Please offer an opinion

[Dudley the 1st]

I realize grading from photo's isn't an easy thing to do , however this is how most of us transact our numismatic business these days. I submit to you an R6 Merchant Token which was initially apart of a bulk submission to NGC.

 

This token as you see , came back in an AU58 BN Grade , which I strongly disagree with . Please give it your best review and let me know what you folks think .

 

I believe , this should have been graded at the very least an MS62 , or better .

 

Thanks for looking and offering your opinion.

 

The token is an 1861-65 Chelsea MI. Congdon Bros. Grocer Store Token F-17A-2a

[BROADSTRUCK]

[TonerGuy]

I have no idea about the grade.... but that is one funny picture !! Thank you Broadstruck for a chuckle today !

[James_OldeTowne]

Technically, I believe it is virtually impossible for a merchant's token to be "uncirculated". After all, how did they enter the contemporary marketplace? Through circulation! So in reality, I think the grade is right.

 

Now, we all know the root problem, of course, which is that the services have put AU-58 sliders into MS-6* slabs for years, so we've come to accept it. And it is inconsistent to suddenly change the parameters and begin to grade them properly.

 

So I don't have a solution for you. I very strictly will only collect those NOT in slabs anyhow, so for me, I never have to confront this problem. I keep the coins raw, and don't even worry about quibbling over this slider grade or that one.

[BROADSTRUCK]

I feel it may very well be accurately graded although your angled pics are useless for anyone to agree or disagree with what your questioning.

 

On the obverse the wear points are the top of the head of the eagle, the top of the wings, the stars across shield, and all six claws.

 

On the reverse the wear points would be the face of all the lettering.

 

Based on what I posted above and from what I can see AU58 would be right as the cut through Hillsdale on the obverse was most likely also taken into account.

 

 

[bsshog40]

As I dont know much about these i still have to agree that these were circulated in the first place. It looks in very nice condition as to why it was given the closest grade to uncirculated as possible. Jmo

[PennyGuy]

That is one nice Store Card. Hillsdale is 30 minutes one direction from where I'm sitting, and Chelsea is 30 minutes in another direction. Think I see some flattening of the eagle's claws and minor wear and on legends. AU58 seems to be a realistic grade IMO.

 

Still a beautiful token, one I'd be proud to own.

[gmarguli]

I looked at the picture before I read what you wrote and thought AU58, but maybe MS62 on a good day.

[Dudley the 1st]

Crazy. I've seen Merchant tokens encapsulated and graded MS 65 & 66 that look worse off than this. In my final analysis it's not financially prudent to incur another $48.00 in submission fee's to have NGC " Review " the grade. The problem here , is that this was part of a " Bulk " Submission where a few other pieces also were assigned the 58 grade, and I think this just got moved right along with them .

 

The problem here is that for NGC to take a " second " look , it's going to be to expensive to actually justify . Guess I'll just have to lick my wound . Oh did I mention , there are under 30 known survivors of this issue .

 

 

It's a terrific looking specimen in hand , and anyone would question the assigned grade .

[Dudley the 1st]

I've decided to get three professional in hand assessments . There more I look at this, it screams UNC all the way . And I don't mean " Uncle " .

[michael]

au/unc. details

 

you got blessed and lucky by ngc

 

i would have put this coin in an au details holder

[Keigwin]

Generally speaking...and without regard to this token...I would much rather have an AU58 than an MS62.

 

Low grade MS is usually rub-free but baggy, in a distracting kind of way. While a slightly circulated high-grade AU can be just stunning.

 

I like this token as a 58 and I wouldn't complain for a moment.

Lance.

[Dudley the 1st]

I looked at the picture before I read what you wrote and thought AU58, but maybe MS62 on a good day.

 

 

MS62 is my assessment as well.

[Dudley the 1st]

Interesting opinion . Personally , I feel that NGC or any other Top Tier Authenticating company should allow for a " Free " review within a realistic turn around time , for any piece of a Bulk submission , which the original submitter refutes the assigned grade. I believe that it is far to common an occurrence that the graders are to quick in examining " Bulk Submissions " and can easily be moved through the grading process without due diligence . Leaving the submitter in a rather costly position in having to pay grading fee's twice .

 

It would be edge turning if the re-grade fee's only applied for items that did not upgrade within a specific time frame from the original encapsulation date. Let's face it, Companies are making a small fortune from re-grade submissions and it seems to me , we are being forced to incur significant amounts of monies , for the luxury of having that company admit their error or over-sight .

 

I know the flip side to this could potentially put a tremendous drag in the Grading process , because everyone would be re-submitting everything for " Second opinions " .

 

But the bottom line is, Re-grade fee's are a major part of any grading companies overall revenue , if they truly admitted what percentage of resubmission's actually did upgrade within say a 30 day turn around time from the original grade assignment.