Which TPG is best to Submit Tokens to?

They'll fix them free as well.

Whether or not they will back the value if something happens is always relevant.

I wish that were true I would love to be making the money they do.

NGC is my company of choice for errors, I will not send any error to PCGS.

Attributions though they will go to PCGS or even ANACS if it is an obscure VAM, I won't use a service that will not back the value of the attribution.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

But they won't remunerate you for the price difference if you bought it based on the label, not on what was actually in the slab.

This isn't a RPM or DDO. Do you even own a single piece of exonumia? A Civil War Token? Conder token? So-called dollar? Hard times token? My guess is a resounding "NO" as you seem to think about attributions like a US coin collector only. Given that, the difference here seems to be beyond your comprehension.

 

I don't know of any TPGS that will not correct a label error. I do know a lot of collectors like to wave around a label error or misattribution to show everyone how smart they are. That's real smart.

 

Depends how egregious the mistake was. If the coin downgrades though they will back it which NGC will not.

I do actually, but I always enjoy how your responses turn into childish replies so quickly.

 

That means you regard Dave Camire's knowledge up against Fred Weinberg?

Dave is at NGC while Fred is not at PCGS. Does PCGS have "in-house" error experts?

 

I would bet they do with how many they get. That said I have a theory about my experience with their error department I won't really elaborate on, but needless to say all of my errors are in NGC slabs and will continue to be until something makes me reconsider.

 

Hello Kettle, you're black.
Sincerely, Pot

 

I have put the Fuld numbers under your numbers above. This is from the 5th Ed Fuld.

 

IMO, NGC has more experience with tokens and thus is likely better than the other tpgs, but that still does not necessarily mean they do an excellent job. I will admit up front that I am no fan of any of the tpgs. I would say that your best chance for receiving a correct cwt attribution would be to send your tokens to the Civil War Token Society. They only charge a nominal fee, and I am sure it would be far less than tpg costs. Most CW and HT tokens are not all that hard to identify if you have the proper references. For tokens such as the one you listed as 239/421a (possibly die 422), a look in the back of the Patriotic Civil War Tokens book at the Die-A-Gram section pretty much walks you thru the process of determining die identification by pointing out the main features to look for when comparing dies. Your token in question did use die 422.

When NGC first started slabbing cwts, I kept records on their attribution mistakes regarding cwts I saw for sale on ebay. Initially, those batches of cwts had error attribution rates typically in the 10% to 25% range. Pretty pathetic track record IMO. Have they improved? I would imagine, as I felt many of the errors they made were due to lack of experience. I really can not answer if they are better today though, as I now tend to ignore just about all slabbed tokens. I can get tremendously better deals on raw examples, so I don't even waste my time looking at slabbed tokens anymore.

It seems that so many current ebay auctions, for example, have a $15 token encased in plastic with an asking price of $150-$200 for it. Since ebay is a large venue for token sales, I have to disagree with your thought that the slabbed token prices are reflective of the token itself rather than the slab its in. My opinion is that token slabs are primarily used as a marketing tool, often to maximize profits to the point of being obscene.

 

Thanks so much for that!

It seems with these tokens that there wasn't as much of a standard control to keep varieties in check, as they're privately minted. That said, different varieties make collecting these more interesting - like a treasure hunt within a treasure hunt

 

I should have clarified by adding "more" reflective, as slab prices tend to bring a premium, no matter how minuscule the amount.

Aside: Your signature... fuzzy green meat can be good for you and be quite tasty... after all, some of the most expensive cuts of meat in the world are intentionally cured with mold grown on them, for months or even over a year to tenderize them, then served up at some of the world's finest restaurants.

 

I will still pass on the fuzzy green meat. The desirable molds used to dry-age meat, often of the genus Thamnidium, appear to be mostly white in color, and even that mold is trimmed off when the meat is prepared for cooking. Eating meat that costs $100 per inch will empty my wallet long before my appetite is satisfied. Thanks for the comment, never hurts to learn something new.

 

lol yeah the thought of it will probably make many pass on it.

True - as my former Logic professor once said in a more elegant way, you will always win that way, as you gain new information while the other party may go away with nothing new.

 

Here are the tokens with a closer look, but with need of more DIY photo work...

Please let me know what sort of issues you all see, such as a cleaning job from long ago, environmental damage, etc. The fields on some of them look to be brown but have very stark contrasts in large patches that reveal a more reddish toned splash of color. Would that be consistent with cleaning? But then why isn't the rest of the coin reddish and less brown? Or, is it environmental damage, as if it was dug up and only select areas were affected - the folks who found the tokens may have cleaned off the gunk that stuck in some areas more than others, leaving contrasting patches. Are my tokens below consistent with copper coins that experience that scenario?

And, I've added some questions next to the photos that some of you token or error experts may know more of. All of the tokens have colorful toning that can be seen in-person when looked at.

Thanks in advance again!






Is this a repunched "3" in the date? The top of the 3 looks bolder and there's something there.





On the IOU cent, it looks as if two planchets were sandwiched together but were not perfectly aligned. The second pic below looks as if it's a die clash, since one of the "sun's rays" device is raised over the indented part. The third pic may or may not show a clipped planchet with wear along the edge/rim - or it could simply be a edge damage. In the second and third pics below, does the "1" look to be doubled near the top? If so, what sort of doubling is it? Can someone please verify these?






This was a huge surprise - the edges are rounded over on only these two tokens. Is this normal for these two tokens? It felt especially strange when I first held them.

 

The 1863 is doubled. It's one of the identifiers on the die.

The IOU looks like a collar issue.

The rounded edges may just have to do with strike. I can't remember my Executive Experiment hard times...

 

I can try and take better photos, but can you tell what problems, if any, these tokens may have? What I immediately notice are the patches of dark discoloration like patches of brown on an otherwise red/red-brown token, or vice versa. I also notice some strange, bumpy surface around the date on the doubled 1863 token - is that environmental damage?

I'm debating whether or not I should send these off, but I'm unsure if they are in problem condition and if I should elect to have them graded as errors. I can submit them to PCGS or NGC, as either will cost about the same I believe even without a membership to PCGS.

 

The grades are in (at least online).

Most are Details grade as some of you suspected.

The MS62 BN is a nice grade.

And the Bent detail... well that was something I missed...

 

@iPen , some cool CWT's! Sorry only one graded, but IMO, they are attractive.

 

Was it "worth" it to get these coins encapsulated?

 

Yeah, I think if I keep the one graded token and sell the rest, I'll (hopefully) at least break even from original purchase, submission, etc. costs.