OPINIONS wanted.......Which one do you prefer and why???

goose3

one of these is nearly a 1500 token while the other is roughly 2/3 of that. Please tell me which one YOU like and WHY and I'll chime in later tonite after I take the wife and kids out for some coneys and shopping! (I have to do something with her, it's our Anniversary tomorrow) Pic of the first one is pretty much how it looks in hand. Second token is not as bright and actually somewhat dull and dark in hand. This ought to be interesting.

mgoodm3

I like the first. Nicer coloring. Second looks kinda rough.

Craton

I like the first coin. The second coin looks to be so pitted dark that it's hard to see many of the details.

BillJones

Yes, #1 for sure. It's got the rust, but it's got more eye appeal.

#2 does not look "Unc." to me, but what do I know? NGC is god.

MrEureka

"Dark and dull" doesn't bother me all that much. It probably looks more like "armor plate" that way, which is sorta cool. On the other hand, the strike on the first piece makes it the winner. If you're going to pay a boatload of money for a picture of a boat struck on a piece of a boat, it seems to me you would want to be able to see as much of the boat as possible. IMHAIO, of course.

TomB

I really don't like either of them.

Is it possible to obtain a lower grade specimen for significantly less money?

lordmarcovan

Judging from the pics, there's no contest- it's the first one, all the way. Much better strike and/or detail.

Both pretty neat, though.

goose3

<< <i>I really don't like either of them.

Is it possible to obtain a lower grade specimen for significantly less money? >>




Tom,

those might represent roughly 1/2 or so of the total population on these.

DennisH

#1 all the way... doesn't have the heavy corrosion (?) the 2nd one does.

BillJones

I have a little horseshoe that is made of the same stuff! It was an advertising piece that was made by the same iron works.

jdimmick

I like the first one better than the second.

BillJones

<< <i>

<< <i>I really don't like either of them.

Is it possible to obtain a lower grade specimen for significantly less money? >>




Tom,

those might represent roughly 1/2 or so of the total population on these. >>



Sorry Goose there are a few more than 4. I'd say that if you count all of the rusty ones, like mine, there might be 30 to 40 pieces. The Fulds were a bit too conservative in their estimated population.

BillJones

Here is an example of the poorest know Merrimac iron token. It is the worst item, gradewise that is in my colleciton.

tlhoy

I like #2 the bottom one.I like the 2 in the date is dropped.

Glenn

LincolnCentMan

The top one... no question about it. I can see more detail with less distortion.

David

ms70

Top one. Looks more original. The bottom one looks cleaned.

cladking

I like the reverse of the second one but overall I prefer the first.

That "horseshoe" and folder look fascinating also.

goose3

BillJOnes

yours is still Cool! You ought to wear it!

that or sell it to Dthigpen for a grand! I'd like to buy that horseshoe from you!



Ok......


TOP TOKEN is in an NCS slab and merely labelled "Genuine". The rust is what caused it not to be holdered by NGC but in my opinion #2 has just as much or had just as much surface corrosion, just not as blazingly obvious.

I am in agreement with nearly everyone here. For the difference in money and vast difference in appearance, I am going to Keep #1 and not "Upgrade" to #2 even though it is "Problem Free" or at least NGC seems to say.

I own #1 and had #2 sent on approval. Guess I'll be mailing it back tomorrow.

thanks everyone I just wanted to make sure I am not totally crazy.

Shamika

#1 for sure. I've always admired that coin as your icon.

morgannut2

Number one better based on the granulality of the boat of the second.

mrearlygold

Like em both!


Tom

magikbilly

Speaking as a longtime ocean liner memorabilia collector and coin collector - #1 absolutely.

Billy

jonesy

#1.

BillJones

<< <i>BillJOnes

yours is still Cool! You ought to wear it!

that or sell it to Dthigpen for a grand! I'd like to buy that horseshoe from you!
>>



Wearing these tokens is not a good idea. They are made of iron (19th century scrap iron to be exact) and they are VERY susceptible to moisture and body fluids. Unlike the major coinage metals, gold, silver, copper and nickel, iron is quite chemically reactive and will continue to deteriorate if it is not stored properly. That’s why so many of these tokens are rusted. (It’s also why the 1943 War cents were zinc coated and why THEY rust if the zinc coating is removed.)

I’ve seen only three or four examples that I liked better than Goose3’s token #1. They had smoother surfaces and NO rust. I put off buying a nice one back when I was buying quite a number of expensive CWTs, partly because this piece had been de-listed from the CWT family. This piece was minted from iron cladding that was recovered from the Merrimack (a.k.a. “The Virginia”) circa 1906. For that that reason it can’t be a CWT because they must have been minted during the 1861 – 1864 period.) The last time I tried to buy one of these a sniper scooped it from me on Ebay. It looked to be better than Goose’s piece, but I never saw it in person.

If you want to get technical a fair number of the very rare CWTs, including some of the off-metal pieces could be de-listed too because they are made for collectors from the original dies after the war.

coinguy89

Nicely put Bill, basically what I wanted to say all summed up.

Conder101

I like #1 better. They both appear to have similar levels of corrosion but the details of the first seem a little sharper.

Coppernicus

I like #1 more than #2. If the pics are close to reality, #2 looks too pitted for my taste.

Both are neat though!!

Mike