CPM Forum
General => Banknote Grading Standards and TPG => Topic started by: TheBurnz on April 11, 2018, 08:42:34 am
-
Hello All,
I saw this note on Ebay and immediately said no way. Do you think this note was put in this holder by someone not certified or qualified to do so. Not only is it not level, but the overall note is not mint state for me, let alone ms-63.
{attach:3992}
{attach:3993}
-
That's not too much worse than what I would expect from a 63 non-EPQ. It obviously has some stains and the centering isn't perfect but it's hard to tell any thing else from the photos. The holder itself looks like it's very dirty so it's hard to tell how the note would look outside of the holder. I don't see any obvious folds or anything like that. As far as the note being crooked in the hold I think it must have slipped down . Usually the notes are at the top of the holder held in place I assume by the vacuum inside the holder. That looks like a very old holder though.
I find that the numerical grades above 60 have more to do with centering than with anything to do with the paper quality or handling. In terms of paper quality on a 1-10 scale this note would probably score a 1 or a 2 but since they only have a binary scale of EPQ/non-EPQ then there could be a wide range of defects from very minor to significant which could result in a non-EPQ designation. Perhaps a more appropriate grade for this note would have been 63 NET with a designation of "Stains".
In any case don't expect PMG standards to resemble Canadian standards enumerated in the Charlton. If you want anything resembling a "nice" Unc or CUnc note you need to look at 65 EPQ and better grades and even then the grading companies tend to ignore technical faults in favor of general eye appeal so if you're looking for a really pristine original note with no handling you better examine it yourself because those are really rare indeed!
-
since they only have a binary scale of EPQ/non-EPQ then there could be a wide range of defects from very minor to significant which could result in a non-EPQ designation.
I agree that the note does not look that poorly graded since its non EPQ. It's simply crooked in a dirty holder (no big deal). As a 1935 with relatively few major problems (other than the very faint stains) I don't think it should be a NET grade but yes the number 63 seems a bit high. It has pretty decent corners and nice margins (on the back) and its not that off-centre in the front.
-
Very good example of why to buy the note, not the holder.
-
Very informative. Always wonder why some holder had EPQ next to the grade. I just thought all the high grades got this label. Know I know that there is actually two grades to look for.
Thank you for the responses.
-
It's a shame that more sellers & collectors are not aware that EPQ and Original designation on TPG notes is very important. Too often I see pressed (or non original) TPG notes being offered for book value when BV (book value) should only be applied to EPQ or Original notes.
-
Why don't compare with one of our Canadian grader - Mr McKaig's grading at the same grade UNC63
-
I agree, I'm looking at some notes in the upcoming G Bell auction. (items just recently posted BTW). Some notes don't have any assigned paper grade, some say PPQ, some have a star next to the paper grade. This is all new to me, where can we learn more about this. If someone has a link, that would be great.
-
If someone has a link, that would be great.
https://www.pmgnotes.com/paper-money-grading/grading-scale/
https://www.pcgscurrency.com/g_standard.html
Why don't compare with one of our Canadian grader - Mr McKaig's grading at the same grade UNC63
I don't believe Andy McKaig (CCGS) distinguishes anything like EPQ/PPQ grades. I've found his grades to be conservative though. The only CCGS notes I've bought were very clean and original so I don't know how he would grade a dirty / stained / processed note. Too bad the holders are so flimsy. For this reason I usually end up cutting them out from the holders.
-
Thank you Al-Bob. Very helpful.
-
Here is an image of a note cut out of a CCGS UNC-63 holder for comparison:
{attach:3995} {attach:3996}
The only defect in the paper is tiny indentation in the left margin (better seen from the back). However the centering is terrible which is probably the main reason it could not get a higher grade.
-
http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/303/xSmjyZ.jpg
I am sorry that I didn't aware no image was posted.
(http://)
-
Never seen those holders before, interesting style they have, but I don't think I am a fan. That note to me is a much better example of what a 63 should look like, maybe even deserving of a nicer grade.
AL-Bob: that is a nice note, that note only got a 63? Wow! It has to be the centering, because I don't see the indent you mentioned. To bad it wasn't an Osbourne as well.
-
To bad it wasn't an Osbourne as well.
- You're joking right?
Any 1937 radar is exceptionally rare as they weren't collected back then (only the 2nd series and 1935 were short lived). By the time people started to collect paper money they were focussing on the 54's (& would have to go with what was left of the finite 1937 stock)
Solid radars are probably the only note in the book that sell no matter how bad the market (or economy). They're literally 1 in a million so extremely rare (& even collected by non collectors). A solid 1937 note is a "trophy note" no matter the signature (and one rated that high will command a very high price). Most collectors who seek solids will not fret whether the note was a change-over or has this or that signature.
-
- You're joking right?
Pretty sure he was joking. Personally I have never seen nor heard of any Osborne solid # in any condition (nor any 1935 for that matter).
-
Yes I was joking. LOL
But thank you for the information.
I know going forward to keep this notes and not sell them. I just recently sold a 1954 $10 solid and your post has me thinking maybe it was a keeper.
In consolation, I am sure it's in a much better home with nicer friends to play with.