Bank's liability

I wasn't suggesting by "OCR" that the machines attempted to read the handwritten (virtually impossible) or typed (very rare) amounts, but that the branch, account, and cheque numbers at the bottom were machine-read optically. I didn't realise they were magnetic; wouldn't that make the cheques stick together?

In the days where banks used to return paid cheques to customers together with their statements, the amounts got printed onto the end of that line in the same funny typeface. I'm sure I've heard this typeface referred to as an "OCR font".

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Nope - it would either (A) make them all repel each other, or (B) make some stick together and others repel.

(A) - If the same polarity was used for all cheques; (B) - If different polarities were used.

Hmm that could be why sometimes I cant open my cheque book, and why it flies across the room and sticks to the telly screen when I switch it on.

Thats what happens now and has been the system for over 30 years. The machines that printed it on where called 'encoders'. Originally the branch did that and then sent the cheques off to the clearing house where they were sorted and the data on the cheque used to debit the account later. Now once the amount is encoded it gets read at the local operations centre and the cheque doesnt get sent to the drawee at all.

Almost - it was 'MICR' Magnetic Ink character recognition. OCR is obviously 'Optical.

>

In message , Tim writes

Intent has got nothing to do with. My scenario is just as likely as yours.

You can't have one polarity without the other. If they are all printed with N facing at you and S facing into the paper substrate, a stack of cheques, all face up, would stick together, assuming the field was strong enough to reach through the thickness of the paper. And two cheques laid face to face would repel each other.

If they're all little horseshoes, two face to face ones could do odd things depending on how the grid is laid out.

But this is all a joke.

I'm sure they're not actually magnetic, but just capable of being read by an electromagnetic technique, presumably because the ink contains material with a high inductive permeability.

And yes, I can see the advantage this has over optical reading. If people (as they do) show scant regard for exhortations not to write in the field, this could interfere with and confuse the recognition algorithms. Inductive methods would be unaffected provided the stray ink isn't as inductively dense as the printed ink.

they are always tougher enacting the law in third world countries.

cant since why, since as you have previously said, many bank staff dont know what 'paid' means and are thus likely to confuse it with 'cleared'.

In message , Tumbleweed writes

So why would they make the telephone call then? 'Cleared' status shows on their screen. They dont have to ring anywhere. Therefore they must have lied about the call.

>

The key is to ask for special presentation when you pay the item in, in my experience once a cheque has entered the clearing system as a 'normal' the other bank wont even think about answering a later telephone call - they want to have the cheque infront of them when they decide whether to pay it or not.

related point from earlier in the thread, its certainly the case that iPSL (who have around 80% market share in cheque clearing) read the values of the vouchers using some kind of scanning technique - makes getting your decimel point in the right place on a cheque very important, something like " 66-50. " can fairly easily end up being

6650.00 if that point is present after the .50, i think the reading of the corresponding voucher often flags this up, but obv can be missed.

Ian

In message , snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com writes

My suggestion did not suggest otherwise.

Do you mean enforcing? Enacting means *making* the law. Maybe they're tougher with both.

I was looking for a word which covered both but couldnt think of it.

"john boyle" wrote

Who said they even made the call?

"john boyle" wrote

Who said that they even mentioned a call? I wrote: " the untrained clerk comes back and says: 'yep, that cheque is now paid sir. Have a nice day!' "

So banking must have changed a bit. When I started work, one of my friends went into banking (last I heard of him he was in a headquarters management position). I am sure that he said that would be tellers had to spend a substantial period working 'behind the scenes' to be trained before being allowed to sit at a teller's window and face the public.

That must have been back in the days when John Boyle was still in nappies.

They still do --- at least 10 minutes these days!!

In message , Tim writes

So the clerk lies about making the call and lies about the answer that was given?

I woudlnt bank were you bank if that is what happens. !!

So after having asked the clerk to ring the drawee and obtain details of fate the clerk just rings back and says as above?

In message , Ronald Raygun writes

Hey You! Are you talking about me or chewing a brick?

If that's meant to be a reference to something obscure from your Beefheart collection, it's lost on me.

All I was doing was trying portray you as and wise, as belonging to that bygone era when bankers knew what to do and got on with it, and wore Bowler hats and carnations and had flying nannies.

No need to bite my head off.