1935 $25 French F000008/D

News: Registration is free here at the CPMF!

It is imperative that collectors who plan to bid on rare notes at auction do their own research and due diligence on the history of the note in question.

It is as simple as using any search engine in combination with the proper keywords.  You would be amazed at what historical information abounds on the Internet.

A 1935 Bank of Canada $25 French Low serial number F000008/D is being offered in an upcoming Archives International Auction
http://www.icollector.com/Banque-Du-Canada-1935-Commemorative-Low-Serial-F-000008-Issued-Note_i25499576

Here are the images of the note being offered that is graded PCGS VF 25 Apparent with the notation "Minor Restorations":

And here are images of the same note that was offered at the Heritage 2015 Long Beach Expo World Currency Signature Auction and graded by PCGS as VF 25 Apparent with the notation "Edge Splits and Minor Damage; Tape Repair and Stains"
https://currency.ha.com/itm/canadian-currency/low-serial-number-f000008-d-bc-12-25-1935/a/3538-26098.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

This transformation raises some very legitimate questions considering that the "serialized" note was graded by the same TPG i.e. PCGS

1) It is obvious that the lower margin has been trimmed to hide the fact that a piece of the note was missing when the note was originally graded by PCGS.  Should it not be noted by the TPG that the banknote was trimmed ?

2) Is a qualitative notation of "Minor Restorations" valid when the original notation was "Edge Splits and Minor Damage; Tape Repair and Stains" ?

3) Shouldn't all TPGs do a search of the serial number of a note prior to grading it to see if they have graded it in the past ?

I personally believe that PCGS has neglected a primary responsibility in not checking if they had previously graded this note.  And if they did check and were aware that they had previously graded this same note then they were negligent in not providing a more detailed notation than "Minor Restorations".  They should have at minimum mentioned that the note has been trimmed.

It is ironic that online auction sites like eBay have developed policies that only allow sellers to list graded notes from PMG and PCGS, while excluding reputable TPGs like BCS, with the rationale that they are protecting the buyers by doing so. 

Buyers are not protected by the note being third party graded.  Buyers are protected by doing their own research and due diligence before buying a note.

This is an excellent and important post!  It should be carefully read and made a part of their permanent cognitive structure by all collectors.  The example shown is just one of many, far too many.

Thank you very much for taking the time and sharing this on the forum. Your time and effort in bringing this to the attention of lay people like me is appreciated.

This is indeed very interesting and should be of importance to anyone thinking of "investing" large chunk of "discretionary" money into this pastime.

However there are a number of independent (maybe related) thoughts in your post where I would like to add my thoughts.

Buyers are not protected by the note being third party graded.  Buyers are protected by doing their own research and due diligence before buying a note.

I believe this is the caveat emptor principle and I think when someone has that kind of money to invest they better be prepared for the risk involved in the business including the complete loss of investment.

It is imperative that collectors who plan to bid on rare notes at auction do their own research and due diligence on the history of the note in question.

This is also a great suggestion. However I am wondering if this creates an opportunity for diligent dealers and or catalogues to offer a service to check the provenance of such rare notes. By last count there are - 1960 $25 notes  and 40 $500 notes in BoC's liability. If someone were to keep a tab on these and offer advise to potential purchasers then I think it would be worth paying for that advise. I know that if I were going to be bidding on something that would be more than $1,000 I would at least like to get some opinion from people "in the know" and if that means paying them for their advice then so be it.

They should have at minimum mentioned that the note has been trimmed.

It is ironic that online auction sites like eBay have developed policies that only allow sellers to list graded notes from PMG and PCGS, while excluding reputable TPGs like BCS, with the rationale that they are protecting the buyers by doing so.

I believe the rationale for that is not so much the approved TPGs will not make a mistake but that if they are found to be negligent then the customer will have a recourse with respect to the liability of the TPG. I believe the last time we heard about this issue with BCS and ebay, BCS was trying to work with ebay to have them included. I have not seen or heard anything more on this matter.

I have mentioned in previous posts that a BCS graded polymer error note without a hologram was listed on ebay (a) contrary to the fact that they clearly stated that they do not grade error notes and (b) contrary to the fact that there is a cautionary note about that condition in the GPMC.

And then again look at the dealer situation that has been talked about in the CCF and where RCNA has been involved.

I have nothing against the dealers or BCS or for that matter anyone else in this "hobby" In fact I do strongly believe that if it was not for the dealers and firms like BCS there would be no market for this "inflated" money. And whether it be stock market or used car market or high end art market or coin and currency market one has to be thankful to the dealers and the related deal makers. I know I am.

However I do chuckle anytime someone frets about something unscrupulous  in this "hobby".

My thinking is that if someone can afford to spend the kind of money listed in the Charlton Catalog for things that are intrinsically worth a fraction (including inserts with unverifiable independent research)  then they should have no problem losing any sleep if they only make the intrinsic value of their investment and lose everything else. I have seriously thought about writing to the BoC Governor to see the potential in offering their notes to the public in G-UNC conditions. With the kind of prices listed in the GPMC they could be able to underwrite their cost of printing money that way.

At least in terms of the restored note - with or without disclosure someone may indeed feel that it would be worth more in the "restored" condition than its original condition. I know I would - if I had the financial ability to make that kind of any investment on something so discretionary.

Perhaps I have said more than belongs to this post. If so I request the moderators to move it somewhere else.

This is a most useful and educational post and the original poster must be congratulated for the Holmesian quality of his detective work. 

I feel that it is important to bear in mind that PCGS graded the note as "Very Fine 25 Apparent" on BOTH occasions and I suspect that they probably WERE aware that they were regrading a previously-submitted note. The restoration work appears to be of very high calibre and one can argue that whoever did the restoration has saved a rare and desirable note from further deterioration, assuming of course that no destructive chemicals such as bleach were employed. Whether or not the note exhibits any chemical "smell" will probably never be known.

Whether or not the note exhibits any chemical "smell" will probably never be known.

I once purchased a note from a very well know dealer (by mail) that was TPG by PMG and when I received it, it was  not given the designation EPQ which I thought it had ....I contacted PMG and they said that according to the graders notes on that particular note the comment was that no EPQ was given because of a smell of bleach...that being said it may be possible to inquire and see if this TPG has grader notes on file for this particular note...once sealed it will likely be impossible to tell...in my case the dealer took the note back claiming they had no idea ...personally I find that hard to believe ,,,but either way I got rid of it

-------
The restoration work ----- and one can argue that whoever did the restoration has saved a rare and desirable note from further deterioration, assuming of course that no destructive chemicals such as bleach were employed. Whether or not the note exhibits any chemical "smell" will probably never be known.

And I think the Charlton GPMC also recognizes that there are experts, or conservators who can successfully repair banknotes with long lasting results. It merely requires that the repair of the notes be identified as such.