Just Bob

If what you think you see does actually appear on the coin, it was not put there by the mint, so your coin is not an error. This is not me being a "hater." This is me being a realist who is trying to keep you from wasting your money on shipping, insurance, membership fees, and grading fees. Your coin is not going to be declared a mint error by NGC. 
Your coin, your money, and your call. Be prepared to be disappointed with the results, should you decide to send it in.
Good luck with whatever you decide.

If what you think you see does actually appear on the coin, it was not put there by the mint, so your coin is not an error. This is not me being a "hater." This is me being a realist who is trying to keep you from wasting your money on shipping, insurance, membership fees, and grading fees. Your coin is not going to be declared a mint error by NGC. 
Your coin, your money, and your call. Be prepared to be disappointed with the results, should you decide to send it in.
Good luck with whatever you decide.

If what you think you see does actually appear on the coin, it was not put there by the mint, so your coin is not an error. This is not me being a "hater." This is me being a realist who is trying to keep you from wasting your money on shipping, insurance, membership fees, and grading fees. Your coin is not going to be declared a mint error by NGC. 
Your coin, your money, and your call. Be prepared to be disappointed with the results, should you decide to send it in.
Good luck with whatever you decide.

Boy, this thread really got hijacked.  
To The Hogster: it is a pleasure to have you on board with us. 

If what you think you see does actually appear on the coin, it was not put there by the mint, so your coin is not an error. This is not me being a "hater." This is me being a realist who is trying to keep you from wasting your money on shipping, insurance, membership fees, and grading fees. Your coin is not going to be declared a mint error by NGC. 
Your coin, your money, and your call. Be prepared to be disappointed with the results, should you decide to send it in.
Good luck with whatever you decide.

The '61 looks like a proof. Did you find it in circulation?

I really don't understand the point of having this coin "certified." Everyone knows what it is. Why bother having PCGS (or anyone, for that matter) confirm something that is already known? I also don't understand the point of assigning a "grade." A number is not going to have any effect on the price that this coin brings.

65
Edited to add: If the holder is an older one, it may have graded 64.

In addition to being a partner in a real estate firm, B.F. Lampton owned a general store in Darbun, MS from 1916 to 1940.
Although Chatham only lists a $1.00 and $.05 token, denominations of $.10 and $.25 are also known. I own examples of all but the $1. Here is the $.25 piece.
 
 

There absolutely are. I have at least 5 different varieties growing in and around my yard, all wild. 

There absolutely are. I have at least 5 different varieties growing in and around my yard, all wild. 

I doubt any of us is going to convince you that your coin is not genuine, so I will just advise you to prepare yourself to be disappointed, should you decide to send it in for authentication.

It's market graded. The coin is actually a 63, but the grader thought it was worth more, so he gave it a two point bump.  
Seriously, though, overgrading famous rare coins is not new. Bruce Morelan openly admitted that his 1804 Dollar was over graded, and said that, in his opinion, most of the other examples were, as well.
I will admit that I do not have enough experience with gold coins to know if allowances are made for the difference in hardness of the metal, as compared to copper/nickel, etc. I do recall Mark Feld stating in a post some time back that this may be the case. However,  I will say that, if this were a Morgan dollar, for example, I think 65 would be a stretch.

It's market graded. The coin is actually a 63, but the grader thought it was worth more, so he gave it a two point bump.  
Seriously, though, overgrading famous rare coins is not new. Bruce Morelan openly admitted that his 1804 Dollar was over graded, and said that, in his opinion, most of the other examples were, as well.
I will admit that I do not have enough experience with gold coins to know if allowances are made for the difference in hardness of the metal, as compared to copper/nickel, etc. I do recall Mark Feld stating in a post some time back that this may be the case. However,  I will say that, if this were a Morgan dollar, for example, I think 65 would be a stretch.

I really don't understand the point of having this coin "certified." Everyone knows what it is. Why bother having PCGS (or anyone, for that matter) confirm something that is already known? I also don't understand the point of assigning a "grade." A number is not going to have any effect on the price that this coin brings.

Looks like 1919 & 1918.

That is a stock photo. Your coin may look different in hand.

Looks like 1919 & 1918.

I doubt any of us is going to convince you that your coin is not genuine, so I will just advise you to prepare yourself to be disappointed, should you decide to send it in for authentication.

I must be out of the loop. I can't recall ever having seen the term "bag wear" before. If anyone has pictures documenting this, I would love to see them. I am curious to know if I can distinguish between that, cabinet friction, and circulation wear, just by viewing pictures.

William Head, Sr opened his drug store in 1902, and ran it until 1940. His son, Will, Jr., who had joined him in 1920, continued running the store until he closed it in 1976, at the age of 80. These tokens were used in the very early years of the 20th century. There were two styles, both for a 5 cent glass of soda water.
 

William Head, Sr opened his drug store in 1902, and ran it until 1940. His son, Will, Jr., who had joined him in 1920, continued running the store until he closed it in 1976, at the age of 80. These tokens were used in the very early years of the 20th century. There were two styles, both for a 5 cent glass of soda water.
 

1893 Columbian Exposition "Michigan Building"


From worldsfairchicago1893.com 
"THE MICHIGAN BUILDING.—Of all the State buildings on the Fair grounds none was more popular than the Michigan Building. Standing near the Fifty-seventh street entrance, its handsome front catching the eye of visitors, its doors always hospitably open, not to Michigan people alone but to the multitude, and its spacious rooms and luxurious appointments inviting all to their enjoyment, it was generally the resting place of an appreciative throng. The structure was one hundred by one hundred and forty-four feet in ground dimensions, was three stories high, and partly surrounded by broad balconies to the first and second stories. In the center of the west front rose a tower, pierced with windows, one hundred and thirty feet in height. The grand tiled reception hall was sixty-two feet wide and the entire depth of the building. There were the usual offices for officials and a series of finely furnished rooms for visitors, beautifully finished in Michigan woods and having great fire-places with carved oak mantels. Though not intended as formal exhibits, there were some fine displays in the reception room, such as mineral specimens and curiosities, among other things a pair of wolverines, the wolverine being the typical animal of the State. On the second floor was the assembly room, equipped with a pipe organ, and, to the south of this, a splendid display of the fauna of the State, that former paradise of game, from the moose and bear down to the quail and woodcock. The general outside color of the building was gray, and its effect, both as to exterior and interior, was handsome and homelike on a large scale."

Although it makes it seem that NGC is doing something different for RARCOA, it does not state anywhere that the "extra scrutiny" is by NGC. In fact, the site says, " Collectors will have the opportunity to recognize superior quality coins quickly and easily knowing they have undergone RARCOAS’s additional scrutiny AND certification process at NGC." (italics mine.)
Even the quote by Mark Salzberg does not state that the "extra scrutiny" is by NGC. In my opinion, if the graders knew who submitted the coins, no matter who it was, objectivity may be compromised.
My take is this: Rarcoa picks "choice" coins (which may or may not mean anything) and NGC agrees to give them their own special label - not special treatment. Modern Coin Mart , Rarcoa, and others hype the coins as "superior quality." Collectors pay up (maybe) for really nice coins (hopefully).

Although it makes it seem that NGC is doing something different for RARCOA, it does not state anywhere that the "extra scrutiny" is by NGC. In fact, the site says, " Collectors will have the opportunity to recognize superior quality coins quickly and easily knowing they have undergone RARCOAS’s additional scrutiny AND certification process at NGC." (italics mine.)
Even the quote by Mark Salzberg does not state that the "extra scrutiny" is by NGC. In my opinion, if the graders knew who submitted the coins, no matter who it was, objectivity may be compromised.
My take is this: Rarcoa picks "choice" coins (which may or may not mean anything) and NGC agrees to give them their own special label - not special treatment. Modern Coin Mart , Rarcoa, and others hype the coins as "superior quality." Collectors pay up (maybe) for really nice coins (hopefully).