CPM Forum
General => Banknote Grading Standards and TPG => Topic started by: wagnert89 on May 20, 2019, 04:25:20 pm
-
I saw this for sale and i feel bad for the person who may buy this someday, hopefully they can tell it's not a 64. Just another example why I would not send my notes across the border to be slabbed
-
Hard to see anything from the small picture except some possible staining/damage to the right margin. Is that an argument for-or-against sending your notes down south to get slabbed?
-
Against. This note should be AU/UNC not choice 64
-
That stain's a killer, best I can do is five bucks.
-
Atleast it didn’t get the EPQ
Designation
-
sorry, I did not realize it attached so small on phone.. this should be better. Nothing like a few rounded corners and small corner flick to get a choice64 (no demit points)
-
I saw this for sale and i feel bad for the person who may buy this someday
Maybe you should feel sorry for the person that actually
Bought it and owns it now 😳
Unless of course they got it at a steal
And are trying to turn it over for a big
Profit
-
I think whoever sent this to PMG received the results they were hoping (and paying a premium) for... lets hope the next owner buys the note and not the holder. They want 700 dollars for the note. 400 for the note and 300 for the holder : )
I have seen some PMG notes that were correctly graded and I have bought a few but I based the purchase on the note condition and not the holder.
-
This note should be AU/UNC not choice 64
At best perhaps AU58 but it does have a few things going for it such as the serial # and prefix both of which should not influence the grade as it seems to have done here.
-
Another good one by a U.S. grader!
-
Another good one by a U.S. grader!
I'm not sure what you're pointing out there. The slightly jagged edge isn't really bothersome given that the margins have a nice width. I would much prefer some irregular edges than a closely cropped note. I can't say from that picture that that particular note is over graded at all.
Also you should read these companies' published grading scales. They grade on a 1 to 70 scale so a 65 note by definition can and should have multiple flaws according to their own standards which are not the same as the Charlton's strict standards.
-
I'm not sure what you're pointing out there.
- I have to agree. If you enter the code on the back of the holder you will get a breakdown of PMG's assessment. For the DA7000000, there's the counting flick (which is allowed by Charlton's strict definition) and the edge bump on the right margin (not a stain). At least it's not been designated as "EPQ" (which "Friedsquid" points out) and that alone should raise a red flag if you're more in line with Canadian/Charlton strict standards. Maybe "UNC 63 would be more appropriate but we simply don't have enough information.
Perhaps the PCGS *C/F should be a "63/64" but the edge bump circled again is not a big deal/distraction by most collectors' standards. Unless one can personally inspect the note- it's pretty hard to discern how serious that edge imperfection is.
I agree that we should grade the note for ourselves but I don't think that considering the high quantity of notes slabbed by PMG should be a good reason to slam all TPG certified notes from the south.
Although this is a bit off topic I also feel its a shame that so many banknote collectors seem absolutely obsessed with the higher points of uncirculated (UNC 65, 66, 67 & 69). I have seen several common CDN banknotes go for 50X BV because it's been graded UNC 67 or 68.
-
I guess I am just a strict grader then.
Do not get me wrong here! - I do have a few PMG notes that appear accurately or undergraded through the holder but I can not say for sure since I did not see the raw.