Broken Bank Notes Message Board

Forum for Obsolete Currency Discussions
It is currently Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:11 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 123 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Unique Impressions
PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:02 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:11 pm
Posts: 1094
I've been working on it a bit, and I think I understand most of it... but not the uncolored ones. I've translated them into my color scheme, ane eliminated all the empty columns... now I just need to know what the uncolored ones are about.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unique Impressions
PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:58 pm
Posts: 527
The definitions are at the bottom of the spreadsheet.

The uncolored ones are either Haxby UNL or Haxby "issued". The former are remnants of having UNL in a row with Christie uniques. These individual numbers should be removed just like we removed UNL rows with all UNL. The latter are Christie uniques but have Haxby listings as "issued" notes making them NOT unique. That is they are not SENC.

Neglecting the Proofs listed in Haxby, this leaves only the Yellow (SENC and listed as such in Christie) and Pink (SENC but not listed as such in Christie) as the "Unique proofs". The sum of these two minus the "exceptions to uniqueness" gives the total "Unique Impressions".

I am not quite sure why you would want to have separate spreadsheets for these two categories above? Wouldn't you want one spreadsheet with all of the "Unique Impressions"?

_________________
Bernie


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unique Impressions
PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:37 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:11 pm
Posts: 1094
For some reason it makes more sense to me to track them separately. I have the highest confidence that the SENC notes actually are unique... somewhat less confidence that the Proof-only notes are unique... and no real confidence that most of the Unlisted notes are uniques. I know some of the latter group must be, but since we have no way to recognize most of the notes if we ever saw them, it's somewhat pointless to track them... but my sense of completeness won't allow me to stop tracking them.

- Greg


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unique Impressions
PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 11:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:58 pm
Posts: 527
I have no problem with separately tracking the unique SENC, Proof, and UNL in Haxby.

I was wondering why you were creating separate spreadsheets for the “unique in Christie with Christie listing SENC” and “unique in Christie with Christie NOT listing SENC” ???

Let me try and understand all the different spreadsheets:

The "Obsolete Proofs" has all of the Christie proofs.

The "Unique4" has:
1. All of the unique proofs listed in Christie as "SENC in Haxby" (light yellow)
2. All of the unique proofs listed in Christie as "Proof in Haxby" (dark yellow)
3. All of the unique proofs listed in Christie as "UNL in Haxby" (no shading in mine and red in yours-sorry about that)
We are really mainly interested in number 1 and quit tracking the UNL ones. I still tracked the Proofs in Haxby.

The "Unique in Sale" has all of the proofs listed in Christie as unique (only 1 entry per cell). This is independent of whether Christie lists them as SENC, Proofs, UNL.

The "Unique in Sale Sans SENC" is equivalent to "Unique in Sale" but you removed the "Unique4" proofs.
In detail you:
1) Removed all rows that had ONLY unlisted notes (because there is no way to process those)
2a) Delete all rows in which all notes were declared SENC (because I really HAVE processed those rows)
2b) Delete the specific notes declared SENC when noted in the Notes column (because I really have processed those notes)
3) I removed all rows that had no numbers in them (because there's nothing to process)
Number 2a and 2b is equivalent to removing ‘Unique4”.
Thus "Unique in Sale Sans SENC" has all of the unique proofs in Christie that Christie did NOT list as SENC.

Again neglecting the UNL and Proofs in Haxby, I would think you would want one spreadsheet that has all of the potential “Unique Impressions” whether or not Christie lists them as being SENC or not. I did this by having yellow shading for the ones that Christie lists as SENC (in the notes column) and pink for the SENC notes not listed as SENC in Christie. To obtain this spreadsheet from mine, one would have to remove all of the dark yellow, light blue, and uncolored entries.

Take another look at the bottom of my spreadsheet where I define and sum all of the different possibilities.

So instead of having a "rainbow spreadsheet", we have a rainbow of spreadsheets? :D :( :lol:

What am I missing???

_________________
Bernie


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unique Impressions
PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 6:34 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:11 pm
Posts: 1094
Oh that!

The reason for the separate spreadsheets is because the idea of seeking out the SENC notes that were not listed as SENC in Christies came to me after I'd already processed the records that were listed as SENC in Christies, and I didn't want to repeat any work on the first 900+ records while processing the second group (the size of which has yet to be determined). Had I been clever enough to figure out that Christies didn't flag all the SENC and Proof listings before I started the project the data would certainly have been processed all at once.

Cleverness comes on me in slow stages.

Anyway, the upshot is that ultimately I do want all of the Uinque Impressions in a single spreadsheet... I'm just working toward that goal in steps that require data be separated until it is all at the same level of processing.

- Greg


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unique Impressions
PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:58 pm
Posts: 527
So my NY spreadsheet that I sent you already is a combination of the two types of SENC notes, plus the other stuff.

If you want I can remove all but the 2 types of SENC's or even the Christie listed SENC's to give you the NY section that would be on the same basis as yours?

I presume you are marking (or removing) the "unique Christie proofs" that have issued (or proof) notes in Haxby? How are you treating these in your spreadsheet?

I was a little bit surprised that I only found 38 additional "issued" notes but 91 additional proofs listed in Haxby in the "Unique in Sale" spreadsheet.

_________________
Bernie


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unique Impressions
PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:30 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:11 pm
Posts: 1094
I wasn't planning on removing anything. My plan was to simply lift the information you provided and transfer it into the Uniques4 spreadsheet, replacing any pre-existing NY content therein. I will divide the SENC and Proof listings, and ignore the Unlisted entries in this transfer.

- Greg


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unique Impressions
PostPosted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 8:12 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:11 pm
Posts: 1094
The lift and transfer operation is complete for the NY data. You can check the results in the the Uniques5 files.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unique Impressions
PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:22 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:11 pm
Posts: 1094
I'm excited to announce I have completed the Haxby verification stage of the Unique In Sale sans SENC file. This pared the number of potential uniques discovered in this file down to 1336, with some yet to be verified in other sources (e.g. Hoober and Garland). I expect that number to come down a little farther during the Heritage verification stage.

However, the most signficant part of this milestone is that I can now do the rest of the work without having to lug the Haxby set with me wherever I go. And since I'm into the busy travel season for me, that's a real boon.

- Greg

P.S. There's a new version of the Obolete Proofs database that has the updates and corrections done during the Haxby verification stage.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unique Impressions
PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:50 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:11 pm
Posts: 1094
While verifying the Michigan notes, I ran across this interesting case... MI-140-G26

Here's what I found on Heritage that was declared tobe G26:

Image

Image

And here's one that was declared to be a counterfeit:

Image

Since I don't have an image of the note from the Christies sale, there are a number of ways to interpet the information... one may be considered a duplicate of the proof sold by Christies... but how would I know?

While I work on figuring that out, I'm just tagging this one as suspect.

- Greg


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unique Impressions
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:25 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:11 pm
Posts: 1094
I've now integrated all the confirmed information up through MS (plus your NY entries, of course). At present there are now 1168 entries in the SENC tab (with 17 being suspect), 343 in the Proof tab (with 6 being suspect), and 55 in the Unlisted tab (with none being suspect). Grand total of 1566 potential uniques so far, and still 585 to verify against Heritage. Looks like we'll end up with about 10% of the notes in the Christie's sale being potentially unique.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unique Impressions
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:58 pm
Posts: 527
Christie shows the $10 G26 note to have no imprint (also the $5 G20) while Haxby says that G26 has the MDF imprint the same as the $1, $2, and the $5 values. Christie lists the G26 (without imprint) as unique.

Now you see two $10 proofs in Heritage, one shows “no imprint” while the other has the region where the imprint would appear cut out. I wonder why? So I presume the dilemma is: did the second proof have the MDF imprint or “no imprint.”

If we assume that Haxby is wrong (and Christie is right) about the imprint, then these two G26 notes are certainly not unique by your definition since one of the proofs is an A and the other is a B.

If both Christie and Haxby are right, that is, there exit both $10 notes with and without the MDF imprint, then the A proof (without imprint) might be unique. However, the B proof (whether with or without the MDF imprint) must at least have had an A equivalent. It however might not have survived.

So my first incorrect guess was that there were 2 sheets, the lower values with the MDF imprint and the higher values without. The one without the imprints could have been 5-5-10(A)-10(B) or more unlikely 5-10-10-10.

However, the counterfeit really changes things. It shows the MDF imprint! Since counterfeits typically did an excellent job in copying the real issued note, it looks like the $10 was issued most likely with the MDF imprint. Therefore the proof might have existed with and without the MDF imprint. Heritage has both an A and a B counterfeit. So the sheet probably had at least two $10 notes.

By the way, the counterfeits (both the A and the B) can easily be distinguished from the proof by the number of dots above the upper right hand panel. The proofs have 16 while the counterfeits have 15.

So, as you also say, I don’t think that it has been proven that the Christie proof is NOT UNIQUE.

I think that we should only eliminate “Unique proofs” if we have positive proof that they are NOT Unique.

Marking the notes “as potentially not unique” and to be questioned and looked for is useful.

_________________
Bernie


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unique Impressions
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:58 pm
Posts: 527
Regarding the Unique5 spreadsheet, I notice that you retained 2 notes (NY-1935-G18 and NY-2160-G6) that had issued notes in Haxby and should have been eliminated in this spreadsheet. This was just a transfer error from my to your spreadsheet.

I also noticed that you correctly took out NY-1675-G4a since I proved that it was not unique. Since there seem to be so few notes that are “proven to be NOT UNIQUE”, we should probably keep some kind of record for these.

I noticed that you corrected the bank name for NY-2155 from Oswego to Owego in Unique5 but not in the June 15 th Obsolete Proofs spreadsheet. Having so many spreadsheets certainly will hinder these corrections.

Likewise, the Bank of Utica corrections were made in Unique5 but not in the June 15 th Obsolete Proofs spreadsheet.

The NY-2135-G8 count was removed from Unique5 but the “G8” was not. The correction again was not done in the June 15 th Obsolete Proofs spreadsheet.

Likewise with the NY-2265 corrections.

And more.

_________________
Bernie


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unique Impressions
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:07 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:11 pm
Posts: 1094
Regarding the MI-140 examples, the point I was really making was that without the images from the Christie's sale, it's difficult to ascertain which of the two proofs was correct. To be sure, one seemed like a progress proof to me, missing some of the Latin wording in the central vignette. Anyway, I plan on leaving it around for further discussion, as I'm doing with all the purple colored notes.

As for the correction to the spreadsheet not getting transferred, that was one of the points I was making previously. As I worked through the Uniques project I have been actively updating the Obsolete Proofs spreadsheet with the corrections and changes. Because I didn't do the NY work, I wasn't sure what all I was supposed to do in terms of transferring corrections and updates. If you want to make the corrections to the currently available version of the Obsolete Proofs spreadsheet and send it back to me, we can be synced up again. Probably be more effective than trying to list them out and have me do the work. Besides, I think I'm done monkeying with that file for a while, now that I've finished the Haxby filter for the Unique in Sale sand SENC file.

An aside... I have written a second (and I believe better) draft of the article. It isn't complete yet, and won't be until the data is complete, but it does begin to tell the story. You are, of course, mentioned. I'm not sure whether to call you Bernard or Bernie. I'm leaning toward Bernie unless you tell me otherwise.

- Greg


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unique Impressions
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:35 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:11 pm
Posts: 1094
With all states reported in now except SC, TN, TX and VA we have 1281 potential uniques in the SENC tab, 607 in the Proofs tab, and 92 in the Unilisted tab. I plan to finish the remaining states this evening, time permitting.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 123 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group