Birth Notes - Year Notes - Did anyone know how BoC treated the years?

News: Welcome to the Canadian Paper Money Forum.

The GPMC catalog uses the term birth year serial numbered notes. In the 30th edition 2018 on page 395 it refers to serial numbers 1900 to 2013 (I hope that this has been updated in the 2019 edition)

I find the use of the term birth year rather limiting because people may have any reason to collect such notes (anniversaries, graduation etc.) But that's not what this post is about.

Its about what the Governor of Bank of Canada considers a "year" note.

I don't know if anyone watched the video of events when the vertical Viola Desmond $10 was put into circulation.

The Governor of the Bank of Canada Stephen Poloz presented a plaque to Viola Desmond's sister Wanda Robson and another to John Young, President and CEO of the Museum of Human Rights. The plaque consisted of two notes and an engraving of Viola Desmond (for Wanda Robson) and the museum (for John Young).


Governor Poloz said that the two notes on each of the plaques had years as serial numbers:


For Wanda Robson - 1946 and 2010

For John Young - 2014 and 2018 (2014 date the Museum opened and 2018 date when Museum was put on the note)


Now to get to the point.


I thought that Governor Poloz was following the interpretation in the GPMC and that the notes would actually be the following serial numbers:


0001946

0002010

0002014

0002018


I was curious about the prefix of the bank notes so I made an inquiry to the Bank of Canada. Although I found out that the prefix was FFB, to my surprise the serial number was not as per GPMC protocol. Here is the exact text of the response I got:

Good day,

 
Please find below the complete serial numbers of the framed bank notes presented by Governor Stephen S. Poloz to Wanda Robson, as well as the notes presented to the Canadian Museum for Human Rights.
 
•   Wanda Robson: FFB3842010, FFB3831946
•   The Canadian Museum for Human Rights: FFB3842018, FFB3842014

So if BoC can treat a note ending in 2010 without regard to the first three digits as a year note then should not the collecting community adopt it.

For those curious about the plaque presentation please see the link to the video and start from time stamp at approximately 36:50


https://youtu.be/7g2aU4wLRN0

The GPMC catalog uses the term birth year serial numbered notes. In the 30th edition 2018 on page 395 it refers to serial numbers 1900 to 2013 (I hope that this has been updated in the 2019 edition)

I find the use of the term birth year rather limiting because people may have any reason to collect such notes (anniversaries, graduation etc.) But that's not what this post is about.

Its about what the Governor of Bank of Canada considers a "year" note.

I don't know if anyone watched the video of events when the vertical Viola Desmond $10 was put into circulation.

The Governor of the Bank of Canada Stephen Poloz presented a plaque to Viola Desmond's sister Wanda Robson and another to John Young, President and CEO of the Museum of Human Rights. The plaque consisted of two notes and an engraving of Viola Desmond (for Wanda Robson) and the museum (for John Young).

Governor Poloz said that the two notes on each of the plaques had years as serial numbers:

For Wanda Robson - 1946 and 2010

For John Young - 2014 and 2018 (2014 date the Museum opened and 2018 date when Museum was put on the note)

Now to get to the point.

I thought that Governor Poloz was following the interpretation in the GPMC and that the notes would actually be the following serial numbers:

0001946
0002010
0002014
0002018

I was curious about the prefix of the bank notes so I made an inquiry to the Bank of Canada. Although I found out that the prefix was FFB, to my surprise the serial number was not as per GPMC protocol. Here is the exact text of the response I got:

So if BoC can treat a note ending in 2010 without regard to the first three digits as a year note then should not the collecting community adopt it.

For those curious about the plaque presentation please see the link to the video and start from time stamp at approximately 36:50

https://youtu.be/7g2aU4wLRN0

No, we certainly should not treat such notes (where first 3 digits are arbitrary) as year notes. These notes were simply the easiest for the BOC to find given the request, and they never consulted the GPMC or were going to. I am sure that by presenting these notes the BOC did not mean to establish the new collecting standard!

No, we certainly should not treat such notes (where first 3 digits are arbitrary) as year notes.

- I agree. 

I wonder if the BoC may be pulling bank notes with serial numbers that contain years, particularly from the last 100 years, and that could explain a number of serial numbers being skipped per prefix?

I wonder if the BoC is pulling certain serial numbers (i.e. solid numbers, palindromes, ladder numbered notes, birth notes, etc.) for the purpose of discouraging hoarding of banknotes?

I have read that the US purposely separates their low serial numbers so someone could not get a large run.  Now Canada has adopted an indirect way to prevent hoarding which is by mixing up the notes out of sequence within the last 5 years. Special serial numbers are not being removed since people are finding them.  I found a rare serial number on a recently issued prefix.

It would be hard to find someones exact birthday in a serial number which would be a niche need and some combinations would not be possible since it would take 8 numbers (10102019 for 10th day, October, 2019).  Birthyears are lower serials with three forward zeros and the book should clearify that and probably change the range.  I doubt there are any 119 year old Canadians still alive

It would be hard to find someones exact birthday in a serial number which would be a niche need and some combinations would not be possible since it would take 8 numbers (10102019 for 10th day, October, 2019).

I found my own exact birthday which I thought would be impossible (would need 8 digits) by superimposing the first digit in the year with the last digit in the month so DDM(M/Y)YYY.  Then I wasn't paying attention and accidentally spent it 

I have a birth year note 0001944 for my Mom and birhtday notes for my sister and I- all Journey $5 notes obtained from a breaker on this forum.

It is interesting this topic comes up again, A few months back I made a thread in which people could post wanted dates for other forum users including myself to look out for, and nobody responded to it. The link is right there and I'll also give it a bump in case you guys are interested.

I go through a large amount of cash (Rupiah can confirm :p ) and I find full date birthday bills frequently, usually more than one a week. If you want your own full date birthday and want another set of eyes to look out, by all means post in my thread or send me a PM and I'll do so. This hobby is all about playing the odds, may as well improve them.

Now Canada has adopted an indirect way to prevent hoarding which is by mixing up the notes out of sequence within the last 5 years. Special serial numbers are not being removed since people are finding them. 

The data that I have does not indicate that the BoC is purposely removing any notes or purposely mixing notes up. I have found all kinds of special serial numbers notes in new bundles and bricks where they belong.

Also just by looking at the first note in the brick or the bundle I can predict what else I will find in the brick and I do find them.


BTW the BoC has changed its packaging with the new vertical 10 compared to the packing of the Frontiers Series notes.

The reason why gaps are occurring in sequential notes is because the bank is running through a Single Note Inspection Process. The bank sets the defect criteria and the machine pulls out any note that meets the defect criteria. And the defect can be very minor. It is possible that some of the notes removed for defect are put back into bundles creating what may appear like an insert.


My interest has been studying the designs and I have been writing articles on them in the CPMJ for the last several years.

I have had situations where the notes are not in sequence but the special note is still there. I don't think the bank is deliberately removing notes. I just don't think it has the time and inclination to do that unlike what many people want to believe.


Today it is not easy to order bundles and bricks. There is a hefty charge for it. That is how the BoC is dissuading people from simply ordering new bricks and bundles.


In any case I think this thead was about the difference in which the BoC was using notes of certain dates compared to the way in which the GPMC is categorizing notes as birth year notes. Perhaps this discussion if it continues can be in a separate thread.

The hefty price for ordering bricks or even bundles of new bills being quite high, that probably explains the lack of frequency of new prefixes out my way, including the new $10 bill.  I think this has been the norm since 2015 or so.  That may also explain why banks did receive the new $10 bill in their orders, but they were in very, very limited quantities, mixed in with already circulating $10s.  Banks just cannot afford to order money the same way they did a decade ago, it seems.  I am thinking the banks decided to phase in the new $10 bill - and likely future denominations - over an extended period of time instead of in one fell swoop.  I have not seen any new $5 bills for a couple of years now, but I can see why - it's because the phasing in of the Frontiers $5 was likely completed.

I now start to realize that some bank branches may have discontinued ordering $10 bills because traffic was lower, as opposed to other branches.  If banks have very few customers, they have to drop a denomination because they cannot afford it.  In banks' perspective, the $10 bill is the first choice to be dropped, followed by the $100 bill.  Some of those banks that didn't order certain denominations likely closed down and/or merged with another branch eventually.

I can expect the next new denomination to be delivered in very limited quantities also, mixed in with already circulating versions as well.

I realize something else too.  Could it be possible that the reason for numbers being skipped while printing the bills, unlike back in the day, could be possible through modern-day computer software and technology that can allow for omitting certain prefixes while printing, and those omitted numbers (radars, ladders, low numbers, million numbered notes, and date notes, to name some) are likely due to the history of people hoarding those serial numbers, and the Government of Canada is trying to discourage the practice of hoarding money and only release serial numbers that people will likely spend?

Of course, that may explain the drastically reduced number of new $10s printed in 2018 (19.6 million), despite there being seven prefixes (FTW through FFD) in the initial run.  And that low number printed implies that the vast majority of banks across the nation have discontinued ordering $10 bills by now, and our beloved $10 bill will likely be on the way out in due time at the rate the decline is going these days.  The number of $10 bills in circulation may have increased, but I think many of the existing tens are being hoarded by many Canadians, realizing the demise of the $10 may be coming, and they want to hold on to them because they may be worth more in the future.  Little do they know that they may likely lose legal tender status if they end up getting retired.

I believe hoarding money can hurt the economy.  Cash is designed for spending.

Could it be possible that the reason for numbers being skipped while printing the bills, unlike back in the day, could be possible through modern-day computer software and technology that can allow for omitting certain prefixes while printing, and those omitted numbers (radars, ladders, low numbers, million numbered notes, and date notes, to name some) are likely due to the history of people hoarding those serial numbers, and the Government of Canada is trying to discourage the practice of hoarding money and only release serial numbers that people will likely spend?

I’m sure it is possible, but I doubt the BOC cares.
Personally I have been lucky enough to still obtain special numbers
Through bricking as well as through other individuals with daily access to bricks
I just think that because notes are not sequential as they once were it is harder
For some individuals to pull special numbers out of bricks because of time restraints
Those familiar with bricks knew exactly where to look which bundle or bundles had the special numbers
But now it’s not that simple
In some ways it’s more of a hunt but like I mentioned in another post
You can get a brick with no radar or get a brick with more than half a dozen radars
It just takes more time and effort

As I have said in other threads, the BoC is not pulling special numbers. If they were, the almost mint condition HCJ2222222 I found this past summer, not to mention wagnert's HCM2- and other entries in the 2019 recent finds thread would be an egregious flub in their culling. The amount of money collectors per capita is trivial and not worth them wasting their time over to ruin our fun over the occasional cool number find not being spent back into circulation.

brickers are still finding unique serial numbers; therefore, they are not being pulled.