HBG 0000000 - Confirmed by BOC contradicts observations

News: Registration is free here at the CPMF!

I have always been fascinated about the amount of interest that goes into the information in the SNDB.

One thing that has particularly fascinated me is the statement about some first and last notes that suggest that they are confirmed by BoC.

On one hand I find it strange that as a numismatic community we complain that BoC does not give information and on the other hand we have evidence which is based on confirmation by the BoC.

There are several interesting break points in the printing of the polymer notes. While checking for these breakpoints I found that the observed data of PN and Serial numbers for HBG M-C do not support the existence of HBG 0000000.


The following observations are made of the HBG M-C notes:


Skip interval 200

Sheet of 9 rows and 5 columns with PN from 01 to 45 (with 10, 20, 30 , 40 being absent)


Given the above the HBG M-C had to start at either

0002000 or
0110000 or
0200000

If it did not start at one of the above numbers then none of the observed PN and Serial Numbers would be valid.

Furthermore if the printing had started at 0000000 as confirmed by BOC per SNDB then the ending note 3619999 also confirmed by BoC per SNDB would be out of sync.


Given that the first recorded note 0f 0204063 is within the range of 0200000 and the last recorded - 3616778 - note is in the range of 3619999 it gives strong support to:


HBG M-C starting at 0200000 and ending at 3619999 and therefore no HBG 0000000.


The only way the existence of HBG 0000000 otherwise can be valid and also support the observations is that the BoC did a special and unconventional print run which did not get into the hands of those reporting on the SNDB.


PS - I do not have access to SNDB but based on my data I would expect


0204063 to be PN 23
and
3616778 to be PN 12

and if the above is more or less true then HBG 0000000 cannot be explained.

If i understand correctly almost all the prefixes start at 0000000 but are discarded before entering into circulation. 

- I think "Rupiah" is making a case for ranges of S/N being printed.  This is likely the case for FVY & FWW non-commemorative $20.  It is definitely the case with M/C $50 GHD (high and low ranges) & likely other change-overs (FVP W/P $20).

If i understand correctly almost all the prefixes start at 0000000 but are discarded before entering into circulation.

So if we were to say that HBG 0000000 was in fact printed (and later discarded or whatever - which is a separate story unto itself) and its PN was 41/41 then the PN of the HBG's observed would be different than what they are showing.

In other words if HBG 000000 was printed then it is likely that it was printed in a run that was separate from the run of the notes that are reported in the SNDB. It is possible that a separate run of HBG 000000  up to HBG 0197999 was printed and then the reported run started from HBG 0200000. So there is a gap of 2000 notes or in terms of the 200 skip number there is a skip of 2000/200 = 10 PN's


The question then becomes why would the BoC do something like that for such a short run? Could it be that it was part of a test?

In other words if HBG 000000 was printed then it is likely that it was printed in a run that was separate from the run of the notes that are reported in the SNDB. It is possible that a separate run of HBG 000000  up to HBG 0197999 was printed and then the reported run started from HBG 0200000. So there is a gap of 2000 notes or in terms of the 200 skip number there is a skip of 2000/200 = 10 PN's

Sheets of polymer are printed and then the printers add the serial numbers at their discretion.  Where the printers actually start their prefix serial numbering of sheets is entirely up to them.  Typically 0000000 notes have been reserved for specimen notes (& usually this is either the first prefix).  No prefix series must start at zero (as far as I have heard).

No prefix series must start at zero (as far as I have heard).

True - Except that the record states that HBG started at 0000000.

That's the reason for this post. Something does not add up with respect to HBG M-C serial number start point.

There was a thread a few weeks ago where I was talking about HBG M-C. Rupiah, you may recall asking me about where I record my data - it was in that thread. As I was writing my posts in that thread I checked two things:

1. The SNDB's listed HBG M-C endpoint, which as a number aficionado I immediately found to be strange because 362 is not divisible by 9

2. My own personal data (which for HBG M-C actually outnumbers the amount of SNDB entries) in which I have lots of low HBG but not a single entry under 02.

Given these two observations, I came to the assumption that the printing started at 0200000, because that would make a print run of 3420000 which IS divisible by 9. In fact in that thread a month ago I even mentioned "3.42 million". I just assumed that it was known to be the case, and was not aware of any debate about it.

That being said, let's have some data. I have three HBG M-C on hand right now, so let us check what they say.

HBG12934xx - 25 - consistent with 0200000 start
HBG16838xx - 04 - consistent with 0200000 start
HBG27853xx - 33 - consistent with 0200000 start

Has there ever been any proof of HBG00/01 existence? For that matter, where did the BoC say that 0000000 was the start point?

There was a thread a few weeks ago where I was talking about HBG M-C.

Sorry I did not read your thread in that manner. But I see your point now.

Has there ever been any proof of HBG00/01 existence? For that matter, where did the BoC say that 0000000 was the start point?

If you look in the SNDB it says HBG 0000000 confirmed by BOC.

Ha it is alright, as I said I did not realize it was something worth paying close attention to.

If you look in the SNDB it says HBG 0000000 confirmed by BOC.

Yes I see that it says that on the SNDB but I have not ever seen sources. I was wondering if I could get more information on where that info came from in the first place. I did some quick googling and could only find this forum and other money collecting forums repeating the same information with no actual sources.

Ironically enough while googling this I found an old thread from 2014 in which you noticed many of the same points I did in 2019.

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.

If you look in the SNDB it says HBG 0000000 confirmed by BOC.

At the beginning of each Introduction to a new series, Charlton introduces information that it has acquired on that particular series.  It typically has a chapter under "PREFIXES AND NUMBERING"
and:
"Each series consists of numbers from 0000000 to 9999999, the zero being removed and a replacement note substituted." P349
-Perhaps the SNDB should have a similar qualifier to their charts (but leave out the replacement note substituted qualifier for commemorative & vertical series).

Also for their CHECKLIST OF PREFIX LETTERS FOR POLYMER SERIES, (P350-351)
an * is placed beside Serial Numbers where observations differ from BOC statements. 
At the end of the chart:
* Denotes high and low serial numbers seen
I have made the suggestion that GPM32 begin to qualify the discrepancies found in the M/C prefixes HBG; FTH, BSW, AMK & GHD. 

So if we were to say that HBG 0000000 was in fact printed (and later discarded or whatever - which is a separate story unto itself) and its PN was 41/41 then the PN of the HBG's observed would be different than what they are showing.

In other words if HBG 000000 was printed then it is likely that it was printed in a run that was separate from the run of the notes that are reported in the SNDB. It is possible that a separate run of HBG 000000  up to HBG 0197999 was printed and then the reported run started from HBG 0200000. So there is a gap of 2000 notes or in terms of the 200 skip number there is a skip of 2000/200 = 10 PN's


The question then becomes why would the BoC do something like that for such a short run? Could it be that it was part of a test?

Have you contacted the BOC with regards to this uncertainty? It would be quite interesting to see what their response would be.