Wilkins-Macklem notes

News: Welcome to the Canadian Paper Money Forum.

This image comes from a Facebook forum. The person who reported the note found it 2 weeks ago and spent it without checking the serial number. GME may be the changeover prefix.

..The person who reported the note found it 2 weeks ago and spent it without checking the serial number. GME may be the changeover prefix.

Had a Wilkins- Poloz in 4 Mil range
- I got one! GME 8957450 with Wilkins-Macklem signature. Thanks for the heads up (as it would have been spent for sure).

Added Wilkins/Macklem $50 to the database.  I set the changeover to 8M pending further information.  If you find notes close to the changeover please post them here so we can narrow down the changeover point!

Added Wilkins/Macklem $50 to the database.  I set the changeover to 8M pending further information.  If you find notes close to the changeover please post them here so we can narrow down the changeover point!

Last week I submitted a question to the BOC about the $50 GME signature changeover and got a response today:

Good day,
Thank you for your email.
The first $50 note printed with the Macklem-Wilkins signature pair was GME6255015.
Kind regards,
 
Public Information | Information publique
Bank of Canada / Banque du Canada
info@bank-banque-canada.ca

I'm surprised they actually replied to your request about the changeover! Kudos to them for good public relations

You can see it's not the same signature sample he used a decade ago.  Very similar but not identical.

I suspect that the Wilkins-Macklem combination will be scarce since Wilkins is due to step down soon...

Just received a few Wilkins/Macklem $5 notes with the INE prefix.
SNDB still records them as M/P prefixes.
Guessing the signature change may have started with IN? but does anyone know for sure at this point?

in the SNDB it lists 2 INE notes under Wilkins-Poloz in 0.7M range. I am assuming that these are your two notes? I have seen IND notes and they were signed Wilkins-Poloz but i dont remember the serial numbers. I am guessing that the changeover likely occurs in the high IND range or perhaps at INE 0000001 if indeed the SNDB is incorrect.

Hi
I have 22 IND different range, the highest IND 8913702, W-P
so odds are low for the changeover in IND i think 
whitenite enter 8974995 as high.

Just received a few Wilkins/Macklem $5 notes with the INE prefix.
SNDB still records them as M/P prefixes.
Guessing the signature change may have started with IN? but does anyone know for sure at this point?

I am thinking the changeover is in IND around 9.0 million range.

In the SNDB it lists 2 INE notes under Wilkins-Poloz in 0.7M range. I am assuming that these are your two notes?

Yes those are my entries - 12 sequential notes, so I only entered the first and last ones.  Going back to the bank today to get 20 more hopefully from the same machine.

All my INA-INC notes are definately Wilkins/Poloz.  I didn't check any IND notes i may have put in.   Just got my first INE this morning after you left me the phone msg yesterday lol and it is the new combination.

Hopefully the Admin checks his messages so we can change the SNDB to reflect the new changes. 

Thanks for the "heads up" Ragpicker.  I (finally) got a low range IND last week but they're "Wilkins/Poloz as slackjack notes (probably up to 9M if there is a change on the IND prefix). Just took some more $5 out of the nearby branch & it's back to the old ragged HC_'s again. Getting a high IND or INE could take a while....

Several members have asked me to send them a sample.  Not doing anything with them for the time being other than setting them aside.

Another photo below but I still haven't figured out the Macro feature on my LG K61 yet, so not as good as I was hoping for.

I have entered a number of IND $5 notes and all had the signature of Wilkins-Poloz  including the high note of IND 8966255 (33/33). Regarding the new signature of Macklem, it is different from the signature of the Macklem - Carney notes.  I have compared the signature of AHU 3921288 (51/51) and with GMG 8204013 (46/46) and it is typical of all of us as we age, our signatures become less distinctive (more straighter than wavy).

Here is IND 8604746 and as Whitenite has mentioned, the signature change may be in the 9m range. 

I just got a new batch of INA prefix notes from ATM.  Just wondered if anyone is interested in some sequential UNC notes send me PM otherwise i will put them back into circulation.  INA0505533 to INA0505546 and INA0504560 to 0504577.  I will hold on to them for a bit then if i don't hear anything back to circulation they will go.

I did see a few INAs in Newfoundland as early as December, and they were all in the 4 million range.  Yep, I think it's safe to say that printer letter I has finally arrived to my province.

Considering that Newfoundland usually doesn't start getting new $5 and $20 bills until the spring (given their high demand) - possibly due to weather causing potential ferry delays and prompting the banks to order at least a three-month supply of money prior to Christmas - I suspect that INC or a new prefix in the new signature combo will appear in my province as early as April.  I strongly doubt banks in my region will receive orders of new INB and INDs, as they've been released in Canada many months ago.  Newfoundland seems to usually see new prefixes that are not as abundant in Canada.  I remember when the $5 Frontiers HCG first got reported on the forums, and there was a dry spell for such prefix for months or even over a year on end, and I suspected that prefix would be likely to arrive in Newfoundland.  It did.

I am thinking the changeover is in IND around 9.0 million range.

Just as I suspected, the changeover is in IND. Here is the official response from the BoC:

Thank you for your email.
The prefix and serial number of the last $5 note with Wilkins-Poloz signatures: IND 8981999
The prefix and serial number of the first $5 note with Wilkins-Macklem signatures: IND 8982000 in 2020

Thanks for the update 'AZ'
-Will keep searching....

For the $10 vertical notes the changeover from Wilkins/Poloz to Wilkins/Macklem begins at FFE0855000 meaning that the W/P notes will be the scarcer of the two.

For the $10 vertical notes the changeover from Wilkins/Poloz to Wilkins/Macklem begins at FFE0855000 meaning that the W/P notes will be the scarcer of the two.

Has anyone found $10 Wilkins-Macklem notes? Is this official information from the Bank of Canada?

I do know that there are reports of $10 FFS and FFT prefixes on the SNDB. They were reported in the latter months of 2020.

One thing I would love to know is, do the newly printed $10s have the protective varnish coating like the four current Frontiers series banknotes?

I do know that there are reports of $10 FFS and FFT prefixes on the SNDB. They were reported in the latter months of 2020.

One thing I would love to know is, do the newly printed $10s have the protective varnish coating like the four current Frontiers series banknotes?

I am 99% sure that FFS and FFT are data entry errors. These prefixes are too far from the last known $10 prefix (FFE) to be legitimate sightings.

The vertical tens have the same protective varnish as the Frontiers notes.

With the possibility of many banks across Canada having discontinued ordering $10 bills, it makes me wonder if there were only a very small number of $10 bills printed for the initial run of Wilkins/Macklem signatures?

I did learn, on an article from back in 2018 or January 2019, that there were just under 20 million of the initial supply of Desmond $10s (if memory serves correctly, I think the number was either 19.6 million or 19.8 million).  There were eight prefixes in the range of FTW to FFD released so far (I didn't include FFE, since the Wilkins/Poloz side,  in terms of numbering, is very low), but while someone claimed in recent months that there were 70 million of the Desmond $10s released to Canada, it could be possible that that particular claim is based on the fact that there were assumed to be eight full-run prefixes, when really there may have been a lot of skipped numbers or large ranges of numbers skipped among the roughly 20 million Desmond $10s released to circulation as early as 2018.

That said, I agree that FFS and FFT are likely errors in data entry.  Based on recent history, a single printing of $10 bill supply these days perhaps covers seven or eight prefixes with lots of skipped numbers.  If memory serves correctly, the Macklem/Poloz $10s had only FTJ, FTK, FTL and FTM as broad runs, while FTH and FTN were changeover prefixes.  This may be living proof that demand is much lower now and many banks in Canada have stopped ordering $10 bills by this point.  I have never seen any Macklem/Poloz $10s in Newfoundland that was in pretty good shape as if it came freshly from a bank, implying that demand for $10s in Newfoundland is pretty much zero now.  There are still $10 bills in my province, but they are the same ones juggling around in circulation for nearly a decade now.

If this latest printing of Wilkins/Macklem $10s follows the same theory as the Macklem/Poloz $10s, a realistic scenario will probably go as far as FFJ, maybe FFK.  FFT is quite unrealistic at this time for a denomination whose demand is significantly lower than it was a decade ago, and it makes sense as to why there are far fewer $10s printed these days.

..while someone claimed in recent months that there were 70 million of the Desmond $10s released to Canada, it could be possible that that particular claim is based on the fact that there were assumed to be eight full-run prefixes...

I'm sure that the claim was based on the sighting of 7 prefixes (FTW-FFD) with full SN# ranges reported in the SNDB. 

So your claim is only 20M b/c you haven't seen many vertical $10 in NFLD?  Is that your data?

When the '150' Commemorative $10 was released I never once saw a new CDF prefix in the GTA area & waited 7-8 months to see a very circulated one (the time it took to arrive from Quebec).  New series prefixes are released randomly through various big city distribution centres (HQ banks). It sucks for collectors living in rural parts of Canada (since they have to wait to see the uncommon stuff) but that's just the way the system is set up. Even higher populated areas, like where I live, will miss the full release of all that the BOC has to release.

I just took out $500 in $50 yesterday & 50% of them were old prefixes AMA-FMY & 50% newer prefixes. I could assume that means a lot of things since this denomination has been around for a decade. However, 10, my sample # is a pretty inconsequential figure to start drawing a number of assumptions/theories about what prefixes will be next, the fate of the denomination, etc. Several CPMF member here have replied to your posts stating the obvious: less cash is being used & therefore less prefixes seen.  This means less data & with less data it is tough to make accurate forecasts. The new prefixes for the $5 & $20 (much more popular/used 'denoms') are being released at a slow trickle right now. Any of them could become tough right under our noses b/c the data we have is pretty scant/unreliable.

Try to keep in mind that it has only been 29 months since the Vertical series has been released in late November of 2018. That's only 2 years & a few months into this one.

I wouldn't be shocked if the $10 prefixes are released at a much slower trickle than the $5 and $20 counterparts.  It's possible that banks no longer order bundles of new notes anymore because the cost is quite high - high enough, that it's a lot cheaper to order the newer bills if mixed in with many recycled notes of the same denomination.

This is one good reason why I stopped doing over-the-counter banking some years ago.  The infrequency of new prefixes made my interest in serial numbers much weaker these days, and it turns out that banks no longer order bundles or bricks of new notes anymore - likely due to cost.  And it makes a whole lot of sense as to why I saw an abundance of FYF prefixes on $20s in Newfoundland and Labrador several years ago, but after that the FY* prefixes are still far away from the end in my neck of the woods (I may have seen FYP at latest).

I'm even willing to bet that, although there were enough of $5 IND prefixes seen in Ontario so far, there may still be a lot of IND prefixes yet to be released in Canada, and that may be due to a slow trickle of releasing new bills.

I wouldn't be shocked if the $10 prefixes are released at a much slower trickle than the $5 and $20 counterparts. ..
.. and it turns out that banks no longer order bundles or bricks of new notes anymore - likely due to cost. ..

I'm even willing to bet that, although there were enough of $5 IND prefixes seen in Ontario so far, there may still be a lot of IND prefixes yet to be released in Canada, and that may be due to a slow trickle of releasing new bills.

Speaking of costs, banks have laid off thousands of their hard-working dedicated employees, reduced hours of service & hounded thousands of Canadians (+ businesses) for their monthly mortgage payments after they were laid off due to the pandemic (or couldn't pay the rent). Super compassionate organizations, these banks!   Yeah, maybe they're still trying to reduce costs so they can outstrip the profits of all other businesses. You can read about banks cutting costs (& their record earnings) here:
https://globalnews.ca/news/7663464/coronavirus-canadian-banks-earnings-2021/

Again: I still maintain that the ordering of new banknotes has nothing to do with the popularity of any one denomination. Costs of ordering banknotes is a drop in the bucket for these billion dollar operations. It just happens to be that the decreased use of cash: has played well into the big banks game plan to take full advantage of people's tendency to play footloose and fancy free with their credit, online payments & the transition to digital currency.   More consumer/business debt is a huge boon to banks & since everyone seems fine with decreasing their use of cash, why not celebrate & encourage this reckless behaviour?

Anyone know the Admin?  Just wondered when the database can be updated with the IND changeover mentioned earlier in the thread.

A member who goes by "Boing" from Vancouver posted a high # IND. Can anyone confirm that the high # IND are "Wilkins-Macklem" change-overs?
(Thanks!)

This is from a previous message in this thread that AZ had posted:

"Just as I suspected, the changeover is in IND. Here is the official response from the BoC:

Thank you for your email.
The prefix and serial number of the last $5 note with Wilkins-Poloz signatures: IND 8981999
The prefix and serial number of the first $5 note with Wilkins-Macklem signatures: IND 8982000 in 2020"

I got 2 $5 bills today with the Wilkins-Macklem signature. They are IND 9940258 and INE 9074447.

Does anyone remember when the new $5 bills with Carney's signature were issued? For the first 5 or 6 years only 3 were known. Then, all of a sudden, here in Vancouver, I started to get new Carney notes from my bank- plain uncirculated, available in "large" numbers. The belief is that some of the new bills were printed and then put somewhere for storage. The second signature notes were put on them, and the pile did not get worked through for several years.
Please note from the forum notes that the serial number starting points for the new Wilkins-Macklem notes were available in 2020. Some of the serial numbers starting points for the Lane-Macklem notes are already being talked about. The unreasonable high numbers could be products of this type of process, with later printings covering up earlier issues, and sometimes new ones being released earlier than most of the earlier printings.

https://www.ebay.ca/itm/174991055918?hash=item28be479c2e:g:CIQAAOSwlPBhdG9v

$10 note with Wilkins-Macklem signatures: FFK6815374

I think this was the only $10 note with a new signature combo ever known to exist so far.  I haven't checked the database yet at this point, but I think that, because of significantly low demand these days (and even lower now than a few years ago), it will likely take a few years to roll out the Wilkins/Macklem signature $10 notes nationwide.

And it did take nearly six years to roll out the last batch of MacDonald $10 notes, and the rollout may still be continuing.  Interestingly enough, I have never seen any fresh Macklem/Poloz $10s in my province to this day, so chances are that all of the banks in Newfoundland have likely discontinued ordering $10 notes after seeing a plethora of FTCs in July or August 2014.

I wonder why the FFK prefix find was not added to the SNDB yet.

I got one out of an RBC ATM in Montréal on Friday (not too far from the airport).

I think they're pretty much going to hit the streets everywhere now. 🤷🏼‍♂️👍🏼

^ Everywhere, except probably Newfoundland.

With the exception of the Canada 150 series, I have not seen any new $10 bills that came from a branch in Newfoundland since around August 2014.  I may have seen FTV and now FTT at my local supermarket, but they probably get their cash orders from a branch on the mainland.