1935 Bank of Commerce $5 cat. # 75-18-05

News: Registration is free here at the CPMF!

The Logan-Wedd signatures are known to appear only on the 1935 series of $5 Commerce notes.  They must have been printed at a time when circulating chartered notes were coming to an end.  All Wedd notes are rare due to a combination of factors...
1) Not many sheets had Logan-Wedd signatures added to them compared to earlier Aird-Logan and Logan-Arscott signatures;
2) Not many Logan-Wedd sheets were released to circulation; and
3) All chartered notes were being withdrawn from circulation, albeit gradually through the 1940s.
The third factor is probably of little consequence as chartered notes were being withdrawn regardless of their signatures.  The fact that 1935 $5 Commerce notes are relatively common in all grades as a type note is evidence of this.  As well, the fact that the first circulated Wedd note to be found is in well-circulated condition tells us the same thing (this is discussed further below).  So I surmise that Wedd notes are rare because few got into private hands in the first place.  That it took until 2006 for the first circulated one to surface may be a fluke (or not).

Initially, the only Logan-Wedd notes known in existence were two complete sheets of four uncut notes.  The sheet numbers are A432022 and A432023 with check letters A, B, C, and D.  The second of these two sheets was cut into individual notes many years ago.  Two of the notes from that sheet (positions A abd B) were offered separately in the June 2001 Torex auction hosted by Moore Numismatic Auctions.  The notes were described as "CU" and had estimates of $4,000 each.  Does anyone know if the notes sold and, if so, what were the prices realized?  The estimates were quite high for the time (in my humble opinion).

The remaining intact sheet appeared in the October 2009 Torex Auction likewise hosted by Moore.  Lot 1793 was graded PMG-64 EPQ.  The picture as it appeared in the catalogue is reproduced below.  The estimate was $17,500.  Does anyone know the sale price?  It was purchased, either at the sale or after it, I know, because the sheet was subsequently cut into individual notes.  The second note from the sheet, A432022/B, is being offered by a prominent dealer with a grade of PMG-66 EPQ.  The slabbed note is also shown below.

{http://www.give-a-buck.com/special/Wedd-A432022B-b4.jpg}

{http://www.give-a-buck.com/special/Wedd-A432022B-after.jpg}

Circulated notes bearing the Wedd signature were not known to exist until the discovery note surfaced in 2006.  I remember the eBay listing but don't recall the sale price.  It has sheet number A425389 and its condition is around Fine.  The image of the note is shown at this link:
http://www.give-a-buck.com/gallery/075/075320r.html

A second circulated Wedd note is known to exist according to the Charlton catalogue of Canadian Bank Notes (6th edition, 2008).  I have no information on this note; does anyone know its sheet number?  I'm guessing that its condition is VF because the catalogue provides pricing for Wedd notes in that grade (whereas the 5th edition gives us pricing only in Fine).

With the discovery of circulated Wedd notes, does it make sense to reclassify the notes that came from intact sheets as uncanceled remainders?  Maybe the latter's catalogue number should be 075-18-05R and they should be priced separately.  I think it's safe to say that the sheets were cut into single notes for less than altruistic reasons (i.e., the sheet cutter didn't do it to share the joy of owning Wedd notes with as many other collectors as possible).  Uncirculated notes usually decide the value of notes in all grades, but I'm concerned that these Wedd notes from sheets being passed off as de facto circulation examples will actually harm the value of actual circulated Wedd notes over time.

Opinions and further information are welcome.

-M

The sheet was certainly a remainder sheet. It was not a proof sheet since it has serial numbers, probably has the back printed, and probably is on regular paper.

Since the sheet was a remainder, the individual notes cut from the sheet remain remainders. 

Hopefully no one will attempt to add signatures and dates to try to make them into "issued" notes. Fortunately the existence of the serial numbers should mitigate this problem.

I would contact Bob Graham regarding the listing of these notes as remainders. The new edition of Charlton is almost out. I suspect that Bob has already noticed the sheet and created a new listing, but you never know.

With due respect, may I suggest these notes are not remainders.
They may have been intended as presentation sheets to bank officers, or the like and may not have strictly been intended as issued notes.
However, with numbers and signatures, they certainly could have been used in circulation.
Remainders to my knowledge do not have numbers and/or signatures or dates.
These notes have all three of those criteria.
That said, we all know by the numbers that where they came from, that is sheets, and should be noted in any catalogue notation as such...

Alvin raises some valid points.
The implied proposition that new notes obtained from banks are inferior, and only used notes taken from circulation have legitimacy in collections, is unlikely to attract many adherents, nor is it a suitable basis for cataloguing.
The misunderstanding in this thread seems have sprung from uncertainty concerning the origin of the various Cdn. Bank of Commerce sheets.  They came from the Bank, "for value received", for they could have come from nowhere else.  From the head office on King St. in Toronto, to be precise.  The notes would have been paid for, and the transaction would have to be authorized as the issue of uncut sheets to individuals was obviously outside of normal practice.  Fundamentally it still amounts to a case of an individual who, desiring to own some of the last notes of the chartered bank period, acquired them from the bank.  The notes would have to be paid for - banks are like that.  They represented a liability which had to be matched by an asset.  Since the sum was large for the times, we may infer that it was a wealthy person, and one who had plenty of influence to obtain the necessary authorization.  Perhaps a director or a vice president, or maybe even Sidney Logan or Stanley Wedd.
The notes were fully issuable (certainly not remainders, nor proofs, nor specimens -just regular notes), legitimately acquired and paid for, just like when we obtain new notes from our banks today.  The fact that they were in uncut sheets is immaterial.  All Cdn. Bank of Commerce notes of the era were in sheets of four at one time.  I hope this will clear up the question of the Wedd notes and the other Commerce sheets.
Finally, a question was raised about the circulated Wedd $5s.  They are A425389/C and A426025/B.

I agree that Alvin raised some good points.  I can't help but feel disgusted, though, that the original sheets were disassembled.  To me, they were special as sheets and should have remained as sheets.  But naturally, someone saw greater potential in releasing the notes one-by-one and thus destroyed the sheets and ergo a piece of history.  I don't accept Bob's argument that the sheets were nothing special, that they were nothing more than regular notes.  The reason collectors value issued notes more than proofs, specimens and remainders (IMO) is that regular notes entered circulation via normal channels and form part of everyday Canadian history.  The Wedd sheets may have been purchased for their face value like any other notes, but they were obviously part of some special arrangement.  We know what collectors think about special arrangements... just look at the popularity of the Bank of Canada's Lasting Impressions sets (i.e. they are more popular with coin collectors than paper money enthusiasts).  Without any kind of documentation, there's no way to know who bought the Wedd sheets or why.  But to me at least, the Wedd sheets were special just because they were sheets, and thus they had value that is completely different from the value of circulated notes.  Other collectors have demonstrated a strong interest in sheets for other issues.  Look at the value of 1870 shinplasters... uncut pairs and blocks of 4 are valued much higher than multiple single notes.  I'm disappointed that the Bank of Canada's Currency Museum does not have a Wedd sheet.  Logic would predict that they would have been the most eager customer for a complete sheet!  But perhaps they were behind the cutting of the first sheet... maybe they were so cheap, they wanted just one Wedd note!  In fact, they own one of the notes from the first cut sheet (A423023/C)...
http://www.currencymuseum.ca/collection/artefact/view/1999.0016.00001.000/canada-canadian-bank-of-commerce-5-dollars-january-2-1935

Now that the Wedd sheets have been cut apart, I think their specialness is gone.  Moreover, as a collector, I feel totally violated in being made to feel that these disaggregated single notes are somehow just as collectible as circulation finds if not more so because of their condition.  In fact, I think the Charlton catalogue played a role in encouraging the destruction of the remaining sheet by pricing Wedd notes in AU and Unc conditions after the destruction of the first sheet.  Had there been separate pricing for the whole sheets, I think at least the sheet that turned up at the 2009 Torex sale may have been spared.  But, alas, the market has eight single Wedd notes posing as regular circulation finds.  The two original sheets were "trophy notes" that should have appealed to the wealthiest of collectors.  The eight single notes are not trophy notes, in my humble opinion.  I think the catalogue should at least publish the sheet numbers of the original pair of sheets so that collectors have the information to use when deciding on their purchases.

Well, we can rejoice that the 1935 $10 and $20 sheets are still, as far as I know, intact.  They are likely to remain that way since the perceived market value of the whole sheets is significantly greater than the sum of their parts. 
For the record, they are $10 Logan-Arscott sheets A110518 and A110519, and $20 Aird-Logan sheets 146882 and 146883.

Thanks for the information.

It just occurred to me that the Wedd sheets may not have been cut up if there was any truth to the mantra some people are repeating about the market for Canadian paper money being strong and showing potential.  I think the sheets were sold off as individual notes because there were not enough buyers who could afford the complete sheets nor could they see any investment potential in buying a sheet.  If the Canadian paper market was as strong as the market for, say U.S. and Australian paper, I'm confident these sheets would have ended up in elite collections with their prices trading higher each time they return to the market.  As things are, these sheets became like an albatross around the necks of the dealers who owned them, so splitting them up meant finding more customers.  If even our National Currency Collection couldn't be bothered to buy a sheet, what point is there for any individual collector to have one?

Speaking of the National Currency Collection, I was at the Currency Museum today, and here is exactly what is written in the display containing the museum's lone Logan-Wedd note:

"Notes printed with the Logan-Wedd signature combination were never issued, since amendments to the Bank Act in 1944 prohibited chartered banks from issuing their own notes.  Single notes found in circulation were cut from sheets."

Ironically, they give General Manager S.M. Wedd's stated tenure as beginning in 1942, so there was a window of opportunity for Logan-Wedd notes to be issued for circulation between 1942 and 1944.  Anyhow, the above statement is very much out of date and thus factually inaccurate.  They even contradict themselves by saying the notes were never issued, but single notes were found in circulation.  I am sure that this information has been posted since at least 2004 when I was last at the museum.  This predates the discovery of the first circulated Logan-Wedd note in 2006.  So at the very least, time has proven the statement to be wrong because actual circulated notes have been found, but what I find more aggravating is their supposition that single notes cut from the sheets can be considered a circulation issue.  They were issued as sheets, and they ended up in collector hands as sheets before they were cut into singles, therefore not a circulation issue (more like non-circulating legal tender, NCLT, in my opinion).  But that will not stop owners of notes cut from the two sheets from trying to convince the rest of us that their notes are regular notes.  Mark my words, you will never see anyone selling one of those notes with the truth that their note came from a sheet.  And why wouldn't they if their notes are so legitimate?  Admitting the provenance of those eight notes would only hurt the bottom line, IMO.

Most collectors and dealers seem to have a natural (unnatural?) primeval urge to cut up sheets of banknotes! I must admit that I have done a lot of sheet cutting myself over the years as far as US Obsolete note sheets are concerned. Even the unique Grenville County Bank (Prescott, Canada West) sheet of four notes that was acquired by an Ottawa dealer some 20 years ago was cut up by a person or persons unknown and the four individual notes now reside in the Bank of Canada Currency Museum. For what it's worth, I had that very sheet of four notes in my hands shortly after it was discovered and I could have purchased it for the asking price of around $1,800. Unfortunately for me, the printing style was unfamiliar to me and it appeared rather dubious at the time and I passed up on the proverbial opportunity of a lifetime. Well, not quite because I balked on another opportunity of a lifetime around 1978 when I was offered by the late Mr. Terry Frost of Ottawa a Dominion of Canada $5 1912 Train note signed McCavour-Saunders! I balked on that offer because I was a rather impecunious neophyte collector at the time and that particular signature combination was not listed in the Charlton Standard catalogue at the time! That note was subsequently trimmed by a person or persons unknown and it now also resides in the Bank of Canada Currency Museum!

The two tragic errors summarized above (there have been others though!) have made me realize that it's much better to take a chance on a possible rarity and make the wrong decision than to miss out on the opportunity of a lifetime altogether!