Beware of a doctored/restored $50 1937 Bank of Canada Note that maybe floating around soon.

Wizard1

Just wanted to give you guys a heads up regarding an interesting turn of events that happened over at the Canadian Paper Money Forum that I am also a part of.

We had someone join the forums and inquire on the value of a $50 1937 Bank of Canada note. He mentioned that it was just graded by PMG as AU53 "previously mounted" and was on the way back to him. Luckily the Canadian Paper Money community is quite small and tight-nit, and someone pointed out that the note used to be in a BCS EF40 holder with "Stains". Our member also had an original picture of the note prior to its new look. After much discussion and ridicule, the poster admitted that he had bought the note, cut it out of its holder, paid someone to do whatever they did to the note (see the pictures below) and then resubmitted to PMG.

After he was exposed he requested multiple times to have the thread/pictures everything deleted/removed from the forums, however we declined his request, as that would cover up the true origins/story behind the note and would quite possibly financially hurt any person that unknowingly purchased the Holder and not the note.

So if you see this note and see it being posted at a great "Deal" price (There's a $6250 difference between EF & AU), BEWARE

Before:

mfontes

YIKERS, that's a pricey note. Thanks for the heads up.

techwriter

Wizard1, thank you. I remember reading about the note on the cdn forum; and also I believe it showed up on another one; I'll have to re-look. Great post and the heads up is worth a lot to all.

On a personal side: the owner's comments about "what's the big deal about removing the stain" and then quoting some of PMGs criteria made me almost laugh.

luckybucks

Overall, the note looks better, but a bit over done.



I am probably one of the few that sees nothing wrong with conserving notes. That is, expertly conserving notes that need conservation, and being forthcoming about what was done, and by who.



I am against totally doctoring a note (pressing it or using other means to make it look like a higher grade) (aside from lightly pressing out light bends that can be removed), and then selling it as something that it is not.

jwbradford

Obviously there is a lot that could be said about this subject, but I've been on record as stating--like luckybucks above--that a good bit of professional conservation can go a long way. It might have been over done a bit, but I personally like the looks of the note after the stains were removed--and I suspect that a great number of collectors would too. There isn't quite as fine a line between "doctoring" and true conservation as I'd like there to be, and in the grading business we see lots of "grey area" notes that require an on-the-spot decision. As I've stated many times before--even in our published grading standards--our job is to grade a note in the state that it's in today, not as it used to be. There are those who dislike conservation in any form, and that's a choice that anyone is free to make. The reality of the marketplace is, to use the example given above, that a properly conserved note is worth more than one in pre-conservation status. How much more, and to what extent a collector is willing to own a note with a known prior history of conservation, is for the marketplace to decide. For the grading services (and I believe that I can speak for PMG here, too) it becomes an issue of how to treat this issue fairly for both buyers and sellers. Not to mention the fact that we cannot treat notes like this any different than we might, for example, a similar note with similar conservation work that has not been publicly seen before the work was done. To treat a note differently based on prior history would create a dichotomy that I, for one, wouldn't want to even attempt to explain. That's my soapbox statement for this morning...back to grading notes.

Tookybandit

I also like the "After" note. The colors are washed out which is unfortunate (Maybe the scan quality is partially to blame), but it still looks a lot better without the stain.

TigerTrader

The note does look better without the stain but perhaps they could have just worked on the stain... The entire note now looks pretty washed out...

Maxcrusha

is it washed out? (whats a true original look like?)

Heywood

hard to tell about the color wash out, looks like a picture vs a scan

DepressionscripGuy

Well of course the washed note looks better, that's the point. To improve the looks and therefore improve the value. The touchy question is was it done to improve the note for conservation or was it done to improve the value? We all know the right answer is it SHOULD be done for conservation but the reality is it was done for the value. I don't remember ever seeing an auction that says a note was "restored" through proper conservation methods on any auction listing. Of course I don't read all auction listings, but I've never run across that before. Nobody adds that because the value goes down as soon as you say that. I've inquired about conservation myself on notes that were glued down so there is a place / need for it.

Slasher

The owner's profit motive is, from a logical/philosophical point of view, irrelevant to whether or not people think that notes should be conserved. That's a function of the envy and jealousy that embodies the human psyche.

The reality is that the "after" picture certainly looks better and, generally speaking, notes that look better tend to sell or more money.

Neither is in its original state since, unless I'm mistaken, the note was not produced with a large glue stain in the left margin.

Constantine

Stepping back from any drama on prior holders, forums, profit, etc. and looking at the before and after of the note itself, the note had an ugly stain that was removed. The result is the appearance of the note is greatly improved. I’d find it hard pressed to find a person who would say otherwise with an unbiased mind.



The demand for better condition is what drives the market for any collectible. When all else is equal the item with greater eye appeal will sell more, that is human nature and completely ingrained into capitalism. It doesn’t matter if it was done for profit or not, because for there to be profit there needs to be a buyer that will pay more for the prettier version of the same item. The motive for the seller and buyer is equal in my opinion. Seller wants more money, buyer wants more of what they are paying for. When the deal is made, both got what they wanted.



This was getting rid of a stain. Perhaps the entire paper was brightened too in the process. Well the coin world find this process market acceptable. Coins are dipped all the time to remove a stain, or tarnish, and come out bright and shiny. The process is actually using a mild acid to remove the top layer of the coins surface. Pretty harsh if you ask me, but the result gets the coins appearance back to an original state when it was minted.



There are problems with over dipping coins and the results will show when that happens. Pitting, dull surface are to name a few. The market will value those situations accordingly.



I feel the paper market would value this note accordingly too.

STLNATS

Originally posted by: DepressionscripGuy

Well of course the washed note looks better, that's the point. To improve the looks and therefore improve the value. The touchy question is was it done to improve the note for conservation or was it done to improve the value? We all know the right answer is it SHOULD be done for conservation but the reality is it was done for the value. I don't remember ever seeing an auction that says a note was "restored" through proper conservation methods on any auction listing. Of course I don't read all auction listings, but I've never run across that before. Nobody adds that because the value goes down as soon as you say that. I've inquired about conservation myself on notes that were glued down so there is a place / need for it.

+1



As a sidebar, it seems accepted that almost all ancient coins are conserved to some extent. Sometimes the results are wonderful, sometimes terrible and it's usually easy to tell the difference and appropriate modifiers are added to the grade (eg harshly cleaned, etc) . Raises a naive question to me: without the before pic, would the conservation have been detectable/noticeable? Relatedly was the 53 grade a net grade/was any notation made of the conservation?



This whole area seems to be a minefield which is likely to only get worse as the spreads between grades gets wider and supplies dwindle.

bonkrood

I think it boils down to. People want to know everything about a note when I buy it.... and reveal very little to the public when I sell it.

johnny9434

thanks for the heads up

Wizard1

As expected it has shown up on our favorite site

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Bank-of...be9:g:C6EAAOSwPc9WxQcC

Feel free to buy it if you like, at least you'd be fortunate enough to know the true story behind the note and make an educated decision on your purchase.

PS... clearly $$ was the motive.

DepressionscripGuy

At least now you have this goof's ebay user ID as well.

STLNATS

Thanks for linking the holder. Interesting to see and I guess technically accurate, I don't think it comes close to describing what was done to the note. The notation is just "mount removed" which can cover a range of restoration efforts from minor to extreme (this example being closer to the latter). Since it's now in plastic, one also cannot assess the extent of the restoration nor whether it was appropriately done. Irrespective of one's position on TPGs, this slab illustrates that caveat emptor is still a reasonable approach for buyers, whether the item is entombed in plastic or not. Just MHO.



PS... clearly $$ was the motive.



+1, of course altho I do think that removal of the stain was probably legitimate as a conservation effort.

beryl

The reason given in question and answer format for it not having a EPQ designation is disingenuous to say the least. One wonders what else he is hiding.

Crocker79

I asked the seller "Really nice note, has this been restored, altered, or touched up in anyway?"



Their reply



"There was a stain on the note and it was taken to a paper conservator who utilized utmost care to remove it. No lasting effects and beautiful work done."



They followed up with a 2nd email



"The info is out there, so I expect to get offers that reflect the previous stain.

The work done was beautiful and brought the note back to near original, with no lasting effects.

I'm open to offers that reflect this knowledge, so let me know what you think and where you are at.

You can write me at jacek99 at h 0 t ma il dot com or txt at 4 1 6 eight zero six 9 6 2 8."

DepressionscripGuy

At least he admits it was touched up. Of course what else can he do, deny it. He already knows this thread and others are out there about this note. If he denies it he knows he will get blasted and that's just not the right thing to do. Glad to see he's doing the right thing and answered the question honestly.

Crocker79

He ended and relisted item, this time he notes it in the description that it was stained , something he should've done with the 1st listing, the price has also be reduced to C $8,250