It is unlikely Charlton will modify its grading to suit the printing technological inadequacies of a new series of notes. It is more likely that Charlton will have the price for AU rather than for UNC (as they did with the Journey EJE $100) if they have few reportings of UNC.
However, if they do modify their grading system than it could be the UNC 60/63/65 system discussed in previous forums (see below: and invite corrections--If I'm wrong in understanding that system!)
I think this is the point that Sudzee has been trying to stress. The lack of good UNC in the Journey means that if you get a good UNC (ie GEM UNC or UNC 65) than it is very valuable indeed. This seems to have all the "hardcore" collectors abuzz today.. in terms of trying to get that flawless specimen -- and whether to adopt the more refined grading system. While some collectors vehemently support the old grading system... I think its time we had the new system. I believe its more fair...and it would accomodate rippled UNC notes provided there is just one ripple.
At the TNS show I had a good chat with Don Olmstead and he said show me a good UNC 1954 (whatever) note and he is keen on acquiring it because they're so hard/rare to acquire. The true scarcity of GEM UNC in certain series is even more certain for older notes (pre 1954) because so many collectors used to press their notes (and the practice --no matter how lightly-- can destroy the embossing /or raised print on the note). In hard pressing the note borders darkens, is too flat, and is almost shiney.
Also this whole debate of a good UNC opens that previous "can of worms" which American note collectors have no problem embracing. That is the 3 levels of UNC.
It makes perfect sense to me. This is how I understand it: the GEM is UNC 65: that is a note with perfect centering, embossing, no ripples/blemishes of any kind (which are very rare --very few to be found), the next is the average UNC 63 which may have one detraction (1 slight ripple, a little off centre, etc - still hard to acquire), and UNC 60 which I believe is like a AU today (may have a ripple, or border smudge, counting flick, but nothing serious-- still an UNC note with a few detractions -- but the most common note to be found).
This would mean that an AU would now have a slight centre (horizontal) fold (not a crease). The light fold would be across the whole bill -- not a counting flick. Again, this new system would bump up some presently considered AU's with counting flicks or 1 slight ripple up to UNC 60. This is the source of controversy. It is understandable as you know many a dealer/collector will haggle you down on a note with the slightest detraction to AU.
An EF may have 1 hard fold (or an AU/UNC that's been pressed), and VF more than 1 crease (generally used but still crisp) and so on.
As you know I'm not an expert on grading (collecting is like Poker- takes 25 mins to learn the basics, but a lifetime to learn how to play well) and I'm still learning.
