1892 Bank of Toronto $10 bill with Cartwright overprint

News: Registration is free here at the CPMF!

Hello,

I am new to the forum and new to this type of collection.

I have a 1892 Bank of Toronto $10 bill with Cartwright overprint. 
I am not sure of the Charleton catalogue number
Serial number is 218557
I believe it to be graded as extremely fine.

A very clean bill with no tears. 

Any information and an approximate value would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

CM

Welcome to the forum.

In 1892 there are 4 different overprints currently known
“Cartwright” “Copper Cliff” “King St. West Br” “ London”

The Charlton Catalogue currently lists the following;
22-26a, $10, 1892, LONDON o/p, G $1,125 – VG $2,250 – F 3,000 – VF $4,500
22-26b, $10, 1892, other town o/p, G $1,250 – VG $2,500 – F 3,250

Sound like you have an interesting note. If you have a scan of the note, I would very much like to see it.

Thanks for the response.

Unfortunately, I do not have a scan at this time.

I noted that you state that the 1892 has 4 different overprints.

I found at the Canadian currency museum they show a scan of a Montreal o/p in the link below

http://www.currencymuseum.ca/collection_search/images/phpThumb.demo.showpic.php?src=images/1994,0054,00024,000,a1,2d0034.jpg&wm=cm&title=Canada%2C+Bank+of+Toronto%2C+10+dollars+%3A+June+1%2C+1892

My next question is, of course, how would one go about finding out how many are still in existance.  Probably an impossible question but I am curious.

Thanks for the advice

You may be surprised to learn that a register of 19th century Bank of Toronto notes exists.  It was published along with an article by R G Graham and J. Graham Esler in the December 1995 CPMS Newsletter.  Before I say anything else, I must qualify the data in the register as being rather old, so other notes not in the register may have been added subsequently.  One cannot emphasize that enough when people go on eBay all the time and make claims from outdated data.  Anyhow, the 1995 register lists 14 known examples of the 1892 $10 note, 11 of those having town overprints.  Your note, 218557/B, is listed as one of the 14 notes and is the only one listed with the Cartwright overprint.  If the note is in the condition you describe, I have no doubt that the National Currency Collection will want to have your note, so if you consign your note to a major auction, you'll get at least one strong bid from whomever they send.

Congratulations on being in possession of what is essentially a unique note.

hi Mark,

Appreciate your candor regarding outdated data.  I will take all advice as I am very novice to this type of collection.

I am happy to learn that the note is the only one listed, and I am quite happy of it being a unique note.

Thanks for the info.

I haven't checked the 1995 copy of the note register that mmars refers to, but in the just-published CPMS Note Registers book, it lists eleven 1892 $10 notes with only one having the CARTWRIGHT overprint (and of course it is this note, 218557/B).

[edit]Ah, I see where the discrepancy exists. The 1995 register lists three (of the 14) notes as having no overprint and does not provide serial numbers for these notes. The remaining eleven notes are the same eleven in the current version of the note register.[/edit]

The "missing three" with no overprint recorded were all from the 1973 Ritter sale, which was not catalogued well.  No 1892 $10 without overprint has ever been confirmed.  No sheet numbers were provided in the Ritter sale, so of course they do not appear in the new CPMS Register.  It is highly likely that those three notes are already recorded in the register from subsequent appearances.

Thanks to all who have replied.

I appreciate your comments all of which give me a better idea of what this bill means and the history and uniqueness behind it.

Any other comments are welcomed.  Thanks

Thanks to all who have replied.

I appreciate your comments all of which give me a better idea of what this bill means and the history and uniqueness behind it.

Any other comments are welcomed.  Thanks

Don't buy a pack of smokes with it! 

Don't buy a pack of smokes with it! 

I guess I should have specified "good" comments.  Now, had you stated a pack of smokes and a 24 of Lucky - then, maybe it would have caught my attention!!