New Journey $5 Test Note (This is NOT a Joke!)

News: Registration is free here at the CPMF!

AT LAST!

COMMON SENSE PREVAILS

A reliable source thought that outside testing is quite unlikely-- only internal tests were done (and seldom at that).
  
The practice of experimenting with note composition/resins/etc does not coincide with today's printing technology. There's simply no need for it.  Printers seem content with the shelf life of a note since any one given Issue will only last for so long for security reasons.  Note quality means little.  Security is all that matters. They've done the cost analysis, and are content with the results.

(edited: 07/24/06)

Now that we've gone through this little costly "melodrama" will there be any kind of rules in place to prevent a repeat performance?

I spoke to a BOC official at the CNA show & he said that only internal tests were done (and seldom at that).
  
The practice of experimenting with note composition/resins/etc does not coincide with today's printing technology. There's simply no need for it.  The BOC seem content with the shelf life of a note since any one given Issue will only last for so long anyway (security reasons).  Note quality means little.  Security is all that matters. They've done the cost analysis, and are content with the results.

Note that the above is NOT an official response from the Bank of Canada, merely another perspective on the matter from someone who happens to have a much broader knowledge of such things than most of us do, myself included. That personal also happens to be a senior employee within the Bank of Canada Currency Museum. Please avoid considering this information as fact simply because of the source.

Now that we've gone through this little costly "melodrama" will there be any kind of rules in place to prevent a repeat performance?

Anyone who would like to discuss this may start a new thread on that subject.

You should take the time to get your notes confirmed as " high value test notes " before you market them as such on this site. I wouldn't want to see any financial loses if your notes don't turn out to be what you claim.

The paper used on the journey series reacts with humidity and temperature. The hotter and more humid it is the limper notes feel. This may in fact be the case with your notes. We have had a few posts already on $5 paper that is somewhat thinner or thicker than is usually seen. This could also be the case.

The scarcity of  prefix HOW is due to it only being issued for a few weeks. I have some notes in the 5million range so I'm sure HOW was fully printed.

I would rely on the expertise of members of this site, and the CPMS, before I would take the word of a dealer as gospel when it comes down to recent issues not currently in Charlton. Most dealers are only as up to date as the last Charlton. Dealers buy and sell notes and coins and generally don't have the time to " study " current issues.

With approx 1 billion modified journey notes alreay issued I'm sure the BoC would have already done any paper test it deemed necessary.

Better to be safe than sorry.

Gary

 

These notes didn't turn out to be what you claimed and I do see some members suffering financial losses so maybe some sort a refund is warranted.

Hi,
   Got today HOW 0867240 in VF condition.I asked to my wife to feel the paper with her fingers the HOW and the HOP 622.. to compare and she's tell me the HOW looks like a little more thick and ''stong'' than the HOPpaper,and the two notes are about the same condition.I do not suppose it's a test note!  The front plate number is 48 and the back plate number is 13. I just comunicate what I found.I'll keep it,maybe.....
                                  Claude

Hi There,

Very Interesting. It is just outside of the range I have. We think we have seen someone who had a 0.6? and it was also from normal paper compaired to the usual 2 ranges we have discussed.  

I am not sure what to say so far. Pretty much everything has been beaten to death on this...something seems different about the notes and what that is, everyone is still trying to figure out.  :-/

I am going to conduct tactile testing with about a dozen different tests with a handful of non-collectors with both HOW Ranges, a couple HOU ranges and then a range of prefixes going back to the beginning to see if there are any OVERALL differences.  :-?

Only time will tell what is with these and possibly some other notes is different.  

 

Hi,
   My older boy did baby sitting and when he entered,he show me his money,and he got a HOW 0616622(FP 37,BP 11) in EF condition.The paper is more thin than the HOW 0867240 I found yesterday.Like I told you the paper of the 0867.. is  thick and I check the corners with magnifying-glass(6x) and I sew the fiber of the paper and all it got stain like a regular one.But the other HOW 0616.. the paper is thin and I check with magnafying-glass all around the note and do not sew paper fiber and it still sharp and without stain for a EF cond!!When I manipulate the both notes the noise is different. For my part the HOW 0867.. got a regular paper more easy to stain and the HOW 0616.. is different??Is this possible to let me know what is the characteristic of the ''test note''paper?What do you think about my notes??
                       Thanks
                             Claude

Hi,
   When I manipulate the both notes the noise is different.

This I pointed out to some members.

the paper is thin and I check with magnafying-glass all around the note and do not sew paper fiber and it still sharp and without stain for a EF cond!!

This may be much more important than analyzing Crisp UNC banknotes.  If you put some lower grades side by side, how would they measure up?

This could be indicative of the switching of paper/material at the least.
PERHAPS this has to do with the switchover to a Canadian paper supplier (moving from the German supplied paper).  This may have been a poilitical move, but a change nonetheless.  

I think that in the next few months it will be valuable to analyse used and worn $5s, to see how different prefixes and ranges handle the wear.  That may be the only way we can surely identify what is what with these things.   I am referring to simply the change of paper type at this time.

PERHAPS this has to do with the switchover to a Canadian paper supplier (moving from the German supplied paper).

I agree. It apprears we have caught up to the transition.  :-/

I think members should keep looking from HOU forward to watch wear and durability in reference to older prefixes. We may find a difference in durability and the lifespan of a Bank Note.  :-?

But the other HOW 0616.. the paper is thin and I check with magnafying-glass all around the note and do not sew paper fiber and it still sharp

I Will compair the HOW's and HOU's in question with HOT,HOV, HOY and several older prefixes in UNC condition to see if under even stronger magnification there is any visual difference.

Does anyone have access to any really high power microscopes to have a detailed look at extreme magnification to see actual fibre differences. This is may assist it determining a change in paper composition.  

I actually think this would be a good suggestion to fire off to a grad student as a project- at any University.   They could get some credit for it, and then also would be under proper guidance for carrying out tests.

Anyway, come Sept and Oct, I will be searching thru LOADS of circulated $5s and will be pulling notes that seem to be in much better shape materially that is, than they should be for their circuation. As Claude mentioned...

I mean boatloads of notes.  I think it would be valuable to have more eyes on this than just mine. Anyone else want to help volunteer with this project?

Count me in!  

Also, I have a connection in Epcore. I am going to be able to have them look at the notes in their Lab at extreme magnification. They might even be able to print of pictures of the notes and see the differences. They look at Microbes in water samples and stuff like that so I think it will look close enough to tell if there is a difference to paper composition. We should see a difference in paper fibres or such.  

I am going to supply about 10 - 12 different notes of varying prefixes for examination. I may need assistance in aquiring a broad spectrum of prefixes for testing purposes. I have only so many extra notes that can be sacrificed for testing.

So what I think it would be is if as a community we decide what prefixes/serial ranges should be tested.  :-?
Then assemble the notes for testing... What does everyone think?

So.....

Anyone want to venture forward to make any Prefix suggestions for testing?   :-/

No one seems to say much of anything about the idea....  

I'm so glad that you have decided to have these note scientifically tested.  A noble act that I'm sure you will pay for out of the proceeds from your sale of HOW notes.  

Firstly you need to select a methodology.  I understand that the THE NITRITE TECHNIQUE OF PAPER COMPOSITION ANALYSIS is well regarded by scientists.  You can read more of this technique in the following paper:

http://www.asu.ru/science/journal/chemwood/volume5/2001_02/0102_039.pdf

I'm not sure if Epcore specializes in this type of analysis, but I would suggest that you use a lab that will produce results that will withstand scrutiny.  

Finally,  I would suggest that you test HOP, HOU <6.5, HOU> 6.5, HOW 0.6, HOW 0.8, HOW >5.0, AN*, HOA, a 1986 $5 and a 1972 $5.   Once you have your results, along with appropriate statistical analysis including Chi Square and Poisson distribution (sounds fishy!), you can then present your results - perhaps at next year's CNA.  

Good luck!

[size=14]Thank you everyone for your comments, concerns and suggestions. Over the last few months we have found a great deal of information about the Journey $5 notes. But, there have also been many questions asked and lots of theories produced. To date no one has been able to provide irrefutable and conclusive information regarding several different notes in question.

As for the testing, this offer has been made by another member who does not want to get involved in the Discussions to remain un-biased.  I have decided to take this one step further and politely declined the gracious offer.

I will take a visit to the Chemistry Department at the University of Alberta and see if they will conduct all the experiments and oversee it from start to finish as they are the professionals, not us. I will also give them detailed information as to why the experiments are being conducted and what information we will require to answer all of our questions.

When the time comes, I will need help acquiring some of the test subject notes for testing purposes. I will pay face value for the notes and take care of all the work getting the tests conducted and getting the information together. I will be publishing an article for presentation on the results under the supervision of the professional chemists at the University.

I will also have another Forum member assisting me, also under the supervision of the chemistry department, with this project to ensure authenticity and make sure all Protocols are followed to the letter. The final findings will be authenticated by the Chemistry Department at the U of A.

Eyevet brings up great suggestions for prefixes to be tested. We will also include some notes from circulation when possible. We should test notes that we have seen noticeable changes or variations.

I will be reporting all the details in a complete and detailed article at a further date in time. I will not be divulging any information regarding the testing and progress until the article is complete. Then at that point, everyone can make their own decisions regarding the notes in question.

Thank You.
[/size]

As I stated almost three weeks ago, I've done some tests on the so-called HOW "test notes".  I took some infrared spectra fron a HOW "test" (0,84 M range), a regular HOW (1,10 M), a australian polymer note (made of Guardian polymer) and a Isle de Man Bradvek-made note.

I easily identified that the Bradvek note is polyethylene (as it supposed to be) andthat  the Guardian note is polypropylene (which is also correctly found).  I took the measurements on blanks areas, since the inked ones shows distinctive bands of absorption.

When I took the spectra on both HOW notes, also on blank areas, I found NO DiFFERENCE at all.  Both are truly made of paper and I found no traces of any polymer on the HOW 0,84 M.  

So, all I can say for sure is that these notes doesn't contain any polymer in the paper.

But I cannot rule out that they are made with a new paper composition (I cannot tell which one because I'm not a specialist of paper).  

However, I presented to the technician both notes (he doesn't know anything about paper money and he closed his eyes for the test) and by touching both notes, he easily found the "test" note, telling me that the "test" was thinner than the other.  Since the weight is almost identical (we verifyied it on an analytical digital scale) to about 1 mg, the "test" paper must be more dense than the normal one.

I also examined both notes under magnification with a stereomicroscope but I didn't saw anything different (The maximum enlargment I used was 70X).  Maybe under a electronic microscope, we can see a difference, but I don't have this equipment.

I cannot draw a definitive conclusion, but I'm not helpless since I know somebody in a research center specialized in pulp and paper.  Maybe he could do some very specific tests to see if the paper composition is different.  I will try to contact him in the next few days to see if he can do these tests...