I went to a coin shop today, they had allot more note then before, they had some very bad silver certs for $1.65 and there was a star with a rip, i got it to see if NUMBERS needed the S/N its a 1957A *63639111A , they had some $2 in bad shape for $3.00 got the two star from that pack s/n are 1957 *00586882A, 1957 *02035176A, So i continued to the better notes they only had 1 star note it was a $2 1963 *00942026A in very good shape for $6 got that note also. He said an old man brought it in, in an old aspirin bottle so the 1963 is not folded but it wants to curl up, here is were you can see a pic, if you go to next pic you can see the other notes too. http://www.shareapic.net/content.php?id=6622362&owner=5centavos
nice finds. not bad values for any of them either, especiallu since you are happy with the purchases!
In order to help Numbers out, we need to understand what Numbers is looking for. Numbers has dissected the methodology by which the BEP operates and numbers their notes. Once this is understood, one only needs a handful of known numbers to estimate (and eventually determine) the details about various BEP runs. Numbers has tables on his website with known ranges, and predicted (or possible) ranges. For the known ranges, Numbers didn't need reports for serial numbers that fall within those ranges. For unknown ranges, but possible, Numbers would gladly welcome a confirmation of an actual note in that particular range, but only needs a single report to verify the range's existance. Numbers lists out on the survey page which ranges he has already received confirmation for. For example *63639111A and *00586882A are not within the ranges that he is seeking verification (meaning that there was no question that these serial numbers were printed). *02035176A falls within a range he wanted to verify, but it has already been verified. Now what would be interesting is if that $2 bill really is a 1963 as Numbers reports that the number *00942026A was used for 1963A $2 bills. I'll admit that Numbers explanation is a little dry (please take no offense to that Numbers), but after I read it through a couple times, his logic is starting to make sense to me. Personally, I think Numbers has finally collected enough information to make it worth his time to put out a publication. PS. Numbers, please read through my post and make sure I'm interpreting everything correctly? Thanks
Sounds good, yeah. Thanks for passing the word along. I'm actually trying to put together a few articles on the star note serial numbering, but real life keeps getting in the way....
