just curious

ive been noticing that some countries use polymer notes for lower denomination, but the higher denomination stays on paper, why is it like this??

Hi there!

Yes, it's true that some countries use both polymer and paper for their notes, and the answer is quite simple! 

Smaller denomiantions (like the 1s, 5s, 10s and sometimes 20s) are used much more frequently therefore the notes would last much longer. Higher demoninations (like the 50s, 100s, 200s, 500s, 1000s) are usually made out of paper, because there isn't such a high usage in comparasion to the smaller ones.

Why exactly would some contries not choose exclusively polymer banknotes, I have no idea, but I'd assume it has something to do with the cost of printing.

Hope it helped! Take care and happy collecting!

Silviu.

pierregavin_09

ive been noticing that some countries use polymer notes for lower denomination, but the higher denomination stays on paper, why is it like this??

I think it depends on whether the nation has a counterfeiting issue (or not). If they are having their high denominations counterfeited, like Canada did with their Journey $100, then they will switch to polymer with the high denomination first. Canada switched their Journey $100 to their 1st polymer $100 (Frontiers) version in 2011. The $50/$20 were switched in 2012 & the $10/$5 didn't get switched till 2013. 

Polymer banknotes typically contain far more security features than paper & far more difficult to copy (& pass) than most regular paper/cotton substrates. That's the upside but the downside is that they're far more expensive to produce (thus costing the Central banks more money).  There is a long term savings since the notes don't have to be replaced as often as paper.

Countries that switch their low denominations initially, like Thailand's 20 Bhat, probably can do so since they're not experiencing great threats (extensive counterfeiting) to their higher denominations. 

I think it's just a matter of time. My guess is any country which has shifted to low denomination polymer notes will eventually go to all polymer notes. Assuming they don't find any issues with them.

According to the printers, polymer banknotes life cycle is between 2-3 years, whilst paper can only go for a year on average. I have come across Australia $50 that was issued in 1996 when withdrawing cash from the ATM.

Few countries did try polymer notes for general circulation, but then, after that they all reverted to paper. One of the advantages for polymer banknotes is that the materials are recyclable and can be used to manufacture things like garbage bins etc. Won’t it be nice to know that the garbage bin that I have are actually made from cash? How good is that? If only they can place a label on the front of my bin….. This is as good as cash!! 😁

ahkai

(1) According to the printers, polymer banknotes life cycle is between 2-3 years, whilst paper can only go for a year on average. I have come across Australia $50 that was issued in 1996 when withdrawing cash from the ATM.

 

(2) Few countries did try polymer notes for general circulation, but then, after that they all reverted to paper. One of the advantages for polymer banknotes is that the materials are recyclable and can be used to manufacture things like garbage bins etc. Won’t it be nice to know that the garbage bin that I have are actually made from cash? How good is that? If only they can place a label on the front of my bin….. This is as good as cash!! 😁

1) Are you referring to average life cycle ahkai? The life cycle of a polymer note depends on a several factors, including the denomination, polymer thickness & (obviously) the level of circulation. High denominations don't tend to get the same use as the lower to mid level denominations (your “workhorse” notes).  Some denominations (like the $10 for Canada or the $2.00 for the US) just aren't that popular, don't have the same numbers issued (as the workhorses) and can last many times the average life cycle of “workhorse” notes.

(I'm just adding this because we have many of the 2013 & 2012 $10/$20 still in circulation but the 2011 $100 are in the best shape)

2) I agree that polymer has many advantages over paper.   But it is important to keep in mind the outside forces of the Better than Cash Alliance (to use CC) plus strong (successful) US business interests the propagate the status quo. In particular, I'm referring to Crane Currency which produces the paper for BEP banknotes.   Check out this article by Coin World & you will understand how polymer banknotes have huge forces against its universal acceptance worldwide.  Crane will have powerful lobby groups working the powerbrokers in Washington D.C.  The collector in me dislikes polymer yet I know its the best option from an environmentalist's perspective.

For Northern Ireland issues, Bank of Ireland issues paper £50 and £100 notes, with polymer notes for lower denominations; and Ulster Bank issues paper £100 notes.
Ulster Bank recently introduced its polymer £50 note.
Both of these banks are using up existing stocks of paper notes, and will likely go polymer for all their notes in due course once paper note stocks are used up.

We (the Irish note collectors) believe that Danske Bank will likely not issue £50 or £100 notes in the future - haven’t heard any mention of its replacement of paper notes with polymer for these denominations.

Serial_Number_8

ahkai

(1) According to the printers, polymer banknotes life cycle is between 2-3 years, whilst paper can only go for a year on average. I have come across Australia $50 that was issued in 1996 when withdrawing cash from the ATM.

 

(2) Few countries did try polymer notes for general circulation, but then, after that they all reverted to paper. One of the advantages for polymer banknotes is that the materials are recyclable and can be used to manufacture things like garbage bins etc. Won’t it be nice to know that the garbage bin that I have are actually made from cash? How good is that? If only they can place a label on the front of my bin….. This is as good as cash!! 😁

1) Are you referring to average life cycle ahkai? The life cycle of a polymer note depends on a several factors, including the denomination, polymer thickness & (obviously) the level of circulation. High denominations don't tend to get the same use as the lower to mid level denominations (your “workhorse” notes).  Some denominations (like the $10 for Canada or the $2.00 for the US) just aren't that popular, don't have the same numbers issued (as the workhorses) and can last many times the average life cycle of “workhorse” notes.

(I'm just adding this because we have many of the 2013 & 2012 $10/$20 still in circulation but the 2011 $100 are in the best shape)

 

2) I agree that polymer has many advantages over paper.   But it is important to keep in mind the outside forces of the Better than Cash Alliance (to use CC) plus strong (successful) US business interests the propagate the status quo. In particular, I'm referring to Crane Currency which produces the paper for BEP banknotes.   Check out this article by Coin World & you will understand how polymer banknotes have huge forces against its universal acceptance worldwide.  Crane will have powerful lobby groups working the powerbrokers in Washington D.C.  The collector in me dislikes polymer yet I know its the best option from an environmentalist's perspective.

I read some time ago on an official printing company website stating that one of the many advantages of having polymer banknotes. In reality, it usually lasts much longer, some even for decades. I have seen banknotes disbursed by the ATM here that the notes were issued in the mid 90s over here. I have also noticed that some issues, especially those once off commemorative notes do not last long either, like the Australia $10 1988 and the $5 2001. I have only come across once for the $10 as change. It tends to vanish fairly quickly from public circulation. I wonder if the Reserve Bank has anything to do with that. I am aware that banks are told to withhold all paper banknotes if they ever get deposited and that is also why they disappeared from circulation once a new series (polymer) was issued. 
 

I know for years that central banks have been talking about a cashless society, when payments via technology such as EFTPOS are getting more and more popular, and yet they do not seem to stop printing banknotes either. I am one of those that I would prefer to use cash if possible, unless my purchases are conducted at a reputable shop. There are so many scams going on that even banks would place a block on your card if they suspect your legit transaction was a potential fraud.

New banknotes are always in demand in a few Asian countries for the traditional Lunar New Year celebration. Even here certain bank branches try to get new and uncirculated banknotes to cater for such demand too. In some countries, they have extra bank counters opened to allow customers to exchange old for new banknotes, and I have seen people holding literally a brick or two walking out of a bank.

I had often felt like Crane was a part of the misinformation behind the failure and removal of the polymer Tyvek, and Bradvek as a useful banknote substrate.  Claims were that they did not hold up well to use, and that ink would flake off.  My tyvek notes of Haiti and Costa Rica indicate this to be untruthful.

I now always check my banknotes and am surprised how many polymer Macklem/Carney $20 notes are still circulating. These were printed and issued in 2012-2014 (the next set of signatures for the $20 is Wilkins/Poloz from 2014). They often seem to have circulated little, so I'm not sure how much is owed to the durability of polymer, and how much to other factors such as hoarding during COVID.

The polymer $5 notes is another story. I don't have stats, but my anecdotal appreciation is that the older ones, signed Macklem/Carney and Macklem/Poloz from 2013-2014, are rather uncommon but sometimes worn to the point that the ink is totally gone at the folding line so that it's transparent. Yet the fold is still very strong; a cotton-based note with the same amount of circulation would have been taped if not already withdrawn from circulation.

Oklahoman

I had often felt like Crane was a part of the misinformation behind the failure and removal of the polymer Tyvek, and Bradvek as a useful banknote substrate.  Claims were that they did not hold up well to use, and that ink would flake off.  My tyvek notes of Haiti and Costa Rica indicate this to be untruthful.

It's very possible.  Crane (& the pulp/paper industry) has a very powerful lobby group which keeps the $1.00 in circulation.

I now always check my banknotes and am surprised how many polymer Macklem/Carney $20 notes are still circulating.

I am surprised how hesitant bank employees are to cull bad notes too. It seems nobody got the memo to use their “mutilated” bag for notes in poor flimsy shape.  I spent a lot of time searching TENS & found a lot of notes with the substrate missing.  I have goine through bundles of old FIVES & TWENTIES which have been just as poor. So I have stopped searching.

If you're checking your notes for signature change-overs or tough prefixes be sure to check this thread out on C&C. Prefix BSW (with M-C signature) is super scarce & the M-P FVP is tough too (for $20).

I believe the slow intro of the vertical $10 & seeing the old MacDonald ee-eye-oh notes forever (long after the intro of the new series) tells the story of Canadians using less cash. 

I don't have stats, but my anecdotal appreciation is that the older ones, signed Macklem/Carney and Macklem/Poloz from 2013-2014, are rather uncommon

Only 3.62M Macklem Carney (M-C) $5.00 HBG prefix were ever released (& I doubt it was a full 3.62M released).  They came out about 2 years after Macklem-Poloz HBG & most were seen in Alberta & Quebec. I saw no new M-C/HBG Fives in Ontario myself (other than the odd mangy one) so I had to buy mine in UNC. No real exciting prefixes until recently with the Wilkins-Macklem IND $5 (above 8.98M) which was tough (to find in UNC). I found a few but mostly AU.

The big mystery note is the M-C FTH $10 with only 14 reported by collectors (8.36M released according to the BoC).   More Wilkins-Poloz FTH were reported (with less than 2M released) but they were a bit tough too.  

The other scarce prefixes are the $50 AMK & the $100 EKZ. So keep your eyes peeled!

Oh, I happened to have this in my wallet:

I suppose it's of little value since it's VF+. Still, I'm putting it aside in case anyone is interested.

Camerinvs

Oh, I happened to have this in my wallet:

 

-That's the tough one (but yes the condition is a bit circulated). A million issued so shouldn't be too hard to find. The challenge is to find them in Choice to Gem UNC!😮‍💨