Is this holder the same age as PCGS Rattler?

JGnumismatics · May 23, 2015 11:48PM

I picked up this Walker out of a deal that I bought mainly thinking the holder was first generation. From the brief research I did I figured this coin was age equivalent to the PCGS rattlers and just after the black NGC holders. The label in the holder isn't faded I don't believe, there is no barcode or ngc symbol beyond the date,mm, grade, etc...

My main question is whether these holders are worth a high premium, or most just consider them as novelties as well as the age of the holder generation wise

Thanks

Walkerfan · May 24, 2015 12:03AM

They are quite collectible and sought after and also worth a premium----just not as much as the NGC black.

BustCuds · May 24, 2015 12:04AM

Old soap bar holder, don't see too many of these anymore...nice!

agentjim007 · May 24, 2015 12:18AM

I pay a little more when in the old gold embossed holder, when I want the coin. Not just to buy the holder like some people buy Doilys.

topstuf · May 24, 2015 12:18AM

What's on the sun?

agentjim007 · May 24, 2015 12:19AM

It's an eclipse

brg5658 · May 24, 2015 12:29AM

A "high premium" no. But it is from very early (1987) at NGC, and they don't come up all that often.

A slab collector would pay a premium, but no where near the stratospheric (and IMO silly) premiums paid for the black NGC 1.0 slabs.

braddick · May 24, 2015 1:14AM

braddick · May 24, 2015 1:15AM

If the gold embossing is on the outside of the plastic or on the inside makes a difference in generation and thus pricing too.

astrorat · May 24, 2015 1:32AM

Yes, the holder is contemporary with the PCGS rattler. It looks to be an NGC 2.1 (embossed logo on the inside of the plastic). It is worth a premium to those who collect old slabs.

ricko · May 24, 2015 1:34AM

Except for the strange aberration on the sun, that looks like a nice WLH.... Cheers, RickO

roadrunner · May 24, 2015 1:35AM

<< <i>If the gold embossing is on the outside of the plastic or on the inside makes a difference in generation and thus pricing too. >>

The ones with embossing on the inside of the plastic are much scarcer. The lettering doesn't cast a shadow on the white insert. From the OP's photo this sort of seems like the scarcer version. Most of these (meaning both styles of gold stenciled holders) are from 1988.

While the early embossed lettering is nice, it helps to have a coin that is graded conservatively, as many are. This one appears to have 3 unattractive patches of dip residue when considering both sides. If the coin is clean otherwise maybe it's worth up to MS65 money. Never seen an "O" inside the sun like that before. Pretty weird. Oreville has a good handle on these particular holders.

brg5658 · May 24, 2015 1:41AM

<< <i>

<< <i>If the gold embossing is on the outside of the plastic or on the inside makes a difference in generation and thus pricing too. >>

The ones with embossing on the inside of the plastic are much scarcer. The lettering doesn't cast a shadow on the white insert. From the OP's photo this sort of seems like the scarcer version. Most of these are from 1988.

While the early embossed lettering is nice, it helps to have a coin that is graded conservatively, as many are. This one appears to have 3 unattractive patches of dip residue when considering both sides. If the coin is clean otherwise maybe it's worth up to MS65 money. Never seen an "O" inside the sun like that before. Pretty weird. Oreville has a good handle on these particular holders. >>

No all white label NGC old slabs were issued past January 1988 at the latest. According to Conder101's listing, this was likely issued in November of December of 1987.

DollarAfterDollar · May 24, 2015 1:49AM

^^^^^^^^ what he said.

Conder101's list is the most definitive out there.

JGnumismatics · May 24, 2015 4:42AM

Thanks for all the comments first off!

I guess I should have been more specific about the premium questions. I know the premiums for regular soap dish/fatties carry, does this one being older have a larger premium.
Ex: The coin as is is worth somewhere between 60-85, what does this older fatty add to it.

*Also I did check the reverse of the slab, and the golden NGC is on the inside of the slab as many suggested if so would be better.
*I also agree that the black marks are some sort of residue or a factor from being in the holder for almost 30 years. I got a good chuckle out of the eclipse comment

Thanks again guys,

Jake

DRUNNER · May 24, 2015 7:38AM

This is the NGC 2.1. Yes, definitive premium and there is a site with a Census on these somewhere. Last I saw, there were 25-30 listed.

The NGC 2.1 is actually the first holder after the NGC 1.0 (Black). The reason it is listed as "2.1" and not "2.0" is actually due to its scarcity. When Conder101 did his definitive study, the NGC "2.1" (gold embossing on the inside of the slab) was so rare it was unknown to Conder -- so he designated the only NGC white thus far known (NGC "2.0" -- embossing on the outside of the slab) as "2.0" despite the fact it was the third in the series, behind the NGC 1.0 (Black) and the NGC 2.1 (embossing on the outside). The 2.1s are so scarce they actually were not known whern Conder did his study. That might be a revelation to some ???

Why?

Legend/story/apocrypha/verifiable data indicate that NGC had a huge difficulty in getting the embossing on the inside to look professional. It smeared, was indistinct, and generally not the quality a 2-year-old grading company would like to be out in public. A large amount of the 2.1s were redone to get the hotstamp to look decent and be issued. A decision was made after just a couple of days to move the hotstamp to the outside where the softer insert would not be an issue -- hence the "2.0". Always remember that slab scarcity is due to two factors -- slabbing rate per day (so many of our slab experts forget this), and total time the slab generation was produced. In this case -- both were minimal. Hence -- the rarity of the 2.1.

Great slab. Admittedly, the coin/residue/dip/problems may factor into value. I recuse myself here . . .

Drunner
(Yeah, a few of us actually know a bit about this crap)

DRUNNER · May 24, 2015 7:39AM

Oh . . .got any questions? Be sure to PM. I actually find this plastic stuff to be interesting . . .

Funny me . . .

Drunner

JGnumismatics · May 24, 2015 9:25AM

Great information everyone, especially by DRUNNER

Thanks guys!

Jake

DRUNNER · May 24, 2015 11:35AM

PM Sent . . . .

edited to add "Not to negotiate or try to purchase -- just to inform privately of perceived value".

mercurydimeguy · May 24, 2015 2:27PM

I've cracked of few of these in the last 10 years. Almost every coin graded lower.

I think the way the holder was designed the coins were exposed to elements and thus turned in the holder.

I see the black stuff on this coin...don't know if it was there beforehand.

Anyhow, I would say this holder brings a premium if the coin inside is premium worthy else why would the holder itself be worth more or more interesting than the coin inside?

Just my 10 cents

dib · May 24, 2015 2:41PM

I picked up one of these fairly recently, I love the simplicity of this holder.

DRUNNER · May 24, 2015 3:33PM

Mercury . . . . .

I appreciate your experience with these. Mine has been somewhat different.

I have a variety (not many) of both 2.0 and 2.1s. I DID send a few to CAC for the fun of it. Two went Gold . . . the rest all did the normal green bean. I have not sent in my best. The grading of this period has been stated by various threads in the past (and Rick Montgomery himself) to be 'conservative' at that time. Virtually every member, dealer, and random observer of this Forum has agreed they were VERY conservatively graded. THAT is one of the reasons so few exist now (and of course, the slabbing rate at the time -- a VERY misunderstood element of the rarity). They have been cracked and resubmitted decades ago . . . to this day the crackout guys are going to ruin these . . and the holders surviving remain at a premium.

Not sure of the 'elements' comment. Perhaps. None of mine remotely look that way, and the ones on the Census have not either, but we may have different experiences than yours. All good. I am in a dry climate, but I have purchased my 2.0/2.1s in a variety of locations -- I do not know their provenance. Maybe yours have been exposed to factors I am not aware of . . .

I interpreted your last line to be a challenge/question/discussion of holder value. Not sure if I got the grammar right . . . Good point though, if I followed it. The coin should always be pre-eminent in the discussion of numismatics, but that does not trump the reality of holder collectors willing to pay waaaaaaayyyyy up for rare holders. I have about 180 Doilies . . . and yet only 5 NGC 2.1s. The minimum value for a 2.1 on some venue like eBay will be about $180-$200. That is the base value. The NGC 'White' holders -- either 2.0 (not quite as rare) or the 2.1 (wow) . . . are always going to have a premium, despite the naysayers or poser-numismatists who for some reason continually challenge rare holders and their value. I am not sure why. I love a nice Capped Bust Half -- and also a nice Doily. In return, they value the Capped Bustie -- and dismiss my Doily as an aberration from a confused mind. To each his own . . . .

Why is the holder premium worthy?

Because on the Census . . and to those of us who follow these holders . .there are about 30-40 survivors. They represent the history of what ultimately saved numismatics from collapsing in the late 1980s . . . .Sort of like Picassos . . . why are they valuable?

Drunner

mercurydimeguy · May 24, 2015 10:59PM

DRUNNER, I'm thinking I probably made the mistake of cracking the coin to keep, should have flipped the holder

The most recent one actually was the fireign kruezer... It was in one of these NGC 2.1 slabs. Graded MS66. Needed it for my set and it looked very pretty. It came back MS63 from PCGS. Every other cracked NGC and Anacs coin graded exactly the same in that submission.

Another U.S. coin is my 1869-p $20. It was in one of these XF45 holders. Now it's PCGS XF40 but sent to CAC and got a green CAC sticker.

I've also made about 60 CAC green beans and have never seen a gold bean come back...I have bought another MS64 green CAC coin sticker NGC MS64 coin in one of these "premium" holders (early last year). Couldn't cross at grade on 3 attempts. Sent in cross at any, came back 63. Sent to CAC with the old inset and pictures of the coin and it only got a green CAC striker (so much for gold sticker theory of coin being "undegraded").

Now I just buy the coin never mind paying attention to the holder...now if people actually collect the holder not the coin, I can see where this coin / I mean holder would be a prize

I appreciate your experience with these but I just haven't had the same luck

I do like the coins I bought a lot!!! They just aren't undegraded - often pretty and original but not necessarily undergraded.

Or should I say it never been even able to get them into a comparable PCGS holder

Is this holder the same age as PCGS Rattler?

Comments

Leave a Comment