"Within BoC tolerances" what does it mean?

News: Registration is free here at the CPMF!

I notice that the 25th edition GPM uses the words "within Bank of Canada tolerances" on pg. 332 in describing the "missing circle" on the $10 notes, 2002 issue. So I am tempted to believe that some people may know what "within Bank of Canada tolerances" means.

Does anyone on this forum know or have an opinion about the size tolerances for the Polymer Frontier Series Notes. The stated size is:

Size: 152.4 x 69.85 mm (6.0 x 2.75 inches).

More specifically at which of the following thresholds would a note be considered out of tolerance?

+/- 0.5mm
+/- 1.0mm
+/- 1.5mm
+/- 2.0mm
+/- 2.5mm
+/- 3.0mm

I am not asking from the point of view of errors or worth of out of tolerance notes but from the point of view of BoC's possible quality control. I am assuming that at some point if the size is over or under then BOC would not put the note into circulation and replace it with a Single Note Replacement.

Anyone on this forum have any insight? Would writing to BoC or Charlton Press elicit any response?

Thank you

I expect that all of this would be considered proprietary information and that the Bank of Canada would decline to offer any meaningful comment on the subject.

The Charlton Press would be unlikely to be able to assist.

I strongly doubt that anyone outside of the Bank or the printing companies would know any details, and those that do likely won't talk.

Obtaining information from the Bank of Canada is difficult at best when it comes to some of the more technical matters.

I expect that all of this would be considered proprietary information and that the Bank of Canada would decline to offer any meaningful comment on the subject.

Thx for the response. But I am still baffled as to how Charlton Press made such a statement attributable to BoC in their catalog.

Would anyone be able to take a guess as to how Charlton Press then made such a statement in their catalog? Should users of their publication at least not have the right to know the source of their information?

Without speaking on behalf of Charlton Press and/or the Editor,* I might suggest that the statement in question was a logical conclusion more than anything.

Assuming you had access to a very large sample of new banknotes and could precisely measure the size of the notes, you could find the average width and height.  You could also then plot the number of notes with varying dimensions.  I suspect that the chart would look very much like a typical bell curve with very few samples with hugely variant dimensions and lots with minimally variant dimensions.  At some point there you'll see huge drop-offs and you can conclude that there is where the official tolerances probably lie.  But it's a lot of work and a nearly impossible task to get a suitable sample size for so very little payoff.

Either way, the Bank, like all manufacturers or companies having something manufactured on their behalf, have requirements for their product and tolerances to consider slightly imperfect pieces as acceptable.  While we common folk may never know what those tolerances are, and while they may change from time to time, it is clear that the $10 notes with the missing circles commonly exhibited modest variances in cutting registration and banknote dimensions so as to produce half-circles, full circles, 1.5 circles, two circles and an infinite number of degrees in between.  Because these were so common, it is reasonable to consider them to be within the tolerances of the Bank.

I don't think there's anything official to back up that statement.  Presuming there is would be unadviseable, and presuming that there ought to be is rather unnecessary.

* I am in no way related to the Charlton Press.  My statements are my personal opinions only and should not be interpreted as comments on behalf of Charlton Press and/or its staff and related persons such as the Editor.

I don't think there's anything official to back up that statement.  Presuming there is would be unadviseable, and presuming that there ought to be is rather unnecessary.

* I am in no way related to the Charlton Press.  My statements are my personal opinions only and should not be interpreted as comments on behalf of Charlton Press and/or its staff and related persons such as the Editor.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. My initial thoughts were the same as yours. Of course there is no presumption about anything here. Just curiosity which I would think drives the collection bug. Or maybe even the academic in me striving for sources of all factual looking statements.

What intrigued me however was the certainty with which the statement seemed to present itself and I quote

"These cannot be considered to be error notes since they were within Bank of Canada tolerances"

-Charlton GPM 25th ed. 2013 - pp.322

I realize that the value of something ultimately depends on what the market place bears and as a person with newly developed interest in bank notes perhaps I may not understand various nuances.

I thought that there might be people in this forum who may know people doing work at Charlton or might have some inside knowledge. Maybe not.

However I will be happy to share any information if I make any headway with my inquiries with Charlton or BoC.

Again thank you