Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Numbers, post: 2687771, member: 11668&quot;]Yes, it&#039;s definitely a first.&nbsp; You can sort of see how it happened, though; somebody wasn&#039;t thinking far enough ahead.</p><p><br /></p><p>With the redesigned series coming along, the pattern has always been that <i>all notes of the same design generation, with the same signatures, get the same series designation</i>.</p><p><br /></p><p>For example, in the Withrow-Rubin signatures, all the small-head notes are Series 1995 and all the big-head notes are Series 1996.&nbsp; This is true even though the big-head $100 went into production in 1995 (it was dated Series 1996 anyway, since Series 1995 was for small-head notes), and the big-head $20 didn&#039;t get into print until 1998 (it was dated Series 1996 anyway, since the existing small-head $100&#039;s and $50&#039;s had that date).</p><p><br /></p><p>The same was true for the much subtler redesign of 1991, when the microprinting and embedded polymer strips were added to the notes.&nbsp; Villalpando-Brady notes without these features are Series 1988A; with these features, they&#039;re Series 1990.</p><p><br /></p><p>On the other hand, when the *next* series date change *after* the redesign happens, the pattern has been that <i>all notes of all design generations go back to using a single series date</i>.</p><p><br /></p><p>So after that 1991 design change was done, the Withrow-Bentsen notes with the new security features were Series 1993, and the Withrow-Bentsen $1 notes that didn&#039;t get the new security features were also Series 1993.</p><p><br /></p><p>Likewise after the big-head redesign, the Withrow-Summers big-head notes were Series 1999, and the Withrow-Summers small-head $1&#039;s were also Series 1999.</p><p><br /></p><p>The Kodachrome redesign in 2003 attempted to follow these precedents.&nbsp; Notes with the Marin-Snow signatures used two different series dates, Series 2003 for older designs but Series 2004 for Kodachrome designs.&nbsp; The trouble was that in this case, the next date change (caused by the Paulson signature) came along <i>before all denominations due to be redesigned had actually been redesigned</i>--a situation which never came up in the earlier design generations.&nbsp; The BEP followed precedent by using the same Series 2006 date for all denominations of Cabral-Paulson notes, whether Kodachrome or not.&nbsp; But then when the Kodachrome $5 went into print a few months later, they were in trouble.&nbsp; It was supposed to have the same series designation as the other Cabral-Paulson Kodachrome notes, which was Series 2006...but there was already a Series 2006 $5, of the non-colorized design!</p><p><br /></p><p>At that point, there were no good options.&nbsp; If the Kodachrome $5&#039;s had been called Series 2007 or Series 2006A or something, there would have been two different series designations for Kodachrome Cabral-Paulson notes: that&#039;s not how it&#039;s supposed to work.&nbsp; But if the Kodachrome $5&#039;s were called Series 2006, then there&#039;d be two different $5 series with identical series designations: that&#039;s also not how it&#039;s supposed to work.</p><p><br /></p><p>Of course, we know they chose the latter option.&nbsp; Whether they&#039;ll make the same choice in the future, if a similar situation ever arises again, is anybody&#039;s guess.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in