Asterisks

News: Registration is free here at the CPMF!

Does anyone know how the asterisks were printed in the 1954 and 1973 series and especially how asterisk errors occur?

Here is a pic of an asterisk note that is "cut off size".In this particular case , I believe it was not due to a malfunction of the cuttiing press operation , but was improperly cut by hand , as there was only one sheet of 40 printed.
{http://www3.sympatico.ca/rocken/images/notes/starSB.jpg}

I have noticed many times - especially on the Beattie Rasminsky *R/C $5 notes tremendous variation on the location of the asterisk in relation to where the serial number is.  Sometimes the asterisk actually touches the prefix while other times there is few mm's of additional space between the asterisk and the prefix.  Make me think that the asterisks were added in a separate pass through the printing press.

Maybe the nut (or whatever held the asterisk to the rest of the numbering machine) was loose.  I do not think an additional printing stage was involved.

Isn't there a "misplaced asterisk" error listed in the catalog?
That would verify a separate printing stage.

as for the *SB high range, it should be similar to the *AB and the other anomaly ranges, possibly the singled out sheet cut by hand or shear. The *SB looks like it was cut on a dull guillotine, causing the rough edge and the misalignment.

I find it interesting that  asterisks may have been added by a "separate pass through the printing press". I had always considered  misplaced asterisks as a warning sign that it was  probably added
afterwards by unscrupulous persons to increase values.

What percent of all asterisk notes do you think are fakes (Not the bill but the asterisk)

Probaly not very many, although there was a very expensive C/I with a fake asterisk pulled from an auction a couple years ago. Also, an ebay seller was buying regular notes with the right prefix and adding asterisks and reselling them. They were easy to tell since the serial number range was wrong, the asterisk was the wrong colour and the wrong orientation.

OK, thanks.

Is there more than one way to check if a asterisk is a fake. Other than the serial number ranges?

well, if they get the range right, tint right, shape right, orientation right, it might be hard to tell.
You could then check the embossing through the back of the asterisk itself.

Maybe the nut (or whatever held the asterisk to the rest of the numbering machine) was loose.  I do not think an additional printing stage was involved.

Bob is absolutely correct. I have information from the highest authority on the matter that asterisks were not printed in an additional pass through the presses. Asterisk notes were, as a matter of fact, numbered separately from regular-issue notes, not just regular notes with an asterisk applied in a separate stage.

I was going to stay out of this conversation, but I felt compelled to step in and dispel any false assumptions and misinformation. If anyone has any questions, I would be happy to assist.

Regarding fake asterisk notes, there will be an article coming up in the next CPMS newsletter that should be familiar to many of you, but it deals with exactly this subject: asterisks applied after a note has been circulated, in an attempt to defraud an unsuspecting collector.

Thanks for straightening this out. how then, do you explain the errors listed on page 383 of the Charlton, E20-i,ii,iii? I could see the machine being mis-adjusted for the first two, but asterisk on back is a tough one.

That's exactly why I started this thread in the first place.

I have done some investigating of the "asterisk on the back" error.  A top Bank of Canada error collector tells me he doesn't have one, and has never seen one.  So I started to work on when and how this error got listed in the catalogue.  I learned that only one note of this sort was ever reported, believed to be a 1954 $1.  It was stolen in a robbery of the owner's home, many years ago, and has never resurfaced.  I interviewed the owner, who believes it was simply spent, in which case there is a good chance it was eventually withdrawn and destroyed.  Unfortunately that means that we may never have a chance to assess the note to see if the error was real or manufactured with somebody's typewriter. Any mechanism that I can devise for the legitimate production of such an error defies belief, such as the sheet being turned over, then a stray piece of junk intercepting all of the serial numbers except the asterisks, or some kind of crazy wrong-side set up sheet when the assembly of the numbering machines had only begun.  I think that unless such a note materializes and is confirmed to be real, this type of error might as well be dropped from the 22nd edition.