An interesting item was offered on eBay a few weeks ago although it didn't actually sell. It was a $10 1937 UNC note that had been "cross-graded" by the American grading service PMG and by Mr. McKaig's Canadian grading service CCGS. The note was evidently graded first by CCGS where it received an "UNC-63" rating. It was then evidently sent in its encapsulated CCGS holder to PMG in Florida where it received a "CHOICE UNC-64" rating. Notwithstanding the fact that the plastic holder in this case is of an inconvenient (more cumbersome) size, this cross-graded note is interesting for several reasons:
1. Did PMG cut the note out of its CCGS holder in order to re-grade it and then seal the CCGS certificate into the PMG holder along with the note itself? Based on the scan below I feel that they did cut it out rather than merely re-grade the note without extracting it from its CCGS holder, i.e., it is not a case of a sealed CCGS holder contained within a larger sealed PMG holder(?)
2. We all know that PMG graded notes are being offered (but not necessarily sold!) at higher prices than the corresponding "raw" uncertified notes. That begs the following question. Is a note that has been graded independently by two established companies worth more than the same note that has been graded by only one company?! Would it be worth even more if the two companies assigned an identical numerical grade??
3. Here we have a documented case confirming that the principal American and Canadian paper currency grading services have different opinions although that is probably due in part to the fact that PMG assigns grades beyond UNC-65 (up to UNC-70) whereas I believe UNC-65 is the maximum on CCGS's scale. Thus, even if PMG and CCGS did agree in numerical terms that would still imply a fundamental difference of opinion!
N O T E: 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 bandied 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.
4. TRIMMING PHILOSOPHY & TECHNIQUES: This note has an unusually wide and uneven top margin (this could conceivably be the result of a well-intentioned but amateurish trim). Although I am not an advocate of reckless trimming, there are certain special cases where, in my opinion, expert trimming (using a high-quality metal ruler and a sharp one-sided razor blade) is not only warranted but is highly desirable. As I see it, the ultra-wide uneven top margin of this note is just screaming out to be trimmed! By the way, THE TRICK TO ENSURING A SUCCESSFUL TRIM JOB is not to trim in one single ambitious cut (this tends to distort the paper) but to run the sharp blade lightly over the paper three or four times and cut through the paper incrementally .... but make sure that you practice this technique first using some expendable current notes ...... and don't ever let the ruler slide during the trimming process!!
I would be pleased to read members' comments about "cross-grading" in general.
{http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/3433819/2007/3/26/0.JPG}
« Last Edit: March 26, 2007, 07:13:20 pm by Ottawa »
Logged
" Buy the very best notes that you can afford and keep them for at least 10 years. " (Richard D. Lockwood, private communication, 1978).
