Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Numbers, post: 627137, member: 11668&quot;]This didn&#039;t make a lot of sense to anyone, I&#039;m afraid.&nbsp; But if they&#039;d changed it, that wouldn&#039;t have made sense either, because then the Kodachrome $5 with Cabral-Paulson signatures would&#039;ve had a different series designation than all the other notes of the Kodachrome generation with those signatures.&nbsp; Basically, the BEP got itself into trouble by using the Series 2006 designation for all of the Cabral-Paulson notes, even through there was a redesign in progress when those signatures first started to be used.</p><p><br /></p><p>In the past, they&#039;d been more careful about this.&nbsp; The earliest Withrow-Rubin notes were called either Series 1995 or Series 1996, depending on design generation, so there was no problem when the $20 was printed in both generations with those signatures--it just switched from 1995 to 1996.&nbsp; Not until the redesign was over did everything have the same series date again, beginning with Series 1999.</p><p><br /></p><p>The Kodachrome redesign started out this way too, with the Marin-Snow signatures appearing on notes designated either Series 2004 (for Kodachrome) or Series 2003 (for everything else).&nbsp; Indeed, the former date was fudged just to create this distinction--the notes called Series 2004 went into circulation in the fall of 2003.&nbsp; So the redesign of the $10 caused no problems, as it switched from the 2003 date to the 2004 date.&nbsp; When the Paulson signature came along, the resulting notes really should&#039;ve been called something like Series 2006 (for the H&#039;s) and Series 2007 (for the I&#039;s), since both design generations were still in use on different denominations at the time.&nbsp; But the BEP wasn&#039;t thinking that far ahead; they just called everything Series 2006.&nbsp; And so when the $5 was redesigned, they were between a rock and a hard place.&nbsp; So we ended up with two different $5 series that are both called Series 2006, which will drive all the cataloguers nuts for the forseeable future.&nbsp; Sigh....&nbsp; <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie3" alt=":(" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>Depending on the scheduling, the same thing *might* happen with the Kodachrome $100.&nbsp; If it goes to press before Obama&#039;s nominee for Treasurer is put into office, then it&#039;ll start out carrying the Cabral-Paulson signatures too....&nbsp; Of course, if the Senate&#039;s quick with the confirmation then the signature change and the design change might well coincide, avoiding the difficulty.&nbsp; (There&#039;s also a possibility that the super-high-tech security features on the new $100 will cause the BEP to classify it as part of the *next* design generation, rather than as part of the Kodachrome generation.&nbsp; In that case, it might get a series date all to itself.&nbsp; Rumor has it that these notes will be the first to be printed in the 50-subject-sheet format, which would go along with that idea....)</p><p><br /></p><p>It should also be pointed out that the BEP&#039;s never been in the habit of letting anyone know when the series-dating rules are changing.&nbsp; Back in 1974, all the collectors were eagerly watching for the new Series 1969E $1&#039;s to appear in circulation...and what they got was Series 1974.&nbsp; This is the same thing all over again, it seems.&nbsp; Eh well, we&#039;ll manage somehow.&nbsp; <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie6" alt=":cool:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/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