FR 404 C.G.C. 40PQFr 416 C.G.C. 64PQFr 1225h C.G.C. 62PQ
Palestine 6c C.G.C. 35PQ
FR 1180 C.G.C. 40PQ
Fr 282 C.G.C. 68PQ
Fr 1178 C.G.C. 58GL
Fr 288 P.C.G.S. 64
Canada BC10 C.G.C. 35PQ
Fr 1132 C.G.C 45PQ
|
FR 404 P.M.G. 45 NETFr 419 P.C.G.S. 61
Fr 1225h P.C.G.S. 64
Palestine 6c P.M.G. 40 NET
FR 1179 P.M.G. 67EPQ
Fr 282 P.M.G. 67EPQ
Fr 1178 P.M.G. 65
Fr 288 P.M.G. 63
Canada BC9b B.C.S. 18
Fr 1132 P.C.G.S. 25
(NO REPAIRS COMMENT ON PMG TAB)
|
WE STRIVE TO OFFER SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE OF ALL INTERESTS HERE AT GRADEDCURRENCY.COM WE TRY TO CARRY ALL NOTE TYPES AND FROM ALL GRADING CO'S AROUND THE WORLD. BELOW IS A LIST OF ALL THE GRADING CO TO DATE THAT WE ARE AWARE OF. THIS LIST CONTINUES TO GROW AND HAS BEEN ACCELERATING AT MORE RAPID PACE IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. OF COURSE EACH GRADING CO. HAS THEIR OWN GRADING CRITERIA, UNFORTUNATELY NONE OF THE GRADING CRITERIA ARE PUBLISHED OR KNOWN (SPECIFICS), WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CGC's. SINCE THERE ARE NO PUBLISHED GRADING GUIDELINES / CRITERIA OF COURSE WE ARE UNABLE TO CONFIRM GRADES THAT CAN BE CROSSED OVER BETWEEN COMPANIES. SEE THE "COIN WORLD" ARTICLE BELOW TO DEMONSTRATE THE WIDE ARRAY BETWEEN GRADING CO'S (EXAMPLE OF A NOTE GOING FROM PCGS 66, RE-SUBMITTED TO CGC AND CAME BACK 58, AND THEN WAS CUT OUT AGAIN AND SUBMITTED BACK TO PCGS AND GOT A 68. SO EVEN BETWEEN THE SAME GRADING CO, THIS NOTE IN THE ARTICLE WENT FROM PCGS 66 TO PCGS 68 (THEN TO A CGC 58). SO, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR EACH DIFFERENT GRADING CO TO VIEW NOTES IN THE EXACT SAME LIGHT (GRADE), IT WOULD APPEAR, AS SUCH, WE DO NOT PROMOTE OR RECOMMEND FOR OWNERS TO PERFORM "CUT OUTS" AND RE-SUBMITTING OVER AND OVER IN ATTEMPTS FOR GRADE BUMPING.
LIST OF CURRENT GRADING COMPANIES TO DATE
- C.G.C.
- R.C.G.S.
- W.B.C.
- I.C.G.
- C.G.A.
- P.M.G.
- C.M.C.
- C.C.C.S.
- P.C.G.S.
- B.C.S.
- C.N.C.S.
- S.G.
- C.C.G.S.
- PASS- CO
- WORLD BANKNOTE GRADING
- W.M.G.
Filename: COIN World
Author: Rick Parker
Date: 06/03/06
I have run across a serious concern that affects all collectors/investors regarding paper money. I recently purchased a Friedberg No. 229 Series 1899 $1 silver
certificate that was originally graded by PCGS Currency as Gem New 66 Premium Paper Quality. The note was subsequently cut out and was found to have a
paper clip indentation, which has caused a bend through the design at the upper left corner when viewed from the face. From my experience and understanding, the
best grade this note could attain would be About Uncirculated 58PQ. The note was then returned to PCGS Currency for grading and was assigned a grade of
68PPQ!
At PCGS Currency’s website the grading standard for a Superb Gem New 68 is stated as: “A ‘68’ is basically as nice and as close to perfection as a ‘69,’ but a minor
fault may be present, including a tiny handling mark, an edge bump, or a very small counting crinkle. Otherwise, a ‘68’ will be flawless, with excellent centering, bold
colors, excellent eye appeal, and full originality. Despite the mention here of trivial flaws, one should remember that a ‘68’ is an essentially perfect note. It is the highest
grade that can reasonably be expected for many series, including most large size type notes.” Approximately a month ago, I purchased a Fr. No. 236 Series 1899 $1
silver certificate and a Fr. No. 2163-B* Series 1963A $100 Federal Reserve note that were originally graded by Paper Money Guaranty (a division of the Certified
Collectibles Group) as a 66 and 67 respectively. They, too, were subsequently cut out and the Fr. No. 236 was found to have what appears to be a stain, three pressed
out folds and an edge bend. The Fr. No. 2163-B* appears to have a corner and edge bend. Based on my experience and knowledge, the best grade they could obtain
would be an Extremely Fine 40PQ and 63 respectively. The notes were returned to PMG for grading. PMG recognized the stain on the second grading of the Fr. No.
236 and assigned a grade of 64. The 2163-B* was graded again as a 67. Since PMG has no published grading standard, there was nothing with which to
compare. (PMG’s website has a chart of grades but does not describe the criteria for those grades.) As you can readily see there is a wide discrepancy on PCGS
Currency’s and PMG’s parts regarding the grades of the notes. I would have to assume that PCGS Currency and PMG do not maintain population reports as do
PCGS and Numismatic Guaranty Corp. with coins or they would have noted the original grades of the notes. Also, it’s hard for me to understand how a note can pass
through more than one grader’s hands and the flaws not be detected. As a result, the notes could be sold for an amount substantially higher than their true condition
would justify. This in turn could eventually affect the integrity of the hobby.
In the June 2006 issue of Bank Note Reporter, Andrew Woodruff makes reference to the fact that we, as a hobby, have ceased to be vigilant and have closed our eyes
to the selling of processed notes, which reap substantial profits. If I’ve heard the renown numismatist Q. David Bowers say it not only once but many times in the past,
buy the coin, not the holder. This, too, can be applied to paper money. It’s hard to pass off paper money other than in its true condition when notes have signatures
such as serial numbers to track their history. Coins do not have that advantage. Woodruff points out a significant example of a processed note that conceals its true
condition and value. In March of 2005, a Series 1929 $5 national bank note (listed in article as a 1929 $5 Type 1 note) was sold in a Lyn Knight Currency Auctions
sale, Lot 1871, as Choice About Uncirculated. A year later the same note sold at another Knight auction, Lot 1336, as a PMG 64. In between the two sales, Woodruff
points out that the note had been processed by being “cleaned, pressed and its top edge trimmed away to give it a straight top margin with sharp corners.” Naturally it
realized a higher selling price. I would have to say that I don’t think we – as a hobby and fellow collectors/investors – are ready to accept processed notes and hand
over our money for a note other than one that is certified in its true condition. I couldn’t agree more with Woodruff when he says: “We can no longer expect the PCDA
or dealers in general to criticize any of the grading services. It would be bad for business!” Collectors/investors can overcome this by paying close attention to the
notes and choose a grading service that has tough, conservative and impeccable written grading standards, along with the help of available population
reports. Now is the time for the American Numismatic Association to step in and set up a board of review and certification standards for third-party grading of paper
money and coins. Then we can all have peace of mind and be secure in the knowledge of what we are getting. This in no way is a bashing of PCGS Currency and
PMG, but I feel as though their standards have been compromised and better controls need to be put in place to keep this from occurring again. This issue is important
enough that Coin World subscribers and readers should be informed and certainly are deserving of a need to know.
Author: Rick Parker
Date: 06/03/06
I have run across a serious concern that affects all collectors/investors regarding paper money. I recently purchased a Friedberg No. 229 Series 1899 $1 silver
certificate that was originally graded by PCGS Currency as Gem New 66 Premium Paper Quality. The note was subsequently cut out and was found to have a
paper clip indentation, which has caused a bend through the design at the upper left corner when viewed from the face. From my experience and understanding, the
best grade this note could attain would be About Uncirculated 58PQ. The note was then returned to PCGS Currency for grading and was assigned a grade of
68PPQ!
At PCGS Currency’s website the grading standard for a Superb Gem New 68 is stated as: “A ‘68’ is basically as nice and as close to perfection as a ‘69,’ but a minor
fault may be present, including a tiny handling mark, an edge bump, or a very small counting crinkle. Otherwise, a ‘68’ will be flawless, with excellent centering, bold
colors, excellent eye appeal, and full originality. Despite the mention here of trivial flaws, one should remember that a ‘68’ is an essentially perfect note. It is the highest
grade that can reasonably be expected for many series, including most large size type notes.” Approximately a month ago, I purchased a Fr. No. 236 Series 1899 $1
silver certificate and a Fr. No. 2163-B* Series 1963A $100 Federal Reserve note that were originally graded by Paper Money Guaranty (a division of the Certified
Collectibles Group) as a 66 and 67 respectively. They, too, were subsequently cut out and the Fr. No. 236 was found to have what appears to be a stain, three pressed
out folds and an edge bend. The Fr. No. 2163-B* appears to have a corner and edge bend. Based on my experience and knowledge, the best grade they could obtain
would be an Extremely Fine 40PQ and 63 respectively. The notes were returned to PMG for grading. PMG recognized the stain on the second grading of the Fr. No.
236 and assigned a grade of 64. The 2163-B* was graded again as a 67. Since PMG has no published grading standard, there was nothing with which to
compare. (PMG’s website has a chart of grades but does not describe the criteria for those grades.) As you can readily see there is a wide discrepancy on PCGS
Currency’s and PMG’s parts regarding the grades of the notes. I would have to assume that PCGS Currency and PMG do not maintain population reports as do
PCGS and Numismatic Guaranty Corp. with coins or they would have noted the original grades of the notes. Also, it’s hard for me to understand how a note can pass
through more than one grader’s hands and the flaws not be detected. As a result, the notes could be sold for an amount substantially higher than their true condition
would justify. This in turn could eventually affect the integrity of the hobby.
In the June 2006 issue of Bank Note Reporter, Andrew Woodruff makes reference to the fact that we, as a hobby, have ceased to be vigilant and have closed our eyes
to the selling of processed notes, which reap substantial profits. If I’ve heard the renown numismatist Q. David Bowers say it not only once but many times in the past,
buy the coin, not the holder. This, too, can be applied to paper money. It’s hard to pass off paper money other than in its true condition when notes have signatures
such as serial numbers to track their history. Coins do not have that advantage. Woodruff points out a significant example of a processed note that conceals its true
condition and value. In March of 2005, a Series 1929 $5 national bank note (listed in article as a 1929 $5 Type 1 note) was sold in a Lyn Knight Currency Auctions
sale, Lot 1871, as Choice About Uncirculated. A year later the same note sold at another Knight auction, Lot 1336, as a PMG 64. In between the two sales, Woodruff
points out that the note had been processed by being “cleaned, pressed and its top edge trimmed away to give it a straight top margin with sharp corners.” Naturally it
realized a higher selling price. I would have to say that I don’t think we – as a hobby and fellow collectors/investors – are ready to accept processed notes and hand
over our money for a note other than one that is certified in its true condition. I couldn’t agree more with Woodruff when he says: “We can no longer expect the PCDA
or dealers in general to criticize any of the grading services. It would be bad for business!” Collectors/investors can overcome this by paying close attention to the
notes and choose a grading service that has tough, conservative and impeccable written grading standards, along with the help of available population
reports. Now is the time for the American Numismatic Association to step in and set up a board of review and certification standards for third-party grading of paper
money and coins. Then we can all have peace of mind and be secure in the knowledge of what we are getting. This in no way is a bashing of PCGS Currency and
PMG, but I feel as though their standards have been compromised and better controls need to be put in place to keep this from occurring again. This issue is important
enough that Coin World subscribers and readers should be informed and certainly are deserving of a need to know.