Grading is important...

[Mac]

…when it's done properly

This is my gripe thread dedicated to badly graded banknotes

How to grade this note?

It has sticky tape residue on the side, mould and water staining throughout (causing the noted 'Paper Pull'), and a section of the surface is worn away on the bottom under the E of Specimen, just above TEN

Does it warrant a '64 Net' Choice Uncirculated grade?
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think not.

If grading and authentication is going to have a value in our hobby, it should be done accurately, imho.
I believe that terms encompassing "Uncirculated" should be reserved for banknotes that are undamaged and unaltered, exactly as issued—similar to its use in coin grading, as per the ANA guidelines.

[Mac]

Ebay is a place where good value can be had, but where also banknotes can be overgraded. UNC is an important grade to get right. Below, is a 1958 Irish £1 note currently on ebay, which has been graded UNC.
It isn't UNC. I have pointed out the faults which drag the note down to the EF region. There is a big difference in value between an UNC and an EF for this note.

On ebay, especially, bidders should beware of any older Irish note graded as UNC, as generally there will always be faults in Irish notes dated earlier than the 1970s. Ebay sellers tend to be amateurs, and thus don't know how to grade properly.

An UNC note doesn't have any circulation faults at all, it should be as issued by the Issuing Authority.



EF graded as UNC

[Mac]

To encapsulate-grade or to not encapsulate-grade.

It is amusing that there seems to be a school of thought out there among some dealers that the act of getting a banknote graded and enclosed in a sealed packet doubles or triples its value. It doesn't, and collectors are not being fooled by the practice, especially given that these notes are often inaccurately graded or overgraded. If there was consistency in grading from these professional grading companies, then perhaps their product might become more acceptable.
The recent Heritage auction included some overgraded Ploughman notes, which were also overestimated. They didn't sell.

Myself, I always cut a note out of such a packet if I buy it, whether or not it is for my own collection, as I like to grade my notes myself.

If the grading companies got their acts together and introduced some consistency, and more accuracy into their product, then it would improve the overall result, imho. And maybe I wouldn't feel the need to free my notes from the practice.

[Mac]

National Bank Ploughman £5 note in the recent HA auction.
PMG have overgraded this note. An About Uncirculated cannot have a vertical crease in it. This note falls into the Extra Fine region, imo.

Ploughman 5 Pounds National Bank 1939

5 Pounds National Bank Ploughman 1939

[gaelicyoda]

This one is really bad too... currently available on a well know auction site for your collection.

Corner rounding, several crinkles and creases, rust (and other grubbiness) and topped off with a hole in the corner!

About UNC!?

[Mac]

That one is seriously off the mark!
GVF region is where it is at plus holy damage

[ThePloughman]

Freakin terrible. Dat's a low grade note , how can they call it unc or anywhere near it.

[gaelicyoda]

Looks like the remaining notes (10/- up to £50) of that same specimen set (the set of which the £10 that begins this topic is a member) are currently doing the rounds once more on a well known online auction site Mac - just... wow!

Starts badly with the 10/-, then continues on a downward trajectory until we finally hit the £50 note, which is just a kind of laughable - complete with old tape adhesive remnants and stains/damp/mould - though if someone were buying purely by the grading number then it would be far from funny.

The sad thing is many (though I expect probably all) traditional auction houses will not accept responsibility for discrepancies on professionally graded notes - so if you bought this remotely without looking too closely, you'd be stuck with it. Caveat emptor with graded notes at auction!

(only room enough for 3 attachments, so I've included the last 3... the back of the £20 and the front and back of the £50)

file_003.jpg (56.82 KiB) Viewed 96 times

[Mac]

The £50 is the worst of these—bad water damage by the looks of it, and some mould for enhancement!

I think that any collector who would be in the market for notes priced above 100 euro or so would know how overgraded these are. They don't appear to be selling anyway.
It would be interesting to see what they would fetch in an open auction environment. Would we go 100 euros on the £50?!

[ThePloughman]

The standards vary so much for these grading companies. You'd think they'd get their act together. Sometimes they do get it right, on the easy ones maybe, like recent unc notes which are unc.

[Series B notes]

This one Is the worst. I know it's not Irish, but you guys need to see it. Unbelievable, PMG. Unbelievable.

1977-20-dollar-fold-over-error.jpg (15.75 KiB) Viewed 95 times

[gaelicyoda]

It does look really bad, but I think this one is actually folded over on purpose...

Note the "Fold Over Error" in the grading title area to the left of the "66".
It looks like the note was in a folded position when the serial numbers were printed on it (to the right of the president's hairline).

I remember seeing that Mac had posted a similar error on a Lavery £10, but I can't find the post to link it here

[gaelicyoda]

Ah, found it - here it is, towards the bottom.
It was actually a replacement £10 which makes it even more unusual...

[Series B notes]

Not a VF 25 grade, PMG. I would say a VG-F grade.

[Series B notes]

Also, look at PMG's grading standards for Uncirculated notes. They are way off the mark!
70 Gem Unc
70 EPQ The highest grade assigned. Notes must have no evidence of handling visible at 5x magnification. The margins and registration must appear centered to the unaided eye. Notes must qualify for the PMG Star () Designation to be graded 70.
Superb Gem Unc
69 EPQ This note is nearly visually indistinguishable from a 70 but the margins and registration may appear slightly off center. There is no evidence of handling visible to the unaided eye.
Superb Gem Unc
68 EPQ The margins and registration are slightly off center. There may be very minor handling.
Superb Gem Unc
67 EPQ A note with above-average margins and registration. There may be minor handling.
Gem Uncirculated
66 EPQ There may be slightly more handling than a 67 EPQ note. The centering must be above average.
Gem Uncirculated
65 EPQ The note may have one or two minor distractions as a result of minor handling. The centering must be above average.
Notes must qualify for PMG’s Exceptional Paper Quality (EPQ) designation to be graded 65 and higher.
Notes graded 25 to 64 are eligible for PMG’s EPQ designation if they meet the standards described below.
Choice Uncirculated
64 The centering is off on one or two sides. Some handling may be evident but there must be no folds in the design.
Choice Uncirculated
63 The centering is imperfect and the design may be flat. There may be several flaws but there will be no folds.
Uncirculated
62 The note is strictly uncirculated but may have minor-to-moderate handling and/or corner tip issues. There will be no folds, however. The margins may touch or come into the design.
Uncirculated
61 The note is poorly centered and the margins come into the design. There may be counting marks, smudges or other signs of handling. There will be no folds through the design.
Uncirculated
60 A note with problems that may include toned paper, a small stain or fading. There will be handling issues but there will be no folds through the design.

[Mac]

‘centering’ is irrelevant to the grade of a banknote.

[Series B notes]

Look at the allowable amounts of handling. They are saying a GVF note is UNC!

Also, notes with a 'small stain' can be uncirculated. Really, PMG?
On this note, here is an example of a very poorly graded note. Slight corner rounding, two central folds, and counting stains on the back are evident. AU 55? NOTE: Pics were a bit large, so I had to copy and paste from the browsing section of eBay. This means a photo of the back is not feasible because of 'File too large'.

reverse file_008.jpg (45.37 KiB) Viewed 86 times

face file_005.jpg (53.31 KiB) Viewed 86 times

EDIT: I found the pic and replaced it with a bigger version of the image. — The Governor
Also, this 10 pound note is on eBay, graded as VF. It is clearly not, around the VG-F region.

[The Governor]

You are right there. That note does look more like EF. It has 2 folds in the middle and something going on with the right edge (left side of rear view). It would appear that standards are falling in the grading companies.

[ThePloughman]

@Series B notes
Many notes on ebay are overgraded. However, you'd expect a professional grading company to be accurate, or at least consistent.

[Mac]

Here is a CGC graded note, which gives a grade of UNC, but then goes on to note that there is 'a removed ink spot' on the back—can't see where it was from the scan, though there appears to be a whiter area in the middle of the bottom margin on the reverse.

There is no doubt that the banknote is in high grade (Number 22HA 063992 has also been seen, graded as About Uncirculated in an auction). Accurate grading—It is a largely unused note, which is not quite UNC.

Regarding the note in the picture, HA22 063989, Imho, a banknote cannot be graded as UNC if it has had an ink mark removed. Where did the ink mark come from? What was the nature of the ink mark, a number written, a blob? and most importantly, what was done to the note in order for the ink mark to be removed? Surely the removal process in itself could be akin to the handling of light circulation.

hibernian-bank-ploughman-badly-graded.jpg (70.92 KiB) Viewed 81 times

hibernian-bank-ploughman-badly-graded-rev.jpg (61.3 KiB) Viewed 81 times