The Great Currency Grading Debate - Round 1

News: Welcome to the Canadian Paper Money Forum.

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...