neither did i lol but i learned never to let new finds surprise me.. there are stil unknowns out there.. heck even for the latest 2006 series... just waiting for (me) to find
Well that is the whole point of joining a community like this, you always get to learn new stuff!! Thanks for the compliments guys!!
"Wrong" is definitely the wrong word to use in this context. Small-size back plates have never been classified by currency type--there is no such thing as a "silver certificate back plate". If you go back to the '50s series, you can find $5 FRNs, SCs, and USNs all with the same back plate number. (And if you go back to the '28 and '29 series, you can add Nationals and FRBNs to the list.) But for some reason, when it comes to the 1957B $1 SCs and 1963 $1 FRNs, people have gotten the idea that this is some kind of mistake. It's probably best to reserve the term "mule" for cases in which there was actually some change to the back plates (a new location or size of the plate numbers, as your quote mentions, or a new numbering sequence in the series from 1977A to present). In 1963, no such thing happened: the back plates didn't change at all, and the back plate numbers just kept right on counting. The fact that 1957B and 1963 $1's can be found with identical back plate numbers is interesting, and I'm not criticizing anyone for wanting to collect such things, but calling them "mules" is just confusing. (By the way, it's also possible to find pairs of 1963 and 1963A $1's, or pairs of 1957A and 1957B $1's, printed with the same *face* plate. The series designation and signatures were overprinted during that era, rather than engraved in the plates, so even the face plates weren't assigned to a specific series, only to a specific type. Far fewer people are aware of the shared face plate numbers than the shared back plate numbers; this is one reason why I don't like the confusing "mule" terminology here, as it obscures what's really going on.)
PMG certified my note as a mule so I will keep using the word mule. They also put "Silver Cert Back Plate" on the back of the slab. If you think PMG is wrong maybe you should tell them, but I was just saying what they put on my slab.
The Comprehensive Catalog of U.S. Paper Money: All United States Federal Paper Money Since 1812 by Gene Hessler and Carlson Chambliss, indicates Series 1963 Federal Reserve Notes with back plate numbers 447 and lower are mule note printed with Series 1957 B Silver Certificate back plates.
<<PMG certified my note as a mule so I will keep using the word mule. They also put "Silver Cert Back Plate" on the back of the slab.>> And with all due respect of the grading services (since I am good friends with the principals of one of them) they are NOT the people who should be teaching you about varieties. Oh, and they don't get the grading correct all the time either... Excelsior hit the nail on the head concerning the wrong use of the term "mule" in paper money. The only "true" mules in small-size are the late-finished back plates of the 1940s. These were never intended to be used together, but were for reasons that deserve another post. Also considered mules, if only in theory and not practice, are the micro to macro transition plates for early 12-subject notes bearing Julian-Morgenthau signatures. The BEP termed back plates for all denominations "uniform backs" because that is what they were - the same no matter what class was printed on the face. Remember, the reason for small-size was standardization - the BEP wanted to discontinue the practice of having to keep separate plate sequences with different designs for each class and denomination, as was required for large size. The 1957B SC/1963 FRN back plate sharing is par for the course. Imaginge treating any other back plate shared between a 1928C LT, 1934A FRN and a 1934A SC as a "mule" - it would get ridiculous.
