I've had this in my small collection for a long time, and always thought it was some type of doctored note. I'm always skeptical about supposed errors or unusual characteristics on any bill or coin because there are so many fakes in our hobby. Just recently when I decided to get more serious about collecting currency I bought several books and begun to educate myself. One book was the Standard Catalog of United States Paper Money and in the section at the back on error notes they had a picture of a note that looked exactly like this. They described it as a "missing 2nd printings" error. I was wondering if you guys think that's what I have here, or is this a fake. The one difference I can see on my note compared to the one in the book is that mine shows a shadow image of the front and their's doesn't. If it did miss the second printing because another sheet was on top of it, why would the image show at all. Any comments on it would be appreciated. Thanks much. Bruce
Looks good! The condition brings the value down a lot. But it's still a keeper. Nice find! *chemically altered- see post #9
this note has been through the laundry or through dry cleaning. different chemicals will effect different inks. I have seen notes similar to this after pulled them out of a pair of pants that had just been washed. Richard
I'm torn on this one. While it looks like it could be a legit 2nd print error, Ziggy raises a valid point since the missing plate isn't missing but its rather severely faded. Possibly an under inked plate but that would likely be caught in quality control checks before leaving the BEP. The tattered look of the notes does have those characteristics of being laundered. To be conclusive the note would need to be sent into PMG or PCGS Currency for authentification, which is what I generally advise to anyone who may be looking to resell an error note since so many fakes exist and the certification affords buyer and seller alike greater faith in trusting the note as a legitmate error. With this note I am inclined to believe it may not be an authentic error, but that there may have been a paper quality issue that lent itself to the ink from that plate lifting off. Perhaps the sizing (a binder applied to the surface of the paper to help it accept ink/printing) may have been missing, too thin or broke down at some point, then later when the note was in circulation, getting rubbed and washed, the ink had nothing to cling to and lifted away. That's just a hypothetical scenario and I'm uncertain such a paper problem is allowed to categorized these as errors of this kind. Very curious and very fun to see this note.
What concerns me is how the ink is missing on the fold lines on the reverse. Like you said Kris, I would want this one looked at by a reputable TPG. Under inked notes happen as mine shows but the excessive wear on this note also concerns me. How much wear would you really expect from an severely under-inked note? Someone would have tucked it away before it saw this much circulation. So there are some red flags that make it suspecious enough that it should be checked.
I'm going to agree with you guys. Upon closer inspection there is the faded image sitting in the background which makes me think that the note was altered chemically. Most of these errors that I've seen don't have any indication of the missing printing.
Thanks for all the good info guys. I always felt that it might be an error manufactured by somebody who had too much time on his hands. Although I have no experience with error currency, the faded image as well as the heavy wear seemed odd and out of place. As Darryl said it's highly unlikely that this note would have circulated for so long with half the details missing. I wish I could remember where and when I got it, but I know I've had it for a long, long time. That's what I like about posting on C/T, school is always in session...even on Sunday. Thanks again, your comments are appreciated. Bruce
If this was a geniune missing second-print error there would be no image of the face. The note has been severly washed.
I think we assumed it was under-inked (not missed) like the one in the thread I mentioned in my 1st post. It may have been washed but that doesn't prove that it wasn't under-inked to begin with.
The remnant of the face image appears too full to me to be underinked; I still vote washed. Besides, the severe circulation of the note indicates this as the likely explanation.
Yeah, they did the Alterations to obsoletes as well...makes me wonder...how do you have the time, patience, and skills?
My guess is under inked error. My thought is if the washing machine or any other process to fake it was used it would have also affected the reverse, which looks to show normal wear for a highly circulated note.
it might have not been intentionally faked. it has no doubt been washed(probably washing machine). i have seen 50-100 notes easily like that during my years as a bank teller
This series was known to have a problem with the ink on the face. It is probably a combination of both that problem and subsequent handling.
