brg5658

HAHAHAHA....Just saw this.

They will put it in a new not-scratched holder. They don't regrade it. The FUN (Florida United Numismatists) show in January in Orlando is the largest coin show in the United States, and the best show of the year IMO.

Picked up this Middlesex DH-74 in the Chatham auction at Heritage: Link here. The slab is all scuffed up, so I'll probably have it reholdered in January at the FUN show in Orlando.

i will be bidding on only 2 tokens in the sale.

The standard reference for 18th Century British Tokens is the Dalton & Hamer book. It is very large, and has been reprinted a few times in the past 40-50 years (mostly recently 2004 I believe, by Alan Davisson). Bill McKivor is working on a new edition to be released sometime in mid- to late-2015. All of these reprints and updates are exact reprints of the original Dalton & Hamer work released in separate volumes in the 19-teens with minimal revisions appended at the back of the works in list form. The complete Dalton & Hamer reference is viewable online for free at this link. I found that flipping through such a large work in such an online manner was cumbersome, and there is no search functionality either. The most user friendly and comprehensive work available as PDF (for e-readers or just to view on your computer screen) is The Ultimate Guide to Conder Tokens, which is completely searchable, fully illustrated, and easily the best $75 I have ever spent on a token resource book. It is a wonderful alternative to finding one of the reprints for $250+. In the USA, these tokens are almost always referred to as "Conder tokens" -- named after one of the first gentleman who indexed them in his work back in 1798 (James Conder). There are also original works from the era by Charles Pye, Samuel Birchall, and others. The Charles Pye 2nd edition from 1801 is particularly interesting as it pictures many tokens in very well done illustrations. Over the past couple years, I have improved the Wikipedia article for Conder tokens a lot, so you may want to check that out and also look at the Bibliography at the end of the article. If you are looking for a good book on the historical context of the token issues of this period, there is no more complete or better reference than the book by George Selgin titled "Good Money: Birmingham Button Makers, the Royal Mint, and the Beginnings of Modern Coinage, 1775-1821". You can find that book on Amazon or any other online bookseller, as well as from Galata I believe. I'm always happy to offer other resources or answer specific questions. Best, Brandon

I have been around internet forums for long enough to not take anything as a personal attack. I was simply replying to let you know that I don't give two spits what NGC called it on the label. The NGC holder in this case probably actually saved me quite a bit of money. Collectors who only obsess with what the holder says, often overlook coins in these purple "details" holders. Had Heritage offered the token raw, it would have likely sold for 2-3 times what I paid (which again, was a pittance of about 1 hour's work wages). Nothing worth derailing a thread over to nit-pick TPG grading.

Anything that's not Uncirculated is "almost uncirculated" right? I don't have a big problem with the AU details description, because outside of the damage of scratches and a few gouges, the general level of detail that remains in the design is indeed AU by US standards and when one knows the general quality of these tokens in undamaged form. Which I think is the point that NGC was making with their label grade. But, I'm not losing any sleep over it. If I knew the two little letters "AU" on the label were going to get the Brits in such a tiff, I would have left the label out of the image all together. I only include labels in my images because the images also act as a means of documentation of my coins as well.

Interesting ... but AU ??? Who are they trying to kid? Not even remotely EF, not even allowing for the differences between UK and US grades! The grade is irrelevant. The scarcity of the token is far more important. Some of you fellows seem to care more about what the TPGs in the USA put on the label than some of the folks over on this side of the pond. I bought the token because it is extremely rare, and it wasn't even noted that it was the Noble specimen. It sold for $290 back in 1998, I purchased it 16 years later for $70. The plastic and grade were not what I was looking at. I purchased the token...not the plastic. If you must know, it was called Nearly extremely fine and extremely rare. in the 1998 Noble auction. So it follows that if "The grade is irrelevant," then if this token were a gorgeous red gem uncirculated with full strike, you still would have gotten it for $70. I think you can follow the line of reasoning there that we all know that the grade is not irrelevant. The TPG only broadcasts it for all to see, quantifying it in a way that allows even unsophisticated buyers to appreciate the coin compared to other "scarce" tokens of the same variety. Grade, in most cases, translates to eye appeal which translates to buyer appeal which translates to higher price. Of course there are occasions where a technically (i.e., number of marks/hairlines/strike quality etc.) high graded coin/token's eye appeal is mitigated by ugly toning, very weak strike, etc. and the high grade doesn't necessarily translate to high buyer appeal. But in general, a coin graded by reputable TPG as an MS66 will sell for many multiples of the same coin graded extremely fine, no matter the rarity. This logic breaks down of course for extreme rarities where there are NO better coins than, for example, an extremely fine specimen. For most coins, the price differences are most extreme at the top end of course. So, for example, I wouldn't be interested in your token as it stands, even for $50, but if it were an MS66RD with brillian luster or gorgeous toning, I most certainly would (and so would many others). I certainly don't intend with this comment to denigrate your purchase as we all collect for different reasons, and there is a segment of the market that would buy this token for $70; it's just a much smaller segment then that which would compete for it if your token were a top-end example, and there would be an even larger segment that would compete for it if it were in a slab as an MS66 (or higher). TPG's exist only to allow a much larger segment of the market to participate in the rare coin hobby by packaging the coins as commodities. Those of us who are knowledgeable realize that this is an imperfect exercise as collector coins, with the exception of the modern mint products, are each fairly unique and difficult to compare. However, the rise of the TPG has allowed a huge number of people to enter the rare coin-high value coin markets with much lower risk that was the rule before the advent of the TPG, and that has been a good thing even for lower value coins. As the top end has gotten more expensive, the lower end has also risen buoyed by those how can't afford the top but feel the excitement generated by the high prices the top end coins bring and want to participate. As they say, a rising tide floats all boats. People who never gave a second thought to old coins as objects of great value take notice. They may begin to collect coins. There are exceptions of course to this for lower value coins that are very common, so my comments will always be debatable in specific circumstances. But of course, that's what makes for an interesting forum. This whole argument is moot of course for those that: a). Collect coins of low value or are experts at authenticating or grading their coins . Never intend to sell their coins or worry about their spouses having to sell c). Insist on a tactile relationship with their coins (implies low value coins or tremendous courage and care in the case of expensive coins) d). would be offended that an impartial third party might judge their coins to be of lesser value than they themselves have judged them >>Posted in good cheer<< Marvin, with all due respect, you are a bit off base. I never said that the grade was irrelevant for all coins or tokens. I said it was irrelevant for this particular token. Why do I say that? 1) I have been looking for an example of this rare token for a good decade, and they simply don't exist in your hypothetical MS66RD grade (and even if they did, I would never buy a 200 year old piece of copper in supposed "red" condition anyway -- I don't care for red copper and have found over many many years of collecting that RED copper is left for the label lovers -- not only is it chemically unstable, it is bound to eventually mellow and all that money you have wrapped up in the TPG hallowed RD designation is down the crapper). If this example was good enough for the W.J. Noble and Myles Gerson collections, then it is good enough for mine. Especially for the scant price of $70. 2) I mostly collect gem or high end MS graded coins. You can see that by my dozens of posted images and coins/tokens in this thread. I am not a newbie nor am I ignorant of the marketing, hype, and ravenous buyers of TPG slabbed coins in the USA market. I don't personally collect for profit, and I don't personally ever pay 5-10 fold for a coin that is graded one point higher by a TPG just because they say it it something special. My eyes are what guide my purchases, not the numbers printed on labels. 3) You happened to pick a token on which to make a philosophical point that I know more about than essentially any other provincial issue. I have 5 examples of the DH-342 Ibberson token, 4 of them in gem condition (of 300 or so extant). I own two examples of the DH-339 Ibberson token, both in UNC condition (of 200 or so extant). This DH-340 token is one of a handful originally minted, and probably one of only 30 or so even recognizable as such. Long story short, I didn't buy this token for the grade NGC gave it, I bought it because I wanted one for my collection. Whether it is a "good investment" is irrelevant to me. I don't collect coins for investment purposes. And, I intend to keep nearly my entire collection intact, to be sold after I die (which I hope will be about 50 years from now). I don't have a problem with TPGs, but I use them as a tool for education and liquidity not as a crutch for blind purchases. I own over 700 slabbed coins currently. But, I never buy a slabbed coin for the supposed gospel that is the grade printed on the label. I buy coins I like, for prices I find fair, and that's all that really matters to me. We have had the TPG discussion ad nauseum here and on the other half dozen coin forums I read daily. Your points are all salient, but just irrelevant for the particular token in question -- i.e, there is no MS66 specimen in existence. I don't know what you call "ultra rarity" but when a token comes to auction about once per decade, it is only my opinion that matters when I choose a less than perfect nEF example (with other problems) for my collection. Cheers.

Interesting ... but AU ??? Who are they trying to kid? Not even remotely EF, not even allowing for the differences between UK and US grades! The grade is irrelevant. The scarcity of the token is far more important. Some of you fellows seem to care more about what the TPGs in the USA put on the label than some of the folks over on this side of the pond. I bought the token because it is extremely rare, and it wasn't even noted that it was the Noble specimen. It sold for $290 back in 1998, I purchased it 16 years later for $70. The plastic and grade were not what I was looking at. I purchased the token...not the plastic. If you must know, it was called Nearly extremely fine and extremely rare. in the 1998 Noble auction.

A couple new tokens. The first is a very difficult token to find, as is evidenced by this being the former W.J. Noble specimen, yet it is in rather "rough" shape. And, this is a later "knock off" of the Ibberson token by Taylor c. 1870. Also a scarce token, with around 200 or so extant. This is the 2nd example in my collection.

I would call PCGS a lot of things, but "personable" is not one of them.

A new merchant token:

No. NGC and PCGS both use their own grading standards, which vary slightly from the official ANA standards. Let's not derail this thread onto yet another USA coin grading tangent. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill in a small little comment I made about my opinions on a token's grade. Let's move on...

I am not sure how to be more clear. I don't care about the grade that much and am not going to waste the money to send it in to PCGS. Also, PCGS doesn't know much of anything about Civil War Tokens as they just started grading them in the past year. NGC has been grading them for 20+ years. ANA standards are what we Yankees use for grading coins. It is very different from the UK system, yes. As I have already said before though I collect what I like...and I like this token and the price was fair regardless of what the label says the grade is.

Yeah, I was too. The reply offered seems a tad 'smart alec'. I grade coins using the American Numismatic Association (ANA) grading standards. For UNC coins, the standards are below for grades MS60-65. For the token I posted that NGC graded MS62, I believe they were a bit harsh. It doesn't exhibit any of the flaws that would bring the grade down to MS62 in my opinion. Yes, it's a division of the minuscule, but I can tell the difference between an MS62 and MS64 quality coin. I admit freely that all of this splitting of hairs in USA grading is subjective, but having been collecting US copper for more than 20 years, and viewed hundreds of graded coppers -- the "look" of an MS62 coin vs. an MS64 coin is quite apparent. All of this being said, I do not ever get hung up on the numerical grade on a slab's label. If I like a coin and the price is right, then I purchase it. I'm always happy to purchase a particularly nice coin in a lower numeric grade plastic holder because the dealers usually price it accordingly (and you can get some really good deals). Knowledge is power in this hobby... ================== MS-65 - Shows an attractive high quality of luster and strike for the date and mint. A few small scattered contact marks, or two larger marks may be present, and one or two small patches of hairlines may show under magnification. Noticeable light scuff marks may show on the high points of the design. Overall quality is above average and overall eye appeal is very pleasing. Copper coins have full luster with original or darkened color as appropriate. MS-64 - Has at least average luster and strike for the type. Several small contact marks in groups, as well as one or two moderately heavy marks may be present. One or two mall patches of hairlines may show under low magnification. Noticeable light scuff marks or defects might be seen within the design or in the field. Attractive overall quality with a pleasing eye appeal. Copper coins may be slightly dull. Color should be appropriate. MS-63 - Mint luster may be slightly impaired. Numerous small contact marks, and a few scattered heavy marks may be seen. Small hairlines are visible without magnification. Several detracting scuff marks or defects may be present throughout the design or in the fields. The general quality is about average, but overall the coin is rather attractive. Copper pieces may be darkened or dull. Color should be appropriate. MS-62 - An impaired or dull luster may be evident. Clusters of small marks may be present throughout with a few large marks or nicks in prime focal areas. Hairlines may be very noticeable. Large unattractive scuff-marks might be seen on major features. The strike, rim and planchet quality may be noticeably below average. Overall eye-appeal is generally acceptable. Copper coins will show a diminished color and tone. MS-61 - Mint luster may be diminished or noticeably impaired, and the surface has clusters of small contact marks throughout. Hairlines could be very noticeable. Scuff-marks may show as unattractive patches on large areas or major features. Small rim nicks, striking or planchet defects may show, and the quality may be noticeably poor. Eye appeal is somewhat unattractive. Copper pieces will be generally dull, dark and possibly spotted. MS-60 - Unattractive, dull or washed out mint luster may mark this coin. There may be many large detracting contact marks, or damage spots, but absolutely no trace of wear. There could be a heavy concentration of hairlines, or unattractive large areas of scuff-marks. Rim nicks may be present, and eye appeal is very poor. Copper coins may be dark, dull and spotted.

I've never understood how someone can work out why a coin could be umdergraded/overgraded 1-2-3 points, sorry, not being antagonisitic but how do you work out a 1 point difference in a grade?Experience. Can you point out the 2 point Gap in your coin?Yep I sure can.

I've never understood how someone can work out why a coin could be umdergraded/overgraded 1-2-3 points, sorry, not being antagonisitic but how do you work out a 1 point difference in a grade?Experience.

3) The D.L. Wing store card is undergraded in my opinion by 2 points, and it has great eye appeal. I also liked the centering-dot and the "UNION FLOUR" theme on the reverse (store card die #1372). Cheers, -Brandon

Ok, here are three other Civil War Tokens I picked up at a Brick and Mortar on my road trip to see family a couple weeks ago. 1) NGC got the 208 obverse die attribution wrong, as they called it 207. I didn't care about their mis-attribution all that much, as the token speaks for itself. The eye appeal was off the charts, and this one just glows in hand. Also, the 410 reverse die usually doesn't come this nicely struck up, so that was a selling point. 2) The 442 "NEW YORK" reverse die strike is weak, but I particularly liked the misaligned reverse die and the overall eye appeal of the token otherwise. Also, given the price I paid for this one at $60, I'd buy CW tokens of this caliber all day long.

I know this isn't a photography forum (ithough I do belong to one) - but shutter slap (aka mirror slap) just isn't a feature on mirrorless system cameras. They have the advantage of being that much smaller, and that includes lenses as well as sensors, because the lens (sans mirror) can be that much closer to the sensor reducing the size of both with no detriment to resolution. This is why I predict that DSLRs are in their dog days now, and it's only the likes of Canon and Nikon - with decades invested in their systems - that will delay the inevitable. I'm not even sure if Panasonic have a DSLR anymore, and also Fuji and Olympus are working hard to make the mirrorless systems the de facto standard. There, I've said my piece! Actually, I was referring to shutter shake or slap, not mirror slap. I shoot with Canon, and when photographing coins the mirror is locked up. There is no mirror slap. Canon does have an electronic first shutter curtain (EFSC), but the tailing shutter curtain is still a physical one. That causes a little bit of shake, but for the most part is negligible at magnifications less than 1:1. It's only really a small problem when you are doing 2:1 or 4:1 macro work on die varieties or over mint marks or something of the sort. Nikon cameras do not have EFSC, but have two physically moving shutter curtains (which is why most photomacrographers shoot with Canon). Mirrorless cameras aren't really much different from mirrored DSLR cameras. The only thing the mirror is used for in DSLRs is to reflect the composition image up to the pentaprism so that you can see what you're pointing at through the eyepiece. When the mirror is up, you can still use the electronic Live View for composition and manual focus. I'm not familiar as to whether they have figured out how to make both shutter curtains electronic, which would remove all "moving parts" in the process of taking a photograph. I suppose there is no functional reason why both curtains couldn't be electronic.

Hi Jaggy, Very nice image of a small coin! Just a few thoughts...you will get slightly sharper images if you use an f-stop of around 5.6 to 11, possibly up to f-14. Opened beyond that, macro images will show softness (blurriness) due to diffraction. Also, if your camera is mounted very solidly with no vibrations, you will get sharper images if you set your ISO down to 100. If your tripod is really sturdy, a slightly longer exposure can actually sometimes increase the sharpness of macro photos because the shutter slap isn't as pronounced. Cheers, -Brandon

With regard to software: If you are looking for a high power free software for photo editing, you may want to give "GIMP" a look. GIMP stands for "Gnu Image Manipulation Program" and has a lot of bells and whistles. It's built to run best on Windows platforms, but I would suppose it would run okay on a Windows emulator through an Apple machine. With regard to lighting: I've been shooting with LEDs for 3 years, and I am very happy with them. I know others are perfectly happy with CFLs (compact fluorescent), incandescents, and halogens. The light type isn't as important as how you use it. Always set your white balance to your light source, keep your lights high and close to the camera, and deflect and/or diffuse your lights so that their point sources are large enough to light the full coin. You may want to take a look at this little thread I put together a couple years ago. It's not the end-all, be-all but it might help a little. Other thoughts: You will get the best results if you photograph each coin individually so that you can modify the lighting, etc. to suit each particular coin's needs. I do like the recompilation look that has been shown above by Nick and mhcoins. Those are very nice images. Smaller non-DSLR cameras are capable of taking very good images of coins for posting on the web, for insurance reasons, and for general enjoyment of your coins from home when they are locked up in a deposit box somewhere. A DSLR set-up allows you to take images of a coin by completely filling the camera's digital sensor with the coin's full diameter. This means a maundy pence through a crown can both be shot in images with dimensions of 3000 pixels square (or larger). For most, this isn't necessary unless you are also interested in die markers, varieties, etc. For web use, most coin images get resized down to 500 to 800 pixels square for each side of the coin anyway. Best of luck. -Brandon

I picked up two new Civil War Tokens in the Heritage Long Beach auction. These were emergency money issued during the years 1860-1865 in the USA when hoarding took most of the small change out of circulation. The first is a store card for the pharmacist Thomas Brimelow (died in 1916 at the age of 80). The second is a patriotic token with a typo (BY instead of BE) -- and with a very strong strike for the issue. Both tokens have what I considered to be great eye appeal and some lovely toning. Sorry for the scuffed slabs...they came that way and I had no luck buffing them out. The rarities listed are those using Fuld's scale. Cheers, Brandon

I collect 18th Century halfpenny tokens...I guess those don't count.