| Author |
 Replies: 54 / Views: 35,963 |
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
12804 Posts |
I read tonight that the BEP announced series 2017A notes (some time ago, actually) and that 2017A is meant to signify a minor change in the production process.
Anyone know what that minor change is? Edited by CelticKnot
12/28/2019 11:38 pm
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7613 Posts |
Until a 2017-A $20 shows up in circulation we will probably never know what the minor change happens to be.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
12804 Posts |
While the $20 notes are the first of the 2017A printed (April '19), according to uspapermoney.info, there are $1, $2, $5, $10, $20 & $100 notes in the 2017A series so far. It may be a while before we see the $1 notes as they were only printed last month (Nov '19).
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4637 Posts |
I've got some 2017A $2 notes and I've compared them to some 2013 $2 notes...and they feel, look and smell identical. These were printed in August.  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12804 Posts |
^^ Just ordered a couple of those myself tonight.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
115 Posts |
At least for the $5 notes, the Series 2017-A is the first printing in the 50-subject sheet format.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12804 Posts |
I just received G03369197A and 198A in the mail. Guessing we used the same source, Steve.  |
|
Valued Member
United States
411 Posts |
The Normal reason for the A,B,C series is the Secretary of the Treasury stays the same, but the Treasurer changes.
However, signatures of the 2017A series are Carranza-Mnuchin same as series 2017.
It is not currently clear why this series exists or how it is different from Series 2017. We may hope the BEP will provide an explanation eventually.-webmaster@uspapermoney.info
Jovita Carranza (born June 29, 1949) was the 44th Treasurer of the United States in office from June 19, 2017 - January 15, 2020. Her successor has not been determined.
However, production of the $20 2017A series began in April-May 2019.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1374 Posts |
Quote:
We may hope the BEP will provide an explanation eventually Well, I asked the BEP's Historical Resource Center about the change from series 2017 to 2017A. So, far I've only received the following non-committal response Quote:
Series changes entail more than just signature or design changes. When possible and practical, the BEP makes other needed modifications to banknotes, which may include changes to materials or processes (e.g. change of a supplier or subject format). Availability of new materials, the manufacturing of plates with new signatures, production and delivery schedules, and management of inventory to minimize waste of any materials being replaced can also effect signature change timing. We'll see if I get anything else in response to my follow-up inquiry.  And here's the response to my follow-up inquiry Quote:
The information you have requested is proprietary information and, consequently, cannot be disclosed. Guess I'll have to try the FOIA route.  Edited by BadDog
02/25/2020 12:52 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4637 Posts |
Thanks @BadDog...looks like they lawyered-up.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1374 Posts |
Quote:
...looks like they lawyered-up. Maybe, or could just be that the historians didn't feel comfortable giving out info on the current series. We'll see if I get anything different from the FOIA request  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
742 Posts |
On another forum it was suggested that the change is in the composition of the paper.
|
|
New Member
United States
1 Posts |
IT remains a complete mystery why the change occurred from series 2017 to 2017A. In the history of US currency there has never ever been any change of series EVER which was not explained by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing... This is very, very strange, since no one who has seen the series 2017A currency has detected even the tiniest microscopic difference in the design in any way. BEP hasn't announced anything about production processes, but has seemed to HUNKER DOWN when queried about it, saying that the reason for the change is "proprietary information." Odd odd odd... wish someone would look into this more thoroughly.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
187475 Posts |
 to the Community, elreventon! |
|
Valued Member
United States
411 Posts |
There was something funny going on with the 2017 series. There are several examples of the following, but to highlight one of them look at the first line of the monthly reports from the BEP for Jan and Feb of 2019 for the series 2017G $20 banknote printed in Washington. https://www.moneyfactory.gov/resour...monthly.htmlRemember that 640,000 banknotes= 1 skid Notice how they printed 44,800,000 notes (70 skids) with suffix A in January, and then next month printed 38,400,000 banknotes (60 skids) with suffix F, and completely skipped suffix B, C, D and E with no explanation. Normally, they deliver 150 skids before they change to a new suffix, and they never skip suffixes. You might remember that they produced 2250 skids of defective 2009 series color $100 notes before they gave up, and eventually started the 2009A series. They are almost certainly trying to hide something. My guess is that they were having a production problem and had to store large quantities of defective banknotes. The story about the change in the composition of the paper may be true, but probably what is being left unsaid is that they had a large number of defects. If they have a small number of defective notes, they use the star notes to replace them. But if there are too many the entire batch must be destroyed. Edited by PacoMartin
04/18/2020 08:00 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1374 Posts |
Quote:
Notice how they printed 44,800,000 notes (70 skids) with suffix A in January, and then next month printed 38,400,000 banknotes (60 skids) with suffix F, and completely skipped suffix B, C, D and E with no explanation. I don't see what you're saying. If I'm looking at the BEP reports correctly, then I get: Jan 2020 WDC 19,200,000 AA notes WDC 19,200,000 IA notes FW 44,800,000 LA notes Feb 2020 WDC 25,600,000 BA notes WDC 44,800,000 AA notes FW 6,400,000 KA notes and I don't see where any suffixes were skipped? Looks like the virus shutdown has delayed any response to my FOIA request. I got a letter from the BEP dtd March 9th saying that they have the request but they would need an extension of 10 days, with the extension time ending on April 6th, to process it. It's now about 2 weeks past that date and I haven't yet received anything else. I fully expect that I will get something eventually |
| |
Replies: 54 / Views: 35,963 |
Posted 12/28/2019 11:37 pm
