The Great Currency Grading Debate - Round 1

News: Registration is free here at the CPMF!

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.

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¢.

This I agree with.
The mid-grades prior to UNC would be nice

If we stand by the definition of UNC as being a "perfect" note, isn't it the AU grade that needs to be subdivided? The VAST majority of notes collected, in all fairness, are probably AU in that they have some kind of flaw, however minor. Maybe we could have Choice, Gem and Superior AU  notes. And then still have at the very top, the (nearly) unatainable UNC or UNC-70 or whatever.. In my experience, just about every single note I ever buy as "UNC" I will examine under a microscope if necessary to find some kind of a flaw and then catalogue it away as AU with a comment on exactly the severity of the defect.

I understand where everyone is coming from.   I understand the angst, the cynicism, the skepticism, and the worry over what is going to happen in terms of how are collections, future buys, and future trades/sales will be graded.

Who wants confusion in grading?

No one -- I believe -- wants that.

But every seasoned collector I've talked to tells me the same thing: Grading is everything.
  
And as Bob says:

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

We can use the words but will that help us reach a fair consensus?  Does this help the collector?  I don't think the way I see adjectives being thrown around today (esp online) to describe our notes is very accurate.  

AND: If nothing is decided then we're either a) missing a great opportunity to settle the issue or b) dragging our heels and detering new collectors from entering the hobby because they know its murky waters ahead when it comes to getting a fair deal with everyone agreeing on what condition their note is in.

The VAST majority of notes collected, in all fairness, are probably AU in that they have some kind of flaw, however minor. Maybe we could have Choice, Gem and Superior AU  notes. And then still have at the very top, the (nearly) unatainable UNC or UNC-70 or whatever..

 -- yes the vast majority of the high end notes

I completely agree with this statement (ESPECIALLY in terms of those replacements and more collectable notes) as I've seen every degree of AU to UNC.  If I'm going to sink S XXX.00 into a note I sure as heck want to be sure its XXX grade and not to be contested later on.

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.

Yes grading should be all about the notes-- and since notes do fall in between so many of our lower grades -- the number scale would be an enlightenment... NOT a burden, NOT a cost to the collector, nor an encumberance/detriment to the hobby.

A huge majority of notes are in the EF to F range.  Does VF + mean $300 or $350 (for the example above)?  How does a + beat a number?   At one time everyone agree that an UNC note was a note that didn't reach circulation.  Well folks -- that's no longer the case.  Isn't that why the AU to UNC get so much attention?  Isn't that why this whole debate rages on?

We need to get it right RIGHT ACROSS THE BOARD on ALL GRADING

If we bury our heads in the sand over the system that's being used in the US and elsewhere, then we do it at our own peril.

BWJM pointed out to me that there is a very subtle difference in the definition of Uncirculated as published in the Grade Descriptions section of the new 19th edition of the catalogue.  

The new definition (19th edition) is:

UNCIRCULATED - UNC: Crisp and clean as issued and without any folds, creases, blemishes or discolouration. Colours have original hue and brightness. Some issues may have ripples (as made). Mention must be made if the design is not perfectly centered with usual width of margins. Premiums may be applied to the more desireable exceptionally centred and strongly embossed notes. Uncirculated notes of the Canadian Journey issue with the added security features may be expected to show a small indentation where the holograph strip meets the edge of the note. The indentations are believed to result from resistance during cutting into single notes.

This replaces the definition which appreared in the 18th edition:

UNCIRCULATED - UNC: [highlight]A perfect note.[/highlight] Crisp and clean as issued and without any folds, creases, blemishes or discolouration. Colours have original hue and brightness. Some issues may have ripples (as made). Mention must be made if the design is not perfectly centered with usual width of margins. Premiums may be applied to the more desireable exceptionally centred and strongly embossed notes. Uncirculated notes of the Canadian Journey issue with the added security features may be expected to show a small indentation where the holograph strip meets the edge of the note. The indentations are believed to result from resistance during cutting into single notes.

The exclusion of [highlight]"A perfect note"[/highlight] from the definition seems very significant.  Discussion?

BWJM pointed out to me ...

I do not take credit for this observation. At the CPMS executive meeting, Bob Graham mentioned to the group as I was opening the new Charlton guide that Gary Fedora's whining and complaining about those three words might have had more of an impact than he thought. I flipped to the grading definitions, saw the change and pointed it out to Gary. It had quite a silencing effect. It was beautiful.

Due to the new definition I think that there needs to be at least one grade higher then UNC, either GemUNC or Choice UNC. This would describe an originally Uncirculated note with absolutely NO flaws. Mind you a GemUnc note would be very difficult to find with all the recent ripples, corner bends and cutting cups.

I agree with Oli1001.  If there is UNC (even if it has cutting cups or a ripple), then there is the possibility that there COULD be a note that does exceed that in terms of perfection.  Thus bring in GEM or CHOICE (but not both), or use them both, but let them mean the exact same thing.

Related stuff:
An important thing that divides people on UNC:
1.  some people use UNC as a past/present tense verb.  As in: this note has been circulated, or this note has not been circulated.
2.  However, some people use UNC as an adjective to the note.  This note is an UNC note. This note is not an UNC note - of course both describing the actual note condition.

However, under #1, (UNC as a verb, as it is much more used for in coins from what I have seen) I could get a new note from a brick, and then fold it in my wallet, take it out again, and say, "no, this note has not been in circualtion, therefore it is UNC" (the verb) - the note actually never circulated through our system.   A second point: a bent note from a brick is also UNC if you consider UNC as a verb.  In coins, an UNC notation can have a numerical grade of even something like AU-50 (yes this is possible) because they can come right from the mint this way.  

This is why mixing the meanings for UNC can cause confusion.  
From what I have seen and learned, UNC for notes is the adjective.
Clear as mud? great.

Without the numbers how would you differentiate a Superb Gem Uncirculated from a Superior Gem Uncirculated?  Why don't we make UNC70 "Super Duper Gem Uncirculated" and UNC71 "Perfect Uncirculated" (or should that be Perfect Gem Uncirculated?)

I agree with previous comments that there should be no more than 2 types of UNC where "UNC" would be a perfect note that may have some flaws as issued, and a Gem UNC that would have no flaws, even if such flaws are common for a particular series like cup marks on Journey notes.  However a Gem note, in my opinion, would also have to be superbly centred and embossed.

I also agree that if any grade(s) need to be sub-divided further it would be the AU and maybe even the EF grades, since the most dramatic price jumps are from EF to AU to UNC.  As has been pointed out before, the CPMS grading standard DOES allow for intermediate grades between the full grades of F, VF, etc. without the necessity of numbers being used.

In the case of Charlton's all they would have to do is expand the tables so that there is EF-, EF, EF+, AU- etc. so that (for buyers) the prices would climb more gently as the grades increase and (for sellers) the prices would drop less dramatically as the grades decrease.  Having 7 types of UNC only serves to confuse buyers while helping sellers to pump up prices beyond what they should be for a perfect note.  Adding further gradations within the current CPMS grading scheme should fairly serve both buyers and sellers.

Obviously the trickier part would be to define the criteria for meeting an in-between grade.  The CPMS scheme does not do this (yet), but the numeric system has not done a great job of this either - I've seen UNC63 defined simply as "a stronger rendering of UNC62".  Um, yeah, I figured that much...

Hudson has raised an important point, I suspect.  The word "uncirculated" might be interpreted to signify (i) the past history of the note i.e. was it released for circulation or not?
or
(ii) the present state of the note i.e. does it have handling marks or not?
I submit that only meaning (ii) - the state of the note - has any significance in terms of grading.
As we move (at least, I hope we will move) to devise the necessary grading standards, it would be well to keep this distinction in mind.  As Hudson rightly states, it is the source of confusion, as well as heated debate.

We need to start with something. Comments please.

UNC 65 (or GEM) : An exceptional note. Similar to an UNC63 (or choice UNC) but must also be nicely centered and exhibit strong embossing.

UNC 63 (choice UNC): Crisp and clean as made and without any folds, creases, blemishes or discolouration, colours have original hue and brightness. Some issues may have ripples in the paper created during manufacture.

UNC 60 (typical UNC): Crisp and clean as issued. Allowance can be made for a single pinch/wrinkle or a cutting crescent at top or bottom of the metal strip or a light counting fold (earlier issues only).

      

The three levels of UNC make sense to me.   Its simple and easy to remember.

Would not three levels suffice?

& Could we use increments of 5: eg: GEM 70 / Choice 65 / Typical UNC 60 ?  I guess it really doesn't matter, but with a scale of 5 it allows for tinkering in the future: say if something between GEM and Choice hits a 67...

Now I'd like to see something similar (and lets not get too fancy!) for the other grades AU, EF, VF, F, Vg and G with numbers that decrease in logical levels. Any ideas?

Let's drop the numbers entirely. Just use UNC, C.UNC and G.UNC. Numbers allow for people to say that a note is 64 instead of 63, and therefore it is clearly worth more. Definitely do not go to 70, because as Gary so vehemently believes, there is no such thing as a perfect note. There is something wrong with every note. (I just try to minimize such flaws).

Let's drop the numbers entirely. Just use UNC, C.UNC and G.UNC. Numbers allow for people to say that a note is 64 instead of 63, and therefore it is clearly worth more.

Fair enough to say that, inevitably I believe this proposal would result in UNC+ , C.UNC+ and G.UNC .

Just an observation.

Let's drop the numbers entirely. Just use UNC, C.UNC and G.UNC. Numbers allow for people to say that a note is 64 instead of 63, and therefore it is clearly worth more.

Fair enough to say that, inevitably I believe this proposal would result in UNC+ , C.UNC+ and G.UNC .

Just an observation.

Granted, but at least without the numerical grading scale, you can win an argument with saying that there are no intermediate grades.

If you are dealing with UNC 60, 63, 65, 70 and you try the same argument, anyone who passed grade 1 math will laugh at you when you say there are no grades between 60, 63, 65 and 70.

(OK, maybe grade 2 or 3 math... I don't think kids can count that high in grade 1 yet.)

I agree with Sudzee, three grades would due. Any more grades of Unc would be too much. Either way 2 or 3 grades of Unc would be ideal. Bringing numbers into the equation would just make grading notes as difficult as coins, and let's face it no one likes coins

Three levels of UNC work well.  They're streamlined, easy to remember, probably a lot easier to come to a consensus than all those other superlatives (ie: ultra, super, etc).  Numbers are not a panacea for this conuldrum.  Fine tuning the grades is what we all want to achieve.

Now do we go from UNC to EF or from UNC to AU again?  Do these 3 subcategories dispense with AU or does AU become revised?

If we're going to go with 3 kinds of UNC shouldn't there be 3 kinds of the other grades to fine tune this? Can we go with the same adjectives or could there be a  more appropriate terms for the lower grades?  (EF,  EF plus , super EF ? or apply the same system above: EF, choice EF, GEM EF? )

Thoughts?

There are tons of posts about this from the past I remember, but long ago.
The posts earlier seem to pair (numericaly) "UNC" with "MS" with coins, which I think is a GREAT idea, to at least align two parts of currency collecting.
Generaly MS 60, MS 63 and MS 65, and of course the in betweens are used as well for coins.  Instead of bogging down the descriptors with all sorts of fancy words, in my opinion, it should be held close to a basic yet differentiating system. Such as GEM, CHOICE and regular UNC (as the adjective).  This as a maximum-- otherwise to be honest, I feel that it "mickey mouses" the seriousness right out of the grading scheme (please Dis*ey don't sue me).  Earlier I said that CHoice or Gemn should be used but not both, but considering they are both in use now, and IF they can be distinguished and known to collectors WHERE they land in the numerical scheme, then I think the three levels would be appropriate.

As far as other numbers below- a coin is AU 50- AU 59 (generally AU 50 and AU 55- and AU 55 and up is generally AU+)
Then EF40 to EF 49 (EF+ is generally EF-45 or higher)
The same type of system goes al the way down through VF, F, VG, and Good.  lol The lowest coin grade I saw was a G-2, and I have owned a note that was even lower (once you put all the three pieces together )
Notes have followed this grading scale for a long time (and I have no idea how long at this time).

I suggest that we move progressivley with this whole note grading thing, and at least take some steps, BUT to call an AU note as UNC 60 in my opinion is completely wrong.  By establishing in writing the proper uses of Choice and Gem, we can avoid a potentially situation that would seemingly dilute the "UNC" market with notes that are not truly UNC (the adjective).  If we can nail this one down as an institution, perhaps we can submit it to be included in the catalogue down the road.  At least, that way instead of not dealing with the "new grading", we can deal with it, and form it to a way that is already basically consistent with what is already going on, AND have it on paper.  We can tackle this early enough before this alternative grading system gets a foothold in the market, at which point there will be ALOT of work to undo to restore  order (and credibility) to note grading.

Huds

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.

That is unfortunate.  Not all AU notes are the same.


[/quote]

I mostly collect Journey Notes so I only look for the best. What is the point of collecting circulated notes from such a recent series? And yes, not all AU notes are the same.

What concerns me know is loosing my voice, as a collector, to the grading services. I think all in the hobby should be concerned. We have a bit of time to hammer something out that will ensure our relevance in the future. Charlton, through its publications, is our largest voice and I'm sure is looking for some guidance from us as inevitable change is forced upon us. Either we take advantage of this opportunity or loose out.

Making use of polls with time limits could get us moving towards a consensus on a few points. I propose the following to start:

1 - continued use of the word "uncirculated" , "MS" or a move to something like "CC" (current condition or currency condition). Bob previously pointed out that it doesn't matter where the note came from, where it has been or where it is headed, the majority of collectors are only concerned with a notes present condition.

2 - use of either word or number descriptors to indicate the notes condition.

3 - selecting a word or number descriptor that should be used to set the standard for the un-improvable and lesser notes.

4 – grade or condition descriptions.

Comments or opinions please.

Gary

I think this thread has been very informative and interesting.

I appreciate the concerns.  I think R-privates/Sudz/Huds and others have expressed concerns of seeing paper go the route of coins.  I can see how that can be damaging to the current state of the hobby. That would be a shame.

But on the other hand, a general consensus on a note's condition (eg grade of UNC), simply isn't being reached.  Grading has become a real "pickle" and hot topic that needs to be resolved.  

I think it would be great to see a poll conducted so we can monitor the pulse of the collectors at large.  It would really help to establish where everyone is at, what they think would be the clearest, most appropriate grading system to use.

I am all for that (and we haven't seen a POLL for a while)

I don't mean to offend anyone or their ideas. Just little ol me's practical and realistic side with a dash of life experience.

Someone mentioned earlier about the need to hurry this along thereby changing direction of the grading companies. At first thought I agreed.

Now the reality check. How are we/us/you or CPMS for that matter going to dictate to private , for profit enterprise, how they shall run their business. Might as well tell PMG and CCGS to mend their Canadian grading ways. (and McKaig & D.O. & ...)

In my view CPMS made the right call by continuing doing what they have done with this issue... Nothing. Let the market be the market and decide.  

To "decide" on an adjective rather than a numerical standard is both wishful and blinders-on thinking. Will the Charlton dictate to the market or will the market dictate to Charlton ? 

Above opinions are my own and a fee was not paid by a grading service for the expression of such  

I think Doug is right on some of the above points.  We can't dictate to a company whose primary concern is profits and shareholder's dividends.  I do not think, however that the CPMS should be passive bystanders in this issue...  they should take the lead in brokering a solution.  The solution is to get all the major players: CPMS executive and committee chairs, representatives from the grading companies, several well respected dealers and representative of CAND; and a few representative at-large members of the hobby; and get them into one room over two days or so with a pre-agreed agenda and hash this one out.  Each party will have to make some compromises, but everyone should leave with a model to move forward that we all can work with.

I don't see this discussuon ( and several earlier ones) going anywhere.
Besides, even we do come to a concensus here, would it make any difference to CPMS or Charlton or whoever ?   so far no more than 20 have expressed somewhat their opinions.

I would have to say with reasonable confidence that the discussions here are heard by folks such as the CPMS executive and others. In fact, I know for certain that the CPMS president is a lurker here on these forums He simply chooses to listen and observe rather than post due to his position within the CPMS and also due to the valid assumption that should he decide to post, especially on topics such as this one, his comments may be misinterpreted as comments of the CPMS, not as his personal opinions.

John, you underestimate perhaps the influence that this forum has within the Canadian numismatic community. We are a force to be reckoned with, and certainly one that is not ignored. Every single person that posts here, regardless of their opinions or level of contribution, is part of that voice, including yourself. Have you seen other websites acknowledged in the Charlton guide or the CPMS newsletter? No. It's us.

Now that I've done my bit to empower everyone to continue participating in this important discussion, I'll fade back into the woodwork and let the debate rage onwards.

PS: One last thing... If we can come up with say, five different possible scenarios for a proposed grading system, then I would gladly create a poll, as requested, and we can take this to a vote. Before then however, we need to come up with said five possible scenarios. (Five is just a nice number I picked... not set in stone by any means... just come up with some options)

One grading system could sub divide UNC into three categories Unc, Original Unc (O.Unc) and Gem Unc (G.UNC)

UNC - A very nice note, pulled from a brick. This note would include two of the following: dog ears (bent corners), ripples and cutting cups. If the note had more then two of these flaws it would be considered AU.

O.UNC - An extremely nice note, as pulled from a brick. Possibly having dog ears, ripples or cutting cups - but not more then one of these flaws.

G.UNC - A perfect note without any imperfections.

Don't forget about centering, alignment, and other flaws. Also keep in mind the severity and degree of flaws. How bad must a single bent corner be to make a note AU instead of O.UNC?

We're not simply discussing brand-new Journey notes. We have to keep in mind notes from ALL series.

I have been keeping an open mind and reading through all the posts carefully. I still draw my original thoughts as my personal conclusion. I feel only the need for a single grade of UNC above the current UNC. Which I proposed to call. Pri-stine.
G,VG,F,VF,EF,AU,UNC,PRI

I personally like Pristine because it is an appropriate adjective to describe perfection. Gem and choice are not adjectives that truly describe perfection. Rather they are slang type words. The grading terminology is already flawed at best. VG sounds like it should be a nice note.

I hope that when we do the poll one of the five choices of resolution will be as I propose

And what happens to the way UNC notes are priced now.
e.g - 1937 Osborne/Towers $ 2 is $ 1150 UNC.
IF...there were to be 3 grades of UNC, would they all be priced above the current UNC Price. Would this devalue or inflate you current paper holdings.

My main collection focus is Dominion 1935,37,54Devils, so buying UNC's is pretty much limited to the Devils for me as I mostly collect the Osborne signature when it comes to the '37's

The poll is a good idea.  It will focus us on arriving at a consensus from our side of the table.  However, it's not enough.  The problem with a poll is that it doesn't draw in the other major players into the debate.  This, in my opinion, can only be done at a meeting where everyone arrives with a clear focus on their position, but the willingness to be flexible and arrive at a compromise.

But on the other hand, a general consensus on a note's condition (eg grade of UNC), simply isn't being reached.  Grading has become a real "pickle" and hot topic that needs to be resolved.  

First: There IS a general consensus. It is in the Charlton.  There will ALWAYS be people who have to "oppose" it, because what they think seems to be more important.  The grading Pickle IS resolved- anyone who trades with someone who uses the same benchmark and criteria, will have no problem at all.  Which is why it is important that the grading scheme is adhered to, and not reinvented in such a drastic way (basicaly creating chaos).

Will the Charlton dictate to the market or will the market dictate to Charlton ?  

The answer to the question is: Both. And what goes into the Charlton comes from us - the market, AND the CPMS.

Important to note: the last sentance in the grading portion of the catalogue says this:
"This grading guide has been endorsed by the Canadian Paper Money Society."

If we stand by the definition of UNC as being a "perfect" note, isn't it the AU grade that needs to be subdivided?

FYI, there is no "Perfect" in the definition of UNC anymore. Due to the changes in production etc etc...