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

News: Registration is free here at the CPMF!

Information has been sent to Gary!  8-)

Cam,

Compare notes 0837773 and 0838324 to see if they feel and look the same in every way.

Gary

Hi Gary,

Ok, I looked the the notes.

They appear to the the same. Front side has a very slight out of register and the back the perfectly aligned. Both notes have the exact same slight defect. I could not find anything else to connect them. Other then that they appear to be perfectly printed notes. I kept looking for some small print dots in the back areas and stuff like that but everything looked good.

Hope this helps!

Something different about the position numbers.

0837773 - 19/49
0838324 - 16/49

0537634 - 19/49
0539058 - 32/49
0539207 - 32/43

The red position numbers should be identicle. Check to see if you documented the position numbers correctly.

Gary

I am sorry, I was half asleep when I input the numbers...  

Correct Numbers are: 32,43

Nice catch on that!  

[size=18]Ok, So Just a Quick Recap Of What We Know So Far With These New Polymer Style Test Notes...[/size]  8-)

[size=14]1)[/size] 2 Seperate Serial Number Ranges [size=14]HOW[/size][/b] ([size=14]0.52 - 0.54[/size][/b]) & [size=14]HOW[/size][/b] ([size=14]0.83 - 0.85[/size][/b])  Printed in 2005.

[size=14]2)[/size] UNC Test Notes [size=14]feel very limp[/size][/b] and the surface has a different texture compared to UNC Paper Notes that are very smooth and crisp  

[size=14]3)[/size] Test Notes have a [size=14]very different smell[/size][/b] to them unlike Normal Paper Money (Smells Like an old Rubber Ball, or uncured rubber)  

[size=14]4)[/size] Test Notes [size=14]Can not be ripped in the Corners[/size][/b] (Without Excessive Force) unlike normal Paper Money what rips very easy.  8-)

[size=14]5)[/size] If you pull outwords from the sides of the Test Note it [size=14]will stretch[/size][/b] slightly then resume its original shape. Paper Notes will ripple and/or tear.  :-?

[size=14]6)[/size] The Test Notes [size=16]Burn[/size] at a slower rate than normal paper notes (About 1/2 the speed)  

[size=14]7)[/size] The Test Notes [size=14]will not absorbe water drops[/size][/b] as quickly as Paper Notes (In fact the Test Notes left a small water drop on top of the note after reaching saturation on that spot.  

I have finally gotten a chance to do a rip test on a bunch of CBN Journey notes including the HOW08. Here are the results.

The following notes were rip tested, one after the other, using the same technique, in the same areas of the notes. The results surprised me.

SR# HOK0628876 - Ripped with medium force.
SR# HOL1064574 - Ripped with medium force, same as HOK.
SR# HOM6294704 - Ripped with medium force, same as HOK & HOL.
SR# HON2189660 - Ripped with medium force, same as HOK, HOL & HOM.
SR# HOP3866660 - Ripped with medium force, same as HOK, HOL, HOM & HON.
SR# HOP9385550 - Ripped with medium force, same as HOK, HOL, HOM, HON, & HOP3.8.
SR# HOR8496762 - Ripped with medium force, same as HOK, HOL, HOM, HON, HOP3.8 & HOP9.3.
SR# HOS3755707 - Ripped with medium force, same as HOK, HOL, HOM, HON, HOP3.8, HOP9.3 & HOR
SR# HOT5257741 - Ripped with medium force, same as HOK, HOL, HOM, HON, HOP3.8, HOP9.3, HOR &    HOS.
SR# HOU4502422 - Ripped with medium force, same as HOK, HOL, HOM, HON, HOP3.8, HOP9.3, HOR, HOS & HOT.
SR# HOW6558454 - Ripped with medium force, same as HOK, HOL, HOM, HON, HOP3.8, HOP9.3, HOR, HOS, HOT & HOU.
SR# HOW0841039 - Ripped with medium force, same as HOK, HOL, HOM, HON, HOP3.8, HOP9.3, HOR, HOS, HOT, HOU & HOW6.5.

The low range HOW0.8 are limper than other notes, but they are definitely not Polymer in the sense of Australian Polymer notes.
They feel a little different, but rip just as easily as all the previous notes tested.
In my humble opinion, there is only a marginal difference in these low range HOWs and all other CBN Journey $5 notes.

These notes are available to anyone who might be interested in performing similar tests to verify the results.
All I ask is that you limit the length of the rip, similar to the rips I made, and return the notes so other interested parties can also have a rip at them.

I was very disappointed with the test results.
JWS

Well John,

Very Interesting....  :-?

I would like to know WHERE you were conducting the rip tests, as I found in the middle yes they rip the same. But on the very edge of the note there is a very large difference.   As Paul mentioned he has conducted this same test on the note and has stated there is a difference.

As far as the "Polymer" Yes, at no point has anyone claimed they are anything like Australian notes. In fact CBN in not dealing with "Polymer" but as Paul mentioned it is most likely Tyvec. They have been collaborating over the last few years on something.  :-/

These notes are some form of Paper/Tyvec Combination.  

Now as for ANY of the other tests. What are your results as the rip test is only 1 of several tests that can be conducted.  

Here is what I have to say.
1. JWS, I appreciate your efforts on taking the time to investigate (we all do).  It is all adding to the knowledge pool.

2. Regular CBN Paper doesn't stretch, and then return to shape. These ones do.  I personally do not believe they are actually the same material as the other country's polymer notes, because the fact that they DO tear.  But they are with absolute certainty NOT the same as regular CBN stock.  It could be a while to figure this one out...

3. The bottom line, is that there is a find here that we have to deal with, that has basically blown away the community. Anyone who has any of these, is not budging.  We have to be careful to not jump to any conclusions (this I am guilty of).

From what I have heard about the initial trading of these notes,
this is HUGE.

Until I get back from the CNA, I am not posting on this one anymore. (Yes I know no one is forcing me)

Later
Hudson

Here are a few interesting links where the use of Tyvec in bank notes is discussed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_banknotes
http://www.answers.com/topic/tyvek
http://www.polymernotes.org/resources/polymer.htm#The_beginning_and_the_end_of_Tyvek%AE_bank_notes

We still seem to have a problem with position number sets 16/49 and 19/49. This may indicate that the sheets were printed using different plates. One plate could have been used to print regular paper and the other a polymer or tyvec test material. An ink compatable with both materials could have been used for numbering the sheets consecutively. A comparison rip test of notes with position number sets 16/49 and 19/49 should be done.

I have seen one note  ( 0536110 ) and found it no different than other recent prefixes. John now has rip tested his notes ( 0841039 ) and found no difference. Paul couldn't rip the note he tested. Tom said his note was different but hasn't yet had a chance to let us know the results of his tests. I'm left wondering if only a portion of the notes are from a different material.

Hoping everyone who has some of these notes will check them carefully for an identifier of some sort. The BoC needs to be able to identify these notes out of the millions that are returned for destruction.

Hudson be sure to bring a stretchy one to the CNA.

Gary  

I will see if I have any notes with those Plate Numbers and compare them.  

Look carefully, the BP is 48, not 49.  

WOW!!!

You are right, it is 48. I had to look under 12X Magnification to see it was a 48. It kept looking like 49.

I am sorry. I will go back and change my notes. the 49's are actually 48's on the Back Plate Number.

I can understand how this could be confusing.  

So the notes I looked at are 16/48.

Hoping everyone who has some of these notes will check them carefully for an identifier of some sort. The BoC needs to be able to identify these notes out of the millions that are returned for destruction.

Has anyone compared these notes under ultraviolet light?