Hi Folks,
Glad this topic is back in discussion. Food for thought:
SUDZEE makes excellent points about the natural imperfections that come with UNC notes simply due to the production process and inevitable human & machine handling. WALKTHEWATER (?) also is realistic about how the market operates and the utter necessity of collector education.
The CPMS grading system is one of several established by various organizations ( IBNS is another ). I personally do not follow the CPMS strictly since,as per the previous reference, "a perfect note" is rare until you get into the 1960's and we are again losing the perfection with banding and other machine-handling problems. I would venture that barely one in a thousand notes from 1866 thru to 1954 would fit the CPMS UNC definition. Those that do are truly exceptional and definitely worth of a better description that just UNC , like any other, and certainly worth a significant price premium as well. Additionally, the CPMS allows a soft centre fold for AU but I would put that in the EF grade. There is no perfect system nor perfect graders anyway so, AS ALWAYS - LEARN TO GRADE !
It thus follows that there really are 'degrees' or 'types' or 'varieties' or 'grades' of UNC. Take a typical $1 of 1935 or 1937. The UNC that came straight from the bank will, more than 99% of the time, have counting creases and some evident teller handling - just think of the number of times it must have been handled BY HAND ! The average note is thus an UNC 60. A note with light counting creases, little or no handling, decent but imperfect centering is, I would suggest, an UNC63 and worth perhaps 20-25% more than the UNC60. We then go to the near-perfect note that is well-centered, no counting creases or handling marks, nice paper without discoloration, etc. As good as it can be; a true premium note, scarce or rare in grade, thus an UNC65 or GEM note. Worth 50-100% more than an UNC60
??
A knowledgeable collector will understand an appreciate these differences - indeed he/she is already looking for at least the UNC63 and preferrably the UNC65. The terms may not be used but the differences are well known and well apllied when selecting notes. Stamp collectors are especially sensitive to these issues as nuances of condition are important with stamps and reflected in the values.
A pressed note, I hasten to add, would not get passed an UNC60 in my view. There are those that disagree.
It might be interesting to post a proposed set of three mercifully brief definitions of UNC 60-63-65 and see what people think. I am now marking the numerical grade on new inventory and in the near future will use the terms more often in my lists, particularly on more expensive notes.
Sometime we need to separately talk about pressing and the value discount that might reasonably be applied to the large percentage of pressed notes which go through the maket every month.
And we need to discuss third-party grading/slabbing of Canadian notes. It is inevitably coming from US grading firms in a quantity and manner that will be impossible to keep out of the Canadian market. After all, if a collector or dealer can slab that UNC65 Gem 1937 $2 and get $300 versus $220 or so for a regular, undistinguished UNC, then it will happen.
Enough for now.
OleDon