add-on NGC Raises Tokens/Medals Prices for 2023 - PROTEST 0

[Siah]

I write today with bitter frustration. Upon reviewing NGC’s updated tier pricing for 2023, I have noticed that “Tokens and Medals” is now an add-on service of $5 PLUS the base tier amount. For small collectors like me, not major dealers, I “only” submit tokens and medals; well 95%. I was planning on submitting 180 tokens/medals in January (now wishing I had submitted in December of 2022).
 

Let’s quickly do the math. Originally, if I’m submitting under the Economy Tier, that’s $23/coin; so (shipping and other fees aside), that’s $4,140. NOW, and as of 2023, we need to add FIVE DOLLARS to “each” of the 180 coins. That’s now an “additional” $900! Wow! So, we went from $4,140 in 2022 to $5,040 in 2023. Absolutely absurd. The reasoning behind this, I’m told, is because of the research that goes into tokens/medals. However, if the research is provided by the user (catalog number; metal type; size, etc.), there is absolutely NO reason to charge the add-on fee. This fee should only be charged if the proper research was not submitted. 
 

I cannot express my frustration into words. This is such a major financial burden that I can no longer afford to submit the amount of coins I had initially planned under the new prices. Therefore, I will not be submitting “any” coins AT ALL. I STRONGLY recommend others join in this protest to remove the Tokens/Medals add-on, as it is absolutely absurd and a complete money gauge for small-time collectors who cannot afford it unlike major dealers. Possible options NGC could initiate are as follows:

1.) Remove the add-on service cost for Tokens/Medals entirely. 

2.) Remove the add-on service cost for Tokens/Medals entirely for Elite Members. 

3.) Only charge the $5 add-on fee if adequate or sufficient research was not included in the submission.

4.) Only charge the $5 add-on fee if token/medal is valued above $1,000  

Until one of these items is fulfilled, NGC will be losing me as a customer. I will either wait for this to be corrected or start using another grading service. Again, I encourage all other small time collectors to join in on this protest so little guys like us are not utterly crushed by the corporate giants and can still have a place in this hobby with 3rd party grading services for exonumia. 
 

Only time will tell what happens. @NGC, if you’re reading this, I certainly hope you heed this message. You have lost a 10-year member due to this change. I can only imagine how many others you may lose. PLEASE update your service to something more reasonable. 
 

Thank you. 

Edited January 15, 2023 by Siah
Formatting

[Fenntucky Mike]

I wouldn't call 180 tokens a small submission, nor anyone who sends that many in a small-time collector. Ay caramba that's a lot of tokens!

That is definitely a tough pill to swallow with that many tokens, have you contacted NGC to see if you can work out some sort of special pricing for a submission that large?

Still cheaper than PCGS, looks like it's a flat $30 there.

[World Colonial]

Using the TPG population data, it's about 1% of NGC's submission volume.

Does PCGS have a surcharge?  I haven't checked.

I was never a big submitter, total of a few hundred (maybe up to 500, have not counted) since my first one.  I also no longer submit the types of coins I did in the past due to the fee increases while concurrently no longer buying these coins either, for other reasons.

[World Colonial]

On 1/15/2023 at 5:37 PM, Fenntucky Mike said:

I wouldn't call 180 tokens a small submission, nor anyone who sends that many in a small-time collector. Ay caramba that's a lot of tokens!

Me either.  

[Siah]

On 1/15/2023 at 3:37 PM, Fenntucky Mike said:

I wouldn't call 180 tokens a small submission, nor anyone who sends that many in a small-time collector. Ay caramba that's a lot of tokens!

That is definitely a tough pill to swallow with that many tokens, have you contacted NGC to see if you can work out some sort of special pricing for a submission that large?

Still cheaper than PCGS, looks like it's a flat $30 there.

I understand what you’re saying; however, keep in mind, this is over a years worth of tokens/medals that I was saving to submit all at once. I’ve been saving money to do this for almost 2 years. Now I’m needing an additional $1,000 to even submit. So, I refuse to do it. NGC was making plenty of money on the prior price. With turnaround times of ~4-5 months on Economy, there is no reason the cost should be raised nearly 20%.

[Siah]

I sadly think the point is being missed here. Even if 10 tokens were being submitted, that’s an additional $50 which was not the case last month. Sure, that may be no problem for some, but for others it’s extremely difficult to keep up with, particularly in a numismatic climate where dealers are the primary submitters to 3rd party grading companies. That is unfortunately a proven fact.

[RWB]

Well, it's a business decision and probably not made lightly. How this works out for NGC in revenue vs volume is something we'll never know.

On reasonable,option is to do the research and attribution yourself, and use another company to slab the tokens and medals.

[World Colonial]

On 1/15/2023 at 5:47 PM, Siah said:

I sadly think the point is being missed here. Even if 10 tokens were being submitted, that’s an additional $50 which was not the case last month. Sure, that may be no problem for some, but for others it’s extremely difficult to keep up with, particularly in a numismatic climate where dealers are the primary submitters to 3rd party grading companies. That is unfortunately a proven fact.

I don't know much about token and medal prices, other than the price level is a lot lower (generically) versus coins.

I first submitted in 2005 when economy tier was $15 less a 10% discount with a Collectors Society membership.  Now It's $23, I think.  World Standard was $27 less the same 10% discount.  Now I think it's $38.  New fees are with no discount.

The problem for the TPG business model is that it requires a perpetually rising collectible price level which doesn't concurrently price out its customers.  The TPG's operating expenses also continually increase from general inflation, so they have to increase their fees.

Prices for many coins have increased noticeably in the last three years, but the fee increases since 2005 have made it uneconomical to submit many coins, measured by the improved marketability.  It's not worth spending as a hobby expense for most collectors either.  Probably something like $200 minimum "all-in" for the economy tier minimum five coin submission.  Somewhat less for modern.

This thread is about TPG fees, but the same concept applies to auction companies and dealer overhead.

In your position, I would probably collect fewer but more expensive items if I wanted it graded.  

[Fenntucky Mike]

TPG costs have started to reach a breaking point with many modern collectable coins and bullion. Prices from non-bulk sellers are not palatable, bulk sellers are better but on the edge. I see a lot of coins and tokens in areas I collect that are now sitting, not a lot of sales going on. I will say that from my perspective banknotes are still going gangbusters and coins/tokens are slowing. Has coin money started to shift to banknotes due to rising costs/prices? It seems to be the case in my areas.

Sorry to get off topic but back to the OP, TPG's are going to charge what they can to remain competitive in the market and maximize profit. It sucks that your cost went up $5 a token but NGC seems to be on par or slightly below the primary competition. I understand your frustration. 

@Siah Do graded tokens bring significant premiums vs raw counterparts? Why do you want your tokens graded? I also collect tokens and exonumia but have yet to have any graded so I'm wondering what the motivation would be to do so. I hope you don't take my questions as negative, just want to see what other collectors are doing and what is going on out there. 

Do you have a custom set of tokens on collector's society? I'd love to see it if you do.

[Just Bob]

On 1/15/2023 at 3:41 PM, Siah said:

However, if the research is provided by the user (catalog number; metal type; size, etc.), there is absolutely NO reason to charge the add-on fee. This fee should only be charged if the proper research was not submitted. 
 

 

 

3.) Only charge the $5 add-on fee if adequate or sufficient research was not included in the submission.

 

 

So, your suggestion is for NGC to accept research that is done by someone who they do not know, and who may or may not be qualified to identify or attribute tokens and medals, or who may give incorrect information? You would be ok with them just taking the word of any submitter without doing any research to confirm that their identification is accurate? Even if all they do is checking the accuracy of the submission, they still have to get paid for doing the research.

I agree that an extra $900 is a tough row to hoe, but I don't think $5 is an unreasonable additional charge. If it takes them as little as 15 minutes, that is still only $20 per hour.

[Siah]

On 1/15/2023 at 7:01 PM, Just Bob said:

So, your suggestion is for NGC to accept research that is done by someone who they do not know, and who may or may not be qualified to identify or attribute tokens and medals, or who may give incorrect information? You would be ok with them just taking the word of any submitter without doing any research to confirm that their identification is accurate? Even if all they do is checking the accuracy of the submission, they still have to get paid for doing the research.

I agree that an extra $900 is a tough row to hoe, but I don't think $5 is an unreasonable additional charge. If it takes them as little as 15 minutes, that is still only $20 per hour.

That was “one” of four possible solutions I offered if you read the entirety of the initial post. Additionally, NGC already requires the research to be done in advance or a $5 fee is applied for “attribution.” — Wait, isn’t that what the new $5 fee is for? So, now we’re being asked to provide the base tier cost + $5/token + $5 if the token/medal is not fully researched (by the submitter, not NGC)? That is completely asinine. The way they had it to begin with worked out just fine; no changes were needed to be made with the exception of increased profit goals. If that can’t be seen then there’s no use wasting my time trying to prove the point. 

Edited January 16, 2023 by Siah

[Siah]

On 1/15/2023 at 6:39 PM, Fenntucky Mike said:

TPG costs have started to reach a breaking point with many modern collectable coins and bullion. Prices from non-bulk sellers are not palatable, bulk sellers are better but on the edge. I see a lot of coins and tokens in areas I collect that are now sitting, not a lot of sales going on. I will say that from my perspective banknotes are still going gangbusters and coins/tokens are slowing. Has coin money started to shift to banknotes due to rising costs/prices? It seems to be the case in my areas.

Sorry to get off topic but back to the OP, TPG's are going to charge what they can to remain competitive in the market and maximize profit. It sucks that your cost went up $5 a token but NGC seems to be on par or slightly below the primary competition. I understand your frustration. 

@Siah Do graded tokens bring significant premiums vs raw counterparts? Why do you want your tokens graded? I also collect tokens and exonumia but have yet to have any graded so I'm wondering what the motivation would be to do so. I hope you don't take my questions as negative, just want to see what other collectors are doing and what is going on out there. 

Do you have a custom set of tokens on collector's society? I'd love to see it if you do.

I’m not taking any of your questions as negative; if anything, I appreciate the transparent dialogue. To answer your question, I absolutely think there are certain pieces that, in my opinion, absolutely need authentication due to value, historic rarity, eye-appeal, etc. — such as the 1892 HK-210 “Worlds Columbian Expo: Colorado Building” medal or the 1906 HK-337 Gold Plated “Southwest Expedition: Pikes Peak” medal due to sheer rarity. 
 

I do indeed have a custom set; several actually. However, my most extensive is the “J. Perry Collection of Colorado Coins and Exonumia.” You can see the set here:

https://coins.www.collectors-society.com/WCM/CoinCustomSetGallery.aspx?s=17569

[zadok]

...everything i buy has gone up in price so the $5 increase seems totally reasonable, they r not in business to lose money n im sure everything they buy has gone up as well...as u mentioned u should have submitted in december n saved urself the $900...i personally find their fees acceptable n will continue to use their services which im well pleased with n do not find any of ur proposed options realistic...maybe go with fenntucky's suggestion ask for a bulk rate fee reduction or submit a lesser number of items to meet ur budget....

[Fenntucky Mike]

On 1/15/2023 at 9:01 PM, Just Bob said:

So, your suggestion is for NGC to accept research that is done by someone who they do not know, and who may or may not be qualified to identify or attribute tokens and medals, or who may give incorrect information? You would be ok with them just taking the word of any submitter without doing any research to confirm that their identification is accurate? Even if all they do is checking the accuracy of the submission, they still have to get paid for doing the research.

I agree that an extra $900 is a tough row to hoe, but I don't think $5 is an unreasonable additional charge. If it takes them as little as 15 minutes, that is still only $20 per hour.

NGC has a list of references that they use, I think they published it back in 2015. As long as a submitted token has an accepted reference number, same as a KM, what's it matter? I completely agree that $5 per is not an unreasonable fee for identification for unknown pieces, actually sounds like a bargain. Tokens that are not listed in accepted references should absolutely be charged a fee and most, if not all, probably rejected. Why would NGC research unlisted tokens, that would be a blackhole.

I think that this doesn't really have anything to do with researching/identifying unknown tokens, NGC raised their price nothing more. If a token is not in an accepted reference it will be returned raw, I'm guessing that's what would have happen prior to the price increase.

Edited January 16, 2023 by Fenntucky Mike

[Fenntucky Mike]

On 1/15/2023 at 9:56 PM, zadok said:

...everything i buy has gone up in price so the $5 increase seems totally reasonable, they r not in business to lose money n im sure everything they buy has gone up as well...as u mentioned u should have submitted in december n saved urself the $900...i personally find their fees acceptable n will continue to use their services which im well pleased with n do not find any of ur proposed options realistic...maybe go with fenntucky's suggestion ask for a bulk rate fee reduction or submit a lesser number of items to meet ur budget....

I concur, NGC prices are inline with their competitors and seem to be cheaper across the board when compared to PCGS. I much prefer to work with NGC, an extra $5per piece would not  give me pause but if I was sending in 180 peices... yeah, I'd have to rethink what I was doing.

[Fenntucky Mike]

On 1/15/2023 at 9:50 PM, Siah said:

I’m not taking any of your questions as negative; if anything, I appreciate the transparent dialogue. To answer your question, I absolutely think there are certain pieces that, in my opinion, absolutely need authentication due to value, historic rarity, eye-appeal, etc. — such as the 1892 HK-210 “Worlds Columbian Expo: Colorado Building” medal or the 1906 HK-337 Gold Plated “Southwest Expedition: Pikes Peak” medal due to sheer rarity. 
 

I do indeed have a custom set; several actually. However, my most extensive is the “J. Perry Collection of Colorado Coins and Exonumia.” You can see the set here:

https://coins.www.collectors-society.com/WCM/CoinCustomSetGallery.aspx?s=17569

Wow, the set looks awesome! I took a quick look but I'm going to have to go back and spend some time with it when I'm in front of my desktop. Looks like a lot of good write ups and images.  I can't wait to dig in to the set.

[World Colonial]

On 1/15/2023 at 9:56 PM, zadok said:

...everything i buy has gone up in price so the $5 increase seems totally reasonable, they r not in business to lose money n im sure everything they buy has gone up as well...as u mentioned u should have submitted in december n saved urself the $900...i personally find their fees acceptable n will continue to use their services which im well pleased with n do not find any of ur proposed options realistic...maybe go with fenntucky's suggestion ask for a bulk rate fee reduction or submit a lesser number of items to meet ur budget....

What's the price range for the coins you submit?

Mine are usually in the world economy tier where the cut-off is $300.  I'll still submit my pillar purchases if it's a scarce/rare date for authentication and any better grade I don't already have in a holder.

Have no plans to submit anything else and while it's not the primary reason, I don't buy other coins I previously might have in the past.

Up to 2006, I bought a lot of lower priced coins which I sold that year, recouping my cost.  Now with the higher eBay fees and lack of true auctions, no way I'm tying up mid-four figures or more (which is easy to do now at the higher prices) for coins I don't really want that badly and can't get my money back either.

I have no direct evidence of it, but the higher fees either have or presumably will reduce the marketability of most lower priced currently ungraded coins.

[zadok]

On 1/16/2023 at 9:40 AM, World Colonial said:

What's the price range for the coins you submit?

Mine are usually in the world economy tier where the cut-off is $300.  I'll still submit my pillar purchases if it's a scarce/rare date for authentication and any better grade I don't already have in a holder.

Have no plans to submit anything else and while it's not the primary reason, I don't buy other coins I previously might have in the past.

Up to 2006, I bought a lot of lower priced coins which I sold that year, recouping my cost.  Now with the higher eBay fees and lack of true auctions, no way I'm tying up mid-four figures or more (which is easy to do now at the higher prices) for coins I don't really want that badly and can't get my money back either.

I have no direct evidence of it, but the higher fees either have or presumably will reduce the marketability of most lower priced currently ungraded coins.

...agree the increase will most likely impact the number of lower dollar coins submitted, im sure that was factored in n possibly desired, but there will still be those collectors like myself that will continue to submit lower value coins because it meets their needs/desires for their collections, many like myself dont calculate their coins costs n fees into whether they can recoup those costs if/when sold...as to my personal parameters on coins submitted for certifications its a mixed bag because my collections span a big spectrum, most of the coins i submit r in the 4 figure ranges but in some of my submissions the coins r in the low to mid 3 figure ranges, as with u i collect some very obscure little collected issues in some cases prob less than a dozen collectors in the whole world, those r my fun collections, in the more serious high dollar collections where maybe a few hundred collectors those r my challenge collections....

[World Colonial]

On 1/16/2023 at 10:24 AM, zadok said:

... many like myself dont calculate their coins costs n fees into whether they can recoup those costs if/when sold...

Yes, but from your posts, you have a much bigger collecting budget than I do and most collectors.

When it comes to submitting and grading fees, I'm a utilitarian.  It isn't only economics, but that anything I spend on grading fees means I have less to spend on coins.

I submit infrequently now, maybe every year or two.  Right now, I have two submissions to send in totaling nine coins.  One economy and a second standard including NCS conservation.  Probably something like $300-$400 including postage.

I don't have a fixed budget since I usually buy coins in my primary series as it becomes available.  Last year, I spent $8000 gross less $3000 sales.  (Six coins with all but one already graded.)  That's on the high side for me.

You can see from my description that submitting more often would eat up a substantial part of my budget and most collectors won't do that because their coin budget is primarily for coins, not grading fees or other non-coin expenditures.

[zadok]

On 1/16/2023 at 10:50 AM, World Colonial said:

Yes, but from your posts, you have a much bigger collecting budget than I do and most collectors.

When it comes to submitting and grading fees, I'm a utilitarian.  It isn't only economics, but that anything I spend on grading fees means I have less to spend on coins.

I submit infrequently now, maybe every year or two.  Right now, I have two submissions to send in totaling nine coins.  One economy and a second standard including NCS conservation.  Probably something like $300-$400 including postage.

I don't have a fixed budget since I usually buy coins in my primary series as it becomes available.  Last year, I spent $8000 gross less $3000 sales.  (Six coins with all but one already graded.)  That's on the high side for me.

You can see from my description that submitting more often would eat up a substantial part of my budget and most collectors won't do that because their coin budget is primarily for coins, not grading fees or other non-coin expenditures.

...all true n as u mention very utilitarian approach or practical if u prefer...i realize most collectors have a limited budget, but u wouldnt think so from some of the coins i have bid on it many of the recent auctions, i am fortunate that at the present i dont really have to budget my coin monies as in deciding which coin to buy n not buy, having said that i have been literally shut out in some recent auctions, mostly my "coin" monies r discretionary funds n dont figure into any of my financial concerns...however in some 50+ years of serious collecting the sum value has become significant, if i sold now my return would prob be in the 400-500% range...i would say that my coin assets have outpaced my stock assets over that same period but was not the initial intention of collecting...i know GF doesnt consider coins as investment assets but i do have a small grouping of coins (40) that i consider "stand alone" coins not part of a collection per se, coins that i consider truly rare either empirically or concensus wise...coins that r finest knowns or finest documented, those i do consider costs on...i prob certify 100-200 coins per year so % wise not significant....

[World Colonial]

On 1/16/2023 at 11:20 AM, zadok said:

.mostly my "coin" monies r discretionary funds n dont figure into any of my financial concerns...

Me either, to a point, though I do limit my collection value as a pct. of my assets.

There are two reasons I'm usually not willing to lose a "noticeable" proportion of my purchase price.  The first one is the life effort required to save the money where I'm not about to throw away my time because I can't get it back.   It's still mostly wage income to me, not portfolio passive income requiring limited or no effort.

The second is that I just do not like most coins enough to lose money on it anymore.  The coins aren't interesting enough and I do not want to own it that badly.

[Siah]

On 1/15/2023 at 8:31 PM, Fenntucky Mike said:

Wow, the set looks awesome! I took a quick look but I'm going to have to go back and spend some time with it when I'm in front of my desktop. Looks like a lot of good write ups and images.  I can't wait to dig in to the set.

I really appreciate that. It’s a beast of a set; one I’ve been working on for nearly a decade. Don’t let it intimidate you. The way one should look at it is as though it’s a book or guide on Colorado coins and exonumia. As you can see, the set has won Most Informative. Extensive research was taken into account on all pieces; and a universal format utilized throughout. — Whenever you do indeed get the chance to review it, I truly hope you enjoy!

[VKurtB]

NGC is now owned by a private equity firm. Has anyone ever heard of private equity firms LOWERING the prices of the goods and services their recently acquired companies charge? I ask seriously because I have not. The more esoteric areas are prime targets for increases. And so it goes. New ownership means new policies. Get over it. 

Edited January 17, 2023 by VKurtB

[Siah]

On 1/17/2023 at 12:04 PM, VKurtB said:

NGC is now owned by a private equity firm. Has anyone ever heard of private equity firms LOWERING the prices of the goods and services their recently acquired companies charge? I ask seriously because I have not. The more esoteric areas are prime targets for increases. And so it goes. New ownership means new policies. Get over it. 

There is certainly no need to be rude about it. CCG has been owned by the hedge fund Blackstone since July of 2021. No, I do not expect them to “lower” prices, nor was that suggestion or argument even made to begin with? The argument was directed to the justification of the additional $5 cost per medal/token. That’s a significant increase apart from no raise at all; ~20% to be exact. Alternative solutions are even being offered that are indeed reasonable and still allow the company to make money. Simply accepting price raises with the argument of “They’re now owned by a private company and price raises are inevitable because they’re a for-profit company; get over it” is a poor way to look at change, in my opinion — but, everyone is entitled to their own. I will say, however, when budgets are minimal/finite, changes like this significantly impact 3rd party grading for small exonumia collectors like myself. It’s possible to spur change when initiatives are put forth instead of simply accepting it based on circumstance. I wish more people saw it that way. 

[VKurtB]

On 1/17/2023 at 1:33 PM, Siah said:

There is certainly no need to be rude about it. CCG has been owned by the hedge fund Blackstone since July of 2021. No, I do not expect them to “lower” prices, nor was that suggestion or argument even made to begin with? The argument was directed to the justification of the additional $5 cost per medal/token. That’s a significant increase apart from no raise at all; ~20% to be exact. Alternative solutions are even being offered that are indeed reasonable and still allow the company to make money. Simply accepting price raises with the argument of “They’re now owned by a private company and price raises are inevitable because they’re a for-profit company; get over it” is a poor way to look at change, in my opinion — but, everyone is entitled to their own. I will say, however, when budgets are minimal/finite, changes like this significantly impact 3rd party grading for small exonumia collectors like myself. It’s possible to spur change when initiatives are put forth instead of simply accepting it based on circumstance. I wish more people saw it that way. 

Anyone who was ready to spend over $4,000 to have tokens graded has zero room to complain about another thousand. Sorry, that’s my take. I am a certified ANA judge for tokens and I have never had anywhere near that many graded. Methinks you are overdoing the grading. But then again, that IS the most contagious disease on this board. 

Edited January 17, 2023 by VKurtB

[Siah]

On 1/17/2023 at 12:40 PM, VKurtB said:

Anyone who was ready to spend over $4,000 to have tokens graded has zero room to complain about another thousand. Sorry, that’s my take. I am a certified ANA judge for tokens and I have never had anywhere near that many graded. Methinks you are overdoing the grading. But then again, that IS the most contagious disease on this board. 

I respectfully disagree. I’ve been saving for years. I don’t think it’s abnormal to submit several years worth of tokens/medals at once to try and save on shipping/invoice fees, etc, then smaller batches over the years. I’m netting ~30 coins a year based on the amount of $ I have saved from when I started saving it. — I do agree, however, there are likely certain pieces that simply don’t need authentication. However, I try and limit mine to rare pieces and/or those that are greatly increased in value through authentication due to minimal information or obscurity. 

[VKurtB]

On 1/17/2023 at 1:55 PM, Siah said:

I respectfully disagree. I’ve been saving for years. I don’t think it’s abnormal to submit several years worth of tokens/medals at once to try and save on shipping/invoice fees, etc, then smaller batches over the years. I’m netting ~30 coins a year based on the amount of $ I have saved from when I started saving it. — I do agree, however, there are likely certain pieces that simply don’t need authentication. However, I try and limit mine to rare pieces and/or those that are greatly increased in value through authentication due to minimal information or obscurity. 

Yes, obscurity is a problem. Tokens have a deeply committed following, but it is rather thin. Aside from Civil War and Hard Times, the market gets REALLY thin, mostly in far western states. As an example, Holabird occasionally auctions unique pieces NOT in TPGS plastic. 

Edited January 17, 2023 by VKurtB

[Siah]

On 1/17/2023 at 12:59 PM, VKurtB said:

Yes, obscurity is a problem. Tokens have a deeply committed following, but it is rather thin. Aside from Civil War and Hard Times, the market gets REALLY thin, mostly in far western states. As an example, Holabird occasionally auctions unique pieces NOT in TPGS plastic. 

I’ll agree with you there. However, I have assembled a pretty extensive Colorado collection. I think Colorado is an exception to the rule regarding western states due to the presence of the ANA HQ based in Colorado Springs, as well as the Denver Mint (and even ANACS themselves in Englewood). Aside from ANACS, the prior two have spurred a great deal of Numismatic artifacts, in addition to the various World’s Fair of Money/ANA Conventions or National Money Shows we’ve seen in Denver or Colorado Springs (1963, 1978, 1982, 1984, 1989, 1996, 2006, 2017, 2022 & 2024). We’ve seen a higher number over the years due to the above information. 

[VKurtB]

On 1/17/2023 at 2:20 PM, Siah said:

I’ll agree with you there. However, I have assembled a pretty extensive Colorado collection. I think Colorado is an exception to the rule regarding western states due to the presence of the ANA HQ based in Colorado Springs, as well as the Denver Mint (and even ANACS themselves in Englewood). Aside from ANACS, the prior two have spurred a great deal of Numismatic artifacts, in addition to the various World’s Fair of Money/ANA Conventions or National Money Shows we’ve seen in Denver or Colorado Springs (1963, 1978, 1982, 1984, 1989, 1996, 2006, 2017, 2022 & 2024). We’ve seen a higher number over the years due to the above information. 

Shows create medals mostly, not tokens so much. Tokens are usually “good for” something, a replacement medium of exchange. 

Edited January 17, 2023 by VKurtB