Need ORIGIN correction

[CyberspaceVoid]

I have three recently graded Conder Tokens that are given their origins when loaded into my collection manager as follows:

 

(3748385-001) WESTMORELAND, WILTSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE SOMERSETSHIRE

(3748385-002) STAFFORDSHIRE, SUFFOLK

(3748385-003) SURREY, SUSSEX

 

These are counties (shires) within GREAT BRITIAN (the correct ORIGIN), and Great Britain (or it's abbreviation) is even listed on the NGC labels. Please correct these on your side, as the Collection Manager doesn't allow it to be edited and proper sorting is made impossible.

[Ali E.]

We are looking into this. Thanks for letting us know. (We do not see them in your Collection Manager right now.)

[CyberspaceVoid]

No, I entered them as raw coins as I didn't want the other origin designation, unfortunately without the NGC number I couldn't put them in my custom set.

 

I will edit them now by entering the NGC number no so you can see them.

 

Thanks,

 

Wendy

 

 

Edit: Done.

 

[Ali E.]

Ok. Thank you, Wendy. We are working on this and will get back to you.

[Ali E.]

Good Morning, Wendy.

We have looked into this further. We have a limited number of data fields in our grading database. In order to add Great Britain, we would need to significantly abbreviate the names of the counties. We think it is more important to show the full names of the counties. Thank you.

 

[CyberspaceVoid]

I disagree, as all my other NGC Conder Tokens go without the counties mentioned. Those can be added by the individual in the subregion slot of the registry. Besides, only ONE the counties you list are mentioned in the definitive reference catalogue .... not up to the three that you have chosen to include. Why are the other counties mentioned? I have no idea .... perhaps where they generally circulated? From what you indicate the tokens were minted in pieces of several counties and somehow cobbled together....

[CyberspaceVoid]

TTT

[Ali E.]

We are researching the data for these tokens further. We will get back to you on this soon. Thank you.

[Ali E.]

In an effort to add Conder Tokens to the NGC Census in the future, we are categorizing these into groups by counties.

 

This has inadvertently caused the counties to appear in the Country field in the NGC Registry, but we are currently exploring an update that would allow a user to change the country. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause right now. Thank you.

 

[CyberspaceVoid]

There is a big difference between Country and County (note the extra "r").... one is a nation while the other is a significantly smaller administrative district.

 

Using your logic dictates that each coin from US mints should carry it's own county as it's "origin" and not the United States of America so shouldn't you use for the Denver Mint Denver County, the New Orleans Mint Orleans Parish, the Dahlonega Mint Lumpkin County)? Even using the state is illogical .... the Counties are a SUB-REGION which is also an option in the registry grid.

 

Even using your explanation it still doesn't explain why you indicate each single token was made in more than one county ... were they assembled from pieces made in several counties?

[Ali E.]

Good Morning, CyberspaceVoid.

We have sent you a message to the email address we have on file for you. Thank you.

[CyberspaceVoid]

Good Morning, CyberspaceVoid.

We have sent you a message to the email address we have on file for you. Thank you.

 

A private email message on this matter is unacceptable ... it needs to be answered on a public forum so all can judge the request merits and the responses by NGC.

[CyberspaceVoid]

OK, since there was a lack of response I will help post it for you .....

(the emphasis below is mine)

 

 

******************************************************************************************

Hello, Wendy.

This is a data organization issue that is not easily changed with a quick fix here or there. Our team is working on finding a solution. We will contact you when a conclusion has been reached. Thank you for your patience and for your interest in NGC.

 

 

Regards,

Ali Emery

Registry Coordinator | Numismatic Guaranty Corporation

p. 941-360-3990 x175 | f. 941-360-2553

collectiblesgroup.com

 

NGC, NCS, PMG and CGC are members of the Certified Collectibles Group

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient, please be advised that the content of this message is subject to access, review and disclosure by the sender's Email System Administrator.

 

*****************************************************************************************

 

And my reply ....

 

Ali,

 

I am patient, but it is in no way acceptable …

 

The listing of COUNTIES is a region classification and not a country of origin like every other coin listing in the registry. NGC gives acknowledgement of Great Britain as the proper origin as it is listed first on all the tokens in my submissions although it is abbreviated in some cases. In addition, all the Conders are already classified by a single county (shire) in all reference sources and by NGC in their attribution description. You do know that there are other locations in the world that carry the same county names? Also, why you list more than one county listed in your origin description is unfathomable as an origin can only be in one place unless these are somehow assembled or minted on county lines. I doubt that very much and such notations call into question NGC’s attribution abilities.

 

By moving the counties (shires) data entry into the region data field of the Registry database, where it would be more logical, should be a very simple fix … I am not asking for a revision of the registry program code which I agree IS more difficult. If this is not done then it appears obvious that someone running the Registry has either not logically thought out the process or is now unwilling to implement it.

 

 

 

[dena]

We are currently working on the solution to this and the changes should be made live on the site with our next Registry data update that is scheduled for Tuesday afternoon. Thank you.