about "unidentifiable" replacements

News: Registration is free here at the CPMF!

Towards the end of the Birds series in the late 90s, the use of "X" in prefixes to indicate replacement notes was discontinued. Thus, identifiable (*, X) replacements ended and the current era of "unidentifiable" replacements began.

"Unidentifiable" replacement ranges are noted in catalogues, such as Charlton: "BC-54eA-i, Knight-Dodge, ANP (between 4.320M and 4.540M)."

How are these replacements determined? According to Charlton:

"It has been established that notes in certain number ranges have been inserted in new bricks of otherwise consecutively numbered notes, often from a different series.

"The information presented in this catalogue on "unidentifiable" replacement notes has not been, and may never be, confirmed from official sources. It has been obtained by reputable researchers from many regions of Canada, by searching bricks of new, untouched notes.

"The number ranges may change slightly as further discoveries are made with continuing research."

I wanted to ask how these would appear: as Macdonald $10s in bundles of Desmond $10s? Or as Wilkins-Poloz $5s in bundles of Wilkins-Macklem $5s? Or as FFG $10s in bundles of FFKs?

How big are these "bricks?" Some of these ranges are large, comprising hundreds of thousands of notes.

Also, I would imagine it would take time for these to be discovered, reported, verified, and then published. How long would it take for some of these replacements to appear in catalogues, a few years?

I was actually on a similar puzzle lately. I found a note on eBay that had "Replacement" on the header but so far I have not been able to find any clue as to why I would believe this note to be a Replacement. It is a PMG slabbed note and I trust PMG know what they're doing, but to me there is no evidence.  It's about this note if anyone wants to find out for themselves. https://www.ebay.com/itm/193879118988 How can I see that that is a Replacement?  I can't.

I did not answer @rxcory's question b/c I was waiting (& hoping) someone more knowledgable would step up & reply.

When I got back into collecting (in 2003) I met @BWJM & he told me about several Brick searchers coordinated searches & their discovery of "insert replacements." Later, I met many of the key people involved in this enterprise.

Here is one of the better threads that explains what transpired over the course of several years & I believe insert replacements are one of primary reasons @BWJM started this site (for continued correspondence/verifications during the roll out of the Journey series). It also continued for the polymer series but was abandoned by the time the BoC released the 2015 commemorative $20 (I believe).

Please check out this thread to further understand what happened (how many brick searchers tracked BoC insert replacements & compiled data for the Charlton catalogue & this site on the SNDB):
https://cdnpapermoney.com/index.php?topic=5160.0 

Hope it helps answer your questions!

PS: I would try to explain it myself but I was never a replacement collector so I have only repeated what others (who were involved) have told me.

I was actually on a similar puzzle lately. I found a note on eBay that had "Replacement" on the header but so far I have not been able to find any clue as to why I would believe this note to be a Replacement. It is a PMG slabbed note and I trust PMG know what they're doing, but to me there is no evidence.  It's about this note if anyone wants to find out for themselves. https://www.ebay.com/itm/193879118988 How can I see that that is a Replacement?  I can't.

This is an unidentifiable replacement note.  It is listed in the Charlton catalogue as a replacement, so the holder is correct.

I did not answer @rxcory's question b/c I was waiting (& hoping) someone more knowledgable would step up & reply.

When I got back into collecting (in 2003) I met @BWJM & he told me about several Brick searchers coordinated searches & their discovery of "insert replacements." Later, I met many of the key people involved in this enterprise.

Here is one of the better threads that explains what transpired over the course of several years & I believe insert replacements are one of primary reasons @BWJM started this site (for continued correspondence/verifications during the roll out of the Journey series). It also continued for the polymer series but was abandoned by the time the BoC released the 2015 commemorative $20 (I believe).

Please check out this thread to further understand what happened (how many brick searchers tracked BoC insert replacements & compiled data for the Charlton catalogue & this site on the SNDB):
https://cdnpapermoney.com/index.php?topic=5160.0 

Hope it helps answer your questions!

PS: I would try to explain it myself but I was never a replacement collector so I have only repeated what others (who were involved) have told me.

Thank you!! I had done an exhaustive search here before posting the question, but obviously missed that thread somehow.

I wanted to ask how these would appear: as Macdonald $10s in bundles of Desmond $10s? Or as Wilkins-Poloz $5s in bundles of Wilkins-Macklem $5s? Or as FFG $10s in bundles of FFKs?

Usually as different prefixes but the same series/denomination/signature.  So FMI inserted into FMH, for example.

How big are these "bricks?" Some of these ranges are large, comprising hundreds of thousands of notes.

A brick is 1,000 notes.  A bundle is 100 notes.  Bricks usually consist of 10 bundles, or could just be 1000 notes.  A block is a shrink-wrapped set of four bricks.

Also, I would imagine it would take time for these to be discovered, reported, verified, and then published. How long would it take for some of these replacements to appear in catalogues, a few years?

The catalogue was (still is) published annually.  Depending on the timing of the reports of insert notes being found, and that of any corroborating reports, and the timing of each catalogue, it could be just a few months, or multiple years or anywhere in between.

I believe insert replacements are one of primary reasons @BWJM started this site.

It was actually Paul Wallis who started this site (c. 2000) several years before I showed up.  It was only about a decade later that control of the site effectively passed to me, and did so completely following his death.  In 2018, the site was transferred to a new owner.  I no longer have any administrative role here whatsoever.

Usually as different prefixes but the same series/denomination/signature.  So FMI inserted into FMH, for example.
A brick is 1,000 notes.  A bundle is 100 notes.  Bricks usually consist of 10 bundles, or could just be 1000 notes.  A block is a shrink-wrapped set of four bricks.
The catalogue was (still is) published annually.  Depending on the timing of the reports of insert notes being found, and that of any corroborating reports, and the timing of each catalogue, it could be just a few months, or multiple years or anywhere in between.
It was actually Paul Wallis who started this site (c. 2000) several years before I showed up.  It was only about a decade later that control of the site effectively passed to me, and did so completely following his death.  In 2018, the site was transferred to a new owner.  I no longer have any administrative role here whatsoever.

Thank you for that info BWJM, and for your knowledge, contributions to this site and to the hobby.

This is an unidentifiable replacement note.  It is listed in the Charlton catalogue as a replacement, so the holder is correct.

I didn't mean to doubt the correctness of the holder, but to me it looks like "just any serial number".

I guess I'm beginning to understand the question "if a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, does it make any sound then?"  I mean, what makes this note a replacement, other than literally "somebody says it is"? To me it holds no premium value this way. Buy hey, that's just me 

To me it looks like "just any serial number".

What makes this note a replacement, other than literally "somebody says it is"? To me it holds no premium value this way. Buy hey, that's just me 

You're not wrong.  It is a replacement because somebody says it is.  In actuality though, one person found these notes inserted into a brick of something else, and somebody else found another brick with the same arrangement thus confirming the first report.  Often times there were additional confirmations as well.  But at the end of the day, the notes are no different from any others, and that's the whole point of unidentifiable replacement notes.

Back in the day of * notes and X replacements, collectors would become a thorn in the side of the banking industry by going through lots of bundles of banknotes just to pull out these desirable notes.  The industry thought they'd fix the issue by getting rid of asterisks and using X's.  Nope, that'd didn't do the trick. So then they went to unidentifiable replacements.  That helped a lot, but didn't end the behavior.  Plus, it didn't really logistically make much sense to even use replacements any more.  So they stopped entirely.  Several problems solved all at once!

Although I helped coordinate some of the insert note reporting and verification, I was only a small cog in the machine.  I also saw the machine's flaws and the whole "it is because I say it is" thing.  The system is built on collectors' trust of the people finding these notes in bricks.  That's why I never collected unidentifiable "insert" replacement notes myself.  Asterisk and X notes, sure.

OK great, so I guess we agree 

Just make me wonder why the banking industry put so much effort in making collectors' lives miserable. What do they care at all?

Just make me wonder why the banking industry put so much effort in making collectors' lives miserable. What do they care at all?

What is the biggest motivator? Money.  It was costing them money to do things the old way, and they could save money by changing.  It cost money to print replacements as a separate run and insert them into banknotes. It cost them money to move quantities of cash around just so collectors could thumb through it and deposit it again. They could save money by simply not printing replacements at all and eliminating this pesky collector behavior. It's all about the money. It's always about the money.

Hmmm okay, seems fair. I didn't realize people would literally withdraw bundles or even bricks of notes just to check the numbers and deposit the rest again. Wow. In my country, we don't do that sort of thing, I think I hope! Thank you, no further questions