New $5 note

[Fulvio]

Please tell my bank that.

Which bank?

[JeffH]

Yes, that one. They use that tag in their advertising.
From last Westpac statement
"1 Sep 2016      PACKAGE FEE   -$5.00"

And from CBA
"01 Sep 2016 Account Fee   -$6.00"  This account pays bonus interest at a very small rate subject to conditions on number of withdrawals and increasing monthly account balance. Then they whack you with a fee that is higher than the bonus interest, unless you have a five digit balance. Of course you can have a fee free account with negligible (might as well be zero) interest rate but be careful if you want over the counter transactions because they can attract charges.

So one way or another they are still charging fees but they might be called something else.

[eirrab]

I got a few bundles (of 10 each) at a couple of banks yesterday in northern Tasmania. Westpac were helpful, but Commonwealth would not let me buy any. Most bundles weren't even 10 in consecutive order. Lowest serial was AC16. Still no signs of the elusive AA....

[tooloot]

I've seen people selling prefix EJ16 and advertising it as the "last prefix". Does anyone know enough to verify if this is the case, or is this just more eBay dodginess?

[Fulvio]

I've seen people selling prefix EJ16 and advertising it as the "last prefix". Does anyone know enough to verify if this is the case, or is this just more eBay dodginess?

With 40 notes to a sheet, same as $20 and $50, they should be:

AA-DA
DB-GB
GC-JC

So no, EJ is in the middle of Sheet 2.
OK, so, playing devil's advocate, and working on the theory that for once the eBay crowd just might know something we don't, here's what seems to fit:

11 AA-AK
22 BA-BK
33 CA-CK
44 DA-DK
54 EA-EJ

So yes, EJ *could* be last prefix, IF they changed to a 54-note sheet AND stopped the prefixes at K instead of M. That would give a theoretical 540 million notes per sheet, so the last sheet number would be somewhere around the high-6 million mark if their announced 170 million is accurate.

I have my doubts, but maybe...

[tooloot]

Great thinking outside the box Fulvio! We'll just wait and see I guess

[Hercules]

I reckon someone on eBay just wants to make a quick buck. The new notes are exactly the same size as the old ones, so they should require the same sized sheets. Nevertheless, it all depends on where the second letter terminates.

Assuming they go from A to M, there are 62 prefixes from AA to EJ, and the only way you can factor that is 2*31. Thus, you'd end up with sheets that were much too long and narrow to be of any use.

Assuming they go from A to L is just as bad, because then there'd be 58 prefixes from AA to EJ, and the only way you can factor that is 2*29. This gives us the same problem as before.

Assuming they go from A to K, as Fulvio did, is much more interesting, because then there'd be 54 prefixes from AA to EJ, which can be factored as 2*27, 3*18 and 6*9. In the first two cases, the sheets would be too long and narrow, but in the third case, they would be a very good size. According to Maccas, the old sheets were 5*8, so it's quite feasible that the new ones are 6*9.

Assuming they go from A to J, there'd be only 48 prefixes from AA to EJ, which can be factored as 2*24, 3*16, 4*12 and 6*8. The first two or three options would not be feasible, but the fourth one is. Since AJ is the last A prefix I've seen in circulation, I can't help wondering whether this is what the new matrix looks like.

Has anyone seen a K, L or M as the second letter on the new $5 note?

[Fulvio]

Has anyone seen a K, L or M as the second letter on the new $5 note?

Also, has anyone paused the various TV footage of sheets being cut and counted how many in a strip?

Oh, and I count five lots of 10 in an A-J sequence, which would put two orphans on a second sheet if they were 6*8. 6*9 seems more likely.
Answered my own question:





Yes, they're cut, but not bundled. So why would they arrange them in 9 rows if they weren't printed that way?
Also, DK16's:

[Hercules]

Thanks, Fulvio for your input. I don't know why I concluded that 54-4=48, but I suspect I didn't get enough sleep last night. Anyway, 50 can be factorised as 2*25 and 5*10, of which only the latter is likely.

However, I just found AK on eBay (and in Fulvio's pictures), so I know it can't go from A-J. Furthermore, there's no AL or AM up there, so I suspect it goes from A-K.

Perhaps this is why they appear to go onto a second sheet without finishing the first sheet off - the first sheet is probably much bigger than we expected!

EDIT1: One problem, though, is that the grid in the footage is 5*9, not 6*9 as we would expect with an A-K run and EJ as the last prefix. Does anyone know how to resolve this issue?

EDIT2: Never mind. I just found some footage on YouTube, which confirms that it really is a 6*9 grid.

[Fulvio]

I didn't get enough sleep last night.

I know that feeling well.

With the 540 million note range of a 6x9 layout, and assuming the other denominations follow a similar path, I think we've likely seen the demise of second sheets. Which was probably a key design objective I would guess. It would save them both time and money, and we all know how important THAT is to the current government, right? :dodgy:

So anyway, now we have a theory that seems to fit all the facts to date, lets see if anything comes along to torpedo it, eh? :angel:

[Hercules]

With the 540 million note range of a 6x9 layout, and assuming the other denominations follow a similar path, I think we've likely seen the demise of second sheets.

Not necessarily. The number of $5 notes in circulation is much smaller than the number of $20 and $50 notes, due to the demand from ATM providers, so it's still possible that one of these could run onto a second sheet if they were to replace them all at once. They could also release another run of test notes into the wild. Other than that, I think you're right.

Which was probably a key design objective I would guess. It would save them both time and money, and we all know how important THAT is to the current government, right? :dodgy:

I strongly suspect that this decision was made by the previous government, rather than the current one, due to the amount of time it takes to implement these sorts of changes. It would have required at least 3 years' worth of forethought to make it onto the new notes.

So anyway, now we have a theory that seems to fit all the facts to date, lets see if anything comes along to torpedo it, eh? :angel:

I think the evidence on eBay and YouTube is very conclusive. The only way it could be torpedoed is if the RBA decides to print a second sheet, but that would defeat the very purpose of having an extra digit in the serial number (other than to begin the $5 notes at AA instead of BA).

[Fulvio]

Not necessarily. The number of $5 notes in circulation is much smaller than the number of $20 and $50 notes, due to the demand from ATM providers, so it's still possible that one of these could run onto a second sheet if they were to replace them all at once.

They announced 170 million notes though. 3.1 million sheets out of the possible 10 million. We should be safe.

Anyway, I dropped by my friendly BoM on the way to pick up my cancerous mate and take him to hospital today. I promised to dump my reject coins on them to help them out during the great woolies coin hunt. The place was in lockdown, apparently because the note handling machines were being upgraded. However the coin teller window was open, and we dutifully established how much I had. During this time I asked about the new $5, and she said that yes, they had some, and how many would I like?

Walked out with their last 30 AA16's, and I'll pop back in tomorrow after she's had a look if they have a bundle of EJ's.

Next up, it was off to CUA to replenish my cash supply. And now I'm the proud owner of three DK13 $100's with sequential numbers as well! :yahoo:

[Hercules]

Not necessarily. The number of $5 notes in circulation is much smaller than the number of $20 and $50 notes, due to the demand from ATM providers, so it's still possible that one of these could run onto a second sheet if they were to replace them all at once.

They announced 170 million notes though. 3.1 million sheets out of the possible 10 million. We should be safe.

I think you're misunderstanding me. What I said was that there'd only be one run of $5, $10 and $100 notes, but possibly two of the $20 and $50 notes.

To settle this matter once and for all, here are my calculations:

$5: 170 million notes - 3.15 million sheets (9x6 grid)
$10: 120 million notes - 2.22 million sheets (9x6 grid) or 2.00 million sheets (10x6 grid)
$20: 160 million notes - 2.96 million sheets (9x6 grid)
$50: 643 million notes - 11.91 million sheets (9x6 grid)
$100: 328 million notes - 7.29 million sheets (9x5 grid)

Thus, the $5, $10, $20 and $100 notes will all use a single sheet, whereas the $50 note will require two sheets to replace all those that are currently circulating.

Walked out with their last 30 AA16's, and I'll pop back in tomorrow after she's had a look if they have a bundle of EJ's.

You did well to get all those AA16's.

Next up, it was off to CUA to replenish my cash supply. And now I'm the proud owner of three DK13 $100's with sequential numbers as well! :yahoo:

I spent all my consecutive $100 notes because they were too expensive to keep, but I'm going to try to get myself a 2014 now that I know they've been released in my local area.

[Fulvio]

$50 note will require two sheets to replace all those that are currently circulating.

Ohhhh.. I see now. Hrm.... Sure about that count? Source?

Actually, you've given me another idea for the PDF. I reckon I might sum the counts to get a rough guesstimate of what's been printed. Obviously that won't be what's circulating though. And come to think of it, it would require intermediate sheet counts... Hmmmm... on second thought, might be a lot of work for not much return.

Thoughts?

[Hercules]

See the first table on this page: http://banknotes.rba.gov.au/production-and-distribution/distribution/