*R/C $5 Beattie Rasminsky

News: Welcome to the Canadian Paper Money Forum.

I have noticed that a lot of the lower numbered Beattie Rasminsky *R/C $5 notes have the asterisk positioned unusually close to the prefix letters.  Does this suggest that this series of notes were printed as a regular series of notes and then had the asterisk added later?

Any thoughts?

I have a similar question... If I use the V/S 1954 series as an example and the *V/S replacements.  Do the *V/S replacement notes go into the regular V/S series, and if so with ca.400,000 replacements, why does the quantity printed in Charleton's show a full run of 10,000,000 for the regular instead of 9,600,000. That's a $2million accounting debacle.  Has anyone ever seen a asterisk note and a regular note with the same serial number and prefix?

If you dig out your 1981 CPMS Journals, on page 26 you will see a 1975 $50 with and without asterisk, with identical serial numbers, submitted by the late Herb Bishop.  The answer to the above question, then, is "yes".

Bob, is there anything that you DON'T know?

Yep.  Plenty.

A good example concidering that this note was printed by the canadian bank note co  as were all of the 5 dollar notes in beattie rasminsky  The note pictured on page 330 of the current charlton 17 edition
Thanks

Has anyone ever seen a asterisk note and a regular note with the same serial number and prefix?

Here is a scan of the two $50 notes with the same serial number.  The top note has the asterisks; you may have to look closely for them.
Asterisk notes were issued in their own asterisk prefix series, so did not reduce the size of the issue with the same prefix and no asterisk.  The X notes used prefixes that were not used by regular issue notes, so no problem there either.  The modern "insert" notes, however, have been taken from a regular series and would, therefore, reduce the number of regular issue notes from a particular series.
I do not believe there has been any "accounting debacle.".

But I believed that replacement notes actually replaced notes damaged or quality controlled, but for example 1954 modified non-replacements started at I/C9053655 and apparently continued uninterrupted without any damaged notes through to Z/C and A/S-Z/S and A/X-V/X7999999. Thats over 618 million notes without a glitch....impressive.

OK, I have not made this as clear as I ought.  I will use the example given above of the V/S and *V/S $5's to illustrate.  First, I have already attempted to make the point that a sequence of numbers was not taken out of the V/S series to number the *V/S replacement notes; the latter is a separate series with its own set of serial numbers.  

What perhaps is not as clear as it needs to be, is that *V/S $5's could be used to replace defective, numbered notes in ANY prefix series of the same type - they did not all have to be used in the V/S series.  

That is not to say that all 10,000,000 V/S $5's made it through production without any mishaps, obviously.  Just using the catalogue numbers (page 219) for all the Beattie-Rasminsky $5's, I calculate that approximately three-tenths of one percent had to be replaced.  (This is probably a maximum figure since there may be, within the more extensive replacement series, lower and upper ranges - with unused numerical gaps in between, resulting from block numbering - that we do not yet know about.)

There seems to be no reason to suppose that one prefix would be greatly more accident prone than another, over the long haul of printing ten million notes, so it might not be too unreasonable to assume that 0.3 of one percent of every series, more or less, had to be replaced.  Thus instead of a 10,000,000 production for each prefix series, an issue of 9,970,000 might be a closer number, taken as an average.  

Finally, I am convinced that if the Bank of Canada paid for ten million notes, they received ten million notes, so no big accounting debacle seems likely.
Are we on the same wave-length yet?

Wow.Bob your a walking encyclopedia How many years have you been collecting?




  Randy

Since about 1832..... OK, that's somewhat of an exaggeration, but I'm sure he's been collecting a little longer than I have.

Only since 1955, actually!  I'm nearing 50 years of collecting and haven't got tired of it yet.

Only since 1955, actually!  I'm nearing 50 years of collecting and haven't got tired of it yet.

Only....... I wasn't even a twinkle in my parents eyes then.....  

Now Tom... don't make the poor guy feel old.  (even though you dwarf even me in years).

 

I was still wearing my Davey Crockatt hat in 1955.

Thanks for the info Bob, and I do not want to come accross as argumentative, I am just a little ignorant , but isn't Charlton's incorrect in their prefix totals, as the full runs are all 10 million? Do they not take into account the damaged notes? Or, does no one really keep records of which notes were damaged, just how many(by counting the replacements I take it). So the total issued notes for a series is just the total of the regular notes, as the replacements were inserted into those runs to replace the ones that were damaged?  I do have a couple of more questions, but I don't want steam coming out of your collar

There is no way, absolutely no way, of determining the exact totals with the replaced notes omitted, since there were never any records kept of them, so they are reported as 10 million each; the tiny fraction of a percent replaced wouldn't make any significant difference.  Of course the B of C received its ten million notes for which it paid, but these include the relatively few replacements.
Before 1954, the ten million totals are exactly correct, since any damaged note was replaced with another specially printed one with the same serial number.  This procedure was too time-consuming.  Since 1954, the ten million totals have been approximately correct, and certainly the best we can ever hope to do.
The Charlton figures come under the heading "quantity printed", not "quantity printed and issued", which gives a way out in case anybody wants to get too picky.  Ten million were printed but the wrecks weren't issued.

Thank you Bob, I may actually be getting it now. Now for my next question..... You stated that there is a $50 regular and replacement with the same serial number. Could this be a printing error, that it warranted publication in the CPMS Journals? Does anyone have a non-asterisk note with a serial number that falls into a replacement range? I would have thought that since they already have printed notes that they would just add an asterisk to those notes (explains the asterisk shift on some notes) and why all replacement prefixes are also regular prefixes(bar the *V/V,*Z/Z anomalies).  I do thank you for answering my questions with your expertise, and I do embrace learning more and more about my avocation.

Well, I'm a bit  hesitant to say anything further, for fear of offending anyone by being so stuffy, stodgy, serious and old - but I will just reiterate that each asterisk prefix series had its own number sequence entirely independent of the regular issue series with the same prefix.  There are potentially millions of asterisk - regular matches, but the probability of finding them is nearly nil with so many notes spread across such a big country.  The pair illustrated in the CPMS Journal did not involve any error, just uncommonly good luck.

  Bob you could not have answered this more clearly. I find your comments to be some of the most knowledgable and I always look forward to your posts.

 So the answer is.......

 Asterisk notes were used to replace a note from any prefix. *V/S could have been used to replace any regular note weather it had the prefix A/S, K/S,B/X or N/X.

They could have even used a *V/S Beattie/Rasminsky to replace a regular note signed Bouey/ Rasminsky if they had some left over.

That's my kick at the can  

isn't all the asterisk notes replacing all regular notes? In other words *X/F replaces regular X/F, *V/V replaces V/V and so on?

 I could not have said it more clearly but maybe you just think it's ME that is wrong?

It's the same as X-notes they replaced all prefix's and $2 EBX Thiessen/Crow were being found in Bonin signed notes because they had some left over.

isn't all the asterisk notes replacing all regular notes? In other words *X/F replaces regular X/F, *V/V replaces V/V and so on?

No.
They just picked a prefix that was similar to regular notes and used it until they ran out or got too far from the prefix.

I do understand that asterisk notes are printed ahead of time in case of damaged notes, as they need to be inserted into where the damaged notes should have been. I also understand that there will be no way of knowing how many damaged notes there will be-thus the extra printed * notes will just continue into other prefixes and possibly signatures. But ... I am not asking to find another match of * and non*, just if anyone can verify that they have a regular note that falls into the serial number range of an asterisk note with the same prefix. For example the 1954 $1 *B/M has 2 ranges that total 3.68million notes thats over 1/3 of the B/M prefix. It shouldn't be too hard to find a regular B/M that falls in the 0000001-1160000 or the 1760000-4262000 range. Every third regular B/M should fall into this range. Surely someone could verify this. :-/

I've got HC 1226472.  This is within the range of *HC 1123045 - 1273045 (adding the said quantity of 150,000 notes).

NB: I believe there might be an error in the book here, I'll have to check the latest version as I'm currently reading the 16th Edition.  If so, I'll report it in the Charlton Updates forum.

Only 150,000 asterisks were printed in that run of 1.4 million notes. Perhaps 50000 here and 100000 there and the rest regular bills?

Uh, not likely.  That's where the suspected error lies.

So, does anyone else have a regular note with a prefix that falls into Chalton's range of replacements? Surely, with the thousands of notes we collectors have, someone must have a note that falls into the 0.3% replacement ranges, or even spot one on eBay for that matter. I actually thought I found one on ebay that fell into the 1954 *S/O range. The seller used an example picture and did not indicate an asterisk in his serial number. Unfortunately, I received what I thought, but not hoped I would...an asterisk.  :-/

Here is a picture of an *S/S note with the right asterisk actually touching the letters.  The variance in asterisk position much mean that the asterisk is applied to the notes in a separate run.  Is this a correct assumption?

A few months ago we were having a discussion about regular and replacement notes with matching serial numbers.  The only example I could find at the time involved two 1975 $50 notes.  I have just come across another, in the CPMS Newsletter for April, 1996.  1986 $2 notes with serial numbers EBZ2634466 and EBX2634466 are illustrated.  The EBZ is a regular note, and the EBX of course is a replacement.
These two notes have the SAME face and back position numbers, and were found in the SAME bundle!