Author
Topic: missing serial numbers 1954 $2 unc  (Read 3991 times)
Archey80
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 502
« on: December 06, 2006, 12:29:45 am »

the note is unc so one would think its real. So what would a unc missing serial number 1954 $2 go for?

[attachment deleted by admin]

CPMS Member 1564
Mikeysonfire
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
« Reply #1 on: December 06, 2006, 12:34:28 am »

Book is $700, am not sure if they sell for that.
canada-banknotes
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 757
  • CNA Member 21689 and CPMS Life Member 100
« Reply #2 on: December 07, 2006, 09:25:06 am »


I am very skeptical as to whether this 1954 $2 note being offered on eBay is truly authentic.  I requested a scan from the
seller and have posted it here for review.  I have also zoomed in on the left serial number area.

It is quite evident that the area where the serial numbers should appear is lighter and there also appears to be streaks running
vertically down the note from this are as if a liquid ran down the note and altered the colour.  The seller offer a 100% money back
 guarantee but I would be weary of the note to start with.  I have several authentic UNC 1954 issue notes with missing serial
numbers for reference and this one looks fake (chemically altered).

...Arthur


{http://www.davgro.com/images/eBay/1954_$2_Missing_Serial.jpg}



Contributor, Charlton Catalogue of Canadian Government Paper Money, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd and 29th Edition
Pricing Panel Member, Charlton Catalogue of Canadian Government Paper Money, 21st Edition 2009
canada-banknotes
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 757
  • CNA Member 21689 and CPMS Life Member 100
« Reply #3 on: December 07, 2006, 09:29:52 am »



Left serial number area enlarged:


{http://www.davgro.com/images/eBay/1954_$2_Missing_Serial_Zoom.jpg}



Contributor, Charlton Catalogue of Canadian Government Paper Money, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd and 29th Edition
Pricing Panel Member, Charlton Catalogue of Canadian Government Paper Money, 21st Edition 2009
walktothewater
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,314
  • Join the Journey
    • Notaphylic Culture
« Reply #4 on: December 07, 2006, 05:36:17 pm »

I don't know.

I have a 1954 $1.00 that has had its serial numbers removed but you can see a trace of white where the serial number once was.  BWJM, eyevet, and a few others saw this note in Paris, and all confirmed that the SN was chemically lifted (likely bleached).  

I scanned it and tried to post it but there was problem posting the image due to some technical glitch.  When I get home, I can try again, and if the technical problem is resolved you'll see what I mean.  I have found that its actually easier to see where the numbers have been removed when the image is NOT blown up (the removed micro-printing shows up better).  

On this $2.00 the microprinting looks fine... only on the one side is there a general erased look...but not as much on the right.  Yes, there is some kind of strange orangish printer's ink smear that does seem to appear up on the borders, and a bit of a white blemishes that run veritcally through the note.  It is possible that this note had a gentler more refined number removal process.. so hard to say.  I find it hard to imagine removing a SN without seriously altering the microprinting.  The only explanation (if this was indeed a number removed) is if the original SN was very lightly or poorly applied.

It's a hard call when you can't inspect the note in person.  The problem with the no-question asked guarantee is that you've got to pay for the postage, and you may be charged for the $ transaction.  

BTW: IMO: this note does NOT look UNC - Check under the "A" for light brown stain
« Last Edit: December 07, 2006, 05:43:00 pm by walktothewater »

JoeF
  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 23
« Reply #5 on: December 08, 2006, 03:53:46 pm »

Regarding the "stain" under the A:

Is this possibly an embedded planchet?

Strangely, if it is, it appears to be the only visible planchet on the face of this note.  Not sure what this might indicate.  Anybody else got a theory?

J
walktothewater
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,314
  • Join the Journey
    • Notaphylic Culture
« Reply #6 on: December 08, 2006, 07:13:09 pm »

First: I've never seen a brown sprawling blanchet... only green and they're small and round.

Second:
Here is a $1.00 with the SN removed.  I know its in rough shape...but gives you an idea of how the microprinting is affected. If you squint you'll see the outline of where the numbers were all the better.  

In looking over that $2.00 again, it is looking more and more suspicious...esp with the way there's a common lightened area where the numbers should be.

[attachment deleted by admin]
« Last Edit: December 08, 2006, 07:18:58 pm by walktothewater »

stevepot99
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 303
  • Pushing the boundaries
« Reply #7 on: December 08, 2006, 08:58:19 pm »

looks like  3276156
copperpete
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 654
  • CPMS #1408
« Reply #8 on: December 08, 2006, 10:39:45 pm »

If this note (the missing number on the 2$) is a fake, it should be possible to see the embossing of the serial number in the paper.  The printing head does not only apply ink, but also put its mark in the paper, which can be seen with the correct angle of lightning...

BWJM
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,996
« Reply #9 on: December 08, 2006, 10:49:18 pm »

Quote
If this note (the missing number on the 2$) is a fake, it should be possible to see the embossing of the serial number in the paper.  The printing head does not only apply ink, but also put its mark in the paper, which can be seen with the correct angle of lightning...
Not necessarily. Even original UNC notes sometimes lack any embossing of the serial number. A lack of embossing is not an indication of anything. The presence of embossing is an indication of originality.

Here's an example: If your car battery is dead, your car won't start. However, it is NOT always true to say that if your car won't start, your car battery is dead.

Embossing implies originality. Originality does not imply embossing.
Lack of embossing does not imply pressed. Pressed implies a lack of embossing.

It all boils down to a simple rule of logic:
A => B
B !=> A

BWJM
Member of CPMS, RCNA, ONA, ANA, IBNS, WCS.
President, IBNS Ontario Chapter.
Treasurer, Waterloo Coin Society.
Show Chair, Cambridge Coin Show.
Fellow of the Ontario Numismatic Association.
copperpete
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 654
  • CPMS #1408
« Reply #10 on: December 09, 2006, 10:56:04 am »

Possible, as in the stating: the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence...

 

Login with username, password and session length