As a numismatic researcher, writer, and dealer, I have found that the digital Conder token reference is by far the easiest way to distinguish the many minute differences that make one token common and its brother rare. I keep it stored on my portable USB disk as a ready reference. It's far more convenient that toting around Dalton & Hamer.
There are a few important points that I feel require further explanation on the topic of the token price analysis and the results presented in the Digital Quick Reference.
Q: Just what does the analysis show and how well does it represent the values of Conder Tokens?
A: The analysis is simply a look at average prices and price ranges for pieces with certain characteristics, observed at auction from 2005 to 2009. There are four elements in that sentence that should be discussed: 1) average, 2) grouping tokens with certain characteristics into categories, 3) 2005-2009, and 4) auctions
Elements 1 and 2 (averages by category): There are a number of categories into which Conder tokens can be grouped. The categories chosen in the price analysis are those that appeared to have the most significant and consistent correlation to token values. Rarity, condition, denomination, and metal are all categories that are very worthy of analysis. However, it should be noted that, by grouping tokens into categories based on shared qualities, such as by rarity, for the purpose of calculating an average price, does have some pitfalls. Just because two like-graded tokens have a rarity rating of RRR does not mean that they will be equally valued by collectors or that they should be similarly priced. In fact it is not uncommon to see substantial differences in prices among tokens in the same category (rarity or other.) Since there are sometimes great differences between pieces in the same category calculating an average price for tokens in that category does risk presenting a somewhat distorted view of the market (the size of the standard deviations in some cases is illustrative of the wide spread of prices one can encounter within one particular range of grade and rarity.) The point I am trying to make here is that the price analysis in the Ultimate Guide is not an open-and-go price guide, it is a product of academic inquiry and hopefully will inspire thought and continued conversation among collectors on the always hot topic of 18th century British token prices. So, please do not apply the averages contained in the analysis to any token in a strict fashion and, if you are new, do not place a random bid on any token based solely on the analysis in the Digital Quick Reference. The price tables can help to orient you but you'll still have to do some leg work to become an informed buyer (and that is a truth that applies to any collectible pricing resource.)
Elements 1 and 3 (averages over time): The analysis included price data from 2005 to the tail end of 2009. And though the prices used in the analysis were adjusted for inflation, there is the ever present issue that arises when one seeks to calculate an average across a period of time. This too can create some degree of distortion. Ideally one would want to adjust prices from years past for appreciation as well as inflation. Conders have certainly appreciated since 2005, 2006, 2007, etc... but to apply any rate of appreciation requires a time series (multiple observations of the same token, in the same condition, occurring at regular intervals over specific period of time.) Time series data is difficult to acquire for the vast majority of the pieces in the Conder token series because the volume of Conder tokens traded each year is tiny when compared to more mainstream coins such as US Large cents. What makes it even more difficult is the sometimes wide range of quality implied by grades currently used to describe tokens. Put simply, there is not a whole lot of harmonious data available to conduct an analysis that represents most of the Conder token series within the time span of only one year.
Element 4 (auctions as a data source): The data used in the analysis were auction results for single token lots. It is difficult to reconcile the grading and pricing standards of various dealers from different regions with that of catalogers. (In fact it is even difficult in some cases to reconcile the grading standards of one cataloger with another.) It is a very laborious task and more importantly leaves a lot room for error. So in an effort to reduce error, it was decided to analyze data from only auction sources. Why is this an important point to mention? It is important because not all of the Conder token series can be represented by single token lots at auction. Catalogers usually only create single token lots when a token is worth the time it takes to describe the piece and the ink and space it requires to be printed. Today, there are many more single token lots than one would ever expect to see in a catalog 10 years ago. However, there are still a good number of very common pieces and tokens of lower grades that are grouped together and sold in multi-token lots. The contents of those lots typically wind up on dealers' lists and ebay and can be had for very reasonable prices. However, for this reason, the analysis will be most applicable to those pieces that one commonly finds as single token lots in auction catalogs.