Counterfeit money

Just thinking · 11th December 2004, 07:59 PM

Recently there has been comment on how a pen can (supposedly) detect counterfeit money, but in actuallity is nothing but woo-woo. Well, in a sort of role reversal, I came across some money that was placed (years ago) in a cedar jewelry box -- two new (at the time) $50 dollar bills. (Yes, I forgot they were in there, so it was a nice find.) But something strange had happened to them; the ink (on the face side) began to run. If you are not familiar with this type of ink, let me just warn you if this should ever happen to you. Do not touch the ink. It is a sticky substance which does not wash off -- it wears off. Now that that's out of the way I can get back to the story. Not having much use for the bills in this condition, I went to my bank to have them replaced. Well, it was clear to those involved at the bank that these were counterfeit bills, as real money ink never runs -- period. I explained that I received these bills as a gift from my mother (who worked at a bank) from said institution. If they were counterfeit, then the bank was giving out phoney money. That made no difference -- my name and other vital statistics were all taken down and the bills were sent to the FBI for verification. Long story short -- the bills were real, the bank never apologised for accusing me of passing fake bills, and real money can have the ink run from them.

Moral: Even people "in-the-know" may not always be qualified to know what can or can not happen.

Note: Apparently the ink on US currency is reactive to cedar wood vapors, and has some form of chemical reaction. Has this ever happened to anyone else??

Beady · 12th December 2004, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Just thinking
I explained that I received these bills as a gift from my mother (who worked at a bank) from said institution. If they were counterfeit, then the bank was giving out phoney money. That made no difference -- my name and other vital statistics were all taken down and the bills were sent to the FBI for verification. Long story short -- the bills were real, the bank never apologised for accusing me of passing fake bills, and real money can have the ink run from them.

I see nothing in your narrative which indicates you were accused of passing counterfeit money. The actions of the people at your bank, as you have described them, are all required by Federal law. You have told us nothing about anything for which your bank might owe you an apology.

As for the ink running, and why, I would call that a fairly rare occurrence. Not very many wallets purses, cash registers or vaults are made out of cedar. Also, you state that those bills had been in there "for years." How many? If that's the only substance which can make the ink in US currency run, and if it takes years of contact to take effect, then the claim that the ink doesn't run can be considered substantially correct. It would seem perfectly understandable that your bank would think them counterfeit.

Look at the bright side. You have probably caused the US Treasury some grief, as they now try to figure out a way to counter the "Just Thinking" effect.

Just thinking · 12th December 2004, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beady
I see nothing in your narrative which indicates you were accused of passing counterfeit money.

I was trying to keep the story as brief as possible, as I felt including all the details would have made it too long to read. I did show them that the bills had the thin ribbon sandwiched between the two halves of paper, along with what were thought to be other difficult items to forge. But they kept insisting that they were fake (due to the ink). Their attitudes and manners were very harsh and final. These were fake bills and that was that -- there was no question about it! My thoughts now are that if bills like these ever pass by them again, they would still insist they were phonies. So it seems that the idea that final perceptions of reality (and how difficult it is to change them) is not limited to the mystics and pseudo-science crowd -- it's quite widespread.

To answer your question, the bills were in the box for approximately 10 years. I know this is not usual, but they could at least have said we will check their authenticity for you -- and not have such a final conclusion (which turned out wrong).

Beady · 12th December 2004, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Just thinking
But they kept insisting that they were fake (due to the ink). Their attitudes and manners were very harsh and final. These were fake bills and that was that -- there was no question about it! My thoughts now are that if bills like these ever pass by them again, they would still insist they were phonies. So it seems that the idea that final perceptions of reality (and how difficult it is to change them) is not limited to the mystics and pseudo-science crowd -- it's quite widespread.

First of all, I wasn't there, so I have no direct knowledge of what happened. It's not that difficult to imagine, however, and this segues to Point Four, below.

Second, as I said, their resistance to the idea that legitimate bills could have the ink run was and is substantially well-founded. The reason the ink ran sounds like a rather obscure fact that maybe not even the government scientists might have known beforehand; it therefore seems unreasonable to expect bank tellers to be aware of such an arcane possibility. I imagine that your attitude was therefore incomprehensible to them.

Third, your apparent resistance to the idea that the bills could not be counterfeit because a) they came from a bank and b) via your mother was not well-founded; both banks and your mother can/could be fooled. You were correct in the event, but not for the right reasons. In fact, the reason you proved correct had absolutely nothing to do with anything that I'll wager any of you knew or said at the time. All of you were wrong, for reasons which none of you could imagine at the time. It is therefore unfair of you to claim after the event to have been right and them to have been wrong during the event, even though that is how it turned out.

Fourth, it's easy to imagine you feeling more and more embarrassed and mortified, and more than a little angry, as the incident wound on, and these emotions and perceptions have colored your memories (you didn't say how long ago this was, but the idea still holds). I hope you'll forgive me, therefore, for wondering what the story would sound like, coming from one of the other participants.

Just thinking · 12th December 2004, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beady
First of all, I wasn't there, so I have no direct knowledge of what happened .... I imagine that your attitude was therefore incomprehensible to them.

Along with the possibility that I was correct about the bills being legal.

Quote:

Third, your apparent resistance to the idea that the bills could not be counterfeit because a) they came from a bank and b) via your mother was not well-founded; both banks and your mother can/could be fooled. You were correct in the event, but not for the right reasons. In fact, the reason you proved correct had absolutely nothing to do with anything that I'll wager any of you knew or said at the time. All of you were wrong, for reasons which none of you could imagine at the time. It is therefore unfair of you to claim after the event to have been right and them to have been wrong during the event, even though that is how it turned out.

Not so, I felt the bills were real because they contained all of the new (at the time) elements in use to foil forgery -- the thin ribbon between the halves, the watermark, the holographic print on the bottom right. The fact that they came from a bank in uncirculated condition added to my conclusion, it was not the founding evidence for it.

Quote:

Fourth, it's easy to imagine you feeling more and more embarrassed and mortified, and more than a little angry, as the incident wound on, and these emotions and perceptions have colored your memories (you didn't say how long ago this was, but the idea still holds). I hope you'll forgive me, therefore, for wondering what the story would sound like, coming from one of the other participants.

I never felt embarrassed -- just helpless among those that were "more than certain". I never said 100% that they were not counterfeit, just that it seemed highly unlikely to be the case -- they were 100% certain the bills were.

Rob Lister · 12th December 2004, 05:24 PM

I'm going to apply Occam's razor to this and just put in it the cuppy-hole with the marine-ring-finger post.

Beady · 12th December 2004, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Just thinking
I felt the bills were real because they contained all of the new (at the time) elements in use to foil forgery...

I have a problem with this statement. Previously, you said the bills were 10 years old at the time of this incident. Now, either you mean that the bills contained all the anti-forgery items from 10 years before the incident at the bank, in which case I have to ask how you knew or remembered what those elements were (lord knows, I have no real idea what anti-counterfeiting measures were in effect 10 years ago, not without doing some research); or you mean that they contained all the elements in place at the time of the incident, which seems to be impossible.

No. I'm not saying you're lying. You are almost certainly telling the story accurately enough, so far as you remember it. As you appear to admit, though, you are "remembering" through a haze of frustration, at the very least.

I also seem to detect hints of self-justification, as when you say, "Along with the possibility that I was correct about the bills being legal." Even now, you seem impervious to the idea that there is/was no reasonable expectation that the bank personnel should be aware of any method for making the ink run. All they, or you, knew at the time was that the ink on US currency never runs.

Quote:

I never said 100% that they were not counterfeit, just that it seemed highly unlikely to be the case -- they were 100% certain the bills were.

Given this statement, can you give a single reason why they should not have followed legally-mandated procedure? After all, it took a government lab to confirm the bills' authenticity; was there any reason for the bank personnel (or you) to believe that your estimation at the time bore the same credibility as a government lab?

Here's an experiment: Try retelling the story as if you were one of the other participants. Give their narrative and opinions, from their point of view.

LostAngeles · 12th December 2004, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beady
I have a problem with this statement. Previously, you said the bills were 10 years old at the time of this incident. Now, either you mean that the bills contained all the anti-forgery items from 10 years before the incident at the bank, in which case I have to ask how you knew or remembered what those elements were (lord knows, I have no real idea what anti-counterfeiting measures were in effect 10 years ago, not without doing some research); or you mean that they contained all the elements in place at the time of the incident, which seems to be impossible.

No. I'm not saying you're lying. You are almost certainly telling the story accurately enough, so far as you remember it. As you appear to admit, though, you are "remembering" through a haze of frustration, at the very least.

...

OK, I thought Beady was correct until I looked it up. The $50 with the color-shifting ink was first issued in October, 1997. Just thinking didn't say when this event occurred, but if it happened recently, the bills would be 7 years old. It's not ten, but it's close.

http://www.moneyfactory.com/section.cfm/4/31

http://www.moneyfactory.com/newmoney...currency/new50

The second link is for the new new $50s, as opposed to the old new $50s which would be what Jt might have had.

Just thinking · 12th December 2004, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beady
I have a problem with this statement. Previously, you said the bills were 10 years old at the time of this incident. Now, either you mean that the bills contained all the anti-forgery items from 10 years before the incident at the bank, in which case I have to ask how you knew or remembered what those elements were (lord knows, I have no real idea what anti-counterfeiting measures were in effect 10 years ago, not without doing some research); or you mean that they contained all the elements in place at the time of the incident, which seems to be impossible.

I was a coin collector from before I was a teenager, which goes back quite a few years. When the US currency was about to get a facelift for the first time in decades I took a keen interest in what was changing; along with the changes that were suppose to reduce (or thwart) forgery. When I first took the bills to the bank it was to have them exchanged for good ones (no running ink). I felt that the bills were real for the reasons I mentioned earlier and thought (wrongly) that the bank would likely have someone that could authenticate the bills then and there (again, for the same reasons). It was the fact that the ink was somehow reacting to the vapors they were exposed to that gave the bank personnel all the reason they needed to ultimately conclude they were fake -- to the devil with all the other evidence. They did not say they wanted to have them verified, but to confirm that they were fake. These were fake bills, no doubt about it. It was their attitude and lack of accepting the possibility of them being real that is the heart of this post. Sure, if I was in their shoes I would be suspect, and follow proceedure -- but without proper methods to come to a 100% conclusion, I would not state that they were certain forgeries. But that never stopped them. And again let me say that if the situation came upon them today, I feel that they would still come to the same conclusions even given what happened years ago.

Just thinking · 12th December 2004, 07:12 PM

Thank you very much for the links, LA.

At my age 7 years, 10 years, it's all the same.

Zep · 12th December 2004, 07:25 PM

Geez, when are you guys going to get plastic banknotes like we have had for a decade or more?

http://www.questacon.edu.au/html/plastic_banknotes.html

Hastur · 13th December 2004, 05:56 AM

But if we accepted plastic money, what would we call our credit cards?

LTC8K6 · 13th December 2004, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Geez, when are you guys going to get plastic banknotes like we have had for a decade or more?

Hopefully never.

Beady · 13th December 2004, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Just thinking
-- but without proper methods to come to a 100% conclusion, I would not state that they were certain forgeries.

We *all* make unwarranted and unsupported logical jumps. Maybe you wouldn't do it about currency (or maybe you would - you wouldn't be the first collector to be lulled into a false sense of security by his own knowledge), but you would and have certainly done it about something. And more than once. It's part of being human.

Quote:

These were fake bills, no doubt about it. It was their attitude and lack of accepting the possibility of them being real that is the heart of this post.

So, what would have been different if they had accepted the possibility? What would be different today?

Just thinking · 13th December 2004, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beady
So, what would have been different if they had accepted the possibility? What would be different today?

Absolutely nothing -- but what's that got to do with the way I was treated? The point of the post was to simply show a rather unusual role reversal --> Real bills thought to be fake by poeple that usually are expected to identify the fake ones being passed as real. Just go into a bank today and hand them several $50 or $100 dollar bills (and ask for $10's and $20's) and watch if they don't give them the once over for authenticity. It's kind of ironic that they think they know real from fake when they obviously were fooled by real ones thinking they were fake. And the running ink was only an anomoly, all the other security checks on the bills for authenticity were intact. That's my point and that's all there was to it.

Zep · 13th December 2004, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Hopefully never.

Why? What's the objections to plastic banknotes?

marting · 13th December 2004, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Just thinking
Absolutely nothing -- but what's that got to do with the way I was treated? The point of the post was to simply show a rather unusual role reversal --> Real bills thought to be fake by poeple that usually are expected to identify the fake ones being passed as real. Just go into a bank today and hand them several $50 or $100 dollar bills (and ask for $10's and $20's) and watch if they don't give them the once over for authenticity. It's kind of ironic that they think they know real from fake when they obviously were fooled by real ones thinking they were fake. And the running ink was only an anomoly, all the other security checks on the bills for authenticity were intact. That's my point and that's all there was to it.

And it's a good point. Since they deprived you of your money until they were able to get it verified elsewhere, it would seem to me that they do owe you an apology. What if you had needed that money to pay rent and had gotten evicted. They should have been CERTAIN the money was counterfeit or they should have given you replacement bills and gotten your ID to collect it's value if it turned out counterfeit.

I don't think you have to turn over bills that they merely think may be counterfeit*, they should be virtually certain. It is your property, after all.

*I may be wrong since they can take real money they think is illegally obtained and you have to prove it wasn't.

LostAngeles · 13th December 2004, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zep
Why? What's the objections to plastic banknotes?

Well for one, I'd likely chew on them. Stupid oral fixation.

Take a moment to think about how gross money is.

...

There you go/

Beady · 14th December 2004, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Just thinking
Absolutely nothing -- but what's that got to do with the way I was treated?

That's part of my point. Looks to me like you've got two separate issues here that you're combining into one. If the authenticity issue has nothing to do with the way you remember being treated, then why mention the one with the other? The bank personnel were faced with an unfamiliar situation, so they fell back on training and procedure; that's what training and procedure are for.

BTW, you so far haven't mentioned anything other than that you didn't like their attitude, and it seems that you've spent an awful lot of time talking about it. You haven't specified, but I get the impression this all happened some time ago; don't you think it's time to let it go, now?

Quote:

It's kind of ironic that they think they know real from fake when they obviously were fooled by real ones thinking they were fake. And the running ink was only an anomoly, all the other security checks on the bills for authenticity were intact. That's my point and that's all there was to it.

An anomaly, but a big anomaly. So what, if all the other security checks were in place? How many defects does a bill have to show before it's judged as counterfeit?

Matabiri · 14th December 2004, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Just thinking
It's kind of ironic that they think they know real from fake when they obviously were fooled by real ones thinking they were fake. And the running ink was only an anomoly, all the other security checks on the bills for authenticity were intact. That's my point and that's all there was to it.

Surely better this way round than they took fakes...?

Think of it from their point of view though; someone comes in with some large-denomination banknotes and wants them changed. He says they were given to him by someone who works in a bank. They've got running ink.

Suspicious behaviour? Check
Suspicious money? Check

If they were rude and deprived you of the money, then yes, you probably should have got an apology, if only in the interests of customer relations and basic courtesy. But they did have good reason to be suspicious, right?

number9 · 15th December 2004, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beady
We *all* make unwarranted and unsupported logical jumps.

That's an unwarranted and unsupported logical jump.

Bob Klase · 16th December 2004, 09:27 AM

Quote:

should have been CERTAIN the money was counterfeit or they should have given you replacement bills and gotten your ID to collect it's value if it turned out counterfeit.

Absolutely. Once they had your ID they could have easily tracked you down- it's obvious that someone passing fake bills couldn't possibly have fake ID.

I think congress should change the law so whenever a bank suspects that someone has given them fake money the bank would be required to give them good money while the suspect money was checked. And if the ID is suspected to be fake then the bank should also give them some real ID while the suspected fake is checked.

LTC8K6 · 16th December 2004, 09:37 AM

I hate the idea of plastic notes. It sounds like fake money. Plastic money means a credit card to me.

There's nothing wrong with one dollar coins or two dollar bills and you see how they were accepted over here.

Of course if they had made the last couple of one dollar coins even remotely pretty, maybe they would have gone over better?

We like one dollar bills, pennies, and paper money around here!

Beady · 16th December 2004, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by number9
That's an unwarranted and unsupported logical jump.

Do you have evidence to support your statement? Assertions unsupported by corroboration are not considered evidence.

marting · 16th December 2004, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bob Klase
Absolutely. Once they had your ID they could have easily tracked you down- it's obvious that someone passing fake bills couldn't possibly have fake ID.

Really now. I don't think counterfeiters launder their money by taking them to a bank where they are photographed and possibly have to provide fingerprints.

Just thinking · 18th December 2004, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bob Klase
Absolutely. Once they had your ID they could have easily tracked you down- it's obvious that someone passing fake bills couldn't possibly have fake ID.

Really, Bob, do you think someone with ink running from counterfeit bills is going to go into a bank (only $100 worth at that) to try and pass it off as real? Now that would take balls of steel! (Not that there aren't some real idiots out there, but man -- that's one for the books.)

Nothing personal, as I'm sure you're no dummy, but ...

BillyJoe · 19th December 2004, 04:11 AM

Just think, Just Thinking, they might just have thought you were using reverse logic to fool them into accepting fake notes.

Just thinking · 19th December 2004, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Just think, Just Thinking, they might just have thought you were using reverse logic to fool them into accepting fake notes.

That's still quite ballsy!

My laughing dog is not to demean Bob, but my reaction to my mind's eye viewing the mentioned scenario.

DrMatt · 5th January 2005, 12:03 PM

Why would a bank use safe boxes which exude chemicals that cause ink on money to run?

valis · 5th January 2005, 03:11 PM

Dang it! For the last seven years I have been keeping a fifty tucked in the seceret pocket of my trusty cedar wallet. After reading this thread I take it out and find it is now useless.

Just thinking · 10th January 2005, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DrMatt
Why would a bank use safe boxes which exude chemicals that cause ink on money to run?

Who on Earth ever suggested such a thing ... my bills were left in my wife's cedar jewel box -- at home.

kittynh · 10th January 2005, 08:08 PM

There are federal employees that will, if given enough time, piece together your money that the mice chewed (after your crazy uncle hid it behind the wall), and give you brand new money in return. Or if you microwave your money, or it is partly burned in a fire...I think there is a certain percentage of the bill that must be legible for you to get the value of it. What people do to money is very interesting.

ktesibios · 10th January 2005, 09:14 PM

The rules for exchanging damaged bills, as I recall from my coin-collecting days as a kid, were:

If the remnant included 3/5 or more of the original, full face value.
Between 2/5 and 3/5, half of face value.
Less than 2/5, no value.

This could have changed, but it's a set of rules that pretty well obviate the possibility of someone multiplying their money by fragmenting it.

BillyJoe · 10th January 2005, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ktesibios
If the remnant included 3/5 or more of the original, full face value.
Between 2/5 and 3/5, half of face value.
Less than 2/5, no value.

If you took exactly 3/5 to one bank, they would have to give you the benefit of the doubt and give you full face value
If you took the remaining 2/5 to another bank, they would also have to give you the benefit of the doubt and give you half face value.

You have just made 50% profit on your little enterprise.

Zep · 10th January 2005, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LTC8K6
I hate the idea of plastic notes. It sounds like fake money. Plastic money means a credit card to me.

Actually, Australian banknotes are made of a polymer and feel much like new rag-paper notes. They are not shiny, and they fold much like new rag-paper notes too. "Plastic" is just the common term we use to describe their composition.

There's nothing wrong with one dollar coins or two dollar bills and you see how they were accepted over here.

We have one- and two-dollar coins only, no notes. They are "gold" coins - actually mostly silver but with a touch of gold to give them "value". Notes start at five dollars.

Of course if they had made the last couple of one dollar coins even remotely pretty, maybe they would have gone over better?

So how about coloured banknotes, then? More scope for prettiness, yes?

We like one dollar bills, pennies, and paper money around here!

Umm, ditto but no pennies. Just big, chunky coins.

ktesibios · 11th January 2005, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BillyJoe
If you took exactly 3/5 to one bank, they would have to give you the benefit of the doubt and give you full face value
If you took the remaining 2/5 to another bank, they would also have to give you the benefit of the doubt and give you half face value.

You have just made 50% profit on your little enterprise.

D'oh! You're right.

Of course, if the old rule had been "more than 3/5" instead of "greater than or equal to 3/5" then that trick wouldn't work. Most likely a case of my misfiring memory- it's been nearly 40 years since I was into coin collecting.

Anyway, I found the new rules here:

http://www.moneyfactory.com/section.cfm/8/39

If the currency is mutilated, you have to ship it to the gummint for exchange. Damaged currency that's still whole can be exchanged at a bank.

BillyJoe · 11th January 2005, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zep
We have one- and two-dollar coins only, no notes.

There is just one little anomaly here. Both coins are the same colour but the one dollar coin is larger than the two dollar coin. Becuase I rarely use coins, this still trips me up from time to time.

BillyJoe · 11th January 2005, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ktesibios
Anyway, I found the new rules here....

Yeah...CLEARLY MORE than ONE HALF of the original note.

epepke · 11th January 2005, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Just thinking
Not so, I felt the bills were real because they contained all of the new (at the time) elements in use to foil forgery -- the thin ribbon between the halves, the watermark, the holographic print on the bottom right. The fact that they came from a bank in uncirculated condition added to my conclusion, it was not the founding evidence for it.

I assume by what you're saying that you're talking about the first reissue with the microprinting all around the portrait, before the portrait redesigns?

Those bills were crap. You could actually smudge the ink. They crackled and wore out after a few months.

Just thinking · 13th January 2005, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ktesibios
The rules for exchanging damaged bills, as I recall from my coin-collecting days as a kid, were:

If the remnant included 3/5 or more of the original, full face value.
Between 2/5 and 3/5, half of face value.
Less than 2/5, no value.

I believe if you could show the serial number twice on the piece you had, full value was assured, as there would no longer be a piece possible with either serial number left.

And any piece, no matter how large, must have at least one serial number on it.

11th December 2004, 07:59 PM	#1
Just thinking Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,169	Counterfeit money Recently there has been comment on how a pen can (supposedly) detect counterfeit money, but in actuallity is nothing but woo-woo. Well, in a sort of role reversal, I came across some money that was placed (years ago) in a cedar jewelry box -- two new (at the time) $50 dollar bills. (Yes, I forgot they were in there, so it was a nice find.) But something strange had happened to them; the ink (on the face side) began to run. If you are not familiar with this type of ink, let me just warn you if this should ever happen to you. Do not touch the ink. It is a sticky substance which does not wash off -- it wears off. Now that that's out of the way I can get back to the story. Not having much use for the bills in this condition, I went to my bank to have them replaced. Well, it was clear to those involved at the bank that these were counterfeit bills, as real money ink never runs -- period. I explained that I received these bills as a gift from my mother (who worked at a bank) from said institution. If they were counterfeit, then the bank was giving out phoney money. That made no difference -- my name and other vital statistics were all taken down and the bills were sent to the FBI for verification. Long story short -- the bills were real, the bank never apologised for accusing me of passing fake bills, and real money can have the ink run from them. Moral: Even people "in-the-know" may not always be qualified to know what can or can not happen. Note: Apparently the ink on US currency is reactive to cedar wood vapors, and has some form of chemical reaction. Has this ever happened to anyone else??
	__________________ Our greatest challenge is not just to ask the important questions, but to recognize the meaningless ones.

12th December 2004, 04:34 AM	#2
Beady Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: 44:57:19N, 73:16:18W Posts: 5,490	Re: Counterfeit money Quote: Originally posted by Just thinking I explained that I received these bills as a gift from my mother (who worked at a bank) from said institution. If they were counterfeit, then the bank was giving out phoney money. That made no difference -- my name and other vital statistics were all taken down and the bills were sent to the FBI for verification. Long story short -- the bills were real, the bank never apologised for accusing me of passing fake bills, and real money can have the ink run from them. I see nothing in your narrative which indicates you were accused of passing counterfeit money. The actions of the people at your bank, as you have described them, are all required by Federal law. You have told us nothing about anything for which your bank might owe you an apology. As for the ink running, and why, I would call that a fairly rare occurrence. Not very many wallets purses, cash registers or vaults are made out of cedar. Also, you state that those bills had been in there "for years." How many? If that's the only substance which can make the ink in US currency run, and if it takes years of contact to take effect, then the claim that the ink doesn't run can be considered substantially correct. It would seem perfectly understandable that your bank would think them counterfeit. Look at the bright side. You have probably caused the US Treasury some grief, as they now try to figure out a way to counter the "Just Thinking" effect.
	__________________ I tolerate with utmost latitude the right of others to differ with me in opinion without imputing to them criminality. I know too well all the weaknesses and uncertainty of human reason to wonder at its different results. -- Thomas Jefferson

12th December 2004, 08:04 AM	#3
Just thinking Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,169	Re: Re: Counterfeit money Quote: Originally posted by Beady I see nothing in your narrative which indicates you were accused of passing counterfeit money. I was trying to keep the story as brief as possible, as I felt including all the details would have made it too long to read. I did show them that the bills had the thin ribbon sandwiched between the two halves of paper, along with what were thought to be other difficult items to forge. But they kept insisting that they were fake (due to the ink). Their attitudes and manners were very harsh and final. These were fake bills and that was that -- there was no question about it! My thoughts now are that if bills like these ever pass by them again, they would still insist they were phonies. So it seems that the idea that final perceptions of reality (and how difficult it is to change them) is not limited to the mystics and pseudo-science crowd -- it's quite widespread. To answer your question, the bills were in the box for approximately 10 years. I know this is not usual, but they could at least have said we will check their authenticity for you -- and not have such a final conclusion (which turned out wrong).
	__________________ Our greatest challenge is not just to ask the important questions, but to recognize the meaningless ones.

12th December 2004, 09:51 AM	#4
Beady Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: 44:57:19N, 73:16:18W Posts: 5,490	Re: Re: Re: Counterfeit money Quote: Originally posted by Just thinking But they kept insisting that they were fake (due to the ink). Their attitudes and manners were very harsh and final. These were fake bills and that was that -- there was no question about it! My thoughts now are that if bills like these ever pass by them again, they would still insist they were phonies. So it seems that the idea that final perceptions of reality (and how difficult it is to change them) is not limited to the mystics and pseudo-science crowd -- it's quite widespread. First of all, I wasn't there, so I have no direct knowledge of what happened. It's not that difficult to imagine, however, and this segues to Point Four, below. Second, as I said, their resistance to the idea that legitimate bills could have the ink run was and is substantially well-founded. The reason the ink ran sounds like a rather obscure fact that maybe not even the government scientists might have known beforehand; it therefore seems unreasonable to expect bank tellers to be aware of such an arcane possibility. I imagine that your attitude was therefore incomprehensible to them. Third, your apparent resistance to the idea that the bills could not be counterfeit because a) they came from a bank and b) via your mother was not well-founded; both banks and your mother can/could be fooled. You were correct in the event, but not for the right reasons. In fact, the reason you proved correct had absolutely nothing to do with anything that I'll wager any of you knew or said at the time. All of you were wrong, for reasons which none of you could imagine at the time. It is therefore unfair of you to claim after the event to have been right and them to have been wrong during the event, even though that is how it turned out. Fourth, it's easy to imagine you feeling more and more embarrassed and mortified, and more than a little angry, as the incident wound on, and these emotions and perceptions have colored your memories (you didn't say how long ago this was, but the idea still holds). I hope you'll forgive me, therefore, for wondering what the story would sound like, coming from one of the other participants.
	__________________ I tolerate with utmost latitude the right of others to differ with me in opinion without imputing to them criminality. I know too well all the weaknesses and uncertainty of human reason to wonder at its different results. -- Thomas Jefferson

12th December 2004, 05:04 PM	#5
Just thinking Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,169	Re: Re: Re: Re: Counterfeit money Quote: Originally posted by Beady First of all, I wasn't there, so I have no direct knowledge of what happened .... I imagine that your attitude was therefore incomprehensible to them. Along with the possibility that I was correct about the bills being legal. Quote: Third, your apparent resistance to the idea that the bills could not be counterfeit because a) they came from a bank and b) via your mother was not well-founded; both banks and your mother can/could be fooled. You were correct in the event, but not for the right reasons. In fact, the reason you proved correct had absolutely nothing to do with anything that I'll wager any of you knew or said at the time. All of you were wrong, for reasons which none of you could imagine at the time. It is therefore unfair of you to claim after the event to have been right and them to have been wrong during the event, even though that is how it turned out. Not so, I felt the bills were real because they contained all of the new (at the time) elements in use to foil forgery -- the thin ribbon between the halves, the watermark, the holographic print on the bottom right. The fact that they came from a bank in uncirculated condition added to my conclusion, it was not the founding evidence for it. Quote: Fourth, it's easy to imagine you feeling more and more embarrassed and mortified, and more than a little angry, as the incident wound on, and these emotions and perceptions have colored your memories (you didn't say how long ago this was, but the idea still holds). I hope you'll forgive me, therefore, for wondering what the story would sound like, coming from one of the other participants. I never felt embarrassed -- just helpless among those that were "more than certain". I never said 100% that they were not counterfeit, just that it seemed highly unlikely to be the case -- they were 100% certain the bills were.
	__________________ Our greatest challenge is not just to ask the important questions, but to recognize the meaningless ones.

12th December 2004, 05:24 PM	#6
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Counterfeit money I'm going to apply Occam's razor to this and just put in it the cuppy-hole with the marine-ring-finger post.

12th December 2004, 05:56 PM	#7
Beady Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: 44:57:19N, 73:16:18W Posts: 5,490	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Counterfeit money Quote: Originally posted by Just thinking I felt the bills were real because they contained all of the new (at the time) elements in use to foil forgery... I have a problem with this statement. Previously, you said the bills were 10 years old at the time of this incident. Now, either you mean that the bills contained all the anti-forgery items from 10 years before the incident at the bank, in which case I have to ask how you knew or remembered what those elements were (lord knows, I have no real idea what anti-counterfeiting measures were in effect 10 years ago, not without doing some research); or you mean that they contained all the elements in place at the time of the incident, which seems to be impossible. No. I'm not saying you're lying. You are almost certainly telling the story accurately enough, so far as you remember it. As you appear to admit, though, you are "remembering" through a haze of frustration, at the very least. I also seem to detect hints of self-justification, as when you say, "Along with the possibility that I was correct about the bills being legal." Even now, you seem impervious to the idea that there is/was no reasonable expectation that the bank personnel should be aware of any method for making the ink run. All they, or you, knew at the time was that the ink on US currency never runs. Quote: I never said 100% that they were not counterfeit, just that it seemed highly unlikely to be the case -- they were 100% certain the bills were. Given this statement, can you give a single reason why they should not have followed legally-mandated procedure? After all, it took a government lab to confirm the bills' authenticity; was there any reason for the bank personnel (or you) to believe that your estimation at the time bore the same credibility as a government lab? Here's an experiment: Try retelling the story as if you were one of the other participants. Give their narrative and opinions, from their point of view.
	__________________ I tolerate with utmost latitude the right of others to differ with me in opinion without imputing to them criminality. I know too well all the weaknesses and uncertainty of human reason to wonder at its different results. -- Thomas Jefferson

12th December 2004, 06:50 PM	#8
LostAngeles Anti-WM Jihadist Join Date: May 2004 Location: Having a cup of tea. Posts: 10,159	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Counterfeit money Quote: Originally posted by Beady I have a problem with this statement. Previously, you said the bills were 10 years old at the time of this incident. Now, either you mean that the bills contained all the anti-forgery items from 10 years before the incident at the bank, in which case I have to ask how you knew or remembered what those elements were (lord knows, I have no real idea what anti-counterfeiting measures were in effect 10 years ago, not without doing some research); or you mean that they contained all the elements in place at the time of the incident, which seems to be impossible. No. I'm not saying you're lying. You are almost certainly telling the story accurately enough, so far as you remember it. As you appear to admit, though, you are "remembering" through a haze of frustration, at the very least. ... OK, I thought Beady was correct until I looked it up. The $50 with the color-shifting ink was first issued in October, 1997. Just thinking didn't say when this event occurred, but if it happened recently, the bills would be 7 years old. It's not ten, but it's close. http://www.moneyfactory.com/section.cfm/4/31 http://www.moneyfactory.com/newmoney...currency/new50 The second link is for the new new $50s, as opposed to the old new $50s which would be what Jt might have had.
	__________________ "There is also a likelihood that the settlement will fall between two biomes, potentially hazardous if the player expects a peaceful oceanside meadow, without realizing the ocean is full of amphibious zombie whales." - Dwarf Fortress Wik

12th December 2004, 07:10 PM	#9
Just thinking Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,169	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Counterfeit money Quote: Originally posted by Beady I have a problem with this statement. Previously, you said the bills were 10 years old at the time of this incident. Now, either you mean that the bills contained all the anti-forgery items from 10 years before the incident at the bank, in which case I have to ask how you knew or remembered what those elements were (lord knows, I have no real idea what anti-counterfeiting measures were in effect 10 years ago, not without doing some research); or you mean that they contained all the elements in place at the time of the incident, which seems to be impossible. I was a coin collector from before I was a teenager, which goes back quite a few years. When the US currency was about to get a facelift for the first time in decades I took a keen interest in what was changing; along with the changes that were suppose to reduce (or thwart) forgery. When I first took the bills to the bank it was to have them exchanged for good ones (no running ink). I felt that the bills were real for the reasons I mentioned earlier and thought (wrongly) that the bank would likely have someone that could authenticate the bills then and there (again, for the same reasons). It was the fact that the ink was somehow reacting to the vapors they were exposed to that gave the bank personnel all the reason they needed to ultimately conclude they were fake -- to the devil with all the other evidence. They did not say they wanted to have them verified, but to confirm that they were fake. These were fake bills, no doubt about it. It was their attitude and lack of accepting the possibility of them being real that is the heart of this post. Sure, if I was in their shoes I would be suspect, and follow proceedure -- but without proper methods to come to a 100% conclusion, I would not state that they were certain forgeries. But that never stopped them. And again let me say that if the situation came upon them today, I feel that they would still come to the same conclusions even given what happened years ago.
	__________________ Our greatest challenge is not just to ask the important questions, but to recognize the meaningless ones.

12th December 2004, 07:12 PM	#10
Just thinking Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,169	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Counterfeit money Thank you very much for the links, LA. At my age 7 years, 10 years, it's all the same.
	__________________ Our greatest challenge is not just to ask the important questions, but to recognize the meaningless ones.

12th December 2004, 07:25 PM	#11
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985	Geez, when are you guys going to get plastic banknotes like we have had for a decade or more? http://www.questacon.edu.au/html/plastic_banknotes.html
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985

13th December 2004, 05:56 AM	#12
Hastur Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 320	But if we accepted plastic money, what would we call our credit cards?
Hastur Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 320

13th December 2004, 06:19 AM	#13
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,615	Quote: Geez, when are you guys going to get plastic banknotes like we have had for a decade or more? Hopefully never.

13th December 2004, 04:25 PM	#14
Beady Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: 44:57:19N, 73:16:18W Posts: 5,490	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Counterfeit money Quote: Originally posted by Just thinking -- but without proper methods to come to a 100% conclusion, I would not state that they were certain forgeries. We all make unwarranted and unsupported logical jumps. Maybe you wouldn't do it about currency (or maybe you would - you wouldn't be the first collector to be lulled into a false sense of security by his own knowledge), but you would and have certainly done it about something. And more than once. It's part of being human. Quote: These were fake bills, no doubt about it. It was their attitude and lack of accepting the possibility of them being real that is the heart of this post. So, what would have been different if they had accepted the possibility? What would be different today?
	__________________ I tolerate with utmost latitude the right of others to differ with me in opinion without imputing to them criminality. I know too well all the weaknesses and uncertainty of human reason to wonder at its different results. -- Thomas Jefferson

13th December 2004, 05:49 PM	#15
Just thinking Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,169	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Counterfeit money Quote: Originally posted by Beady So, what would have been different if they had accepted the possibility? What would be different today? Absolutely nothing -- but what's that got to do with the way I was treated? The point of the post was to simply show a rather unusual role reversal --> Real bills thought to be fake by poeple that usually are expected to identify the fake ones being passed as real. Just go into a bank today and hand them several $50 or $100 dollar bills (and ask for $10's and $20's) and watch if they don't give them the once over for authenticity. It's kind of ironic that they think they know real from fake when they obviously were fooled by real ones thinking they were fake. And the running ink was only an anomoly, all the other security checks on the bills for authenticity were intact. That's my point and that's all there was to it.
	__________________ Our greatest challenge is not just to ask the important questions, but to recognize the meaningless ones.

13th December 2004, 06:50 PM	#16
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985	Quote: Originally posted by LTC8K6 Hopefully never. Why? What's the objections to plastic banknotes?
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985

13th December 2004, 07:25 PM	#17
marting Muse Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Rancho Santa Fe Posts: 734	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Counterfeit money Quote: Originally posted by Just thinking Absolutely nothing -- but what's that got to do with the way I was treated? The point of the post was to simply show a rather unusual role reversal --> Real bills thought to be fake by poeple that usually are expected to identify the fake ones being passed as real. Just go into a bank today and hand them several $50 or $100 dollar bills (and ask for $10's and $20's) and watch if they don't give them the once over for authenticity. It's kind of ironic that they think they know real from fake when they obviously were fooled by real ones thinking they were fake. And the running ink was only an anomoly, all the other security checks on the bills for authenticity were intact. That's my point and that's all there was to it. And it's a good point. Since they deprived you of your money until they were able to get it verified elsewhere, it would seem to me that they do owe you an apology. What if you had needed that money to pay rent and had gotten evicted. They should have been CERTAIN the money was counterfeit or they should have given you replacement bills and gotten your ID to collect it's value if it turned out counterfeit. I don't think you have to turn over bills that they merely think may be counterfeit, they should be virtually certain. It is your property, after all. I may be wrong since they can take real money they think is illegally obtained and you have to prove it wasn't.

13th December 2004, 09:32 PM	#18
LostAngeles Anti-WM Jihadist Join Date: May 2004 Location: Having a cup of tea. Posts: 10,159	Quote: Originally posted by Zep Why? What's the objections to plastic banknotes? Well for one, I'd likely chew on them. Stupid oral fixation. Take a moment to think about how gross money is. ... There you go/
	__________________ "There is also a likelihood that the settlement will fall between two biomes, potentially hazardous if the player expects a peaceful oceanside meadow, without realizing the ocean is full of amphibious zombie whales." - Dwarf Fortress Wik

14th December 2004, 01:53 AM	#19
Beady Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: 44:57:19N, 73:16:18W Posts: 5,490	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Counterfeit money Quote: Originally posted by Just thinking Absolutely nothing -- but what's that got to do with the way I was treated? That's part of my point. Looks to me like you've got two separate issues here that you're combining into one. If the authenticity issue has nothing to do with the way you remember being treated, then why mention the one with the other? The bank personnel were faced with an unfamiliar situation, so they fell back on training and procedure; that's what training and procedure are for. BTW, you so far haven't mentioned anything other than that you didn't like their attitude, and it seems that you've spent an awful lot of time talking about it. You haven't specified, but I get the impression this all happened some time ago; don't you think it's time to let it go, now? Quote: It's kind of ironic that they think they know real from fake when they obviously were fooled by real ones thinking they were fake. And the running ink was only an anomoly, all the other security checks on the bills for authenticity were intact. That's my point and that's all there was to it. An anomaly, but a big anomaly. So what, if all the other security checks were in place? How many defects does a bill have to show before it's judged as counterfeit?
	__________________ I tolerate with utmost latitude the right of others to differ with me in opinion without imputing to them criminality. I know too well all the weaknesses and uncertainty of human reason to wonder at its different results. -- Thomas Jefferson

14th December 2004, 03:40 AM	#20
Matabiri Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,734	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Counterfeit money Quote: Originally posted by Just thinking It's kind of ironic that they think they know real from fake when they obviously were fooled by real ones thinking they were fake. And the running ink was only an anomoly, all the other security checks on the bills for authenticity were intact. That's my point and that's all there was to it. Surely better this way round than they took fakes...? Think of it from their point of view though; someone comes in with some large-denomination banknotes and wants them changed. He says they were given to him by someone who works in a bank. They've got running ink. Suspicious behaviour? Check Suspicious money? Check If they were rude and deprived you of the money, then yes, you probably should have got an apology, if only in the interests of customer relations and basic courtesy. But they did have good reason to be suspicious, right?
	__________________ "That's the kind of thing you can't look up on the internet, because it's the kind of thing you get taught at school." - Ashley Pomeroy

15th December 2004, 04:42 PM	#21
number9 Student Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 29	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Counterfeit money Quote: Originally posted by Beady *We all* make unwarranted and unsupported logical jumps.** That's an unwarranted and unsupported logical jump.
number9 Student Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 29

16th December 2004, 09:27 AM	#22
Bob Klase Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Largo, FL Posts: 2,833	Quote: should have been CERTAIN the money was counterfeit or they should have given you replacement bills and gotten your ID to collect it's value if it turned out counterfeit. Absolutely. Once they had your ID they could have easily tracked you down- it's obvious that someone passing fake bills couldn't possibly have fake ID. I think congress should change the law so whenever a bank suspects that someone has given them fake money the bank would be required to give them good money while the suspect money was checked. And if the ID is suspected to be fake then the bank should also give them some real ID while the suspected fake is checked.

16th December 2004, 09:37 AM	#23
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,615	I hate the idea of plastic notes. It sounds like fake money. Plastic money means a credit card to me. There's nothing wrong with one dollar coins or two dollar bills and you see how they were accepted over here. Of course if they had made the last couple of one dollar coins even remotely pretty, maybe they would have gone over better? We like one dollar bills, pennies, and paper money around here!

16th December 2004, 01:00 PM	#24
Beady Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: 44:57:19N, 73:16:18W Posts: 5,490	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Counterfeit money Quote: Originally posted by number9 That's an unwarranted and unsupported logical jump. Do you have evidence to support your statement? Assertions unsupported by corroboration are not considered evidence.
	__________________ I tolerate with utmost latitude the right of others to differ with me in opinion without imputing to them criminality. I know too well all the weaknesses and uncertainty of human reason to wonder at its different results. -- Thomas Jefferson

16th December 2004, 01:20 PM	#25
marting Muse Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Rancho Santa Fe Posts: 734	Quote: Originally posted by Bob Klase Absolutely. Once they had your ID they could have easily tracked you down- it's obvious that someone passing fake bills couldn't possibly have fake ID. Really now. I don't think counterfeiters launder their money by taking them to a bank where they are photographed and possibly have to provide fingerprints.

18th December 2004, 06:31 PM	#26
Just thinking Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,169	Quote: Originally posted by Bob Klase Absolutely. Once they had your ID they could have easily tracked you down- it's obvious that someone passing fake bills couldn't possibly have fake ID. Really, Bob, do you think someone with ink running from counterfeit bills is going to go into a bank (only $100 worth at that) to try and pass it off as real? Now that would take balls of steel! (Not that there aren't some real idiots out there, but man -- that's one for the books.) Nothing personal, as I'm sure you're no dummy, but ...
	__________________ Our greatest challenge is not just to ask the important questions, but to recognize the meaningless ones.

19th December 2004, 04:11 AM	#27
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Just think, Just Thinking, they might just have thought you were using reverse logic to fool them into accepting fake notes.
	__________________ A secular society is one in which no one loses any liberty as a consequence of someone else's religious beliefs. NB Allowing yourself to get led around the nose by a person like Craig is a losing strategy. SH Morality is a social coating around a Darwinian core. JC My joke about freewill: There is no basis for it.

19th December 2004, 08:45 AM	#28
Just thinking Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,169	Quote: Originally posted by BillyJoe Just think, Just Thinking, they might just have thought you were using reverse logic to fool them into accepting fake notes. That's *still* quite ballsy! My laughing dog is not to demean Bob, but my reaction to my mind's eye viewing the mentioned scenario.
	__________________ Our greatest challenge is not just to ask the important questions, but to recognize the meaningless ones.

5th January 2005, 12:03 PM	#29
DrMatt Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: USA Posts: 1,422	Why would a bank use safe boxes which exude chemicals that cause ink on money to run?
	__________________ Music: Splendor in Sound CD No.3 is out!

5th January 2005, 03:11 PM	#30
valis Muse Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: sebastian. fl Posts: 649	Dang it! For the last seven years I have been keeping a fifty tucked in the seceret pocket of my trusty cedar wallet. After reading this thread I take it out and find it is now useless.
	__________________ Everybody knows freedom, it's living inside your head. Everybody knows Jesus, you'll meet him when you are dead. A song, by those guys...

10th January 2005, 07:24 PM	#31
Just thinking Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,169	Quote: Originally posted by DrMatt Why would a bank use safe boxes which exude chemicals that cause ink on money to run? Who on Earth ever suggested such a thing ... my bills were left in my wife's cedar jewel box -- at home.
	__________________ Our greatest challenge is not just to ask the important questions, but to recognize the meaningless ones.

10th January 2005, 08:08 PM	#32
kittynh The Hupsu Detective auctioneer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: If I told the aliens could find me, and you know they read this forum Posts: 22,705	There are federal employees that will, if given enough time, piece together your money that the mice chewed (after your crazy uncle hid it behind the wall), and give you brand new money in return. Or if you microwave your money, or it is partly burned in a fire...I think there is a certain percentage of the bill that must be legible for you to get the value of it. What people do to money is very interesting.
	__________________ WWW.BADALIEN.ORG - not all the buttons work yet, and the science content is coming...but it's ALIVE!

10th January 2005, 09:14 PM	#33
ktesibios Worthless Aging Hippie Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,493	The rules for exchanging damaged bills, as I recall from my coin-collecting days as a kid, were: If the remnant included 3/5 or more of the original, full face value. Between 2/5 and 3/5, half of face value. Less than 2/5, no value. This could have changed, but it's a set of rules that pretty well obviate the possibility of someone multiplying their money by fragmenting it.
	__________________ Ship me somewheres east of Suez, where the best is like the worst, where there ain't no ten commandments and a man can raise a small, bristly mustache.

10th January 2005, 09:41 PM	#34
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Quote: Originally posted by ktesibios If the remnant included 3/5 or more of the original, full face value. Between 2/5 and 3/5, half of face value. Less than 2/5, no value. If you took exactly 3/5 to one bank, they would have to give you the benefit of the doubt and give you full face value If you took the remaining 2/5 to another bank, they would also have to give you the benefit of the doubt and give you half face value. You have just made 50% profit on your little enterprise.
	__________________ A secular society is one in which no one loses any liberty as a consequence of someone else's religious beliefs. NB Allowing yourself to get led around the nose by a person like Craig is a losing strategy. SH Morality is a social coating around a Darwinian core. JC My joke about freewill: There is no basis for it.

10th January 2005, 10:45 PM	#35
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985	Quote: Originally posted by LTC8K6 I hate the idea of plastic notes. It sounds like fake money. Plastic money means a credit card to me. Actually, Australian banknotes are made of a polymer and feel much like new rag-paper notes. They are not shiny, and they fold much like new rag-paper notes too. "Plastic" is just the common term we use to describe their composition. There's nothing wrong with one dollar coins or two dollar bills and you see how they were accepted over here. We have one- and two-dollar coins only, no notes. They are "gold" coins - actually mostly silver but with a touch of gold to give them "value". Notes start at five dollars. Of course if they had made the last couple of one dollar coins even remotely pretty, maybe they would have gone over better? So how about coloured banknotes, then? More scope for prettiness, yes? We like one dollar bills, pennies, and paper money around here! Umm, ditto but no pennies. Just big, chunky coins.
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985