I know there was none $50 in 1963 series. Just as in 1963B, 1977A, 1995 and several other series where other denominations were printed. I thought there was nothing interesting in this fact untill I saw that "Standard Guide to small-size U.S. paper money" 9th edition actually mentioned SERIES 1963 GREEN SEAL in the Fifty Dollar Notes section and stated that "None printed" - see p.259. It didn't mention series 1963B, 1977A, 1995 $50 at all as I would expected. So, why $50 1963 series mentioned at all? Is there any story behind the note or behind the book?
man it's refreshing to see someone post about something that they actually read in a coin (or currency) book!
Well why should they? The Series 1963 A $50 was printed due to the design change "In God we Trust" with that change several other elements on the lower part of the reverse were excluded ie..(a few automobiles)...the next Series for the $50 was 1969 when another design change came about, the "seal design change" The Series 1969 B only came about due to the Kabis/Banuelos administration change. So you start to get the picture? Only when a major design change or administration change occurs does a new series come into play. Look at all the years you mention and it will become self evident. Thats the cool thing about notes -vs- coins..we do have news Series Dates every year..so why mention something that never happened?? So why is it that the $50 were mentioned at all you say?? Well other denominations were printed that year, but no $50s. RickieB
Please take no offense to my remarks about this but I simply beg to differ! This fourm is full of factual information not only from current books but historical archives as well. Maybe you should stick around and read some of them before passing judgement!! RickieB
I think that I have been here long enough to know, RickieB. I like coin collecting as a hobby. Lately this forum has been concentrating on investment, precious metal prices and where can I find great coins for cheap. I thought it was nice that someone was discussing something read about in an actual book rather than speculating. It was a compliment to the OP and a bit of a political statement.
RickieB, You've missed the point twice. First you totally ignored my question and explain why 1963A and 1969 we printed. I guess you tried to say that there was no reason to print 1963 because expected changes but I cannot except this argument because there were other denominations in all 1963, 1963A and 1969. The argument that "The Series 1963 A $50 was printed due to the design change "In God we Trust" " doesn't stand it's ground - if there were 1963 $50 it would have the motto just any other denominations and then 1963A would be printer not because of motto but for the same reason why 1963A of other denominations was printed. Second, in the end you said that $50 1963 was mentioned because other denominations were printed that year. This argument also strange - 1963B, 1977A, 1995 also fall into the category "other denominations were printed that year" but $50 is not mentioned in the book for these series, so I cannot except this argument also.
I think there are two different questions here. The first question is: "Why were there no Series 1963 $50.00 notes printed." The second question is: "Why is the Series 1963 $50.00 note mentioned in the catalog since none were printed when other series that were not printed are not mentioned in the catalog?" The answer to the first question is that none were printed because none were ordered by the Federal Reserve. The BEP only prints what it is asked to print by the FED. If the FED did not need any because they had enough older series on hand, then they would not have ordered them. It is the same reason no $2.00 notes were printed between the 1976 Series and the 1995 Series. There were no Series 1963 $100.00 notes printed, either. That fact is noted in the catalog also. As to the second question, I think only Schwartz or Lindquist can answer it with any authority. I suspect that there may have been some editorial reason for including the comment in an earlier edition (it is in my 7th edition) and it has remained ever since even though the need for it may no longer be evident. In the 7th edition, the comment about the Series 1963 $50.00 notes is followed by a comment concerning the fact that star notes were printed in staggered runs beginning with Series 1963 so there may be star serial numbers higher than the number of notes printed. This same comment about the star notes appears in the listings for $100.00 notes also but it appears between Series 1974 and Series 1977 while mentioning Series 1963. This is obviously misplaced since the comment should appear prior to the listing for Series 1963A in the $100.00 notes. The point is that minor editorial mistakes are not unusual in paper money catalogs.
MikeNoodle... I was refering to the paper Money Forum as it's own entity. While I know you have been around a while and I read your threads... I was under the impression you were making that remark about the Paper Money Forum...thats how I read it. RickieB
vrt... It would not be the first time that my interpretation was incorrect. After reading what you wrote I simply looked it up in earlier versions, wrote what I saw and read...I suppose I looked for something wrong, not just misssing or not mentioned. I think lettow said it best in this case. When I collected coins I noticed that the Red Books over the years had editor erros as well...it could be just that simple an error, oversight, failure to mention..heck who knows.. The thing I got most from this is that nothing is perfect, me, you, any author, and/ or editor.. no one or nothing is ever perfect. RickieB
More precisely, the $50's that were printed at the time were Series 1950D. Remember that the transition from the 18-subject printings to the 32-subject printings was gradual, so Series 1950D and 1963 were in production at the same time, and then Series 1950E and 1963A were in production at the same time. The FRNs apparently made the switch to 32-subject printing in increasing order by denomination--the $5 and $10 had time to get quite a bit of production in Series 1963, the $20 had just a quite small 1963 printing before switching to 1963A, and the $50 and $100 were never printed as 1963 at all, going directly to 1963A. As to the original question, I've wondered that myself, but I have no idea. It *does* look a little odd to see a Series 1963A without a Series 1963, so it makes sense that the book would include a small comment so that the reader wouldn't think a series had been left out by mistake. But the $10 and $20 went directly from Series 1985 to Series 1988A without a Series 1988, and I don't believe the catalog makes any comment on those.... I dunno. (This one's actually a less minor mistake than it may appear: the gaps in the star note printings began in Series 1935D/1950A, not Series 1963. But for some reason all the catalogs clear back to O'Donnell seem to ignore this fact....)
I apologize if I came off that way. It was definitely not making a statement about the paper money forum and I apologize if anyone thought that I was.
I hope this is not too off topic and mean no disrespect to anyone who has posted here on this thread. This Paper Money Forum is a place of learning for all of us who engage in the activity of Paper Money interest's. I will be the first to admit that I am not a qualified expert by any means...for the most part, I am a collector, not a statistician. Regards to all... RickieB
