EGU

News: Registration is free here at the CPMF!

Don't forget the 1973 $1 notes that suddenly showed up several months back with inverted backs.  They turned out to be "too good to be true" when it was discovered that someone was splicing banknotes and gluing them back together as an inverted error.

I'm not insinuating that this is the case here but a definite possibility considering the value that a newly discovered cut out of register "good-over" note could realize at auction.

It is astounding to what lengths some people will go to in an effort to deceive and make a buck at the same time.

Has BCS changed their policy about grading error notes? I thought they didn't accept error notes for grading.

BCS will grade error notes (see attached example).

Since this note is not in the catalogue, it is very likely that BCS will not certify it.  At least you have to tell them ahead of time what you have.  If you just show up at their doorstep with this note in hand, even if you have an appointment, they may not be willing to stake their reputation on authenticating and grading this note.  You could get an informal opinion, for sure, but they may not want to slab it.

I think the person who would be the best to see this note is the catalogue editor.  From there, getting an article (or even just a picture) published in the CPMS Journal would go a long way to getting information about this note distributed publicly.

Are you refining to Charlton standard catalogue editor?

Or have your note looked at by a reputable coin/paper money dealer.

Yes i will take it to a dealer soon , i am in a small town on the west coast of B.C. so there is no one around here.

Are you refining to Charlton standard catalogue editor?

No, I was refining referring to the Sears catalogue editor.    Wait, I better follow forum rules and clarify that this was sarcasm, just in case somebody reading this actually believes that Sears publishes numismatic catalogues.  There is only one paper money catalogue, the Charlton catalogue.

No, I was refining referring to the Sears catalogue editor.    Wait, I better follow forum rules and clarify that this was sarcasm, just in case somebody reading this actually believes that Sears publishes numismatic catalogues.  There is only one paper money catalogue, the Charlton catalogue.

LOL, actually Sears kinda does...

http://www.sears.com/search=coin

The note is suspicious to me for the following reasons:

The intaglio (for the portrait and numbers on the front) and lithographic processes (for the background) are separate processes.

When the lithographic process is done - typically both sides are printed simultaneously. That's the first red flag to me about this note.

Passing that, I would find it hard to believe that the intaglio process is then messed up in the same spot to align with the misaligned lithographic printing.

Typically when there's an error with the intaglio being out of register but the lithographic process is normal - you see the "ghost" lithography in the background.

But who knows - crazy things can happen... 

When the lithographic process is done - typically both sides are printed simultaneously. That's the first red flag to me about this note.

Passing that, I would find it hard to believe that the intaglio process is then messed up in the same spot to align with the misaligned lithographic printing.

Typically when there's an error with the intaglio being out of register but the lithographic process is normal - you see the "ghost" lithography in the background.

The offset printing with both sides simultaneously printed has been necessary for good registration of the front with the back on the journey series and polymer series. I am not sure if such a process was used for the bird series.

A note like the reported EGU can be possible if:

a) The offset on both sides were not printed simultaneously.
b) The intaglio on the front was printed after the offset on the front which was either followed by or preceded by the offset on the back. This would make the front offset and the front intaglio in register but with both being out of register with the back.

Thank you, and if someone can give me the information i will contact the bank of Canada

The  Bank of Canada will always answer a question on the matter of the authenticity (i.e. whether it is counterfeit or not) of the note. I have had good success simply writing to the public information e-mail address on their website (info@bankofcanada.ca.

Raised ink and dots (planchettes) that cannot be scratched off the surface were the two publicly recognized security features.

Thanks for all the information.. The  Planchettes don't come off and glow under UV  light.  There is light raised ink on the two on the face.

Now I am convinced that the 1986 Bird $2 EGU cut out of register "good-over" is a forgery.   

I just discovered it was sold on eBay by the same seller who is currently selling the 1973 $1 inverted back design error (see eBay item # 181776541539)

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/1986-Canada-Cutting-Error-Paper-money-UNUSED-/181776541539?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a52b9e763

Coincidence ?  I doubt it.   Another example of "if its too good to be true, then it probably isn't".

The other items for sale seem to be high quality forgeries of bank notes and Chinese stamps.   Anything goes in China and pretty much ANYTHING and EVERYTHING can be counterfeited and copied.   

And the worst part about it is that it got 24 bids and ended at $540 US when we can pretty much conclude they are worthless forgeries.