Talk:United States two-dollar bill/Archive 1

Archive 1

Question

Can anyone make the pages for the other denominations look the way the $2 bill page now does?? Here they are:

• $5 bill
• $10 bill
• $20 bill
• $50 bill
• $100 bill
• $500, $1000, $5000, $10,000, and $100,000 bills

For the $1 bill, it doesn't have a page of its own at Wikipedia; you just use the Federal Reserve note page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.80.98 (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2004 (UTC)

Hey folks. I just added some more content, roughly doubling the size of this article. It occurs to me that after my edits, the little blurb about it being adapted from the bureau of engraving and printing might not be quite so necessary. I won't remove it though; if my edits stick around, maybe someone who thinks similarly can do so.

Also, I went ahead and addressed the oft-repeated misconception that a two dollar bill is worth more than two dollars. It's not, as we covered here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.96.246.206 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 28 April 2004 (UTC)

Counterfeiting

There's a claim that the US $2 bill is not worth counterfeiting. Is this true? My understanding was that the bill (because of its rarity) had a market value of about $40. Since counterfeit collector's items abound, I wouldn't be surprised if there were counterfeit $2's out there. So I'm not sure that claim is correct. Mike Church 21:37, 3 March 2004 (UTC)

They aren't that valuable. You can go to a U.S. bank and get them for $2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ke4roh (talk • contribs) 00:01, 10 March 2004 (UTC)

Actually the older ones are worth quite a bit. There was a long period where none were printed, those before that period are collectors items (especially in good condition). - Hephaestos|§ 01:02, 10 March 2004 (UTC)

Any denomination bill is valuable if it's old enough Nik42 05:38, 9 January 2005 (UTC)

References

I have added {{citations missing}} to this article because there are only four references, and not a single inline citation that fits the requirements of WP:CITE. The template says that either citations AND/OR footnotes are missing -- in this case, inline citations are missing. Without a source, the information cannot be verified: see Wikipedia:Inline Citation, WP:VERIFY, WP:CITE, WP:OR

Latitude0116 06:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

This is about the physical size of the notes. Please discuss at Talk:Large-sized note. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Queer as a $2?

An anon added that the $2 bill inspired the phrase "queer as a $2 bill". However, I've always heard it as "queer as a $3 bill", which is backed up by [1], though it also mentions using the $2 bill. I reverted. Should the phrase be mentioned in this article? —Scott5114 ↗ 04:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, I see no reason why the statement should be included in a respected encyclopedic article. Thanks for removing it. --CPAScott 16:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Reason for rarity

Why is the $2 bill not even half as common as the $1 bill? Something is definitely amiss if two $1 bills are more exchanged than one $2 bill. Here is an idea: maybe subconsciously the usual handler of the $2 bill sees it as one negative dollar bill and one positive dollar bill such that they cancel out such that they have no perceived value. Necessarily built within the subconscious is a bias against pairs. Mcampbell422 05:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think probably it's just people keep them as rarities. Another problem is that cashiers tend to accept them but not disburse them, so they end up going back to the bank at the end of the day. Regardless, unless these reasons have a verifiable source attached to them, they can't go in the article. —Scott5114 ↗ 06:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Cash register contradiction

From the article, as of July 19, 2007:

Indeed, many cash register drawers have slots for ones, fives, tens, and twenties, but not twos.

...

Though many cash registers accommodate it, its slot is often used for things like checks and rolls of coins.

These two sentences seem to contradict one another. Technically, "many" doesn't need to be >50%, just a large number, but it still seems wrong to me that both of these phrases are used in the same article. Neither one of them is sourced. Some statistics or other verifiable information would be a great addition to the article, to clear up this confusion. --ΨΦorg 18:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The "many" word is pretty unverifiable, since to get a truly accurate fact, you would have to survey cash registers across the country and see whether they use a 4 or a 5 slot till. The "cash register drawers have slots for ones, fives, tens, and twenties, but not twos." sentence is flawed since each slot isn't labeled, and the till can be arranged as I do, with $1, $2, $5, and $10 (last one is for coupons). I drew up a diagram available at this forum post: Wheres George Forums.

Basically, where you put each denomination isn't set in stone and is up to the cashier or employer, since other bills like $20's, $50's, and $100's can go under the till. I would say that both sentences should be removed for this reason. BirdValiant 02:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits on Whether the $2 is the Rarest

I have no special knowledge on what denominations are rarest--nor even on what constitutes "rare" (e.g., how many issued? how many actually in circulation?) However, unless I've misread it, the edit about the $2 being the rarest (whether factually correct or not) seemed to make it clear that the $2 was the rarest denomination of currency... BirdValiant's edit suggests that the half dollar is in fact the rarest... but is it "currency"? My understanding is that "currency" is paper money, as opposed to coinage. Am I wrong? On the other hand, was BirdValiant referring to a very old half-dollar issue of paper money that I am unaware of? Failing one of those two, it would at least seem likely that the $2 would be the rarest denomination of "currency"... Xenophon777 (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[Note: the Wikipedia article on currency suggests that both coinage and paper money are "currency," despite popular usage...] Xenophon777 (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Documented stories

For what valid encyclopedic purpose does this section serve? --CPAScott 03:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

CPAScott's question does not seem ever to have been addressed. Does the group of anecdotes about $2 bills really add anything here? My thoughts might seem drastic, but personally I'm not sure that most of the "The two-dollar bill in American consciousness" section is really useful. Xenophon777 (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-acceptance of valid currency within its country of origin is pretty rare, moreso in the United States. It also helps to back up the claims about the bills' rarity (uncommon enough some citizens have never seen them?). The bit about Clemson and Geneva Steel shows how this rarity can be exploited to provide a vehicle for tracking economic impact. I wouldn't mind seeing the "specific business use" and "in song" sections removed though.—Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a sense of where the line should be found between an anecdote or two, properly cited, used to illustrate the perceived rarity of the bills on the one hand -- and pure trivia on the other? If a specific store or restaurant in some city hands out $2 bills, or if a certain celeb is said to make a habit of spending $2 bills, isn't that merely trivia... "to be discouraged"? Xenophon777 (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Besides the fact that these serve little encyclopedic value, it seems that the sources for these anecdotes are rather weak. (Linuxlife (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

True or false??

True or false: the Series 2003 $2 bills have a new appearance. 66.245.68.167 18:07, 24 June 2004 (UTC)

False. I have several of them. They look the same as the earlier printings Nik42 08:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Other than the series date and the signatures, Series 1995, 2003, and 2003A look exactly like the 1976 version. 75.70.123.215 (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the foot under the table (on the reverse side) a misprint? It seems to face the wrong way. --Waterygrave 22:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a misprint, that's correct. A cashier at 7-11 gave me one last night, and I don't know what to do with it. I'm trying to figure out how to use it without starting a riot. 153.2.247.33 (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Misconception of the Trumbull painting

John Trumbull's famous painting is usually incorrectly identified as a depiction of the signing of the Declaration. The painting actually depicts the five-man drafting committee presenting their work to the Congress. 216.104.48.200 (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Anecdote about $2 Usage

This section was just deleted by anon 216.78.46.11 , probably because its veracity can't be confirmed, but I thought I'd preserve it here. --Ponder 22:49, 2004 August 31 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be restored? With a note that it's probably apocryphal, it's a useful example of Americans' attitude toward the bill. Nik42 22:06, 4 January 2005 (UTC)

I remember $2 bills being given out to navy servicemen at the Orlando Naval Training Center on at least one occasion. I seem to remember it being part of an economic impact study. --ssd 15:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I just deleted the "Navy" $2 bill story on the talk page, since it's on the article page. Perhaps the "consciousness" section should be moved to its own article (?) because it's apocraphal nature shouldn't be mixed in with true fact--Especially if most of what people know of this bill is the unverified urban-consciousness. Scoutersig 14:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

i have seen a $2 bill confused for a $20. got 18 bucks extra change out of that one.76.204.76.136 (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Popular Music

Andru Bemis was covering a song (with the lyrics slightly changed) originally recorded by the Monroe Brothers. In fact, it was the first song they recorded, and eventually led to Bill Monroe having a successful recording career, and becoming known as the Father of Bluegrass Music. I feel that this warrants a change in the article. messor (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

and what exactly does this have to do with $2 bills —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.146.222 (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to mention the song, you might as well attribute it to the right guy.messor (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Two-dollar or two-dollars bill?

The article's title could be United States two-dollars bill.Agre22 (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC) agre22

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense at all. It is the two dollar bill, just like the United States five-dollar bill and the United States ten-dollar bill and the United States twenty-dollar bill. It's proper English.--Terrillja _talk 23:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Two Presidents and Obverse/Reverse wording

I re-worded the first paragraph and split it into two paragraphs to make it easier to understand. I also clarified the "Two Presidents" as shown on the reverse, not the face, and added Obverse/Reverse to the photographs. All for readability and clarity, and not substantive changes, deletions or additions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.108.13 (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Stamping money

A similar story [4] involves the use of two dollar bills by Clemson University fans when their football team travels to away games. Some two dollar bills are even stamped with the school's logo, an orange tiger paw, to reinforce the message that the money came from a Clemson fan. The tradition started in 1979 when Clemson was bowl eligible for the first time in several years. According to NCAA rules Clemson had to play in the Gator bowl; however, the Gator did not want Clemson as one of their two teams and were forced to accept them. Clemson fans did not appreciate the attitude they received from Gator bowl officials so to prove how many fans they brought and how much money they pumped into the local economy all fans were encouraged by the school to pay all bills with stamped $2. In addition, Clemson to this day gives all graduates two $2 bills one to keep forever and one to spend at a football bowl game.

Wouldn'tt his be considered defaced? Also if you're going to stamp your logo, why not just stamp them all and ignore the kind of bill? Nil Einne 17:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not defacement. The law defines defacement as something that renders bills unfit to be re-issued. Search 4 Lancer 06:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason Clemson stamps only $2 bills is because if all you pay with is the $2 bill the only change you will get is in a $1 bill or coins and if you pay with a $20 bill and get back a stamped $5 bill the some of the money you pumped into the economy won't be counted for. In addition, if you pay with a $2 bill and a fan of the opposing team pays with a larger bill and can receive a $2 bill as part of their change they won't accept the $2 because of the stamp. It is to make a point not to just leave random bills with orange tiger paws stamped on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.99.75 (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Best Buy

I cannot find anything in the cited article (or its links) to show that the two dollar bills in the Best Buy section were sequential. Please cite this or remove it. —Scouter Sig 15:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Thank you for doing that. —Scouter Sig 06:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC) yes you can —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.145.85 (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Would more images help?

I presently have 2 $2 bills from 1963, both with red seals and I have a 1600DPI scanner. Would scans of one of these bills contribute to the article or are they not necessary? Loganrobinson (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Rarest $2 not mentioned as a collectible

There is a rare version of this bill with the Monticello on the reverse side, rather than the drafting of the Dec of Ind. I don't know how to add photos to articles, but someone should find it and add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.49.5 (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the $2 United States Note. The obverse is slightly different in that it includes "WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND" under "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" (in the place of the little leaves on the present day $2 Federal Reserve Note) and the serial numbers and Treasury seal are printed in red. It was issued during and before the 1960s, so as an old bill and a USN, it goes without saying that it is inherently collectible. When USNs were discontinued, no $2 FRN was created to replace it, so the $2 actually was discontinued between then and 1976, when it was reissued as a FRN with a new design in commemoration of the bicentennial. I actually do have a $2 USN and would scan it for the article if I had a scanner. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There is also a 1963 USN note with red serial and stamp but it does not say "WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND" on the obverse but does have the Monticello. Loganrobinson (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This is true. I have a series 1928E two dollar bill. It was given to me as a gift twenty years ago. I've had it in a frame with a series 1976 two dollar bill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.149.20 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

$2 bills used at horse racing tracks

Something that wasn't mentioned in this article (when it comes to uses for the $2 bill), is that they are used frequently when betting at a horse racing track. The minimum bet at many places is $2, and it's easier to make payment with a $2 bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.33.33 (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of payability clause

Until 1933, United States Notes were redeemable for gold inasmuch as a dollar was defined to be equivalent to a stated amount of gold. But they were never redeemable in silver specifically because they were not Silver Certificates. The "Will Pay To The Bearer" legend was a promise to pay in "lawful money", which in the old days could be gold or silver in various coins, or lesser coins of copper and nickel. Today one can only get the usual coins in circulation for a $2 bill, or a commercial bank can send a worn bill to their district FRB and "redeem" it as a credit to its account, so technically they are still "payable to the bearer on demand."Pithecanthropus (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Clean up

I reordered some of the sections to help the flow of the article. Individual sections may still need some editing.--Janus657 21:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Under "Small-sized notes", I changed "An old issue of Series 2003A..." to "An issue of 2003A..." They were not old. Series 2003A $1, $5, and $100 bill were being printed at the same time, and the series year doesn't change with the calendar year Almostfm (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that =) – Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Strip Clubs and $2 bills

It is also rumored that some Gentlemen's Clubs in Las Vegas give change for larger denominations strictly in two dollar bills, probably in order to raise the average tip given to the dancers that work there.

I live in Las Vegas and go to Strip Clubs often and I haven't ever received a two dollar bill as change (although I tend not to use high denomination currency in them).--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 07:17, 10 April 2005 (UTC)

Interesting concept. I'll have to field test that some time. —RaD Man (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Someone keeps deleting my addition to this page that speaks about strip cluds. I've seen it first hand at clubs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.50.13.4 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:No original research Hu 17:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If you haven't seen them at strip clubs, then you're not going often enough! 153.2.247.33 (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I re-added the section about strip clubs, with a cited source. It's common use nowadays because it encourages higher tips. 24.31.15.2 (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wozniak

I'm not exactly sure why everyone keeps deleting Wozniak from this article.

1. it's notable
2. he was actually arrested by the feds
3. he pays $3 for a $2 bill
4. he actually gets them in blocks and serates them

How is he less notable than the guys that tried to pay in Taco Bell or Best Buy?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard that story, so i searched for it. Sounds like a made up story to be honest. Im not American, so im not sure what the Secret Service does, but interviewing someone for 40min for carrying money is extreme, and thats why its fake. Because its so extreme. You think the Secret Service can't tell when money is real? You think they wouldn't notice the fake ID? Over here our police only accept certain forms of ID. Because some ID isn't very reliable. My conclusion: Fake – and that is probably why it was removed. ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (secret)} 08:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, im not saying that the other ones are more realistic, but certain words popped out when i read the Wozniak one, things like "you can tell why people dont believe me" – classic. ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (secret)} 08:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennedy (talk • contribs)

If he's carrying fake money they would be interested in getting the counterfeit ring behind it. That's the kind of thing they do.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 08:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

interview with Wozniak re. the $2 bills http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ1TIYxm1vM 75.158.104.172 (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-Acceptance, Trivia?

After reading the article, the non-acceptance section seems to be a weak point. Rather than going into the possible difficulties one might have in using this bill, it instead lists 3 funny or interesting stories about how some specific person may or may not have had difficulty using 2-dollar bills. This whole section looks like just a collection of trivia to me. (WP:TRIV)

Perhaps this should be re-written with more general explanations and citations about non-acceptance of 2 dollar bills and these 3 stories could be reduced to some minor paragraph about reported instances of non-acceptance? Aaron north (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there any experience (i.e., citable for the article itself) with non-acceptance in vending machines? The ticket-issuing machines on Houston's METRORail system refused them although would accept $5, $10 and $20 bills (giving change in $1 coins). This was at a time when most transactions were exactly $2 for the basic fare and also the parking lot fee. I complained to no avail, pointing out that it surely was a trivial computer programming problem for the machines' manufacturer to add the image of a $2 bill to those of the other acceptible bills. Casey (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Most bill acceptors (MEI (company) and JCM) do have $2 bill images in their firmware, but each denomination can specifically be configured to always be rejected (for instance it makes no sense for a pop machine to accept $100 bills, so that functionality is disabled). $2 acceptance is hit or miss...I've found many self-checkout machines will take them, some slot machines, and occasionally a vending machine. Of course finding a reliable source that we can use to cite that is another thing. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Upcoming Redesign?

The single sentence in the article stating that there are no plans to do a redesign isn't attributed to any specific inquiry. Is there some supporting material that the Fed has been asked, and actually responded that are not planning one? Or is the lack of public disclosure of that intent the basis for that statement? Unless there is evidence either way, stating that the Fed has not announced a redesign would be more appropriate.

Speculating, it would seem more likely that since the redesign of the $5 note (a denomination that holds little interest to counterfeiters), a redesign of the $2 note would be something they would be seriously considering given its continued use. Perhaps there are some numismatists monitoring this discussion who could provide more definitive answers? --70.23.65.181 (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know the Fed has neither said they will, or said they won't, redesign the $2 bill. It is likely they won't do so any time in the definite future as the denomination is so little used anyway. 24.8.252.164 (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I spoke too soon... curious, I researched it and found this: http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/12/pf/banking/new_two_bill/

This news item came shortly before the series 2003 $2 bill was announced, where the Fed publicly state they will NOT redesign the bill... haven't heard any news about it from them since then one way or another. 24.8.252.164 (talk) 05:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget, there are still more than adequate supplies of Series 2003A bills. We are not likely to see another printing until those deplete, which would likely fall into Series 2009 or beyond. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This is some news I have been given by the Bureau of Engraving & Printing's Media ladies of both Fort Worth TX and Washington D.C. and another higher up Bureau Worker: The $2 note WILL be redesigned in the next currency redesign. The BEP will be printing enough current style $2 notes this fiscal year (FY 2012), to last until 2014, and the new $100 note is likely going to be released some time in 2013, so I am guessing that, the next currency redesign will begin being released in 2014, after the current Kodachrome NEXGEN $100 note comes out in 2013. I believe that the next currency redesign has been dubbed the "Meaningful Access Currency Redesign" and the only reason the $2 note is getting redesigned, is because of a lawsuit by the American Council of the Blind against the Treasury, who stated that U.S. currency was discrimitory toward the visually impaired and blind, because all denominations look and feel the same, so they won a case to get ALL denominations EXCEPT the $1 note to get a redesign, including the $2 note. So the new $2 notes will incorperate such features as large, high contrast numerals, possibly Braille, possibly its own color scheme, and a few other features. If you read the "Meaningful Access" section on the BEP's website at www.moneyfactory.gov, then go to their currency bar, then go to "Meaningful Access, it will explain what the new generations of $2-$100 Federal Reserve notes will likely feature. The reason for not redesigning the $1 note, is because there are too many dollar bill readers out there that would need to be reprogrammed and some of the ones that are too old to be reprogrammed, would have to be scrapped and replaced with new dollar bill readers, which is NOT cost effective due to the low rate of counterfeiting $1 notes, however, if they do redesign the $2 note as they say they are, it should be released along side the next new $5 note, because, when vendors are reprogramming their machines to take new $5 notes, they can reprogram the machines to also take the new $2 notes, and kill two birds with one stone, because you know vendors are not going to specially tear apart their machines "soley" for rarly used $2 notes, but if they are retooling for new $5s retooling for new $2s as well, will not be all that bad. This may also cause a boost in $2 note circulation. Vendors could put stickers on their machines that say "This machine accepts $2s"

I am betting that the only reason the BEP is printing current style Series 2009 $2 notes that will only last until 2014, because they want all of the supply of old style $2 notes depleted for when the (Series 2014?) redesigned $2 note comes out. This should be awesome though, I can not wait to finally see a redesigned $2 note.

The Treasury is running a year late with their currency redesign program this time around. The current new $20 note was issued in 2003 as Series 2004, and 2013 when the current new $100 note may be released will make it 10 years, so, if the "Meaningful Access" currency redesign starts even in 2014 or later, they are going to be a year or more behind schedule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.36.203 (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this that you can bring here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87: I have nothing available from on the internet, but if you need proof, go to the Bureau of Engraving & Printing website at www.moneyfactory.gov then go to "Media Center" on the list to to left of the homepage, and click on it. Then, call or email Darlene Anderson at the Washington D.C. facility, or Carol Riggs at the Fort Worth Texas facility, and either one of them, plus another lady that they gave me a number to, named Ellen Gano, who is the Public Affairs Specialist, Office of External Relations, and they will all tell you that the $2 note is included with the next currency redesign for the visually impaired. Also, read the "Meaningful Access" page and this link: http://financialservices.house.gov/Media/file/hearings/111/Felix%20Testimony%207%2020%2010.pdf scroll down to where it says:

"The BEP will continue with its current practice of adding large, high-contrast numerals and different and distinct color schemes to each denomination that it is permitted by law to alter in order to further assist visually impaired citizens. By law, the Department of the Treasury is not permitted to redesign the $1 note."

So, by law, they are permitted to change the design in the $2 note, because there is no legislation against a $2 note redesign, like how it mentions the $1 note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.36.203 (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is an updated email I got on the redesign of the $2 note:

Hi Ellen,

I hope you're doing good. I just had a quick question though. We talked about the $2 note being redesigned for the Meaningful Access currency redesign. And you confirmed that the $2 note will be redesigned with the Meaningful Access Redesign, as did Carol Riggs and Darlene Anderson. On the front page of the BEP website, it says:

"With the introduction of redesigned currency, subtle background colors were added to the redesigned notes to make them more secure and difficult to counterfeit.  The new design was applied to the $5, $10, $20, $50, and $100 notes.  Circulation of the new series began during the fall of 2003, with the introduction of the redesigned $20 note.  It continued with the $50 note in 2004, the $10 note in 2006, and the $5 note in 2008.  The new $100 note is currently in production with a release date to be announced as soon as possible.  Redesign of the $1 and $2 notes is not planned."

Notice how the last sentence says: "Redesign of the $1 and $2 notes is not planned." So I was just wondering, is this talk of no plans to redesign the $2 note only for the "NexGen" series currency redesign? And is the $2 note still getting a redesign for the "Meaningful Access" redesign series? That paragraph from the BEP website I posted in this email made me curious as to whether the $2 note redesign idea was scrapped, and I hope it wasn't. I know that the Meaningful Access page on the BEP website says: "Tactile Feature: Adding a raised tactile feature to U.S. currency unique to each U.S. Federal Reserve note that it may lawfully change1," and I know that the $2 note can be lawfully changed, but currently, the $1 note can not be changed. But just out of curiousity, do you think they will ever change the $1 note? I would like to see a change in the $1 note, but I know ir would be hard on the many vendors and businesses that have dollar bill readers. But do the American Council of the Blind and other groups for the blind and visually impaired was the $1 note redesigned with features to help them denominate the note? I'm curious to know.

Anyway, could you please let me know if the designs for the new Meaningful Access redesigned currency, especially the redesigned $2 note are drawn out, and if you have seen them?

And can you please tell me if the new NexGen $100s are close to coming out? And how close the first Meaningful Access redesigned currency denomination will be coming out? And which denomination will be the first Meaningful Access Federal Reserve note to come out?

Thank You for any information you can spare. It was a pleasure writing to you again.

Tom

And here was my reply:

Dear Tom,

Thank you for your inquiry. The reference to the $1 and $2 note not being redesigned is, in fact, referring to the current series of redesign, commonly called the “NexGen series”. Inclusion of a raised tactile feature is planned for a future redesign of the $100, $50, $20, $10, $5 and $2 Federal Reserve notes. You are correct, BEP is not planning to add a tactile feature to the $1 note. A decision has not been made regarding the next denomination to be redesigned or when it will be issued. BEP is not waiting for this decision to be made, however. We are already exploring technologies and considering note designs. Significant testing will be required to ensure that the tactile feature solution can be smoothly accommodated into BEP’s manufacturing process.

Regarding the NexGen $100 note, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors is responsible for issuing redesigned currency into circulation. As of this time, they have not announced a date for issuing the newly-designed $100 note.

Ellen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.36.203 (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Bicentennial Issue

The series 1976 $2 bill is often erroneously referred to as a "bicenntenial issue", but its return only coincided with the United States Bicentenial. Plans for reissuing the bill had been in the works for several years previously. There are BEP press releases from 1976 clearly stating this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.8.177 (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any of these sources to back up your claim? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Cause and effect

"Today, it is seldom seen in circulation, and as a result, the production of the note is the lowest of U.S. banknotes": It seems to me that the low production of the $2 bill would be the CAUSE, not the result, of its circulation rarity. Am I missing something? 66.68.23.185 (talk) 07:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The key to understanding this is that the BEP only produces money when the Federal Reserve Bank orders it from them. Bills of all denominations remain in circulation until they wear out, at which point they are removed from circulation and destroyed. When this culling of worn bills depletes the stock of issuable currency, then an order is placed for new currency. Since the $2 bill is seldom used, stocks of pristine bills pile up at the FRBs, so they do not have the BEP produce more. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Image replacement

I replaced the $2 1928 LT image with a higher resolution image of the #1 1928 note. If this is a problem please let me know. Thanks -- Godot13 (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, the one you removed was the 1953 design, not the same design you replaced it with. I'm not sure if the article can really fit both images, though, with the 1929–1966 section being as small as it is. –Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 10:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Understood. Over the next few days I'm going to try and add other high res examples of $2 bills. I will not try to over saturate the article with images and will remove any new ones that don't work. While the 1953 example highlights the design changes, I had thought that the first small $2 bill may have more eye-appeal than the 1953.--Godot13 (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Legal tender confusion

There isn't room in the edit summary box to adequately explain what's wrong with this section, so I'll do it here. The current wording of the section is as follows:

Since the $2 bill makes up such a small percentage of paper money in circulation, the public sometimes mistakes $2 bills for being counterfeit when used in financial transactions. There have been cases where arrests have been made, with the Secret Service later stepping in and stating that the bills are in fact legal tender.

That makes it sound like there are cops who think any $2 bill must be fake and will arrest you for counterfeiting simply because the bill says $2 on it. The sources do not support this. Here's what the sources actually say:

Source #1: The guy in this story was investigated as a possible counterfeiter after trying to pay a $114 tab with 57 two-dollar bills, all of them freshly printed, uncirculated bills straight from the bank. The police were called because some ink smearing led an employee to believe the man may have printed the bills himself. The police called the Secret Service after noticing that the bills had nearly identical serial numbers. In other words, the investigation had nothing to do with the denomination of the bills.

Source #2: First of all, this page is nothing more than an anecdote on Steve Wozniak's personal website. Hardly meets the test of a reliable source. He even admits halfway through the story that many people don't believe it really happened. Second of all, even if we assume the story is true, it has the same problem as Source #1: the investigation had nothing to do with whether or not $2 bills are a real denomination. This story is, once again, about freshly printed bills with nearly identical serial numbers, and Steve claims to have made some modifications to the bills with a high-tech printer. It was primarily these modifications that led to the suspicion that they might be counterfeit.

Source #3: No cop stories at all in this one. It's just a slideshow called "10 Things You Probably Don’t Know About Money" and one of the slides points out that $2 bills are not rare enough to be a valuable collector's item. It mentions "confusion" over whether or not the $2 bill is still in production, but gives no examples and certainly doesn't imply that law enforcement ever gets involved.

So to summarize, none of these sources suggest that anyone has been arrested due to a belief that $2 bills aren't real. There would be no point trying to bring the wording of the section into compliance with the wording of the sources, because the section itself would become pointless. All it would say is that sometimes people get investigated by the authorities if they are suspected of illegally printing money—which is obvious, and no more relevant to the $2 bill than to any other denomination. Thus, the section serves no purpose, and that's why I keep removing it.
Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 06:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit to info box

Made a couple of minor changes to the info box. Undid the edit that 67.165.155.226 made stating the value is $50. A few of the older notes in excellent condition are worth that, but the info box isn't about the collector value. Also changed the obverse date from 1932 to 1928. The Series 1928 notes were first released in April 1929, which means their production would have begun in late 1928. Almostfm (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

History

The first part of the history section incorrectly cites the reference given at the bottom of the page. According to the BEP link, the first two-dollar bill in the United States was printed in 1862 and bore the image of Alexander Hamilton. The image of Thomas Jefferson was not used until 1869.

The article reports that an English King was printed on the obverse side of the 1876 issue. I presume this was for the centennial of the 1776 Revolution. Was the king George III?

The obverse shows Sir Walter Raleigh smoking a pipe with a date of 1585. It could have been a historical error on the note, since England had a queen at the time and not a king, but most likely the assumption in this article that the individual in the robe is a king and not some other member of nobility is more likely. Raleigh is also the one who is smoking the pipe. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/US-NBN-KS-Emporia-1915-1875-2-1915-A.jpg

Canada is the only country of the Americas that has not had a left-wing revolution. Note the hyphenation of the adjectives, and "revolution" is the noun. "two-dollar" is correct hyphenation, as "note" is the noun.220.244.239.129 (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Related articles

Hi. I came across a few related articles today (one, two). They can probably be incorporated into the article, if anyone is interested. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Source 39 is broken

Does anyone have an alternate link? StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Fiscal year 2014

A total of 44,800,000 notes were ordered for fiscal year 2014.

How do you get the number from the cited source? --Qbli2mHd (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the cause, but I've crunched some numbers that might give someone an idea on how to reconcile them. The difference between the number printed (according to the cited source) and the number in the article is 12,160,000. IIRC, a print run is 20,000 sheets or 640,000 notes. The difference of 12,160,000 is exactly 19 print runs. My guess (and it's only a guess) is that there was an order placed in FY 2014 for those 19 runs, but the order hadn't been fulfilled by the end of the FY. In any event, we probably either need to find a source for the number ordered, or change the article to reflect the number actually printed. Almostfm (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

If that many $2 bills were ordered, this is clear government waste and abuse.24.233.173.138 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

How so? The government turns a profit on every piece of paper currency it produces. Almostfm (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Usage problems mentioned in the lead but not discussed

Usage problems are mentioned in the lead section of the article however they are not discussed in the article anywhere. LA (T) @ 20:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

1918 Series

There appears to be some confusion about the 1918 series Federal Reserve Note. Here are some sources documenting it's existence.[2], [3]. "The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 establishes the Federal Reserve as the nation’s central bank and provides for a national banking system that is more responsive to the fluctuating financial needs of the country. The Federal Reserve Board issues new currency called Federal Reserve notes." [4]. Two dollar large sized notes did not appear until 1918 but were still printed at the BEP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't questioning the existence of the note, but was more confused about the way it ends up appearing in the Infobox. If the 1918 bill was a one-off, and not in continuous printing, then perhaps the years of printing for the Federal Reserve Note should read "1918, 1976-Present"

What do you think? Scr★pIron^IV 18:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the Series 1918 notes shouldn't be included. They were "Federal Reserve Bank Notes", which were different, because they were backed by securities held by the individual Federal Reserve Banks--they were the same as the "National Bank Notes", except that they were issued by Fed banks instead of other nationally chartered banks. Looking at the signature combinations, it doesn't appear that they were issued after the very early 1920s. Almostfm (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Where are your sources for all of that info? After thinking it over though, I am in favor of just placing (Current form) next to FRN. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

For the dates, I used http://www.uspapermoney.info/sign/registers.html and http://www.uspapermoney.info/sign/treasurers.html to get the dates for the Registers of the Treasury and United States Treasurers. "A Guidebook of United States Paper Money (3rd edition)" by Arthur and Ira Friedberg explained the difference between a FRN and a FRBN, as well as showing the signature combinations. The last one listed is Elliot/Burke Almostfm (talk) 06:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted the inclusion of the 1918 Federal Reseve Bank Note from the FRN Series Date section because it is NOT the same as a Federal Reserve Note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.196.11.177 (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the link to the 1918 notes again. Federal Reserve Bank Notes are not the same thing as Federal Reserve Notes, no matter how many times this keeps being put back. Federal Reserve Bank Notes were like the notes that could be issued by any Federally chartered bank-in this case, a Federally chartered bank that was also a Federal Reserve bank. Federal Reserve Notes are issued by the Federal Reserve through their banks. The Fed was prohibited from issuing any notes lower than $5 until 1963, so these couldn't be Federal Reserve Notes. Almostfm (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Seeing the article is about $2 bills in general though shouldn't the other series combinations stay? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. Sources have been provided, and consensus has been to include them. It is all about the history of the United States two-dollar bill, not the two-dollar Federal Reserve Note. It doesn't matter how many socks are in the drawer. Scr★pIron^IV 12:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with them appearing in the article. My problem is adding them to the section on Federal Reserve Notes, because they're not Federal Reserve Notes. A $2 FRN was not authorized under the law until the passage of PL 88-36 in 1963. How about this: We create a short section right above the section on the Federal Reserve Notes for the $2 1918 Federal Reserve Bank Notes, and put it in there?Almostfm (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

We should expand the signatures as there are a lot of combinations with all the $2 bills that have been issued. I do have books on U.S. paper money that can be referenced. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That could be good, unless it is an exhaustive list. If it is too many, then it can make things cluttered. If it isn't too many, then incorporating it should not be a problem; otherwise, sticking with the initial printing of each series would suffice. Scr★pIron^IV 13:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Why Did They Stop Making the Two Dollar Bill

I heard that the reason that they stop making the two dollar bill was because of a man named John Hanson was on the back of it. This man supposedly had been the first true President of the U.S. in 1781. Washington was elected President in 1789. This man was a black man. The term "United States" was not adopted until 1781. Triangulation 07:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how to (or if I even should) respond to this, but ... (1) "they" have NOT stopped making the two-dollar bill. The two-dollar bill is still printed by the U.S. treasury, although in significantly smaller quantities than other bills [5], (2) the image on the back of the two-dollar is John Trumbull's Declaration of Independence. This painting includes many of our founding fathers and signers of the Declaration of Independence but does NOT include John Hanson, (3) John Hanson was the first president of the Continental Congress, NOT of the United States, [6], (4) John Hanson was NOT a black man. I think that about covers it. --CPAScott 22:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

They did stop making them in 1966, but started again in 1976. That is probably what he was referring to. 71.94.16.90 (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The seated individual in question on the back of the $2 bill is Robert Morris (financier), not Hanson, in any case. Badagnani (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

i conquer with the first statement made in this section. There is a black man named John Hanson. i looked myself purely out of curiosity, only to find an answer. Go ahead, grab a magnifying and take a look yourself. Left corner, 6th head in the second row. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.35.28 (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

^ John Hanson, who held the office that was known officially as "President of the United States in Congress Assembled" from November 5, 1781 to November 4, 1782, died in November 1783 long before the invention of photography. The African-American man in the photograph that you saw on a website could not have been this John Hanson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.78.239 (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

There are reports that the man on the back of the bill is in fact Prince Hall the founder of Black Masonry in America. Without concrete evidence how is one to say that this individual is John Hanson or Prince Hall, but it is fair to say that this individual is clearly of a darker complexion than the rest of the group — Preceding unsigned comment added by REDLINEJ (talk • contribs) 20:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The "black" man on the back of the two dollar bill is unquestionably Robert Morris of PA. The original Trumbull painting in the Capitol Rotunda is keyed, and the yellow coated man is Morris.

If you look at him closely on the $2 bill with a magnifying lens, you can see that his face is heavily cross-hatched with dark lines, while everyone else only has small dots. SOMEONE intentionally made his face darker. Why? In the politically correct 1970s, one can imagine all sorts of misguided reasons. But whatever the reason, it is a disgraceful moment in the history of American numismatics. AJ6J, 29 October 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.26.201 (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Banks

Another factor in the bill's rarity is the outright refusal of some commercial banks to reorder them at all. They tell customers who want them, "Customers don't want them." These obstacles could be surmounted if consumers would bank only where $2 bills are stocked, and then request all cash in that denomination.

That might be true, but why would anyone actually want to do that? I'd be pretty pissed off if I went to the ATM to withdraw $100 and got 50 two-dollar bills. --69.142.111.235 22:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I do it all the time! Some of us like to spend large amounts of two dollar bills. Search 4 Lancer 00:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

ATM is irrelevant. According to your rationale, banks would have very few $1 bills, $5 bills, and coins at all. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 19:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Citibank branches in my experience frequently carry usable quantities of $2's. I like using them for gratuity and whatnot. knoodelhed (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Size

The sizes of present US currency were stated in an info box in metric terms to six digits of precision. I doubted that the printing bureau ever stated such a precision, or that they regulated the cutters to slice the printed sheets into notes down to +/- .00005 mm for the height and .0005 mm for the width. I found the US government site https://uscurrency.gov/history-american-currency which states the dimensions as 6.14 inches by 2.61 inches, an achievable 3 digits of precision. I suggest that the dimensions of US currency in the infobox should be given in US units rather than metric units. This is not a science article, so metric units being standard for science is not convincing. I have no serious problem with leaving currency measurements metric, but I strongly object to implying the measurements are specified to 6 digits of precision, which is an artifact of mindlessly using a unit conversion program. Edison (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

This conversation is taking place on Talk:United States one-dollar bill#Size. Let's not have the same discussion in two places, please. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

usage abroad

That is, outside the U.S.

This is a relevant topic which is currently ignored completely by this article.

For starters, I believe two-dollar bills are the most frequent of all currency units in Zimbabwe, where the US dollar is the de-facto currency today. Somebody should check this up and enter it in the article.

Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I had similar experiences in Poland in the late 1970s, when the US dollar was, in effect, a parallel currency used for most black market dealings, which accounted for a significant segment of the economy at that time. The $2 bill was in widespread circulation, but I remember that some American fellow students refused to believe that it was legal US tender. I'll see if I can find any reliable sources to back up my memories. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

In Zimbabwe as of 2016, $2 bill are widely used, I have seen older bills and newer bills series 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TmksZ (talk • contribs) 07:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Steve Wozniak

Steve Wozniak was arrested at Best Buy for paying with $2 bills and subsequently brutalized by the police.

IMHO, nobody should be using $2 bills, given the current state of the police in the US. It's just not worth the risk.24.233.173.138 (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it wasn't Woz who was arrested at Best Buy--it was someone else http://hoaxes.org/weblog/comments/man_arrested_for_paying_with_two_dollar_bill. And while Wozniak has been questioned, to say that he was "brutalized" is way over the top in describing what has happened.

And as far as "nobody should be using $2 bills", the reason doesn't matter. It's a currently produced, legal tender denomination of US currencyAlmostfm (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but paying with $2 bills is too risky, given the rise of the police state and uneducated police officers. 24.51.217.118 (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

You sound like you think that everyone who spends a two runs the risk of getting the bare bulb and rubber hose treatment. The fact is that these kinds of stories make news precisely because they're so rare. I've been spending them since they started reissuing them in 1976, and I've never once had a cashier express anything but curiosity, and I don't know anyone who's had a different reaction. Almostfm (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Lockheed U-2

"U.S. Air Force pilots who fly the venerable Lockheed U-2 spy plane always keep a $2 bill in their flight suit. Each pilot is issued a number identifying their chronological position among the 1,000 or so pilots who have flown the U-2 solo. Some pilots search until they find a $2 bill with a serial number whose final digits match their pilot number. New pilots must provide $222 in $2 bills to fund the U-2 clubhouse at Beale Air Force Base, near Yuba City, California. Veteran pilots conduct periodic “conformity checks” to make sure new fliers are carrying at least one bill. The fine for a violation? $2."

The entire above paragraph is wrapped in quotation marks, meaning that this entire section is a direct quotation without visible attribution in the text. It is also not in an encyclopedic tone. Rephrase before readding. --Khajidha (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Recomendacion

Snopes el 25 de noviembre de 2006 hizo un informe sobre los billetes llamado $2 bills are considered unlucky. [7] Marcado como "True", sugiero que lo agreguen como información adicional.--GuiaMartinez 15:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[On November 25, 2006 did a report on the bills titled "Are Two Dollar Bills Unlucky?". Marked as "True" <now 'Superstition'/'Legend'>, I suggest you add it as additional information.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arlo Barnes (talk • contribs) 14:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Steve Wozniak

I remember a story about him being arrested for using $2.00 bills at Best Buy and the secret service basically tortured him for several days and gave him drugs. I can't find a reference to this now. 108.200.234.93 (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

You can't find a reference to it because it didn't happen. What did happen was that a guy who is not Steve Wozniak did get arrested at a Best Buy for trying to pay with twos, but it wasn't a case where he was "tortured him for several days and gave him drugs" (see the "Steve Wozniak" section higher up on the talk page a link to the actual story). Almostfm (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Register

Few cash registers and money-handling machinery (such as vending machines) accommodate it.

As a cashier, I can say that that's not really true, as far as cash registers go. Every cash register I've seen has five bill slots. Since $50's and $100's are commonly placed under the till, and only $1, $5, $10, and $20 are commonly used of the smaller denominations, this leads to an empty slot. That slot is often used to store coin rolls, but they can also be placed behind or under the till itself (as I myself do). I've placed $2's in my register a few times, with no problems, and generally got rather good reactions when giving them as change, as opposed to dollar coins which tend to have mixed reactions Nik42 08:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

This is all false... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.141.170 (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree this false. When I was in retail, our cash register only had room for $1, $5, $10, and $20, anything else had to go under the till. There were No “extra slots.” We had no room for dollar coins either, just the standard pennies, nickels, dimes, and quarters. If there were cash registers with extra dollar slots and coin slots, I have not seen them. Mitch Turitz, former bookstore employee. Hayward, California. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.80.124 (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

As a former fast-food manager and employee, I have used many registers and have counted many tills. Most all were 5 slot drawers and we typically placed the rolled coins in the empty 5th slot, putting anything other than the $1's, $5's, $10's, and $20's, under the tray. However, I've seen stranger things than a 4-drawered register and believe that option exist, just haven't ever had to use it in a business setting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3018:1401:1900:89d0:9c21:b285:e0c0 (talk) 9:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Security Features: None????

This seems like a kinda big oversight, I don't want to just edit it if there's an exception for some reason that I don't know.

Like the $20 bill, the $2 has red and blue security fibers. It also has raised printing to give a textured feel. These are mentioned as security features in the US $20 Bill article, but here the features are listed as none. It is missing features of larger bills, but not ALL of them.

https://www.uscurrency.gov/denominations/2

Very strange, I'll edit them in if I get approval. Queer Mudskipper (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll just add it because I don't see anything saying I shouldn't ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Queer Mudskipper (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)