PMD? Twenty Dollar Note

Just above the security window seems to be a few scratches. If you look closely at the notes with a loupe can you see scratches/scrapes? I would be leaning more towards PMD at this early stage but its and interesting one. I would be surprised if a genuine error note so severe circulated for 11 years before being noticed.

If it were merely the black ink missing, then the red ink ought to be unaffected, and the bits that are supposed to be entirely black (such as the name beneath the portrait) would not be visible at all.

It's PPD - post-printing damage (it can't really be " PMD"; since it's a banknote it was never "minted"). Likely a solvent or erasive of some kind, applied directly onto the black bits. Notice how the red ink far away from any black bits remains unaffected.

I hate to disagree but I'm still not convinced.

Does anyone know if the black is applied in several layers?

Perhaps a top layer of black that emphasises the pattern is what's not there?

Surely a solvent would remove at least some the red also and I can't see any evidence of the red pattern being impacted at all. Likewise the clarity of the black that is there seems unaffected.

I grabbed the following from the RBA site.

The first printing process involves the background colours and patterns being printed onto both sides of the polymer sheets at the same time by simultan printing machines. These machines can print up to 8,000 sheets per hour.

Following the simultan printing the major design elements such as the portraits are printed using intaglio printing machines, with ink being transferred to the substrate under great pressure. Separate print runs are required for each side of the sheet. The resulting raised print is one of the important security features of Australia's polymer banknotes.

Serial numbers are then added to the sheets using a letterpress printing process.

In a final print run, the banknote sheets are given two coats of a protective overcoating ink using an offset printing press. This overcoat contributes to the extended durability of polymer banknotes as it protects the printing. It also helps to keep the banknotes clean.

http://banknotes.rba.gov.au/production.html

I'd be hanging onto it if I were you mleivers71.

I can't really think of a way to confirm yay or nay, but perhaps get in contact with Mick Vort Ronald and get his thoughts? (I haven't contacted him since the introduction of OCR-B serial numbers in the early 80's, but I'm sure he's still around).

Mick has been at the SA numismatic society the past few meeting I've been to. I think the next meeting is next thursday 21st. I could show him the picture and see what he thinks. Any chance you could post a larger pic so I can print it off?

hope this is a bit bigger

Okay, my point of view. It is very likely that the note is genuine.
A couple pointers:

• The non-serial side of banknotes, generally aren't looked at.


• There is still minor ink there, so the image can be seen faintly, but that side of the note isn't generally seen as black ink, but moreso grey & being that there's still some minor ink there, that could've allowed it to make it this far through circulation


• The coat of arms does not stand out in it's bright red colour as in the PPD notes that we've seen on eBay


• The side that has the window partially scratched is the side that has the ink issue, so it could have been part of the process as it does look quite messed up above the window, or someone could've thought it was fake & scratched around it to see?

That's pretty much my point of view.
Below is one I brought from an IAG auction. It's not nearly as dark as a normal $50, but it's not as light as that $20, mind you, I think the condition of the $50 is a little better.

No problems enworb
I was thinking of listing it on ebay but as I'm a polymer man, and a twenty dollar lover maybe it's just going to end-up in my collection as a possible error note.