Found A 1963 Mule Note This Morning

Can you show us closeups of the check numbers for comparison, please!

I was wondering the same. Apparently it is actually a mule in the numismatic sense: some 1963 series notes were printed using the back-plate from an old 1957 series Silver Certificate.

Apparently, the way to tell is from the plate number. See the little "447" below the bottom right corner of the E in ONE? Apparently it's a mule if that number is 447 or lower.

Engraving errors have happened also in some of the $1 Federal Reserve Note series. Here is a list of just a few of them Vince and everyone else.

1. 1981A and 1985 129 Back Plate Engraving errors. In 1985 back plate 129 was incorrectly engraved on the left side of the bill. It was used in the production of notes during the months of June, July and August of 1985. Some blocks of the 1981A and 1985 series were effected. The 1985 129 Back Plate Engraving errors were printed during the months of June, July and August of 1985. During these three months both 1985 and 1981A notes were printed. The production of notes for both series resulted in the 129 BP as mule for the 1985 series. The documented 129 back plate errors are CA, HB IA, IB and LG. The IB block is very rare with just two confirmed notes. This error was the result of the engraver placing the plate number on the left side of the note.

2. 1995 $1 FRN 295 Back Plate error. These errors were printed on $1 Federal Reserve Notes at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing's western facility in Fort Worth Texas. These micro size "mule" notes have back plate numbers which are 40% smaller that the normal Fort Worth plate numbers. There were eleven blocks and a very scarce star note printed for a short three month period (February through April 1998). Many of the 295 BP errors were printed in partial print runs creating some scarce blocks. The 295 blocks consists of GM, GN, HE, Minneapolis IF, IG, IH, Kansas City JF, KI, Dallas KJ, San Francisco LW, San Francisco LX and G*. Like Web notes they can be collected by front plate number, block and print run. Back plate number 295 on these Fort Worth printed notes is engraved with a smaller size used by the Washington DC BEP facility (0.8mm) instead of the size normally used for plate numbers by the Fort Worth BEP facility (1.2mm). there were also macro 249,261,275 for the IG run as well.
Considerable research has been done on the #295 plate 'errors' by the Long Island Currency Club several years ago.
Normally for the 1995 notes, the eastern districts (A through E) are printed in Washington, while the western districts (G through L) are printed in Fort Worth. Atlanta (F) is split between the two facilities. On a routine basis, the COPE-PAK equipment at one of the facilities is down for routine maintenance. During this time, the western districts are printed at Washington, or eastern districts are printed at Fort Worth.
The #295 notes were engraved with a smaller check number size used by the Washington DC BEP facility (0.8mm) instead of the size normally used for plate numbers by the Fort Worth BEP facility (1.2mm). The #295 check number was used for 12 blocks of the G,H,I,J,K, and L districts; namely the following: GM,GN,G*, HE, IF,IG,IH, JF, KI,KJ, LW,LX. The G* is rare with the #295 check, and IH, KI, and LX are fairly scarce, but the rest of the blocks are all considered common.

3. 1988A $1 FRN Fort Worth 106 Face Plate error. The number on 106 FP error has a much larger font size than normal notes. They appeared only on some San Francisco District L*, LD, LE and LF blocks. The error was only discovered in 2004.

4. 1974 Back Plate 905 Error. This error was the result of the engraver omitting the first digit on the back plate number. The back plate should have been engraved as 1905. This is the first documented engraving error in the small size notes.

Is there a visual difference between the mule and non-mule in the 1963 series? The few I have seen, in other series, the back plate number is different size in the mule when compared to the non-mule. I have a 441 back plate (EA block) and 469 back plate (A* block). The back plate number seems to be the same size.

David,
Thanks for all the info. I already found two 1995 $1 FRN 295 Back Plate error but yet to find the others.

From what I've seen over the 5-10 years I've been collecting the various $1 FRN's from all the series of 1963 and 1969 issues, mules are not generally of much interest.
I've got 35 mules from the 1963 Series that used backplates from the 1957 Series.

The only source that I know of for this info is Robert Azpiazu's 2011 book "Collector's Guide to Modern Federal Reserve Notes/Series 1963-2009"
The book is out of print AND you'd be VERY lucky to find a copy.

And there are 1963-A Series notes using backplates from the 1963 Series.
But I don't know if they are considered mules.

@beerandchips - To answer your Q, only in some cases there is the difference in the size of the print on the plate numbers that identifies it as a mule. An example in the linked article below. But also in paper money collecting, a "mule" gets created when an overlap occurs with the plates used in the printing process. More specifically, the back plate that was used with one group of signers or series was also used with a different series or group of signers. This typically occurs when only one of the two plates is changed. So on some they have nothing to do with the size like this one, hope that helps.

https://www.pmgnotes.com/news/artic...rading-mule/

Jamericon,

If you happen to have any links to articles prior to 5 years ago on the topic here as those are free (or when replying to other topics), that might be helpful to both expand on the info posted in general, and give someone a potential reason to consider joining and then able to see the most recent 5 years of SPMC Paper Money Journal articles as well which may be of interest. Yes it is searchable but just mentioning in case you ever have specific links to point out to read.
Memership: https://www.spmc.org/user/register