/Support/Technical_Report_10.pdf
to review this report.

When I read the report I was very surprised to see it under the 1954 test note thread except for the brief mention that "95000 two dollar Canadian notes of the 1954 series were coated by the printing works of the Banque National Belgique with 'Butvar', a trade name for polyvinylbutryal (p2)."   The paper goes on to state that 190,000 S/R 54 test notes were put into circulation (1/2 of them were control or uncoated notes) from Oct 15 to Nov 15 1973 (a year before the new modified 74 series) but that only 35-37% of the total were rejected (p7).  Due to the low numbers and poor statistics: it was felt that the study should be repeated.

"1975 Field Trial"

In 1975 a new study was conducted on the Multicoloured $2.00 issue.
  
I would like to invite forum colleagues to comment on their interpretation of the field study results.

As far as I can determine, the study contradicts the estimated number of notes printed in Charlton 3.2 M However, I don't know if another study of this kind was repeated.  It seems odd that more than 2 field studies testing 2 chemical coatings, and 1 paper composition would be done following these reports.  Please enlighten me if you have information on this matter.

On page 12 of this paper headed under
3. 1975 Field Trial
3.1 Coating
Gillieson writes that "Two lots of 80,000 notes were each coated on a Billhofer coating machine," which was done in Canada on the "new series of Canadian two dollar notes...issued in 1975"
3.2 Modified Paper
"The two lots printed on modified paper consisted of:
(i) one 80.000 note lot in which the solid 'Parex" melamine-formaldehyde resin had been replaced ..." with the previous trial and;
(ii) one 80,000 note lot printed on paper that had been made from 1/3 flax, 1/3 cotton rag and 1/3 cotton linters..."
and that the experiemental lots "along with a control lot of 80.000 notes were issued simulataneously in Ottawa and Saint John, New Brunswick, areas on 17 November 1975 (p13)."
That would mean a total of 400,000 (5 X 80,000) notes were issued by Nov 1975

But the field trial is again repeated in 1976 (see page 19)
Gillieson states that new resins were experimented with to test the notes' durability.  He states that "the two experimental 80,000 notes along with a control lot were issued simultaneously in" the same areas as the 1975 field study.  This would imply that only 240,000 (3 X 80,000) notes were used.  

THE TOTAL NUMBER OF RS TEST NOTES IN THE 2 STUDIES: 640,000

Table IV
"NUMBER OF NOTES REJECTED IN 364 DAYS"

I cannot reproduce Gillieson's table but the number of notes rejected in the 1975/76 study would suggest that a total of 464,000 notes were culled or rejected due to wear/tear after one year.  

However, if we go by the table than it would imply that the numbers in Gillieson's report are inconsistent with those that were actually released into circulation.  
The table has 13 separate entries for numbers (between 26,000 to 51,000) batches of notes rejected.  That would imply that 13 X 80,000 (note batches) = 1.2 Million notes.  

This is probably a more realistic figure since 464,000 notes were reclaimed (during the study).

If anyone has any more info or comments, I would love to hear from you

Thanks in advance...

James 

I just want to add that after reading this study several times, I'm more convinced that there were 13 batches of 80,000 RS $2.00 test notes released between the 1975/76 field trials.   This suggests that 1.2 M notes were released into circulation.  

Obviously, A H Gillieson, a scientific advisor for the Dept of Administrative Operations, didn't intend for this internal report to be a TALLY of the NUMBER of notes issued but rather as a summative (quantitative) report of the experimental notes' durability when circulated with the various applied resins (or paper compositions).   There is no mention of the actual ink being tested for this series of notes (as suggested by Charlton and others).

A bit about TABLE IV:
From the information of rejected notes in table IV (p22) entitled "NUMBER OF NOTES REJECTED IN 364 DAYS"  columns are divide into 3: Trial date, Ottawa, and Saint John.  The second row shows subcategories: "control" "Paramel" "Butvar" and "NC" (NC- likely an acronym for New Composition) for each city (Ottawa and Saint John).  In 1975 there are statistics which would imply that 4 batches of the: control, paramel, butvar and new composition notes, were released in Otatwa and 3 batches (with no Butvar notes) were released in St. John.  In 1976, 3 batches of rejects were counted  for each city (excluding a Paramel trial).  So in conclusion, if one were to consider the table 4 as an indicator of actual notes tested (total 80,000 lots released) that would equal 13X 80,000.  

In terms of the serial number discrepancies (in terms of the BOC figures released to Charlton 3.2 M) versus the numbers suggested in this study (1.2M released), it is likely that the first 2 digits (ie the 1,000,000 and 100,000 digits) were used for accounting purposes, tagging the note with a city designation, or allowing researchers to determine if the note was a "control non-treated note, Butvar treated, Paramel treated or New Composition NC note.   There may have been 3.2 M printed, but the study strongly suggests that only 1.2 M were actually tested or released into circulation.  

If this is indeed the case (1.2 M notes released) and approximately 464,946 notes rejected, than that would imply that approximately 736,000 notes were available to collectors after the 364 day trial.  At the time of trial, however, collectors/dealers were generally unaware of the special significance of either the 54 S/R or 74 RS serial numbers, except for the fact that they broke the pattern of prefixes released during that time.  Only the most savvy collectors/dealers would have caught on to the fact that the BOC was up to something (and squirrel a few of these notes away).

These are just some of the thoughts I've had since reading the report.  It would be nice to get feedback from anyone interested in reading this report.