Have I been out of line with my comments? Sorry if I did, but I will not stop questioning issues about one of my favorite hobbies. At this point you did not help in changing my point of view about the new replacement notes issue because:
1) There is no official confirmation of these replacement notes by the BoC;
2) Sometimes even honest and rigourously driven research can lead to erroneous conclusions; (although it may not be the case here, I still have to rely on this dependency to get to these notes which was not the case for the X's notes)
3) There is still an opinion being made for the range, one fact that the research seemingly cannot proove;
But I will read the articles you suggested thanks!
Hi Jokered - no there is nothing out of line with your comments and concern, for they are valid, and are important so that can all be refreshed on what is what, when it comes to inserts.
To answer your concerns,
a) there will never be a confirmation from the Bank of Canada with regards to precise insert note ranges, since the notes are printed by companies not owned by the BoC. Furthermore, the printing companies are not even bound to print the full 10,000,000 notes in a prefix. They can truly start and stop wherever they please, since the BoC contracts them out for AMOUNT of money, not any certain point of ranges.
However, as you will see in the articles, they ahve confirmed the existance of the replacements. This is something undeniable, but since the brick packaging is done pre-BoC, they would not have that information anyway (Unless they were messing with the bricks themselves, which HAS happened in the past).
b) The whole insert note section of the hobby has the forenote that ranges are based on best available data. And the data is based on the findings washed through the acid test of the matrix. "Erroneous conclusions" stated as such, in the insert world, with the knowledge of the matricies, is actually, "Incomplete conclusions, matched to the highest standard based on the matricies". In human terms, it means, yes they might not be precisely accurate, but it does not mean that an area is reported as an insert when it is really NOT. The converse is true though -- inserts are all reported on file to be regular notes, until their findings have been substantiated by a number of claims.
c) Your point 3 is correct - but the opinion is based on the matrix, and samples of 10s of thousands of notes being run through the matrrix, providing us with a measure of accuracy that science can only dream to hold.
So, my point is NOT to discourage questions, but rather, to encourage questions and research, and careful statements of hypothesis, as opposed to loose and inaccurate statements about inserts. The latter of course is why such a vigorous process is in place.
Please understand I meant no offense in my earlier post. I welcome all questions and comments.
Thank you for reading into the matrix research.
God Bless-
Hudson
