Are The Mintage Figures of Australia's Polymer Notes A Reliable Guide to Rarity?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/39a7c/39a7c4f6845a729996a2df9b80529f19819b94ff" alt="Are The Mintage Figures of Australia's Polymer Notes A Reliable Guide to Rarity? main image"
Believe it or not, it's been 5 short years since Australia's circulating currency notes were fully replaced by the Next Generation Banknote (NGB) series. 5 years! Now that the new series has been well and truly bedded down, I thought now is a great time to review the rarity of not just the latest notes released but also the rarity of the polymer Australian notes released under the New Note Series (NNS) that ran between 1992 and 2020.
Each NNSW denomination was replaced by an equivalent NGB note in the space of a year and took place in the following order:
5 Dollar - 2016
10 Dollar - 2017
50 Dollar - 2018
20 Dollar - 2019
100 Dollar - 2020
We Didn't Have As Much Data Back in the Day
I was just starting in the numismatic industry when Australia was halfway through the switch from paper decimal notes to the NNS polymer notes (my time began around 1996). I clearly remember the anticipation back then of the new designs, the poignant way a lot of collectors related to the "old" paper notes that were being replaced, as well as the fun many collectors had in anticipating just which notes would become rare and valuable with future generations of collectors.
Despite the major change from the NNS polymer notes to the NGB polymer notes in the past 5 years, I haven't seen a buzz in the Australian note market that matches what we had back then. As soon as I write that, I can understand why - the paper notes had been in circulation with essentially the same designs for at least 25 years leading up to the NNS change from 1992, whereas even though the newfangled first generation of polymer notes had been in circulation for around the same time, they hadn't had time to enjoy the same fond regard our paper notes enjoyed.
One of the resources the average collector has in 2025 that we didn't have as ready access to back in the 90s is data. I'm thinking specifically of mintage figures here. This new resource has come about because for the past decade or so, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) has been quite transparent in publishing a great deal of information online regarding Australia's circulating currency notes.
Serial prefixes, numbers and signatures covering the annual production of each Australian banknote are all posted on the RBA website. We can see which denominations were printed in which years (it's interesting to see there can be lng gaps between print runs for some denominations), who signed them as well as how many plates were used to print those notes.
Once I add that data to a spreadsheet and then add in what I know of the number of notes per sheet for each denomination of Australian banknote, I can get what I believe are mintage figures for all Australian polymer first and last prefix notes.
Are Mintage Figures A Bro Science Guide to Rarity?
In addition to notes, across the past 30 years, I've handled a wide range of gold, copper and silver coins. This experience has taught me that a mintage figure is not always a concise of neat guide to rarity. The majority of some production runs are melted down, others were released directly to overseas sources, while notes at least can remain in central bank storage for years before they're released.
Even with all of that in mind, I do think there's some merit in at least reviewing what the mintage figures of our notes are - we do it for coins without a second thought, so there's no logical reason why we don't use the same data for notes. (Even if it is unhelpful in both instances!)
The table below has been compiled using the publicly available data provided by the RBA on Australia's circulating notes on their website. I've taken the numbered print run for each prefix range and divided it by the number of notes per sheet to get the mintage for each individual prefix.
What is interesting is that not only does the serial numbered range vary from note to note, the prefix range can vary also.
For example, in some years, only one plate may be used to print a particular denomination. In other years, there might be strong demand for a particular denomination, so there might be as many as four different plates in use for some denominations.
This results in some first prefixes with a mintage of just shy of a million, whereas the last prefix from the same print run can be less than 100,000.
This data must be checked and built out, but I am warming to the idea of using mintage figure data to confirm or deny the market values we have in place at the moment. I'm starting to wonder about the patterns that might emerge. How do market values compare to rarity as expressed by a mintage figure?
Patterns and Questions Are Emerging
Which Australian polymer notes have the lowest mintage figures? Which are the top 5 rarest 5 dollar notes? 20 dollar notes? NGB notes?
In the short time since I've put this table together, I can see a few interesting points emerging;
- Australia hasn't produced any 10 dollar notes since the first NGB notes were released in 2017;
- There seems to have been 2 different production runs for 20 dollar notes in 2013;
- Despite the hysteria about the move to a cashless society (apparently, production is plunging off a cliff), all of our 10 rarest polymer notes were released more than 12 years ago.
If you collect polymer banknotes, I hope you'll enjoy reviewing this table so you can draw your own conclusions. If you don't yet collect polymer notes, this data bonanza could be a great opportunity for you to take an objective position on some sleeper notes before the collector market wakes up!
DENOMINATION | SERIES | YEAR | 1ST PREFIX | MINTAGE | LAST PREFIX | MINTAGE | SIGNATURES |
5 | NNS | 1992 | AA00 | 993,999 | AB19 | 777,999 | |
5 | NNS | 1993 | BA 93 | 554,999 | EA 93 | 554,999 | |
10 | NNS | 1993 | AA93 | 989,999 | KE93 | 916,499 | |
10 | NNS | 1994 | AA94 | 384,205 | DF94 | 384,205 | |
20 | NNS | 1994 | AA94 | 989,999 | PE94 | 179,999 | |
5 | NNS | 1995 | BA95 | 989,999 | KC95 | 989,999 | |
20 | NNS | 1995 | AA95 | 753,499 | DA95 | 753,499 | |
50 | NNS | 1995 | AA95 | 949,999 | VG95 | 379,999 | |
5 | NNS | 1996 | BA96 | 560,999 | EA96 | 560,999 | Fraser/Evans |
5 | NNS | 1996 | BA96 | 114,000 | EA96 | 114,000 | Macfarlane/Evans |
10 | NNS | 1996 | AA96 | 149,999 | DF96 | 149,999 | |
20 | NNS | 1996 | AA96 | 818,999 | DA96 | 818,999 | |
50 | NNS | 1996 | AA96 | 626,999 | DA96 | 626,999 | |
100 | NNS | 1996 | AA96 | 949,999 | JK96 | 242,499 | |
5 | NNS | 1997 | BA97 | 999,999 | DN97 | 9,771 | |
10 | NNS | 1997 | AA97 | 510,499 | DF97 | 510,499 | |
20 | NNS | 1997 | AA97 | 949,999 | GB97 | 206,999 | |
50 | NNS | 1997 | AA97 | 949,999 | JC97 | 485,999 | |
5 | NNS | 1998 | BA98 | 986,999 | EA98 | 986,999 | |
10 | NNS | 1998 | AA98 | 949,999 | GL98 | 509,999 | |
20 | NNS | 1998 | AA98 | 880,499 | DA98 | 880,499 | |
50 | NNS | 1998 | AA98 | 949,999 | JC98 | 39,999 | |
100 | NNS | 1998 | AA98 | 555,499 | CF98 | 555,499 | |
50 | NNS | 1999 | AA99 | 949,999 | PE99 | 111,999 | |
100 | NNS | 1999 | AA99 | 166,499 | JK99 | 166,499 | |
5 | NNS | 2001 | AA01 | 799,999 | JD01 | 369,999 | |
5 | NNS | 2002 | BA02 | 870,000 | EA02 | 870,000 | |
10 | NNS | 2002 | AA02 | 999,999 | GL02 | 329,999 | |
20 | NNS | 2002 | AA02 | 999,999 | KM02 | 598,999 | |
5 | NNS | 2003 | BA03 | 999,999 | EA03 | 999,999 | |
10 | NNS | 2003 | AA03 | 742,500 | DF03 | 742,500 | |
20 | NNS | 2003 | AA03 | 252,000 | DA03 | 252,000 | |
50 | NNS | 2003 | AA03 | 820,000 | DA03 | 820,000 | |
50 | NNS | 2004 | AA04 | 846,499 | GB04 | 427,499 | |
5 | NNS | 2005 | BA05 | 999,999 | KC05 | 89,963 | |
20 | NNS | 2005 | AA05 | 999,999 | GB05 | 919,999 | |
50 | NNS | 2005 | AA05 | 999,999 | JC05 | 704,499 | |
5 | NNS | 2006 | BA06 | 999,999 | HB06 | 757,499 | |
10 | NNS | 2006 | AA06 | 999,999 | GL06 | 187,999 | |
20 | NNS | 2006 | AA06 | 999,999 | JC06 | 209,999 | |
50 | NNS | 2006 | AA06 | 999,999 | JC06 | 764,499 | |
5 | NNS | 2007 | BA07 | 999,999 | HB07 | 420,000 | |
10 | NNS | 2007 | AA07 | 999,999 | GL07 | 446,197 | |
20 | NNS | 2007 | AA07 | 999,999 | JC07 | 999,999 | |
50 | NNS | 2007 | AA07 | 829,000 | DA07 | 829,000 | |
5 | NNS | 2008 | BA08 | 999,999 | HB08 | 442,999 | |
10 | NNS | 2008 | AA08 | 654,499 | DF08 | 654,499 | |
20 | NNS | 2008 | AA08 | 999,999 | JC08 | 999,999 | |
50 | NNS | 2008 | AA08 | 999,999 | MD08 | 49,999 | |
100 | NNS | 2008 | AA08 | 999,999 | EL08 | 684,800 | |
50 | NNS | 2009 | AA09 | 999,999 | SF09 | 468401 | |
20 | NNS | 2010 | AA10 | 840,999 | DA10 | 840,999 | |
50 | NNS | 2010 | AA10 | 999,999 | GB10 | 675,499 | |
100 | NNS | 2010 | AA10 | 999,999 | EL10 | 57,999 | |
50 | NNS | 2011 | AA11 | 999,000 | JC11 | 455,999 | |
100 | NNS | 2011 | AA11 | 999,999 | EL11 | 69,999 | |
5 | NNS | 2012 | BA12 | 860,500 | EA12 | 860,500 | |
10 | NNS | 2012 | AA12 | 721,295 | DF12 | 721,295 | |
50 | NNS | 2012 | AA12 | 999,999 | GB12 | 98,999 | |
5 | NNS | 2013 | BA13 | 576,499 | EA13 | 576,499 | |
10 | NNS | 2013 | AA13 | 661,999 | DF13 | 661,999 | |
20 | NNS | 2013 | AA13 | 28,499 | DA13 | 28,499 | Stevens/Parkinson |
20 | NNS | 2013 | AA13 | 808,500 | DA13 | 808,500 | Stevens/Parkinson |
50 | NNS | 2013 | AA13 | 999,999 | JC13 | 270,513 | |
100 | NNS | 2013 | AA13 | 999,999 | EL13 | 389,499 | |
5 | NNS | 2014 | BA14 | 572,742 | EA14 | 572,742 | |
50 | NNS | 2014 | AA14 | 999,999 | JC14 | 757,978 | |
100 | NNS | 2014 | AA14 | 999,999 | JK14 | 352,999 | |
5 | NNS | 2015 | BA15 | 242,886 | EA15 | 242,886 | |
10 | NNS | 2015 | AA15 | 525,999 | DF15 | 525,999 | |
5 | NGB | 2016 | AA16 | 4,063,626 | EJ16 | 4,063,626 | |
50 | NNS | 2016 | AA16 | 677,328 | DF16 | 677,328 | |
10 | NGB | 2017 | AA17 | 5,385,495 | EA17 | 5,385,495 | |
100 | NGB | 2017 | AA17 | 708,503 | HE17 | 612,253 | |
5 | NGB | 2018 | AA18 | 622,404 | EJ18 | 622,404 | |
50 | NGB | 2018 | AA18 | 6,494,801 | IB18 | 6,050,277 | |
5 | NGB | 2019 | AA19 | 196,149 | EJ19 | 196,149 | |
20 | NGB | 2019 | AA19 | 189,258 | EA19 | 189,258 | Lowe/Fraser |
20 | NGB | 2019 | AA19 | 3,270,043 | EA19 | 3,270,043 | Lowe/Gaetjens |
100 | NGB | 2019 | AA19 | 188,115 | EA19 | 188,115 | |
5 | NGB | 2020 | AA20 | 242,062 | EJ20 | 242,062 | |
20 | NGB | 2020 | AA20 | 2,119,019 | EA20 | 2,119,019 | |
50 | NGB | 2020 | AA20 | 5,361,359 | EA20 | 1,458,931 | Lowe/Gaetjens |
50 | NGB | 2020 | AA20 | 1,458,931 | EA20 | 1,458,931 | Lowe/Kennedy |
100 | NGB | 2020 | AA20 | 5,425,894 | EA20 | 5,425,894 | |
5 | NGB | 2021 | AA21 | 786,855 | EJ21 | 786,855 | |
20 | NGB | 2021 | AA21 | 347,323 | EA21 | 347,323 | |
50 | NGB | 2021 | AA21 | 2,184,611 | EA21 | 3,092,427 | |
100 | NGB | 2021 | AA21 | 1,459,420 | EA21 | 1,459,420 | |
20 | NGB | 2022 | AA22 | 361,445 | EA22 | 361,445 | |
50 | NGB | 2023 | AA23 | 1,433,185 | EA23 | 1,433,185 | Lowe/Kennedy |
50 | NGB | 2023 | AA23 | 1,075,873 | EA23 | 1,075,873 | Bullock/Kennedy |
100 | NGB | 2023 | AA23 | 1,447,328 | EA23 | 1,447,328 |