PMG: What is the fate of 1.4 billion printed but rejected $100 notes?

What is the fate of 1.4 billion printed but rejected $100 notes?

A new article for those interested and following the much delaid release of the newly designed $100 notes.

By Michele Orzano Coin World Staff [2/21/2012]

BEP considers options and seeks solution to another printing flaw

Check out the link above for the full story on the PMG web site and details about another problem with these notes, referred to as, "crow's feet" — a defect that occurs in the paper surrounding the 3-D security ribbon. According to the OIG report the flaw appears “as small wrinkles or creases that initiate at the ribbon and grow outward at a small angle.”

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Krispy:

I would like to think option #2 but proven how our Gov spends $$$ I say they will go with Option #1.

 

Thanks for checking out the thread.

I entirely understand your comment about the direction this is likely to go in. I thought it might be interesting to see what folks here thought about the options cited in the article, so I hope everyone who wants to vote will feel free to vote for what they feel is best, based on the available options.

I was hoping that option two would save exampled and work to significantly reduce the available notes. Perhaps the inspection process might further knock down the number of perfect Gem notes available to collectors, since they have to be checked and restraped, packed, shipped, etc. Perhaps making these first Series 2009 notes released something of challenge to find and potentially a valuable note among collectors should numbers of them be reduced.

 

They'll be pulped. It'll be the cheapest way to go.

 

I'm going with option 1, cause they'll screw up the inspection process. BTW: they should go ahead and remove the "Federal Reserve Note" part. That scam has got to go. It's like having a middle finger water mark, and only the people that see it wish to see this country out of debt some day. As long as they excist everything will be paid for with debt in which they take their cut and charge interest on the interest. awwww I hate those scammers!
BTW: they shouldn't rule out reclaiming some of that money by offering collectible error sets? It's got a story, and tell me we wouldn't be all over that!

 

I would go with option one, but have the BEP pull out the "best" star notes from the replacement run and sell them at premiums to collectors to pay for the reprinting.

I know, ya'll can hate me now.

 

One thing is for sure. With them sitting in one place, they will be just like the "Legal Tender Notes of 1966/1966A $100.00". They will sit there till others can be printed and then destroyed. It take too much man and money to sort them now. If the set up of the original printing had caught them to start with, then they would not have run them to the end. Somebody didn't do their job at the time. Just my two cents worth. -O)

 

I'm surprised that Option 2 is deemed cheaper, but that's what I'll go with. The US collectors will have a field day finding small (and apparently large) errors in the notes that do get put out, and then there will be a new series printed later. Save up, guys, this is going to cost something for those that are going to collect them!

Dave

 

the picture of franklin on that note looks like its from the directv commercial where they offer $100 to refer a friend.
http://youtu.be/yVrwkmnI-pU

 

LOL The only difference is, the Fed will take $100 or Vinny from the IRS will break your legs!

Imagine if you will that Gorgeous $100 note above with Gold Certificate along the top! mmmmmmm
You would need about (35) $100 dollar Private Unconstitutional Federal Reserve Notes to buy it! That right there would save a ton of paper and ink!

 

I personally would like to see option 2.

 

If they haven't given out samples notes to people who make note recognition devices, they should give them out via http://www.bep.treas.gov/images/Notice_CRM_Website_Sep_2010_2_.pdf.


I would like to know why they didn't they do smaller test runs first?

 

I'm thinking that they choose option 2 although they don't even know the whole cost of that option at this time.

 

My vote is chosen for what I believe they will do.

I am not sure if that choice is actually best, more information is necessary, really. After reading the OIG Audit, it seems like it could go either way; option 1 or option 2.

Curiously, I wonder if anyone at all lost their job(s) over this. Gross errors, across the board. I wonder if the paper supplier (who took a year to advise of changes made to the paper) will suffer in any way? I doubt it. Out in the real world, one might lose a contract in this situation. Oops! I guess that IS the real world! No one pays any price for the errors committed, and now, what, two years later we might know the outcome? More on our debt load..

Thanks for posting the poll; it encouraged me to read the govt. reports. I have learned something new!

Lucy