I'd like to post something similar, a solid no problem grade on a note that was clearly washed and pressed. But I have to figure out how to make a case and still stay within forum rules. A recent auction pickup for me, at least still worth what I paid for it but by my standards shouldn't have gotten the grade it did.
In memory of my kitty Seryozha 14.2.1996 ~ 13.9.2016 and Shadow 3.4.2015 - 16.4.21
I have to agree with "Golden." Although it is hard to tell from just looking at the images posted, both notes look more in the "Fine" zone to me. There appears to be stains around the serial number on both. Each note looks very soiled (much too dark) to get VF25-30 (mind you no EPQ designation). I can see pressed out major creases horizontally but its harder to discern the typical vertical centre creases.
It would really help to see the reverse of each SC. I always examine the backside of banknotes since they seem to show creases better & typically it's easier to see minor wear on the back (compared to the front/obverse).
I would respectfully disagree...PMG 30..10 folds with soiling...PMG 25 more folds than a 30...they didn't get an epq so obviously with cleaned/pressed etc...maybe in hand there are more creases but I feel that their grades are about right.
@tomtomtomtom said:
I would respectfully disagree...PMG 30..10 folds with soiling...PMG 25 more folds than a 30...they didn't get an epq so obviously with cleaned/pressed etc...maybe in hand there are more creases but I feel that their grades are about right.
@tomtomtomtom said:
I would respectfully disagree...PMG 30..10 folds with soiling...PMG 25 more folds than a 30...they didn't get an epq so obviously with cleaned/pressed etc...maybe in hand there are more creases but I feel that their grades are about right.
IMHO cleaned and pressed should be so noted on holder, not copping out by instead putting EPQ or PPQ on the holder to note originality.
In memory of my kitty Seryozha 14.2.1996 ~ 13.9.2016 and Shadow 3.4.2015 - 16.4.21
If it's not "original"...well what happened to it to not be original?...washed, pressed, bleached, oxycleaned, acetoned etc...I would venture a guess that a great percentage of large size notes w/o an epq have been "cleaned up" or doctored in some way before being graded....small sized are not much different
VF-25 "A note that shows modest evidence of circulation as well as more folds and/or soiling than a note graded 30."
VF-30 "This note will be lightly circulated and may have light soiling. There will typically be seven to ten folds."
You be the judge but that's not light soiling in my books ( a big pass for me ). Neither look washed - so the lack of EPQ actually becomes irrelevant (for me) at this point.
Published price guides are good for “ballpark” pricing but recent, sold auction prices are probably a better barometer to gauge current trends and prices.
BadWithMoney
Posts: 204 ✭✭✭
Comments
I would vote yes.
I'd like to post something similar, a solid no problem grade on a note that was clearly washed and pressed. But I have to figure out how to make a case and still stay within forum rules. A recent auction pickup for me, at least still worth what I paid for it but by my standards shouldn't have gotten the grade it did.
I have to agree with "Golden." Although it is hard to tell from just looking at the images posted, both notes look more in the "Fine" zone to me. There appears to be stains around the serial number on both. Each note looks very soiled (much too dark) to get VF25-30 (mind you no EPQ designation). I can see pressed out major creases horizontally but its harder to discern the typical vertical centre creases.
It would really help to see the reverse of each SC. I always examine the backside of banknotes since they seem to show creases better & typically it's easier to see minor wear on the back (compared to the front/obverse).
**https://sites.google.com/view/notaphilycculture/collecting-banknotes **
I would respectfully disagree...PMG 30..10 folds with soiling...PMG 25 more folds than a 30...they didn't get an epq so obviously with cleaned/pressed etc...maybe in hand there are more creases but I feel that their grades are about right.
I also agree with @tomtomtomtom
IMHO cleaned and pressed should be so noted on holder, not copping out by instead putting EPQ or PPQ on the holder to note originality.
If it's not "original"...well what happened to it to not be original?...washed, pressed, bleached, oxycleaned, acetoned etc...I would venture a guess that a great percentage of large size notes w/o an epq have been "cleaned up" or doctored in some way before being graded....small sized are not much different
From PMG:
VF-25 "A note that shows modest evidence of circulation as well as more folds and/or soiling than a note graded 30."
VF-30 "This note will be lightly circulated and may have light soiling. There will typically be seven to ten folds."
You be the judge but that's not light soiling in my books ( a big pass for me ). Neither look washed - so the lack of EPQ actually becomes irrelevant (for me) at this point.
**https://sites.google.com/view/notaphilycculture/collecting-banknotes **
I think that the grades are accurate, although I might have assigned the 30 a 25 instead. The 25 looks right on the money (Bad pun intended).
I would have assigned both notes grades of VF 25.
Family, Neighborhood, Community,
make the World a better place.
Both 25s to me. Sub 35 grades have always been an Achilles' heel for PMG.
Nice 1953B $5 SC replacement note @BadWithMoney. Easily a 4 or 5 figure note in higher grades.
Published price guides are good for “ballpark” pricing but recent, sold auction prices are probably a better barometer to gauge current trends and prices.