Opinion on a 1935 Bank of Canada 5$

News: Registration is free here at the CPMF!

I have this other 1935 5$ I should keep this one in my collection because there no pencil mark on it.. but I got two little pinhole so...can we call it Fine ??

Thank

http://www.viaulocation.com/photo/note0042.jpg
http://www.viaulocation.com/photo/note0042b.jpg

  Patrick 

I'd sell it to Rachel for $ 160 bucks if I were you

The above note is a decent original Fine in my opinion and I would say "problem-free for the grade".

By way of comparison, there are three examples of this note on eBay right now that purport to be "F-VF" and all three appear to me to be significantly inferior to the note illustrated in this thread. Here are the relevant eBay item #'s: 160048698766, 260120097502, and 330166993185. Wow!

1. No 35 note is garbage. It's a great series. Sorry if my reply was abrasive 

2. I'm not into molly coddling discussion. If he had not asked for an opinion I would not have given mine. I'm one of the least politically correct people you will find.

3. Part of my opinion is based on the fact the note has pinholes. When I was taught to grade 20 years ago, the rule I was given was you deduct 1/2-1 full grade for pinholes depending on the severity and the number.

That doesn't seem to happen anymore. If something has pinholes it's sold in the grade of the note ( with pinholes ) I don't buy into that. If the note has holes it three must be a grade reduction as far as I'm concerned.

Do you not deduct grading points for pinholes ?

4. The orginal scan provided makes the note look worse than your archived scan. Your archived scan looks much more like a Fine. Funny I have found bright scans usually enhanced the notes appearance, perhaps not in this case because it's a very large up close picture. Scans can be very misleading. If you go back in this thread several posts I did "defer" due to the fact you have previously had the note in hand.

So........It's a Fine with pinholes
Whats that make it ?

I've seen many notes graded as "Fine" in major international auctions that have one or two very noticeable edge nicks and/or pin holes. Pin holes are considered by most people to be less of a problem than edge nicks. I've even seen a PMG AU-50 EPQ note with 6 pin holes and I have the scan to prove it!   

A couple of months ago I sold a popular and expensive chartered note on eBay and I graded it as "Fine with six microscopic 'pin-prick' holes and one tiny wear hole at center". This same note recently reappeared on eBay graded as "About VF with no pin holes" .... and at just over double the original price! Many notes that pass through the marketplace with the description "no pin holes" should really carry the fuller description "no detectable pin holes" or "no existing pin holes"!

Personally speaking, a pin hole or two does not bother me at all but a STAPLE HOLE is a real killer. A staple hole is a real hole without any paper flap that can be closed over but a pin hole invariably has a paper flap that allows the hole to be closed. Also, I absolutely abhor edge tears and nicks!

I've seen many notes graded as "Fine" in major international auctions that have one or two very noticeable edge nicks and/or pin holes.

I believe you. Does that make it accurate though ? Maybe I was away from collecting too long and things have changed too much.

Major International Auction is a euphemism for " SALE " And anytime anyone has a sale they want to prop up what they are selling as much as possible.

I guess people have just come to accept it because the availability of older notes is low, so they are more inclined to take what they can get. Bring that logic forward. Imagine a Journey Note CHUNC63 - with a pinhole. That would proabably be considered a AU or even an EF. Maybe thats a silly example but you see what I'm dirving at.

I've even seen a PMG AU-50 EPQ note with 6 pin holes and I have the scan to prove it!

Anything PMG grades I have little regard for. They are all over the map. I have bought about a 7 PMG notes and promptly cut them out of the holders. 3 of the grades I agreed with and 4 were a full overgrade

..... I guess people have just come to accept it because the availability of older notes is low, so they are more inclined to take what they can get. Bring that logic forward. Imagine a Journey Note CHUNC63 - with a pinhole. That would probably be considered a AU or even an EF. Maybe thats a silly example but you see what I'm driving at.

That's a very valid statement. An UNC-63 Journey note with pin holes would, with a few possible exceptions, be a mere "spender". The age of the note is certainly an important parameter in deciding whether pin holes and edge nicks are acceptable or not.

Anything PMG grades I have little regard for. They are all over the map. I have bought about 7 PMG notes and promptly cut them out of the holders. 3 of the grades I agreed with and 4 were a full overgrade.

I agree, in spades! It's not the unnecessarily complicated numerical grading scale that bothers me but their demonstrated inability to grade consistently within a narrow range of variance. I can still remember the $1000 1954 note that was graded AU by PMG but which was clearly only VF from the scans. The PMG AU-50 note that I bought turned out to be an EF at the very best when I cut it out. The PMG holders reduce the visibility of folds and wrinkling by a large degree and that is a major problem. Also, it's much more difficult to determine whether or not a note has been pressed when it's in a plastic holder. Would you feel confident spending $200,000 on a rare US note in a PMG holder and not be able to inspect it in the flesh?!