why inserts..???

News: Registration is free here at the CPMF!

Hello all..

Just a question or mabye a comment..Why are we calling these notes inserts?..They are replacements..and I think it is confusing to the new collector..They are finally being accepted(as unidentifable replacements)..we should be calling them by what they really are..Jounrney Series Replacements..what do you think?

Replacement..

My personal thoughts...

Not "replacements" because they are quite different from traditional replacements in that replacements were a separate run of notes printed specifically for the purpose of replacing damaged notes, and because replacements are clearly identifiable.

Not "Journey series replacements" because the transition to this sort of note occured in the Birds of Canada series around 1998-99.

Perhaps "inserts" because they are otherwise regularly-numbered notes which have been inserted into bricks in place of damaged notes. For someone looking at a brick and not knowing any better, they are notes from a different prefix, or a different range which have been inserted into the brick creating breaks in the otherwise-sequential numbering.

I'm not suggesting that one name is any better than the other, except that whatever we call them, we shouldn't use the term "replacements".

One should keep in mind this quote from the education department of the BoC.

"We can confirm that the FEP notes used by the Bank of Canada Representative in Calgary were not test notes. They were from a range of legitimate notes printed at the beginning of the note order which were set aside to be used as replacement notes."

Charlton makes no reference to " insert " and instead uses the descriptor replacement.

I beleive all replacements ( asterisk and X ) were actually inserted into original reams, bundles or bricks to replace ruined notes or specific serial numbered notes or sheets kept for reference

A few years back when odd notes began showing up in fresh bricks collectors would report their finds something like this:

I picked up two consecutive fresh bricks or $5 GPP B-T and and I found 2 groups of GPH notes " inserted " between note numbers 498-499 and 998-999 in each brick. Don't know why they were there but they must mean something. If they were replacements then I would have expected FNX or at least something with an X.

or

I picked up a fresh brick of BEG 4446xxx and found a same sheet pair of BEF 9612xxx "inserted". If these were replacements I would have expected something with an X. OK, so I better just document this find, put the notes away and wait until someone figures this thing out.

This is how the word "insert" began to be used in reference to these odd notes. It really doesn't mean much except to indicate that something had been put in something else. After many odd documented finds it was realised that these inserted notes or sheets were in fact replacements.

As far as I am concerned the word insert does not in any way describle the deliberate intent of replacement notes. The use of the word insert has just become a bad habit. Replacement is the intent so lets just call replacements " REPLACEMENTS ". I think the confirmation of FEP should have put this question to rest.  

  

Excellent research and information.

Replacement notes have been replaced by notes coined as "inserts"
In fact, the inserts are replacement notes, with a specific prefix. Harder to find and less obvious than the previous method (that is with an X or *), they none the less exist. Confirmed by the B of C.

Whether they matter very much to collectors or to catalogues is another story, and they have yet to be accepted by a majority of note enthusiatists.

Rick

Thanks Rick,

I don't quite so alone now.

"Whether they matter very much to collectors or to catalogues is another story, and they have yet to be accepted by a majority of note enthusiatists. "
 
Was not a similar quote used when the X notes began to appear?

See you at Torex.