Author
Topic: Rogers Macklem FFK Missing Varnish  (Read 3456 times)
ShareBear
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
« on: January 05, 2023, 01:37:34 pm »

I was able to obtain a few G.UNC Rogers Macklem FFK in the 987xxxxx range. 

These notes feel different.  They seem to be missing the layer of varnish that the $10 came with.  I seem to remember that the $10 were always thicker than the other notes.

Can anyone else confirm.  If so I wonder where the change happened.

AJG
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
« Reply #1 on: April 06, 2023, 06:14:43 am »

I'd like to ask, do the FFL and FFP notes, reported on the SNDB, lack the varnish coating as well?
« Last Edit: April 06, 2023, 01:03:35 pm by AJG »
ShareBear
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
« Reply #2 on: April 06, 2023, 06:41:53 pm »

The FFLs that I got look the same without the varnish.

ShareBear
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
« Reply #3 on: May 14, 2023, 08:11:15 pm »

This is my personal research and take it for what it is worth.  I have to preface by saying that I was the first to report what is now known as the "double star hockey stick" on this forum.  I know that Rupiah did a lot of of research on those notes as well. 

I have checked a large number of FFP, FFL notes and can confirm that there is a difference in the feel between the two notes.  The vertical 10s have always been thicker than the rest of the polymer notes.

The FFL notes have a thin polymer.  The FFLs seem to have the same thickness as other non vertical notes.

I have also measured both the FFP and FFL with a digital caliper but did not measure a difference.  Both measured 0.1mm and different places on the note.

There is a colour difference.  The FFL (thin notes) have a lighter grey colour.  This is visible in the windows, the tower and the trees. 

These notes are not an error but could be considered a variety in the future.

Both notes where scanned at the same time.

All comments are welcome.


 

Login with username, password and session length