Is this a fold from the factory?

The right hand line is where the security strip is, but what about the fold to the left of that? There is no second strip, it has just one on the right.

This was bought as UNC by the way.

Sometimes it is hard to tell unless you have the physical note in hand. Judging by the image, it looks more like a fold to me.I am surprised that this note was so;d as UNC condition.

I agree, looks like a fold to me. And the note does not look an UNC, even not considering the fold.

The note looks EF (1 centre crease) to AU (minor fold & minor handling).  I see 1 crease (next to the security strip fold) but that's just from your picture & I cannot say for certain unless I have the note in hand (to inspect properly).  

For a note with no extra folds/creases, It would be acceptable to label this issue with “As made security strip fold” just as you may also mention “as made cutting cup” for those notes that have the semi-circular indents where the security strips are found (near top or bottom edge). Notes with these type of imperfections would grade no higher than 64 (choice, if perfectly centred) & less if design wasn't perfectly centred or registered with the reverse design (or somewhat tilted/cockeyed).

I recently returned a note with a large yellow tone spot & other minor signs of handling which was described on eBay as "Gem UNC."   I bought it b/c I read “Gem" before “Unc” & assumed the seller knew what he/she was talking about (a top-tier note, far better than your average ”choice" UNC). I did not inspect his image carefully. Design of the note was a “63” (or cockeyed) so the seller clearly has no idea what the term “Gem” really means. (Gem 65 & up should have every element perfect including how well the note is aligned with the back design, or registration).

There are a lot of sellers who do not understand the various degrees of UNC (60-70).  Uncirculated, when it comes to banknote grades, does note mean that the note “never circulated.” When it comes to a note's UNC grade (or Choice Uncirculated 64) really means that the note is in the same condition as when it was printed (in other words, no changes to the note at all!) The production elements (ink brightness, where the design is compared to the borders, etc are average. So you must mention that the note has toning, a stain or whatever it has (which has changed its original condition) & if you're going to accept that the note is UNC it could only score a 60-63 (the low end of UNC). You never see PMG award 60 or 61 (only a few 62 & more 63) for UNC with minor printing flaws. If there's post production “details” then the note loses EPQ with PMG (while other certifiers use other qualifiers like original) & they are dropped too.

So, bottom line, there is no way that your note is UNC with an extra crease/fold that dramatic & the other obvious signs of handling @odd job  Many eBay sellers do NOT understand what UNC means (so just be aware of that). I gave the seller (mentioned above) positive feedback (for communication) b/c he returned my payment but it is clear he/she lacks grade criteria understanding & should really stop describing his/her notes incorrectly. Stick to “Power Sellers” on eBay b/c these sellers (with 10,000+ feedback) generally make fewer grading mistakes.

I was disappointed with the note. The seller says the second fold is duplicated on other notes in the same bundle, and he reckons it is from the imprint of the security strips from one note to another. I don't know whether that is a phenomenon or not, I am not experienced enough.

It is strange because it doesn't look like the note was folded, not like you would see if it had a center fold. It looks like an imprint, as if it was pressed over a ridge. It is not in the middle of the note either.

The photo above was taken with a side light, so it accentuates every imperfection in the surface. This is one of those notes that looks great on a flatbed scan. The same note scanned on my flatbed:

Well, I could be wrong: like I wrote before, it really is impossible to say when the note is not in hand & I cannot inspect it. Pictures can be deceiving: the picture might make the note appear worse than it really is (or better, depending on the light/saturation). Scans really do eliminate seeing the details too, so its anybody's guess.  

odd job

…it is from the imprint of the security strips from one note to another

Nonsense. The seller is selling a run of EF notes which he is describing as UNC. 

As Serial Number 8 says, many sellers on ebay have no idea of what UNC means. Others deliberately exaggerate the description of the notes they are selling.

I just found an UNC Trinidad $5.00 (1986) which has a pen mark on the back (so it may be UNC but not EPQ nor Original). It was sold to me as UNC last year sometime so I cannot even remember the eBay seller so it is too late to return.  Its unfortunate but that's part of the risk one assumes when buying from eBay (or any online platform).  You have to trust the seller (or hope he takes returns). Sellers accepting returns is also becoming less common since the profit margins are so slim (with high platform fees).

Also: many sellers assume that sequential serial numbers = UNC. That is simply a false assumption (each note needs to be inspected).  Its quite likely that my Trinidad $5 had the teller tap the back of my note with her pen.   

I just contacted another seller yesterday to ask what condition were his consecutive # lots (3 notes from Greece) & he replied AU+. That level of honesty is sometimes the exception (rather than the rule).  Always check (if in doubt) & quite honestly, it pays to be skeptical before you “pull the trigger.”

The other thing that irritates me is when sellers have UNC in the item's title but list obvious damage in the description of the note.

If I'm looking through someone's shop, I expect to be able to click add to cart on an UNC note and call it good. I shouldn't have to double check the description of the note.

I'm currently trying to explain this to a stubborn Delcampe seller, who will go on my “no purchase” list.

I found two eBay sellers calling all their notes UNC, but if you look in the small print they say UNC = Uncertified and you must check the scans for the condition.

As seen with this Cambodia note a scan can look really good. If I see a listing that says “check the scan” I will disregard that and move on to another seller.

At least you can still give them negative feedback when buying on eBay. I have not given one yet since I joined eBay in 2004. I looked at the note carefully first and sometimes I raised the question with the seller before buying. On all occasions, after buying, I still add a Paypal comment to tell the seller to ensure the note is in UNC condition, and you will find the seller usually responded to assure you the note is indeed in UNC condition. They know that if not, negative feedback will come their way. I remembered once saying to the seller that 'Feedback will be posted accordingly'.

Despite saying this, I still have my bad experiences with some sellers. Story of my life!

odd job

 UNC = Uncertified and you must check the scans for the condition.

I would consider this to be misleading. UNC in capital letters is a grading term.

UNC is the easiest grade to apply to an item - it either is or is not UNC, no discussion!