wkh@hou5a.UUCP (11/07/83)
"After years of research and development of prototypes,
a basic 'new look' for U.S. paper currency has been
approved by Treasury Secretary Donald T. Regan and
will be introduced as soon as the complex machinery of
final design and production can be put into place."
- Nov 1983 Bank Note Reporter,
a paper for currency collectors.
Changes will include:
- COLOR A difficult-to-counterfeit fine
multicolor line would give the impression of
color in what are now white areas.
Possibly, for the first time in history,
the backs would no longer be green!
- OPTICAL DEVICE Under consideration are three different
techniques for rendering notes incapable
of reproduction by color copiers.
The "front runner" is a thin metallic film.
Also considered are diffraction gratings
and holograms.
- SECURITY THREAD A visible magnetic thread would be
woven into the paper.
The use of watermarks, common in European currency,
was rejected.
Plans will be finalized in 1984, and changes could
start as early as 1985.
Unchanged would be the basic size, denominations, and
portraits (although the portraits may be moved from the center)karn@eagle.UUCP (Phil Karn) (11/08/83)
Oh wow. And you thought the Susan B. Anthony dollar and the two dollar bill were popular? Just think of all those bill changers that are going to have to be redesigned to accept both the old and the new bill types. Also, a smart counterfeiter would just continue to imitate the old style bills. With the old bills still legal but rare in circulation, people would probably find it harder compare suspect notes with known genuine bills. Phil
notes@fortune.UUCP (11/09/83)
#R:hou5a:-42600:fortune:6700020:000:261 fortune!norskog Nov 8 17:49:00 1983 Actually, most of the time that you would casually spot a counterfeit it is because you know what the protrait should look like. The human capacity to process human faces is one of the great wonders of the world, and the reason why all currency has portraits.
padpowell@wateng.UUCP (PAD Powell [Admin]) (11/09/83)
I giggle hysterically. Up here in Canada we have had this "new look"
for over 103 years. Gee, if your paper currency is moving into the
19th century, when for the love of Mike are you going to move
your measuring standards into the 18th?
Patrick ("Up yours with a meter stick") Powellnotes@pur-ee.UUCP (11/12/83)
#R:hou5a:-42600:isrnix:9700001:000:828 isrnix!akp Nov 11 05:44:00 1983 I get the impression that we won't have the opportunity to dislike this new stuff... Since nobody heard about it until it was (almost?) final, the Treasury is obviously unconcerned with what we consumers think of our money. One thing they might have done' if they were going to change things, it make the bills TACTILE: make some difference between denominations which can be sensed without sight. Raised bumps could have been managed, or different sizes (hard to do in the U.S., but they do it in Europe...), or another concept of the "woven thread" -- put a heavy thread through the middle for ones, 1/3 down the bill for fives, 1/4 down for tens, etc. But since nobody seems to have been consulted on this, we'll just have to live with what Big Brother shells out... -- Allan Pratt ...decvax!pur-ee!iuvax!isrnix!akp
inc@fluke.UUCP (Gary Benson) (11/13/83)
Canada has had thin-film metal impregnated paper for 103 years? My golly, we really are behind! If you guys are such good neighbors, why didn't you let us in on that technology long ago? We've only been capable of doing that stuff since about 1980. Think of the money we could have saved in R&D. As to the metric system, I seem to recall that Canada has only recently entered the "18th Century", and it went kicking and screaming. Bob and Doug McKenzie's formula doesn't work, either. It's ok for C to F, but I'll wager that to this day, housewives all over Canada try to figure how much meat in a kilo by saying, "Double it and add 30". The US is an intensely complicated society, and conversion has in fact begun, but it won't come easy, and it will probably only be legislated by default after we in fact have already changed over. I beleive that Canada went metric within the last five years, and it can't possibly be complete already. There are probably lots of places where the land is still measured in acres, paper products by inches, and produce in pounds and ounces. True or not? from the ever smiling, ever happy .). fingers of: V Gary Benson John Fluke Mfg. Co. Everett, WA !fluke!inc
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (11/15/83)
Actually, about "going metric". Are you kidding? It just got declared unconstitutional about a week ago. We aren't EVER going metric at this rate... Laura Creighton utcsstat!laura
dwl@hou5e.UUCP (11/16/83)
Why can't they finally take this opportunity to make it machine readable? Think of the point-of-sale, automatic teller, and cash-counting machines we could build! -Dave Levenson AT&T-ISL, Holmdel
dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (11/16/83)
Now now, Laura. Going metric did not get declared unconstitutional.
What got thrown out were charges against a gas station for pricing
gas in both gallons and litres at the same time, instead of just
litres.
Dave Sherman
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!dave