Two Tone 1954 Canadian Two Dollar Bill misprint

News: Registration is free here at the CPMF!

This is an unusual canadian 2 dollar note that I've come into. The "queen side" is printed in green ink with an absence of the addition of the ordinary red ink (except for the serial). The other side is the standard colour.

This appears to be a misprint.

The details are as follows:

P/G 8736430 Lawson - Bouey

The bill is clearly circulated but in reasonably good condition.

Any thoughts on the potential value/history of this bill?

Marc

[attachment deleted by admin]

Hello,

Is this possible to have a scan of the note ?


Patrick

Hello,

Is this possible to have a scan of the note ?


Patrick

I've amended the post to include an image which shows the front and back of the bill. What do you think?

Normally the coloured part of the face of a 1954 note has very tiny microprinting in it which shows the denomination. Can you see any of the tiny printing, and if so, what does it say?

Normally the coloured part of the face of a 1954 note has very tiny microprinting in it which shows the denomination. Can you see any of the tiny printing, and if so, what does it say?

That is a good question. Oddly, that entire red colour layer seems absent. It's as though they only printed the green data on that side of the bill, and the other side was printed normally. So, to be clear, wherever red would turn up on the "face" side of the bill, there is only plain paper.

I've considered bleaching or other colour loss, but the rest of the bill is in tact and shows no signs of this, even small details in green and the serials.

So there is NO coloured printing on the face (except for the serial numbers), correct?

Let me get this straight. No brown-red tint on the face, but there seems to be a green tint in it's place. Are you referring the lines on the face of the note?

So there is NO coloured printing on the face (except for the serial numbers), correct?

Let me get this straight. No brown-red tint on the face, but there seems to be a green tint in it's place. Are you referring the lines on the face of the note?

Rather than that, there is no colour or printing at all where the red tint should be whatsoever. There is only the green (well, blackish, I suppose as I noted you referred to coloured vs non-coloured. My mind sort of wants to call it green, but I suppose it's just "dark") printed area on the face side (aside from the serials). The alternate side has red printing as normal.

If you enlarge the pic I've attached I think you can make out this effect pretty well.

This note is in a fairly low grade and it was probably in active circulation for at least two years. It's difficult to know what happened to the note during that period. If the note had left the printing company with an obvious error of colour then I feel that someone would have removed it from circulation very early on and that it would now be in EF/AU or better condition. The fact that it circulated for so long suggests to me that the colour might have been changed chemically or via intense sunlight or something like that. On the other hand, the pink micro-tint "Bank of Canada" underprint does appear to be missing in this case so it could be a genuine error. However, it would be necessary to see a clearer high-resolution scan before rendering a firm decision.

It's well known that some people play "games" with notes and I personally know one of these annoying people. These games include shrinking notes to half their original size, peeling notes into separate uniface fronts and separate uniface backs (I've been offered many examples of this thin-paper rubbish but I still don't know how it's done), removing serial numbers, changing colours, etc., etc. These "games" should always be borne in mind when making decisions on heavily circulated "error" notes.

This note is in a fairly low grade and it was probably in active circulation for at least two years. It's difficult to know what happened to the note during that period. If the note had left the printing company with an obvious error of colour then I feel that someone would have removed it from circulation very early on and that it would now be in EF/AU or better condition. The fact that it circulated for so long suggests to me that the colour might have been changed chemically or via intense sunlight or something like that. On the other hand, the pink micro-tint "Bank of Canada" underprint does appear to be missing in this case so it could be a genuine error. However, it would be necessary to see a clearer high-resolution scan before rendering a firm decision.

It's well known that some people play "games" with notes and I personally know one of these annoying people. These games include shrinking notes to half their original size, peeling notes into separate uniface fronts and separate uniface backs (I've been offered many examples of this thin-paper rubbish but I still don't know how it's done), removing serial numbers, changing colours, etc., etc. These "games" should always be borne in mind when making decisions on heavily circulated "error" notes.

Yes, I'm really not educated about this stuff at all, and I can tell you've got a lot of knowledge. Your points make a lot of sense. I'd heard of the concept of money bleaching tricks though, and being naturally skeptical, I'm bearing that concept in mind.

As for your point about the age of the bill, that seems very logical. I think it's possible though, that it wasn't realized that a bill like this could be of value and it wasn't placed in a sleeve until it had been shown (and handled) for many years to everyone who passed through. In any event it's definitely in considerably 'used' condition.

I've attached a closer view of a few areas of the bill. It was difficult to have a close/high res/low compression image while staying under the attachment size cap. But I think that this closer view might give you a better idea of what it looks like. I tried to focus on areas where there are subtle printing blends from the dark colour and the serials that (as a total layman mind you) I might expect would have been affected in any sort of bleaching process.

 Was this note on ebay recently? I've seen one like this not very long ago.

 The serial number in the close ups look blurry or smeared mostly the top of the zero and it just looks splotchy.

Was this note on ebay recently? I've seen one like this not very long ago.

 The serial number in the close ups look blurry or smeared mostly the top of the zero and it just looks splotchy.

As far as I know this bill had been in my aunt's drawer, until recently, for at least 20 or more years. I'm really not sure how long exactly though.

I do notice that smudge effect on the zero too in this picture, but I'm not sure that it's really there because I recall the serials looking kind of crisp. I have to check when I get home. I think this might be a result of compression/artifacting. Then again, I'm not sure.  I will update this post when I figure it out.

As for that ebay auction you saw, do you recall what the reaction was to that bill? I have no clue what to expect if I can determine it's legitimate and therefore actually consider selling it.

 Well after a bit of searching I found the auction. The note from the auction has the same prefix letters. It's in a little better condition and if you look behind the Bouey signature you can see some of the micro printing that should be all over the face of the note.

Here is the link:

 http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/980-Error-note-BC-378-1954-2-PG8923963-ERROR_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQhashZitem300236721897QQitemZ300236721897

Well after a bit of searching I found the auction. The note from the auction has the same prefix letters. It's in a little better condition and if you look behind the Bouey signature you can see some of the micro printing that should be all over the face of the note.

Here is the link:

 http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/980-Error-note-BC-378-1954-2-PG8923963-ERROR_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQhashZitem300236721897QQitemZ300236721897

Thanks so much for hunting down that auction. I see in his notes he seems to think that low ink lead to a blankness in that field. Interesting theory, I wonder if it's valid.

As for as I know, this item did not sell in the Auction. I personally looked at the note before the auction, and do still question the authenticity of the colour variant.

The Auction itself cannot confirm that this is a true error “Off colour on front probably due to low ink. VF” was their statement, and this places the note in the fence with collectors, some believing it is a real error and others believing it is a fabricated error.

At $325 + the juice, I did not see value in this note as an investment note, with the “yes it is”  “no it’s not” stigma.

If one must put a value on such a note, and especially due to its condition, I would consider this to be a possible minor error with a premium of a few dollars over face up to a max of $30. Or it is worth as much as the buyer will pay.

As for as I know, this item did not sell in the Auction. I personally looked at the note before the auction, and do still question the authenticity of the colour variant.

The Auction itself cannot confirm that this is a true error “Off colour on front probably due to low ink. VF” was their statement, and this places the note in the fence with collectors, some believing it is a real error and others believing it is a fabricated error.

At $325 + the juice, I did not see value in this note as an investment note, with the “yes it is”  “no it’s not” stigma.

If one must put a value on such a note, and especially due to its condition, I would consider this to be a possible minor error with a premium of a few dollars over face up to a max of $30. Or it is worth as much as the buyer will pay.

Thanks for your thoughts on it. Seems like these things are tough to nail down conclusively at times, based on what I've been reading and the helpful insight you folks have been offering.

I might just "let the market decide" but before doing that I'd much rather be more sure that it's an actual printing error. I'm not interested in selling it if it's been faked. It's not fair to the buyer.