Author
Topic: PMG choicunc 64  (Read 787 times)
wagnert89
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
« on: May 20, 2019, 04:25:20 pm »

I saw this for sale and i feel bad for the person who may buy this someday, hopefully they can tell it's not a 64. Just another example why I would not send my notes across the border to be slabbed
AL-Bob
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 221
« Reply #1 on: May 20, 2019, 10:57:54 pm »

Hard to see anything from the small picture except some possible staining/damage to the right margin.  Is that an argument for-or-against sending your notes down south to get slabbed?
wagnert89
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
« Reply #2 on: May 21, 2019, 01:27:47 pm »

Against.  This note should be AU/UNC not choice 64
Beatrix
  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
« Reply #3 on: May 21, 2019, 02:39:11 pm »

That stain's a killer, best I can do is five bucks.
friedsquid
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,835
  • CPMS 1593
« Reply #4 on: May 21, 2019, 03:46:28 pm »

Atleast it didn’t get the EPQ
Designation



Always looking for #1 serial number notes in any denomination/any series
wagnert89
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
« Reply #5 on: May 21, 2019, 08:07:46 pm »

sorry, I did not realize it attached so small on phone.. this should be better.  Nothing like a few rounded corners and small corner flick to get a choice64 (no demit points)
friedsquid
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,835
  • CPMS 1593
« Reply #6 on: May 21, 2019, 08:43:59 pm »

I saw this for sale and i feel bad for the person who may buy this someday

Maybe you should feel sorry for the person that actually
Bought it and owns it now 😳
Unless of course they got it at a steal
And are trying to turn it over for a big
Profit



Always looking for #1 serial number notes in any denomination/any series
wagnert89
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
« Reply #7 on: May 21, 2019, 08:52:06 pm »

I think whoever sent this to PMG received the results they were hoping (and paying a premium) for... lets hope the next owner buys the note and not the holder.  They want 700 dollars for the note.  400 for the note and 300 for the holder : )

I have seen some PMG notes that were correctly graded and I have bought a few but I based the purchase on the note condition and not the holder.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 10:49:14 am by wagnert89 »
Rag Picker
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
  • CPMS 1652
    • Numismatic Network Canada
« Reply #8 on: June 16, 2019, 08:09:53 pm »

Quote
This note should be AU/UNC not choice 64

At best perhaps AU58 but it does have a few things going for it such as the serial # and prefix both of which should not influence the grade as it seems to have done here.

Death to Debit!  Long Live Pecquiology!
Track your Cash @ www.whereswilly.com

https://cdnpapermoney.com/forum/index.php?action=sigtag&u=Rag_Picker
wagnert89
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
« Reply #9 on: July 03, 2019, 08:17:33 pm »

Another good one by a U.S. grader!
AL-Bob
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 221
« Reply #10 on: July 04, 2019, 09:48:43 am »

Another good one by a U.S. grader!

I'm not sure what you're pointing out there.  The slightly jagged edge isn't really bothersome given that the margins have a nice width.  I would much prefer some irregular edges than a closely cropped note.  I can't say from that picture that that particular note is over graded at all.

Also you should read these companies' published grading scales.  They grade on a 1 to 70 scale so a 65 note by definition can and should have multiple flaws according to their own standards which are not the same as the Charlton's strict standards.
walktothewater
  • Very Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,099
  • Join the Journey
« Reply #11 on: July 04, 2019, 02:43:59 pm »

Quote
I'm not sure what you're pointing out there.

- I have to agree.  If you enter the code on the back of the holder you will get a breakdown of PMG's assessment.  For the DA7000000, there's the counting flick (which is allowed by Charlton's strict definition) and the edge bump on the right margin (not a stain).  At least it's not been designated as "EPQ" (which "Friedsquid" points out) and that alone should raise a red flag if you're more in line with Canadian/Charlton strict standards.  Maybe "UNC 63 would be more appropriate but we simply don't have enough information.

Perhaps the PCGS *C/F should be a "63/64" but the edge bump circled again is not a big deal/distraction by most collectors' standards.  Unless one can personally inspect the note- it's pretty hard to discern how serious that edge imperfection is.

I agree that we should grade the note for ourselves but I don't think that considering the high quantity of notes slabbed by PMG  should be a good reason to slam all TPG certified notes from the south. 

Although this is a bit off topic I also feel its a shame that so many banknote collectors seem absolutely obsessed with the higher points of uncirculated (UNC 65, 66, 67 & 69).  I have seen several common CDN banknotes go for 50X BV because it's been graded UNC 67 or 68.
wagnert89
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
« Reply #12 on: July 04, 2019, 08:46:44 pm »

I guess I am just a strict grader then.
Do not get me wrong here! - I do have a few PMG notes that appear accurately or undergraded through the holder but I can not say for sure since I did not see the raw.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2019, 10:55:58 pm by wagnert89 »
 

Login with username, password and session length