EagleRJO

From a picture overlay the date and lips are very close. It looks like it may just be the lighting or shading of the op's coin pic causes it to look a little different. Some better in focus pics would be needed to be more definitive.

I do agree with Sandon that the token does look off, and the thing that rubs me the wrong way is the grainy surface and mushy appearance. I don't think anyone is questioning your uncle or saying he lied to you about the token. It could be that he was not aware it may not be legit either. I mean who knows what happened between the mid 1800's and today. You can only go by how the coin presently appears.

Very difficult to have something new attributed with NGC, and there are issues with the appearance of the token. Also, even the appearance aside, you would think one of that type with a silver color if legit would have been submitted by now to either NGC or PCGS which has not been done. Why even torture yourself and submit it again. You could just put it in your own after-market NGC holder (example attached) and label it yourself as "(1861-65) Civil War F-230/352B Our Country Token" without any metal designation, and maybe note no others with silver color certified.

Welcome to the forum! Pretty good job with the photos, except they are a little blurry (try resting your arm on something while taking the pics) and they should be posted right-side-up (see attached). It's hard to tell with the blurry pics, but it looks like a high AU or low MS grade depending on if there are any rub marks or luster lost with the coin in-hand and considering there is a lot of "chatter" or random contact marks all over on both sides. Likely an AU with all those contact marks. As far as what a dealer would give you for the coin, it would be valued at around $60. But that is what someone would pay when buying the coin, so expect a dealer to offer around half that or around $30 with all the chatter, maybe even less. As far as submitting it to NGC for grading you can mail the coin to them, but I would not recommend doing that as the cost for grading would be around $60 to $80, which would exceed the value of the coin so you would lose money. A coin would really need to be valued around $300 in order for it to be worth submitting a coin for grading.

I think you would be wasting your money resubmitting with the XRF testing requested. It's not like it was graded "Questionable Authenticity" where it is not known if it's legit because there was no testing to identify the type of metal. It was graded "Not Genuine" which is definitive that the token is not legit even without testing. https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/6436/ Detail wise it does look close to an F-230/352B (attached) with the wreath running counter clockwise and the horizontal bars at the upper part of the shield (and not the F-231/352A you mentioned where the wreath and shield do not match). However, there are only two variations of the F-230/352B listed by NGC which are F-230/352Ba (copper or bronze) or F-230/352Bb (brass). The coin is obviously not copper or brass. In addition it has an off grainy surface with mushy details. So NGC graded it "Not Genuine". What do you hope NGC will change by resubmitting the coin with XRF testing? Possibly a new variety of the F-230/352B with a different metal, putting aside the off appearance?

After that reply to Coinbuf, who is right on the money and just trying to be helpful, I can't imagine why anyone here would even look at a coin you post. [Another one for my Ignore List]

He already has plenty of those [duck]

Agreed that the coin has common die deterioration doubling or machine doubling that has no extra value and is not worth submitting. Not according to many unscrupulous eBay sellers, who are still to this day constantly listing coins with common worthless machine doubling as being more valuable true doubled die coins.

For the future note that when posting coins also include full size cropped pics for each side. But for this coin the two "dots" are likely just from small die chips, which are pieces of the die that break off as they are used, which is common and not worth anything. Keep in mind that using a scope will almost always pick up very common minor variations in the dies, or "varieties", that are not worth anything as collectors prefer varieties that are not just common things and which can be clearly seen without any magnification. I would put the scope away and only use 5x to 10x magnification in general, like a 10x magnifying glass which is what I use.

That's not a good indicator as the date for each Morgan die was hand punched and can vary considerably. This is broken down into 7 date positions for VAMs including "Very Near", "Near", "Normal", "Far", "Very Far", "Low" and "High" dates. Attached is an example of the first 4 date positions. Super glue it to your friend's forehead while they are sleeping for giving you a counterfeit coin.

That's a red flag, and sure enough right off the bat the date font is wrong.

NG ... s/b 26.73g

It does look like MD on the surface. The attached may help looking at the coin in-hand, and there are some additional resources on doubling in the sticky topic at the forum top. Note that it is very unlikely that modern coins have true die or hub doubling since in the mid to late 1990's the US mint switched to a single squeeze process to produce master dies. This significantly limits true doubling of the dies. https://doubleddie.com/58222.html

On the surface without zooming in close there appear to be minor differences. But it may just be the shading and some wear, as zoomed in close the "S" does seem to match and the "E" is very close (also look at the first "E" and "S" in the inscription which appear to match). Note there are no VF or XF CoinFacts examples, so it's compared to an AU just for shapes which is a little sharper.

I was saying that's an example of a replica with mushy details, not that all fakes look like that. On the surface the original coin I posted looks legit, so why are you guys thinking fake.

I don't think it's a replica, which I have seen before. The coin has sharp details which are a spot on match with certified examples for that year and mark, and it does not have either the newly struck appearance or mushy details like the attached replica trade dollar example. In any event I am passing on this one as it doesn't seem like anyone has seen the two dove like punches on legit trade dollars before. So those are just damage, and I really don't want impaired coins in my collection even though it is proving difficult to find that year and mark with chop marks in good condition and at a reasonable price. I appreciate everyone's feedback.

Right, no numerical grade, just an adjectival grade due to the dove like punch marks on the obverse and scratches on the reverse.

The attached my help. For additional resources on doubling see the sticky topic at the top of the topic listings.

Well, the forum instructions do say one coin per thread.

My elbow costs $0.

Looks likes an AU slider, likely details graded from being cleaned with hairline scratches from that, like to the right of Liberty and below the eagle. It also has a off appearance, likely from the cleaning. And it's definitely not worth it to have it graded as the cost for that would exceed the value of the coin, so you would lose money.

I was thinking high VF, but it wasn't matching up nicely with the ANA standards or the limited CoinFacts graded examples I was using for comparison with that coin. So I was unsure if maybe it was enough wear to knock it down from a VF+ to a F+ grade (although that didn't seem likely), or possibly not enough wear so that it may just grade out XF. There can be big differences in coin prices from F to XF, but I thought there definitely was enough wear to rule out AU. However, those comments had me double checking that, which is not necessarily a bad thing, as well as posting a comparison pic to get feedback. No offence meant as I was just calling things as I see them, keeping in mind that there will always be differences in opinions. Disagreement is the bedrock of scientific methods, and I do appreciate the feedback.

No need to buy something for your phone. Just rest your arm on something, like a stack of books, while taking pictures of coins. As far as camera settings, use the default settings which are adequate for taking coin pics most of the time. Just check that the photo size or resolution is set to the maximum without any compression. Also keep the phone about 6" directly above and square with the coin, or some parts of the coin will be more in focus than others or the auto focus may not be on the coin if too far away. Use a light source (e.g. swing arm lamp) at 30 degrees from vertical, and a light grey or white background, like a piece of copy paper. [After taking the pics, crop them closely around the coin. This not only results in better pics to post, but reduces the file size for saving disk space. An example of this is attached, with the pics placed side-by-side for convenience which is optional.]

That is how most of the Morgans in my almost complete circulation issue set look like (105 coin NGC set), with the bright silver appearance, but a few special ones have that hint of toning like the one Coinbuf posted, without being brown or rainbow in color. They are very hard to find in a raw BU grade which I prefer.

I don't think that coin would get an AU grade. See the attached side-by-side comparison with a PCGS AU-53 graded trade dollar. On the obverse compare Liberty's hair and breasts as well as Liberty's dress around the mid section, at the knees and draped down next to the pedestal. On The reverse compare the banner above the eagle as well as the eagle's head/neck, outer portion of the wings, and the left leg (right facing). There are obvious signs of wear, significant in a few areas. So there is no way it would grade AU, and why I was saying it may get a VF grade, possibly VF-35, and maybe even slide into XF looking at it again using modern grading with some allowances for older coins. If you submit a Trade Dollar to PCGS you will not get a Details grade just because of the chop marks ... https://www.pcgs.com/News/Pcgs-Now-Designates-Chop-Marked-Trade-Dollars I actually prefer the chop marks on Trade Dollars I collect as I think it gives them character and history. When I look at some of the chop marked Trade Dollars I have and hold them in my hand (no they are not in coin coffins), I can picture a trader at an Asian sailing port in the late 1800's maybe flipping one in the air to pass some time or handing a bag of them to a merchant to purchase things like silk. I do agree it would get a Details grade due to the scratched "F" s on the reverse, even though it may be a trader's initial which I have heard, but mostly from the unrecognized punch marks on the obverse including one near a knee and two on Liberty's right. That is really for my own information anyway, as I would not be submitting the coin for grading, like most coins in my collection, but prefer to have problem free coins. However, I am left scratching my head over the two dove like punches on the right side of Liberty on the obverse, and wounder if anyone has seen those punch marks on a Trade Dollar before.