Author
Topic: Grading terms  (Read 19315 times)
rscoins
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • CPMS member 1221, ONA life member, CAND President
« on: January 07, 2004, 09:49:33 am »

In keeping with the times, why not add number designations to the slightly modified CPMS grading terms displayed, (and is now found in the slabs)
This may make it easier for  those intent on having notes graded.

Rick Simpson
rarenote
  • Guest
« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2004, 01:16:19 pm »

I agree.

I can remember being at a show 3 dealers all had the same note all UNC all the same price all 3 were different. They all were indeed UNC. But all 3 notes had different appeal. I took the best of the 3.

I have looked close at notes ever since I started collecting and appeal is certainly a big part of my making a choice in what to buy. A vibrent well centered note will attract me more than a note that is just a nice UNC.

This is why i feel that UNC could use some better defenitions, Numbers work for me. Gem Crisp etc. just mean UNC to me, nothing more.

   Ron

admin
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 78
« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2004, 10:46:17 pm »

On the other hand, I for one, hate the numbers used for coins. It's too complex for my wee little brain. What's the difference between an AU65 and UNC10?

To me "Choice UNC" tells me it's just that. If I had a choice, I'd take this one (just like rscoin did). Why would a need 100 numbers to further define it? Let's see, 7 lettered grades, 10 numbers each, we'd be a mixed up as coiners.

What ever happened to the KISS principle? Seems to be all that significantly more grades do is make the hobby more "elitist".

Some time ago we had a very positive discussion about having 3 "worded" UNC's. No chances were felt needed to the other grades. It was well received. Really wish I could find a copy of it.
rscoins
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • CPMS member 1221, ONA life member, CAND President
« Reply #3 on: January 07, 2004, 11:35:58 pm »

If this site can make up its own grading system, modified from the CPMS's method, what is wrong with Andy McKaig also doing it?
He has a whole new way of grading notes, and it seems more precise than vague descriptions.
I appreciate that the system of grading used by the CPMS is the one they endorse. Once it is modified, it is not their method any longer, nor is it endorsed or approved by any group.
VG-8, F-12, VF-20, EF-40, AU-50, Unc-60, Select Unc-62, Choice Unc-63, Near gem Unc-64, Gem Unc-65.
This will happen is one form or another, the numbering of note grades. It may not be McKaig's, it could be Gatewest, Olmstead, Moore or Verret. Once a major group approves the numbering method, all others will follow.

Rick Simpson
BWJM
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,021
« Reply #4 on: January 08, 2004, 12:09:02 am »

I don't believe we are making up our own grading terms.  We use the CPMS grades.  The only variance is the "Choice UNC" that Paul added with the very specific note that it is not part of the CPMS grades.  That is the opinion of Paul alone and he is not claiming to be the author of that term, nor is he promoting its use.  The objective of the post he made was to list the current system of grading notes (as per CPMS) and show that CH UNC is also commonly used but not officially endorsed.

BWJM, F.O.N.A.
Life Member of CPMS, RCNA, ONA, ANA, IBNS, WCS.
President, IBNS Ontario Chapter.
Treasurer, Waterloo Coin Society.
Show Chair, Cambridge Coin Show.
Fellow of the Ontario Numismatic Association.
The Original Ranman
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 298
  • Ya I know
« Reply #5 on: January 08, 2004, 11:02:52 am »

I like the CPMS system and addition of Choice UNC by Paul .Why have so many grades of UNC?  To me there's UNC ,but there might be a note that is well centered, deep colouring and have nice eye appeal. I would consider this a exceptional UNC note. Paul termed this Choice UNC which works for me :)
 There will always be someone playing with the grading system.EF+,a/AU,GEM UNC. ::)

Randy
« Last Edit: January 08, 2004, 11:05:08 am by ranman »

Randy
rscoins
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • CPMS member 1221, ONA life member, CAND President
« Reply #6 on: January 08, 2004, 04:26:19 pm »

The CPMS does not recognize anything other than Unc in the non-circulated grades. This site adds one more called choice Unc. (As do I in trends).
What I am saying is either endorse the complete CPMS grading standards as is, without adding to it.
It would look real silly in trends if I added numbers to the grades and added a couple more on the top end.
Unc-60, Select Unc-62, Choice Unc-63, Premium Unc-64, Gem Unc.-65.
These numbers are all the McKaig is really doing, and many here feel he does not follow CPMS methods, but neither does this site or trends.

Rick Simpson
Tom
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
  • CPMS Life Member #96
« Reply #7 on: January 08, 2004, 06:28:03 pm »

Rick...........

I have to step in here and make one thing perfectly clear!!!  No one here is out to change the CPMS grading standards, only to add perhaps add "choice" term to unc for notes with exceptional eye appeal i.e.: centering etc.

Quote
What I am saying is either endorse the complete CPMS grading standards as is, without adding to it.


That is the point that most of us are saying here.

Quote
Unc-60, Select Unc-62, Choice Unc-63, Premium Unc-64, Gem Unc.-65. These numbers are all the McKaig is really doing, and many here feel he does not follow CPMS methods, but neither does this site or trends.


You are wrong here.  May I suggest you look at the standards for unc from Andy and from the CPMS.  They are totally different!

From Andy

Quote
UNC60: This note could have three or four minor defects. Creases in the borders of the note. Three counting creases. There may be a small nick in the border of the note.


From CPMS

Quote
UNCIRCULATED - UNC: A perfect note. Crisp and clean as issued and without any folds, creases, blemishes or discolouration. Colours have original hue and brightness. Some issues may have ripples [as made]. Mention must be made if the design is not perfectly centered with usual width of margins.


I just don't get where you think that Andy is following CPMS standards here?  Where this whole site does and I challenge you to prove your statement about us.

Tom

rscoins
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • CPMS member 1221, ONA life member, CAND President
« Reply #8 on: January 08, 2004, 07:05:17 pm »

Tom: If this site follows CPMS grading methods, do it as is. They do not have a grade called choice Unc.
I have read McKaig's methods, and like you, do not agree with them. It is his method, he added the numbers, and grades them according to his standards.
There is no such grade (currently) as choice Unc.  The Charlton does not have this grade, neither does CPMS, and yet it is on this site, right above the proper grades for all to see.
Trends uses choice unc., so does the Canadian Coin Dealer Newsletter, and so does this site.
What would you like me to prove about what is written here, for although it has a notation, it is still there.
That goes back to the CPMS grading methods. Do they need to moderize and add choice uncirculated to their format, or should we just accept what is written here.
Either use the CPMS methods without addition, change their methods, or adapt new methods as Mr. McKaig has.

Rick Simpson
Tom
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
  • CPMS Life Member #96
« Reply #9 on: January 08, 2004, 07:29:08 pm »

I guess then many of the collectors and dealers need to describe the unc grade properly.  As quoted below, again, note that the CPMS standards states in the last line.

Quote
UNCIRCULATED - UNC: A perfect note. Crisp and clean as issued and without any folds, creases, blemishes or discolouration. Colours have original hue and brightness. Some issues may have ripples [as made]. Mention must be made if the design is not perfectly centered with usual width of margins.
Quote


Instead of the general term unc, there needs to be the added attribute of "poor centering", "narrow margins", etc.

Myself I feel that it is simpler to just call a perfect note choice, for there are fewer of these then poorly centerd ones etc.

Tom
rarenote
  • Guest
« Reply #10 on: January 08, 2004, 07:52:12 pm »


 Somehow i think the real thought behind Andys grading system is missed here. I do not belive he is trying to dismantle the grades we all know and adhere to in this hobby. What he is doing is trying to make it possible to know what you are going to get if you buy a note graded by him. Period

 I have delt/talked with Andy more times than i could count, shared space with him at shows even. He has ALLWAYS graded this way to me but in a little more drawn out conversation not in just a grade. If Andy was to call me and say he had a note I needed and said it was unc67 i would know exactly what he had to offer to me. Before we would talk about the note for 5-10 minutes and probably still will, but i would have an exact understanding of what he had to offer with just unc67 i know and trust him for that. If it was an unc64 id just ask what its faults were and go from there. I also belive there is a need for the 65-66 grades and i know what they will represent.

 It almost seems to me that people are thinking he is trying to undermine the gradeing system, no i belive he is trying to give us choices. Just that and nothing more.

 Just my 2 cents worth

    Ron
rscoins
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • CPMS member 1221, ONA life member, CAND President
« Reply #11 on: January 08, 2004, 09:32:08 pm »

I see nothing wrong with using descriptive terms when describing a note.
This is the sort of thing I see often. 1935 $25 CH BC-12. A very choice note, well centred, small crease in upper left face. AU
One would then need to assure themselves that the note is graded according to CPMS standards.
If it was slabbed, it may read AU-50. then the descriptive phrases follow.
The person before me has some good points on the subject.
I am also a member of the CPMS, and waited years before joining until Dick had a radar number available, so my intent is not to undermine them, they are without question the best collectors group in the country.

Rick Simpson
admin
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 78
« Reply #12 on: January 08, 2004, 10:39:02 pm »

Rick, subtle like a bull in a china shop, as usual.

I've modified the post that you found so offensive. I hope that it meets with your approval, as the early disclaimers obviously didn't. We do all admit, you do make your points MS67, maybe MS99.

I am intrigued though. Andrew is clearly a long-time collector/dealer. One assumes that he is also a long time CPMS member. If he has been using this method of grading for years, how is it that no one else has adopted it? In the time that I’ve been a member of CPMS, there have been at least 2 revisions of the grading system. Has Andrew never presented his “system” to the CPMS for review and consideration? If he has, why was it not adopted?

The whole matter looks even more amusing when the President of the CPMS writes in the December 2003 Newsletter, about a “new third party, independent currency grading service from Alberta. I’m afraid that I know very little about the grading service and I invite the principals of the firm to provide CPMS with detailed information on the grading standards used…”. In the same issue, Andrew has advertised the Noteguard Currency Holder.

Still looks like a rouge dealer trying to force his rejected ideas on everyone else. Surely a discussion about introducing a new grading method should have been had with the CPMS or the IBNS before going public?

I know it's often easier to ask for forgiveness rather than for permission, but foisting this scheme on us seems rather disrespectful to those who have worked so hard for so long to bring a "standard" into being.

My report card on the matter: "Doesn't play well with others."
« Last Edit: January 08, 2004, 10:46:17 pm by admin »
rscoins
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • CPMS member 1221, ONA life member, CAND President
« Reply #13 on: January 08, 2004, 11:20:10 pm »

"Rick, subtle like a bull in a china shop, as usual. "

Thanks for your personal comments.

Your answer makes all the sense in the world.

It is very difficult to get a point across when people do not understand and are firmly convinced they are correct: there being no other side to the issue.

I have now taken both sides of the paper slabber and had people jumping all over me, including the moderators, and you.

I mentioned much earlier that in my opinion, Andy McKaig may not have necessary credentials to slab paper, only time will tell. He has a method, albeit different than the norm, and yet many people on this site find his grading, service and slabs to be acceptable.
While everyone is being critical of him, this site itself adds a little flavour of their own grading to the CPMS methods, by supplementing grading terminology.

Yes, dealers use choice Unc, so does trends. No major dealer or auctioneer (read that as a CAND member) uses Sheldon numbers for grading (paper), but of course Andy is attempting to change all that with a unique approach to the whole subject of grading banknotes.

I wish him all the success in the world; however, unless his methods are sanctioned by CPMS, it has little chance of success.

Rick Simpson
PBW: just cleaned up a few typos for clearity-sake
« Last Edit: January 09, 2004, 12:24:27 am by admin »
eastguy
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 243
« Reply #14 on: January 09, 2004, 12:44:23 am »

I've read a lot, listened a lot and reallly don't give a "lot" of credulous belief in what is being expressed.

IThis is not the Forum for "I'm the expert" or "I'm the editor" or "I'm the yadadadada person in charge".

This is the best site I've located that (used to) not put down the "regular" or "novice" or "uneducated" or "newbie" collector.

Someone that cares

:)eastguy

EGUY
admin
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 78
« Reply #15 on: January 09, 2004, 12:56:47 am »

Rick, Rick, Rick   ::)

It's not what you say, but how you say it. You comments come off as inflamitory. Even YOU must admit you're not very subtle.

My addition of the CHOICE UNC was intended, as has already been pointed out to you but you choose to ignore, to show that although I personally think this should be considered for future "revisions of the standard", it does not exist in the standard. The text was clearly marked as such. "This Site" does not "make up it's own terms". I stated it was a personal opinion. I marked it as a personal opinion. I tried to explain that it's a common term that should not be used. Everyone else seems to understand that it was a personal opinion and it's use is not recommended.

I don't believe I've "jumped" on you, in fact, I think I've been rather patient. On three occasions now, you have refused to listen to what I'm saying and continue to babble on about your original take on the matter. Frankly, on all occasions, your take has been incorrect, but you keep at it until you piss me off. No small feat, no one else has managed to do that. Do you do this with everyone or is it something special you do just for me?  :-*

I've seen you take different perspectives on several topics and that's great. Unfortunately, the written word does not communicate inflection so we can't tell when you're teasing, joking, angry or sad. Seems that I'm always taking your musings as attacks, usually personal attacks on some poor sole.  :(

When you first joined the board, I was excited because you were one of first few dealers to do so. But, you should know this - the "tone" of the board has changed from a friendly gathering to one of hositility and you seem to be at the center of it. I have had some long-time members quit the board because of this.

Use the emoticons to convey feelings, dial down the rhetoric and play nice.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2004, 01:12:51 am by admin »
eastguy
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 243
« Reply #16 on: January 09, 2004, 01:09:39 am »

Well expressed Paul.......most of us are still here (just waiting to get back to normal)........ :)eastguy

EGUY
BWJM
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,021
« Reply #17 on: January 09, 2004, 03:05:05 am »

Paul, I fully support your position and the comments you have made, not only as a member of your staff, but also as an individual member of this forum.

The overall tone of the forums has indeed changed in recent weeks... and not in a direction I would prefer it to go.  :(

BWJM, F.O.N.A.
Life Member of CPMS, RCNA, ONA, ANA, IBNS, WCS.
President, IBNS Ontario Chapter.
Treasurer, Waterloo Coin Society.
Show Chair, Cambridge Coin Show.
Fellow of the Ontario Numismatic Association.
The Original Ranman
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 298
  • Ya I know
« Reply #18 on: January 09, 2004, 09:33:33 am »

I'm not pointing any fingers at any one,but the last couple of weeks there has been alot of bickering :( I use to come to the forum to learn about collecting,interesting thoughts and to meet fellow collectors to learn more about the hobby :)
 Let's appreciate what the forum has to offer.I think we forget sometimes.

Randy

Randy
Moneyman
  • Guest
« Reply #19 on: January 09, 2004, 10:55:36 am »

Touche Randy!

I agree. I enjoy the forum for what collectors are finding, looking to buy, sell or trade and just generally enjoy. Let's not forget, I think for most of us (myself anyway) it's a "HOBBY".

I think if your worrying about whether a note has umpteen different grades of UNC, then it's no longer a hobby but becoming more of a "business" venture.

For now we have a system that accomodates the hobby and until there is a change why get all bent out of shape about what might be.

Let's get back to what most of us enjoy about this great site and put this grading controvrsey (bickering) to rest. Frankly ,I get tired of reading the posts about the same thing over and over.

Just one collectors opinion!
« Last Edit: January 09, 2004, 10:56:30 am by Moneyman »
admin
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 78
« Reply #20 on: January 09, 2004, 11:11:12 pm »

Guilty.

I hear ya.

I'll sin no more.  :'(
JWS
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 331
« Reply #21 on: January 10, 2004, 03:49:55 pm »

I have followed this thread with some considerable interest and trepidation.
I started collecting coins and some paper money in 1954. However, when the coin grading system changed from G, VG, F, VF, EF, AU, UNC and B.U., to the currently used system, it killed the hobby for me. The new grading system was pushed by dealers, not collectors. The "hair splitting" grading (which can only be done by "experts", i.e. dealers) benefit primarily the dealers, and the individuals providing the grading service.
Paper money then became my main interest. I now fear that if collectors don't fight this new grading trend from the onset, it will be forced down our throats by the dealers.
The CPMS endorsed grading system covers all bases and is understandable for every hobbyist.
I realize that CPMS has many dealer members who will push for the change from the inside. Once they convince the publishers of the Charlton Standard Catalogue, it will be "fait accompli".
   :(   JWS    :(
 

Login with username, password and session length