That's a new one on me: UNC minus

Well I guess it had to happen, I was a bit too fast buying an item to notice the obvious signs that a seller is not honest. This was the description, it is from a Delcampe listing:

I saw UNC and clicked add to cart.

This is the note:

When I contacted the seller, he said it is my fault because I didn't read the whole description, because in there it says it has a mishandling mark from a paperclip.

This is the description:

I said to him don't use UNC in the title of a damaged note, because UNC is what people look for when buying uncirculated notes. 

Here is his reply:

So I didn't see the minus after UNC.

Nonetheless I am fairly certain there is no UNC- grade and I'm also fairly certain “mishandling” cannot still give you a UNC note.

I'm not happy about it, as you can imagine!

@odd job, Try this.

If you want, you can try this. Use your hair dryer (hot setting) and blow the part that has a paper clip mark for say 5 seconds and then place it under some heavy object to flatten it a bit. It may help a bit on the note.

Good luck.

PMG grades:

There's a lot of tricks sellers use to sell AU notes. These include:

“a UNC note” & sometimes just “a UNC” (the small case “a” is supposed to mean ALMOST like as in the AU grade but it is implied rather than overt.  For me, this is a red flag & I avoid most sellers who try this tactic)

“looks unc to me” or “Looks UNC” (sometimes this is a real UNC note & “okay” but always good to contact seller to confirm.  Be wary of what type of language he/she uses/check seller's feedback) 

UNC  - (like you wrote & the - (minus) sign gets shifted way to the right). Always contact sellers if they employ such terms or just avoid

“Examine the note for yourself” -wise to look over the note very carefully or avoid. Contact to be sure that it is the same note you will receive (if its one that you really are after) but be prepared to accept AU if you go ahead & buy.

“from a pack of UNC notes” (see “looks UNC to me”) These should be fine but the seller should also examine each note before he/she ships it off to you.

“Note will not have the same serial # as the one pictured” (which means you can get something less than UNC). These are usually notes from a sequential lot.  I do buy from some sellers who don't show the note but they're typically big operations (like Allen's Coins &/or Noteshobby) & sometimes I get burned. Usually they're low valued notes so they're not worth the postage to return.

There's other "red flags" such as sellers who use hyperbole on common notes. “Fantastic” or “LOOK!” make me skip the seller.   Most hard-to-source notes should be called “tough” (or nothing at all). Sellers who abuse the term “rare” on  modern series change overs & tough notes I often avoid (or I may buy a TPG note).  If they're exaggerating what the note is (in terms of the scarcity) then it is quite likely that they'll exaggerate the grade.  As I've wrote before, I've walked in (& out) of several coin shops in the past 20 years & usually buy supplies (banknote sleeves) b/c so many “brick & mortar” dealers over grade their circulated banknotes. 

UNC notes from older (tougher) series are truly tough to source. In fact, for some series (like US Nationals) they're almost impossible to find & quite tough to source EPQ (or “original”) notes.  

I think that seller is no sincere in his intentions, that's the kindest thing I can say.

I won't be buying from again!

The seller says they follow PMG's grading. This is the issue here, I think.

I notice that grading companies have been lowering their standards.

In my experience, a true UNC grades at 67 EPQ. Anything below this is AU or lower.

I tested recently this by getting a range of notes graded. These included the following:

1. A note I considered to be AU (About UNC or Almost UNC) - unused with moderate handling causing minor counting flip indents in the surface. Corners showed very slight issues. No folds or creases. It came back as PMG 65 EPQ.

2. Three notes, from a run in sequence were submitted separately over two years. I got these notes from a block myself, and would grade them as UNC. All three came back as PMG 67 EPQ. A few from this group have made PMG 68 EPQ.

I think that seller is no sincere in his intentions, that's the kindest thing I can say.

I respectfully disagree.  You posted the seller's description & he mentions the “paperclip + mishandling.” That is much more than you will get from a LOT of sellers.  Many banknote sellers are coin collectors first & just “flip” stuff with little regard for the actual condition (or understanding the UNC grade levels, correct terms, etc, like some of us here).  I think its a combination of laziness & lack of awareness. Perhaps, that is no excuse but that is the way it has evolved in a marketplace prone to biases. 

   The seller says they follow PMG's grading. This is the issue here, I think.

I notice that grading companies have been lowering their standards.

I agree. PMG (& US) standards are lower than the rest of the world.  I have seen this time & again.  Many Canadian forums are filled with threads about the gap between our 2 grading standards. Our conservative BCS (Banknote Certification Services) often awards UNC60, 62 & many more 63's than PMG.  I suspect PMG would grade a BCS 60 (Original) PMG UNC 63 EPQ (a BCS 63- PMG UNC 64 & BCS 63 = PMG UNC 65).  I believe the lowered (relaxed) standards come to appease their largest customer base (dealers submitting large lots) as this is what I have read in threads on this matter.  However, at the same time, I also feel like our BCS may be too rigid/conservative: I've personally pulled many perfect polymers gently from unhandled bundles (from sealed bricks) & got the UNC62 or 63 from BCS (which just doesn't make sense). These notes have perfect corners, razor sharp edges & would be 65 or higher with PMG. The thing is, Americans make up the majority of World banknote collectors & I think our ultra conservative system could be relaxed a little, like PMG used to be a few years ago, before it got lax. PMG could get a bit stricter while our BCS could get a bit less rigid but I prefer both to Legacy & some others I've seen (which don't have the huge volumes to grade). Its a tough biz. 

The other thing to consider is that PMG has graded several million notes (by hundreds of different certifiers) while our little BCS shop has tens of thousands graded by one certifier. The larger the sampling: there's bound to be many more inconsistencies & examples of missed issues (or overrated UNC/incorrect certifications). Grading is subjective (like it or not) and it is bound to be flawed at times. 

If you're absolutely paranoid about buying an UNC note which is less than GEM than perhaps you should stop buying notes. My solution is to just repeat my purchases from a select few who seem conservative & consistent.  But even with them, I have gotten mistakes (mis-identified notes & ones which have had other problems).  

My issue is that a note with such a bad fold isn't UNC, or AUNC or “UNC minus”

It isn't that I wanted a gem note, I wanted a note without a fold and I'm entitled to that (in my opinion) if he puts UNC in the title of the item.

Yes, I was a sucker because I clicked add cart based on that title. As I have done with hundreds of other purchases. But unlike those, his note has a bad fold. 

And I'll be a sucker just once with this seller.

The seller described correctly, but the grade they gave was way too high. With a nasty paperclip fold like that, I would grade the note EF at best and if it had any other flaws like rumpled paper, dirt, smudges, poor centering - it would be in the VFs.

The grading standards of PMG are far too liberal.

In NZ we grade notes at UNC only for perfectly flat, crisp, clean, sharp corners and paper. No evidence of bank handling or folds.

AU is handling marks like a teller using counting marks on a notes surface and they show only as a minor bump or rise in the area of counting, usually top of the note near the right corner.

Any fold no matter how minor, instantly drops the note down to EF. A very heavy central fold that breaks the paper is instantly VF.

UNC- - that is a new one and is scammy language. For coins I may use Virtually UNC or Practically UNC for some coins where its just impossible to grade them between AU and UNC.

However it's still caveat emptor - if you had seen a picture of the note before hand and the description, you would know straight away you were dealing with a VF/EF example and not UNC- or whatever buzzword the dealer had made up.

Here is a case in point I came across of a non-UNC note being described as ‘Gem UNC’. 

There is a small crease on the top left which brings it down to AU at best, imho. 

Also, there is possible staining along the top.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/226708576948

That's the problem, those folds may not be noticed on the scans.

That note has multiple diagonal corner folds, similar to two Haiti notes I bought as UNC from a guy on ebay. 

The reason they had those folds is because they had previously been mounted in a book where the note is secured at each corner.

Here are some photos:

I was refunded for both notes.

I was refunded for both notes.

-that's excellent @odd job b/c a mounted note will have serious issues including noticeable fading of the exposed side (+ the handling/folds you mentioned).  Most mounted notes lose EPQ & have that detailed mentioned on the back “Previously Mounted.” Even notes sold in folders often have issues from their handling (& the cheap plastic cover/note holder from the cardboard folders). Excellent photos with great side lighting, illustrating the issues that can be found with mounted notes! 👍

Here is a case in point I came across of a non-UNC note being described as ‘Gem UNC’. 

There is a small crease on the top left which brings it down to AU at best, imho. 

Also, there is possible staining along the top.

-that's a great example  👌@Hibernia 

Although the note's design is perfectly centred, I see what appears to be a pinhole on the bottom right border (most visible below the design on the reverse).  It is impossible to confirm because the pinhole would appear within the design on the obverse (under the left “D” below "ONE POUND"). One needs to shine light at the back of it really.  But there does appear to be a bit of orange in that very same position which could be rust on the front.  I definitely see this note as a “problem note” (not as labelled) & would rather inspect (holding it up to light) before discussing any transaction (if I were keen to buy).  Notes, such as these, are why many collectors only buy in person (after they inspect it):

I advise anyone checking this example out to carefully scan the reverse side first since it often shows handling best.  I always check the note's backside first & then look at the front & see if what may be a problem corresponds on the front.

Now, sadly, I believe PMG would probably give this note a 64 & no EPQ if that is indeed a pinhole or ink spot, but award it EPQ if it is not a pinhole & just a photo artifact. I think our BCS would score that more a 62 (or 60) & it would all depend if he found evidence that the owner tried to cover up the tellers corner fold (or whether he found it to be a flick, fibres not broken). The grade could sink to an AU58 if there's any further issues.

I have found many Canadian sellers also abuse the term “GEM” on eBay b/c so many forget to consider how well centred/registered the design is. Most of our 1935 & many of our 1954 Devil Face series are poorly centred (a bit cock-eyed) so finding a GEM66 is very tough indeed. Many 1937 are poorly centred too but the series lasted so long its easy to find perfectly centred examples.

odd job

That's the problem, those folds may not be noticed on the scans.

That note has multiple diagonal corner folds, similar to two Haiti notes I bought as UNC from a guy on ebay. 

 

The reason they had those folds is because they had previously been mounted in a book where the note is secured at each corner.

 

Here are some photos:

 

 

 

I was refunded for both notes.

Looks like these notes came from the Franklin Mints Banknotes of the World series.