Grading Notes

News: Welcome to the Canadian Paper Money Forum.

Hi,

The following is a quote from a current listing on ebay;

"You are considering an UNC- graded 1937 Bank of Canada $2 note with the Gordon & Towers signature combination. The note is completely original and has a single counters diagonal fold in the top right corner area of the note."

According to Charlton grading rules, does a single counting fold not make it almost uncirculated and not UNC?

I only bring this up because the seller has a 100% positive rating from over 800 transactions and I am just an amateur collector.

What do you think?  

Hi,

The following is a quote from a current listing on ebay;

"You are considering an UNC- graded 1937 Bank of Canada $2 note with the Gordon & Towers signature combination. The note is completely original and has a single counters diagonal fold in the top right corner area of the note."

According to Charlton grading rules, does a single counting fold not make it almost uncirculated and not UNC?

I only bring this up because the seller has a 100% positive rating from over 800 transactions and I am just an amateur collector.

What do you think?  

If it has a fold as described, then depending on the severity of it, and any other imperfections, the note could go down as far as EF or worse. If just the fold, definitely AU, possibly EF.

The '37 Series is very hard to get in absolute perfect condition. Hence the hefty UNC prices. Notes had to be manually counted back then by banks and such and therefore most all notes had some handling. If you follow the grading standards to the letter then it's an AU. Personally depending on the size of the counting fold and if it's only one flick I may be tempted to say AU-UNC and offer mid-grade accordingly. But honestly unless you have the note in hand and inspect under the proper light it's almost impossible to tell from a picture. I have also noticed that on the not so often occaision a PERFECT GEM 1937 note does crop up, which to me is not all that often dealers want a premium from the UNC price simply because they are so few and far between. I persoanlly pretty much keep my collecting to mostly EF-AU notes and some lower grades in the high value stuff. Notes like the one you describe are eventually going to be classified as UNC60 and better ones 63,65,67 and 70 for complete perfection in every way. Or at least that's the way things seem to be leaning.

If the note shows any signs of circulation, creases, fold, flicks, marks, other areas where the paper is less than as issued, by definition, it is not uncirculated. Paper is easy damaged by many factors, renderering it less than uncirculated. There may be degrees of uncirculated (this is not yet universally accepted), however, once it show signs of circulation, it is no longer uncirculated. Too many people spend too much time looking for minor flaws along the length, and too few spend much time closely looking at the corners, where the first sign of wear takes place.

Rick

From CPMS grading:

"ABOUT UNCIRCULATED - AU: Similar to Uncirculated but with the allowance of a light fold [usually a vertical center fold] or two or three very light counting folds, but not both."

Note how they mention 2 or 3 counting creases. ABSOLUTELY NO mention of a single counting crease.


HHmmm. So prior to the Sheldon? scale for grading coins, bag marked coins should NOT have been considered uncirculated. Afterall they were not meeting the standard "as issued".

First, do you signify the term "as issued" to mean from the Printer Company or rather from a bank tellers hands to the publics hands.
In my humble opinion this is where gradings of uncirculated logically(sp) will help. A scale of uncirculated between the Printer to when the note walks out of the local bank branch. Case closed ( yeah right) haha.

I think one of the reasons we get so "sticky" (& some of us hot under the collar) over the subject of grading is due to the number of times we've either "been talked down" a grade (from UNC to AU) due to a counting flick-- esp wehn we want to sell or trade a note, compared to the number of times we buy what we think is UNC (but then later discover is AU) due to a counting flick.  

Although I totally understand the "traditionalists'" POV concerning AU and UNC, I don't think Charlton's helped clear up the matter by allowing 3 counting flicks or 1 light horizontal fold for AU.  I think by the time we debate this for another couple years -- we'll be good and ready for a superior more exactling kind of grading system.  The # system: UNC 60 (today's 2-3 counting flicks, slightly off-centre, or other detraction) UNC 63 (1 minor detraction), UNC 65  (gem UNC in every way) might be the better way to go- esp with the older more valuable older series.

Although I'm not keen on it: it has made me think twice about getting a 3rd party to grade some of my rarer notes.  

Until then, I'm sure we can all agree on one thing: The scarcity of the true GEM

HHmmm. So prior to the Sheldon? scale for grading coins, bag marked coins should NOT have been considered uncirculated. Afterall they were not meeting the standard "as issued".
 
First, do you signify the term "as issued" to mean from the Printer Company or rather from a bank tellers hands to the publics hands.
In my humble opinion this is where gradings of uncirculated logically(sp) will help. A scale of uncirculated between the Printer to when the note walks out of the local bank branch. Case closed ( yeah right) haha.

The Sheldon numbering system was evolved for the pricing of US copper, it only much later became associated with coin grading. Paper and metal cannot be graded similarly due to the major differences in material characteristics.  It is not me who is going to give out definitions on this site.  

Rick

What I find confusing is the use of the terms "folds" and "creases" without a firm definition of what is termed a fold and what is termed a crease.  It suggests (in the EF definition) that a crease means  paper fibres are broken while a "counting fold" is not a crease.  Other than in the catalogue I have never heard anyone refer to a "counting fold" but "counting creases" are referred to frequently in common usage.

To make things more confusing I checked Webster's and the definition of a "fold" is  "a crease made by folding something"
and the definition of a "crease" is "a line, mark, or ridge made by or as if by folding a pliable substance".

I think that in common usage most people would envision that a fold inflicts a more serious injury to the paper than a crease does.

Discussion?

I think the kind of fold they're describing (for AU) is perhaps what might happen if a bill is put in a wallet with enough money to keep the note from actually creasing (or bending) so that the only way you can detect such a fold is to see that the note is slightly indented in the middle.  The two ends would either bend upwards or downwards if taken out of the holder.

This would be quite different from a hard fold where the note would have some fibres broken -- say in a money clip, or folded before put into a regular bill holding wallet.   A centre crease would then qualify the note as EF but the note should be fairly crisp (clean) otherwise.

The way some people talk, anything with a centre fold would be EF at best.  I'm glad I didn't let them influence me

Yes -- its important to stick to your guns at times (esp when grading notes you might wish to buy or sell).  One of the benefits of selling your own notes on eBay is that some dealers I've come across can be merciless when grading a note you wish to sell/trade but then can turn a blind eye to a note's imperfection when selling.  However, when you're buying, it becomes all the more tricky since so many notes tend to be over graded.  But then again, I've even seen this at live auctions too.  If you're really sticky on grading, you're always safe in person-person buy situation.

I just want to add: I've often bought notes that were graded as UNC (by a dealer) when they'd probably be AU to some collectors or more likely an UNC 60/63.  They've had an imperfection like red ink on the borders, or possibly a flick -or slight fold- along the border (not across the whole note).  but the price is usually discounted to an AU price- and therefore I won't haggle-- but just buy the note simply becuase I've been waiting so long to see such a high grade note of this kind (eg: B/C *A/D)-- and to get it at AU works for me.  With 1954 and older (and especially rarer notes) -- I would be growing a beard (and a whole in my wallet) if I waited for an gem UNC!

In my opinion a when I think fold, I think a "bend" or worse. A crease is actual broken fibers from folding and pressing the fold, which(god forbid) by being sat on or squeezed with ones fingers to fully fold a note, cracking the papers crispness, which even when pressed will probably only look worse.

I must soon honour my promise to offer definitions of Unc-60,63 and 65 and have the debate we are having in pieces at present.

For the case in question we would have to see the note to know if there really are just a few light counting creases or really heavy, disfiguring counting creases.

For years, and in the future, I sell ( AND BUY ) pre-1980 issues with a few counting creases as UNC.  The question of what is AS ISSUED is a fair one. From 1935-1950's  minimum, you have to assume that issued notes had counting creases. Issued is when they hit the public. What the heck is issued if not in the public hands - in the out-feed table of the press ? Realistically, as noted several times in this topic, a true perfect note without counting creases is scarce for sure, rare in many issues. Those are UNC-65's. The typical issued note with light counting creases, left and/or right is an UNC -60. More on all that later !

As to the centre fold note being AU well there I also disagree with the CPMS ! If it has a center fold of ANY kind it is EF at best, period. When we reviewd those definitions years ago I disagreed then too.

As always, the key to know what you are buying, know how to grade by the standard YOU use. Then you make an informed decision and if you think the offered UNC is really AU and you still want to pay the price, great. At least you KNOW what you are doing.

Gotta tell you, the VAST MAJORITY of collectors can not grade well and most even say so. It scares me when they say "graded by a dealer so it must be right '. I make lots of grading errors so my customers need to look too.

OleDon

I must soon honour my promise to offer definitions of Unc-60,63 and 65 and have the debate we are having in pieces at present.
 
For the case in question we would have to see the note to know if there really are just a few light counting creases or really heavy, disfiguring counting creases.
 
For years, and in the future, I sell ( AND BUY ) pre-1980 issues with a few counting creases as UNC.  The question of what is AS ISSUED is a fair one. From 1935-1950's  minimum, you have to assume that issued notes had counting creases. Issued is when they hit the public. What the heck is issued if not in the public hands - in the out-feed table of the press ? Realistically, as noted several times in this topic, a true perfect note without counting creases is scarce for sure, rare in many issues. Those are UNC-65's. The typical issued note with light counting creases, left and/or right is an UNC -60. More on all that later !
 
As to the centre fold note being AU well there I also disagree with the CPMS ! If it has a center fold of ANY kind it is EF at best, period. When we reviewd those definitions years ago I disagreed then too.
 
As always, the key to know what you are buying, know how to grade by the standard YOU use. Then you make an informed decision and if you think the offered UNC is really AU and you still want to pay the price, great. At least you KNOW what you are doing.
 
Gotta tell you, the VAST MAJORITY of collectors can not grade well and most even say so. It scares me when they say "graded by a dealer so it must be right '. I make lots of grading errors so my customers need to look too.
 
OleDon

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spoke with Don this morning,true to his word, he has increased the number of available graded notes in his inventory.He tells me business is brisk for third party graded notes,he is monitoring the situation closely(demand)
I do not presume to speak for Don,but as many of you may know,I buy most of my notes from his inventory.Just thought you may be interested in "the latest"

I noticed his new list,just released, had about 30 PGM graded notes(i didn't count them all).