• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Hard Times Tokens - Post Your Images

Started by Hard Times,

862 posts in this topic

EXOJUNKIE

EXOJUNKIE

Posted
Posted

After lurking on the forum for awhile now, this issue compelled me to post! :-)

 

Broadstruck - Thanks for bringing this disturbing trend with the token and medal department at NGC to everyone's attention. I have noticed it as well and, like you, contacted the sellers with the bad news. Heritage, albeit half-heartedly and after some badgering, changed the description (not the titles last I checked) of their HT-19 auction lots.

 

As you point out, this trend goes even beyond the HT-19 and 31. The other day on eBay a NGC HT-353 misattributed as a HT-355 (big price and rarity difference!) and--today--a HT-81 misattributed as a HT-81A (another elusive token) crossed the block. I have seen others recently as well. And I personally just sent back a really nice HT-33 misattributed as a HT-34...how can those two get confused?!

 

It happens when there is no attention to detail, plain and simple. I hope we see some improvement at the NGC token and medal department soon. While similar mistakes occur with error attribution and variety designation, the frequency per number of submissions is lower. And I hate to think what mistakes the CWT/CWSC collectors might be seeing...those can be even tougher to attribute.

 

Bottom line like you said: You gotta know your stuff--educate/arm yourself with knowledge. While there are occasionally good deals to be found in a mis-attributed slab, more often than not it works against the buyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BROADSTRUCK

BROADSTRUCK

Posted
Posted
After lurking on the forum for awhile now, this issue compelled me to post! :-)

 

Broadstruck - Thanks for bringing this disturbing trend with the token and medal department at NGC to everyone's attention. I have noticed it as well and, like you, contacted the sellers with the bad news. Heritage, albeit half-heartedly and after some badgering, changed the description (not the titles last I checked) of their HT-19 auction lots.

 

As you point out, this trend goes even beyond the HT-19 and 31. The other day on eBay a NGC HT-353 misattributed as a HT-355 (big price and rarity difference!) and--today--a HT-81 misattributed as a HT-81A (another elusive token) crossed the block. I have seen others recently as well. And I personally just sent back a really nice HT-33 misattributed as a HT-34...how can those two get confused?!

 

It happens when there is no attention to detail, plain and simple. I hope we see some improvement at the NGC token and medal department soon. While similar mistakes occur with error attribution and variety designation, the frequency per number of submissions is lower. And I hate to think what mistakes the CWT/CWSC collectors might be seeing...those can be even tougher to attribute.

 

Bottom line like you said: You gotta know your stuff--educate/arm yourself with knowledge. While there are occasionally good deals to be found in a mis-attributed slab, more often than not it works against the buyer.

 

 

Welcome EXOJUNKIE,

 

So true unless you treat every encapsulated token as raw there’s a good change you are going to get burnt.

 

My favorite out of 20 +/- misattributed tokens =

 

54uiao.jpg

 

Yes Heritage finally changed the title of the HT-19 to HT-20, but no mention in the description that it’s misattributed. This could still become a costly acquisition for a bidder that’s not verifying what is actually encapsulated. For what it’s worth most of the HT-21 and HT-22 Webster’s have been misattributed for years and you’ll find HT-22’s in HT-21 holders and visa versa. Oddly it only takes one glance to notice beyond the die crack one has the very front sail raised and the other lowered.

 

I did see the HT-353 misattributed as a R-4 HT-355 and although extremely nice for a G-6 did sell for more than double other HT-353’s. Since the seller wasn’t offering a return option and as all these are from the same submission with consecutive cert numbers, after seeing the frightening HT-47/Low-32, I opted not to bid on any. So I paid no attention to the HT-81 in a HT-81A holder.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EXOJUNKIE

EXOJUNKIE

Posted
Posted

I did see the HT-353 misattributed as a R-4 HT-355 and although extremely nice for a G-6 did sell for more than double other HT-353s. Since the seller wasn't offering a return option and as all these are from the same submission with consecutive cert numbers, after seeing the frightening HT-47/Low-32, I opted not to bid on any. So I paid no attention to the HT-81 in a HT-81A holder.

 

Judging by the pop report, these consecutive cert numbers were all slabbed within the past couple of weeks. Yikes...I'm scared about what I have at NGC right now! Anyone know who is working in the token and medal department? As long as they don't question my attributions, I'll be okay. :wishluck:

 

The HT-421 from the same seller ends today. It appears to be a gilted 421A with some "issues" of its own. It is my opinion that there really aren't any true 421s anyway and that all 421s were originally gilted and that a 421 (no gilt) really is just a 421A with the gilting worn off. Of over a dozen I've examined in hand, they have all had at least some traces of gilt.

 

I know the buyer of the 353/355. I emailed him to tell him but haven't heard back. If he tries to return it I'll let you know how it goes. I agree it was undergraded...just more evidence that the current token/medal folks don't understand Bucklins and/or don't have experience in HT tokens.

 

That "HT-57" is awesome. Haha. It isn't a HT-292 is it? Now THAT would be a score!

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EXOJUNKIE

EXOJUNKIE

Posted
Posted
Three HT-19s are available for bidding at Ebay and Heritage... Both sellers have been contacted by me in regard to the wrong slab insert designation. Liberty Coins removed the auction, but the other 2 are still available for bidding at Heritage. Heritage has not added anything so far mentioning the designation error to either auction description.

 

 

I don't post ATS but noticed a short debate there on this issue and wanted to comment. The debate was about whether HA should allow the misattributed HT-19s to go forward for auction with corrected descriptions but uncorrected slabs.

 

My 2c is ABSOLUTELY NOT. I think any seller--but especially a large auction house like HA--owes it to their own reputation and the larger numismatic community to pull the auctions, send the slabs back to NGC (who should correct the slabs for free and fix their pop report) and only then re-auction them. Anything short of a 100% fix is perpetuating fraud and hurting collectors IMHO. These slabs should be treated the same as a counterfeit coin and should not be sent back to the consignor or auctioned without being fully corrected. This is the honorable thing to do.

 

I don't mean to rantrant but this has been on my mind. Any thoughts or comments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BROADSTRUCK

BROADSTRUCK

Posted
Posted

 

Judging by the pop report, these consecutive cert numbers were all slabbed within the past couple of weeks. Yikes...I'm scared about what I have at NGC right now! Anyone know who is working in the token and medal department? As long as they don't question my attributions, I'll be okay. :wishluck:

 

The HT-421 from the same seller ends today. It appears to be a gilted 421A with some "issues" of its own. It is my opinion that there really aren't any true 421s anyway and that all 421s were originally gilted and that a 421 (no gilt) really is just a 421A with the gilting worn off. Of over a dozen I've examined in hand, they have all had at least some traces of gilt.

 

I know the buyer of the 353/355. I emailed him to tell him but haven't heard back. If he tries to return it I'll let you know how it goes. I agree it was undergraded...just more evidence that the current token/medal folks don't understand Bucklins and/or don't have experience in HT tokens.

 

That "HT-57" is awesome. Haha. It isn't a HT-292 is it? Now THAT would be a score!

 

 

 

 

I saw what the HT-421A and based on the supplied images it wasn't healthy nor worth near 1/2 hammer price.

 

Shame as that now ranks as the second 2/0 top pop.

 

Unfortunately the wrongly attributed HT-57 is really just a HT-293 :(

 

This morning the seller of that HT-421A listed a HT-47/Low-32 in a AU58 holder that was once again miss-attributed as a HT-45.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EXOJUNKIE

EXOJUNKIE

Posted
Posted
This morning the seller of that HT-421A listed a HT-47/Low-32 in a AU58 holder that was once again miss-attributed as a HT-45.

 

Yep, I see it. This was another pitch straight down the middle that the NGC Tokens & Medal Dept totally whiffed on. doh! The cert number is later than the last bunch so, although it isn't always the case, it appears this batch was also done within the last couple of weeks.

 

I checked NGC verifications quickly and discovered there were only 21 coins in this submission of which this was the only HTT. It was a pretty sorry bunch, with about half of them slabbed as problem tokens. But the good news is we shouldn't see a group of HTT like last time.

 

This is really sad.... :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BROADSTRUCK

BROADSTRUCK

Posted
Posted
Yep, I see it. This was another pitch straight down the middle that the NGC Tokens & Medal Dept totally whiffed on. doh! The cert number is later than the last bunch so, although it isn't always the case, it appears this batch was also done within the last couple of weeks.

 

I checked NGC verifications quickly and discovered there were only 21 coins in this submission of which this was the only HTT. It was a pretty sorry bunch, with about half of them slabbed as problem tokens. But the good news is we shouldn't see a group of HTT like last time.

 

This is really sad.... :(

 

I contacted the seller and he just now added info to the listing on the HT-47/Low-32 mentioning it's not a HT-45.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EXOJUNKIE

EXOJUNKIE

Posted
Posted
Alright time to get back to posting some images :)

 

1841 Daniel Webster HT-20 / Low 62.

 

Very early die stage.

 

 

Very nice. Be careful with that one...you might cut your finger on the lines in those sails! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BROADSTRUCK

BROADSTRUCK

Posted
Posted
Very nice. Be careful with that one...you might cut your finger on the lines in those sails! :D

 

Thanks EXOJ, It's not so much the sail lines... The word "EXPERIMENT" on the reverse is just totally hammered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EXOJUNKIE

EXOJUNKIE

Posted
Posted
Very nice. Be careful with that one...you might cut your finger on the lines in those sails! :D

 

Thanks EXOJ, It's not so much the sail lines... The word "EXPERIMENT" on the reverse is just totally hammered.

 

Yep, for sure BROADSTRUCK! You definitely set the bar high and I enjoy seeing the pics of these exceptional pieces. (worship)

 

You have motivated me to hit the bourse much earlier from now on. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BROADSTRUCK

BROADSTRUCK

Posted
Posted
Yep, for sure BROADSTRUCK! You definitely set the bar high and I enjoy seeing the pics of these exceptional pieces. (worship)

 

You have motivated me to hit the bourse much earlier from now on. :grin:

 

lol

 

Thanks ExoJunkie! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EXOJUNKIE

EXOJUNKIE

Posted
Posted

Finally ... in case anyone would like to see one ... a properly attributed HT-19! This one is for sale by cwtguy on eBay. Unfortunately, and in spite of Ernie's grade of "EXTRA FINE," I would only call it a NET VF due what appears to be environmental damage on both the obverse and reverse -- in both of the date areas. Can't tell for sure without seeing it in hand, but it is definitely flawed. Here's the link:

 

A REAL HT-19

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EXOJUNKIE

EXOJUNKIE

Posted
Posted
Getting back to the HT-19 it was nice to see that the wrongly attributed MS62 at Heritage sold for HT-20 monies.

 

I agree. I hope that whoever purchased it gets it reslabbed with a correct label and that they won't try to resell it as-is. Time will tell. :wishluck:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EXOJUNKIE

EXOJUNKIE

Posted
Posted
Newp :)

 

1837 R.E. Russell, HT-309 / Low-128, R-5.

 

Ex: Robert J. Hudson, M.D. collection.

 

29ngh0o.jpg

 

Congrats on the pickup. Should probably be R-6 IMO. Tough in any grade. This one is solid! AU55...? hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BROADSTRUCK

BROADSTRUCK

Posted
Posted
Congrats on the pickup. Should probably be R-6 IMO. Tough in any grade. This one is solid! AU55...? hm

 

Thanks EXO, Yes it's AU55 and at the last show I also had a chance to hold the now NGC MS61 ex: John Ford example shown on the right below. Although all the Russell's seem to have some sort of planchet issues, overall between the two the AU55 appealed more to me. There was no way I could live with that major reverse de-lamination and there was not much difference as far as rub on high points.

 

2jb15ld.jpg

 

Also the UNC Tilden/Bird example used in Edgar Adams 1914 Plates of Lyman Low's HTT's which S/B had at the last Philly Whitman show had pin scratches all over the reverse. I saw it at lot viewing and although very lustrous with the reverse issues wasn't for me either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EXOJUNKIE

EXOJUNKIE

Posted
Posted
Congrats on the pickup. Should probably be R-6 IMO. Tough in any grade. This one is solid! AU55...? hm

 

Thanks EXO, Yes it's AU55 and at the last show I also had a chance to hold the now NGC MS61 ex: John Ford example shown on the right below. Although all the Russell's seem to have some sort of planchet issues, overall between the two the AU55 appealed more to me. There was no way I could live with that major reverse de-lamination and there was not much difference as far as rub on high points.

 

2jb15ld.jpg

 

Also the UNC Tilden/Bird example used in Edgar Adams 1914 Plates of Lyman Low's HTT's which S/B had at the last Philly Whitman show had pin scratches all over the reverse. I saw it at lot viewing and although very lustrous with the reverse issues wasn't for me either.

 

Yep, I see what you mean on all counts. I wish I had those kinds of choices as often as you do. :grin:

 

Someday I'm going to learn how to take good pictures and post a few of my own HTTs. In the meantime, I'll just enjoy looking at you guys' beauties. :popcorn:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BROADSTRUCK

BROADSTRUCK

Posted
Posted
Yep, I see what you mean on all counts. I wish I had those kinds of choices as often as you do. :grin:

 

Someday I'm going to learn how to take good pictures and post a few of my own HTTs. In the meantime, I'll just enjoy looking at you guys' beauties. :popcorn:

 

EXO, Thanks, but the Russell wasn't a spur of the moment purchase as I did a lot of homework before pulling the trigger on this one.

 

Now if your not going to post anything just cause you feel your photographically challenged, I'd be glad to image some for you free of charge as long as you cover shipping both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BROADSTRUCK

BROADSTRUCK

Posted
Posted
wow. look at the detail on that boar. Imagine working to engrave the bristles and grass blades, one by one?

 

Thanks that's as fully struck as they come :)

 

might have posted this before, don't recall. I just like the look.

 

No+4Ne, Yes but it's worthy of a second post as she's a beauty and thanks for bringiong it to the show for me to see in hand! (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing