INITIAL IMPRESSIONS OF THE 20TH EDITION CHARLTON CATALOGUE

News: Welcome to the Canadian Paper Money Forum.

I received my new 20th Edition this morning. I haven't had time to go through it in detail but my initial impressions are exceedingly favourable. It cost me CDN$30.00 from CharltonStandards on eBay, inclusive of Express Post shipping. 

As we expected, a lot more attention has been devoted to modern (post-1969) Bank of Canada issues and there is extensive coverage of the new definitions of the "uncirculated" grades , i.e., GEM UNC (GCU65), CHOICE UNC (CHCU63) and UNC (CU60).

I personally prefer Charlton's three clearly-defined grades of UNC to the complicated numerical "sliding" scale (MS-60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 & 70) favoured by the commercial US grading companies. The numerical scale is just too complicated and prone to inconsistency in my opinion. For example, what is the real difference (in unambiguous words) between an UNC-60, an UNC-63, an UNC-65, an UNC-66, an UNC-67, etc.??

What I find particularly satisfying and refreshing about the new Charlton Unc grade definitions is that for a note to be GEM UNC (GCU65), CHOICE UNC (CHCU63) or just plain UNC (CU60), it must be ENTIRELY ORIGINAL, and I quote "The note must not be processed or pressed". In other words, any note that has been processed, washed or pressed can never be any better than an AU (ABOUT UNC) at the very best. Unfortunately, many washed and pressed notes will continue to be described as "uncirculated" because some buyers and sellers are unable (or perhaps unwilling?) to distinguish between a pressed note and an unpressed note. That's why, in my humble opinion, it behooves all collectors and dealers to learn how to grade properly themselves and not to rely solely on the so-called "professional" graders who are not always better at grading than you or I.

And before I forget, the new Charlton catalogue carries a superb new section entitled "PROCESSED NOTES" (containing valuable insight concerning the many rare notes that have been ruined over the years by processing) and a revised section entitled "GRADING NOTES". We will all be able to learn something new from these two valuable sections.

The only thing I have some difficulty with is the statement that a GEM UNC note is "A near perfect original note". This suggests to me that a GEM UNC note is not necessarily a "perfect" note, which leaves the door open for a SUPER GEM UNC grade!  Oh No!! 

All in all, however, the 20th Edition Charlton Catalogue is a truly superb piece of work!

Hello !

I really like your editorial, hope to receive my book soon to check it out !

Can those fortunate enough to have the book in their hands already provide any of the higher price jumps/declines they may have noticed? Was Charlton's assessment of much higher prices for 1935 notes and 1912 $5 notes valid? What about recent hot notes, such as Newfoundland and 1954 devils-face notes? Any noticable dogs? Thanks.. still waiting for book to arrive in Vancouver...

It will be interesting to see if they determined the value for UNC65 on a note per note basis, or if they just gave it a blanket "50% higher than UNC63" as an example. It would be a disservice if it is the latter.

I agree with Jamie!

I am very Interested to know if all the values were "generated" based on old UNC prices or do the new prices actually take into account the actual availability of GEM UNC notes in different denominations and series.... 

If I remember correctly a few senior members have stated that they can only count the number of TRUE Gem Unc notes they have ever seen before on one hand....

I bought the book yesterday at MTM.

It will be interesting to see if they determined the value for UNC65 on a note per note basis, or if they just gave it a blanket "50% higher than UNC63" as an example. It would be a disservice if it is the latter.

My impression is that a blanket formula was used although there are some slight variations from note to note (perhaps due to rounding?) Just about all notes common or rare have about a 20% premium for CUnc and a 40% premium for GUnc.

What I find really surprising is the excessive price spread between AU and the "new" Unc.  The new grade descriptions are now practically the same for the two grades. AU allows "several small counting flicks, or one light centre fold, but not both" whereas UNC allows "defects resulting in up to three demerits" including up to three counting flicks.

Here's a typical example (BC=30a, $10 Coyne Towers Devil's Face):
EF=90, AU=175, Unc=375, CUnc=450, GUnc=525

Maybe it's just me, I can see myself maxing out my credit for the Gem Unc, but I can't imagine who is going to pay $375 for an Unc60 with no less than three counting folds when there's a just as handsome AU right next to it for half the price.

I think a more realistic slope might look more like:
EF=90, AU=175, Unc=275, CUnc=375, GUnc=525

Al-Bob

Al-Bob,

You make a GREAT example...

I think the grading system will go through some growing pains yet before it really settles down. 

Ottawa also makes some good points about the wording. Is seems to be more lax from the original definitions that were for review. With GEM UNC I feel it should be clear cut, black and white. The Perfect example of a note...

This is just my feeling.... What do the other Senior Members feel about the definitions as they stand??? 

**Addition:**

After fully reading the grade descriptions I have a question about it. In regards to the Journey Series, would EACH Ripple be considered a demerit? As we have seen notes with varying degrees of Ripples present (1,2 or 3 Ripples). The reason I ask is that there is no reference to Ripples in the Journey Series anywhere in the grading section.

So, based on this assumption here are some examples (Correct me of I am wrong):

GEM UNC
------------
Perfectly Centered Note - No cutting cups or ripples of any kind

Choice UNC
--------------
A Note with with a SINGLE Ripple or slight cutting cup but not both

UNC
-----
A Note with up to 3 Ripples and no cutting cup, or a cutting cup and up to 2 ripples...

I hope Gary, Brent or Bob can shed some light on this matter so the community can be on the same page with the definitions. I am going to assume there are other members who are asking the same question.

I hope Gary, Brent or Bob can shed some light on this matter so the community can be on the same page with the definitions. I am going to assume there are other members who are asking the same question.

Sorry, but I'm just leaving for the CNA.

See you all when I get back!

How some predictions ring so true ...

I can't wait to see the new catalogue

These are exciting times.. Too bad I'm not in on them...!

The rumor I heard was the price for unc60 came down for some notes, because with the new standard allowing for some handling marks, were priced closer to AU. Can anyone verfiy that? It would appear that Al-Bobs example contradicts what I heard.

 If they didn't use a "blanket formula" it would take an incredible amount of homework by several panelists. I know some notes never are seen in gem, but if they put a  "slash" in that column that leaves it up to the dealer to deciede, and that's what we already have without the 3 columns.  Still, maybe we can regard it as a starting point to be modified in future issues

The rumor I heard was the price for unc60 came down for some notes, because with the new standard allowing for some handling marks, were priced closer to AU. Can anyone verfiy that? It would appear that Al-Bobs example contradicts what I heard.

 If they didn't use a "blanket formula" it would take an incredible amount of homework by several panelists. I know some notes never are seen in gem, but if they put a  "slash" in that column that leaves it up to the dealer to deciede, and that's what we already have without the 3 columns.  Still, maybe we can regard it as a starting point to be modified in future issues

Yes it is true, some of the UNC60 prices did come down. Very little though.

And no, they did not use a blanket formula to arrive at the 63+65 prices.

I finally got a copy...I am content...I like da color. I like da Beefed up Grading section being more definative with da various grades of Unc. Less confusion.

Dei Gratia Mon,
PD

Less confusion this is just a way to force you to send your bills to a grading company to see if you have a 66 or just a 64 Unc is UNC no need to split if it is not UNC then it has to be AU >

I believe this is just a money grab from the graders

Oh I believe it can make more money for the graders. For me, I am generally content that Charleton has some explicit benchmarks that establish the Basic Unc. I know enough from practice what to expect from an Unc to a GemUnc and if I can't agree with a seller then I just have to move on. If I do agree, it would be worth putting out the extra cash for what I want. I'm sure that this has been reiterated a few times in this forum, is for every member to learn and improve thier Grading skills. This is the best way collectors dictate the market more than the Graders. It'll be a while before all collectors are on the same page and we all know it's not a perfect world.  Like X said;

I think the grading system will go through some growing pains yet before it really settles down. 

Ottawa also makes some good points about the wording. Is seems to be more lax from the original definitions that were for review. With GEM UNC I feel it should be clear cut, black and white....

Obviously there is still room for grading standards to develop or clarify, I prefer a clear cut line too. If it changes occur we have to make change for the better everytime we make a purchase as a collector. Am I rambling on or did I just go off subject?

By the way, has anyone found any errors in the new 20th edition yet?

PD

Would it KILL charlton to change some of the example pictures in the catalogue to DIFFERENT NOTES!!

I just started this hobby, and was given a 2006 cat. about 3 months ago, and was disappointed to see two catalogues later, 98% of the notes pictured are the same.   One new error note picture ??   (cue profuse swearing)

Honestly, if it wasn't for the expanded grading (which they HAD to do because of gem unc etc.), and the journey data that wasn't available before now, it's not good.

Anyone agree?