Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Numbers, post: 349098, member: 11668&quot;]No.&nbsp; In the old days, *any* signature change got a letter, even if it was a change of both signatures.&nbsp; Witness e.g. the 1957 (Priest-Anderson) and 1957A (Smith-Dillon) $1 silvers.&nbsp; And the addition of IGWT didn&#039;t rate a new series designation at all; it was added in the middle of the 1935G $1 printing.&nbsp; (The 1934C $20&#039;s had an even bigger change to the back designs in the middle of the series; it appears that changes affecting only the back side of a note are ignored for series-dating purposes.)</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>You want William Simon in 1974 and not James Baker in 1985, but yes, that&#039;s the modern system.&nbsp; (For a few years they couldn&#039;t seem to make up their minds; 1977 follows the 1974 rule, but 1977A went back to the old-fashioned way.&nbsp; Since 1981 it&#039;s been consistent.)&nbsp; And the web press was in 1992, and unrelated (though one could argue that the web notes should really have had their own unique series dates, since they&#039;re from a completely different master die than everything else, just like the 1935/1957 changes...).</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>This often happens with gradual redesigns.&nbsp; The first 32-subject $50&#039;s and $100&#039;s were Series 1963A; those two denominations were never printed as Series 1963 since their new designs weren&#039;t ready until there&#039;d already been a signature change.&nbsp; The 1928 series did work differently, with each denomination getting its own sequence of series letters, but that was confusing....</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>This is admittedly rather bizarre.&nbsp; Normally one of the series dates gets fudged to avoid such a conflict--this is why the first big-head $100&#039;s are Series 1996 (they should&#039;ve been 1995 but that was already taken) and why the first Kodachrome $20&#039;s are Series 2004 (should&#039;ve been 2003, and were even put into circulation in 2003, but again that designation was already spoken for).</p><p><br /></p><p>Maybe the BEP decided they were running through the serial prefix letters too fast, and didn&#039;t want to have to use J on the new $5&#039;s?&nbsp; I dunno.&nbsp; Does seem like something&#039;s broken here, though....&nbsp; <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie5" alt=":confused:" 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