Bank of Canada - "Back Door" Error ??

News: Registration is free here at the CPMF!

I purchased these error notes at auction.  I was intrigued by the fact that the note(s) are uncirculated with no folds.

This issue of note was never released as a full sheet so it is not a "fabricated" error as we see with many Bird series $2 cutting errors.

It is also interesting to note that these notes came from the last sheet in the ream with serial numbers ending in 999.

I can only conclude that the pair some how left through a "back door" at the BABN company.

I would be interested in any opinions on how these notes made their way on to the market and a value for this unique pair.

...Arthur

A very neat and interesting pair of error notes, though I suspect to the layman error collector, this pair of notes will not elicit that much more curiosity as to its provenance any more than any oversize cutting error.  I mean, how does any oversize note escape quality control inspections and get into public?

What is of considerable interest to me is the fact that the bottom note is only 1000 higher that the note above it.  It begs the question concerning just what sort of skip interval was used on a sheet of $2 notes and what arrangement of serial numbers the sheet had.  For instance, was the skip interval 200 or 250 across the rows, or 1000 down the columns, or some bizarre arrangement like we've discovered on BABN-printed Journey notes?

I had friend that worked for a printing company that would get contracts for large food companies, movie companies and other printing jobs. He would also tell how for fun they would "fabricate errors". When I showed him the Charlton catalogue about errors he had 2 responses the first was that keeping "garbage/throwaways" and paying for it was beyond him but he was also able to explain how most of these errors could with little effort be faked and done deliberately. Ever see a pink spider man poster? Anyways, I would not be surprised if these serial number were printed twice. The first time for circulation the second time to line their pockets.

MG

Skip numbering was by 1,000s, down columns.
See page 424 at the back of GPM 26th, for instance.
It absolutely boggles my mind that bank note companies were letting employees take samples of negotiable paper currency home in their lunch pails.  I would have expected security printers to have developed ways of preventing such things.

Consternations uproar!  My catalogue only goes up to page 415.  I've been ripped off!!! 

Consternations uproar!  My catalogue only goes up to page 415.  I've been ripped off!!! 

don't worry a new one is in the making...maybe you will get all the pages next time

Consternations uproar!  My catalogue only goes up to page 415.  I've been ripped off!!! 

Maybe you could sell your book as a printing error....could be worth lots 

   NICE 
If it’s not too much trouble could I see the other side for my pleasure?

  NICE 
If it’s not too much trouble could I see the other side for my pleasure?

I'll bet it looks exactly the way you think it should look.

(Prove me wrong!  Prove me wrong!)

If we’re going to help our pal canada-banknotes with determining if his notes are a “Back Door” Error ?? , then seeing both sides of his notes are crucial.

If the notes are errors created by an operator’s mistake or a machine’s malfunction then more pictures could show evidence that the notes were under stress.

The scan of my miss-cut twenty shows it has machine marks perhaps grease stains that I believe were cause during a jam-up or maybe a sheet slipped out of line after being hung up on a stacker, roller or guide. Who knows but I don’t question if it was intentionally cut wrong.

If the notes are not further impaired I’d be more incline to say they were carefully cut and could be the result of a back door job.

But if I want to be cynical and say someone in the past was playing around and fabricating errors then I should think these twos may even look inverted like the one dollar notes sold on eBay. Should their origins be questioned as well?

There is a significant difference between Canada-Banknotes posted error of two corresponding error notes (which are obviously connected by virtue of their alignment/SN or serial numbers) and your lone one error note (with no matching note).  The backs (IMO) won't show the connection as well as the fronts (with the corresponding SN's).  That (I believe) is mmars point.

I think the term "Back Door" error is an apt one as I agree with many collectors who have talked about these outrageous multiple folds (E24) errors & it boggles the mind as to how they could have possibly missed being culled via inspection.   With both errors Charlton provides bold typed warning to beware alleged cutting errors "which have been fabricated by deliberately miscutting (sic) notes from sheets of $1, $2, $5 or $10 notes made available by the Bank of Canada." (p 411 of 25th 2013 Ed).

This is why C-B stated:

This issue of note was never released as a full sheet so it is not a "fabricated" error as we see with many Bird series $2 cutting errors.

Correct me if I'm wrong but his reference to the SN ending as 999 refers to the very rare replacements (like *BC above 1.9M or *RD) that ended either as 999 or a ____ (I forget the other # pattern but it might have been 000).  I'm not sure a pattern was discovered amongst the $2.00 but I believe they found one for the rare $1.00 replacement high ranges in *AA, *AB, *FB, *FH & the extremely rare *MD)

If we’re going to help our pal canada-banknotes with determining if his notes are a “Back Door” Error ?? , then seeing both sides of his notes are crucial

I don't think seeing the back is all that important.

Unless I'm mistaken, all notes legitimately released are bundled up, wrapped, and then shipped to the banks. A miscut oversize note that was legitimately released would have folds from being bundled up with properly cut notes. This note has no folds. There's no possible way this note and its partner from an adjacent brick were pulled from bricks at a bank. "Back door job" is the only explanation.

A miscut oversize note that was legitimately released would have folds from being bundled up with properly cut notes.

-Yes, I knew there was something I missed in my post...

Unless I'm mistaken, all notes legitimately released are bundled up, wrapped, and then shipped to the banks. A miscut oversize note that was legitimately released would have folds from being bundled up with properly cut notes. This note has no folds. There's no possible way this note and its partner from an adjacent brick were pulled from bricks at a bank. "Back door job" is the only explanation.

I had another look at the image of the $2 error notes posted by Arthur.  The oversize top note has a corner tip fold on the top right corner along with other handling marks and rounded corner tips that lead me to believe that the top note is less than pristine.  As such, I am reluctant to say with absolute certainty that the oversize note did not come from a bundle/brick.  Let us also not forget that soft folds and creases are easy to press out.  The resolution of the image does not allow me to accept beyond all doubt that the oversize note is "uncirculated" and "original".  In fact, it almost appears that there are a couple of staple holes in the bottom right corner...

These companies print billions of banknotes and errors are going to get out and some will be dramatic. This pair of miss-cut notes could have easily been put together by a bank employee.

Has anyone ever seen proof that someone who worked for a printing company has ever been guilty of these accusations?










Psst, I’d still like to see the other side.