grade descriptions - Charlton

News: Registration is free here at the CPMF!

The scope of this thread is intended to be a discussion of the terminology of grade descriptions as listed on page viii of the Chrlton 19th edition.

After reading the descriptions it seems to me there is a significant difference in the condition of a note between EF and VF.   It seems as though there are subtle differences between UNC-AU-EF, but a bigger leap down to VF.

Thoughts?  Tips?  

Ultimately I just looking to improve / gain confidence in my grading skills.

moneycow

In practically terms of the Sheldon numbering system (currently employed), most of the numbers are not used at all. AU-50, AU-55, AU-58 and US slabbers also use AU-53.
Paper grading is simply not that precise.

Rick

Are there written definitions/descriptions for the Sheldon numbering system?

This is the closest I could find to any description or definition for the grades listed under the Sheldon Scale:

I'm not sure if they are exactly the same standards as Sheldon but here are the standards used by the Canadian Currency Grading Service which I think are similar:

http://www.canadiancurrencygradingservice.com/standards.htm

Superb Gem UNC67 : Is a well centered essentially perfect note.

Gem UNC65: Appears as a perfect note with normal centering.

Choice UNC64: This uncirculated note may be off center. The note may be well centered with a half inch or smaller counting crease. There could be slight evidence of a corner flick but no hard fold showing.

Choice UNC63: The note could have two counting creases - one on each side. A counting crease is a small bump or ridge in the body of the note.

Choice UNC62: A long counting crease. The body of the note may not be totally crisp. There may be a small nick in the border of the note.

UNC60: This note could have three or four minor defects. Creases in the borders of the note. Three counting creases. There may be a small nick in the border of the note.

Choice AU58 = AU/UNC=AU++: This note could have a long counting crease over two inches long. A particularly hard counting crease. It could be a note with pinholes that would be otherwise uncirculated.

Choice AU55=AU+: Looks uncirculated but has too many creases.

AU50 = AU: Looks uncirculated except for a soft fold or two.

EF45 = EF+: One hard fold, bright crisp and clean.

EF40 = EF: Bright crisp note usually three or fewer hard folds. The paper may be broken along a major fold. The note should not show evidence of wear in the body of the note. If a note has the eye appeal of an almost uncirculated note, it may be called EF with more light folds.

VF35 = about EF: Wants to be an extra fine note but it has too much handling to make the grade.

VF30 = VF+

VF20: A crisp relatively clean note. May show a light haze of soiling. A touch of soiling may be found where the note was counted. Numerous folds are acceptable as long as the design is not worn off. Occasionally a note may grade VF with the paper broken due to folding on the back of the note. The edges and corners of the note will often show some signs of wear.

F 18 = about VF; F17= Fine/VF; F15= Fine+

F12 = Fine: The paper usually has some rigidity remaining. The printed design can be worn off on the major folds. All the major features of the design are present. There can be considerable soiling with a fading of the original colors. Many folds, and creases are present.

VG11 = about Fine; VG10 = Very Good Plus

VG8 = Very Good: Whole note, usually has full margins, a lot of soiling due to being well circulated, some border tears (nicks) may be present.

G7 = About VG: Full note with worn margins, may have excessive wear in a few areas obscuring some of the note design.

G6 = Good Plus

G4 = Good: Well circulated, may be dark, or faded. Parts of the design may be worn off. The serial/sheet numbers, date, manuscript signatures may be faded, or illegible.

G3 = About Good: Well worn rough edges, may be missing a corner, or two.

G2 = Fair: Has a good part of the design of the note. May be a partial note. May be extremely well worn.

G1 = Filler: Barely identifiable.

I find it interesting that the CPMS definition of "AU" allows for only "three very light counting folds" whereas "UNC60" allows for up to "FOUR minor defects". So your honnestly graded CCGS UNC60 note would actually be an EF  :-? :-/

I could call a spade a spade, or I could call it a supurb two-piece aerodynamic leverage machine.  It is still a damn spade.

This serves business.

Flick, fold, crease (counting vs. regular crease), ripple, bump? :-?  When will someone define these terms (in words and in pictures) and provide a conversion scale - e.g. 1 flick = 2 folds, 2 folds = 1 crease, 1 flick + 2 folds = 1 crease + 1 bump  

When oh when is someone going to devise an automatic paper currency grading machine?  Something like a bill reader at the Casino but doesn't add any wear and tear to the note.  Since the paper money hobby is much bigger business in the U.S., maybe some enterprising Yank will one day come up with such a grading device.

If they did though, it would probably only grade Canadian notes out at 85% of any given grade.

 [smiley=beer.gif]

I don't have much problem with there being more precise grading terminology.

Consider a note with one counting crease, but UNC otherwise.
Consider an identical note, with three counting creases, but UNC otherwise.

Both notes, under the CPMS system, would be graded as being in equivalent condition (AU).  But one is obviously superior to the other, and should command a premium.

Like I have said before, the grading system in use should fit the note(s) in question; not the other way around.

This is what a PMG Choice UNC-64 note looks like .... observe the pronounced counting creases at the left-hand side. I believe this note would be rated as an AU or AU/UNC according to the current Charlton grading standards.

We should always remember that the Charlton catalogue prices are based on Charlton grading standards and not on the more liberal American TPG (Third Party Grading) standards. Caveat Emptor!

I decided to post the above image of a PMG Choice UNC-64 note as it's the only such image that I've come across that clearly shows the amount of paper disturbance that's tolerated on a high-grade "Unc" bill (there could be additional disturbances that aren't evident from the scan).  Unfortunately, we're getting to the point where sellers of PMG graded notes are pricing them solely according to their numerical grade rather than to their overall attractiveness, e.g., perhaps a 20% price premium for an UNC-65 over an UNC-64 even though both grades will exhibit handling marks. For the longest time I have always personally preferred an original AU/UNC with wide even margins to a strict Unc with one or two margins almost cut off.

What is needed in my opinion is some sort of compilation of line drawings illustrating the extent and type of the paper disturbances that will typically be seen on the various numerically-graded EF, AU and UNC notes (see my sketch below). I have occasionally used this approach on eBay when trying to describe the amount of paper disruption on a rarer high-grade note as regular scans are useless in that respect.

It will be interesting to see if Charlton addresses the issue of numerical grading & pricing in the next edition of their Government Paper Money Catalogue.

What many are viewing as counting creases on this note appear to me to be puckering that could easily be a major paper flaw rather than indication of use...
It's a downside of two-dimensional scans of a note encased in plastic.
All notes should be inspected in person, rather than judging by a scan. Could be that this note is indeed 100 per cent uncirculated and original.
If someone is interested in buying it, they should inquire about a return policy rather than judging condition by less-than-perfect methods.

What is needed in my opinion is some sort of compilation of line drawings illustrating the extent and type of the paper disturbances that will typically be seen on the various numerically-graded EF, AU and UNC notes (see my sketch below). I have occasionally used this approach on eBay when trying to describe the amount of paper disruption on a rarer high-grade note as regular scans are useless in that respect.

I completely agree with the above statement.  Scans can be deceptive, and the illustrations can be most insightful.

I think a compilation of drawings that illustrate the variations within the higher grades is an excellent idea Ottawa!  
Whenever I see a note for sale (with such details attempting to describe the condition) I'm often keen on bidding on that note because I know the seller is making a very concerted effort at disclosing the note's condition on top of what can be seen on the scan (though usually we can't see these smaller imperfections!)

A visual scale of the UNC (even if it has a Sheldon or some kind of numbering system) would be a welcome relief to the confusion that exists out there when it comes to the counting flicks, ripples, etc that can detract from a perfect UNC.  We all know that perfect UNC's are seldom seen these days.  Even with Charlton's revised definition of UNC (considering today's notes) the whold grading system would be greatly improved with visual graphics (as Ottawa suggests) or examples printed in the book.  Or perhaps this could be such a large topic that it warrants a separate book?  I believe there was a separate publication on grading coins at one time...

This would be a good idea.  If other grading companies are going to start in on this, then there needs to be an understanding.

We all know that clothing sizes mean different things depending on brand- or country.  This is parallel to notes right now.  
So, if a TPG note is UNC 60, it should be in a table in a row with comparing values, such as Charlton's EF+ or whatever the case may be.

On that note, I am making another post in another thread--

Charlton Press would like to know your opinion on the following "Grading Standards" proposal:

GEM UNC — GCU — GCU65

1.  A near perfect original note.
2.  Colours must be bright, original with exceptional eye appeal. There must be no paper discolouration or foxing.
3.  The note must have near perfect centering with sharp square corners and edges.
4. No noticeable impairments upon close examination; counting flicks, soft bends or machine marks, waves, paper flaws, writing, gluing, pinholes, etc.
5. Manuscript signatures must be clear and strong.
6. The note must not be processed or pressed.


Tips for different series for GCU

1935, 1937 and some 1954 series notes must have heavy embossing on the engraved printed areas, serial numbers and the typed signature.

1954 issues must have original paper ripples present in heavy inked areas

Journey notes with holograms will show no “cutting cup” or banding marks.


CHOICE UNC — CU — CHCU63

1. A near perfect original note
2.   Colours must be bright, original with much eye appeal.
3. The note may exhibit minor paper toning.
4.   The note may be slightly off centre.  It must have sharp edges and corners.
5.  No noticeable impairments upon close examination with the exception of:?A minor original paper flaw prior to printing, a very slight soft corner, one very small counting flick.
6.  Manuscript signatures must be clear and strong.
7. The note must not be processed or pressed.
8. The note may have only one demerit point.

Tips for different series for CH CU

1935, 1937 and some 1954 series notes must have heavy embossing on the engraved printed areas, serial numbers and the typed signature.
1954 issues must have original paper ripples present in heavy inked areas
2001 Journey notes with holograms may show a slight “cutting cup”

UNC — CU-CU60

1.   An original note, must not be processed or pressed.
2. Colours must be bright, with eye appeal.
3.   There may be noticeable paper toning but no major distractions.
4. The note may be noticeably off centre.  Edges and corners may be muted, thus not sharp and precise.
5.  There may be minor flaws or defects resulting in up to three demerits, such as:  visible counting creases (one demerit each), tight margin (one demerit)
6.   Banding strap marks, ATM or counting machine marks that have caused waves in the note are acceptable.
7.  Notes with blemishes or distractions, a small tear, nick, crease with broken fibre, including an edge bump or folded corner, would not receive an uncirculated grade.

Tips for CU

1935, 1937 and some 1954 series notes must have heavy embossing on the engraved printed areas, serial numbers and the typed signature
1954 issues must have original paper ripples present in heavy inked areas
2001 Journey notes with holograms may show a  “cutting cup”

DEMERIT POINTS

Counting crease, no broken fibres       one point each
Edge bump             one point each
Paper toning             one point
Counting flick, no larger than 2 cm       one point each
Soft corner                 one point each

GEM UNC      No demerit points
CH UNC    One demerit point
UNC       Three demerit points

AU

1.   An attractive, original note with bright colours.
2.   Paper toning may be present, especially on earlier notes.
3.   Note may have several small counting flicks, or one light centre fold, but not both.
4. Minor original flaws in the paper prior to printing may be present.
5.   The note must have basically sharp edges and corners, however, very minor edge bumps from banding straps, or a couple of soft corners are acceptable.



EF


1.   An attractive note with bright colours.
2. Original paper ripples may not be present.
3. Heavy counting creases, or one centre crease with broken paper fibres, or two light folds may be present, but no combination of these.
4.  The note still must exhibit sharp edges, but two or more soft corners and edge bumps may be present.


VF

1. Will have good eye appeal, but colours will have decreased hue and vibrancy. Considerable paper crispness will remain.
2.   Evidence of wear will be present along the edges and corners, with no weakness in the design.  The corners will not be rounded.
3. The note may have up to four major creases or folds with broken paper fibres, but no design loss in the creases.


F

1.  Signs of considerable wear (circulation) with wear along the edges and corners. The corners may be rounded, with wear showing within the design areas.
2. Noticeable soiling will be present.
3.  Will have four or more heavy creases or folds with broken paper fibres, with additional minor folds, but the design should not be worn off completely in the creases.
4. Paper will retain some crispness.


VG

1.  Evidence of heavy circulation, with little or no paper crispness remaining.
2. Considerable soiling, with some loss of colour hues and vibrancy; some design loss on the creases.
3.  Heavy vertical and horizontal creases and folds will be present; edges and corners will be worn.
4. Tiny edge nicks and tears may extend into the design. Pin holes are usually present. No pieces may be missing from the note.


G

1.  A heavily circulated note which may have numerous tears and defects, but no large section of the note should be missing.
2. Paper quite soiled and often dark.  Colours may be noticeably faded or altered.
3. Basically a whole note, but with very heavy wear along the edges and corners, which may begin to look rather tattered. Heavy folds with wear on the design within the creases, some separation often beginning along the heaviest creases.  A limp and lifeless note.


Pressed, washed or chemically cleaned, and trimmed notes to be included in the list of defects to be disclosed as part of the grade, along with graffiti, foxing, signature perforations, glue and tape etc.

Looks fine.

Where would a pressed but apparent GCU65 or CHCU63 fit in ?

6.  GEM UNC — GCU — GCU65     The note must not be processed or pressed.

 A pressed note can not be GCU65 it would have to be GCU63 and

Pressed, washed or chemically cleaned, and trimmed notes to be included in the list of defects to be disclosed as part of the grade, along with graffiti, foxing, signature perforations, glue and tape etc.

Looks good....

I really like the straight forward approach with "Demerit Points" so there is no room for Interpretation...

I am glad to see the Flaws in Journey Series notes have been addressed as well. 

A pressed note can not be GCU65 it would have to be GCU63 and

Is that right Bob ?

A pressed 65 is a charlton 63.
a pressed 63 is a charlton 60.

GCU63 states the note cannot be pressed    

Straighten that out please.

As I understand the descriptions, any pressed note could make no better than EF; all grades AU to Gem Unc contain the word "original", i.e. not pressed or otherwise processed.  (Is this too severe?)
I am not the author of the document; I was merely asked to post it here as a sort of trial balloon, or at least to get the bugs and inconsistencies worked out.

Just a simple question here.  What exactly is meant by pressed? Is it simply a note that was actually pressed to flatten it for some specific reason.  For example a note that was kept in a book for instance. Also what is the exact damage that pressing a note causes?

FRIEDSQUID

About pressed note, I submit you a kind of "though experiment".

Take 2 original gem UNC notes from the same bundle (or brick).  Choose them very carefully and take the best examples available.  No question that they are original UNC.  They are perfectly flat and lustrous.

Now you put one of them in a mylar pouch and left it laying horizontally flat in an album for, say 2 years.  The other one is simply left in a closed box (nothing else is in the box)  for the same period.

After the delay, you compare both notes.  One was under a flattening pressure, the other one, none.  Would you degrade the "flattened" one to EF simply because it was properly stored?  I think it's abusive.

What I want is to draw your attention to the fact that a note which was simply flattened during its storing has not the same "pressing" than a note which was "improved" by dampening it and letting it drying under pressure.  The first does no erase the smallest counting flick and leave the note with its original luster.  The second note may have its counting flick made less apparent, but it's mainly because the surface of the paper has lost its luster, so the small flick is harder to see...

Incidentally, in the case where simply put a note in a mylar flip and leave it in an album degrades it because it's declared "pressed", what you suggest to store a note whithout pressing it?

Just my humble opinion but what about just giving demerit points for processing. Say 4 or 5. Thus an apparent gem unc65 by appearance, would be an unc60 if doctored. unc63 = au58 , unc60 = au55.

One area I will address:
When it mentions "cutting cup" it must also mention "manufacturers indent" (or some words to get that across). 
CBN has cutting cup.
BABN has a"manufacturers indent" - it is verticle, just lower then center on the front of the notes, and about 1.5 inches to the right of center.  I have seen these on many brick new BABN notes dating al the way back to near the start of the Journey seried.  Less frequent than the cutting cup, but still a parallel.

H

One area I will address:
When it mentions "cutting cup" it must also mention "manufacturers indent" (or some words to get that across).
CBN has cutting cup.
BABN has a"manufacturers indent" - it is verticle, just lower then center on the front of the notes, and about 1.5 inches to the right of center.  I have seen these on many brick new BABN notes dating al the way back to near the start of the Journey seried.  Less frequent than the cutting cup, but still a parallel.

I agree, this must be addressed. I have also seen this MANY times as well. 

Good this seems to be more definitive for me so I'll print this out and tape this inside my Charleton. So what about Gem Unc 70? Will there be such an animal?

PD

Just pointing this out... A different beast I realize.

http://www.pcgscurrency.com/g_overview.html
(Next tabs are on vertical right)

Seems to me you need some kind of balance between Modern and pre 1954 issues. Good luck 

Just a simple question here.  What exactly is meant by pressed?

The description "pressed" has always implied to me that the note has been WASHED in water and then pressed (either between two sheets of porous paper or, worse still, ironed with a hot iron).

There are several different types of pressing:

(1) Merely putting the note in a book and loading 10 or so heavy books on top for a few days. I don't see any problem here as long as the note hasn't been previously washed.

(2) Ironing the note with a hot iron (without washing) between two sheets of white paper. This is very destructive as the paper tends to curl/ripple due to expansion/contraction effects and the ink tends to melt and lift off, often leaving a shiny appearance. Worse still is ironing the note by direct contact with the hot metal surface! A HIGHLY UNDESIRABLE PRACTICE!

(3) Washing in water followed by pressing in a book. A HIGHLY UNDESIRABLE PRACTICE!

(4) Washing in water followed by ironing between two sheets of white paper. A HIGHLY UNDESIRABLE PRACTICE!

I must admit that I did my fair share of well-intentioned washing, pressing and ironing when I was new to the hobby (in the early 1970's) but I soon realized that I had ruined some good notes. However, I gained a lot of valuable experience in the sense that I can now recognize very quickly whether a note has been washed and/or pressed or ironed! We live and learn ....

You answered to my question.  The pressing does inply a wetting (or a dampening) before pressing.  So the luster of the paper will be lost.

Just a remark:  the new 5s, with their coating on it, will be much harder to press since this varnish renders the note almost waterproof...

So is there a preferred method to store your notes.  Do you just pile them in little stacks hoping the pressure is not great enough to flatten them.  Do you stand them upright squeezed together because placing them loosely may cause them to slide and lay on a slant and cause some other unwanted effect.  The problem is you usually try to store your notes in the same place (ie a SDB and there is limited room.) Do you end up getting penalized points now because they are stored in an inappropriate way. I think I should give everything away.

Friedsquid

I believe that the recommended storage method is in Mylar holders stacked vertically (like library filing cards) so that the notes can "breathe" through the gaps at the tops of the holders.

And talking about "breathing", I've noticed that PMG holders don't have any gaps for air circulation whereas CCGS holders have two small discreet holes at each side.

I keep all my major collections and expensive notes in "NoteGard Holders" and put it in a box and keep in SDB.
The rest in mylar holders (vertically) and sleeves (SGP5 bought from Collector Supply House) depends on value and my personal classification.

Water is perhaps the worst enemy of paper money, and paper collectibles in general, so notes should never be washed or chemically treated, except perhaps in the most extenuating "museum restoration" circumstances. Water will destroy that wonderful natural sheen to the paper that experienced paper money collectors adore so much.

The only notes that I've washed & pressed in the last few years were some better asterisk notes that I carelessly spilled red wine (actually port) on. I reacted spontaneously and immersed them in a sink full of warm water but it was too late and some light red/brown stains remained. However, the notes still sold on eBay for what I considered to be reasonable prices, albeit at a loss to me! It's possible that some of the buyers decided to bleach them ....

Next time wine, or port, or whatever is spilled on notes, or a table cloth, or whatever, use COLD water. It won't set the stain. Same with blood. If the stain sets, use ginger ale (really).

Thanks. Being a chemical engineer I should have realized that a low-temperature environment would reduce the staining. However, I was in a state of panic at the time ......

I know that we've had this discussion before:
but a note that's been pressed doesn't necessarily mean its been washed and pressed
Or as you've stated:

There are several different types of pressing:

(1) Merely putting the note in a book and loading 10 or so heavy books on top for a few days. I don't see any problem here as long as the note hasn't been previously washed.

(2) Ironing the note with a hot iron (without washing) between two sheets of white paper. This is very destructive as the paper tends to curl/ripple due to expansion/contraction effects and the ink tends to melt and lift off, often leaving a shiny appearance. Worse still is ironing the note by direct contact with the hot metal surface! A HIGHLY UNDESIRABLE PRACTICE!

The problem with pressing (even with method #1) is that we can see the embossing diminish or disappear...

any kind of dampness is not good for notes so using dry aid, or some kind of dessicator in your safe, or storage area is prudent. 

I don't think its mandatory that you store your notes vertically ... this is a luxury if you've got the space.