The Great Currency Grading Debate - Round 1

News: Welcome to the Canadian Paper Money Forum.

At the CNA, a bunch of us were discussing grading standards and the potential importation to Canada of the US style numeric grading.  I was making the point that a 67 point scale implies 67 unique grades.  You may have a definition for F15  or VF35 or EF45  but what about intermediate grades.  How do you differentiate a 37 from a 34?  Is a 29 that much better than a 27?   One participant in the discussion said that it is likely that the currency graders would use only numbers divisible by 5 with the exception of the subdivisions of UNC from 60 - 67 (or 70 oh mi gosh).  Well look at what I stumbled upon today on e-bay: VF 38 and F 29!  

What do you find when you open a can of worms?

If you thought UNC60-63-65 was bad, check this out:

MS-70 Perfect Uncirculated
MS-69 Superior Gem Uncirculated
MS-68 Premium Gem Uncirculated
MS-67 Ultra Gem Uncirculated
MS-66 Superb Gem Uncirculated
MS-65 Gem Uncirculated
MS-63-64 Choice Uncirculated
MS-60-62 Uncirculated

Source: http://www.currencygradingcertification.com/gradstand.htm

The C.G.C. set of standards allows for a GEM UNC65 note to have "several flaws."  Each grade from 65 to 70 even has its own unique name too!  

:-/

Wow. I don't really know what to say to this. The above two posts simply underscore the need to sit back and wait for grading systems to evolve and let everyone pick their favourites. It also underscores the need for standardization.

Personally, I don't mind seeing 3 grades of UNC, but I do NOT want to see a numerical grading scale.

I've said this before and I'll say it again:  Improvements in our grading standards ultimately improves the hobby.

It might be a pain in the @@S to adopt at FIRST to adopt a new system -- but ultimately it should standardize grading somewhat and add a certain amount of stability / legitmacy /security to the market of high end notes

It would be  preferable to see increments of 2, 3 or 5, and the numbers in ranges say: UNC 60, 63, 65, 67. 70  
Some kind of standard is better than no standard.  I can't see how the definitions in the book do anything to resolve the debate.
Grading is always subjective-- but if there is a more fine tuned system in place, it should decrease the amount of error involved.

My 2 cents

I don't like it the more I think about it. Too many grades of UNC even if you just have 63,65,67,70. How can you determine whats what. If you have an UNC70 and you have an UNC60 then an UNC60 must have three-four flaws minimum if it's that many grade positions back from an UNC70. Thats ridiculous in my opinion. I'd prefer to have notes that are absolute gems be sold on case by case basis between the dealer and the buyer, the guide is just the guide and if you already have UNC then you have a guide if the note is exceptional.

And if we find we absolutely have to have something above UNC just have one more grade above PRI-Pristine  

I've been reading about this subject on this forum for quite a while, and have been pondering it myself. But the more shows I go to, and the more dealers I meet, and the more notes I add to my collection(and the better edumacated that I become), the clearer it is to me.
   If I pulled 20 UNC notes out of my collection, and tried to put them in order of the most perfect, to the most defects all still UNC, I could probably do it in a couple of minutes at the most. I could easily do it with 20 AU notes, or 20 EF notes, etc...

And I'm quite sure that most collectors out there once they've gotten to really know their notes could easily do it as well.

That being said, it makes perfect sense to me to have a "much more detailed" system of grading notes. I figure if I can visualize 10 notes in order(of the same grade), doesn't it make sense to have a type of rating to properly describe them as so?

Well that's my 2 cents worth for now.

I have to agree with Buxvet. Too many Grades of UNC makes grading too confusing, thus turning off many new and even old collectors. Essentially an UNC note with even the 'slightest' flaw is an AU note, right? This is simply because that tiny flaw makes the note ALMOST uncirculated, but not quite UNC. The whole point of having the AU grade is to weed out the notes that are not 'perfect' or as issued note. Face it, UNC 60-63 are AU notes and UNC 65 is a perfect note. Personally I am very picky about the condition of the notes I collect. If the note even has the slightest flaw then I do not purchase it, even if someone slaps the title of UNC 63 on the holder - it is still an AU note.

Allow the collectors to decided what UNC means to them, not the dealers. Ultimately, only the sellers are benefiting from this change since now they can charge more for UNC 65 and they can also decide what grade of UNC the note is. Young and new collectors will not be able to distinguish the difference between the different UNC grades this gives too much power to the seller. After a collector pays big bucks for an UNC 65 note but only receives an UNC 60 note they will be turned off and will loose interest quickly.

Almost all of the Charlton catalogues were sold to collectors; allow them to decide what UNC is, not the dealers, sellers and other grading services.

When I see a note whos borders are now yellow instead of white, and when the embossing is barely visible if at all, but has absolutely no creases whatsoever, therefore UNC according to grading standards, really makes me wonder whether its the buyer or the seller who is benefiting from these simple standards. A dealer who can sell such a note for the same price as a "perfect note" sold by someone else, but still considered the same grade, as far as I'm concerned clearly benefits the dealer.

Almost all of the Charlton catalogues were sold to collectors; allow them to decide what UNC is, not the dealers, sellers and other grading services.

Descriptions of new grades of UNC notes CAN be generated by collectors, via CPMS, as long as it's done in time for the 20th edition.  We can use adjectives like choice and gem and avoid the use of numbers, if we collectively deem that best.  Grade inflation is not inevitable either.  If nothing gets decided, the opportunity may be lost.
(For those who were not at the CPMS meeting, we took advice to await developments from third party grading companies, and do nothing at present.  With hindsight, that may not have been the best decision.)

If you thought UNC60-63-65 was bad, check this out:

MS-70 Perfect Uncirculated
MS-69 Superior Gem Uncirculated
MS-68 Premium Gem Uncirculated
MS-67 Ultra Gem Uncirculated
MS-66 Superb Gem Uncirculated
MS-65 Gem Uncirculated
MS-63-64 Choice Uncirculated
MS-60-62 Uncirculated

Source: http://www.currencygradingcertification.com/gradstand.htm

The C.G.C. set of standards allows for a GEM UNC65 note to have "several flaws."  Each grade from 65 to 70 even has its own unique name too!  

All the more reason to question the validity of the increments.  This has gone back and forth for ages, and there really is no right answer other than `to each their own``.  You either want to do the homework and understand what you are buying, or you do not, and just want to have someone else tell you that the note is graded x y or z.

As far as the new names go for the grades- to me it sounds just like tradepuffing.  Nice excellent sounding words to help make the buyer believe that they are really getting something that is out of this world.  I sell the best chili in the world at my store.  Convinced... :-?

I agree with Bob`s post:

We can use adjectives like choice and gem and avoid the use of numbers, if we collectively deem that best.

-- the collectively deem that best part especially.
However, extending the scale to include: superb, ultra, superior, and premium, sounds like flashy ways to describe less than perfect.  Even Choice vs Gem for that matter- sure sellers use them, but do they use them meaning the same thing- or is one better than the other, and which one if that is the case... Why can`t a spade be called a spade anymore...  It is perfect, it is as made UNC, or it has flaw(s).

I think they should add another grade, either GemUnc or Choice Unc - but not both. This which would describe a note which does not have the regular defects of an originally uncirculated note; cutting cups, ripples, etc.

However, extending the scale to include: superb, ultra, superior, and premium, sounds like flashy ways to describe less than perfect.

If you think about it, our current system already does that.  

What if you were a restaurant critic for a major newspaper, and reviewed a restaurant.  The service was fairly bad, the restaurant was not clean, the food was edible but nothing special.  It wasn't a disgusting restaurant, but it wasn't much better than a McDonald's.  Using paper money terms to describe this restaurant, it would be "very good."   The current language already elevates a note's condition far beyond the meaning of those words under any other usage.  It doesn't really make a lot of sense, does it?

I believe that the grading system in use should be intended to conform to the note(s) in question, not the other way around.  So if an EF note sells for $500, and a VF for $250, then there are certainly notes that fit in the intermediary that would sell for maybe $350.  Under the current system, if a note is anything less then EF then it is a VF at best, and the value is halved.

Having seven degrees of UNC might be a little overboard but I certainly think that we could be open to having intermediate grades more standardized.  

My 2¢.

I wouldn't term as defects production results such as ripples (devils) or cups (journey series anti-counterfeiting stripes). I want to see them on original uncirculated notes....

ultra, superior, and premium

Sounds like grades of gas.  

I agree with eyevet (above) and Oli1001 , also above.
Define CHOICE and define GEM, relative to an As Made Unc note.
The rest of it- well, that is overboard in my opinion.