They labeled this notes as a bookend. I thought they had to be the same # on each end.Please someone explain!!
You are correct. Those are not only NOT bookends, they aren't any kind of fancy serial number. I'm not even understanding why someone would have gotten them graded and slabbed. I'd be interested to hear other opinions.
CN…I agree it is not a bookend, but would you please explain the label error? I’m not seeing an error on the label, but maybe it’s just my ignorance…Spark
If the explanation in that thread is in fact correct, I believe PCGS is absolutely 100% remiss in the labeling of both, or more, notes labeled bookends. Each note should include a reference to the adjoining note that is required to create the bookend attribution. Without the adjoining note the bookends don't exist. After all these years of attributing this type of serial # labeling I find it incredulous that PCGS hasn't figured this out.
Upper right on the front just under the grade in small letters is printed BOOKEND. That makes the PCGS label an error. I had to enlarge the photo to see it.
I believe the idea of "bookends" is a very casual term which has been incorrectly formalized & abused over the last couple decades. We used to casually say I found a radar, plus its "bookends" like this note here: What I meant was I found the radar plus the previous & successive #'s or 2447441 & 2447443 (or bookends). Although I meant no harm, this kind of downgrading the term "bookend" to something less significant actually would erode the original intent. I suspect that the term was originally intended to mean 2 truly special numbers like 0999999, 1000000 & 1000001 (with the 0999999 binary & 1000001 radar actually being more appropriate bookends for the Million # note).
I agree that if TPG certifiers start/continue labelling notes with incorrect designations- this certainly will propagate confusion amongst the collector community!
