new $20

atarian

question
the 1996 $20 with rubin sig on it was a AA 00000001 A bill
the 1999 has another sig and is numbered B A 00000001 A
the 2001 with Oneil has a number C A 00000001 A
why does the 2004 jump to E A 00000001 A?

WHERES THE D A 00000001 A bill series
i want my D's ( out side of teh classroom thank you)

also why did the US govt release a 2004 series bill in 2003 . is it legal tender or is it like a check yea its made out but is post dated.

as far as i remmeber the US govt NEVER releases series bills early.

the new 20s in 1996 never hit till 97 . and the 50s i think was 1998. the 1999 series didnt hit till 2000-01 . then the 03s some reason hit the same year. now why is the 04 $20s hitting now. i cant remember when the govt did things this way.

95 was a 1995 release into 96. and 1993 series was 93 into 94 why is this 2004 hitting now in 03. what is our govt up to. will we be seeing 2004 or 2005 pennies and coins earlier than the year now. will nov of 03 or 04 produce 2004 or 05 coins??
things to keep in mind

jay

Placid

Maybe the car companys are printing them for the goverment

fountainheadgold

Its us against the world and this is our new twenty and the old is thiers

mintluster

Don't know the answer to the original question but I will say them new 20s look awesome. I hope we update all the bills one day, even the $1 Washington bill.

coppercoins

First of all remember that the BEP is not the mint and the mint is not the BEP. They are two separate entities running their shops under a different set of rules.

Second, I remember seeing at least one of the past series of notes early, but I don't remember which it was. I know I remember seeing next year on a new release. I pay little attention to folding money, but I definately remember seeing it and thinking it was a bit odd. I believe it was the new 1996 $100 note issued in late 1995.

Third, as for the serial numbers, does it really matter?

Fourth, I certainly hope the deciding powers would find something better to do with our tax dollars than waste it redesigning a note that shouldn't be in circulation in the first place (the $1 bill).

And last, I have seen the new crayon notes and still wish the BEP could do a better job with involving color in our money and take the presidents off the notes in favor of something a little more artistic.

itsnotjustme

I'm with Coppercoins on this--get rid of the $1 note.

And speaking of artistic, our closest thing to an artistic note is the $2 which does not circulate.

drsvenghali

If you asked this in the currency forum, you would get an answer to your question.

richbeat

I'm a little late on this one, but I'll give it a try. Conder would be the man to answer this one. This is the way I understand it. A major change in the currency (design change or change in the Secretary of the Treasury) is designated with a new series year (the year of the change.) A minor change (change in the Treasurer) is designated with a letter added to the series year (example: 1988 to 1988A.) There may be exceptions to this, and the criteria used now is not the same as that used years ago. There are series 2003 notes of other denominations (except the twenty) that have serial numbers that begin with D. The reason why there are no series 2003 twenties is because they (BEP) were working on the colorized twenty and getting it ready to be printed and did not print any series 2003 twenties. The 1996 series twenties have Mary Ellen Withrow as Treasurer, and Robert Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury. When Rubin was replaced by Laurence Summers (sp?) the series became 1999. When Bush became President, Rosario Marin became Treasurer and Paul O'Neill became Sec. of Treas. and the series became 2001. When John Snow replaced O'Neill the series became 2003. The change to a colorized twenty was a different change, and 2003 had already been used, so 2004 had to be used for that change. It is a little bit unusual, two major changes in one year, and using 2004 early. Hope I explained it well enough.

bigindie

Am I the only one who dislikes the new $20 design? Our currency isn't supposed to be colorful -- it's supposed to be greeeeeeen!! It looks like a foreign banknote.

kamehameha00

<< <i>It looks like a foreign banknote. >>



Agreed,but it does look a little cool don't it ?

richbeat

I like the colors. It's not too big of a change as it was in 1996 when the portrait was made larger and shifted left (among other changes.) Keep in mind that currency redesign is an ongoing process now, occurring every seven to ten years to try and stay ahead of the counterfeiters. The first set of changes began in 1996 and seven years later the second set of changes are beginning to occur. That means the next set of changes (third) should start occurring on or around 2010. The changes are meant to be subtle and not dramatic. It's possible (my opinion) that the use of color may be gradually phased in over a number of change periods. That is, for example, the next change period may use slightly bolder colors as a gradual phase in. Or maybe not. They might incorporate a hologram or holographic strip, or maybe not. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Skipper53

Serial numbers do seem to matter to some note collectors.
Consecutives "11111" Repeaters "121212" radars" 1234321"

Just saw my first New 20 today. It looked weak and anemic.
Rather disappointing after all the hype.