MEANING OF CHARLTON CHOICE UNC-64 GRADE

News: Welcome to the Canadian Paper Money Forum.

I recently acquired a superb original pair of $5 1954 Beattie-Coyne notes with flawless original paper but cut a bit off-centre. Initially, I experienced some difficulty deciding whether these notes should be Gem UNC-65 or Choice UNC-63 and then it dawned on me that they are actually "Very Choice" UNC-64 even though this grade is not explicitly defined in the Charlton catalogue. My reasoning follows below:

An UNC-65 is a perfect unblemished note (no demerit points) with near perfect centering.

An UNC-63 is a superb note but it has one demerit point and could be off-centre.

It therefore follows that an UNC-64 is either:

A perfect unblemished note (no demerit points) that is rather off-center;

or:

A note with one demerit point that has perfect centering.

Any comments?

A perfect unblemished note (no demerit points) that is rather off-center;

UNC 63

A note with one demerit point that has perfect centering.

UNC 63


It is written in B&W but is for interpretation to a degree as to what IS a demerit point.
To me, those features aredemerit points, thus according to Definition, are UNC 63.

We should try to make sure everyone is on the same page as the actual book.

My reading of the definitions on page xxii of the Charlton catalogue is that an UNC-63 is not only allowed to have one demerit point but is also allowed to be "slightly" off-centre (but what does "slightly" actually mean in this context?).

As Hudson mentioned, there is some ambiguity as to what constitutes a demerit point. In particular, is poor centering a demerit point?? According to the current catalogue definitions, poor centering does not constitute a demerit point. However, my feeling is that poor centering should definitely be included in the "Demerit Points" table on page xxii because, in my opinion, poor centering is far more of an eyesore than an almost invisible counting flick. Poor centering jumps out at you and is not aesthetically pleasing whereas a trivial counting flick is often essentially invisible (especially in a TPG holder!)

The trouble with "poor centering" as a demerit is that is is basically undetectable on Journey notes.  But other notes it may be notable.  Just like "natural ripples"  54' and Journey.

I think it is best to be based on a buyer and seller agreement.

"Slight" (Teeny) is not clearly defined alright. So at what point is this "Slight" become "off center" will likely be determined or agreed upon buy the buyer and seller. In fact at what point would would "off center" becomes an "error" note can be just as ambiguous. Add that the Multicolor, Bird, and Journey series I find difficult to determine centeredness, where as 1935-1954's are much easier with the borders. Perhaps poor centering should be defined as a demerit.

I think it is best to be based on a buyer and seller agreement.

Dei Gratia mon,
PD

I'm also a bit confused about the notion of centering. It seems to me that it's the overall size of the note that would be far more important than the centering. A note with one jumbo margin and three regular ones ought to be worth more than a perfectly sized regular note.

Perhaps instead of focusing on "perfect" centering the grade descriptions could specify a minimum width of the narrowest margin, say 3mm for 1937 / 54 notes... Obviously this doesn't work very well with modern notes but again the overall size is the important factor.

In any case, this focus on centering for the technical grade would seem to encourage some misguided individual to trim all their off-center notes so that they'll "technically" qualify for Gem Unc. I hear this has already happened with stamps...

The other issue is that bad centering obviously comes in degrees. I recall showing a $2 devil face note a while ago to Don O. The note was perfect Gem Unc in every respect except that one of the margins was almost completely missing and cut at an odd angle. He valued it all the way down to VF for the defect while others considered it to be as valuable as an EF/AU. Personally, I like the note very much and consider it as a great bargain for an otherwise overpriced issue.

I agree with Hudson in that centering issues should be considered separately from the grade and buyer and seller should work out a discount or premium, whatever the case may be...

The new system was needed but I find it to be overly complex. The demerit system is tiresome at best unless you are an obsessive compulsive.
It also completely ignored the reality of the current 3rd party grading services out of the US, most notably PMG which everyone whines about yet seems to be using. An UNC64 PMG is nowhere near the standard set for an UNC 63 in the new cat.
No matter though, in the end, nice is nice and people will continue to pay accordingly and those that can't be bothered to learn how to grade a note will continue to buy "GEM EF's"

finnally somebody gets it

The new system was needed but I find it to be overly complex. The demerit system is tiresome at best unless you are an obsessive compulsive.
It also completely ignored the reality of the current 3rd party grading services out of the US, most notably PMG which everyone whines about yet seems to be using. An UNC64 PMG is nowhere near the standard set for an UNC 63 in the new cat.
No matter though, in the end, nice is nice and people will continue to pay accordingly and those that can't be bothered to learn how to grade a note will continue to buy "GEM EF's"

First off, there will never be a perfect system.
Secondly, of course it ignores the PMG system, as it is based on a looser standard of Americal grading, and is probably the most inaccurate of them all.  The 3 grades of UNC are a reactionary move so that things do not get out of hand with companies (like PMG for example) taking advantage and ripping off buyers.  There are other good points as well, which have been hammered out here before.
So, now, even according to Catalogue pricing and grading (and not just grading as shown before), innacurate graders are further exposed, thus protecting colectors.
When you see an UNC 67 PMG note, with visible flaws to boot, then one must wonder how they stack up compared to the real grading standard...

Thirdly: I don't know anyone that uses the PMG system, other than PMG, and of course our Fav. ebay seller, and then also the certain people who HAVE NOT given a look to the grading pages and just want it done for them. (And there was only one guy I have ever seen act like this).  Just because PMG gets all the press becuase of their bogus grading, doesn't mean they get all the action.


But, as mentioned- this puts the onus squarely on the purchaser to become educated.
I have a GEM EF Devil's face Theissen Crow $1000 for sale.  Okay, you get the idea.

The new system was needed but I find it to be overly complex. The demerit system is tiresome at best unless you are an obsessive compulsive. It also completely ignored the reality of the current 3rd party grading services out of the US, most notably PMG which everyone whines about yet seems to be using. An UNC64 PMG is nowhere near the standard set for an UNC 63 in the new catalogue.

There was a nice $5 1912 Train note on eBay recently graded as PMG-64 (Item #150144565240). It carried serial # B471794 and sold for CDN$6,500.00. I possess a similar note with serial # B471752 from the same hoard mentioned on page 172 of the Charlton catalogue. Although my note is "uncirculated" it has several light counting flicks at both the the left and right sides. I would grade my piece as UNC-60 at best. I therefore suspect that the PMG-64 note similarly has counting flicks at both sides like mine although, of course, I have no way of telling for sure.

{http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/3433819/2007/8/1/0.jpg}

Perhaps things would have been simpler if Charlton had defined a Gem Unc (no demerit points) as an Unc-70 instead of an Unc-65, a Choice Unc (one demerit point) as an Unc-65 instead of an Unc-63, with the basic Unc remaining as an Unc-60 as it is now? At least then there would be some numerical correspondence with the US system. I like the Charlton grading definitions (i.e., demerit points) but, in reality, there is no real need to add the numbers 60, 63 and 65 as they are entirely arbitrary. For example, why not just call a Choice Unc a "Choice Unc"? Why does it have to be a "Choice Unc 63"??

The numbers I believe were delivered because it was "what the people wanted"... more like, "What was already happening".   I agree, they don't realy serve much of a purpose, except to show that there must be grades in between.  If anything, it was to bring us in line with grading that was most commonly used in the coin world... nevermind the american standard.  In coins, MS-65 used to be top notch, but somehow, they are up to MS-70 (I guess they are pretty rare).

"For example, why not just call a Choice Unc a "Choice Unc"? Why does it have to be a "Choice Unc 63"??"  I ask the same question...but I don't see the 63 being removed ever.

Can you imagine 11 grades of UNC?  60-70?   I can't!  (PMG can!)

A standardized table for converting Charlton grades to PMG grades and vice versa would be very useful. Based on my inspection of many PMG graded notes on eBay and elsewhere it seems to me that some conversions are pretty straightforward, in particular:

PMG-70 = Charlton Unc-65 -- "Gem Unc" (Absolute Perfection and exceedingly rare)

PMG-65 = Charlton Unc-63 -- "Choice Unc"

PMG-63 = Charlton Unc-60 -- "Basic Unc"

PMG-60 (Unc) = Charlton AU

PMG-55 (AU) = Charlton EF

Charlton assigns numbers only for the UNC grades (60, 63 & 65), which is probably a good thing!

What do you think?

So where do my PMG66 (More Choice UNC) and PMG67 (Almost GEM UNC) notes fit

Nowhere.  You must send them to CCGS for cross-grading.

Not worth the extra bucks.  I better just throw them out