Grading in Feb 2010 Torex Auction

News: Registration is free here at the CPMF!

It was only a matter of time before this happened.  It appears that that the auctioneer for the February 2010 Torex show is using PMG population reports, not the rare note registers, to describe rarity for many chartered notes in the sale.  Consequently, many notes in the sale are "best graded" or "only 1 better known".  This is in addition to other fraudulent claims being made about some of the notes.  Example, lot 469, Union Bank of Prince Edward Island 1875 $2, "Only 2 examples are known".  BS!  The December 2002 CPMS Newsletter has details of 5 different notes.  Maybe only 2 of the 5 are graded by PMG, or perhaps not.  Just one more example of collectors needing to do their own research instead of trusting the auctioneers to do it for them.  Clearly, third-party grading is something in high demand by sellers, not by buyers.

Another outrageous lie... Lot 418... Bank of Nova Scotia 1898 $5 note (red sheet numbers)... "PMG VF20.  Tied for finest.  Only 9 examples known".  I checked my copy of the register and there's 14 known, and one is described as EF, so the Torex note is not the finest known.  Coincidently, the same note was described as "VG-F" when it appeared in the February 1998 Jeffrey Hoare Sale.  So the lax grading standards of PMG just compound the situation as notes that might be nothing more than middle-of-the-road in terms of grade are inflated and made to look like one of the best available.

Contacting the auctioneer will change nothing.  So what's a collector to do?  Can we do anything with more and more sellers sending every note they get to PMG or another grading company?

mmars,

It is posts like this that cause this site to be poorly regarded by many people. If you have an issue with an auctioneer, please address the matter with the auctioneer directly. If that fails to elicit an appropriate or satisfactory response, you can pursue the matter with other organizations including the Torex show operators, the Canadian Association of Numismatic Dealers (CAND), and the Royal Canadian Numismatic Association (RCNA), among others.

Ranting and raving about alleged impropriety has no place on these forums. Therefore, thread locked.

I have received the following response from Eric Paquet from The Canadian Numismatic Company, auctioneers for the upcoming February Torex sale. On Eric's request, this is being posted to the forum. The following is unedited.

In response the gentleman’s post, please be advised that most of the material that we (The Auction House) receive for consignment to be Auctioned comes priorly graded.  This has become the chosen formula for Collector’s who wish to sell their material through Auction Houses as this generally generates fewer complaints on grading issues and as you can see it still doesn’t work for everybody.   I am sure most note collectors are already aware that PMG is the grading company of choice for most major collectors at present.  Why this is, is personal to each and every banknote collector, but this seems to be the preferred standard at present.  When preparing an Auction catalogue, we do our best to research key pcs with available population reports by those grading companies who offer this data and who do publish their reports, to accurately describe the items and give them a justified estimate.  We generally will not incorporate Museum or Bank of Canada examples, as these examples are not readily available to the general public and should not affect the numbers available to the collectors.   

We are mandated by the Consignors and have a responsibility to them to describe their rarities to the best of our knowledge with the references in hand to best sell his or her pcs.  We cannot justify or unjustify what PMG, PCGS, CCGS, CCCS or BCS put as grades on each individual note that is consigned to us.  We will describe and if required advise any flaw or damage that a note may show.   The gentleman refers to one note in particular in a 1998 JHA Auction described in a lower grade, indeed this note may have been purchased by the said consignor exactly for that same reason, it was undergraded???  who knows.  However, no comments are ever brought forward about notes that have been previously sold in higher grades and are now in Certified holders in lower grades, and from experience I have seen this on numerous occasions as well and yes by PMG.

At the end of the day, the winning formula as a collector remains, to do his or her on homework and if at all possible to view the material before bidding.  Also in an attempt to ensure that all buyers are satisfied, most Auction Houses, as we do, offer a fair return policy to ensure that the end buyer is happy with his or her purchase and does not feel stuck with a product the he or she expected to be better.  I will finish on this note in the favour of all collectors,  I strongly believe that most serious buyers of significant notes or coins are already aware of the past history ie:  grades and reports applicable to the items they are bidding on, so lets give them some credit.  The comments made are both negative and seem like an unfair attack on both the Grading Companies and on the Auction Houses in general, no mention and no credit is given to the consumer of these products who I believe to be much more aware of what they are buying than this person is giving them credit for.  Again I sincerely emphasize that any and all information pertaining to errors in  population reports or problem items be brought to our attention so that if possible we can correct them before going to print. This is not just for us but for all Auction Houses in order to best inform the Public when it comes to the selling or buying of Numismatic material.

Thanks

Eric
The Canadian Numismatic Company
1300 Lebourgneuf #130
Quebec, QC  G2K 2N1
Tel: 418-628-9838   Fax 418-628-2790