Hey all, I've been talking to the seller and trying to figure out why this is 2004-A $10 note is in an error holder, with the descriptor: FW Error Star Note. I thought it might be similar to the FW 295 error, but I could find no evidence of that. What do you guys think? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200840048007&ssPageName=ADME:X:RTQ:US:1123
That is weird, I don't see an error. I was checking maybe an inverted star or maybe a mismatched serial number but I can't identify anything.
Ok I also thought an inverted star. So I went to the site and asked " the Question" Lets see if they answer. I think the location is Kansas, when the item is from, could it be Lynn Knight?
The only thing that I can think of that's not obvious without holding it up to the light, is the watermark.
OK so I checked out my ebay site and emailed this person a question about the note . I recieved an answer fairly quick.the person is saying "not sure" "think itis the wrong plate Number. Oh well at least i got a answer. Thanks ebay member bye 3339. Now this is my take ... Just look and see the error yourself? I really can't see the error. Thats one note I will pass on.
If it's a error note, then it's not obvious in the picture, Could be the water mark, 1. missing, 2. upside down, 3. on the wrong end. Last of all, the security strip missing. The only other would have been a printing missing, and all seem to be. Error as far as I can tell, it not obvious. You know that all Forth Worth notes are mule notes. That's because the front plate # is smaller than the back plate #. This is not an error.
Edit Reason: Revised explanation. Fort Worth notes are not mules. A mule is by definition a note with face plates and back plates from different series. In the early days of small size notes, around 1938, new back plates were introduced with larger "macro" plate numbers. This change actually prompted the BEP to advance the notes a series, even though the signatures did not change. Back plates were changed across denominations in different series, but this was not done very quickly because the reverse designs did not change. The first mules to appear were: 1935 $1 Silver Cert 1928C $2 Legal Tender 1934 $5 Silver Cert 1928B $5 Legal Tender 1934 $5 FRN 1934 $10 Silver Cert 1934 $10 FRN 1934 $20, $50, $100 FRN As I mentioned, the series advanced due to the change to larger plate numbers. Mules of the above series came out with older (micro) face plates paired with newer (macro) back plates. This was the case for the majority of the first mules from this era. The series year/letter were advanced not because of a change in signatures, but simply because of the new plate number size. But because the designs of the front and back did not change, and the BEP had a policy of using all unused printing plates, a large number of notes were printed with micro/macro combinations. Aside from a small run of 1935A $1 silver certificates, the majority of mules had micro front plates and macro back plates. But over time, the newer face plates with macro numbers were being used on all the presses. There was no possibility of using micro face plates, because once the signatures were changed, new plates had to be produced. But then, what occurred was a different kind of mule. The newer macro face plates were sometimes paired with the older micro back plates. That's the opposite of what happened before! As time passed, these mules became rarer as the BEP used up all of the left-over plates. The last mules of this era were the 1950 $50 and $100 bills. So all later mules had newer macro face plates with older micro back plates. Both combinations of small size mules actually exist. There's likely many more mules in more modern notes, by the strict definition of it. But because the back plate numbers and positions are the same, it's impossible to differentiate them without actually knowing the plate numbers for print runs. In the time of large size notes, the plate number sizes were all the same. They were in a different position on the reverse design as the series changed, however. So a Speelman White or Elliot White mule for example, will have a back plate number in the spot where Burke notes had it. View attachment 213425 View attachment 213426 The plate number position did not change for small size notes, however; although there are some unique errors where the plate number was engraved on the wrong side! With the opening of the Fort Worth facility, the back plate numbers for the notes printed at the FW facility were increased in size. The Washington DC notes kept the smaller back plate number and the FW notes had a larger back plate number. This is the case for all properly printed notes. They are not inherently mules despite the different size back plate numbers. The 295 Error occurred on the 1995 $1 series note, where the size of the back plate number on the Forth Worth note was actually the size of the Washington DC back plate number. See: http://snorkack.nfshost.com/fw295/ I can't tell from the blurry photo, but I have a feeling that the back plate number for this note is the smaller Washington DC size. Hence the notation "FW Error"
Maybe it's just because it's in a PCGS holder. I've seen a lot of "errors" in their holders Bill Collector
I messaged the seller, and he confirmed a watermark error. He is sending me images through email later today.
The seller sent images of the note to me, and the watermark is correct (President Hamilton). The security strip is also accurate for the note. Unfortunately, I am unable to determine what makes this an error note.
