Signature changeover on polymer fives

News: Welcome to the Canadian Paper Money Forum.

Nice find! What city?

Just outside Victoria, BC. Here's the weird thing: I found another one yesterday. Also HBG in the 3.2M range but not in as good of shape as the other. I'm wondering if it's just a fluke or if the banks over here have bundles of them. Time will tell.

Anyone else have success at finding UNC M/C 5's?  And are they willing to sell them?

Anyone else have success at finding UNC M/C 5's?  And are they willing to sell them?

I can only speak for myself, but I'm guessing if people have found any they will enter them in the SNDB. Looks like there have only been 14 reported so far. Which, has grown from about 8 over the last 2 months or so. So to answer your question, are people finding them? Yes they are, albeit slowly. Are they UNC? Not likely, I don't think any of these were found in a fresh brick or essentially un handled (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Anything I've come across or I've seen discussed here has been less than an UNC grade.

I'm guessing if people have found any they will enter them in the SNDB

Unfortunately, I do not believe that this is true...there are those that will keep their finds to themselves, and others that have no idea that the SNDB even exists...

Unfortunately, I do not believe that this is true...there are those that will keep their finds to themselves, and others that have no idea that the SNDB even exists...

  ^This and to answer the question of IamCollector I have not found any let alone in unc condition.  They do appear to be a rare breed at the moment.

If HBG prefix has M/C signatures and M/P signatures would they both be rare with same prefix?

S :)o there is still hope for us to find M/C polymer $5

Only M/C polymer $5.00 in a very small range of HBG have been reported & are of interest in this thread I believe.  There is still hope -but it seems to be a slim chance at that.

  Well it appears the changeover has been confirmed by the BoC for the change in signatures on the HBG 5$ notes.  But something looks off.  Note these numbers are taken from the SNDB.  Check it out for yourselves!

M/C HBG : Low 0000000  Hi 3619999

M/P HBG : Low 4700000

  It appears there are HBG M/C notes that are outside of the range of those that have been found so far.  But the question now is will any of those other notes make it into circulation?  And it appears notes with prefixes HAM-HBF never existed (or the BoC just destroyed them all because I think its a little far fetched that they just decided to skip these prefixes    ).

  And it appears notes with prefixes HAM-HBF never existed (or the BoC just destroyed them all because I think its a little far fetched that they just decided to skip these prefixes    ).

I don't think it is far-fetched at all.  They did not intend to skip these prefixes.  But they were compelled to do this likely as the result of notes in the range of HBG being printed before anything else, and then with the signature changeover, they decided they could not go back and print Macklem-Poloz notes and give them prefixes that come before HBG.  That would create, in effect, a range of HBG Macklem-Carney "good-overs".  I made a lengthy post a couple of months ago discussing this theory and comparing it to the whole topic of EKZ $100 notes...

http://www.cdnpapermoney.com/forum/index.php?topic=14363.msg62917#msg62917

If I was a betting man, I would say that the first $100 notes of the polymer series were given the prefix EKZ.  So it follows that the first $5 Macklem-Carney notes were given prefix HBG with the anticipation that prefixes HAM-HBG would all be printed with the same signatures.

Why did they start at HBG for the polymer $5s? Why not start at HAN? That's 160 million serial numbers they skipped. Had they perhaps anticipated that they might have needed to print that many more Journey series notes to meet demand before the polymer $5s were ready, and that demand never materialized?

It appears there are HBG M/C notes that are outside of the range of those that have been found so far.

What notes?  All reported HBG M/C notes fall within the range listed on the SNDB.

What notes?  All reported HBG M/C notes fall within the range listed on the SNDB.

  I think you misinterpreted what I said.  I meant that there are HBG notes with M/C signatures with serial numbers outside the range of serial numbers of notes found by people in circulation.  Meaning according to the BoC confirmation, HBG notes with serial numbers from 0 to about 3200000 would have M/C signatures and do exist.  The lowest M/C note found to date is around 3200000 and so the confirmation gives the possibility of finding some with numbers less than that.  That is what I meant, sorry for any confusion it may have caused. 

Well, that's only what the Bank of Canada is saying.  Actual findings clearly do vary.  Whether or not the notes actually do exist or made their way into circulation is totally unknown.

In other words, what BWJM is saying is that the Bank of Canada is not 100% reliable in the information it releases.  So take their inference that HBG 0000000-3200000 exists with a grain of salt until we have confirmed evidence of these notes.  The front-line people who provide the information to us tend to be the least qualified to answer the questions of collectors.  They have no idea if the information they provide is totally factual as they have to obtain it from other BoC employees who may or may not be willing to divulge the whole truth.  In fact, I would go as far as to speculate that the claim that HBG 0000000-3200000 exists may be fabricated to make Macklem-Carney notes seem less rare and thus less appealing.  But again, some simple proof would go a long way to confirming that they exist.

  Well it appears the changeover has been confirmed by the BoC for the change in signatures on the HBG 5$ notes.  But something looks off.  Note these numbers are taken from the SNDB.  Check it out for yourselves!

M/C HBG : Low 0000000  Hi 3619999


 

So that means 3,620,000 HBG-M/C would have been printed.

This number is not divisible by 45 it being the number of notes on a sheet as we know them. For that matter this number is not even divisible by 3.

It would seem that there is something strange happening here.

And just because the BoC has confirmed that the first number is 0000000 and the last number is 3619999 does not automatically follow that all the numbers in between had to have been printed, unless of course that is what the BoC specifically confirmed.