*R/C $5 Beattie Rasminsky

News: Welcome to the Canadian Paper Money Forum.

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?