I saw one recently graded C.Unc 64 with a special note on the holder stating a piece of the note was missing which was about the same size of you taking a bit out of it.
I certainly agree with the general sentiments expressed here, but I think I can explain the baffling contradiction of a horribly damaged note being graded CU64. As I understand it the protocols for grading that were set by the IBNS were adopted by the CPMS, and then by the Charlton paper money catalogues. I refer to page xxi at the front of the 25th edition: "
A note with portions missing should be graded as if it were a whole note, then the amount missing should be fully described." It seems to me that is exactly what the grader has done. There is no attempt to fool somebody into paying UNC64 money for an obviously damaged note, but to describe completely the state of the note. If somebody decided, perhaps arbitrarily, that the note was worth as much as a Fine 15, and graded it F15 Net, that would tell us nothing whatever about the state of the paper (where it exists) or the nature of the impairment. The prospective buyer must decide for
himself if it's worth the price of a F15 or an AG3 and not take the word of a TPG.
I'm not trying to pick a fight with anybody here, just trying to shed a little light on an easily misunderstood area of grading.