Grading and pricing.

News: Registration is free here at the CPMF!

I feel very "junior" compared to some of the other posting members, especially on this thread, but I must say I do feel what sudzee had mentioned right from the start.  It is often disheartening to go to a place and see notes that are overgraded- at many tables to boot.  
I have been shown by some serious collectors some very good ways of finding the flaws, and boy am am I thankful for that knowledge.  
It is just too bad that it is like that.

I think it is best said (quoting another member):
If they want to price by Charlton, then they should abide by the grading standards in the Charlton. Simple as that.  
Now whether or not the Charlton is the correct price? I am not even going into that (I think that is another thread).  

One of the main reasons why I focus on Journey Series only is this fact- I don't have to worry about the grading for the most part.
Thank you that is all.
Hudson

Hudson,
You just reminded me of one of the first times a friend of mine (who has an extensive note collection, fantastic notes!) and I got togeather to look over each others notes. While grading my notes, I watched as he sniffed the notes. As I had just met him, I thought that this was both abit bizzarre and quite intense (didnt know we would end up being good friends after - lol). Anyhow, as I soon learned it was to detect if any of the notes had been played with, processed, etc...
As posted above from all notes could be tricky to grade at times, and when the notes are in the hundreds, and thousands - its doubly important to have confidence in the grade.
Anyhow, you made me laugh thinking about watching my friend grading these notes! Funny, but theres a certain truth that theres nothing like the smell of old money...

   LOL AGREED

Hi Guys,
Tis late but I cannot resist a comment.

It would be good for Charlton's to have some commentary about paper features of various issues - such as two types of paper ( one white, one off-white) in the 1937's; the ripples in the Devil Face notes, etc. It does not have to be part of the grading guide but a commentary that helps educate collectors - who are unmercifully beat up by the marketplace.

The issue of a counting crease is worthy of debate. My 2 cents ( or should that be 2 dollars..) worth is this: It is rare for the 1935, 1937 and early 1954 issues to escape counting creases. They are not as made from the press but are arguably "as-issued' in that few came out the system ( printer to central bank to regional bank to local bank to public) without being counted manually various times and acquiring counting crease(s). In these cases there is a similarity in as made and as issued. I tell my customers that an original note that is flawless but for counting creases is UNC, period. That can be argued I admit. The issues referred to that do NOT have a counting crease are scarce GEM notes that deserve a 20-25% preium over the catalogue. The catalogue reflects the typical market, not the exceptions.

In all of this, gentlemen, there is greater knowledge from which collectors and dealers can make informed decisions. There does not have to be 100% agreement - just hopefully 100% AWARENESS of the fact that, as in the case in point, there are at least two opinions, both valid, on what constitutes UNC. Then people can decide for themselves, and collect whichever UNC they are happy with. The sad cases are those who have not a clue about grading and get killed.

On top of all that is simple errors - I make lots of them and customers show me notes I graded UNC that are AU, properly correcting me. I cannot grade 200 or 300 notes and not make a mistake. And usually that will be overgrading, not likely undergrading. So again, it is important to increase knowledge.

OleDon

One last thought - Gary is RIGHT - he should be able to take a note out and look at. I would not buy a note of value without an examination and neither should a collector. I have yet to see anyone capable of grading a note in a holder.
OleDon

Hi guys,

As Don hinted at this is an area for some healthy debate. For the issues from the years that Don mentioned (without counting creases) I do not automatically assume and label as gem as Don indicated he does when they don't have evidence of being counted. This is of course regarding this portion of his post: "issues referred to that do NOT have a counting crease are scarce GEM notes that deserve a 20-25% preium over the catalogue."

They may get a "Choice UNC" from me but would need to be essentially a perfect note in every way to earn a "GEM" label.

Anything from the years he mentioned with a single counting crease as its only flaw will get AU/UNC from me.

As you saw in another thread I like these two definitions of GEM and Choice.

Gem Uncirculated (Gem Unc) (UNC-65)  
A note that is flawless, with the same freshness, crispness, and bright color as when first printed. It must be perfectly centered, with full margins, and free of any marks, blemishes, or traces of handling.

Choice Uncirculated (Ch Unc) (Unc-63)
An Uncirculated note that is fresher and brighter than the norm for its particular issue. Almost as nice as Gem Uncirculated but not quite there. Must be reasonably well centered.

I also think a GEM note should be at a premium far above 25% over traditional UNC as my standards for GEM are as above and my experience with USA paper tells me that GEM's are often 2x (or more) than traditional UNC 60's.

Having said that if the industry in Canada agreed a GEM note was simply an UNC note without counting creases I would probably agree that a 25% premium should be the max premium considered. I would however continue to disagree with this definition of GEM UNC and aspire to a higher standard - even for issues from the specific years referenced. With the market becoming more international than ever my many USA clients (thank you eBay) are accustomed to the definition of GEM UNC 65 I presented and would not downgrade their expectations of a GEM UNC note to accomodate anything less, regardless of what year was printed on the note.

This reminds me....is that grading seminar getting off the ground shortly? I thought it was a fabulous idea that would be appreciated by many.

Troy.

A problem I noticed is the holders themselves, when notes are removed in most of them, they are handled, causing very minor wear, creases etc. to be now part of the note.

Note holders with the ends cut off work better when attempting to ascertain the grade, no drag on the paper, no accidents, no creases.

Problem is, many people are not aware on this little trick, and still damage the notes when inspecting.

There is no certain way to keep notes crisp, as issued, if multiple people want to pull them out, put their fingers on them, breathe on them and turn Uncs. into AU's.

A first rate third party grading service has merit. It would need to be done like PCGS does coins.

Rick

Rick,
That is a good point I recently pondered while sorting out my notes. I think I got a bit distracted and inadvertently jammed a note into its holder which got abit - stuck -. Needless to say this left the slightest of impressions from the pressure of putting the note back in the holder - but it is now there - sigh... It was not a high value note - thank goodness, but it certainly reminded me how easy an accident or getting sloppy could quickly turn an UNC to an AU.

Ted Bailey has a been attempting to influence how the holders are made to prevent similar damage to notes on the holders that have a little raised lip at the end which can scratch a note if not careful.

Last I heard they were not listening to him and he was somewhat frustrated.

Troy

The holders are made about 2 miles from where Ted lives in Paris by CSW. This company makes all sorts of coin, stamp and note supplies.
The dies and molds are expensive, and as a result, Ted has been importing note holders from the US in a quest to sell an improved product.

The holder used by the mint/BofC in the $10 and $5 series, and in the $2 coin/note set is first class. These are now being sold by Steven Bromberg. This type of holder, while still able to open, protects the note and keeps it flat. The bulkiness of the holder is a problem, and it will likely scratch easily.

The holder used by Andy McCaig is also very protective, but again, bulky.

Rick

Insightful,

Thank you.

Rick,
Agreed, I use the holders that Andy uses. I keep those notes I enjoy viewing frequently in them so as to be able to have them handy to look at and not worry about damaging the note. They do scratch relatively easy though - which is sort of dissappointing, and speaking about bulky and heavy - YES! But they do offer great protection and ease to view the note. I actually wish that they sold sturdy holders like those for the Dominion notes (anyone have any suggestions) although I believe that they would be ennormous by the time you could put a dominion note in them.
BTW, good point about the wear and tear on a note by taking it in and out of a holder. Just the natural characterisitcs of dealing with paper.

I watch people at shows all the time pulling notes out of holders, eyeing them, fondling them, flipping them over in their hands.
A definition of uncirculated is no wear or signs of handling, thus fondled notes become AU very quickly.

Better protective holders should keep them that way. The BofC issued holders are also very good for protection, and yet are easy to open in necessary. At the very least, the cheap plastic ones should have the ends cut off making the note more accessible while still protecting it.

I know it takes longer to view a note in a holder to determine the grade, but holding it in your hand and flipping it around lowers the grade eventually or very quickly depending on the type of holder and how harsh the viewer is on your notes.

Rick

As a matter of clarity i did not define GEM as any UNC note without a counting crease. it would have to be GEM quality AND have no creases.

OleDon

In respect to comments about hard plastic holders for bank notes.

Any quality hard plastic holder is going to be both somewhat bulky and unfortunately they will scratch or scuff somewhat easily. Particularly when coming into contact with other plastic IE: Stacking the holders. Certainly one could make a thinner holder however it would then need to be made out of a material such as styrene which is extremely brittle therefore causing a breakage problem and I for one would be irritated if my Unc 35 French 2 got slashed because it was in a crappy holder that exploded.
The highest scratch resistant shatter tolerant plastic is Acrylic (excluding NASA type material) however the cost of the raw Acrylic material and the difficulty in the injection molding process due to its hardness is prohibitive. Also the UV protection is relatively low due to Acrylic's natural clarity . The next best are polycarbonate blends which provide 100% UV protection and excellent clarity. However due to the additives required that allow a polycarbonate blend to have the highest clarity while retaining an inert composition approximately a 20% reduction in scratch resistance or hardness is lost compared to acrylic.
The holder Andy McKaig uses is made of the latter material, a decision that was made by him that would allow a cost effective grading service.
The current US grading service and I would expect NGC and PCGS use Acrylic and the cost will be reflected accordingly. Probably in the range of 30.00 US per note.
PCGS coin holders are shot from Acrylic and even they scratch very easily-there is simply a smaller "viewing area" that can be harmed as opposed to a holder housing a bank note.

In respect to the comment about a holder for the larger notes. Very expensive and there is simply not the demand to make it cost effective.