Fake Error Note.

This one is a favorite. At least it was listed as a faux note.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...B:SS:US:1123

Wanna bet 99% of the people who bid on it think faux is a type of error?

like faux=folding, or something?

That word was carefully selected by the seller for that very purpose. Looking at the sales history of the seller the person doesn't normally sell currency. Back in 2007 sold Euros, but mainly trinkets and knick-knacks. Seems like a straight up seller, but you have to be careful when you start trying to fool people. That perfect rating might take a hit...

Hi Everybody. I am new to this site. I have a question for you all because you seem to know what you're talking about. I pulled this bill out of a register in 1999 from work (I replaced it with another ;) ) and was about to list it on ebay when I determined that it was likely a fake. After researching I concluded the back-to-face print on the obverse is of far poorer quality than it should be were it real. Can you guys confirm this for me? Is this a fake error note? I would hate to be passing fake stuff off as authentic.(While I used to collect coins, I know nothing about currency...just happened upon this and grabbed it because it was intriguing and I assumed it was real) Before I give up on it and go out and spend this I want to be sure it's bogus. I read somewhere else online that if the offset print "looks like it was printed with a dot matrix printer, it's fake." To me that is what it looks like on this bill. Do you agree? Fake or Real?

Thanks a lot for your help.

Actually the image that was posted can be enlarged a lot...

Thanks wd1040. I will start a new thread with the bill.

I didn't mean to say it was printed with dot matrix. The website I referred to said if it LOOKS like it was printed with a dot matrix, it's fake. Basically he was saying the reverse and the obverse error should look almost identical, and if the obverse over-print looks a lot less sharp than the same image on the reverse, then it was probably printed on after the fact and is not a BEP error. I should have scanned the actual reverse so the 2 can be compared, I will do this in the new thread. I thought it was legit up until I read that, because when I compare the front and back the back is very sharp and the front looks like it has a sort of "grid" pattern to it. I'm wondering if the difference is because (if it's real) the press was run without a sheet in it, transferred the ink to the dye, and then got squished onto the obverse and reverse at the same time, and the discrepancy in image quality comes from the fact that the dye (or whatever the non-inked part of the press is called) is a different kind of surface not normally meant to transfer ink correctly, OR, the discrepancy comes from the fact that the obverse image was printed on by someone later and is fake.

One thing that struck me and makes me think it could be real is the fact that when held up to bright light, both images are exactly aligned. I cannot tell any difference or skew between the front and back. When I first got it I thought the back had somehow bled through to the front, that's how perfectly aligned the images are. So that makes me think that it had to have been produced by an industrial quality machine (BEP). I'd think you'd need a really sophisticated printer to get it aligned absolutely perfectly front and back, and I can't think of why someone with equipment like that would be faking error notes instead of something more profitable. (though it's possible, I really don't know how hard that would be to do but it seems like it would be difficult and costly)

Sorry for the hijack. I'll start a new thread and put up more pics for comparison.

I so want to PM the seller and ask how long he had to leave the hot iron on it to get that "error".