Which TPG is best to Submit Tokens to?

I've recently started to admire and more seriously collect some of these Civil War and other 19th century tokens, and I'd like to submit them for grading, attribution, etc. Is there a TPG that's more experienced / better at it? I read that NGC has more experience than PCGS - is NGC known to be the TPG authority with respect to tokens of this era?

I've also read that NGC incorrectly attributes a noticeable but a minority of the tokens they grade. Is this true today or has NGC improved? Has PCGS been more accurate?

Also, I have an idea of what HT numbers these are, and I will mark what I believe they are down on the submission form. But, I'm concerned that it'll be incorrect and the TPGs may simply label my tokens by what's written down. So, I'll probably make a thread before submitting them on CT to get your thoughts on which ones I think they are.

And, from your experience, do slabbed prices actually reflect the token leaders, or is it a toss up between the two? I feel that tokens are more of a specialty item that gets much more attention with more serious collectors than your average person who may own a few Morgans and such. That said, I'd think that slabbed token prices would be reflective of the coin itself rather than the slab it's in, but that would simply be my speculation without data.

Thanks in advance!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Here are the ones I have incoming now that I want to submit to the TPG of choice:

 

Nice batch of tokens. Not sure who grades the best on these - but if pressed, I like PCGS slabs better than NGC. Just a personal preference.

 

PCGS graders are the newbies in town with regard to slabbing exonumia (tokens, medals, etc). Both PCGS and NGC make attribution mistakes, and most of those errors likely stem from the submitter information to begin with. If a token is important enough to you to have slabbed, then it should also be important enough for you to know what you have and the correct attribution before you submit.

My personal preference is for the customer service and many more years of experience that NGC offers in this arena. I consider PCGS to still be in a state of learning. Just my opinions as a long-time collector of this type of material.

As a bit of a tangent: The vast majority of Civil War Tokens are not slabbed. The prices for really nice material slabbed can be quite strong, but very nice raw material also goes for strong prices (e.g., think of auctions by Steve Hayden). I have a few pieces in my collection that sold for more raw in auctions than I paid for them already slabbed.

 

Thanks!

Just looking at HA's site, it appears that NGC seems to be the more popular TPG for Civil War tokens, probably due to their longer tenure of grading them. But yes, I see a greater ratio of tokens raw than slabbed compared with coins. And, looking at PCGS's pop report for Civil War tokens, they only have a total of 100+. Maybe NGC is more reliable and/or consistent with tokens (?).

 

Here are the attributions that I believe are correct for these tokens. Please let me know if they're wrong (including the letter suffix at the end), if it's a different variety/type, or if a suffix needs to be added to be more specific.

Also, I'm more of a silver guy, but I liked these designs along with their history, so I bought them . So, the color designations are more of an educated guess. Are there any penny / copper coin experts here? Please correct the color designations if you think they should be assigned differently.

Thanks!


Fuld 105-358 (RB?)



_____________________________________

Fuld 239/421a - RD
I thought this was the Fuld # above, but it could be a Fuld 239/422a.
Can anyone confirm which one?



_____________________________________

HT-32 BN
I like the silver tarnish look with red undertones.



_____________________________________

Fuld 82/351a - RD
Specimen or specimen-like, or UNC? The toning gives it a stronger contrast between the fields and devices, so it may simply be an uncirculated example.



_____________________________________

Fuld 13/297 - RB?
The "3" in 1863 may be repunched



_____________________________________

Fuld 255/390a - RB?
Grease-filled die in "U" and above "U" in "Current"

 

I really don't know anything about these tokens. Are any of them rare or valuable?

Every single one of them has problems - none of them should be in a problem free slab. Unless they are worth a large sum, I wouldn't slab them.

And, as you've already mentioned, these often do just as well or better raw anyways. You can save yourself a couple hundred bucks, and buy more coins.

 

I'll break out Fuld tomorrow and confirm. The hard times does look like a HT-32.

 

I'd go with NGC or even ANACS for tokens over PCGS for a couple reasons.

I've had issues with NGC mis-attributing (and almost mis-attributing) tokens, even when I submitted them with the correct attributions listed. I've also sent in NGC mis-attributed tokens for label correction and have had them corrected. Having said that, NGC provides way more information as part of their default type identification than PCGS does, so they are also more likely to get it wrong as a result.

For example, a coronation token I submitted to NGC last year under the default token service (no variety attribution) came back with the following identification:

1830 Austria Silver
Pressburg
Ferdinand V Coronation
(3.2g)

I really likely how NGC lists the weight, since this token has 3 types with different weights and slightly different diameters that otherwise would have the same attribution. By posting the weight, I don't have to pay for the variety attribution to have the label distinguish this.

If I had submitted the same token to PCGS it would have come back identified like this:

1830 Token
Austria
Coronation

PCGS lists so little information by default that it isn't very useful for identifying the type, especially if you need the weight to identify it (good luck getting this accurately once it's slabbed).

The other nice thing about NGC is that after they do the type identification/attribution prior to grading, they post it on your submission online. I've found that if I watch for this to post and then call customer service if I see an incorrect type attribution get added to the order, I can usually get them to fix it before it goes to grading. Realize that they understandably don't necessarily have the same level of expertise that an advanced collector specializing in the type of token would.

Now, I've never done this, but I would imagine that if one specifically paid for attribution on a token they'd be more likely to get the attribution correct than with the default type attribution. Also, if you fear the attribution will be incorrect, you can always submit supporting documentation with the token for them to take into account. I did this for a scarce variety of a pattern I submitted on my last order and they got everything correct with the attribution.

 

What happens if NGC makes an error on the attribution? Would you resubmit it and they'll cover the re-submission cost if you provide them with supporting evidence?

Also, if the above holds (NGC agrees to free resubmit), even if we sent supporting documentation to them for the first submission, and they go with it despite it being incorrect, does the submitter get the blame? I'd say that ultimately it's NGC's job that we're paying for, but the fine print can say anything, I guess.

I'd think that they wouldn't want to be known to be making mistakes given their perceived and realized status in the TPG world.

 

A lot of people don't like NGC for attributions because they DO NOT guarantee them. If they mess up they should fix it for free, I am not sure if they do though since they aren't guaranteed.

PCGS on the other hand DOES guarantee their attributions and would correct any mistakes free of charge.

 

@iPen learn to grade them and attribute them yourself.

If they were mine I would not bother spending more money.

And just to make you feel better "Details" slabbed exonumia can still command strong prices because of the pieces' history or rarity. See sutler tokens for examples.

 

As usual ... little to no mention of ICG or ANACS. Both do CW tokens/store cards. Sorry to hear about mistakes but that happens.

I believe ANACS has most experience, ICG next, then NGC (Before Brian Silliman left NGC a submissions clerk was promoted to learn his area. She must be pretty good at it by now. With the volume of submissions they must get, they probably have given her help.) Mike at ICG has been doing token stuff longer than any of them. PCGS is the new guy. Have no clue who does tokens for them. Anyway, ALL the Top TPGS's have outside consultants they use.

IMO, the "details" look in the photos may be worse than the actual coins. I believe a few will look much better with conservation. Conservation was free at ICG up to what I learned at the FUN show in January. I'm not going to call to see if that policy is still in effect as I speak with all the TPGS's several times a year. I think the customer service people/graders must be sick of my questions.

Note: IMO, PCGS is the hardest nut to crack.

 

Yes. You may or may not need to provide supporting evidence, depending on how obvious the error is.

No. You can list your own attributions etc. on your submission form, and this may increase the chances of the attribution being what you want, but ultimately NGC verifies it and makes the call. I've had them change attributions I had listed in cases where they either changed how they identified the coin/token, and in cases where they simply didn't agree with me.

For example, that token I mentioned in my above post just happens to have been one that they changed my attribution on, and I had to argue with them to get them to change it back to what I had listed on the submission form. I had listed the token as Ferdinand V Coronation 1830, but NGC wanted to attribute it as Ferdinand I (his Austrian title), since Hungarian coins from this period are considered to be Austrian. While this approach works fine for coins, it doesn't always work for tokens, since there are many distinctly Hungarian tokens from this period. In this case, the token was for a Hungarian coronation and the legend read "Ferd. V" (his Hungarian title).

I pointed out to them that he was not known as Ferdinand I until he succeeded his father in 1835 as Emperor of Austria. Since in 1830 when the jeton was struck, he was exclusively known as Ferdinand V, they changed the attribution to what I wanted. I had submitted supporting evidence as well as the NGC cert number of another similar jeton that they attributed to Ferdinand V to show that they had done this correctly before. While they accepted my argument and attributed the token with his Hungarian title, they still labelled it as Austrian (you can't win everything). All of this was done back and forth in emails to customer service while they had the token.

NGC does not guarantee the value difference of the coin itself if they make a mistake on a variety attribution. Meaning if you bought a common variety coin because it had a rare variety attribution on the label, and paid the value of the rare variety, their guarantee won't cover the difference between the price of the rare variety versus the common one.

If, however, you sent that same coin back to them and pointed out that the wrong variety was on the label, they will fix the label for free. You don't pay anything, including postage. I've done this several times and it's quick and painless.

 

Your statement is not relevant to the question at hand. You're talking about an uninformed buyer buying something based on the label. This thread is about sending in raw items and NGC potentially attributing something wrong -- and needing to send it back for correction. Two completely different issues.

 

I think you make a reasonable argument, but as you know (and as we have said here and elsewhere many times before) people don't only have things slabbed because they are worth some certain amount of money.

In the case of the OP here (@iPen ), I didn't question his need/want to have these slabbed because I assumed he already had made up his mind regarding that. Now, had he asked, I would agree with you and would say that I hope he's okay getting back "problem" (details) slabs, as I believe several of the pictured tokens could/would come back in details holders.

 

Personally, especially for tokens, CWT's HT's etc, I'd go for ANACS

 

It is entirely relevant whether or not a company guarantees what they put on a label. Plenty of people put 0 credence into their attributions because they do not stand by them. I won't use a company for a service that won't stand buy it, what is the point in paying for that?

 

That is good to know, mistakes should be fixed for free and I am glad they will do that even when they don't back the value.

 

As already pointed out by @Jaelus , NGC does stand by it. PCGS also doesn't stand by many of their mistakes, writing them off as "mechanical errors" -- if you think otherwise you are deluding yourself. I have seen Type 1 1917 SLQs in Type 2 holders. I have seen proofs called MS, wrong dates, wrong series, even wrong denominations on PCGS holder labels. Anything they deem "obvious enough that anyone should have caught it" they write off as mechanical errors -- and they do NOT guarantee those.

As I already said, your comment is NOT RELEVANT TO THIS THREAD. We aren't talking about buying a coin already slabbed by a buyer who didn't know what he/she was doing. We're talking about a VERY RARE and unlikely possibility that NGC might put something wrong on a label when submitting a RAW token. I know you have a financial interest in propping up PCGS as the infallible wonder-TPG, but as for exonumia, I would not send ANYTHING to PCGS for grading or attribution. And, I actually collect a substantial amount of exonumia.