I suppose there are some banknotes with errors in many of the treasure chests of Numista members. I have only one:
○
It is a series 1981A in almost perfect condition. Since I randomly collect only Canadian notes, this will eventually be up for swap, though I'm not finished organizing my entire collection yet. Still, I thought it would be an interesting topic to start. Anyone else has error notes to show?
Hi, last year I ordered some Banknotes from a south New Zealand seller, I chose the Bangladesh 10 Taka, when it came through the post it was an error, I was so happy, it is the only error banknote I know I have
Verweis : "Kostany"Hi, last year I ordered some Banknotes from a south New Zealand seller, I chose the Bangladesh 10 Taka, when it came through the post it was an error, I was so happy, it is the only error banknote I know I have
Looking for something else, I'm stumbling upon this old thread of mine, and would I have ever guessed back then, in 2017, that four years later I would win a Canadian $50 note with mismatched numbers at face value because it was poorly described and no-one noticed the error?
For those who haven't seen it back in the summer (additions to your collection thread):
How serendipitous, I just purchased my first error note, and I was wondering if there were any error note threads on this site. I open up the banknotes forum, and there's one right at the top.
That's an amazing error @Camerinvs b/c I don't think anybody has reported a mismatched SN error for the polymer "Frontiers series as of yet.
Here's my favourite & first BoC example I bought many years ago.
It's an offset printing error (BC-54i c Eii) on a 1979 $20.00
The front:
and the reverse:
I feel I should mention that there is a known forger/seller of error banknotes. He is well known to the IBNS, and I will try to research his current eBay seller's name (he changes it frequently). I think he is based in the UK, but I can't seem to login at IBNS right now to verify his latest information. This is not to say that anything posted here in this thread is fake. Just be aware that there is a very prolific fraudster operating on eBay that specializes in the banknote error realm if you get the itch these holidays to buy an error note.
Update: After checking the IBNS forums, the seller is currently named “citygroundhero-6” and is in the UK. He is very well known for creating “error” notes of all kinds, and even more known for creating fake overprint notes (he uses an inkjet printer to add overprints). Watch out!
"After checking the IBNS forums, the seller is currently named “citygroundhero-6” and is in the UK. He is very well known for creating “error” notes of all kinds, and even more known for creating fake overprint notes (he uses an inkjet printer to add overprints). Watch out!"
-Great advice @gyoschak. There are many unscrupulous individuals in North America too who also make copies of older rare notes. Sadly, there are a lot of scams out there. One of the most common schemes for manufactured 'errors' is for these turkeys to cut BEP (Bureau of Engraving/Printing) or BoC (Bank of Canada) $1 sheets & create dramatic errors cutting errors. There are also sellers who remove the serial numbers from polymer notes (this is not that difficult) so buyer beware. (One also must be wary of the prefixes for the dramatic sheet cut errors)
I do not encourage new collectors to chase down errors without knowing what is legit & what is bogus. If in doubt, ask but ask on forums, not on FB, IG or other social media platforms where people just keep whatever they photograph for kicks (& where anything older than a decade must be certified). Speaking of certified, if you're really not sure than stick to TPG (certified) notes for extra peace of mind.
Here's another favourite of mine, this one similar to the $20 but on an asterisk replacement:
Verweis : "Serial_Number_8""After checking the IBNS forums, the seller is currently named “citygroundhero-6” and is in the UK. He is very well known for creating “error” notes of all kinds, and even more known for creating fake overprint notes (he uses an inkjet printer to add overprints). Watch out!"
-Great advice @gyoschak. There are many unscrupulous individuals in North America too who also make copies of older rare notes. Sadly, there are a lot of scams out there. One of the most common schemes for manufactured 'errors' is for these turkeys to cut BEP (Bureau of Engraving/Printing) or BoC (Bank of Canada) $1 sheets & create dramatic errors cutting errors. There are also sellers who remove the serial numbers from polymer notes (this is not that difficult) so buyer beware. (One also must be wary of the prefixes for the dramatic sheet cut errors)
I do not encourage new collectors to chase down errors without knowing what is legit & what is bogus. If in doubt, ask but ask on forums, not on FB, IG or other social media platforms where people just keep whatever they photograph for kicks (& where anything older than a decade must be certified). Speaking of certified, if you're really not sure than stick to TPG (certified) notes for extra peace of mind.
Here's another favourite of mine, this one similar to the $20 but on an asterisk replacement:
oh so you guys also get star notes in Canada as well like in the us?
Yes, but in the 1980s, we moved to a three-letter prefix and "X" was used in the third position to indicate replacement (e.g. AAX0000001).
There are also the 1979 $5 and $20 series with serial numbers at the back which, if I'm not mistaken, were an experimental machine-readable system. There were only numbers, no prefixes. Replacement notes start with 31 ($5) and 510 or 516 ($20).
There has not been special prefixes now for about 20 years (if I'm not mistaken), so there are no replacement notes per se in the polymer series. People have identified breaks in serial numbers when they get a pile of uncirculated notes at the bank or from a bank machine, and a database exists which records those breaks (with "replacement" notes inserted at the break), but Serial_Number_8 could say a lot more about all this.
"There has not been special prefixes now for about 20 years (if I'm not mistaken), so there are no replacement notes per se in the polymer series. People have identified breaks in serial numbers when they get a pile of uncirculated notes at the bank or from a bank machine, and a database exists which records those breaks (with "replacement" notes inserted at the break), but Serial_Number_8 could say a lot more about all this."
@Camerinvs pretty much summed it up. Asterisk replacements were only used on the 1954 Devil's Face (scarce), the Modified & the 1969-1974 "Multi-coloured" series.
After that, in 1979 they re-positioned the serial number to the back of the notes & it was a number code (the first 2 numbers of the 11 digit SN explained whether it was a replacement or test note "33" for the $5).
The "X" designation for replacement function was started & dropped during the BIRDS series. Huge runs of these X notes were produced initially (like 3.8M for Crow-Bouey ENX & 7.7M for Thiessen-Crow FNX). Undesignated "insert replacements" actually were used (probably to make up for shortfalls) while X replacements were still being issued. Mini reams (20,000) of the GOT & GOV (Bonin-Thiessen) $5 were inserted into bundles of other prefixes. They were discovered by brick searchers, including some of the contributors to Charlton. The practice was carried out with the higher denominations too.
Non-designated insert replacements continued with the Journey, upgraded (security strip) Journey & for about 3-4 years into the polymer Frontiers series. [It appears as if the insert prefixes are missing on Numista's Frontier $5, $10, $20, $50 & $100]. It was likely discontinued around 2015 (with the arrival of the $20 Queen's Jubilee commemorative). Forty million notes were ordered but 5 prefixes released & it is believed that 3.48M of the last prefix (FWW) were made for spoilage. A similar practice was carried out for the 2017 commemorative $10 (again 4M ordered but 6 prefixes released with an estimated 13M extra notes used to account for spoilage). I searched many bundles of these & found several gaps (sometimes in excess of 500 or more) between serial numbers.
Why would they stop designating replacements (with asterisks or special letters), you may be asking yourself... More than likely to reduce costs (just use another ream of notes to adjust for spoilage).
I just learned that to find a note like Camerinvs did for the mismatched SN $50 & at a low price (as if it were a normal note) is called "cherry picking." This means finding a super collectible note because you have knowledge that not everyone seems to have. In the US, for BEP notes, it usually means knowing a mule from a non-mule (knowing the back plate numbers) or whether its a "Web press $1" (while others are unaware) but it could also pertain to errors, low # &/or special serial numbers. I have often seen replacements, low # & radars (repeaters) not be listed by the seller simply because he/she did not know.
So, this note I feel as if I cherry picked. It was not listed as an error & I was shocked when I paid the same price I would have paid for a regular One Pound from The Royal Bank of Scotland Limited:
BTW: be sure you know your notes too. I was ready to bid high on a note that was missing the serial number on a P-50 50 Lek note from Albania. Then I checked my SCWPM & discovered that more notes were printed with no SN & the majority were mismatched SN. This was likely the result of terrible QC (& poor production) so notes with matching SN are scarcer. The same poor quality notes were produced for the 10 Lek P-49. The BV for a banknote with a normal matching serial number was actually $60 (2.5X the error notes) while for one without was $25 but the note I saw auctioned sold for $250 or $300 b/c the unwitting buyers got into a bidding war thinking they were buying a scarce error.
Yes, cherry picking. In my case, though, it's clear that the seller knew it was an error, because to list a regular circulating note would have been out of character with them. They just didn't describe it well. In fact, it's precisely because I didn't see why they were posting this that I looked more closely.
There are people who think that cherry picking is bad. They would have us warn the seller that their coin or note is worth more than they put it up for. I'm sorry, but no. If they don't know it's worth more, it means they got it from someone else who unknowingly gave it away for peanuts. If the collection was sold by the family of a deceased person, these are the people who should be contacted, not the seller. You know your stuff and you cherry pick? Good for you.
Recently, the opposite happened to me, and I documented it here on Numista. An eBay seller posted an 1870 "no LCW" Canadian 50 cents in low grade, but it was clear because of other features that it was actually the much more common "with LCW". They "self-grade", which obviously they shouldn't do. (I think they're actually breaching eBay's policy by showing their grading on their holders.)
So I did contact them. They removed the item and thanked me.
"There are people who think that cherry picking is bad."
-Yes, just like there are collectors who despise TPG (Third Party Grading). And even I was in the 'anti-grading' camp at one time. People (collectors) change & I do feel that more experienced collectors realize that discovering a "gem" (or rarity) amongst the chaff (so to speak) is a good thing (a talent in fact). I've seen & heard the most outrageous bias from collectors in the past 40 (or so) years & am continued to be amazed at how narrow minded that crap is. (But at the same time must remind myself that I totally poo-poo'd world currency until recently).
I get what you're saying how some could see it as a bad thing BUT I don't advocate knowingly ripping off old folks (either) from their coins or old banknotes. Transparency is key (& sellers who don't exercise due diligence is on them). A few years ago I bought a collection off a senior & showed her my Charlton catalogue (the BV for each of her husband's notes). I did everything in my power to be as transparent as possible (though in the end I'm sure I got the 'short end of the stick' since several notes I bought had glue on them which I missed as she kept me in the darkest corner of her house while I inspected her late husband's notes). We all live & learn so it was a lesson learned (& I'm happy I gave her a generous payment for her late husband's collection).
But it is a seller's responsibility to label (& describe) a note (coin) correctly & if they fail to do this - it is nobodies fault but their own.
I would just say that for myself I dislike graded items because they don't fit with the rest of the collection the way I want to organize it. Some coin holders, too, are just plain ugly. BUT (and it's a big "BUT"), for rare items, one can buy with much more confidence when it's graded. I'm sure if I had my mismatched SN $50 graded, it would sell for a much better price than ungraded. (For now, it's just my Macklem/Carney $50 note since I didn't have one.)
As for note grading, I'm often quite surprised at the discrepancies. Recently I've seen a couple of notes graded VF that, honestly, I didn't think were even Fine. There seems to be much less inconsistency in coin grading, but maybe it's just that I'm not knowledgeable enough about banknote grading.
" BUT (and it's a big "BUT"), for rare items, one can buy with much more confidence when it's graded. I'm sure if I had my mismatched SN $50 graded, it would sell for a much better price than ungraded. " TPG: is all about assurance that required "peace of mind" essential for the more pricey stuff. After I inherited some money, I really wanted to buy myself a nice $20 I heard countless old-timers refer to as the "Shirley Temple" note. Most affordable notes in VG-F were in pretty rough shape and as the grade increased prices made my hair stand on end. It just had to be graded (if I was going to park that kind of money on a banknote). So, yeah, when it comes to the harder, more scarce items, you want it certified by somebody who has nothing to gain be giving it as objective evaluation (report) as possible.
"As for note grading, I'm often quite surprised at the discrepancies."
- Yes it a subjective art (to grade accurately). I think the problem was more for early graded notes (that too many certifiers have been persuaded to grade liberally) primarily in the US. US based certifiers grade thousands of more notes than BCS, CCCS & Canadian grading is much more conservative. [PMG probably grades more than all of the others combined] But it is important to keep in mind, that TPG for currency is relatively new in comparison to coin grading. It is understandable that it should go through some growing pains. Personally I like "Q" or "Original" paper & that is one of the reasons its grown on me. One of the most important rule of thumbs (I believe) is to remember that a lot of collectors are really just new to grading themselves, so expect to see liberal takes on UNC & try to become more critical yourself.
Anyway, back to errors. I really wanted a dramatic cutting error so I purchased this Philippines 100 Peso P-172a:
we called these "butterfly fold" errors but I've also heard them called "shark fins" before. The seller of this note described it as UNC but the folded paper has been folded a few times & it has been mishandled a little. I bought it b/c it was just so inexpensive & I liked it.
Aaaahh... the Princess Elizabeth $20 note. I bid on a couple of them on eBay, both rather low grade, and each time it went for a higher price than catalogue value. It doesn't help that it's the only note in the world which depicts Elizabeth before she became queen, so the demand is very high worldwide, especially in Commonwealth countries.
That's a good point you make, Serial_Number_8, about the different third-party graders. I don't pay attention enough to whether it's a Canadian or American grading company, but will keep that in mind from now on.
And that's quite a nice error you have -- I mean, the 100 Peso note. I suppose something like this is not going to happen with polymer notes (?).
Verweis : "Camerinvs"A) aaahh... the Princess Elizabeth $20 note. I bid on a couple of them on eBay, both rather low grade, and each time it went for a higher price than catalogue value. It doesn't help that it's the only note in the world which depicts Elizabeth before she became queen, so the demand is very high worldwide, especially in Commonwealth countries.
B) That's a good point you make, Serial_Number_8, about the different third-party graders. I don't pay attention enough to whether it's a Canadian or American grading company, but will keep that in mind from now on.
C) And that's quite a nice error you have -- I mean, the 100 Peso note. I suppose something like this is not going to happen with polymer notes (?).
A) yes, remember that the higher the denomination the lower the print run. This rule of thumb is especially true the farther you go back in smaller populated countries like Canada (islands & the rest of the Commonwealth besides GB). It took me 2-3 years to find the one I bought & I had to settle for the small seal (800,000 issued). Think about that for a minute. 10,000,000 for one prefix of today's notes so that was a 8% run of a normal prefix (even the 1937 Series all had 10M runs for each prefix except the "Ozzie" first signatures). The large seal English $20 had 200,000 (2500 less than the French version) but remains cheaper than the French version. When it comes to the very brief 1935 initial BOC series Charlton is dated the moment its printed (unfortunately). But there are still many notes at bargain BV (though this is decreasing as world demand increases). One thing I remember a fellow collector telling me (the same chap who started the CPMF in fact) about 18 years ago was how uncommon BOC notes were & incredibly cheap. He collected BEP/USA notes too & at that time Australian pre-decimal prices were going ballistic.
B) The majority of my collection has been graded by BCS & he has a far more critical eye than any certifier in the states. When I compare my PMG notes with notes in BCS holders I feel like BCS is about 2-4 grade points lower. I also have a few over graded PMG notes which I won b/c I didn't inspect the note close enough (or the contrast was high on the scan). So, the old saying still applies, access each note (don't trust the holder).
C) Thanks. There are many dramatic errors from that country & at fairly reasonable prices (but have continued to increase) & most are BIN or raw (ungraded) so you take your chances as they're fairly pricey (yet cheap compared to Canadian or US errors).
I think an error like that could happen with polymer but is less likely to escape detection & leaving the plant. Print errors are still going to happen (its a fairly complicated process to produce perfect notes) but the QC & technology keeps improving in leaps & bounds. For example, sheet replacements were substituted for Single Note Replacements (SNR) to save $. My understanding is that the each note is scanned for errors (probably since 2015).
Even that print run is remarkable given that the purchasing power of $20 in 1935 is equivalent to $394 in 2021 dollars (BoC Inflation Calculator). And a small seal is good enough!!
Great info (as usual) for the rest. -- Thanks!
By the way, our new Senior Deputy Governor will take office December 15th. So yet another new combination of signatures. I wonder whether some of the short-lived Lane/Macklem signed notes will become valuable...
Verweis : "Camerinvs"Hello all,
I suppose there are some banknotes with errors in many of the treasure chests of Numista members. I have only one:
○
Isn't this a "marked" note from like a bank robbery, where there's ink bullets will go off if open incorrectly?
Hi ngdawa, I believe it's an ink smear/smudge error. I actually showed it to a couple of dealers at a coin show and that's what they assume it was as well. Perhaps some other Numista members can say more on this?
I got it from a Mexican friend who had gotten it at the bank along with other brand new $20 notes. I never thought, back then, of asking whether his numbers were consecutive. Now I certainly would, but this was the only note with a smudge.
That is green smudge, yes? (not black?) It looks like a large amount of ink/solvent was released in error on the roller at the location that this note was passing through at the time.
As far as banknote robbery ink, it seems like US banks put red dye in for stolen notes.
Yes, exactly the same dark green color used for the notes. Good point.
I was wondering about this, i.e. whether they would use the exact same ink for the purpose of preventing theft. Here is a thread on this. And here are GoogleImage results for die pack ink bill robbery.
I believe that is a very dramatic (major) ink smear (E-2) error on the reverse of your $20. I've seen die pack spoiled currency & that looks nothing like it. Incidentally, Fred Bart wrote a comprehensive book on US paper money errors. Here's a link to a thread on various US errors over at CU (Collector's Universe) which has an image of the 4th Ed that Bart authored.
It's quite lucky that no-one pulled this extra little piece…
I have not seen much that is worthy of note (pun not intended) lately.
“Worthy of Note” ─ That would actually be a great title for a regular column on banknotes.
That is a nice one to get - the fish tail on it is so nearly off the edge!
Thanks guys!
What I liked about it was that it was PCGS certified (as I had heard a lot about manufactured, cut from sheets, “miss cut errors”) & the serial number 5000 which seemed to be double printed (somewhat) on the lower left side.
My son went to India in 2019 and came back with eight notes for a total value of ₹250. Wow! I thought ─ He should bring that back to the currency exchange! Well… that's not even worth $5. It's not surprising that he didn't use coins.
More relevant is that one of the low grade ₹10 has the same double printing on the lower serial number (49W 215437).
Your serial number reminds me that I got in my wallet a few months back a Canadian $5 Wilkins/Macklem with serial number INJ5050000. I saved it even though it's probably only VF+.
More relevant is that one of the low grade ₹10 has the same double printing on the lower serial number
Thanks for the info Camerinvs: likely my 10 Rupees has nothing unusual about its serial number then. Good to know (but I still like that its # 5000 of that series). I'm sure they make billions of these and that errors like that aren't that rare (just like the special serial numbers since only 6 digits). The longer the string of digits the harder (or more uncommon) the chances of getting a radar.
Here's a minor off-cut error on a 1954 Bank of Canada Modified $2.00
I suppose the fact that the printed frame of the top note shows --even if only so slightly-- greatly increases the appeal of such a note. I wouldn't be surprised if it doubled the value.
Stamp collectors call this a “neighbour”. It's very frequent in stamps. Well-centered stamps actually have a better value. But the early hand cut imperforated stamps have a better value if they have wide margins, and a “neighbour” adds a little premium as you get to see the full width of the margin between two stamps.
I suppose the fact that the printed frame of the top note shows --even if only so slightly-- greatly increases the appeal of such a note. I wouldn't be surprised if it doubled the value.
Generally speaking, the larger & more of the other note (or guide/colour bars) show, the greater the premium. Having said that, a lot of collectors also seek errors in older series so this 1954 $2 note with the minor error (but being “original” & UNC) will sell easily.
Stamp collectors call this a “neighbour”. It's very frequent in stamps. Well-centered stamps actually have a better value. But the early hand cut imperforated stamps have a better value if they have wide margins, and a “neighbour” adds a little premium as you get to see the full width of the margin between two stamps.
Yes, another astute observation Camerinvs. You will find that the DOC shinplasters & a lot of older pre-1935 notes slightly off-centre. The older the notes the more a collector desires a well-centred note (not off centred) as the older technology didn't produce perfectly centred notes as easily as today's printer's tech/production methods. Perfectly centred notes are quite rare back in the day.
Here's one of my first errors I bought & completely forgot about. It's in rather poor (VG - F) condition $10 from the original Journey series:
That's right Zac, its a mismatched serial number note (1 digit off).
1 off? It's 23 and 03. That's 20 off (or two digits off).
Mathematically, yes its 20 off, but when it comes to the number of incorrect digits - its considered a 1 digit off (or one digit mismatched). There is a higher premium for 2 or more digits mismatched.
Zac had one earlier in the thread (2017-11-11) which is 100,000 difference because only the first digit (of six) is different.
Camerinvs, I have often seen US banknotes with extreme left &/or extreme right (R) digit tumblers off but have rarely seen a BoC note with the left digits off (like Zac's BoE 1 pound). Typically, with the majority of BoC notes, I have seen the extreme right digits affected & that was why I was so impressed with your $50.00 mismatched polymer. It was the first 2 digit mismatched error I have seen where the 2nd & 3rd digit from the right were mismatched (& the first polymer note too).
Oddly enough, the only time I saw a 4 digit mismatch (on the R) was on a Journey $50 & I was approached to buy it. Sadly, I had just purchased a 1954 *R/R in UNC $2.00 for about the same price the $50 was being offered to me so I was tapped out. The seller who sold me the *R/R $2 snapped it up (with my money). I have seen a couple 3 & 4 digit mismatches on US $1.00 & they've been jammed/incorrect tumblers on the extreme left side as well.
This is all very interesting, Serial_Number_8. Well, I can imagine it's frustrating to see a seller snatch a note you would have liked to buy, but on top of it with your own money. Did he buy it for his own collection or to resell? If the latter, it means it was priced very low.
As for my $50 note, I think the next big show in Toronto I attend I'll bring it with me. Or maybe it's better to send it straight to a grading company? Do they attend big shows? I've never paid attention.
This is all very interesting, Serial_Number_8. Well, I can imagine it's frustrating to see a seller snatch a note you would have liked to buy, but on top of it with your own money. Did he buy it for his own collection or to resell? If the latter, it means it was priced very low.
-Yes, it was frustrating but I doubt I had a chance anyway. The collector-dealer met me & had a couple other *R/R $2 to sell to other collectors. The $50 was a 2004 Journey note and AU & I had little experience with errors (or assessing their value) at the time so it was “out of my league.” The collector-dealer had much more experience. Plus I had sold all my $50 & $100 & just recently made a firm commitment not to collect higher denominations.
As for my $50 note, I think the next big show in Toronto I attend I'll bring it with me. Or maybe it's better to send it straight to a grading company? Do they attend big shows? I've never paid attention.
-Back then, there was no Steve Bell (nor BCS) so I never even thought about grading. (He was probably just starting up but I was anti-grading back then). He was at the last RCNA workshop I attended in 2018 (I believe) on grading/preserving notes. I would grade that $50 error if it were mine. (Feel free to contact me if you want a better explanation why). You can contact him at BCS if you are interested in grading & you may be able to arrange to meet him at a show (but he'll want a submission form filled out). You could also submit it to PMG but you have to join PMG & it will be much more expensive (& take longer).
And as for my $50 mismatched serial number, I do agree I should have it graded. It's unfortunate I missed the recent CAND show in Hamilton when I was there, but I hope to attend a Toronto show this spring.
○ 
Probably - not seen others. I also wish I had kept one I had like this ... 
) numbers. I've never really cared until now... 
○
