Bank of Canada - "Back Door" Error ??

News: Welcome to the Canadian Paper Money Forum.

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.

I have thoroughly examined the notes under the correct lighting conditions and there is some minor handling near the top of the
larger note (possibly created when the notes where unceremoniously shoved in an employee's lunch pail ? )

The top note is not a "pristine" uncirculated note. 

There are no staple or pinholes anywhere on the notes.

On the other hand, there is strong embossing throughout the notes and there is no evidence of a fold (soft, pressed or otherwise)
in the area where one would be expected if the notes left the printers in a Bank of Canada bundle as a cutting/folding error.

I have attached an image of the back of the notes as requested.

To make things a little more interesting for the conspiracy theorists among us I offer the following pair of notes from the same auction........

Note that these notes also end in "999" and like the $2 notes would probably have come in separate bricks if they were a printing error.

This $1 issue was made available to the general public as sheets, but not with the GT prefix.

The larger note of this pair however shows a "score line" or fold just above "This Note is Legal Tender".

I find the fact that these two notes also end in "999" highly suspicious 

Both these notes were discovered from a US dealer last year at a US show

Back to the $2 note pair...

Again, the quality of the images makes it difficult to express an opinion with a high degree of certainty.  However, on the larger note, I can see what appears to be an elongated crease running close to the top edge, and to me at least, this suggests that the top part of the note was bent over at some point.  There does not have to be a hard fold as evidence of being in a bundle.  The edge of the oversize note protruded out from the rest of the bundle and was likely bent over the top of the bundle.  The serial number ending in 999 shows us that the sheet from which these notes came was the last sheet in a ream, and cutting errors typically happen on the first and last sheets in a run.  For whatever reason, the first/last sheet became misaligned prior to a stack of notes being cut.  It does not have to be deliberate, though one has to wonder how this kind of error slips through quality control without being detected, removed and destroyed.  There will always be room for the "conspiracy theorists" to believe that these notes had "help" getting out of the printing facilities.

The serial numbers ending in 999 on both the $2 and $1 error notes points strongly to the possibility of accidental misalignment caused by the machinery.  I used to own a 1937 $100 note with a cutting error showing an extra piece, and the note had a serial number ending in 000.  I sold the note for a fair price, though in retrospect, I could have asked for about ten times as much had I tried to invent a story about it being the product of employee mischief rather than pure chance.

We have no idea as simple collectors if any sheets of older series notes were saved by the Bank of Canada and/or presented to important persons.  We only know about those series that were sold to the public in uncut form.

We have no idea as simple collectors if any sheets of older series notes were saved by the Bank of Canada and/or presented to important persons.  We only know about those series that were sold to the public in uncut form.

That is an excellent point. There have been reports of sheets of all sorts being sold to the public, including this post by kinghaku claiming he saw somebody buying a sheet of 2002 $5s at the BoC museum in Ottawa.

If what he says is true, it calls into question the authenticity of any cutting error.

That is an excellent point. There have been reports of sheets of all sorts being sold to the public, including this post by kinghaku claiming he saw somebody buying a sheet of 2002 $5s at the BoC museum in Ottawa.

If what he says is true, it calls into question the authenticity of any cutting error.

That's... interesting.  The post in question is already 10 years old, and I cannot recall this subject being discussed anywhere to any great extent... ever.  So I would be compelled to believe that this is something unheard of to most collectors.  If sheets of notes have always been available to the public, then clearly, I have been wasting my time all these years reconstructing layouts from single notes grabbed from circulation!  I don't know whether to  or  .

Unfortunately, the currency museum is currently closed.  It sure would be nice to be able to walk in there and possibly buy a sheet of $5 Frontier series Macklem-Carney notes.

As for the possibility of people making their own cutting errors from sheets of notes previously thought to have never been released to the public, the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that this could be true.  And who is doing the cutting and why?  The answer to why is simple: sheets bought directly from the BoC are probably treated as any note issued by the Bank... interesting, but not very desirable.  That keeps the value low and makes a strong case for trying to add value by creating false errors.  Many phoney errors from $1 and $2 sheets have surfaced, and we know that the notes came from sheets since we have information about serial number ranges of sheet issues.  But as for who would cut up a rare sheet... I would think it has to be the dealers.  I still can't get over the fact that two surviving sheets of Canadian Bank of Commerce 1935 series $5 Logan-Wedd notes have been cut into singles.  But clearly, it made sense from an economic standpoint.  Selling an intact sheet of 4 of these rare notes is much harder and less lucrative than selling four singles.  Obviously, taking a rare sheet of 1974 series $2 notes and cutting it into common singles is pointless.  If what Elwoodbluesca said is true, I would be very skeptical about the authenticity of these "errors" as well.  Old sheets can turn up in estates many years after the original owners acquired them.  Clearly, this topic needs much more investigation and discussion.

Here is another one of these fabulous "back door" errors on eBay... 1973 $1 prefix AZ...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/231284577270

Rather affordable asking price... that is, if shipping wasn't $19.