What do you guys think of this auction?

I'm not even sure I would keep this bill had I found it in circulation. I'm almost sure I've seen watermarks like that before but didn't think anything of it.

http://cgi.ebay.com/2003-100-FRN-w-...200908564QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item270200908564

If this guy finds a buyer, I just might start paying attention for this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

"2003 $100 FRN w/ OVER-INKED WATERMARK ERROR - GEM!"

I'm no expert on paper money but I was under the impression the watermark is part of the paper-making process and is not associated with the printing process. So a watermark cannot be "over-inked".

My guess is that is a smudge of ink that just happens to be located at the watermark.

 

While the watermark is applied during the paper making process, I do believe it is possible to be overinked and bleed through from the inside to the surface. I just don't think such an error carries any premium worth mentioning.

I recall reading an article a few years ago about a dealer who had gotten a full strap of 1996 $100 bills that had insufficient ink for the color changing ink. The article mentioned that they had such difficulty selling them, that they ended up just spending them at face. Of course the article never made any mention of how much they were trying to sell them for, but I would think that they would be more desireable than an overinked watermark.

 

Again, I am not a paper money expert but I did not think the watermark is made with ink.

 

Hey Gatzdon...
If you realy look close at most new notes you can see where the ink really bleeds from the inked letters/words and most other plate engravings...I feel that it is really getting a little sloopy these days.
On the 3 note I picked up at auction yesterday, the 1950 is by far the better printing job...

I feel the same as you on this and it could have happened during the watermarking process..I am not for sure, but I would be timid for paying for such a note. That is my opinion only and by no means let that influence you.

Good luck on your decision.

Regards,

RickieB

 

I found the following explanation of how a watermark is made at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2314secr.html :

"There's a common misconception that the watermark is something imbedded in the paper after the paper is made. Watermarks are actually a part of the three-dimensional structure of the paper. They're nothing added to the paper. They are formed within it. The fiber is more dense in the opaque, dark areas, and there's less fiber in the light, more transmissive areas. And as a result, you have this astounding range in tonal gradation, that to the feel, to the hand of the paper, it's hard to imagine that this is simply a variation in the thickness and the density of the paper."

(I hope it is OK to post this quotation here.)

 

It's perfectly fine (you cited your source) and it clarifies that what's in that auction is not an error at all. It's something else.

Thanks

 

You know, I believe I've seen that show before and remember then talking about the difficulty of separating the colors in order to duplicate the notes. I remember thinking to myself, I've seen plenty of error notes up for sale missing the overprint and also ones missing the second printing. Seems pretty easy to me in order to separate them because the BEP has already done it for them.

 

Dont forget the thig about Ebay ... just because there is a buyer.. DOES NOT mean its a smart buy or that the item is worth what was sold as.

 

After Hobo's post, I believe there is no reason to look for this.

Now for the next obvious question, any leads on what caused this?

 

very true was just a point that stands on its own at any time

 

As the quote above indicated, the paper is ever-so-slightly thicker in the darker areas of the watermark. So when this note rubbed against the back of the note before it in the strap, the high points of the paper picked up a bit of ink. It's the same way the high points of a coin design are the first to show wear....

 

Thanks. That makes perfect sense to me.

 

Ok, so we know how/why it could have happened. The auction ended with no bidders. Would this note carry a premium, or is it like i think, and more like damage since it did not happen in the printing process??

 

Sounds to me like it falls in the same category as post mint damage to coins such as the coins rubbing together in rolls or even bag marks (remember all those "dropped Letter" auctions on ebay).

 

Edit: wow, delayed double post!