Australia 1988 10 Dollar Bicentennial polymer note

Hi All,

Am quite excited and waiting to take possession of my new purchase. I managed to acquire an Australia 1988 10 Dollar Bicentennial polymer note with a very low serial number AA00005714

Here is the numista link to this note.

This note is graded by PMG at 67EPQ.

I believe what you have bought is a folder note. Based on the serial numbers you have provided (AA00) is the first prefix. Last prefix for this series was AA23.

The prefixes for the first circulation series (error note) was from AB10 to AB33

The second series prefixes are from AB10 to AB57

Thanks for your very informative response, much appreciated. I reckoned as such and was quite excited especially given that it's the 5714th polymer note printed in the world.

I'm expecting it any day now.

I was searching for one of the 800 or so notes that was sent to NPA employees, those would have serial numbers from 000051 to 000800, when I came across this. The very first 50 notes/serials were specimens.

I managed to acquire an Australia 1988 10 Dollar Bicentennial polymer note with a very low serial number AA00005714

Congrats on you new acquisition @ruler.of.kutch!  I really like my Australian $10 polymer & it is one of those notes you have to see in person to appreciate how the colour just pops out at you & the indigenous design elements really impress.  Here's my issued $10 note:

Just to clarify: serial numbers below 1000 are considered low # so the note you bought is not a low serial number.  It's nice that it has the first AA00 prefix (& grades high) but it would not be considered a low # by most collector's standards (in fact some collectors use 100 as their low # threshold).  Anyway, I'm sure you'll appreciate it once you get in hand (to admire).

The prefixes for the first circulation series (error note) was from AB10 to AB33

The second series prefixes are from AB10 to AB57

Can you please clarify @ahkai?  What do you mean by "(error note)?"  Mine has AB27 prefix: is there some problem/error on it?

Thanks a ton for your reply. Yes it is a beautiful note and I can't get over the eye popping colours.

In regards to your query about the possibility of you owning an error note, I have here a link from Drake Sterling (Melbourne) whom I spoke to a week ago. He pointed me towards an article he had written regarding this subject.

https://www.sterlingcurrency.com.au/blog/news-research/decimal-coins-banknotes/australias-1988-bicentennial-10-note-an-elaborate/

I hope you get your answer after reading this.

All the best.

Serial_Number_8

 

The prefixes for the first circulation series (error note) was from AB10 to AB33

The second series prefixes are from AB10 to AB57

Can you please clarify @ahkai?  What do you mean by "(error note)?"  Mine has AB27 prefix: is there some problem/error on it?

It would easier if I direct you to my site; - https://australiapolymernotes.blogspot.com/1988/09/1988-first-prints-error-note.html

If you have one that has the following serial numbers, then yours is an error note

Serial # ABxx 93xxxx. ABxx 94xxxx and ABxx 96xxxx  

@ruler.of.kutch & @ahkai thanks for the info, I get it now. 

After 36 years, you can still get the error print in UNC condition for around A$50-60 each. Despite these error notes being only made available for 2-3 days, there are still plenty in collector's hand as well as with dealers. 

The sad story was that the bank also presented 499 sets (AA00 000xxx) of low serial number notes to their staff, and it was reported that some of the staff removed the note and spent it on lunch on the same day.

ahkai

The sad story was that the bank also presented 499 sets (AA00 000xxx) of low serial number notes to their staff, and it was reported that some of the staff removed the note and spent it on lunch on the same day.

My goodness, they obviously had no idea of what this was worth at the time, not what such a low serial number would be worth 36 years from then - total lack of foresight in my notaphilistic goggled view.

Respectfully, The Tyvek notes of Costa Rica, Haiti, and the Bradvek notes of the Isle of Man are polymer notes, and predated the Australian versions by more than a couple of years.  So you should understand that your note is not the 5714, or whatever the number was, polymer note ever printed.

Thanks for your reply. I did conduct a bit of research and found out that you are indeed correct, but only up to a point.

Tyvek was the brand name of a plastic manufactured by DuPont, and though initially used in printing polymer banknotes in the  1980s, were quickly withdrawn from circulation as smudging of ink and banknote fragility were widely reported.

After almost 22 years of research and around $20 million spent, Australia introduced the $10 polymer  dollar note to celebrate its bicentennial. This was the world's first true polymer banknote that went into and most importantly, stayed in circulation till date. Singapore followed soon after.

This is the reason, the Australian bicentennial note is considered the world's first polymer note, and therefore the reason why my note is the 5714th note to be printed and in circulation.

You have admirable google skills.  But I will not allow you to state untruths here without countering them.  I have all these notes.  I have well circulated notes of Haiti and Costa Rica.  No smearing or adherence of ink issues.  The Australia notes were not and it isn't truthful to say they are the first polymer notes.  Because they were not. They were not quickly withdrawn either.  The Haitian ones circulated for close to a decade.

Australia's polymer is a polymer just as the first polymers are polymers.  

What is this “true” polymer garbage?  You can't just quote Banknote World blogs and think they are automatically correct.  Please…

Australia notes were not the first polymer notes.  And your note is not the 5714 polymer note as much as you wish it to be. 

They say there's always two sides to a story and the Truth lies somewhere in between.

Based on your emotional outburst, it seems you have a vested interest in your version of the truth, and that's okay. Also, please note that my source was not banknotes.ws, it was Wikipedia.

Your current argument seems to be analogous to inventors who came much before the Wright brothers and created machines that ‘flew’ and then claiming to be the inventors of the aeroplane. This, as opposed to the Wright brothers who actually sustained flight and hence are the inventors of the FIRST aeroplane 😄.

Let's agree to disagree on which is the first in continous  production and circulation, polymer banknote.

Thanks.

Another gem you might want to remember is, history is written by the victor…in this case the RBA who first brought out sustained circulation grade polymer bankbotes - I rest my case 😄

For me to agree to disagree would be wrong.  Australia notes were not the first polymer  notes.  Respectfully, there is no middle ground.  Everytime you utter an untruth I will correct you.

Read this link (the table at the end of section ‘ADOPTION’  presents it better)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_banknote

Im right you are wrong.  Nothing more needs said.  Your OP is wrong.  For you to be right you should have said something about this Australian note being the first of this kind of polymer… you made a different statement though.  And you use Wikipedia as support? There is a reason why most academics do not support Wikipedia…and that is how loose the standards are for contributions.  I am all for crowd sourcing…I mean we are here on Numista after all.  But you don't get to make a statement and then keep changing it and implying that someone else who has researched the matter extensively and knows more than you discovered in a 5 minute Wikipedia search is in fact wrong.

I will match your energy and correct your mistakes!  Rest assured.

I'm not trying to change my story, Australia still is the inventor of the first polymer note - that will always stand.

If you want to go into the details of which country manufactured a particular composition of this type of polymer, that's an entire dissertation in itself.

Enjoy the rest of your day 😄

It is not the first polymer note. The first polymer notes were tyvek notes.  They predate the Australian notes by close to a decade.  You are absolutely wrong.  

Your ignorance seems to be willful.  That is sad.  The proof is here on Numista.  The polymer notes of three nations predate the development of polymer notes by Australia.  This is fact.  You are wrong.  

That's one way of interpreting it, there are other ways. I'm simply choosing a different one, doesn't matter what you believe.

By all means remain willfully wrong. Your opinion does not change fact.

The facts being that Australia polymers are not the first polymers does not take away from the beauty of the Australian notes, the ones from 1988 or the current family of notes.  They are beautiful and historical. I absolutely love how they were able to utilize clear windows as one of the best uses of negative space ever. 

While not the first polymer used as a banknote substrate, they certainly improved upon the substrate.  It's a better polymer than tyvek or bradvek.  But it is not the first.

This entire exchange reminds me of this:

“Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts.” — Kellyanne Conway, interview on NBC “Meet the Press,” Jan. 22, 2017

“Alternative facts are not facts, they’re falsehoods.” — Chuck Todd, interview of Kellyanne Conway on “Meet the Press,” Jan. 22, 2017