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

News: Welcome to the Canadian Paper Money Forum.

I have something I would like to say about these "test" notes.

The more bricks and bricks I go through, the more I am convinced that there is something different.
Yes, there is a thinner paper- but it is a paper.
But, there is a different feel, and sound, and the way the notes behave together I can only describe as this:
They seem to bond together.  Leave them flat and in the heat for a while and they will be stuck together. Not "peel" stuck, but like the bundle as a whole will be all stuck together, only to be broken by bending the paper, and even then it is in "chunks".

Bonding: Also, when you fan through the notes, instead of them slapping hard against eachother like paper does, they appear (and sound like) they "come together" through static elec. attraction.  It is very smooth and soft as they fall onto one another.

This "Bonding" factor can perhaps be explained by this: (a hypothesis at this stage)
They are paper: True
They are a different source of paper: Maybe true or false, not what I am getting at in this hypothesis
There is: some strength compound coating that has been applied somehow at some stage of the printing process, I would think after they are printed, before they are cut.  Possibly during transport from final print to serial numbering.  All they would have to do is insert a spray mechanism of some sort to have something applied to them at any given stage of the process.
As a result of the compounds of the coating, the electric charge given by the notes from friction would have to be different that the electric charge created by regular notes.  This difference in charge would be the reason why they bond together in the different way.  The application of a coating may also account for the near exact same weight, despite a thinner paper being used.

I believe that this is the case.  Different paper: yes.  Some agent applied to the notes for extra strength.  At this point I want to mention again that in the Edmonton area, where they were discovered, I see them come through at work, all crumpled and what not, but they still have sharp edges and there is no fuzzing on hard crease lines. That is not the normal wear for paper.

Now, why then do most of the remaining notes of the $5 series come on the regular paper again? I don't know. BUT consider this--
IF you had a 2002 Journey $10 that was printed on cotton like they were at the start of the series, you would have a significant anomaly.  In fact, having a cotton note that is "supposed to be" paper would be like having the 1859 1 cent struck on brass (very valuable).  Or a 1944 Tombac nickel for that matter.  

With that said, I leave it open for discussion about what the heck could be going on.

I disagree with many members on this subject because I believe that they are different.  Despite the manner in which this whole subject came up (which has upset many people) I feel it is still in the best interest of the hobby that we try to figure this one out and find out more about them.  It would be a disservice to blackball this situation just because of frustrating situations that may have arisen. (And hey I am staying away from that)

Just my five bucks-
Huds

It's not necessary to have a layer of something invisible put on the paper during the firsts printing stages to have the properties observed.

You just to have a different paper composition or process.  The person to whom I spoke (paper specialist) told me that the paper used for note have a very specific composition (which is highly confidential).  But, generally, the paper contains non only cellulose from various sources (cotton, kraft, flax....) but contains also varous compounds collectively called "adjuvents".  These compounds can be strengteners, densifiers, opacifiers, whiteners, depending of the exact use of the paper. In the case of security paper,  a very small quantity of colored (visible and UV) fibres (or something else) is added.

For example, titanium dioxide is sometimes added to renders the paper more opaque (less transparent) and whiter.  The quantity of these adjuvents and the ratio of different fibers matters.  Even the making process by itself is important, when the sheet pass between the rolls of paper machine where the paper is more or less pressed, rolled and dried, you will get a different paper.

So making paper is complex, particularly the one used for printing notes.  And it maybe not enough to look at it with a microscope to have an exact idea of it's composition, let alone the making process...

I still hope to have the possibility to get the "test" note examined and compared to an "ordinary" note...

It would be a disservice to blackball this situation just because of frustrating situations that may have arisen

I don't think misinformation is a service to the hobby.  It would be a much greater disservice to turn a blind eye to the hyperbole that caused so much frustration.  A label was attached to a bundle of notes and then they were marketed as a rare earth shattering discovery in the world of Canadian paper money.  A lot of collectors scrambled to buy these notes at inflated prices. The only pitty is that there were no checks in place to prevent this from happening.

I disagree with many members on this subject because I believe that they are different

That is fine. You are entitled to your opinion.  But then lets stick to calling them "different $5.00" or "HOW's in question" rather than  TEST NOTES!  They are not test notes or even "test notes" unless they've been declared that by BOC.  All the speculation and bantying around of the term "test" or "experimental" to a note that has had no verification is simply wrong.  Even if your experiments conclude that the notes were made of different paper, or they have had adjuvents applied, then you still need BOC to verify that these notes were intended for public testing to be dubbed "test notes."

Despite the manner in which this whole subject came up (which has upset many people)

If it upset people well then there is good reason.  People don't get upset for no reason.  The manner in which the subject was brought about has definitely opened a "can of worms."  Now it is important for collectors/dealers to understand that before claims are made, some verification is needed. This may take time, but that is the only way to keep dealers/collectors honest and buyers from being "upset," "burned" or turned off the hobby.

There is one thing we know forsure.. They are NOT test notes! The bank of Canada has no need to issue test notes anymore, instead they may issue an internal test note (like JHS, JPH) but would not be available to the public. Of course, there is no harm to keep the discussion open on HOW notes but perhaps this topic should be moved to a new location perhaps in the bank of Canada section and the title should be changed to "HOW discussion"

Just to clarify, when I wrote "test notes" IN Quotations, I wrote that to refer to these notes which were erroneously reported as being test notes- but were originally referred to as "test notes".   Thus the quotations.  Test notes out of quotations would have been me claiming that they are in fact test notes.
I make no claim that they are test notes. Enough energy wasted off topic from the original question I posed:

SO, to get back on topic, look past the first line (which I have explained now) and please tell me what your take is on the properties of the note.

I think copperpete knows more about this than alot of people, especially me.  One of the reasons I invited discussions.

It would be a disservice to blackball this situation just because of frustrating situations that may have arisen

I don't think misinformation is a service to the hobby.  It would be a much greater disservice to turn a blind eye to the hyperbole that caused so much frustration.  A label was attached to a bundle of notes and then they were marketed as a rare earth shattering discovery in the world of Canadian paper money.  A lot of collectors scrambled to buy these notes at inflated prices. The only pitty is that there were no checks in place to prevent this from happening.

I disagree with many members on this subject because I believe that they are different

That is fine. You are entitled to your opinion.  But then lets stick to calling them "different $5.00" or "HOW's in question" rather than  TEST NOTES!  They are not test notes or even "test notes" unless they've been declared that by BOC.  All the speculation and bantying around of the term "test" or "experimental" to a note that has had no verification is simply wrong.  Even if your experiments conclude that the notes were made of different paper, or they have had adjuvents applied, then you still need BOC to verify that these notes were intended for public testing to be dubbed "test notes."

Despite the manner in which this whole subject came up (which has upset many people)

If it upset people well then there is good reason.  People don't get upset for no reason.  The manner in which the subject was brought about has definitely opened a "can of worms."  Now it is important for collectors/dealers to understand that before claims are made, some verification is needed. This may take time, but that is the only way to keep dealers/collectors honest and buyers from being "upset," "burned" or turned off the hobby.

1. "I don't think misinformation is a service to the hobby."  Nobody does.  To assume that others believe it is (from other posts) is wrong.  It was never stated or implied.  Nor was it ever implied to turn a blind eye to the past.  We know what happened, and now that is all just part of the drama of these HOW notes.  What WAS implied is that we should get off our anger hang-up, and do something about it, instead of boarding it up and throwing away the situation. I too have to get over wasting money on these.

2.  Read the post carefully and make sure to understand that I do not intend these to be considered test notes.

3. Yes people were upset about this, myself included.  So, instead of putting it to bed and wanting to not be reminded that many of us bought in, which would be ego bruising (it is for me anyway) we could instead try to figure them out.  I don't blame anyone for being royally ticked off about the situation.  But instead of being angry about it and voicing it, why can't we pick up the other half of the job and voice a possible solution.  THAT is what my post was about.

4. There are many other parts of the post that talk about the possibilities with the way the paper was treated and all that.  For the progression of this topic please consider more than just a few elements of a post before giving a response that implies other that what I have stated.  No offense taken, but it just steered the topic miles from where the focus was: finding out what the heck is different about them and to what degree.

Huds

Hi,
   I can confirm I have a new range of this ''error'' in the paper or ''test note''.Tell it what you want but I got three of those in sequence(unc) and the paper is really,really,really different.I'm not  perfect in english to find all the words to tell you how the paper is really different than the regular one.The serial number is:HOW 0471694-95-96.It's found near of Mtl.
                             Bye
                          Claude

Pleasantries removed, here is a pair of emails between myself and the Bank of Canada:

Is the Bank of Canada currently running any circulation trials of banknotes, specifically with Canadian Journey Series $5 notes numbered in the vicinity of HOW 0530000 through HOW 0849999? If so, what is being tested by these notes?
 
There have been notes found in circulation that are considerably different in composition, and by all reasonable logic, could not have been produced accidentally.
 
Are these notes polymer trial notes testing for durability?
 
The timing could not be better... Release the notes 6 months in advance of their swift recall when the upgraded notes come out. They get 6 months of circulation, then they are quickly culled with all the other $5 notes at the end of the year when they can be examined and measured for how well they stood up.

From time to time, the Bank of Canada does conduct circulation trials of specific bank notes for research purposes. As you can appreciate, we cannot share the details pertaining to these circulation trials as it could compromise the research results.
 
With respect to your inquiry about Canadian Journey series $5 notes, the Bank can confirm that no circulation trials are taking place at this time. However, the Bank did change secure paper suppliers about two years ago.  While the technical specification for the paper remained unchanged, the change in supplier may account for the subtle differences you may have noticed in the paper used in the production of the original Canadian Journey series $5 and $10 notes.

[highlight]With respect to your inquiry about Canadian Journey series $5 notes, the Bank can confirm that no circulation trials are taking place at this time[/highlight]


I read this and gather that they have done test on different notes.  It may not be in the HOW but maybe before that.  It is a very open ended answer to the  question.  

That is my thoughts.  

Polarbear

I agree that this should be moved to another thread, maybe a stand alone thread.
I have found HOU with the same paper as the HOW's in question.  
They are from an Untapped half brick that came to one of the banks I work with.
NOT ALL of the notes are like that strange type.  With 5 bundles, it is easy to tell the differences when you line them up side by side.
Please see picture for reference on one of the bundles.
From feeling them first, (and knowing right away that they were not regular), I moved to the "trying to see it" step. I lined up the bundles on end (like in the pic) and the points were the paper changed corresponded exactly to the note changes (ie: from a range skip, or to an insert group).

There were some HOU inserts in here- regular paper. They show up as regular paper when comparing them. The bundle shown in the pic is one that has just a regular range skip in it. (Meaninng those are not all inserts - but I wish).  Will continue next post...

[attachment deleted by admin]

Continued.  
This group should nail down exactly a changing point between the regular paper and the new paper.
The 1st bundle that is 76640xx is the "in question" paper, hands down, no question.  The inserts, which appear after 7664068, fit between that note and 7664030.  The inserts are from an unconfirmed portion of the range as of this moment ( HOU 6.904) and are of regular paper.  The bundle resumes with the "in question" paper until it is finished.

Side Q: Could it be that CBN is inserting notes exactly where damaged ones have been removed?
Or are they just switching up the insert spots. I have heard about this here and there, but have never witnessed it like how I have here.  (Answer in another thread). For the record, I have had three cases now of CBN inserts being found in the exact spot. Happened with FEH, and HOW and now HOU here.

Next:
The next bundle crackles like regular paper and feels like regular paper and smells like regular paper. It is undoubtedly regular paper to feel it as well.  And it looks different from the "in Q" paper (see above pic).  
The numbers of this bundle are: HOU 7659781-750, followed by HOU 7659999-932 - all 12/22.
This leads me to believe that a logical changeover would be possibly at 7660000.

The next bundle is: 7664169-126 29/39 ("in Q" paper), followed by 7659388-333 32/43 (regular)

Next:
HOU 7662068 43/37 ("in Q" paper), followed by HOU inserts again 43/37 in an unconfirmed range as of this point, but are also regular paper (range HOU 6.902).  Again, the inserts replace the exact notes missing - as in the sister bundle.  After the inserts, it resumes with HOU 7662030-000, then 7662249-219 which are 43/37 as well.

The last bundle:
HOU 7664719-627 (in Q paper) 25/33, followed by 7659888-882 in regular paper.

new pic posted.  please see!

HOU 7.90 - 8.21
Normal paper.

HOW 5$ made of very thin paper found in Val-Belair (Quebec City), #0432409,     ::)which is near the number of the notes Cbeaulieu has found in MTL: HOW 0471694-95-96.  

HOU 7.90 - 8.21
Normal paper.

Need to refine this quoted range. This was an outline... More info to come on it.

Second,
HOW 0873100 found today.
"In question" paper.  Knew it the instant it hit my hand.