Siah

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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 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%.

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.

Hello NGC/Fellow Collectors, I have already done extensive research on this and am coming up stumped. Long story short, I recently purchased (what I believe is) an HK-545A (aluminum variety) from a reputable seller (pictured). Since appearances between the HK-545 (nickel-silver) and HK-545A are nearly indistinguishable, weight and length must be used. The seller advised the aluminum variety he was offering should weigh 13.2g and the nickel-silver weighs 26.73g. I could not confirm this anywhere online. When I received the medal, it weighed 13.2g, as he stated. I found a few old eBay listings of raw nickel-silver HK-545’s that indicated the weight as 13.2g. So, that made me feel a bit concerned. However, I have a slabbed HK-545 and it measures 33.5mm. The So-Called Dollar guide lists the nickel-silver issue at 33mm but does not indicate length for the other varieties. The medal I received was 35mm, 1.5mm larger than my slabbed HK-545 (which I cannot weigh because, well, it’s slabbed). I have yet to receive a response from the seller on where he sourced the 26.73g weight from; however, does “anyone” know how NGC identifies the two varieties? Could the HK-545 and 545A be the same weight but different lengths? Do they indeed have different weights and if so, what “are” those weights? Before spending money to have it slabbed, I definitely wanted to check to see if this is a genuine 545A or if it is a 545. Any help on the identification process would be greatly appreciated! Thank you!