Counterfeit money

[Just thinking]

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]

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]

Re: Re: Counterfeit money

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]

Re: Re: Re: Counterfeit money

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]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Counterfeit money

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.

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.

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]

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.

 

[Beady]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Counterfeit money

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.

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]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Counterfeit money

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/main.cfm/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]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Counterfeit money

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]

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.

 

[Zep]

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]

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

 

[LTC8K6]

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

Hopefully never.

 

[Beady]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Counterfeit money

-- 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.

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]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Counterfeit money

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]

Hopefully never.

Why? What's the objections to plastic banknotes?

 

[marting]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Counterfeit money

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]

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]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Counterfeit money

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?

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]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Counterfeit money

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?