Is this overgraded?

Oh, and once again MEC has it right.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

There's plenty of reading material from my post count for you to sample that I know what I am talking about. Spend more time reading and observing notes, grading and get an understanding of the factors effecting what we are discussing, paper wave, and the note printing process and you may fare better when commenting in threads. You've been corrected and offered numerous examples as to why, yet you refuse to change your mind in light of evidence to the contrary. Little of which you've demonstrated any ability to refute further when challenged. Showing us your refusal to accept that you were wrong multiple times and can't live up to isn't helping your reputation that I've already called out.

Open your mind to what I am saying about the PCGS holder and notes' susceptibility of exposure to moisture in said holders. The PCGS name alone isn't working in your defense to over turn my comments, similarly, raw notes display paper wave similar to the severity of the note this thread's OP presented. You need to learn that all paper can demonstrate paper wave naturaly and how to spot when environmental factors that may well have exacerbated that common phenomena. As I said earlier, all notes are pressed in the printing process and it is more the improper controls of the intaglio printing and drying process, as well as the after life of a note and how a note is stored, that effects whether the note achieves such dynamic rippling as shown above in the OP.

You have yet to bring anything to this discussion that isn't simply agreeing with a previous misconception of what's going on with these notes, what the value is of these notes or who demands them, so your comments have been easily countered and corrected, repeatedly.

Of course you can go read and research and try again.

 

Once again, you are both new without much of a reputation to go on here. Keep trying.

This topic should be relatively important to your collecting of paper currency as the humid South Floridian climate you hail from is particularly challenging to the preservation of notes.:thumb:

 

Your comments speak for themselves Krispy, and despite that oh so impressive post count, your (lack of) credibility on this specific issue continues to be exposed. You suggesting that I do some research is a howler. I mean, seriously.

I can only summarize this one last time. Paper wave is an indication of originality. This is currency grading 101. The elite of our hobby, from Lindquist to Bowers would affirm this. If you want to argue with them, go ahead, it only further proves how weak your claim is.

The fact is that paper wave is desirable to knowledgable gem-quality collectors, and it has been this way for decades. If you want to make the moronic leap to assume that paper wave indicates lack of proper storage, go right ahead. I am done trying to help you understand why you are so painfully wrong in making that leap - you are so stubborn in trying to appear to win an argument instead of actually learning something.

 

Yes, my comments do speak for themselves, they don't rely on name dropping and random text searches for notes from an auction house's marketing terms. You haven't read any of my posts if you think I am refuting the existence of 'natural paper wave', nor have you summarized anything but your own lack of experience on this topic, which is why I referenced your slim post count and your reputation here when discussing this.

As I stated earlier, some paper wave is an indication of incorrect printing and/or drying in the production processes or, most likely, storage and exposure to moisture/humidity long after the note entered circulation/collections. Look at the severity of the OPs note and compare it to those you found on Heritage. there is natural and then there is a level beyond what is natural. Consider that the note was originally printed and came off the press on a flat, crisp and perfect sheet. It was trimmed from that sheet and ended up with perfectly squared margins and yet now all these years later, it displays major ripples. This is beyond 'natural paper wave'. To attempt to trim an original sheet of notes with that degree of paper wave would not result in clean straight cut edges.

As previously suggested, the OPs note was exposed to heavy humidity or a damp environment at some point in its life, very well after it was encapsulated. While it obtained a high Gem grade for it's original paper surface, embossing, centering and other graded factors, it very well may not have been stored properly after being encapsulated. Such careless storage and exposure to humidity or even great shifts in the humidity of the storage environment exacerbate, beyond what is "natural" and go to the level of severe or dynamic, as we see evident in the OPs note. In some cases, stabilizing the humidity of the storage environment may allow such dramatically rippled paper wave to "relax". It would take a good amount of time to reverse and without any pressure being applied, but it is possible to minimize with silca absorbing moisture away from the note and creating a safe storage zone around the note.

Likewise the notion of how many notes were pressed was absurd to the reasoning of this discussion, which was equally dealt with earlier.

"The fact is that paper wave is desirable to knowledgable gem-quality collectors..."

The implications of your words needs major refocusing. The fact is, paper wave is "acceptable" to some degree among some paper money collectors who can spot natural paper wave from those notes which have been stored incorrectly and exhibit unnaturally heavy paper wave. If you compare prices between the two and could actually perform a survey of what gem-quality collectors desire, heavily rippled notes are not one of the eye-appealing factors they seek out, and the flatter the note the more desirable and pricey the note is likely to be, particularly when rarity is a factor. To knowledgeable collectors, as I have been sharing with you from my own knowledge, such rippled paper like that of the OPs note is a signal of improper storage, negative eye-appeal and a factor that can well affect resale value, EVEN IF the note is otherwise Gem and accurately graded as we agree the OPs note is.

So yes, go, read and research, instead of fighting about it here. Reread this thread first of all and look where you took wrong turns, first agreeing with someone else's poor reasoning and lack of understanding of the factors that caused this note to ripple beyond acceptable degrees of 'natural paper wave' and further for your insolent position to simply be argumentative because you refuse to be corrected when other options are presented and challenged your own thinking and assumption of generalizations in the matter.

Thus far you have provided nothing of quality to support your protests. But you can alway try again.

Yes, I do know something about conservation and preservation of printed works on paper. I know a great deal about the printing process, particularly traditional printing processes, how materials react to the presence of moisture and I have been collecting and looking at numismatic items for, it seems, as long as you have been living. The addition of my post count here is a recent addition that collects plenty of support in my favor for understanding numismatics, be that paper or coin. You haven't been on this forum long enough yet to realize that, nor my passion for collecting, grading, and helping others with these same things in our shared hobby.

Further, your insulting use of 'moronic' only shows the cracks in your own personality for dealing with challenges to your understanding of what we are talking about. Certainly all paper wave is not natural, but can and does amount to damage from exposure to dampness in the environment. That is something which can escape grading and essentially not effect the note and thereby the grade it is given, but more likely, it's due the breathability of the holder, and occurred after the note was encapsulated and stored with lack of precaution to prevent such damage. That takes no leap whatsoever to arrive at as plausible reason for the severity of paper wave with regards to the OPs note.

I assure you that you have done nothing to educate this thread, let alone "help" me, nor am I stubborn to the ideas of others. However, I will not change my position when it's clear how weak your own evidence has been, and how slim your experience shows you to be discussing this with any sense of authority. Name calling isn't winning you any arguments nor is it showing you to be correct about this topic. You can leave this discussion but it doesn't change the fact that you have underwhelmed this topic with evidence to support your claims and protests, and you decided to stamp out because you couldn't be right.

 

Time to go to bed.

 

There's nothing like contributing to the discussion with that tired old cartoon of yours now is there, Jeff...

Those who can contribute do. Those who can't, deviate with snide swipes, sneers and attempts to usher in further off-topic banter with condescending retorts. You, indeed, should put it to rest.

 

I apologize for adding to your burden.

 

Thank you. And please note that my passion for collecting is hardly a burden.

 

The truth doesn't require a post count. You are merely wrong.

There are numerous discussions about this in other places. I will give you just one such thread. Note the inclusion of a primary example, encased in a sealed PMG holder. http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=23&threadid=723125

Note the exceptional paper quality indication. If paper wave in large notes was a defect, it would not receive such an acclamation. It is sealed, so it didn't acquire this paper wave due to some environmental factor after grading.

You are wrong. You can come to terms with that, and grow a little in your knowledge, or steadfastly refuse to see what has made apparent for you. Your choice. I have a feeling which one you will choose...

 

Okay, see the PCGS grading standards here, and in particular their explanation of the PPQ designation:

So paper wave is a sign of originality which PCGS sees a need to reward. That sounds pretty favorable to me.... Furthermore, if you click on the "overview" link on that page, you'll find:

So original notes should have paper wave, but a very large fraction of surviving high-grade large-size notes have been pressed to remove this feature. In the past, paper wave was considered by some to be a defect, because it didn't look good in their view (much like the OP in this thread). However, in today's market, the majority favor original notes that still retain their paper wave, and these notes therefore merit a premium. PCGS points out that "this may not always be the case": future collectors, like past collectors, may decide that they like pretty flat notes rather than original wavy ones. But the wave is still a sign of originality, not of decay/alteration over the time since printing!

The PMG grading standards don't use the term "paper wave", but they do list "may be flat" as a reason why a CU-63 note might not receive the EPQ designation. Doesn't sound like they believe flatness is a natural, original state for a note, then.

Aside from the TPGs, we could also look at the grading standards of a respected dealer like Scott Lindquist:

Here's Clay Irving's grading glossary, which I've often seen linked on this and other forums as a reliable source:

Notice "should"--as in, something's wrong if they don't.

Finally, here's another site which doesn't look especially authoritative as far as I know, but which I'm linking anyway because it's got a good image (the last one at the bottom) showing an example of original paper wave on a large-size note graded 67.

Now, Krispy: Can you produce any evidence at all, besides your own statements, that knowledgeable modern-day collectors consider paper wave to be a *bad* thing? Or that any large-size notes were originally flat, and that they became wavy over time due to improper storage? If these claims are really as obvious as you say, then you ought to be able to point us to somebody besides you who agrees with them....

 

Sorry MEC, but you're initial posts are were you got off on the wrong foot in this thread and subsequent posts you've made continue to show your ideas are not well thought out nor supported. So too have your erroneous comments been taken by that other huffy fellow who agreed with your statements outright but couldn't add any additional support to defend yours nor his own argument when challenged.

Again, you gave us this...

Paper is made from plant fibers which are related to wood. Okay, so paper is not as rigid as wood as you intended us to visualize, but it is not the ink that causes paper wave, it is improper drying of the paper after it was dampened and printed. When that is not the case, then it is due to humidity in the environment. And it should be easy for you to agree that every note is exposed to the air and the environment prior to it ever being sealed in a holder. Your examples are not working in your favor based on your simplistic and misunderstood reasons concerning this.

So, I have been sharing knowledge with you all along. I'm not being a jerk, as you were want to suggest earlier quite out of nowhere. And yet you resist having a discussion because I easily overturn each of your ideas about this. So you resort to calling me 'merely wrong' and suggest you have made apparent truths be known without the slightest effort to disprove my comments. Further you suggest I need to grow, as if accepting your inaccurate statements is the answer... please!

Certainly, as I have agreed previously, paper has a natural characteristic to take on a wave-like pattern, and notes, as being discussed here, then do not lay flat. It is indeed natural but tolerable to a degree only, in that all paper absorbs moisture from the environment and begins to display what we may call a wave or rippled effect. Paper does this even if properly dried when manufactured or again when dampened and dried after printing. However, what is acceptable in this hobby away from 'natural paper way' (let's say minimal wave as illustrated in the many Heritage listings we looked at in this thread) it is by degrees of eye appeal to the collector as to whether it is acceptable for their collection. So when paper has been improperly dried or improperly stored and that 'wave' is exacerbated due to uncontrolled humidity, displaying a heavily rippled look, they are going to have a negative impact on notes' eye appeal and from there, potential value of said note. It's really not hard to understand this cause and effect, both of paper and later what may happen to value. Grade is entirely a different matter to which there is no contest in this thread.

Of course, I agreed with the concensus of this thread about the OP's note's grade and accept that natural paper wave doesn't necessarily affect grade, that being primarily because the TPGs don't have a measure in place for it, and certainly not when it is minimal and the natural reaction of paper in the environment. Though TPGs will denote a note with environmental issues at some point. The examples so far shown have no such degrading issues that effect grades per their standards. I have also pointed out the error in the other guys statement that gem note collectors desire natural paper wave, hence notes that do not lay flat. That is a real hoot, let me tell you!

You also stated,

That is certainly a wild assumption you made with no evidence to support it, and one which was resoundingly overturned earlier when I commented on it and what is actually unusual about older gem notes.

Your comments have not imparted knowledge about this topic to this thread, but rather you lack thereof and in successfully attracting someone else who bought what you said hook-line-and-sinker, to which their failing defense was sunk each time they tried to wiggle around this debate.

So your attempt now to counter my claim that you are wrong by simply saying I am 'merely wrong' is very very weak. I've talked about the examples of notes we can see with 'natural paper wave' on Heritage. I've looked at the link you presented and feel the same way, that natural paper wave is normal and accepted at some level, as repeatedly explained.

We are not in need of more example of the phenomena of 'natural paper wave' as discussed elsewhere and about different notes reviewed and certified by different companies, let alone for notes which have lived a different life from the one discussed in this thread. I understand paper wave, it's causes and the results when it occurs, as well as to it's affect on eye-appeal and potential collector value, despite the grade the note was given. I accept the existence of natural paper wave as a result of exposure to humidity in the environment, and even those notes which do not lay flat, get high grades and sealed (entirely) in certain TPG holders. I argue that severe paper wave, rippling, is exposure to changing humidity and that PCGS holders allow this to continue if not worsen over time, but only when improperly stored by an owner of said note.

You said,

Not true at all. The TPGs grade based on the published standards which do not include aspects of paper wave. TPGs have an understanding of paper and the effects of humidity on paper and why Gem notes do not always lay flat but display a sort of, wave. All paper is susceptible to changes and over time degrade due to air, light, humidity and micro-organisms present around and on them. Just because a TPG decides not to account for something doesn't lend justice to your argument.

Quite right the truth doesn't require a post count either, but it does illustrate the limited reputations of new members when their posts are reflective of their understanding and accuracy when shown to be in err, which is why I pointed to it in the first place. The advanced post count too can give newer members something to review to judge the quality of posts made on similar topics by the other members.

Of course you and the other guy have both drawn your lines and refuse to discuss this and attempt to understand what I am, at length, helping you to understand about materials and environmental factors affecting paper and paper currency. This is beyond what TPGs mention on their labels, and again, is not in doubt of the grades given these notes.

I have "come to terms" with taking the time to help correct you and the other fellow about this and likewise, I continue to grow my knowledge regularly, which is why it is easy to school the two of you. I know you have only been into collecting currency for about two years and new comers are always welcome, but you have much to learn as evidenced by your posts in this thread. You might do well also to introduce yourself to the forum sometime so we get an idea of what you are really like, what you like collecting and what you are interested in. Show us some of the notes you have collected and anything related to numismatics that inspires you.

So, that's what I chose. Regards. :thumb:

 

Okay....everybody take a deep breath.

I voiced my opinion about the grading of this note in the 5th post, and I stand by that.......as far as the other shenanigans on this thread are concerned, I can personally vouch for the integrity of the opinions vibrOnic and MEC2. They are newer members here at Coin Talk, but regular and respected contributors at another forum I frequent (Collectors Universe-PCGS) with well over a thousand posts each, and many original and informative threads started. We should just agree to disagree without opinions about each others expertise. Post counts mean nothing. If Q.David Bowers weighed in with his first post, he would still get my respect.

In Chris's defense, he has helped me here, and always has factual, accurate advise concerning paper money. I consider myself friends with everyone in the discussion, and regret it is getting out of hand.

 

I have explained my thoughts, both that I do not contest the grade of the OP's note and what I see paper wave to be about. I don't consider paper wave to be a bad thing until it becomes a factor exacerbated by improper storage and environmental impact on the flat-ness of the note which then may (varies from individual to individual) affect eye appeal, hence value. So you evidently don't understand what I am point out and talking about, even though I have attempted to explain this repeatedly. I am not contesting how the TPGs mark their labels to address what is 'natural' and market acceptable. Up and down, I have stated what it is I am talking about, and it is not about grading, per say. I have addressed all of the points you tried to illuminate by pointing me to the TPGs grading standards, of which I too am (previously) read up on and understand them. I stand by my statements about paper and addressed why the other guys were wrong to put the blame on inks causing wave or in generalizing that collectors desire wavy notes, when there are clearly notes which are not within the standards of collectors eye appeal due to excessive wave (maybe approaching mild environmental "damage") despite bearing a high grade. I hope you can understand and if you have another question, try to reframe it in this context.

 

Steve, Thanks for weighing in and introducing these guys. It would help if they had introduced themselves at some point but there's only been a slim amount of posts to glean anything about who they are, what they know, what they collect and what interests them in collecting currency to suggest their comments are worth their own weight. From what I have been seeing and found available on CT from them thus far, I certainly have had my doubts, which being called a 'jerk' and 'moronic' when trying to share my thoughts on this, did little to improve my image of these guys. I disagree with you on the Bowers thing though.

 

You are still hung up on paper wave being a function of environmental humidity. You have provided nothing to back this up, other than restating your assertion as if repeating your statement provides proof for your statement. Whereas you've been shown repeated references to paper wave as being a natural artifact of note printing repeatedly, from third party sources including companies professionally paid to evaluate currency quality. But we're all wrong. And you're right.

Because you said so.

 

"Hung up"? No sir. I'm patiently helping you understand and come up to speed on the very real threat and effect of environmental humidity on all paper, but particular to this thread, on paper money. I have underscored that there is also an accepted level of natural levels of humidity in notes and that it does not effect grading, one which I even agree with TPGs is acceptable and natural, but also that there is a point at which carelessness in storing currency may lead to potentially damaging results to the note over time. As I have been saying, the unsealed, "breathable" PCGS currency holder may not be the best option for controlling this risk factor when it comes to note preservation and some notes may even worsen over time even because of this, even when residing inside such an unsealed holder. I am saying that some notes may be original and have laid flat or flatter at the time of encapsulation, but in a breathable holder, begin to retain moisture absorbed from the environment and developing unappealing visual form, within a holder, post encapsulation, which may be irreversible and damaging to the paper.

You may remain as thick as you like refusing to understand the dynamic of humidity's effect on paper and too big to reverse your thinking and initial erroneous comment citing factors for what causes paper to appear wavy. So since you refuse to take someone's reasoned and experienced words talking about this, please take the time to read just a sliver of what's available online, in books and practiced in most all library and museum conservation departments, this site regarding paper preservation and techniques that exist for monitoring and preventing damage from the environment on paper objects. There are a number of topics at this link that address what I have been referring to, conveniently published for your edification: Northeast Document Conservation Center.

Parts 2 and 4 should be particularly noted in reference to this discussion. While many will think the level discussed in the pages of this site excessive and only the realm of major public and private institutions and their processes, I feel it is collectors serious duty to attempt to implement as closely as possible the same care of their collections and that we do all we can to understand these factors as we steward our collections until we pass them on, and so that we may identify factors that help us protect the value of collections as well as not waste money adding to collections where potential risk factors are evident as we acquire pieces for our collection.

If you expect others to accept your relatively junior comments about matters related to currency collecting then others will expect the same from you when they step in to clarify something you misspoke about and which had the effect of misleading others who outright agreed with you about something they couldn't even explain to defend themselves. Likewise, you ought to rethink calling people a jerk for challenging or clarifying information in your posts.

 

Self-reflection is apparently for everyone but you. Perhaps you ought to rethink *your* tone in this thread. It has been borderline obnoxious - but then that's our fault too for not "introducing ourselves" to you and having but "junior comments" to make. Jerk.

But, I'm sure you won't see that either, just like you won't see that the paper wave present in large notes is completely natural, and not a byproduct of collectors storing them in fish tanks or being used as drink coasters...

 

Tone is what you make out of it MEC. Becoming defensive, resorting to name calling and now absurdity in mocking my explanations is all that you have shown you care to focus on since being challenged in your original post. That misdirection is what you have focused on and it only deteriorates this thread away from what we could be discussing. Such crude resistance to learn about something while returning to this thread only to post your insults demonstrates your subordinate level to discuss this topic. I won't tread the same path for you to weave me the bad guy, because of your inability to have a civil discussion.

If certain big words have a tone that shocks you, if the discussion of the printing processes of notes and the mention of scientific principles of the environment effecting notes are too much for you to wrap your mind around, that's fine you are not up to it. But to continue being insulting towards me and my attempts to explain myself repeatedly about what specifically I am trying to say, just demonstrates your preference to bicker, which I'll have no part of.

I've explained myself in clarifying what you misspoke about earlier. You're far from the first to take a correction personally in a forum when you haven't the capacity to live up to being in error about something. I've offered you what you asked for in the previous posts and you come back with nothing. It speaks volumes about you, no introduction needed. There's the water, you can drink of it or go thirsty.

Have a nice day. :thumb:

 

Enough, talk about paper all you want, stop talking about others - period!