THE NOTE WHICH SHOULD NOT BE...

      The Bureau of Engraving and Printing, the unit responsible for the actual printing of our nation's currency suspended the planned February 2011 issuance of the new colorized series 2009 $100 bills due to production problems, most notably a crease which would form during printing causing a much higher than usual rejection rate of the new notes. Until the problem is resolved, issuance of the new notes will not happen. However, demand for $100 has not ceased and it looks like these delays have finally caught up with them.

       I guess the BEP had enough series 2006 plates left over to use as back up, but that time came to an end at the beginning of 2011. Whereas coins get new dies at the start of each new year, paper currency uses "series" and those series reflect changes either to the notes themselves (such as the introduction of the large, off-center portraits with series 1996 $100, $50, and $20 bills and the more recent colorization starting with series 2004 $20 and $50 bills) or changes in one or more of the offices of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Treasurer. Since series 1974, the year changes when a new Secretary of the Treasury is made and a suffix letter (has yet to go higher than "A") if only the Treasurer changes (series 1977-A, series 1981-A, series 1988-A, series 2003-A, and series 2004-A are the only ones since this new scheme). And even when a new series date should appear, its production will be delayed until the plates from the previous series wear out. I guess it's a combination of a lack of a law forcing the BEP to change the series date immediately, plates are probably expensive to make, and a case of "waste not want not". So starting in 2011, with the series 2006 plates exhausted and the new series 2009 $100 bills not yet ready, the BEP was forced to create a new series of uncolorized $100 bills under series 2006-A. As far as I know, this is historic.

      I received my first series 2006-A $100 bill the other day. It has some counting crinkles but no folds. I'm considering collecting it (and swapping it for a better one should it come along) both because of this perceived historic production and because it is the only note which will begin with "K". Starting with series 1996 for the denominations $5-$100, in addition to the series date, a prefix letter was added before the serial number of the note starting with "A" and advancing by a letter with each new series. I don't know why, it's entirely unnecessary, but there it is. I generally only collect up to the $20 bill because of affordability issues and so far, getting the complete prefix alphabet has not been hampered by this...until now.

    $5              $10            $20            $50           $100

                                     A-1996      A-1996      A-1996

B-1999       B-1999      B-1999                         B-1999

C-2001      C-2001       C-2001      C-2001      C-2001

D-2003      D-2003                                            D-2003

                                     E-2004       E-2004

F-2003-A                                                          F-2003-A

                  G-2004-A  G-2004-A   G-2004-A

H-2006                                                              H-2006

I-2006        I-2006        I-2006        I-2006

J-2009       J-2009        J-2009       J-2009       J-2009

                                                                          K-2006-A

      Having finally seen the note, I am surprised and disappointed with it...for the same reason. I found it unusual that the notes bore the same signatures as series 2006 (Cabral-Paulsen) when it should've borne the signatures of (Rios-Geithner) and why series 2006-A? If you'll note the crude chart above, there were two series 2006 $5 bills, differentiated only by colorization (I-2006) and the previous uncolored notes (H-2006). Why not just make a K-2009 note bearing the signatures of Rios and Geithner (or if it "has" to be 2006-A, it should still bear their signatures). Now, this I would actually believe to be running afoul of the law. Cabral and Paulsen are no longer serving in those functions yet a whole new series of $100 bills has been created bearing their signatures two full years after they left their respective offices. That really bugs me.

      However, despite that, the series 2006-A $100 note is still historic as far as I know. Will it ever be a valuable keepsake? Almost certainly not. The days of veritable rarities have long since passed. I'm sure tradition will continue and these notes will be made until their plates run out...or maybe not. I've noticed the production of these notes has been low and no doubt the BEP is embarrassed at having to make them in the first place so production just may be cut short once the colorized $100 bill printing problem is solved. Either way, series 2006-A will be one to talk about for collector in the future.

series 2006-A $100 FRN (I hope this note doesn't get popular in Dallas)

     As a side note, I still remember the first time I saw one of these enlarged, off-center portrait notes. My Dad gave me one in the card for my high school graduation. They could have only been released for a few months by that point. I derided it as Monopoly money. Strange now, how the older notes are the ones looking like the play money now...

ADDENDUM: The Bureau of Engraving and Printing [BEP] offered this explanation for why series 2006-A is what it is: "When NXG [NextGen, i.e., colorized] $100 production halted due to sporadic paper creasing, the BEP went back into production of NCD [New Currency Design, i.e., 1996-generation] $100s to meet the continuing high demand for this U.S. currency denomination. With the NXG $100s bearing a new series year and new signatures, a decision was made to retain Series 2006 and Cabral/Paulson signatures on the NCD $100s. The A was added to the series to distinguish between the different production cycles."

      Personally, I still think the signatures should have been Rios/Geithner and the series should have been K∙2009, but uncolorized or even as it was pointed out on this site, the BEP could have continued to use series  H∙2006 with the Cabral/Paulson signatures until the J∙2009 colorized $100s were ready for full-scale production. Such a minor issue, yes, but it really does bug me.