ROTATOR

News: Welcome to the Canadian Paper Money Forum.

PMG  recognizes the rotator with the number 1 E/R 8111118  EBAY

Just goes to show that PMG will certify just about anything as long as someone wants to pay for it.  They've clearly made up their own definition of a rotator note because the Canadian definition per the Charlton guide does not recognize the digit 1 as a rotatable digit.

I just did a search for "flipper" in the U.S. paper money category.  My hypothesis was that maybe PMG got the idea that 1's are OK based on criteria for flipper notes.  But alas, not a single U.S. note turned up in my search containing 1 as a digit.  But this is rather a moot point as it is clear flippers are not rotators.  They are not even remotely close.  It seems like any notes with serial numbers made up of 0s, 6s, 8s and 9s are "flippers".  At least according to their owners, anyhow.   

Just goes to show that PMG will certify just about anything as long as someone wants to pay for it.  They've clearly made up their own definition of a rotator note because the Canadian definition per the Charlton guide does not recognize the digit 1 as a rotatable digit.

The Charlton guide is not authoritative on such matters. I have always disagreed with its editors' opinion that 1 should be excluded because of the serif. I don't consider the serif on the 1 to be any less significant than the difference in sizes of the top and bottom loops of the 8 since the 1979 series, which Charlton does consider permissible to have as rotator digits. If you're going to allow 8, it only makes sense to also allow 1.

I say kudos to PMG and it's about time that somebody challenged Charlton on its opinion.

EDIT: oops, I didn't notice that the note in question is a 1954 series note with its big bottomed 1s  - I do support excluding those.

The Charlton guide is not authoritative on such matters. I have always disagreed with its editors' opinion that 1 should be excluded because of the serif. I don't consider the serif on the 1 to be any less significant than the difference in sizes of the top and bottom loops of the 8 since the 1979 series, which Charlton does consider permissible to have as rotator digits. If you're going to allow 8, it only makes sense to also allow 1.

I say kudos to PMG and it's about time that somebody challenged Charlton on its opinion.

EDIT: oops, I didn't notice that the note in question is a 1954 series note with its big bottomed 1s  - I do support excluding those.

yes, be agreed

 

LOL, I don't think arguing the definition of a rotator is going to get far as the author of the original CPMS Newsletter article on the subject and the owner of this forum is the same person.  The Charlton catalogue did not invent the rotator note nor the criteria for defining it.  People can collect quasi-rotator notes if they want, but they should be aware that the pricing for such notes will be different than for rotators that adhere to the stricter criteria.

On a lighter note, did anyone else notice that the word ROTATOR is actually a palindrome (i.e., radar) and not a rotator? 

LOL, I don't think arguing the definition of a rotator is going to get far as the author of the original CPMS Newsletter article on the subject and the owner of this forum is the same person. 

My remarks earlier referred specifically to digits in the OCR-B font as used on Journey, Frontier, and the 1979 series. If we want to make the strictest rules, then only 0, 6, and 9 should be allowed. 8 and 1 both look different when rotated. Charlton has decided to draw the line so that 8 is included but 1 is out. I disagree, seeing no significant difference between the upside down 8 and 1 that would have one included but not the other. Excluding the 1 does make sense to me for Birds series and older serial numbers, but not for OCR-B unless the 8 is thrown out as well.