Highs/Lows and Inserts How is confirmation obtaine

News: Welcome to the Canadian Paper Money Forum.

I'm sure this topic has been discussed at one time or another, but sometimes being new here your not always aware of, or able to find answers to the question so I will ask it anyways.
When is something actually listed on the HIGH/LOW and confirmed inserts lists?
I would like to believe that everyone supplying information is being honest, but mistakes can happen.
For example, if someone has a high or low number, how do you confirm that it is valid? Do you require scans/pics of the banknote or not? Are fp and bp numbers always needed? And is a location needed where the note was obtained? Also, if it is found in a bundle, do you just need the location of the branch?
As for inserts, I think I already understand from Hudson what is needed and how important it is to describe EXACTLY what you find, if you do. But again, how does one confirm that inserts are valid and eventually listed in the HIGH/LOWS insert range lists?
Any comments or explanations are greatly appreciated.
Thanks

FRIEDSQUID

I'll give it a shot:

1. All brick search info ends up in the hands of Gilles.  No replacement finds should contradict another replacement find.  
2. Gilles sorts through the info, and sees that each report when collaborated tells the same story, just from diffent sections of a printing ream.
3. An understanding of ream size and replacement note placement is critical.
4. Data from 3 unique sources must confirm the range finding.  This is to ensre accuracy.
5. Gilles compiles and puts out a list.
6. BWJM gets the list and updates Wiki, like while the ink is still wet (he's a fast one).
7. We have our most up to date Confirmed resource accessable on line.

Note:  Gilles spends hours on this, and so do many brick searchers.
I do not know of another group so dedicated to the collaboration of a cause. Truly great teamwork!
H

Maybe I can add a comment to Hudson (who is an example of dedication to us all in regards to reporting prefixes!)

1) Most members here like to be able to post a "Find" of sorts
2) There are few incidences that constitute a "find" or even a bit of info in the world of numismatics (for both coin and notes)
3) Members actually enjoy reporting honestly what they find in their change (or brick searches) as the prefixes are released
4) when a CPMF member finds a SN that is either a low or high number they report it
5) We are all keeping our eyes peeled for extreme highs and extreme lows
6) When neither an extreme high (XXX>9M) or an extreme low (XXX<1M) is reported-- than we begin to wonder what maybe amiss
7) Usually when step 6) throws a red flag...we all become aware of it and the search becomes more specified or rigorous
Most of us really like to know if there's a change-over afoot (ie the number is peaking out at less than 3M) such as the BEY 2004 $10 so we become even more prudent with our reporting
9) Whenever irregular patterns or numbers (beyond ranges we know) are reported a lot of us want to know the details (which usually keeps us honest!)
 10) That's the way it goes to the best of my knowledge, and I've yet to see blatant manipulation of the facts...although I'm sure it could occur (*although it would be difficult without second or third verification!).

Very Well Put!  

Any ranges that have been "Published" is then submitted to Charlton (Unless a range change occurs.... And this does happen with newer ranges).

The reason for change change is that more people have verified the range but the notes fall just outside of the current known range. So if there are a few verifications of this they look at how the ream lays out and if the range is a 1/2, Full or Multiple ream range.  

Now... I am thinking about this a little deeper... Because Gilles is the foremost person on Inserts, etc., and God forbid if somethings happens to him, is there a back up plan in place?

Yes this situation is inevitable at some point.    The best thing to do is be prepared for it.
BWJM has brought this up before a few months back...

A solution has not been decided on as far as I know.

The bottom line is that someone needs to get ALL the information.
The next bottom line, is that a perons needs to know how to collaborate it.  Ie: understand all the background stuff about notes, how they are printed, shipped, re-verfied, possibly sampled, and about  the characteristics of single note replacements - and so on.  LOTS of stuff.

With more researchers and data solved, we are in a better position to make a future transition more smoothly, when neccessary.  In the meantime, let us continue to grow our knowledge so that we will ALL be better prepared for when that day comes.


Hudson

Agreed.

This issue was brought up and no one could agree on anything so this issue has become stale.

We need more participation in the community to help put procedures and a rule book together and then have an election of an individual who meets the laid-out criteria fromt he agreed upon and universally adopted "Rule Book".

Thi sis the only was we can get satisfaction from the general community.  

The problems with the discussions on here have always been
     1, someone made a `cute' (stupid) comment and the disccusion stopped
or   2, someone seized on a word or sentence and went off topic and the discussion got sidetracked.
     3,  some members who joined the discussion never bothered to read what have been posted thus repeated points that have been made.  

  With that out of the way,  my feeling is that the wiki should contain more info so that it becomes the Source.  Currently, wiki contains the prefixes and the insert range(s), BUT NOT what the inserts replace
(prefixes and numbers) NOR fp/bp.
       I know I might be asking for too much, but if we want to make it the ultimate complete  database,  should we include these data ?  so that someone with a suspected insert could confirm the status of the note by checking the database.

    By the way,  Hudson said decision has not been made.  I wonder if the decision is to be made, who would make it ?

happy Easter

With that out of the way,  my feeling is that the wiki should contain more info so that it becomes the Source.  Currently, wiki contains the prefixes and the insert range(s), BUT NOT what the inserts replace
(prefixes and numbers) NOR fp/bp.
       I know I might be asking for too much, but if we want to make it the ultimate complete  database,  should we include these data ?  so that someone with a suspected insert could confirm the status of the note by checking the database.

I understand and share your motivation, however, I am hesitant at venturing down that path, as posting that information will make it much easier for someone (or a group) with less-than-honest intentions to take a brick of non-inserts and falsify a claim that they are inserts. If someone said they found HNP inserts in HNM notes, I'd probably laugh at them. But I would take more seriously suggestions of HNJ inserts in HNM notes. (The preceding information was deliberately fabricated) The information requested is one aspect used to verify the scattered claims that come in from across the country.

As with any authentication sort of situation, there has to be a "key" and a "lock". The key is the information provided to Gilles. The lock is the tests that he runs, such as matching it up with existing note ranges, comparing the inserts to what notes they were found in, and the data of similar finds, etc. If you tell people more about the lock, they can much more easily make a key for it.

As it stands right now, there is nothing standing in the way of me saying I found a new high for AOS $5s: AOS 9998151. (Again, fabricated) I can just post it and it will get onto the H/L list. Anyone can do that. But, there is absolutely nothing at stake in this situation, so nobody cares too much to bother beefing up the authentication of these claims. With inserts, there is a lot of money at stake, considering that a relatively common $5 insert is worth at least 4x face value, compared to a regular note worth at most 2x face value. If someone is able to successfully falsify an insert range and sell a brick of insert notes to the community at 4x face value, the community has been successfully defrauded of about $15,000. To make it worse, that example is only considering one seller of these false inserts. If the insert range was published and a half dozen other people happened to find notes in the range, then sold them, the situation worsens quickly.

So the question I have is that when I search through a brick and find an insert(s) is it better to hold off on posting the information or report it as soon as I find it? By reporting it you leave it open to others saying that they found inserts and by holding onto it it possibly creates a sense of rarity if not discovered by others? As for the recent finds I posted, according to Hudson no one has reported any in that prefix as of yet. Until now I have kept the inserts and the notes surrounding them but that seems like hanging onto money that could be used elsewhere if needed.  Any comment appreciated?

FRIEDSQUID

So the question I have is that when I search through a brick and find an insert(s) is it better to hold off on posting the information or report it as soon as I find it? By reporting it you leave it open to others saying that they found inserts and by holding onto it it possibly creates a sense of rarity if not discovered by others? As for the recent finds I posted, according to Hudson no one has reported any in that prefix as of yet. Until now I have kept the inserts and the notes surrounding them but that seems like hanging onto money that could be used elsewhere if needed.  Any comment appreciated?

FRIEDSQUID

I would contact sudzee with your find immediately, and send him any information about the brick as he needs. He will typically want to know exactly what notes you found, and what they replaced, and what the overall layout of the brick was. Ask him for more details.

If you get a brick, with insert/replacements, just document the stats as I have for the following brick:

AOH 7610000 ( 83/71 ), AOP 7075076, 077 ( 69/57 ), AOH 7610001 – 140, missing 141, 142 – 852, missing 853, 854 – 998, 999 missing and replaced with AOH 9850392 ( 83/71 ).

If your brick has many different missing notes, or multiple prefix inserts, you may have to resort to a different format such as follows:

Brick AOM 2079000 – (84/96)

Missing                  Insert
001                          AOK 2119002 ( 84/96 )
003                              003
005, 6                              004,5
023                              007
039                                        008
042, 43                              008,9
048                              010
063, 64                              011,12
123                              013
137                              014
147                                                  015
163                                        016
167 – 174                              017 – 024
177                                        025
180 – 182                              026 – 028
184 – 187                              029 – 031
189                              032
193                                        033
195 – 199                              034 – 038
200 – 209                              039 – 048
210 – 221                  AOH 9540086 – 097  (65/95)
226                           AOK 2119049
237 – 241                                     AOK 2119057 – 061
243                           AOK 2119050
248, 249                  no inserts to replace these positions
253                           AOK 2119052
300 – 309                  AOH 9540537 – 546
313                  AOH 9540098
315 – 317                  AOH 9540547 – 549
319                           AOK 2119045
321                           AOK 2119056
353, 54                  AOH 9540550,551
357                  AOH 9540099
363                  AOH 9540552
381                           AOK 2119054
977                           AOK 2079317
999                           AOK 2119001

The above shows the AOKs as sheet inserts and the AOHs as being individually inserted. Don't quite know why the insert columns don't line up properly. These are the actual stats from recent bricks.

Hope it is not too confusing.

Gary