• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Personal Information

  • Location
    Culver City, California

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Muzzer42

    Repeater Note?

    I was expecting this note to be returned graded with the annotation "repeater or bookend repeater". Does this note not meet the criteria? Please advise. MG Cert: 8065867-053 Note Description: Federal Reserve Note Cleveland, $50 2013 Small Size Serial #: MD37272737A
  2. I sent in a stack of PMG notes for a new holder. I assumed PMG would keep the same Cert Number for the new label. I found PMG assigned new Cert Numbers to the notes upon return. When I cross referenced the notes I found the previous Cert Number were not voided. If PMG is going to assign a new Cert Number why would you not void the previously assigned Cert Number? Can you clarify this? Old Cert# 1537883-038 New Cert# 8065865-020 Thank you,
  3. Please add a slot to the Solomon Islands, Central Bank of the Solomon Islands, 1984 - Date, P11-Date I cannot enter P-34, no space available for Cert #8047088-028 Thank you
  4. Ok, I have two notes at this time and have sent others for grading. 1. 8055792-034 South Sudan, Pick #6 2. 8042287-045 South Sudan, Pick #7 Thank you
  5. Can you add South Sudan to the Registry? Thank you,
  6. Thanks for your feedback. I have another note that's in the registry that has "0" points. I'll give them a call.
  7. What would the reason be for a note having zero registry points? As in this note with Certification 8023451-005. Thank you
  8. Hi Jennifer, First of all, there are not endless varieties of test notes. That's ridiculous. Secondly, my original question was why there was no mention of the apple watermark on the note. Why mention half of the watermark? Why not all? You said PMG had done this before so why not now? I've seen graded notes with this notation. It's nice & I wanted my note to have this as well. Why would you make me go through the trouble of getting the answers you asked of me with providing you proof of the note with no "apple watermark" if PMG's position from the beginning is you have done no wrong? Here I have taken the time, thinking I was being helpful. I can tell you from this point forward PMG has absolutely lost my business with any further specimen or test note submissions. I will reconsider my next renewal. I don't appreciate this one bit.
  9. I recommend your "test note expert" obtain Catalog of Printers' Test Notes, 14th Ed, 2019. PDF electronic file, 811 pages The Currency Den offers this CD compilation and it includes pictures and varieties. I think you guys need this because these test notes above are not rare but I like them. They are pretty common and if PMG has questions on this common variety then this would be a great addition to your resources.
  10. Hi Jennifer, This is another example of this test note that does have the apple watermark with Newton but DOES NOT have the graph or serial number. Just another reference for your research department. Please advise on my original question of how I can get my note corrected now that everyone knows this test note does not always have the apple watermark. Thank you,
  11. Hi Jennifer, Thank you for responding. I'm aware there are approximately 6 variations to this note. The "apple" watermark is either with Newton or not. This watermark is not random and not part of original watermarked paper. If the apple was part of a mis-cut and therefore missing, then a third of the note would be missing along with Newton. It would be reasonable in this case neither would be on label because they are not on the note. So to get back to the mysterious note with the "missing apple"; You may be familiar with the note below since it was recently graded by PMG. It DOES NOT not have the "apple". I did have to resend the note back so the Serial Number could be added. We discussed this in a recent previous post. The note below has Cert# 8060611-001.
  12. Hi Jennifer, Geez, maybe I'm alone in feeling this process you have just described is unfair and ridiculous to the collector but I don't think so. There aren't endless types of test notes. It is reasonable to expect the submitter to pay the posted grading fee and in return the collector expects to receive accurate notations regarding the note on the label. Why would a collector ever be ok with accepting sloppy or missing notations on the label after shelling out the "Economy Special" Fee of $40 per note. There better be accurate and complete descriptions. This is appalling you would try and pass this off back to me and ask if I want the description corrected then I need to send it back to you at an additional charge. This is not cheap. The reholder fee, the processing fee and the shipping fee. I understand the Unlisted Number but other differences that make this note different such as a Serial Number, Watermark(s), Printer, Issuer, Date and Amount as applicable need to be taken into consideration. THIS is what makes collecting fun, to have a series of notes that can be distinguished in part by the differences noted on their label. I believe all collectors who submit notes to PMG expect and rely on the fact you will properly grade and notate these various identifications on the label without further request. On this particular note series variations include ( with or without graph) (with or without serial number) (with or without Newton's Apple) to name a few. My note submitted lacks any notation of the Graph and partial watermark - Missing the Apple watermark. I have not given up on PMG yet but I certainly want to avoid this experience from ever happening again. This will also help other collectors who submit notes so they can avoid receiving partial descriptions on their labels. What option do you offer so notes submitted to you in the future can be identified completely the first time around? What do I need to give PMG? I have other notes pending submission so I await your reply.
  13. The submission number for the Notgeld Notes was 8055799. I would appreciate your feedback on why these two notes couldn't be graded.
  14. Ok Jennifer, I'm not trying to be a pain or unreasonable. I'm really looking for consistency and what I'm gathering is there isn't any consistency because if what you say is true then other notes like you say "of this type" would not be listed on the label. I don't find that to be true as in the following examples listed. These are all test notes as well. All were submitted together and they all had notations for their serial number on the label. Test Note: PWPW w/Cert 8058438-047 Serial # JK0000000 Test Note: Duranote w/Cert 8058438-022 Serial #DN000000 Test Note: De La Rue w/Cert 8058438-020 Serial # PP0000000 The note in question as pictured above w/Cert 8058438-063 has a Serial # CC000000. It is a test note from De La Rue. How is this particular "type of note" different than the 3 examples I listed above? Thank you,
  15. What I'm understanding is you've never graded a note from "Kotus". Hence, there are no other notes in the PMG system like this so it is automatically disqualified from being encapsulated.