2013 CDN $5 Series - Grading

News: Welcome to the Canadian Paper Money Forum.

In March I asked the following question:
Is it worth grading 2-digit radars?
Rogers-Macklem
They are taken from BOC bundles (never circ) - handled with Nitril gloved hands.
Because I have quite a lot of this series, I took the plunge and took advantage of the BCS summer special.  I sent 10 notes, and received them back today.
I am very happy with the results, because I think that I can now assume the rest of my collection, will be of similar gradings.
Do you agree?

As BCS is conservative, these are excellent! Congrats!

 

Those note would be Gem UNC 66 and up with any other grading company

 

I had similar results for a batch of polymer notes (picked from sealed bricks/bundles) I submitted to BCS including a Choice UNC 64 (no "Original").  I called up Steve & asked what happened with that "unoriginal" radar & he replied that "it had a scratch on the holographic window." 

So, I'd say you did very well with the 65's on the 2 digit radars, 6688899 rotator & 66 on the low # radar INV0060600. The 1881881 is a cool date like radar & both the rotator & 0060600 are really "tough" special numbers to find.

Those note would be Gem UNC 66 and up with any other grading company

+1
I completely agree. Very likely 67's for the 65 & 68 for the 66.  That's why I love buying BCS certified notes

I had similar results for a batch of polymer notes (picked from sealed bricks/bundles) I submitted to BCS including a Choice UNC 64 (no "Original").  I called up Steve & asked what happened with that "unoriginal" radar & he replied that "it had a scratch on the holographic window." 

If BCS found a scratch then they should have graded the banknote 62 or lower if it was that bad. What does a scratch have to do with whether the banknote is original?

Thank you for your reply and comments.  I never really look at the holographic window - something that I will study carefully from now on.  I would rather have a grading that is known to be 'harsh' than one that is considered otherwise.

That holographic window is a bit of a double-edged sword. One the one hand it is the easiest place to show damage, including from the distribution process, before the note even enters circulation. And on the other hand, any blemishes here devalue the note pretty quickly.

As a casual collector I didn't know this at first, or that the TPGs (or at least the good TPGs) inspect notes under magnification. That's when I started scanning my notes and zooming in on all parts, most especially the holographic window. I once received a nice run of crisp UNC notes from an ATM that all had similar tiny scratches when viewed under magnification. Needless to say, they all went back into my wallet as spenders.

And I'll echo what's already been said here, that BCS is the TPG I trust the most. Mango4's grading results are definitely worth being proud of.

If BCS found a scratch then they should have graded the banknote 62 or lower if it was that bad. What does a scratch have to do with whether the banknote is original?

That's not the way grading a banknote works.  You don't take away the # but the "Original" (or "EPQ/PPQ in the US) designation when something has been taken away from the note (scratch means a microscopic bit of the surface has been removed).  When the note has been lightly pressed (or staple holes), the embossing has been taken away (tiny bit of paper), thus you lose the "Original" or "Q" designations (not the #'s). 

When you add something that's when the grading #'s drop & the note can lose a grade level. You add glue (ink, stain, foreign substance, etc) and the note gets downgraded to the next lower level. This applies to high grade otherwise perfect notes. Once signs of circulation are seen, then grade levels drop too.

Hope that clarifies the situation.

Thank you for that comprehensive explanation. 

I really like this group and the way people are willing to share their knowledge.

 

That's not the way grading a banknote works.  You don't take away the # but the "Original" (or "EPQ/PPQ in the US) designation when something has been taken away from the note (scratch means a microscopic bit of the surface has been removed).  When the note has been lightly pressed (or staple holes), the embossing has been taken away (tiny bit of paper), thus you lose the "Original" or "Q" designations (not the #'s).

That doesn’t make sense to me. If I take a banknote that grades Unc 64 “Original” and put 100 staple holes and 2000 scratches in it, by this logic the grade will still remain an Unc 64 and only the “Original” designation will be removed.

BCS https://www.banknotecertification.com/faq.php#faq6

What does “ORIGINAL” mean under the grade of the note?

When a note has not been processed in any way and still exhibits many of it’s original qualities from the printing process, it will receive an auxiliary designation of ORIGINAL stated directly beneath the number grade on the certificate of the note.

I interpret “processed” as anything that happens to a banknote in an attempt to improve the grade like trimming, pressing and washing. If there’s a scratch on a banknote that’s not “processed” that’s a result of a defect, circulation or mishandling.


The definition of what “Original” is needs to better defined by BCS.

Go on tell him!

 

May want to go to the "Special Consideration" section on the BCS website where they define the use of the term ORIGINAL a bit better.  https://www.banknotecertification.com/specialconsiderations.php#pressing