Here are images of the letter "A" that is in question. Some of you remarked that it was an over inking error? I have asked around and it seems that most agree it is a different font.. Take a closer look and let me know what you think? RickieB
That's a terrific note. Hard to tell about the font but to my eye it appears to be the same font with more ink applied/ The zero at the end of the serial number seems to have a similar "extra ink" situation.
Guys think about this a moment. With the inking of the number and letter wheels how could one be over inked w/o causing smearing or leaching into the paper? I personally think it is of a different Letter, perhaps one that was new and not worn from and the use..is it possible? Who knows..thats why I am asking again. It is wider, and mor robust than the other "A" what if the letter before it was damaged? What if it were a new letter like I suggest? Does anyone think a TPG could tell me? Mr. Kellys opinion on this note is that its a different Letter, not over inking. RickieB
That's a different letter. I don't know how the SN device was put together but it seems a different type, or a "bold" letter "A" was put on with the 'regular' weight numbers. If it was over inking would not the seal and some of the other letters/numbers in this green ink run show traces of this? I see no smears or bleed from over inking but rather an adequately inked SN, for all letters, numbers and the seal alike. As fonts go, typically, there are regular, bold, italic-regular, italic-bold and so on. With the SNs, I'm not even sure if the BEP even considers them true fonts since they don't really use an entire family of all letters and numbers (do they?). These are just numerical stamping devices of a practical manner. I would guess the construction (or repair) of the SN device that put these numbers on the notes may have erroneously employed the heavier weight of "A". I'm curious to see how the more experienced can explain this one. Thanks for putting the note up for us to speculate about.
I'd go with the 'one is worn' theory as it looks to be the same font (crossbar on 'A' is in same position). Could even be a slight manufacturing 'defect' on that particular letter that resulted in it being a little thicker. Don't think the note would be officially categorized as an error, however it's still a very cool note to have in the collection.
i believe that it is a different font. i know numbers had mentioned that in some series that had happened. i am not sure what year or series that it was. i believe i also have a note that is like that but for the life of me i dont remember which one of my notes it was. :thumb: nice note
This link was posted in another thread... http://www.uspapermoney.info/survey/aa.html ...but both the A's on this note look like the "early version".
Assuming The last two images are not distorted in any way I think you have to look further than the "A". If you look at the two zeros in each image. in the upper image they are more elongated, so is the loop of the 5, the o of the 9 and the loops of the three. The down swing of the 7 is not as smooth on the lower number as on the upper, the length of the horizontals on the E appear to be a little longer on the bottom number. Thes counters don't match, in my opinion. Maybe i'm just seeing things Richard
there ya go that was the thread. now i remember posting a national i had and numbers made a comment about the diffrent fonts. :thumb: my memory isnt so hot anymore
How could another letter be used? The whole serial number seems Alot lighter? Iam no expert on this, Just giving you my opinion
Well RickieB, considering you have the note and you know a few things about paper money why not send it to a TPG for their opinion? Depending on which picture I look at it seems "normal" in some and far from "normal" in others. Last resort. Consult Hester Prynne. She knew ALL about the letter A.
Thanks for the feedback guy's..yes the images are a little warpped..I tried to set them as the same size and it looked very funny...the width of the "A" however is not distorted very much..look at the whole image and you can see. I just might send it off as Clembo suggest's and see what is said about the note. Thanks again.. RickieB
mpcusa.. If I am not mistaken..the number and letter wheels are each a different wheel with the Fed Bank letter serial number and suffix letter that would make it a 10 place set of wheels. Each of them (and I am not sure of this at all) should be able to be adjusted, fixed or auto rotated depending on the 3 rd Print requirements... Someone please correct me if I am wrong! I really do not know how it works and at best postulating on what I would think would happen. If, one was damaged it would be easier to replace the one wheel -vs- a set of 10 don't you think? Again postulation on my part. anyway.. I will find out one way or another...LOL and will let you know.:secret: RickieB
Frankly, this is not the sort of question I'd trust the TPGs to know anything about. Example: If you look at notes from the late '70s - early '80s era, the font used for the serial prefix letters is subtly different from the font used for the serial suffix letters. The difference is most noticeable on the letter 'G', although the 'A' and 'C' and a few others are also distinguishable if you look closely. Anyway, if you happen to have a note from the G..G serial block, the two G's are quite different in appearance. But nobody pays any attention to this. A guy I know got a few G..G notes (I think they were 1977A $1's?) and sent them to one of the big TPGs, pointing out the differing G's. The TPG put a notation on the holders about "Mismatched Font Error" or something like that. The notes were then sold on Ebay, where they fetched over $100. Again, every single G..G block note from several consecutive series has this feature--that's a couple hundred million notes--it's not an error by any stretch of the imagination. But the TPG apparently (a) had never noticed it before, and (b) was willing to certify it as an error anyway. It wouldn't surprise me a bit, therefore, if RickieB were able to get his $10 certified as some kind of error. It still isn't one. I'm not sure whether it's a difference in the amount of inking, or a difference in the amount of pressure applied to the paper. Maybe the one 'A' wasn't mounted in its letter wheel just perfectly, so it stuck out a bit farther and contacted the paper a bit harder...or maybe it's a freshly replaced, unworn letter like RickieB suggests. All I know is, I've seen lots of differences like this while collecting data on the actual font varieties described on that page that's already been linked above. (Indeed, the note pictured on that page has a rather "heavy" impression of the Early A, somewhat similar to the right serial on RickieB's note, though not quite as extreme.) The strength of the impression of the serial numbers often varies quite a bit from note to note, or from side to side of the same note. If you look at a bunch of notes, you can observe a continuous range from very light to average to very heavy. RickieB's note is pretty far out toward the heavy end of the scale, but it's still just a difference of degree, not one of kind--it's possible to find notes with A's that are intermediate between the two levels of thickness seen on this note. So it's not a different font, nor an error. Still kinda neat to look at, though. Maybe try to find a note with an A even thicker than this one...they're probably out there.
It's a different font. Broader type. Nice find. -O) Like looking at stars that are up side down, or numbers and or letters out of line.
Two $5 notes I just picked up that seem to display some of these heavier fonts (or heavier ink) Serial Numbers: 1953 $5 Silver Certificate SN: B57388986A F-1655 Priest | Humphrey SN - Lower Left SN - Upper Right ====================================================================== 1963 $5 United States Note SN: A30198721A F-1536 Granahan | Dillon SN - Lower Left SN - Upper Right PS to RickieB: These are the two notes I was discussing with you as I acquired them.
