I have some doubts. What's probability of a banknote with 9 digits be radar ? 1 in 100.000 ? 1 in 1.000.000 ? This example below is radar: Another question is about GEM expression/word. What is GEM? Example: Store Home :: Special Serial Numbered notes :: Small Size Type Notes $ 1 FRN 2003-A == FANCY NUMBER / RADAR NEAR == 58555558 == GEM
I *think* the probability of a 9-digit radar is 99999/999999999, or about 1/10,000. There is no "GEM" in international grading standards. It (to my knowledge) is simply a phrase that some folks will add if they think this note is extra special for its grade. Dave
Exactly 1/10000, I believe. To get a "radar" number, the last four digits have to reverse the first four digits; the middle digit is always the same as itself, so it doesn't count. So, to simplify, pretend we've got eight-digit numbers. Pick any four-digit number -- WXYZ. There will be 10,000 eight-digit numbers that start with WXYZ, from WXYZ0000 to WXYZ9999. Exactly one of those will be WXYZZYXW. Now, think about nine-digit numbers. There will be 100,000 nine-digit numbers that start with WXYZ, from WXYZ00000 to WXYZ99999. Exactly ten of those will be WXYZ0ZXYW, WXYZ1ZXYW, ..., WXYZ9ZXYW. So, again, one in 10,000.
GEM is a grading term for uncirculated notes with above average centering and eye appeal. The term is used for notes in grades 65 and above, with 67 and above being Superb GEM. http://www.pcgscurrency.com/g_scale.html
A term which is used almost exclusively in the United States and which does not have much significance to the rest of the world where a note is either UNC or it is not. This is Dave M's point and meaningful to the OP who is located in Brazil. There are not varying degrees of UNC outside the US. Varying degrees of AU (a term also not used in most other countries) and EF but not UNC. Teller flicks and the other minor blemishes will remove a note from UNC in most of the rest of the world. It is one o f the reasons that US TPG companies are frowned upon outside the US -- their standards are more lax. It is also one of the reasons that a significant premium is placed on UNC world notes. Look at the Pick catalog listings for German notes as an example. Dirt cheap and common in low grades but significant premiums for UNC notes but UNC by the tighter standards.
I've found that "GEM" on eBay for world (NON-US) banknotes usually means an actual UNC note according to IBNS. Maybe this discussion is for another thread, but Dave M, lettow, and im sure scottishmoney will chime in - Do you think world grading/IBNS standards will ever accept varying degrees of UNC? Many world dealers use AVF, GVF, GEF, etc to note varying degrees of very fine and extra fine, why not for UNC?! I've certainly seen undoctored, no count/teller flick, no bends, not washed/pressed UNC notes that are more bright, better embossed and better centered than others in their same pick number. Does that mean the other notes are by default AU??? Say if a note was stored in a book the day after printing its embossing will not be as pronounced as one that has been stored in a bank envelope in a drawer for 50 years. Does a dealer just mark up the brighter, better looking UNC note more? Why isnt there an UNC+ or an UNC- in IBNS standards as many dealers use these. I think coming from PCGS and PMG standards of grading, world grading seems very antiquated. IMHO Some uncirculated notes are better than others and should be graded and noted as such. It would also seem that the world may be coming around as high value world notes are being put in PMG holders. PMG also has "global locations" in: GermanySwitzerland Singapore China Taiwan South Korea
What you are describing is essentially market grading. And grading by number, not by words. Eye appeal from centering or embossing may be a factor in pricing but neither have anything to do with the condition of the paper -- which is what is graded under the IBNS standards. Eye appeal is not graded using these same standards. Eye appeal relates to pricing. If you are grading by numbers then the better centered note has to have a higher number because you expect it to be worth more. If I were creating a grading scale for paper money I would use 100 points for the condition of the paper and a decimal notation to take into consideration these other factors. (No matter how many times I have tried to explain the 70 point scale to a European they leave shaking their head.) Under my scale a perfect note (whatever that means) would garner 100.9. 100 for the condition of the paper and .9 for the maximum consideration of the other elements. It has been my impression that the difference between the grades of 65 and above relate mostly to centering. One question that I have never gotten an answer to is how do the TPGs differentiate these higher grades for notes which do not have framing and unprinted borders like US notes do? What standards are they using to determine the centering of a note that has these characteristics. The 70 point scale for paper money was forced onto the hobby by a small group of people (the grading companies themselves and dealers) whose interests in doing so were self-motivated and driven solely by money. They forced a square peg into a round hole by applying something to paper money that it was not designed for. Unless the entire industry gets behind changing it we are stuck with it. The IBNS standards were developed after years of study and received input from both dealers and collectors. Having sat on the IBNS board for the last 10 years I can tell you that the only feedback that has been received at the board level regarding grading are comments about the lower standards used in the US and the question of adding + or - to the official standards. No one has suggested adopting a numerical scale. Is it time to consider one? Perhaps.
Fantastic response. The comment about the quality of the paper is what is considered in IBNS grading really clears much up for me. This is not very clear in the SCWPM. If I understand correctly after grade is assigned to the paper quality, the eye appeal of the note are then measured and reflected in price. Not terribly different from US standards: if you take a sample of 10 VF25 $5 Chiefs (not net or apparent graded, otherwise "no issues"), there should be a few which face up remarkably better than their counterparts, and their prices should reflect that. Same in UNC grades, but maybe with a less dramatic effect, as some 65s are slightly better than other 65s I agree 100% with the the absurdity of the 70 point scale and would be interested in hearing more about your 100.9 idea, specifically what determines the increments after the decimal point. This is my understanding as well. Good question...
Math nerd comment: I'd suggest avoiding the use of a decimal for this purpose, because it seems to imply that the "other elements" grade is always less significant than one point of the "paper condition" grade (92.1 is greater than 91.9). I'd suggest perhaps using letters instead, to avoid that implication (92D isn't clearly better or worse than 91A). This is similar to the way some currency dealers give a grade, and then a centering grade. It's up to the individual collector to decide whether a CU(avg) is better than an AU(vf).
