Interesting Consecutive Errors Found On 2017A $20 Uncirculated Stack

My first thought was dirty rollers at the BEP.
John1

Very interesting!

Yes, but strange isn't it that only 10 of the notes in a row have them while both just before and after those notes did not and are consecutive serials which made me think it wasnt a local bank machine/counter. I guess if others find them also, its even more likely to be BEP rather than bank since that would eliminate its just the specific bank these came from. They are normally on the edges only I see on both the top and bottom in this case, and shouldnt be on the reverse of the bills. They may be on other denominations also because I found the 2017 $1 with them again on the back in the same area. Those may be the same so I'll have to post those when I get them out of storage eventually. I am not currently yet familiar with some of the new BEP machinery since 2013 and how that might even create them. My thoughts also was that there is no added value unless it can be proven to be errors from the BEP and even then not sure of interest so I also thought it more a curiosity and was in my junk drawer I've slowly started to clean.

Interesting, CoolBreeze. They are actually on both the top and bottom, but strangely only 10 in the stack had them on the back of the bills, but not the others just before those 10 and also stopped after those 10. They were all consecutive serial numbers so didnt come from different batches. I will eventually add the 2017 $1s that had them, but not sure if they normally have the marks on the top or bottom from the BEP if someone has a sealed 2017 or 2017a stack could check. Maybe also someone sees them on other bills. There is new equipment since 2013 the BEP uses which is different than before and not yet familiar with the roller functions related to this.

What you're describing, @Dutch-Tigger, is deemed desirable by error note collectors. Many error note collectors love acquiring the note before and after the error, when possible.

The question here, I believe, is trying to determine if the markings were applied at the BEP during production, which would make them a legitimate error, although minor.

Or, if the markings were made Post-BEP, which would disqualify them as true error notes.

@Dutch-Tigger, Yes a great answer from SteveinTampa. In this case we can indeed show a progression from before the error (or anomaly if not BEP), with the error, then the error ending so that was unusual as most of the time you would just find say 1 or 2 bills with the marks on them thinking it might be an error, and why I had pulled it and shared. As Steve mentioned we dont yet know if this is from the BEP or perhaps a machine counter and eventually perhaps further finds or info might help to determine that possibly. I also had thought like steve so far it would typically be a minor error, something you might possibly sell individual notes with them on ebay for a small amount over face if not keeping in a personal collection, but only if it is from the BEP. As a progression even with a minor error perhaps would be far more desirable to a collector and worth more, but on $20s instead of $1 or $5 would likely be hard to sell with a minor error in my opinion since it involves a minimum of 12 bills together to show the progression ($240). If there was some type of major error or serial number error in a progression that the bill alone is known to be of higher value would be more likely to be worthwhile imo.

Yes error coin progressions dont come up often as you would have to have something like a mint sewn bag of them, there was this one below posted (not mine) regarding the strike through on 2020 american samoa bat quarters which shows a progression you may like. Definately something to hold onto when the error itself has value.