I have no connection to these bills emotionally, I'm only holding them in hopes that they may be worth something someday. In your opinion ( they count in these parts), keep 'em or spend 'em???? Series 2003A $1 #K03000006H Series 2003A $1 #E33778844B Series 1950C $10 #C20606502C Circulated,Crease horizontal accross portrait, still some crispness Series 1963 $1 #C23673120A Not due to SN, Bill is crisp uncirculated with sharp corners! Series 1963 $1 #F12931621A Circulated, but without creases, and with fold marks (hope that makes sense) My circulated (and sometimes beat up) 1963B Barr notes Series 1963B #G52912437* Beat up Barr note Thanks in advance for your thoughts. You won't hurt my feelings if you tell me they'll only ever be worth a dollar (unless it's the $10) Peace out everyone.
without looking mroe deeply, most of the notes dont look 'all that' special Barr notes are cool to me, but a LOT were saved, so they might never carry a high premium, but they do have one. The barr star -- i would dectainly keep. I dont knwo value, but its a Barr and a Star -- keep it lol. The 2 1963 notes, regardless of condition would carry a premium, it would go higher with better conditions. Same with the 1950. the 2 2003 notes would carry a premium to the right collecter, but not to all, and i dont think any premium would be high - but could be wrong. sorry i cantbe more specific right now... gotta get my kid to school
I personally would keep all the old ones. If the 2003A's are in CU condition, then I would let those be my keepers for the collection, unless you already have consecutive serial numbered notes for your collection, then I would be on the fence. I have a $5 with 6 zeros that I decided to keep, despite already having better notes for the same series. The cost was face and I always considered those types of notes in my collection part of my emergency fund (they give the added benefit that you have to really consider whether it's a real emergency).
J Barr star notes can be had in Gem from 7- 12 bucks...very common as they were printed for years! It's only 14 bucks were talking about and the SN's you supplied are not really special. A thing to consider is , if you like them and want to collect them, then by all means do so. If , not then trade em in for a note you would like to have. Make it a win win for you and what you collect. Regards, RickieB
So I shouldn't feel bad about ditching the Barr Notes? (except the star). I'm probably gonna list the 2003s on fleabay and see what happens (spend 'em if they don't see). Thanks guys.
I would definately keep the Barr notes for goodness sake they are 37 years old and I've never found one in circulation before. Just to clarify Barr notes were not printed for years as stated in this very thread but for only 6 months!
he was in office for six months, the notes could very easily be printed for years. Remember, they wont change the notes until a successer was found, plates made ect ... That takes time... heck, i have yet to see a 2006 series note (i do know they are out though), and the new guy has been in office for quite some time
NOS my friend. Mr. Barr was in office for 6weeks (edited)..but the notes were printed for years and years from 1963 to 1969...the numbers are staggering!! As far as keeping them, well I have 2 of them from New York branch the regular issue and a star for my New York collection. Stars bring a little better premium than standard issue. 5 Districrts printed them: New York, Richmond, Chicago, Kansas City and San Francisco the lowest printing comes from Richmond with a whooping 73,600,000 notes! The least amount of Stars comes from the Chicago Branch with 2,400,000 notes printed! Regards, RickieB
I can't believe the misinformation that has been portrayed and then for me to be told that I am the one who is in error. Joseph W. Barr was not even in office for six months. This is the exact time he was in office care of www.uspapermoney.info/sign/ Joseph Walker Barr Secretary, 12/21/1968 - 1/20/1969 Now how is it even fathomable that notes with his signature were printed for years and years from 1963 to 1969 when he didn't even take office until late 1968!!! Joseph W. Barr had an immediate successor again care of www.uspapermoney.info/sign/ David Matthew Kennedy Secretary, 1/22/1969 - 2/10/1971 The only reason why they were even printed for six months is because that is the amount of time it took for the BEP to transition over with Kennedy's signature. Further proof may be found here: http://www.moneyfactory.gov/document.cfm/5/44/95 The amount of notes printed is nothing, an amount like this is what you will typically see printed today in about only two months. Now does that really look like a series that was printed for years and years? I hope that I've clarified some things and if I haven't, well I don't know what to say then...all hope is lost.
NOS you are correct on the term of Office...I did make a typo (my fault). The year of 1963 saw 3 printing that year the first Sig's are Kathryn Granahan/C.DOuglas Dillion The Series 1963 A were signed by Kathryn Granahan/ Henery Fowler The third was 1963 B was signed by Kathryn Granahan/J.W. Barr The 1963B Series was printed up until 1969 when that first Series was released and signed by Dorthy Elston/ David Kennedy. Hummm. 1969-1963= 6 Here is the Series 1963B Star with the Barr sig... RickieB
The way things worked with series dating was very different back then than it is today. The series year back then went by soley the design of a bill. The $1 FRN first came out in the year 1963, hence for the series year 1963. When a treasurer or secretary of the treasury left and a new signature was put in place, it had a letter added under the date. The only reason why series 1969 became series 1969 and not series 1963C was because the treasury seal was changed from Latin into English. This was considered a design change; hence for the new series date. This system changed under Secretary of the Treasury Simon who changed the way series dating would work. He put forth new rules which made it so that whenever the Secretary would leave, the series date would change to when the Secretary of the Treasury was signed into office(or a change in design was made). Only when the Treasurer left would the series date remain the same and a letter added under the date. This was all as a result of the high rate of signature changes with series 1969 which went up to 1969D. More proof of when Barr notes were printed can be found by looking at the plate number of the back of the bills from the era. Series 1963 plain is in the 400s, 1963A is in the 400-800s(since this series had the longest print run in the 1960s), and Barr notes are in the 900-1000 range. The back plate numbers did not reset until series 1981 when further rule changes were made so if you bought a strap of ones and checked them from the back and found a bill with back plate number 1500 you can reasonably guess that it will probably be from series 1969C without having to check the date on the front. -NOS
Hello Everyone... Hope this finds you all doing well. While I am the first to admit when I am incorrect, this is what this post is about. Our member colleague NOS was correct in what he said about the notes being printed for 6 months! While we look at it in todays terms, it was actually quite different. Most of you know that I would never portray information that was incorrect, but it appears that I have done so. NOS, I apoligize for thinking you were incorrect and really appreciate your efforts to educate us on this event. I have taken communication from NOS and researched it myself along with my Mentor (DCK) and finding out the truth is all that really matters! Thanks again NOS, I appreciate the way you handled yourself since you were falsely accused ! The notes(SEries 1963B) were printed for ~6 months as NOS suggested, but were not issued until 1968! Best regards, :thumb: RickieB
:bow: i also offer my appologies for being a misbeliever!! RickeyB can you send me that info? I looked again, now cannot find what i thought i saw just a day or so ago. Maybe i saw somethign like Johndo posted, and applied todays thinking?? not sure now.
