Author
Topic: Journey test? - unlikely  (Read 7793 times)
walktothewater
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,371
  • Join the Journey
    • Notaphylic Culture
« on: June 22, 2006, 10:06:47 pm »

[ch65279]I believe that “test” or “experimental” bank notes issued by Bank of Canada won’t be seen for today's paper Journey series.  Keep in mind that experimental notes were created solely for the purpose of testing a currency’s durability.  This was last done with the Crow/Bouey EXA $1.00 test between 1984 and 1986.  It may have been a factor in the BOC's decision to issue a $1.00 coin rather than a new 1986 Bird $1.00 paper note.  Whatever the case, the banks tests or experiments are normally driven by a desire to test a resin, ink, or paper composition of a note. The last test occurred about 20 years ago.

There are a number of  reasons why the BOC would have no interest in re-introducing an outdated procedure. If we consider recent innovations in today's printing technology, the lack of replacement note assignation, and perhaps (most importantly) economical historical factors, than it is a forgone conclusion that testing paper money is a thing of the past.

Printing technology has become more and more sophisticated.  After the disastrous results of the 2001 $10.00 Journey so regularly counterfeited, the BOC became more preoccupied with a note’s security features.   If the BOC were concerned about their currency's durability than they would surely not have issued the new 2005 $10 Journey with such flimsy paper.  After just a few months of circulation most of the new $10 bill will have most of its ink worn off (along both sides of the holographic security strips).  This a flaw well documented on CPMF.

The BOC did away with replacement note assignation (the “X” in the serial number) in the 1990's (years after the last test note).   This meant that no special printing of replacement notes occurred. Instead, the bank took blocks of other ordinary notes to fill in the missing gaps where runs of defective notes needed to be replenished.  Although “insert replacements” are fewer than regular issue, there’s nothing but their documented “discovery” (by brick hunters)- or their serial number ranges- that can designate them as “different” from any other note.  The trend to make all notes cheap/equal flies in the face of logic --that the bank would actually issue a new edition of expensive test notes.

The likelihood that a test “range of notes” (within a prefix) seems doubtful.   The only way to test a note’s durability is to recall the notes tested.  How could tellers identify (and recall) a note with only specific serial number ranges as an indicator? The idea that tellers would have the time to check a list of serial number ranges rather than a prefix is ludicrous. What if they were to recall a certain prefix?  The notion that bank tellers would be instructed to recall a note for testing purposes (period) almost seems absurd today.

Since the 1990's, the BOC has seemed indifferent to a note’s wear/durability.  The Bird series were a much superior note to its successor (Journey).  Paper quality has declined rather than improve. The shelf life of a Journey note could only be a source of embarrassment if the BOC were truly concerned about a note’s longevity.  The trend has been to increase the security features while reduce the production costs of each note.  When the bank wishes to use a new kind of paper/resin (or ink) it simply changes them rather than test them in large public trials.  In fact, it would seem they are well aware of  the current Journey series' deficiencies.  No public tests are necessary, though its possible internal tests continue.

The only time we might see public test note trials re-emerge is if the BOC decides to become more environmentally accountable and end its current wasteful practice of producing cheap notes so easily destroyed in circulation. The reverse trend would be the introduction of polymer notes- which may indeed go through a number of limited tests or experimental editions.  Then the note would likely have either a conspicuous prefix or, more likely, a sophisticated bar-code which could be scanned and tracked. While this would be in keeping with the bank's agenda to provide a safe SECURE currency, it would go against its current policy to produce cheap notes.

Incidently: it is not for lack of technological “know how” that the BOC doesn't  issue polymerized bank notes.   The BABN were one of the first companies to produce polymers. The policy not to employ a polymerized currency must be economically driven.  Its presently so much cheaper (about 9 cents) to make a bank note, rather than the pricey (25 cents) per polymer note.  The short term gain is rather near sighted, however.  In the long run it would save the BOC a significant amount of money to turn to polymer.

By the time the BOC changes to polymer it is more than likely that a new series design will emerge.  We will likely see a number of new security features as well.  Given that a polymer note lasts up to twenty times as long as its paper counterpart... if the BOC does employ public trials, I'm sure they (or it) will undoubtedly be very brief and inconspicous.

James
« Last Edit: June 23, 2006, 02:32:01 pm by walktothewater »

stevepot99
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 303
  • Pushing the boundaries
« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2006, 12:18:53 am »

your thoughts kind of explain the reasons why it id time to do another test nets they have been thinking of changing the fives into coins in the future anyway
Gary_T
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,081
  • CPMS radar member 1551
« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2006, 07:47:50 am »

Wow James if I were grading your "article" I would give you an A+,very impressive.

Quote
The likelihood that a test “range of notes” would be used is also illogical.  The only way to test a note’s durability is to recall the notes tested.  How could tellers identify (and recall) a note with only specific serial number ranges as an indicator? The idea that tellers would have the time to check a list of serial number ranges rather than a prefix is ludicrous. The notion that any teller would be instructed to recall a note for testing purposes (period) almost seems absurd today.

  The only thing that may be different than what you believe to be true is that bank tellers would not be withdrawing notes in a certain range.
  BoC employee's would sort the test notes when they returned for distruction and they would determine how well they held up based on how long each note was in circulation.

As you said it seems absurd today to think that a bank teller would be asked to sort notes when she received them and it would have been just as absurd 20 years ago when the last test notes were released.

That's my 2 cents worth.

Gary_T
walktothewater
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,371
  • Join the Journey
    • Notaphylic Culture
« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2006, 02:59:28 pm »

FINALLY GOT SOME ATTENTION!  ::)

I've been trying to "Stir up the pot" for some time, and no one seems to have the energy/desire to respond! Thanks Stevepot and Gary_T!

Quote
your thoughts kind of explain the reasons why it id time to do another test nets they have been thinking of changing the fives into coins in the future anyway

Well I did write "unlikely" not IMPOSSIBLE.  I know there is talk about a five dollar coin (what will it be called: a "Fooney?") and sure it still is possible though I believe they decided to scrap the plan.  Cheap $5.00 note composition certainly would support a coin replacement if there were backroom politics afoot and another public test/trail.

But such a testing could also support a polymer or upgraded note composition. The expense of minting a coin may also convince the bank that polymer isn't such a bad idea afterall.  

Quote
The only thing that may be different than what you believe to be true is that bank tellers would not be withdrawing notes in a certain range.
  BoC employee's would sort the test notes when they returned for distruction and they would determine how well they held up based on how long each note was in circulation.
Yes you're probably correct.  No bank teller could possibly be expected to select certain notes to be sent back to BOC.  Stacks of notes are likely scanned back at BOC headquarters, and research on a notes durability compiled on a regular basis.  End result: all notes can be scanned/tested and documented for longevity.  If all notes can be "tested" than there is no such thing as an "experimental note."

The exception may be that  the BOC would like to see how a new bank fibre/composition, resin, or ink holds out.  But the idea that the BOC would release bundles (stacks of 100 consecutive) or blocks of these "experimental notes" seems unlikely since they well know that today's paper money collectors are always keen to hoard a "novel" item.  (If the note's identity were known it would defeat the purpose of testing it!)

If a new note was actually tested than it would seem more likely that it would be inserted like the BABN insert their replacements (randomly).  That way no large quantities would be withheld by the collecting public. Instead a note could be "Tested" more naturally.

Thanks for the discussion guys!

walktothewater
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,371
  • Join the Journey
    • Notaphylic Culture
« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2006, 04:30:43 pm »

Now that everyone is getting their new HOW $5.00 notes there seems to be a general consensus that the notes ARE indeed different!   :)

To the moderators they feel somewhat like a polymer.

So it is a new kind of note: it will likely be valuable. Whether it is a candidate for testing is very difficult to say (esp. in light of the BOC tight lipped policy on such tests!)

Well looks like I'm once again: the donkey's %$#@

 :'( Oh well!

eyevet
  • Wiki Contributor
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 976
  • CPMS Life Member #101
« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2006, 05:05:24 pm »

Has anyone looked at them with infrared or ultraviolet?   If they are test notes there must be a way for BofC to sort through and pick them out from the masses of notes.  I suspect that when the upgraded security notes come out the old ones will be withdrawn quickly and then the "test" notes can be pulled by some electronic means and the durability assessed.


buxvet
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 389
  • Is there anybody in the ceremony is about to begin
« Reply #6 on: June 27, 2006, 07:40:10 pm »

Quote
Has anyone looked at them with infrared or ultraviolet?   If they are test notes there must be a way for BofC to sort through and pick them out from the masses of notes.  I suspect that when the upgraded security notes come out the old ones will be withdrawn quickly and then the "test" notes can be pulled by some electronic means and the durability assessed.


If they are polymer you won't need any light. You can see and feel the difference easily

I brought a Mexican 20 Peso Polymer note to Torex. I showed it to walktowater

And I agree with GaryT tellers will not sort. BOC Employees will pull them out of batches returned. They are very different though. I can a lot of them getting scooped up by collectors and even non-collectors who realize they are different.

Uneducated people may even question the authenticity of the note
walktothewater
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,371
  • Join the Journey
    • Notaphylic Culture
« Reply #7 on: June 27, 2006, 10:25:00 pm »

I really doubt the notes need any special designation (markings) to be tested.

This is the point I've been trying to make. All notes (in theory) can be tested for durability simply by scanning them and comparing their condition with the numbers issued. A computer can generate results much like the ones we saw in Gillieson's report (but in a flash).  

That's why I believe test were phased out.  

However: that doesn't mean that these new polymers notes aren't important (or could be a new "breed" of note).  Their composition does lead one to imagine a "testing" of some sorts but they also may be significant simply because they forecast a new emerging technology.  

They could have been inserted as a batch of notes that were meant to test the printers ability to print a long run of polymers (change-over from paper to a polymer coating).  That means they're no less significant: they simply may not have a true designation (ie they could be "trial" or some other kind of designation- like "steel back" vs "litho" engraved notes of the $1.00/10's) in terms of how we view them.

admin
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 78
« Reply #8 on: June 27, 2006, 11:54:33 pm »

I put one of my bills under UV light and compared to a normal $5 UNC note from my collection. Everything as exactly the same in terms of response. I did not find any special UV markings, but as I understand it, the BoC might have UV inks that respond to different wavelengths so my simple UV light may not detect everything.

I really messed up one of the notes. I try tearing it (couldn't do it), folding it (yes, but the crease it leaves is much less than the same fold on my control note). The thing seems almost indestructable. I didn't do the "ink rub" test though, I forgot. I'll do that tomorrow.

It feels plastic, it behaves plastic, it even smells plastic. I think it's a duck.
X-Savior
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 625
  • Been There, Done That.... Wanna do it again?
« Reply #9 on: June 28, 2006, 04:38:28 am »

LOL!!!  ;D

Sorry Ladies...I am now a Married Man!!!
 

Login with username, password and session length