return of the X notes?

News: Registration is free here at the CPMF!

I don't remember this being discussed before, but if it has, I apologize in advance.

Why does the Bank of Canada continue to abstain from using the letter X long after the changeover to insert notes being used as replacements?  I have heard it said that the Bank decided to stop using X-replacements because too many people were pulling these notes from circulation.  That's a really weak explanation, and personally I don't believe it.  Why should the Bank care if collectors put envelopes full of X-notes in our sock drawers?  If they have been sincerely attenting to foil us collectors, it has failed miserably.  Insert collecting appears at least as successful as replacement note collecting ever was, and probably much more so.  If the Bank really wanted us to know nothing about their note issuing practices, wouldn't they avoid answering any and all questions and become tighter than Fort Knox?  Anyhow, back to my original question, it makes no sense to me why the letter X is not used on journey series notes.  Do their lettering presses literally lack the letter X such that even if they wanted to start using the letter X, they physically could not do it?  I doubt it.  It's especially perplexing to me given that they started using letters O and I as series letters in the Bird Series.

If they ever run out of prefixes for the Journey series, they will look foolish for not using the X.

The reason for the dissapearance of the "X" notes wasn't because collectors were pulling them from circulation but that the Banks requested that the BOC use a different method with less obvious replacements. The banks were annoyed with collectors requesting bulk amounts of notes and then returning them right away costing the bank for the time handling and recounting these notes. When speaking with a couple people that were the cash cage tellers here in Winnipeg back in 96, I was told stories about some collectors (manily two bad ones and a few others that were annoyingly obsessive) becomming quite rude and beligerant when they weren't able to get notes with out a handling fee. So this seems like a case of us collectors as a whole "crapping in our nest".

Potentially "X" is being reserved for future use.

There isn't any real shortage of prefixes, the three letter system has been in use since the early 1980's and they are still going, with only one case so far of a repeated Prefix series (ALA to ALZ $1 series and the current ALA to AL? Journey series $20). This using only 7 primary letters, A, B, C, E, F, G. BABN still hasn't even used the "D" primary yet and once they do there is still potentially 17 more letters (expecting they would skip "O") to be used. The Secondary "Denominational" letter has been well used with some denominations sharing this letter but not overlapping numbers (24 in total if you don't count X or Q, even tho there was a small issue of AXA and EXA). After all is said, out of 13 800 potential prefixes (not accounting for some dropped for naughty spelling) we will have used only 3864 once we complete the seven primary letters now in use since 1981. If we factor in the number of $5 and $20 1979 series we would have used a total of 4184 prefixes. If we have another 5 years before we run out of the current set of prefixes, then that would mean that we could issue notes with a triple prefix and not overlapping for another approximately 90 to 98.948374 years at the current rate of issue. So there is no real need to use "X" other than to mark a test note or some other sort of identifiable issue.

Kyle.

Hi all. This is an excerpt from a longer email that I had with the BOC, who have been very kind to me in regards to questions and answers.
Re: Current Replacements

"This procedure is less time consuming and more practical for both the Bank and its printers." -- BOC

-- To me, this translates into time saving, which equals money saving.  There could have been other factors that made the decision more obvious as well, but for the record, this is what would go down in the books.
H

Well eventually we may see X used again but they wouldn't be used as replacement notes. Who knows maybe we'll also see Q as the denominatinal letter for the 20. AQA... l'd love to see that!  

It is different in the fact that it was not collectors but chartered bank employees that the BoC was trying to prevent from profitting
from the sale of replacement notes.  It was becoming a rampant industry within the banks for tellers and other employees to pull
what were visually obvious replacement notes and sell them to dealers and collectors at a profit.  With the advent of the insert
replacement it became more difficult for this free enterprise practice to continue.  It is very unlikely that you will ever see BoC
replacement notes that are easily recognized as such again.

...Arthur

I thought it was common knowledge that the whole procedure of printing special (X or asterisk) replacement notes to substitute for  damage notes was simply deemed too expensive by the BOC (as Hudson notes).  Whenever I postulated some kind of rational (that the BOC would change policy becuase of collectors) a BOC official laughed his head off.  He thought it was both funny and amazing that collectors would assume they'd (the BOC) would change a policy to circumvent, or deter our desires.  He always cautioned me to "look at the bigger picture."  I'm sure its just a simple matter of economics.

Now everyone is excited about an insert replacement because it has a number which falls within a range (determined by modern day brick searchers) and deemed special.  IMO: give me a "X" or asterisk replacement note over the new "inserts" any day.  There's only a few exceptions to this rule: for example the FDZ  Knight/Thiessen $10 or the new 2004 FEV $10 which are exclusively replacements.  I'm surprised these notes aren't more pricey.. but I guess a lot of people knew they were special and squirreled them away.

It still amazes me to no end how excited collectors have become for the ordinary insert replacement.  I mean remember these notes were printed in the same manner as their cheaper cousins...there's nothing really special about them except for the fact that they were set aside to replace defective notes.   Sure it may be more difficult to determine a replacement now compared to 30 years ago....but in my eyes that makes the X and asterisk replacement note all the more special.    At least the replacement notes of yesteryear had a special printing, and designation.  No matter whether there's a book around to check numbers -- you know these notes are special.

I agree totally with your thoughts walktothewater.
There is NO change in the printing process for modern so called "replacements". OTOH, to each his own.

IMO:
I think the lack of X notes, the rather uneventful $10 Birds. has made collecting the 2001 Journey $10 a very challenging/intriguing ambition. Its contrary to what anyone would have expected in the way it was released and withdrawn.

If you can lay your hands on a $10 BEL, BEK (esp non-insert), or a 2003 BER (in any shape) than you've got a fairly scarce note -the envy/prize of a growing body of collectors.

You can also get a 2003 BEP, insert BEK, 2004 BET/BER, 2000 FDY, 2001 FEE, the ones I mentioned earlier (FDZ  Knight/Thiessen $10 or the new 2004 FEV $10) and you've got some rather rare key notes. These notes are essential to a complete a collection of the new notes and yet (with the exception of the FDZ/FEV) they're not inserts.  There is speculation that the 2003 BER could have been reserved to act as inserts and the 2004 BER inserts naturally command a premium.  Fewer Knight/Thiessen notes printed on documented flimsy paper, the missing circle anomaly, and the counterfeiting notoriety/scandals endow this series with enough variations, short prefixes, and bad press, to make it fascinating/compelling to complete. The Journey $10 notes (although the butt of many jokes for their colour/lack of compelling security features) ended up becoming the "sleeper" series.  

Most collectors know the significance of the notes I've mentioned here and yet  most aren't inserts.  I know this may sound crazy but I think that this recent phenomenon of special non-insert releases of 2001 Journey $10 has been a  needed shot in the arm for note collecting. I think it may have brought more collectors into the community.  Most of the collectors/dealers who actively fished these beauties out of bricks knew (in a latent way) how rare they were.  I know that many brick searchers regretted selling them for what they did!

I believe a lot of collectors had hoped the Journey $5.00 would follow suite (in intriguing notes to collect) but they've been disappointingly conventional and predictable.  The only notes that seemed to generate any excitement/interest were the AOF / 2004 HOH but these pale compared to the $10.  I'm not talking about inserts here.  I know the hard-core insert collectors are probably screaming about the HOG inserts and I'm sure there's many good notes I'm missing.  Perhaps the upgraded notes have more surprises in store...

On the other hand:

Every serial number is special in its own right, and it is common knowledge that an insert is indeed a rare note.  The prefix alone can certainly vary in amount issued, and can be rare in itself (eg $5.00 HOH or the $10 FEN insert).    There is indeed many good reasons to collect inserts (asterisk or modern day) or the notes wouldn't be spinning off the dealer's counters!  

to each his own

that's for sure