What is the minimum acceptable size of 1954 issue notes?

News: Welcome to the Canadian Paper Money Forum.

I possess several hundred 1954 issue notes in original UNC condition and the vast majority measure 153 mm in length and 70 mm in height. However, I have a few that are only 152 mm in length. Although some of these shorter notes have wide even margins others have narrow margins that could possibly give the impression of having been trimmed. Conversely, I have some notes with huge "jumbo" margins that are a whopping 155 mm in length. Part of the reason for this variance in size is presumably due to paper shrinkage/expansion effects and this often manifests itself in a significant difference of up to about 2 mm in the dimensions of both the printed design and of the overall note.

The Charlton catalogue indicates on page 245 that the 1954 notes were supposed to be "6.0 inches x 2.75 inches" in size, i.e., 152.4 mm x 69.85 mm, which is very close to the 153 mm x 70 mm mentioned above.

My question is the following:

What is the minimum acceptable size of a 1954 note, below which one has to assume that it has been trimmed by a collector?

I ask this question since an eBay lot was recently returned to me because the buyer felt that the notes had been trimmed (see scan below). There is no evidence of collector trimming in my opinion although the notes are indeed slightly smaller than average and both measure exactly 152.0 mm in length and 69.5 mm in height.

{http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/3433819/2007/11/16/6.jpg}

I know there is a lot of variability in the 1937/54 notes, even in the same consecutive runs!  The only time I have been especially suspicious of trimming is if the note had considerable handling and/or folds yet has unduly sharp edges and corners for an otherwise inferior grade. However, I'm not sure weather or not a note's actually having been trimmed is all that important.  I mean, the dimensions of the note are very important but the mechanism by which it achieved those dimensions is pretty much irrelevant.

Any loss of margin, even if the centering is improved or excessive mishandling is removed should reduce the value.  So when the value of a small note is to be assessed, I think one ought to consider it on a worse case basis.  That is, by imagining all the defects that could conceivably exist if only the margins were larger and evaluate accordingly. 

Likewise, an oversize note should be considered Gem (or even a premium higher than) even if there is significant edge and corner handling, providing that this handling is confined to those areas that would not typically be part of the note.  Even a significantly off-center note should trade at a premium provided the smallest sized margin is at least normal-sized.

I'm not sure how I would evaluate varying sizes of the printed design.  This is much less noticeable than variations in the margin sizes, which is what I would be considering in reference to "size".  Stretching or pressing might conceivably increase overall size, so perhaps only margin sizes should be considered at all.

How does the printed area measurments compare to other notes?

How does the printed area measurments compare to other notes?

Yes, the dimensions of the printed area are just as important as the dimensions of the overall note in determining whether a note has shrunk in size because of natural contraction or because of trimming.

After reading this thread I decided to check the few 54's that I had, and found a two with huge margins. Length is almost 155 mm and a height of 72 mm on the left, and 73 mm on the right.