Proposed New System for Insert Notes

News: Welcome to the Canadian Paper Money Forum.

 

Confirmed insert ranges are those which appear either in the most recent edition of the Charlton Standard Catalogue of Canadian Government Paper Money, or in the lists published by Gilles Pomerleau. This information is reproduced with permission. Suspected insert ranges are those for which verbal confirmation from Gilles has been obtained, but they have not yet been published on paper.

Sorry to say, but the bolded part of your statement is incorrect.  Suspected ranges are those that have not been confirmed, but are suspected to be inserts.  Gilles obviously cannot put out a list everyday by mail, so in the meantime, other ranges get confirmed.  He has information coming to him daily. I want to make sure everyone is clear on that.
The momemt Gilles confirms an insert range verbally, that insert range is no longer suspect.  Despite that it might not be published for three months less a day, the insert range is to be deemed CONFIRMED, and will be appearing on his next list, thus showing up on wiki within hours, and then the Catalogue.

You're taking that bolded statement out of context. The correct context for that statement is the display of the ranges on the Wiki. Ranges highlighted in purple and marked as suspected are those for which some reputable person had said that Gilles verbally confirmed them, however, they have yet to be published in print.

The insert listings on the Wiki site are done in a manner that defers all authority to Gilles and the Charlton. If it is on the list in green as a confirmed insert range, then it is PUBLISHED. Verbal confirmations can be made up. It allows for the possibility of distrust on the part of myself and other forum members. If there is a firm restriction that no insert range will be listed as confirmed on the Wiki unless published by Gilles and/or Charlton, then there is no room whatsoever for anyone to accuse myself or other forum members of making something up or jumping the gun. If it's on the site, then Gilles and/or Charlton has declared it to be confirmed and they have done so IN PRINT, not just verbally. Verbal confirmations come third-party through whoever talks to Gilles on the phone, and then through the person who updates the Wiki site, etc. Although I would never expect it, there is room for some falsification of data. If it's in print, and someone disputes it, I can say "go read the newsletter and if you still have a problem, call Gilles. His number is on the first page."

We changed the way inserts were reported so as to do it in a much more authoritative manner. The data comes from one source, and one that the community trusts: Gilles.

THAT SAID... If someone wants to yank the carpet out from under Gilles and develop a better way of collecting insert information, and if this person or group becomes the leading authority in the collecting community (ie: Charlton publishes their data instead of or in tandem with Gilles' data), then I would be willing to revisit the manner in which the Wiki reports insert ranges. In the meantime, so long as Gilles remains the leading authority in terms of insert ranges, the Wiki will report confirmed ranges as those published in Gilles' lists or the Charlton guide. Suspected ranges will be those which are "verbally confirmed" or otherwise reported from reputable sources.
[edit]NOTE: The above paragraph should NOT be interpreted as a statement on the matter of whether or not to attempt to pursue such an endeavour. It is merely a statement such that should the status quo change in terms of how insert ranges are reported to the community, I will consider following that change.[/edit]
I hope this clarifies the editorial policy of the Wiki site in terms of insert ranges.

Now... I'd like to take off my Wiki-admin hat for a moment and toss a few cents in here...

There are drawbacks to the status quo, namely:

• Gilles is not on the Internet, and thus there exists a communication barrier. Being online increases the pool of available data and expedites the release of information to the community. Sending quarterly newsletters by mail is costly and slow. Due to these factors, their frequency is only quarterly.
  
• Some of the ranges reported have been questioned as to their legitimacy. For example, few people understand where ranges in increments of 11,000 come from. To determine the size of the range, one must understand the complexities of how banknotes are numbered and printed. One needs to know the size of each sheet, how many sheets per ream, the skip factor, and whether or not entire reams are used for inserts, or just a few cut bricks, or a partial ream. All of this information requires going through a LOT of currency on a very constant basis to keep oneself up to date, and it requires a fair bit of advanced mathematics to work backwards from the raw data.

Gilles has been doing this stuff since before I was born. That fact alone earns him my respect. Now consider that he has been an active member of the Canadian Paper Money Society for I don't know how long, a member of the Charlton pricing panel for years, and is presently the CPMS' Regional Director for Quebec. Furthermore, along with his extensive network of collectors and brick searchers that forward him information, he himself searches through a significant quantity of bricks each week. Despite our questions, he seems to know what he's doing.

Can someone else do a better job? I don't know. What about a cooperative effort? Certainly a possibility. I have a few ideas of my own about how such an endeavour should operate, and those ideas all have to do with being trustworthy, reputable, unquestionable and having integrity:

• The operation should be run by one person, with a small board of 2-3 advisors who can monitor the work to maintain accountability and transparency.
• These individuals should avoid conflicts of interest, namely they should not be involved in the direct sale of insert notes.
• These individuals should be respected and trusted within the community.
• Only confirmed insert ranges should be published.
• Suspected ranges should be kept confidential so as to maintain the integrity of the published data.
• Ranges should not be disclosed verbally or otherwise to individuals or small groups prior to publication to the greater community.
• Details about the printing and numbering of current banknotes should be publicized to encourage transparency of the process without laying it all out from A to Z.
• The individuals running and overseeing this operation should have a thorough understanding of the manners in which banknotes are printed and numbered to ensure reliable results.
• The organization of this group and endeavour should not attempt to begin operations without at least the consent or cooperation of Gilles Pomerleau, out of respect for his contributions to this hobby and because doing otherwise is just plain wrong.

Furthermore, there are two groups of people in this hobby... the old school, and the new school. I am firmly footed in the new school. I'm younger than probably 90% of all CPMS members, and just about anyone reading this knows that I am fairly good when it comes to anything technological. The old school tends to not yet collect notes from the Birds Series or the Journey Series. The new school can't afford anything older than those. The old school bought test notes at face by the bundle. The new school is complaining about "cup marks". Where am I going with this? Gilles Pomerleau is part of both schools. He has seen and done more than most people in the new school have, combined. Yet at the same time, he is the leading expert when it comes to insert notes. If we members of the new school get our egos over-inflated and think we can just barge in and do a better job while Gilles is left staring at our taillights, then we are sadly mistaken. We may have good ideas, but the old school has the experience. We need to be able to coexist with each other for the betterment of the hobby. (In an upcoming article of mine for the March CPMS newsletter, I note that despite me thinking that the content of my article is groundbreaking information, it was already published 40 years ago. Not making mention of that would do nothing except show to all members of the so-called old school that I can't do my homework and/or I am disregarding the efforts of others who came before me).

At the present time, I am content with the status quo, however, sooner or later, change is inevitable. I only hope that we can find the best way to do this by planning ahead and not rushing into things.

When the big B decided to speak out, either from upstair or downstair, you know someone is in big trouble or it is big.
    Indeed, we try to take over the world with our enthusiam, thinking we can always do better.    But we should NOT set ourselves up as the standard in the sense we think we  have a big reputation to protect; as such, must reject or discard anything that has not been proven. We are not Charlton or even CPMS.    Say, someone finds a note just outside the insert range, should we summarily reject it since it out of the range or say 'suspected'  or under study ?      I believe the purpose of this site, fourm or wiki, is to share imformation, whether or not the infomation could be misused or abused. We can not guarantee every bit of information is true.  Until we can definitely prove that that range are common notes (say, someone gets a brick all of that range), there is a probability that it is a insert and stated as such.   (Of course, some of you experts could determine and double check through study of position numbers.)
 
  As the contemporary of Giles ( our CPMS membership numbers are no more than 10 apart), I think it is about time, the new school plays a more vital role in CPMS, not just in term of technology.  We have talked about the charter, 1937, independent, long enough as if these are the only game in town.  Brent mentioned CPMS 90% of membership is old school, that means new school is no more than 10 %.  Anyone wonders why ?   CPMS needs new blood, and the newer series like the multicolor the bird, which old school disdains,  deserve a prominate spot.
    I just noticed that when Brent brought up CPMS, postings trailed off, is it CPMS or something else, like to too long too complicated, or defering to Brent. ;-)
    also, there is nothing wrong with going ahead and do it in this case, instead of planning and planning (who are doing the planning anyway ?)
    BTW, how is the planning for CPMS website going ?  Can we see it soon ?
good night.

Well put BWJM.  Yes you are right - I did take that portion of information you quoted out of context. I apologize for any problems arising from that.

To be clear, I support the system as is now, with GP as lead, hands down.  Every bit of information that I get, or figure out with my research about skip numbering, inserts, sheet layouts, printing, whatever, goes straight to him, every time.  The only reason I ever started doing serious research was because of people like him, sudzee, BWJM, and everyone else who encouraged me to learn more. Without that info sharing, I would not have near the understanding that I do now (and I am learning more every day from them).  I credit and thank them.  At first I wasn't sure about how the insert numbers were determined, but after finding out information on the Journey notes in much more detail, through research, which all began from the guidance of the many more experienced collectors, Gilles ranges made sense.

He knows what he is doing and I have complete faith in him, that is the bottom line for me. Establishing the ranges is a difficult task in many cases, I strongly believe that he does the best humanly possible job.  I want to make that extra clear, in case my last post was too murky.  

Now, wouldn't it be nice if the BOC just sent us an email letting us know exactly what the ranges were  All from me. Goodnight.  Hudson

I agree with both Brent and Lamb.

First of all, Lamb. I am VERY glad to have one of the Senior members weigh in on the conversation. It is agreed that we must preserve the past but embrace the future.

Ultimately I feel that if the system works right now why should it change? Don't try and fix something that is not broken...

This does not mean there will be no change in the next 60 years. Yes there will be planning, and I think Brent has some FANTASTIC ideas in this regards.

I agree that there are the "Old School" and the "New School". Many of the "New School" collectors do not have the appreciation for the older notes just as the "Old School" do not really care about the last few series of notes. What we need is a more unified collective. If things keep going the way they are, the "Old School" will eventually become a memory and their passion for the older notes will go with them. This is the roots of our hobby, we must never forget where it came from, but must also see where we are going.

Gilles qualifications are next to none. But I think we should have the "Prospective" individuals who will continue this service into the future working with him now. It will take years for someone to catch up to Gilles and attain only a portion of his knowledge.

There should be plenty of planning and procedures but there will also need to be action.

People can talk about change until hell freezes over...

So I think there needs to be real co-operation  between the "New School" and the "Old School" if this is going to work.

I have said my two cents, but I would like to have more Senior Members AND Newer Members to the Hobby weigh in on their thoughts.

I think it would be best if everyone carries on contributing in their own ways, this way the wheel will keep turning and everyone will be satisfied (as best as we possibly can).

I think this is the best gem of wisdom I have read in a long time.  We all have our own unique contributions to offer the hobby, which all are valuable, and should be shared.

Thank you x-savior for summing it up so concisely and accurately.  Well put.  

...
I have said my two cents, but I would like to have more Senior Members AND Newer Members to the Hobby weigh in on their thoughts.

Ok, as a newer member I will weigh in with my thoughts.  I'm new to this forum and just recently sent in my application to the CPMS.

While I respect Gilles' work and dedication, the whole process is a black box.  It lacks transperency and it seems to me that those who are in the know (Gilles and his close contacts,) have an unfair advantage over all the other collectors when it comes to insert note collecting.  How is a new member, like myself, suppose to know about this whole process?  There is no mention of Gilles' work in Charlton.  There is no explanation on how inserts are confirmed.  How does a new collector even get on his mailing list?  Not only is very little information about the process given, very little information about how to obtain his information is available to new collectors.

Secondly, I am inclined to believe that Gilles is missing insert ranges.  Not every brick is searched.  His list is, and always will be, incomplete.  That really bothers me.  

Maybe I'm missing the "big picture" when it comes to insert notes.  They look exactly the same to me as any other note.  There is no distinguishable characteristic on the bill that makes it special.  I will continue to collect aseterix and "X" notes, but until the process becomes more transparent and available to more than just those on Gilles' secret mailing list, I will not touch insert notes.

Sorry if that was a bit harsh.

Brad

the whole process is a black box.  It lacks transperency and it seems to me that those who are in the know (Gilles and his close contacts,) have an unfair advantage over all the other collectors when it comes to insert note collecting

I can understand where you're coming from Brad, as I used to feel this way (a bit) too, before I introduced myself to some of the "key players" in this hobby.  I'm a little bit "old school" and a little bit "new school" so I understand where you're coming from   ( I too have an affinity for the clearly the designated X- Asterisk notes/ but then really enjoy getting select notes of the last 2 series).  

All I can say is that as mysterious as the whole process may seem, it is done with the utmost transparency/legitimacy as can be had (considering the way notes are released by banks and the BOC).  As BWJM, Hudson, and others have verified-- all info must pass through one reliable (dedicated) and knowledgable source (Gilles) so that only VALID ranges can be establish.   In order to make collecting inserts a worthwhile pursuit -- it is imperative that the process be as prone to as little likelyhood of falling afoul as possible.

The info is gleaned by many established long-standing brick searchers who've paid their dues in proving their integrity.   This is what I didn't know when I re-entered the hobby back in 2003. After metting with several of them, I know the kind of time and dedication they devote to such a pursuit.  I've tried brick searching but I just don't have the time nor patience!  The searchers who do submit numbers build a reputation by submitting numbers that make sense.  

If you re-read the previous posts you'll better understand how tracking the inserts can actually be prone to error, and why there is indeed a delay in getting the information out.  If info was spilled out as current as it is being collected it would lead to all sorts of chaotic misinformation and abuse.   That is why BWJM has cautioned those searchers who thought it would be a service to dissiminate the info on an as come basis.  

Maybe I'm missing the "big picture" when it comes to insert notes.  They look exactly the same to me as any other note.  There is no distinguishable characteristic on the bill that makes it special

 

The big picture is easy to dismiss.  To many a collector the significance of an insert is lost on them.  That's why there is such a slow conversion of "old school" to "new school."  Some see collecting today's inserts as a waste of time.  I personally will only concentrate on select inserts.

On the other hand, others see it as a wonderful opportunity.  Its almost like those few who have the 1973 *AA with a serial number above 5M.  Only a few exist.  The same holds true for certain inserts in various ranges.  Serial numbers mean everything to most long time collectors -- and therefore they'll pay a premium for a note within a certain range.  It really does take time, patience, and a lot of networking in this hobby to truly understand this.  

Hope this helps!

James

So, where are we, after the long discussion ? have we come to any consensus or conclusion  about the keeping up and sharing  ? Is anyone (Hudson?) doing anything ? or do we just move on, as if talk the talk is good enough.
i must have missed something

I think I scared everyone away.

Hudson is having difficulty posting and has asked that the following be posted:

actuary
While I respect Gilles' work and dedication, the whole process is a black box.

This may seem like the case.  I thought that way too at first.  It wasn't until I dove head first into trying to figure out how that I realized just how difficult it is to determine ranges.

Having said that, the lack of public knowledge about how they are determined lies mostly in the fact that explaining the details about how they were arrived is very complex.  Much more complex than I ever imagined.

Since this above quote was posted, I decided to answer that question as best I could. (And all the others that stemmed from it.) I selected the BABN $5s to talk about, since they are the new thing right now, and already have changed from tentative insert ranges of 45,000, down to 40,000 after my evidence was presented to the man, GP, himself.

I am nearly complete, I hope to have it completed in full (for now) within a few days.

I also would like to know where we stand...  :-?

We need more people involoved in this conversation. I feel that brent should change the name of the thread (with the original posters permission) to something more prominent to draw more people into the thread for input and conversation.

I would also like to hear from more senior members as well. This issue should not be left to die but it is a great opportunity for everyone "Old and New" to get on the same page. If everyone knows the same thing and everything is presented in the open, it should be much easier for everyone to take the first step and start placing trust in the system.

With Trust, Confidence and equality we can then discuss changes that will still maintain the Integrity of the system.  

I myself have been new to the concept of Inserts and simply took it upon myself to learn whatever I could glean from the forum over the past several months since joining. Yes, it was a sort of grey area more than a black box but I could begin to appreciate how complex and tedious the process could be to provide as accurate information as possible, and accurate information requires time. If an alleged rare range is indicated you can bet it would require more time to verify. A seller or buyer may risk the transaction but there is still a certian degree of risk so it's thier choice to do so and carry a risk in damaging the hobby.

Perhaps we could start to formalize the Insert determination process by writng a comprensive column under the Important Topics or Refernce category titled How Insert ranges are determined. Then post this in an appropriate place on this site. The column should include as much detail as possible in Lay-persons language;

What data is needed.
How the data is found.
Who submits the data and to whom.
How is the data is compiled.
What are the general criteria that determines an insert range as Suspected or Confirmed.
At what point are conclusions drawn up and by whom.
Where and how are the results posted.

Everyone please feel free to to add any more whom, whats, whys and hows too. even use diagrams, flow charts with lots of arrows etc.

This is a big topic but since there are loads of technical aspects as well as educated estimates based on gut feelings, experience, an nuance intangibles especially when data becomes quite sparse.

I think this will at least put some kind of handle on the process for the newer members to get hold of and to those firmly in the old school side enough to appreciate.

PD

Perhaps we could start to formalize the Insert determination process by writng a comprensive column under the Important Topics or Refernce category titled How Insert ranges are determined.

I am very excited that you brought this up. I have addressed this. Just adding some finishing touches.
Will be "published" shortly.

where are we, after the long discussion ? have we come to any consensus or conclusion  about the keeping up and sharing  ? Is anyone (Hudson?) doing anything ?

Where are we? What consensus?  What conclusion? Are you expecting all brick searchers to divulge all the notes they find out of order willy nilly?  Do you think brick searchers have an obligation to share all their information just as it unfolds and never have that very same info scrutinized for confirmation? Just bypass Gilles (his old reliable method of verification) and let if fly into the forum?  I fail to understand how that would help the hobby.   If I suddenly saw collectors making unverified claims regarding inserts -- willy nilly -- I'd stay far and away from so called "inserts."  In fact it would turn me off collecting modern Canadian bank notes in a big way.

Today we're discovering insert ranges in a matter of months.... (suspected ranges even sooner).  

accurate information requires time

Very true --and what most of us have been saying all along...

Perhaps we could start to formalize the Insert determination process by writng a comprensive column under the Important Topics or Refernce category titled How Insert ranges are determined.

I think this is a great idea!  It would be the best thing that could come out of this thread..