What a lovely set.

News: Registration is free here at the CPMF!

John found this set and passed it along to me. Number 613 was missing and replaced with BEY 3.57. The inverse of the missing note number showed up on the front of six consecutive odd notes.  

Here is the back.

This group of notes seems to indicate that BABN numbers their notes in decending order from 9,999,999 to 0. It also indicates that odd and even notes are printed on different numberring machines.

Very interesting, Sudzee.  

I would bring you this remark:

If the note #612 has the stronger reverse print of the number 613 (as I understand the thing), it does not prove that the #613 was printed first.  Nothing tells you that the notes are stacked as printed, one note over the next, back up.  You can get the same result if the notes are numbered in normal ascending order, and when a newly numbered sheet exit the press, it can be  flipped face up before stacking:  hence, the note #612 is numbered, exit the press, falls face-up on the stack so when the note #613 fall face-up on the note #612, its ink touches the face of the note #612 and transfer its number (613) on the face of the note #612.  An argument for this reasoning is the fact that in a brick, the first note on the top of the brick when placed face up is the note #999, and the last at the bottom is #000.

However, I cannot figure how the same number can be transfered on the face of six different notes... :-? :-? :-?, moreover, one out of two?

And what could be the use to print the even numbers on one printing and the odd numbers on an other and combine the two series in one, in strict order without any error in the sequence?  

It is not the simplest way to print a long sequence of numbers...

Maybe some one have a good explanation for this sequence?

I can see a problem with copperpete's view, note 612 is clean on the face. The first note to show the transfer is note 611, hence the idea that the notes are printed on different numbering machines for odds and evens. Further, the intensity of the transfer decreases as the serial numbers decrease, suggesting strongly that they are indeed printed in reverse order.
Do odd and even numbering machines make sense, no, but it sure looks that way from the evidence.
JWS

 I think that must be related to the fact that the note #613 is missing.  Something wrong has happened with this note (or sheet).  

But I just though to something which could explain the sequence.  Imagine that there is two notes (or sheets, it doesn't really matters) which are fed sticked together:  one have the number 615, the sheet under does not have any number on it, exit the machine and is stacked with the others. The unnumbered note should have the #613, but have none.  

What if the stamping machine had continued its cycle and stamped the well inked wheels (now bearing the number 613) without any sheet fed in? The numbers will be printed on the supporting roll (or pad) on which the sheet of notes rolls on and give a firm surface which supports the pressure applied by the stamper.  This pad normally clean now bears an printed number on it.  

What it will happens when the next sheet is fed in?  the underlying face will be inked by the pad and will show 613 on it and in the same time stamped with the number 611 on the back.  This note will bear the strongest print because it's the first sheet to pass on it.  The next sheet (numbered 609) will pass on a pad with less ink than the first, but enough to leave a still clear number 613 on the face.  And it goe on until the ink on the pad is completely cleaned out.

Incidentally,  this explanation works only with a reverse-numbering order... .  

I hope that I have been clear enough in my explanation.

Here is the complete breakdown of both BTB bricks we are talking about:

BTB2836xxx sequential brick missing note 613 which was replaced by BEY3576116, matching plate numbers, mirror image of the missing notes' serial number is printed on the front of notes 601, 603, 605, 607, 609, & 611 but not on the even numbered notes in-between.
 
BTB2837xxx sequential brick missing note 613 which was replaced by BEY3577116, matching plate numbers, mirror image of the missing notes' serial number is printed on the front of notes 601, 603, 605, 607, 609, & 611 but not on the even numbered notes in-between.

Very interesting. This seems to show that the notes are numbered sheet by sheet, as it was the case in the past.  And the replacement seems to be inserted sheet by sheet.  Just a question:  you have two consecutively numbered bricks.  Is their position numbers are the same or are different?  

I know that all the notes in a brick (from BABN) have the same position number on the front as well on the back, meaning that the skip numbering of adjacent notes is at very least 1000.  

But I still not figure why there is an even numbering and an odd numbering separately.  The sheets  must be put alternatively on the same stack once numbered to have all the numbers in good sequence.  Maybe its a measure of saving costs, to print more notes in the same time, because you have two numbering machines running together...

Very interesting Gary.  Certainly a new type of error for the books.  Sure it might be misplaced Serial number but this one is misplaced (on the front of the notes) and is the same number (613) repeated every odd note.  The theories discussed here are in themselves interesting shedding a bit of light on the printing process.  Does seem odd that the odd/even notes are printed from two different plates. :-/ Makes you wonder what's going on at the BABN

BTW: If you have any spare BEY inserts could you save 1 for me (for Torex)

Thanks

James

What if the stamping machine had continued its cycle and stamped the well inked wheels (now bearing the number 613) without any sheet fed in? The numbers will be printed on the supporting roll (or pad) on which the sheet of notes rolls on and give a firm surface which supports the pressure applied by the stamper.  This pad normally clean now bears an printed number on it.  
 
What it will happens when the next sheet is fed in?  the underlying face will be inked by the pad and will show 613 on it and in the same time stamped with the number 611 on the back.  This note will bear the strongest print because it's the first sheet to pass on it.  The next sheet (numbered 609) will pass on a pad with less ink than the first, but enough to leave a still clear number 613 on the face.  And it goe on until the ink on the pad is completely cleaned out.

Incidentally,  this explanation works only with a reverse-numbering order... .  

 
For copperpete's hypothesis to work, all that is required is a roller with a large enough diameter that it would rotate through half a revolution per sheet, then only every second sheet would see the transfer image.

JWS

To add to copperpete's theory:

What if an inspector saw the missing note after the roller had been printed  -- stopped the rollers and reversed the conveyer, thus the printing ink goes on the wrong side of every odd note in reverse fashion? They knew 1 note was missing so the BEY was added later and the misplaced SN's were missed.

I'm very pleased by this discussion.  I liked the JWS's idea about a cylinder large enough to make half rotation per sheet, so it could explain the apparent even/odd skip numbering...At least, it doesn't require to have two sets of number stampers and an overduely complicated scheme to put the notes in good order...The simplest an explanation or theory is, the best is.

And I don't believe that an inspector can stop the printer at each time he/she see a blank sheet or a missing sheet.  I think that this kind of machine cannot be stopped rapidly nor restarted quickly, without mention to go in reverse order...which would mean a loss of time and would oblige to scrap all the material in the press at this moment.  It's much simpler to let go the machine and put a replacement note where it's needed one you have all the sheets in the stack.  The only time that the printer is stopped is probably for inspection, maintenance, adjustments or repairs or by a mechanical failure.

Incidentally, it would have been wonderful that the error pass unnoticed: this brick would have an unnumbered note in place of #613 instead of an unexciting replacement...

This is a very interesting topic for me as I've been long interested in error notes-- I have also taught printing and media arts but have limited experience with the old (were they Heidelberg?) printers (now its mostly computer printing).  I've seen printers work and am interested in learning more about printing press errors.

Yes Copperpete, I can see what you're getting at: and I do agree that the simpler the theory- the more eloquent and plausible.  The likelyhood of reversing the press is probably slim.  What led me to visualize such an occurance is the way the BEY was so conveniently placed in the 613 position. That's been niggling away at me--

I'm wondering if there was a momentary jam somehow allowing the paper not to enter the roller where the SN number should have been printed.  It appears that the printers knew there was a problem with #613 printing otherwise how could it have been so "neatly" replaced (or is there a computer scanner which monitors SN progression-automatically flagging the missing #613?)  

Also: it was stated that different plate numbers were on the odd and even numbered notes....so that the thickness of the roller may not  be a factor at all: rather a flipped 613 note (stuck on a converyor roller) was offset printing all the front of the odd notes in the odd note printing run (until the ink was exhausted), and the odds and evens were resorted later sometime.  This would make sense for the every other note/ as well as the different plate numbers.

Could the #613 sheet have been a sullied sheet: a heavyily applicated serail numered sheet that got flipped and offset on the other notes.  I'm more inclined to believe it was an offset printing error done paper to paper than roller to paper.  It would appear that the inspectors are inspecting the reverse part of the notes and not the obverse.  Maybe that's why a few "ghost" notes slip by inspection.


  

About the even/odd sequence in the FPN/BPN, I never saw in the bricks I get an such occurence.  All the notes in the brick have the same position number (for the BABN).  It's not as in the past where the first 500 notes had different position numbers than the 500 next.  The skip numbering must have changed in the last years or even in the last months (maybe the change dates back with the introduction of the Journey modified serie).  The CBN have now a such complicated way to put the notes together to make a brick that this research is extremely difficult.  The BABN has a much simpler scheme, much as it was always been.

And about an ink transfer paper to paper as Walktothewater suggest, I think it would be possible but there is a problem:  the paper is an absorbent surface so I don't believe that an ink transfer could occur on more than one or two sheets, simply because there is not enough ink available for multiple transfer, the rest is in the paper.  And if there was enough ink put on the paper (#613) to leave a print on the six next sheets, I think that the print should not have been clear from the first print, leaving a smudge of ink instead...

A accidental print on the roller itserf leaves the ink completely unabsorbed by, so the ink is available for multiple prints, fainter at each pass until the remains has been wiped out and the ultimate traces are simply dried out.  It would be as such as on an old-fashioned handtypewriter:  If you could stamp an wet-inked stamper on the roll and pass a sheet of paper, the print on the roll will be printed as you turn the roller to pass completely the sheet of paper.  The print will be fainter at each turn until dried out.  The number of such offset prints depends of the speed of drying of ink, the speed of the roller and the quantity of ink left by a normal print.

If the sheets are inspected after the print of the serials, maybe this last inspection is made with the notes back up, so the inspector see only the backs.  If a "theorical"  unnumbered sheet is present, it could be catched out, removed and replaced by a replacement sheet.  But hte inspector havn't saw the offset prints on the other notes.  But I don't believe that each sheet is inspected (too time consuming), unless there is an obvious problem visible in the stack.  

Another possibility is very simple:  you just have to put an detector to count the number of sheets which exit the press and compare to the number of prints made in a given run (It's an easy task for a computer-driven printer): the two numbers should match. I agree that a computer can be programmed to follow the sequence of prints and detect any gaps or overprints and turn a red flag on for the inspector when there is a break in the sequence.

I'm not sure where the idea came from that the odd and even numbered notes have different plate position numbers, they do not. The entire brick, including the BEY Insert, has the same numbers. The second and consecutive brick, has a different set of plate position numbers, indicating they were printed from a thousand sheet ream. For BABN, the rule is that the replacement notes are found in the positions of the notes they replace, but there have been exceptions to that.
JWS