CPM Forum
General => General Forum Comments => Topic started by: sudzee on October 02, 2005, 04:04:19 pm
-
There are a few dealers out there who I get along with very well. I base my offer on the notes' grade as I see it and usually end up with a nice note for a reasonable price. I have, over the last 6 years of searching fresh bricks, come to the conclusion that perfection really doesn't exist and and have lowered my expectations somewhat to suit my experience. I allow a bit more on inserts because they are handled at least one more time than regular notes before they are bricked. Enough said about that.
Here is the nuts and bolts of my unpleasant experience yesturday:
I slipped a note out of a holder at a dealer's table at the Oshawa show to check its grade. I made an offer based on AU condition because the note had an obvious 3/4 inch bend in the top margin and a 1" crease near the bottom centre. The guy seemed miffed that I had the nerve to call it AU and said " it was UNC till you took it out of its holder " he said. He grabbed his up his copy of Charlton, had a look, and said the note is worth 45.00 but I"ll take 40.00. I just shook my head and walked away.
Charlton bases its prices on Charton's grading system, not on some obscure, self serving, personal opinion. If dealers are using Charlton as the pricing bible then they should also adhere to Charlton as the grading bible. Too bad collectors have to look at a 20 - 30 notes graded UNC to finally see one. I hate to handle notes but I have to know what I'm buying.
Needless to say I left the show early and just a bit put off.
Gary
-
I understand the problem, overgraded notes.
I am not at all pleased with customers sliding notes out of the protective holder to grade them, but I understand that it is necessary to ascertain the grade.
I watched Don Olmstead at the recent TNS show grading several notes that he purchased, and I sat with him for a few minutes to see how he did it. It mattered not at all what the previous owner said they were, and many of those marked Uncs were re-packaged and graded AU. I looked carefully at several of the notes and agreed with Don's grading on all except for one. A 1937 $10 that I would have called Unc, he called it AU.
I also look at the corners of all notes with a 10 power glass looking for actual wear. If I see some rounding or fibers showing, the note is not uncirculated, it is less.
Some notes are sold by price with no actual grade written on the holder. This is a hard thing for a consumer to buy unless he knows how to grade properly and checks his price list.
Rick
-
Notes can be tricky to grade. Especially with a busy bourse and tricky ambient lighting. The most respected sellers that Ive dealt with take more of the conservative road with grading but may charge more for the condition rare, high grade UNCs. I think in most regards this is fair as I feel Im buying certainty, quality, and saving valuable time and possibly money buying an inferior or misgraded note.
I also tend to walk away from sellers who arent open for discussion with a difference of opinoin with grading. Everyone makes mistakes so its never improbable.
Tough call however, as I would imagine it could be abit unnerving for some sellers to allow someone they just met to handle an UNC note. As a rule of thumb I would always ask first.
Perhaps you caught the dealer on a bad day.
-
Gary,
Sorry to hear about your B&M/show experience, which is similar to several of my own at shows as a buyer, which I mentioned in another thread recently.
What should have happened is he should have apologized to you and agreed to sell the note at an agreed upon less than UNC price and then gone even beyond that to help reverse the lack of confidence you may have had in his sales approach.
This assumes of course he is interested in building a business based on relationships and not jumping from one transaction to the other which is not the recipe for business success.
Troy.
-
What I generally do at shows or in stores for that matter is look at what the dealer's inventory as a whole looks like in respect to grades and prices before I even bother focusing on any notes at that table or store. Obviously if the notes all appear over graded to me that ends the story. If however I disagree with the grade on one or two particular notes I may mention it. More times than not I simply pass on the note. On occasion I may buy one I agree with the grade and price on to see if I can establish a longer term relationship with the person if they have inventory I may be interested in. A lot of times people act like they are doing you a great personal favour ( not saying that was the case in your tale) by buying a note or coin and that can be very irritating. I've experienced sellers acting the same way.
If you have no previous relationship with the other person it is easy for both parties to get irritated. Life is too short for that crap. *shrug*
-
Over grading seems to be a common problem,and yet is so subjective.
My experience was similar to sudzee recently.At a show I attended with several other collectors,we found every dealer of Paper Money had over graded most popular scarce notes.
We seperated,went through the displays,re-grouped,and found that out of 5 individuals,none of us purchased even >:( one note.
One story related to me at this show-A dealer had a run of 4 Consecutive 1937 $2.00's in Unc.Each note had severe counting creases,at least 2 on each note.The response when my friend pointed this out to a very well established dealer? That's what makes them original.
Need less to say,he walked away.
-
Perhaps this is the time for accurate, third party grading. Grading by a minimum of 3 people, none of whom sell notes, and are widely known in paper money collecting circles.
The usual problems are notes that are borderline Unc (which means AU).
Rick
-
Agree, boarderline UNCs are a tough call. As close to an AU price usually does the trick in persuading me if the wear is a counting flick or less. Otherwise, its not an UNC. Usually Im thinking in terms of resale one day.
-
As far as im concerned UNC is UNC and better d@mn well be UNC if anyone wants my money.
-
Nothing wrong with expecting a note described as Uncirculated being that. Both parties in the transaction need to agree on both the price and the grade.
Far too many notes called Unc. that are not quite there.
Drives 'em nuts when you view the corners with a 10 power glass looking for signs of wear. Pressed notes are another problem, but this does not change any actual wear.
Rick
-
Agree, with the above. UNC notes should be straightforward enough - but arent nec. Especially when going back to the 1937 and older notes where handling of the sheets and counting flicks were common and yet an UNC note in its most sincere form. I had an interesting conversation with Don about this recently. One thing I like about his grading is his notation of Original UNC, whereby it can be generally accepted and noted that on certain vintages the original counting flick or light crease is a preference rather than the glassy flat surface of a pressed note. Likewise, with the waviness of the 54 series. I think a helpful addition to Charlton would be the addtion of these descriptions to the grading portion of the cat. Therefore making greater awareness of originality in unc vs - pressed or what I dislike - commercial unc...
-
Would you not agree that there is a difference between a counting crease and the ripples of the 1954 series? One of them is a result of handling or mishandling, yet the other is the result of moisture in the paper drying out during or shortly after the printing process.
I would not consider a note with a crease of any kind, including a counting crease, to be UNC. It is AU. Call it Original AU if you must, but it is not UNC or even Original UNC. The rippling is considered "as-made", and thus UNC, or if you use it, Original UNC.
-
I agree, having talked to Don many times about notes and coins when he used to sell them to me.
There is no definition of original Unc, or commercial Unc, while pressed Unc, if done well enough, is not traceable or detectable.
Wavy edges on 1954 are common place, counting marks can be brutal on earlier notes, while the notes coming out of bank machines can have a series of marks from the mechanism. The whole problem is notes with actual wear or heavy contract marks being called Unc. when they are not. This type of information would make sense if in the book, as to what to look for on certain issues.
Rick
-
The new journey notes often have a little pucker near the edge where the security strip is. I suspect these strips dull the cutting knife causing some drag during cutting. I know that a number of people are downgrading the note because of this... but it is "as issued".
-
I look for the waiviness in the 54 Series - Devils in particular to indicate originality. WRT to 1937 notes and older, the texture of the paper and as Rick mentioned above - so signs of wear on the corners, edges, discoloration, etc... of the note to signify it was never in circulation.
My conversation with Don and ideas shared with other collectors is that the technology and handling process - by hand - for the older notes made them rarely susceptable to counting flicks and perhaps a light crease. Further, unless the note had been obtained from the centre of the brick and had been pressed from the corresponding pressure would have unlikely escaped some sort of light counting flick.
Having said that, my ideal standars for UNC are without any counting flick at all - and I would definately deine a crease as being more substantial than a flick and in my eyes give a note an EF - AU grade. However, I think where there is a gray area is the original note with a counting flick that from examination one would conclude has seen no wear and circulation. In general I would grade such a note AU-UNC original, and note the counting flick. And with a corresponding price between AU-UNC.
I have - for better or worse - bought notes through major auctions where the note was described as UNC and upong examination had such counting flicks - but felt the note in its sincerest form was uncirculated.
Likewise, the notes that I can truly say were GEM UNC and purchase for GEM unc prices commanded premium dollars - but were certainly GEMs and some of the most pristine and beautiful notes I have both seen and owned.
I guess, what I am also trying to express is that value should also be taken account and noted wrt to originality. And likewise, disclosure, identification of pressed notes, and cooresponding prices.
Hope this hasnt taken the intention of this post in the wrong direction.
BTW, I was sorry to hear about the experience with the dealer. It can certainly take the zing out of what should be a fun time hunting for treasure...
-
I feel very "junior" compared to some of the other posting members, especially on this thread, but I must say I do feel what sudzee had mentioned right from the start. It is often disheartening to go to a place and see notes that are overgraded- at many tables to boot.
I have been shown by some serious collectors some very good ways of finding the flaws, and boy am am I thankful for that knowledge.
It is just too bad that it is like that.
I think it is best said (quoting another member):
If they want to price by Charlton, then they should abide by the grading standards in the Charlton. Simple as that.
Now whether or not the Charlton is the correct price? I am not even going into that (I think that is another thread).
One of the main reasons why I focus on Journey Series only is this fact- I don't have to worry about the grading for the most part.
Thank you that is all.
Hudson
-
Hudson,
You just reminded me of one of the first times a friend of mine (who has an extensive note collection, fantastic notes!) and I got togeather to look over each others notes. While grading my notes, I watched as he sniffed the notes. As I had just met him, I thought that this was both abit bizzarre and quite intense (didnt know we would end up being good friends after - lol). Anyhow, as I soon learned it was to detect if any of the notes had been played with, processed, etc...
As posted above from all notes could be tricky to grade at times, and when the notes are in the hundreds, and thousands - its doubly important to have confidence in the grade.
Anyhow, you made me laugh thinking about watching my friend grading these notes! Funny, but theres a certain truth that theres nothing like the smell of old money...
-
;D LOL AGREED
-
Hi Guys,
Tis late but I cannot resist a comment.
It would be good for Charlton's to have some commentary about paper features of various issues - such as two types of paper ( one white, one off-white) in the 1937's; the ripples in the Devil Face notes, etc. It does not have to be part of the grading guide but a commentary that helps educate collectors - who are unmercifully beat up by the marketplace.
The issue of a counting crease is worthy of debate. My 2 cents ( or should that be 2 dollars..) worth is this: It is rare for the 1935, 1937 and early 1954 issues to escape counting creases. They are not as made from the press but are arguably "as-issued' in that few came out the system ( printer to central bank to regional bank to local bank to public) without being counted manually various times and acquiring counting crease(s). In these cases there is a similarity in as made and as issued. I tell my customers that an original note that is flawless but for counting creases is UNC, period. That can be argued I admit. The issues referred to that do NOT have a counting crease are scarce GEM notes that deserve a 20-25% preium over the catalogue. The catalogue reflects the typical market, not the exceptions.
In all of this, gentlemen, there is greater knowledge from which collectors and dealers can make informed decisions. There does not have to be 100% agreement - just hopefully 100% AWARENESS of the fact that, as in the case in point, there are at least two opinions, both valid, on what constitutes UNC. Then people can decide for themselves, and collect whichever UNC they are happy with. The sad cases are those who have not a clue about grading and get killed.
On top of all that is simple errors - I make lots of them and customers show me notes I graded UNC that are AU, properly correcting me. I cannot grade 200 or 300 notes and not make a mistake. And usually that will be overgrading, not likely undergrading. So again, it is important to increase knowledge.
OleDon
-
One last thought - Gary is RIGHT - he should be able to take a note out and look at. I would not buy a note of value without an examination and neither should a collector. I have yet to see anyone capable of grading a note in a holder.
OleDon
-
Hi guys,
As Don hinted at this is an area for some healthy debate. For the issues from the years that Don mentioned (without counting creases) I do not automatically assume and label as gem as Don indicated he does when they don't have evidence of being counted. This is of course regarding this portion of his post: "issues referred to that do NOT have a counting crease are scarce GEM notes that deserve a 20-25% preium over the catalogue."
They may get a "Choice UNC" from me but would need to be essentially a perfect note in every way to earn a "GEM" label.
Anything from the years he mentioned with a single counting crease as its only flaw will get AU/UNC from me.
As you saw in another thread I like these two definitions of GEM and Choice.
Gem Uncirculated (Gem Unc) (UNC-65)
A note that is flawless, with the same freshness, crispness, and bright color as when first printed. It must be perfectly centered, with full margins, and free of any marks, blemishes, or traces of handling.
Choice Uncirculated (Ch Unc) (Unc-63)
An Uncirculated note that is fresher and brighter than the norm for its particular issue. Almost as nice as Gem Uncirculated but not quite there. Must be reasonably well centered.
I also think a GEM note should be at a premium far above 25% over traditional UNC as my standards for GEM are as above and my experience with USA paper tells me that GEM's are often 2x (or more) than traditional UNC 60's.
Having said that if the industry in Canada agreed a GEM note was simply an UNC note without counting creases I would probably agree that a 25% premium should be the max premium considered. I would however continue to disagree with this definition of GEM UNC and aspire to a higher standard - even for issues from the specific years referenced. With the market becoming more international than ever my many USA clients (thank you eBay) are accustomed to the definition of GEM UNC 65 I presented and would not downgrade their expectations of a GEM UNC note to accomodate anything less, regardless of what year was printed on the note.
This reminds me....is that grading seminar getting off the ground shortly? I thought it was a fabulous idea that would be appreciated by many.
Troy.
-
A problem I noticed is the holders themselves, when notes are removed in most of them, they are handled, causing very minor wear, creases etc. to be now part of the note.
Note holders with the ends cut off work better when attempting to ascertain the grade, no drag on the paper, no accidents, no creases.
Problem is, many people are not aware on this little trick, and still damage the notes when inspecting.
There is no certain way to keep notes crisp, as issued, if multiple people want to pull them out, put their fingers on them, breathe on them and turn Uncs. into AU's.
A first rate third party grading service has merit. It would need to be done like PCGS does coins.
Rick
-
Rick,
That is a good point I recently pondered while sorting out my notes. I think I got a bit distracted and inadvertently jammed a note into its holder which got abit - stuck -. Needless to say this left the slightest of impressions from the pressure of putting the note back in the holder - but it is now there - sigh... It was not a high value note - thank goodness, but it certainly reminded me how easy an accident or getting sloppy could quickly turn an UNC to an AU.
-
Ted Bailey has a been attempting to influence how the holders are made to prevent similar damage to notes on the holders that have a little raised lip at the end which can scratch a note if not careful.
Last I heard they were not listening to him and he was somewhat frustrated.
Troy
-
The holders are made about 2 miles from where Ted lives in Paris by CSW. This company makes all sorts of coin, stamp and note supplies.
The dies and molds are expensive, and as a result, Ted has been importing note holders from the US in a quest to sell an improved product.
The holder used by the mint/BofC in the $10 and $5 series, and in the $2 coin/note set is first class. These are now being sold by Steven Bromberg. This type of holder, while still able to open, protects the note and keeps it flat. The bulkiness of the holder is a problem, and it will likely scratch easily.
The holder used by Andy McCaig is also very protective, but again, bulky.
Rick
-
Insightful,
Thank you.
-
Rick,
Agreed, I use the holders that Andy uses. I keep those notes I enjoy viewing frequently in them so as to be able to have them handy to look at and not worry about damaging the note. They do scratch relatively easy though - which is sort of dissappointing, and speaking about bulky and heavy - YES! But they do offer great protection and ease to view the note. I actually wish that they sold sturdy holders like those for the Dominion notes (anyone have any suggestions) although I believe that they would be ennormous by the time you could put a dominion note in them.
BTW, good point about the wear and tear on a note by taking it in and out of a holder. Just the natural characterisitcs of dealing with paper.
-
I watch people at shows all the time pulling notes out of holders, eyeing them, fondling them, flipping them over in their hands.
A definition of uncirculated is no wear or signs of handling, thus fondled notes become AU very quickly.
Better protective holders should keep them that way. The BofC issued holders are also very good for protection, and yet are easy to open in necessary. At the very least, the cheap plastic ones should have the ends cut off making the note more accessible while still protecting it.
I know it takes longer to view a note in a holder to determine the grade, but holding it in your hand and flipping it around lowers the grade eventually or very quickly depending on the type of holder and how harsh the viewer is on your notes.
Rick
-
As a matter of clarity i did not define GEM as any UNC note without a counting crease. it would have to be GEM quality AND have no creases.
OleDon
-
In respect to comments about hard plastic holders for bank notes.
Any quality hard plastic holder is going to be both somewhat bulky and unfortunately they will scratch or scuff somewhat easily. Particularly when coming into contact with other plastic IE: Stacking the holders. Certainly one could make a thinner holder however it would then need to be made out of a material such as styrene which is extremely brittle therefore causing a breakage problem and I for one would be irritated if my Unc 35 French 2 got slashed because it was in a crappy holder that exploded.
The highest scratch resistant shatter tolerant plastic is Acrylic (excluding NASA type material) however the cost of the raw Acrylic material and the difficulty in the injection molding process due to its hardness is prohibitive. Also the UV protection is relatively low due to Acrylic's natural clarity . The next best are polycarbonate blends which provide 100% UV protection and excellent clarity. However due to the additives required that allow a polycarbonate blend to have the highest clarity while retaining an inert composition approximately a 20% reduction in scratch resistance or hardness is lost compared to acrylic.
The holder Andy McKaig uses is made of the latter material, a decision that was made by him that would allow a cost effective grading service.
The current US grading service and I would expect NGC and PCGS use Acrylic and the cost will be reflected accordingly. Probably in the range of 30.00 US per note.
PCGS coin holders are shot from Acrylic and even they scratch very easily-there is simply a smaller "viewing area" that can be harmed as opposed to a holder housing a bank note.
In respect to the comment about a holder for the larger notes. Very expensive and there is simply not the demand to make it cost effective.
-
Would it be possible to have holders like this made that have the edges raised? A raised border sort of idea? That way the face parts wouldn't be rubbing eachother, but the edges would instead.
I think that would eliminate the scratching issue would it not?
-
Very informative!
My experience with Andys holders are quite good and I would actually recommend them - but be aware of the scratching issue. The best remedy I found was to keep the bag that they come in and house it in the bag while transporting the notes.
As mentioned above, Id rather have a scratched holder than a damaged note.
I imagine such holders for dominion nontes would be enormous and consequently would be weight prohibitive beyong carrying around 5-6 notes.
-
Would it be possible to have holders like this made that have the edges raised? A raised border sort of idea? That way the face parts wouldn't be rubbing eachother, but the edges would instead.
I think that would eliminate the scratching issue would it not?
Hi Hudson
Yes it is possible and it would help but not a great deal. If you get a chance take a look at a PCGS coin holder which has raised edges. They are always scratched or scuffed.
Again the cost issue becomes a factor plus a raised edge note holder would be bulkier still. The more complex the mold the more expensive it is to make and to produce the part itself with a higher waste probablity.
A fair amount of thought went into the design of the holders McKaig uses. Issues such as allowing the note to breathe and not have the holder pressing the note when sealed such as a capital holder does were paramount. It was also determined that the holder should be as sleek and thin as possible yet strong. The holder fits into a regular sized envelope and is very strong so those goals were achieved. Also the pin design that seals the holder together is of a tapered design and as anyone who has actually used the holder will attest, short of throwing it against a wall,it won't open. It can also be perma-sealed easily should one desire it to be.
While there is always room for improvement on any product until the market demand can offset the costs it is unlikely to see any holder that is "ideal" per se.
-
Travsy,
Agree with your comments, as such products always come with pros and cons - I belive this is a fantastic product. And despite whatever shortcomings it may have - I think the protection of an expensive note with such a holder is well worth it. Ive actually been quite impressed with the tapered pins that hold the two sections togeather - although I cant say that Ive tried throwing against a way to test its durability - perhaps you could try this with one of your notes and let us all now the results - kidding!
-
I cant say that Ive tried throwing against a way to test its durability - perhaps you could try this with one of your notes and let us all now the results - kidding!
I already have. 8)
-
I have attempted to twist the holders used by Andy McCaig and to defeat their purpose, which is protection of expensive notes that have been certified. Could not make any real dent in it, I couldn't really damage it.
The holder sold by Steven Bromberg (called "Museum View") appears to be real tough. If you twist it with enough force it will deflect, but returns to its normal position when done. This is similar to the holder sold by the BofC for their lasting impressions sets. Scratch resistant, crystal clear, but will shatter will enough force applied. Small sized noted only so far. The price is a few dollars each (not sure of the exact price.)
Rick
-
Bromberg's holders are the BoC holders or a direct knock off of them and were not made to "stand alone" so to speak.
A decent holder but again they show the need to sacrifice one thing to get another. In the case of Bromberg's they are made of styrene hence the clarity and lightness but they will shatter. They are about 20% more scratch resistant than McKaig's though.
-
Bromberg's holder are certainily similar to the BofC holders. If fact, when the two are compared, they appear to be exact.
Several of the BofC holders are slightly warped, perhaps 1/8 of an inch out of true flat. This shouldn't be a problem however.
You are correct about not able to stand alone, they make a poor display method except when flat. Pages for large holders will hold them, but are clunky and easily bashed about.
Weigh is a little much compared to normal note holders, perhaps something that doesn't matter unless moving them around frequently.
Rick
-
Yes the warping in both is because of the plastic and quality of the mold used.
I do know that McKaig could make a virtually scratch proof holder but the cost is truly ridiculous. Between the 2 I think McKaig's is probably the imperfect perfect one. Of course a person can always use a Capital Holder as they make great weapons....