Private note grading ruining the hobby?

News: Registration is free here at the CPMF!

Uh-huh.  Are you sincerely expecting the Americans to admit that their grading standards are more lax compared to other countries?  That would be like Ford or Chrysler admitting that the resale value of their cars are much lower than Japanese cars.  It will never happen.

That's a superb analogy and I cannot argue with that! I guess American grading standards will slowly become dominant around the world (just like English is slowly becoming the dominant language around the world). In fact, it would be undeniably advantageous if every country in the world used the same grading standards, even if those standards were to be less strict than the currently-prevailing Canadian standards. The most important thing in the long run is that we have consistency. If Canadian dealers and collectors persist in sending their notes to American TPG companies then American grading will slowly but surely start to take hold in this country. In fact, the diffusion of laxer American grading standards into Canada has already started. It will be difficult or impossible to stop in the long run.

The onus is on the collector of average intelligence to exercise their cerebral mechanism and realize that it is not a good idea to submit foreign coins or paper money to any company.  For instance, I would never trust ICCS to grade British coins, especially hammered and early milled coins.  It's not their specialty!

Again, these are erudite comments. Unfortunately, though, there will always be some collectors and dealers who want to have the very highest grade possible assigned to their notes and coins so there will always be a demand for the services offered by those grading services that have the least strict grading standards.

All of this reminds me of Gresham's Law of Economics. i.e., "Bad Money Drives Out Good Money (from circulation)." I suppose we could adapt that Law to the present situation .... "BAD GRADING DRIVES OUT GOOD GRADING" .... and it's Oh So True!!

Perhaps ICCS and Mr. McKaig could somehow join forces to create a uniquely-Canadian paper money grading service?

I recently purchased this note myself on EBay.
I deliberately picked a lowish value note graded at 65.

When I get it I'm gonna cut it out for examination
You cannot properly grade a note in the holder

I'll report back my findings

Well I have to be completely honest. I have been somewhat jaded by PMG and thier grading.
But I promised last week to report back on this note. I got it today and cut er out of the nice folder.
UNC65

I have to admit it's one of the nicest 37 notes I have ever seen.
Great embossing and no signs of any kind of a press or doctoring of any kind.

There MAYBE the TINEST flick.
Not really sure though because the note is a LITTLE ripply around the serials and signature
but that is because the embossing is sooo deep.

A 1937 $ 1 Coyne/Towers W/N Short Run. Paid just over book at $ 120.
I'm Throughly satisfied with the grade, price and the fact that this is a pretty tough prefix.

Andrew


[attachment deleted by admin]

I have had the impression for some while now that PMG is better suited to grading high grade notes (UNC-60 and better) than lower grade notes (AU and below). More to the point, PMG seems unable to handle the lower grades in a consistent manner. Just take a look at the following PMG VF-30 EPQ note that I came across recently on eBay. In particular, study the BACK of the note .... and it was awarded the cherished EPQ ("Exceptional Paper Quality") designation into the bargain!  

I would personally question both the VF grade and the EPQ designation in this case, although the front of the note admittedly passes muster. I guess it all goes to confirm that there can be a h-u-g-e difference between the "technical" grade of a note and its "aesthetic" grade.

{http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/3433819/2007/3/24/PMG_VF30_EPQ.jpg}

They got the signatures wrong on the case! (Re: Rachelsprivate's post)

Does anyone notice anything wrong with the following image?

{http://www.give-a-buck.com/special/DC-26h.jpg}

Yeah, PMG would certainly do well to learn the difference between a DC-26h and a DC-26i.  Wonder if the owner of this will say it's a rare error note where the Campbell-Sellar signature combo was printed on a McCavour-Saunders note?    Might work if he tries it on eBay!  

I didn't see that, I was thinking it looks trimmed.

http://www.give-a-buck.com/paper/freakshow.html

It would appear that give-a-buck material is popular with some members. Here is some good ones with comments attached.

Rick

What a great site!  Very amusing images of errors that you would think are real...and then discover are manufactured through Adobe Photoshop!  

I couldn't agree more with is comments on the faded $2.00 note from a less than scrupulous dealer.  It is too bad there's people passing off notes as legitimate errors when they're nothing of the kind.  I think the community is too small and well informed to let a few bad dealers to continue unabated.  Eventually, even first time buyers will get wise to him.

On his home page "Give-a-buck" (GAB) alludes to how one would expect the internet (technology) to unite the collecting community -- when instead he feels its caused divisions.  I think that's a bit drastic.  We have all seen how a few unscrupulous sellers can over-grade, pass off faded or tampered notes as errors, etc to make a profit, but in the long run I think the technology is a great tool to keep all of us informed of what kind of shady business is actually taking place out there.  I'm sure its been going on all along and now we're becoming more aware of it.  Also the Internet can in fact disseminate info on how to spot such problems, to be vigilant, and to watch out for certain sellers.  I would say the Internet (and sites like this or GAB's) provides a great leveler, and keeps the playing ground a little more honest.

Except the $5 note with two differnt serial numbers in odd places.
This note was owned by me and sold to the foremost expert in paper money errors, Tom Merritt.
He is convinced it is real, and so am I. Having the note in hand with experts to view it is a whole lot different than sitting back taking stabs at the whole world. There are actual experts out here.

Convince us that we are wrong.

Rick

Hi Rick,

Question:I agree Andy McKaig is better than foreign companies.I've met him,found him knowledgeable,personable,likeable,and helpful.
Someone put in my mind once that the problem with Andrews grading company is the fact he sells notes,he grades them himself only.with no second or third opinions.
How would you address this?
Thanks for any insight you can provide

I have heard discussion of this before. It could be a problem, but I don't think it should be. So long as the grading is standard and up to snuff. The graders reputation would be tarnished very quickly if he were to start overgrading his own stock. Just because it's in a holder doesn't really make a lot of difference to me. So far I have bought about 6-7 graded notes and I have cut them all out.

The fact that he grades his own notes is irrelavant. All dealer grade thier own notes. They just don't have them in fancy holders stating the official grade.

I have no answer to the question about a dealer grading his own stuff, and not showing others the note(s) before assigning a grade to it. Andrew is a CAND member, and is following all our rules properly. Unless there would be a problem, I see none right now.

Rick

There is a good reason why Andy McKaig has a good reputation for grading.
He is known to be very accurate, and there is confidence in him due to this fact (among others I am sure).

I will be clear: I have never really met him before, but I have seen him. To my knowledge, he does not know me.  However, the mounting evidence towards the legitimacy and accuracy of his grading tell me allI need to know (if I was to get a note TPG'd).  Secondly, from what I can tell, the integrity of the grader becomes apparant in their "grading assignment".

Mr. McKaig is well known and respected in his area.  From what I know, he has not bought into the tempting opportunity to take advantage of unknowing collectors by overgrading and misrepresenting notes.

Having never met the guy yet, I have an opinion formed of him based on what I believe are his motives with TPG.  Those motives IMO are not sheer profit, unlike the message I get from certain other companies.  This makes me feel confident in the accuracy of Andy's grading, and integrity as a person.  Having said that, we might meet and we mayhaveour differences (as anyone could with anyone) - but that does not undermine the fact that he does what he does properly and accurately... from all that I know and have heard.

If we get back to how the Charlton expresses how we should grade, on page ix of the 19th edition it shows about the sidenotes we should mention:

Counting creases
Edge defects
Tears (rips.... not like boo hoo tears)
Pinholes
Stain
Smudges
Crayon marks
Writing
Missing corners
Rubber stamp impressions
Any repairs: sticky tape, scoth tape, stamp hinges
Chemical damage, paste or glue from attatchment to a page
Poorly centered or badly trimmed edges.

We really do not need to "Re-invent" the wheel. It is already a part of our grading system, but I suspect that this part is often overlooked.
If every note was examined in detail, with these aspects at the center of examinatio, above the shape of the paper body, then grading would be much more accurate.

This puts it squarely in the hands of.... US. Each and every one of us.

Now, in regards to Journey notes in particular.  UNC notes are not always pretty notes. There is:
UNC with cutting cup (CBN)/manufacturers indent (BABN)
UNC without these defects
UNC with or without these defects, but with light banding imprints.

All three of these cases are UNC "clean and crisp as issued..."  (Charlton Description of UNC).

Beyond this, there is the issue of "Rippling". Many new Journey notes have than verticle ripple (or two) to varying degrees.

Now, Mr. Troy McDonald (aka Themonetaryman) had suggested using a three teired grading system for UNC.  He has since resigned from this suggestion, and has moved into pushing PMG notes (based on more lax American Standards).  Note: This is all public information - available in the archives of this site, and on ebay.

Since the collecting community was slow to make any decisions (which probably WAS the safe decision) in regards to how to handle TPG notes, we seen two main roads being followed.

1) The road to TPG by PMG and American Standards (and we all know about their grading issues)
2) The road of TPG by Canadian Standards.
Obviously #2 is going to be less luctrative (but also is the non-exploitive route).  

Now that the hobby in Canada is getting more notes TPG'd, we can say "it all comes out in the wash".  After many months of free market TPG note companies or people, we can now see the flaws and benifits.  We can also see the people who are in it for the accuracy of the hobby vs the people who are in it to take the money and run.

With the CPMS not making any decision towards setting up a TPG company of its own, we are left with the private sector.   This is a good thing after all, beacuse it will enforce accountability.
Last I checked, TPG notes from PMG are NOT selling red red hot (as is suggested by certain ebay user's "about me" page).   That again is just a sales device used to reel you in for the kill.

"I make the best hamburgers in the world" - truthfully, if I didn't have a George Foreman Grill, or a special lady friend, nary a hamburger would ever get made in my house.  BUT the quote might make you think for half a second that I am a pretty good chef...

But I digress....
To finish addressing the TPG notes, I want to draw the attention back to HOW we should tier the UNC designation.  Here is my suggestion (in line with what was tossed around last year). This applies specifically to the Journey Series.  There are basically three levels.  I will use the 60-63-65 system, since that seemed to be what was most popular.

UNC "65" - essentially a perfect note.  Just like the Charlton describes on page viii of the 19th edition.
It has NO "as issued" defects (ripples, cups/indents, banding imprints).  Note: Banding imprints are an "as issued" defect, not neccessarily an "as made" defect.

UNC "63" - Would be an UNC 65 note, however,
a) it has the normal cutting cup (CBN) or manufacturers imprint (BABN)  OR
b) it has a minor rippling.  (of course here comes the interpretations )

UNC "60" -
a)  Would be an UNC 63 note  PLUS a minor banding imprint
b) Would be an UNC 63 note  but with pronounced rippling
c) Would be an UNC 65 note, but has pronouced banding indenting.

PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK.  

In summary, I believe that the Charlton Standard is good, but since UNC are
coming in varing degrees of imperfection, we need to specify the defects in descriptive words, so the public knows exactly what the note is like.  

Why re-invent the wheel?  
This (additional note description) is recommended already from the Charlton Catalogue, page ix, 19th ed.
If the wheel is already re-invented, and number grades are assigned, then this is how I see the three divisions of UNC (in the Journey series).

Just trying to be proactive here so that we can come to a unified consensus for the betterment of the hobby.  If TPG notes (Journey series) followed a guideline such as this, then do you see it being more uniform?

Comments please.
H

Andrew MaKaig does it pretty well. His grades seem to satisfy the sellers and customers. All the rest of those buying have their own opinions of how to grade a note, but most of the rest know little. One needs to rely on expert 3rd party grading. Until there is something better, stick with what you have.

Rick

Andrew MaKaig does it pretty well. His grades seem to satisfy the sellers and customers. All the rest of those buying have their own opinions of how to grade a note, but most of the rest know little. One needs to rely on expert 3rd party grading. Until there is something better, stick with what you have.Rick

How much more complicated and confusing is TPG going to become?! I still haven't seen a written definition of what constitutes, for example, a PMG AU-55 as opposed to a PMG AU-58. PMG's numerical grades (VF-20, VF-30, VF-35, EF-40, EF-45, AU-50, AU-55, AU-58, UNC-60, UNC-63, UNC-65, UNC-66, UNC-67, etc.) are thrown around all over the place but no one really knows what they mean. At least Mr. McKaig has made a valiant effort to define the numerical grades employed by CCGS.