There IS a possibilty of redesigned $2 bills with the next currency redesign

Let me explain:

I was looking at a thread on Where's George?, and Excelsior said he asked the Fed how many $2 bills will be printed, and here was the conversation:

[HR][/HR]Quote:


[TD="class: alt2"]Originally Posted by Excelsior
... That would make this year's $2 order work out to 139 million notes. But since the 0.9 billion figure looks to be rounded, the $2 order could actually be anywhere between 89 million and 188 million, which is a pretty wide range.... Still, even at the large end of that range, it's a smaller printing than the Series 2003A $2's, and closer to the size of the Series 1995 $2 printing.
[/TD]

So I wanted to know this answer badly enough that I tried asking the Fed directly. And I got the following reply:

Quote:


[TD="class: alt2"]Originally Posted by the Fed
Thank you for recent inquiry regarding the quantity of notes the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System included in its fiscal year 2012 print order with the U.S. Treasury’s Bureau of Engraving and Printing. One of the main goals of the Federal Reserve is to meet the public’s demand for paper currency. Our FY 2012 print order included a total of 134.4 million $2 notes, which we estimate will meet the public’s demand for $2 notes during both FY 2012 and FY 2013.
[/TD]

So not only do we know how many $2's are on order for 2012, but it sounds like we also know when the *next* printing is to be expected: 2014.

This printing of 134.4 million $2's will be shorter than any previous $2 series except Series 2003 (which had 121.6 million $2's). In comparison, Series 1995 had 153.6 million, Series 2003A had 230.4 million, and Series 1976 had a whopping 575.36 million.

Usage of $2's would appear to be accelerating, too. The Series 2003A printing met demand from 2006 to 2012; that works out to just under 40 million Toms per year. But this new printing is projected to last only two years; that's over 65 million Toms per year! (Maybe the Fed is just being conservative in its planning, and there's a chance that this new printing will last three years after all?)

__________________________________________

So, if the Fed is only ordering enough (current style) $2 bills to last until possibly 2014, and due to the fact that the next currency redesign is believed to be starting around 2013-2014, because it will be 10-11 years since the Kodachrome Series 2004 $20 bill came out, and also, due to the fact that the new law that passed, stated ALL denominations except the $1 bill be redesigned to assist the visually impaired and blind, I am guessing that, like with the BEP printing old non-colorized $100 bills to fill in the gap until they can get the Series 2009 colorized $100s out, that they are also printing just enough (Series 2009?) non-colorized small-head $2 bills to last until the next currency redesign, when they can come out with a new design. And also, that BEP worker may not have been able to tell me anything about a possible $2 bill redesign, by law or some rule in place, and thus, the "That is unknown at this time" response. But I am guessing that, IF they do redesign the $2 bill, it won't be anything major with security features, except maybe some color, possibly a watermark (I heard many years ago that watermarks are "cheap" features in paper, so why not?) some larger numerals on more white space, and maybe little speckles of little "02s" on the front and back (Just like the new $5 bill, but I still wonder to this day "Why little "05s"? Why not just single didget "5s"?)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Time to find another star.

 

This is interesting. I wonder if they will print more 2003a series or change to 2003b or 2009?

 

It will likely be " Series 2009" for the current style $2 bills that they print for 2012-2014, with Geither and Rios's signatures on them, however, if they do issue new design $2 bills in 2014, the redesigned $2 bills would likely be "Series 2014", as would the other 2014 redesigned bills (unless the redesign starts in 2013, then it would be "Series 2013") The series date changes if either the design of the bill changes, if we get a new Secretary of the Treasury and new Treasurer, or just a new Secreatary of the Treasury. If just the Treasurer is replaced, we get a suffix letter. Like, say we were on Series 2006. Then Obama picked a new Secretary and Treasuerer who took office in 2009, thus "Series 2009" now, if the Treasurer ever get replaced and not the Secretary of the Treasury, they will start printing "Series 2009A" bills. And if that treasurer gets replaced, they would be "Series 2009B" Hope this helps. (However, I simply do not understand WHY the colorized and last series of the non-colorized $5 bill were BOTH "Series 2006" The colorized $5 bill should have been "Series 2008" when it came out, and I also do not understand these new "Series 2006A" $100 bills they are printing until the new colorized $100 bills are ready. Why not just keep it "Series 2006?" Or make it "Series 2010")

 

That helps a lot, actually. I didn't fully understand how the decisions were made regarding date and suffix changes. I'm going to save this information for future reference.

 

$2.00bills where do you get them???

 

Because the 0's are the whole point of that security feature. Color photocopiers are programmed to recognize and reject any image that contains that specific pattern of small colored circles. You can find it on many countries' banknotes from the past decade or so. The U.S. chose to turn the little circles into denomination numerals (05, 10, &c.; many other countries' notes just use them as part of a colorful background design.

(FYI: it's only color photocopiers that recognize currency by looking for these circles. Scanners that won't scan currency are looking for something else. Why is anybody's guess....)

 

The $5 used "Series 2006" twice because the BEP painted themselves into a corner, basically....

When the Kodachrome redesign began, during the Marin-Snow signature combination, the colorized bills were Series 2004 while the denominations that hadn't been colorized yet were Series 2003. The 2004 date was entirely fictitious--the 2004 $20 was both printed and issued in 2003!--but the BEP chose different series dates in order to distinguish the two designs.

Moving on to the Cabral-Snow signatures, the two designs became Series 2003A and Series 2004A. The $10 was redesigned at the same time the signatures changed, so it went directly from 2003 to 2004A. Notice that these first Kodachrome $10's weren't Series 2005, for the year they came out; they were Series 2004A, the same series designation used for the other Kodachrome denominations that shared the same signatures.

So then the Cabral-Paulson signatures came along, and due to the new Secretary's signature, the BEP designated all denominations with those signatures as Series 2006. That was a bad idea; they should've used (say) Series 2006 for the old-style designs and Series 2007 for the denominations that were Kodachrome, fudging one of the dates the same way they did with 2003/2004. Why? Because the redesign of the $5 happened several months after that signature change, and then the BEP was in trouble. The old-style $5 with the Cabral-Paulson signatures was called Series 2006; the redesigned $5 should, according to precedent, have gotten the same series designation as the other Kodachrome designs...which was *also* Series 2006. Oops. (Note that it's definitely *not* Series 2008, for the same reason the $10 wasn't Series 2005.)

So we ended up with two successive $5 series that are both called Series 2006. This is likely to confuse currency collectors and cataloguers for approximately forever, I'm afraid....

On the other hand, the reason why the current $100's are Series 2006A is less clear. The BEP issued an explanation for that one, seen here, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to anyone. (It appears that they're being consistent in applying this new rule, at least: People touring the Fort Worth BEP have reported that it's now finally printing Kodachrome $100's again, and their serial numbers begin with L. Sounds like they're probably Series 2009A, for the same reason the old-style $100's are Series 2006A.)

 

Numbers:

Does this mean that the Feds may have actually worked out the kinks in the printing process of the Kodachrome $100s, now that they are printing more? And even though I know its been said that we will be given a six months notice of the release of the Kodechrome $100s, do you think a late 2012 release date is possible, instead of a 2013 introduction? Or do you think they will wait until after the Presidential eletion first?

And also, what do you think of my theory about possible redesigned $2 bills? Wouldn't you think that it would only be logical to print a two year supply of the current style $2s, to last until the next currency redesign, that there may be a possiblity, if even a slom possibility of a new design for the $2 to come out around 2014 or so? Like I said, the only reason I feel they will redesign the $2 this time around, would be for features for the visually impaired.

Oh, and did you get my PM I sent to you yesterday?

 

Yes, the Federal Reserve's New Currency Budget for 2012 said that the printing problems with the new $100's are, if not entirely resolved, at least mitigated to the point that production can go forward. It sounds like the Kodachrome $100's might still have a somewhat higher rate of star notes than we've been used to in recent years, but that sometimes happens with a new production process (remember that Series 1957, the first series to be printed by the dry-intaglio process, was over 10% star notes!), and isn't terribly alarming.

That same document, though, indicates that 1.5 billion Kodachrome $100's are scheduled to be printed in FY2012--enough to "begin building inventories before issuance". If the 2012 production is only going to "begin building inventories", then it doesn't really sound like a 2012 release date is still being considered. I guess we never know for sure until they tell us, though....

I doubt that the election has anything to do with the timing, but the changing seasonal demand for currency does. The Fed doesn't want to try to bring out a new design during what's already their busy season, around the Christmas holidays. If you look at the past few new design releases, there's a clear seasonal pattern:

February 10 (originally scheduled Kodachrome $100)
March 2 (Kodachrome $10)
March 13 (Kodachrome $5)
March 25 (big-head $100)
April 13 (Bicentennial $2)
May 24 (big-head $5 and $10)
September 24 (big-head $20)
September 28 (Kodachrome $50)
October 9 (Kodachrome $20)
October 27 (big-head $50)

So I'd say that we should be looking for either a spring or a fall release date for the Kodachrome $100. I guess there's an outside chance for the fall of 2012, but I think the spring of 2013 looks a whole lot more likely given the wording of that Fed document.

As for the $2, I think that with all the $100 production that's going on now, they decided to print the smallest batch of $2's that was worthwhile. When they printed a biggish quantity of Series 2003A $2's in 2006, they were deliberately trying to make sure that they wouldn't need $2's again until after the Kodachrome $100 startup was over--that's why they printed six years' worth of $2's at one time--but of course the delays with the Kodachrome $100 threw a monkey wrench in that planning. Now I'm thinking they probably want to print just enough $2's to tide them over until the $100 mess is fully resolved, and then get the Kodachrome $100's back on the presses.

It's possible that the $2 will be included in the next redesign, for the legal reasons that you bring up...but it seems very unlikely that the $2 would be the *first* denomination redesigned, which it'd almost have to be by your suggested schedule. The past two redesign cycles began with the $100 and the $20 respectively, the two most heavily used denominations (aside from the $1). That way, people became familiar with the general features of the new design as quickly as possible. I wouldn't expect the next redesign to reverse that pattern and start with the *least*-used denomination.

 

Numbers:

In referrence to your post #7: Couldn't an unfriendly government simply build their own copiers to bypass this program feature? It shouldn't be a hard thing to do. As I read it, your post says it's a feature of the copier and not the currency. Secondly, I need to reread your post #8 a couple of times. No need to wait, I am already confused by the statement. I didn't know there were two separately issued $5, 2006 series, to begin with. :>(

 

The bank?

 

Thank You, Numbers,

Hopefully, if we have to wait until 2013 for the new Kodachrome $100s to be released, maybe it will be around Febuary again, but I know you know WAY more about this stuff than I do.

As for the $2 bill in the next redesign, if they do decide to redesign it, I'm wondering if they will start with an important denomination again, like the $20 or $50, but I just can't see them redesigning the $100 again, until they get a little deeper into the other denominations, due to the fact that the Kodachrome $100 will have only just been released. So, I am thinking, if the $2 gets a redesign, it will either be the last denomination or second to last denomination to be redesigned. Second to the $100 being last, of course. What is your opinion? And, have you, too, heard that the next redesign is coming around 2013-2014? I'm not 100% sure, but I thought I read that somewhere, and they will be one year behind schedule of they wait until 2014, because, as we both know, the Kodachrome $20s came out in 2003, even though they were Series 2004, so if they start again in 2014, instead of 2013, thats 11 years since the last redesign started. Darn! I can't believe its actually been that long.

Oh, and, have you talked to the BEP or Fed about when the BEP monthly reports will start being posted on the BEP website again? I miss your reports on Where's George? on what's being printed so much, that its driving me batty.

 

Sure, but why would they want to? It'd be a lot easier to just add the circle-patterns to their own currency, and keep their people from counterfeiting that either.

If you're talking about actual government-sponsored counterfeiting, then they're going to be using technology better than photocopiers! The safeguards against photocopying are designed to stop some teenage kid with a $5 bill and too much spare time; they're not going to hinder professional criminals.

But today the professional criminals actually account for a minority of all counterfeits, which was certainly not the case a few decades ago. That's why it's now worthwhile to include security features in the currency that are designed specifically to make small-time counterfeiting harder.

 

Wild guess: Since the point of the redesign is to help the visually impaired, they'll probably start with the most common denominations in domestic circulation ($20-$10-$5). But I have no idea really.

As for the timing of the production reports, all anyone will say is that they'll be posted when they're available. I do wish the BEP would put a bit more effort into making them available soonish....

 

I doubt that the election has anything to do with the timing, but the changing seasonal demand for currency does. The Fed doesn't want to try to bring out a new design during what's already their busy season, around the Christmas holidays. If you look at the past few new design releases, there's a clear seasonal pattern:

February 10 (originally scheduled Kodachrome $100)
March 2 (Kodachrome $10)
March 13 (Kodachrome $5)
March 25 (big-head $100)
April 13 (Bicentennial $2)
May 24 (big-head $5 and $10)
September 24 (big-head $20)
September 28 (Kodachrome $50)
October 9 (Kodachrome $20)
October 27 (big-head $50)

So I'd say that we should be looking for either a spring or a fall release date for the Kodachrome $100. I guess there's an outside chance for the fall of 2012, but I think the spring of 2013 looks a whole lot more likely given the wording of that Fed document.

Yes Numbers, the BEP generally releases new designs in either spring or fall. I'm hoping spring of 2012 wil lfinally see some of the new $100's. At first I wanted to get a few star examples, but now after looking at the sheer number of stars, I might just go for the one that has the smallest run total as an example.

 

sorry, the first part of my reply was a quote from Numbers' previous post. Must have cut too much off to show that. Sorry guys!

 

You mean the spring of 2013, right? Spring of 2012 would seem WAY too early for a release date, if they only just begun printing them again, just as Numbers said they did. But I wish the release of the new $100s could start in spring of this year as well.

 

Well spring of 2012 seems like it's most likely not going to happen, but you never know what the BEP will do depending on how many they have available with the star note runs included in with the regular notes. So, most likely fall 2012 or spring 2013, but I can still hold out hope that it will be earlier!

 

So can I, pal. So can I. Fall of 2012 wouldn't be too bad, because it will be here before you know it. Spring of 2013 would be a little less so.