Why are there so many stunning coins in OGH PCGS slabs?
Weiss
Posts: 9,941 ✭✭✭✭✭
@CoinJunkie 's thread about OGH coins contains some outrageously gorgeous coins.
It might be confirmation bias. It's probably confirmation bias.
But might it also be that the OGH slabs ushered in a period after which slabs were no longer seen as experimental? Their value had been established. Their durability, desirability. Practicality. Even their grades. So maybe collectors agreed that if a slab was good enough for pedestrian coins, maybe it was time to let the real beauties in?
If fatties and rattlers were conservative and therefore more likely to be cracked out IF they were to be cracked out, then those coins would have been placed into OGHs for the upgrade--which were felt to be spot on the money in terms of grades and therefore less likely to be cracked out again. Final resting places, if you will. By the same token (pun intended), if you had felt your gorgeous 65 might not make it as a 65 in the conservative days of the rattler, you might not have bothered with a slab. But if you were confident that beauty would see the grade she deserved, or even make a tick higher, maybe OGH was the time to bite the bullet?
And maybe the introduction of CAC around 2007 helped freeze the beauties in OGH holders? CAC had been offering their services for about 8 years before the introduction of the later blue label PCGS holders. If you had a stunner in an OGH and it received a green bean, or a gold bean, it stands to reason you'd be less likely to crack the coin and resubmit into the blue slabs which followed the OGHs.
So maybe the place to look for the really good coins isn't fatties and rattlers. Maybe the real stunners are in OGH holders.
Or maybe it's confirmation bias.
--Severian the Lame
Comments
If you start a thread asking to post your rattlers, or you NGC fatties I suspect that you would see just as many fantastic coins, not every collector lives or dies for a one point upgrade because not every collector need the registry ribbon. Awesome pine tree!
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
I imagine greed and profiteering has taken the amazing, original, and eye appealing coins which once resided in older holders and turned them into higher graded widgets during an era where grade drove value more so than quality. Like CAC or hate them, I do believe that they have helped to reduce the profit motivation for dipping and stripping nice original coins, especially gold.
Latin American Collection
I think we tend to like coins that look fantastic for the assigned grade. One I used to own:
Confirmation bias is an enormous element of what we are seeing in the other thread. Additionally, as you astutely point out, CAC has done it's part (in my opinion) to help limit the loss of older holders. Also, the PCGS reconsideration service (whatever they call the grade-within-the-holder option) has also stopped the blood loss. Unfortunately, CAC was a bit late to save the OGH and PCGS was far too late to keep many choice pieces in the old holders.
I might add that there are also folks like me, on both the dealer and collector side, who strive to buy nice coins and then allow those coins to sit in their holders without attempting to upgrade every step of the way. For me, and for many folks like me, the coins are then offered at what their value is, regardless of what the holder states. Obviously, it takes some knowledge and brass balls to do this routinely, but some coins and holders stayed married with this strategy.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I agree with @Boosibri - its not confirmation bias. It's survivor bias - those coins that seem undergraded now in those old holders.
Who is starting the OFH thread?!
My current "Box of 20"
Sounds like a trip to the grocery store these days.
What @coinbuf said.
I always kind of assumed that folks chose their nicest coins to submit first, although there might be something to the theory that they waited to see if slabbing would gain market acceptance first. I know many people love rattlers, but many others like myself find them an overall negative. Some people may have been put off by the idea of their uber-expensive coin banging around against plastic.
Someone should probably start a rattler thread to see what gets posted. It'd be interesting to see data on how many coins were slabbed in each generation of holder. That will almost certainly never be published, much less a complete population report of same.
It could be as simple as those didn't ....need.... cracking.
I had an H10C PCGS AU58 CAC Gold Bean OGH unattributed MPD FS-302, but I wanted it attributed and TrueViewed. Some sacrifices have to be made.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
Did you get a grade bump, oih82w8?
Stunning?...Not in the saint series.
Simpson, Hansen, Duckor, A&A, Fox, Kutasi... Not a single OGH amongst them.
OGH security features are obsolete so you are opening yourself up to counterfeiting or misrepresentation.
I'll always choose the better coin regardless of stickers or plastic, even if the premium puts it higher than the next grade.
In my set right now I have a 1924 MS65 Saint in place of the 66+ one that was there previously so going down in grade means nothing to me either.
My Saint Set
Weren't all (or most) of those guys involved in the Registry? If so, they probably valued a higher number on the label than its color. In other words, regrades.
I definitely agree that there are a ton of beauties in OGH’s...
A lot have been cracked out, but many still remain as OGH has more gold cacs than any other holder if I had to guess...
PCGS might not heavily advertise it, but they have done in-holder TrueViews for a number of folks and would likely have been able to accommodate you very easily while retaining the OGH. However, the attribution addition still would have required a new slab if you wanted on the certificate.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I did not ask for one, I am working on my 19th Century Everyman Set.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
I think Bella & Fox bought some plastic.
Simpson, Hansen, Duckor & Kutasi...Not so much.
PCGS is pretty consistent with top pops & you're probably consulting with a professional numismatist at that level.
After the OGH era, PCGS changed their grading standards.
MS65 was too big of a category and they needed to bump 66's up to 67 & promote the best 65's
That has been done and I agree with it.
So far as stunning coins, they are all in new holders unless you find a "fresh" MS66 OGH in some 200 year old safe.
My Saint Set
Inasmuch as I want to agree with Boosibri, I am unable to... And let me explain why. I will limit my comments to post 1838 Gold. Back in the 1987-1993 time frame, original gold was held to an unrealistic grading standard. TPG was brutal on gold setting an expectation that was just not based in reality or anything else for that matter. A reasonable number of original gold coins were cracked out, enhanced to highlight luster even though the surfaces as the coins were should have dictated the higher grade to begin with. TPG was more of a market tool than a numismatic measure to capture and measure what truly matters. Dirty gold is dirty for a practical reason which seems to be lost in what is appropriate to determine the most accurate grade given the historical context for gold coinage in general. Somehow, lost in all of this is simply that original surfaces often mute reflectivity which is a common measurement of luster. And muted luster is seen as a negative. Instead, the focal point of grading gold should consider the surfaces and the remaining die flow lines present. This failure created and reinforced a fallacy in grading that! in my view, is responsible for instigating the slaughtering of coins in anticipation of obtaining a higher grade at the expense of what is truly important... Looking at coins for the intended purpose.
CAC and TPG is not going to stop the behavior unless and until the mentality changes. There is simply minimal interest, if any, in terms of tackling the root of the problem. Unfortunately, I have zero hope of that happening anytime soon.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Based on my study of early gold in old holders and even currently, I have to agree. “Dirty Gold” was very often undergraded because it was seen as “dirty”. I own and have owned many OGH gold that made CAC GOLD for this reason.
To provide a more recent example. A friend sent in a 1795 $5 that was completely fresh and original from a family. The coin has amazing surfaces, skin, and color. This coin went through 2 graders (1 who we know). The coin was held to 53 due to “not enough luster” because of the wholesome surfaces. The 2nd grader added a + for the color.
The “butchering” of early gold persists today. I’ve lost on AU 55-58 original coins in auction to crackout guys who treated the coins and put them in 62 holders and left the coins lifeless.
My advice given by Doug Winter was that if you want these coins, you’re going to have to pay more than these guys and be buying them at 62-63 money right from auction (AU coins).
My tactic has been just that and some people think it’s crazy. Post auction I was once confronted by an underbidder who angrily wanted to know why I bid so much. He had planned to “butcher” it and make money and I ruined his plans.
Keep in mind that I am trying to be brief and to the point. I have simply given up on this issue and conceded that nothing will change. At some point, future generations of collectors will not likely look back with praise for this generation of collectors and how most of the surviving population of better date nineteenth century gold coins were handled... Sad
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Love dirty gold but you can forget about it CAC'ing if it's a gem or better saint.
JA is still grading like it's 1993 but PCGS has shown a lot of interest in skin.
MS65 CAC-fail & turned down for a +
Only multi-color toner 15-S I have ever seen.
My Saint Set
There are some absolute dogs in OGH's too. You are just seeing the nice stuff here as collectors cherrypick their own collections to share the nice material.
I owned about 100 OGH's at one point. 35ish had PQ coins for the grade, in my humble opinion. I own about 20 of those PQ coins today.
My focus has shifted a bit to NGC Fatties, which, while they also have some dogs, are generally going to be nicer coins for the assigned grade, in my opinion.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
I agree with this. I collected gold dollars through the OGH era and had some under graded beauties, but also had a large share of "puttied" gold that turned in the holder.
As a matter of fact this was originally mine before the sticker!
I have also always figured there was greater price compression in normal collector grades back in the 80s and 90. Or put another way less middle of the road coins worth sending into grading because you could still sell raw cons for close to retail back then. What you saw in the early days of TPGs was a smaller sliver of the hobby that was worth it to grade to add value. The first to go where the better stuff that was already worth more combined with the market trends at the time which is why there are so many Morgans and commemorative halves. The rest already mention by tom and other went from there.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
In the 1998-2008 period a doubling of the coin's price occurred for each MS point added from 63 to 67. This caused a lot of old holdered type coins of all metals to get regraded, some of them dipped as well. I did it as well. All my rattlers, ogh's, and many old fatties went in. Registry sets helped to drive this as well. By 2009-2011 it became clear (due to CAC and other market forces) that we didn't need to do that. Big premiums were starting to be paid for those old holders, many were bringing next grade up with just a green bean. Gold beans would bring at least a full price guide higher....sometimes a lot more. We were hood winked. If I could go back I'd leave them all in their old holders without exception. The market fawns over those coins now. Anyone playing with REG sets had to at least keep an eye on upgrades to keep with the Joneses.
R.A.P.
Registries....Arbitrage (the difference in grading "opinions" between PCGS and NGC at any point in time) and Profits (from upgrade or crossing) caused the old holders to mostly disappear. Yeah, there are ogh dogs that are entombed forever. But those dogs were quite scarce in the 1980's to 1990's when all their brothers and sisters were still around. So many PQ PCGS coins found their way into next grade NGC holders at 75-100% profits. Then CAC came around and blew the whistle. The game of musical holders came to an abrupt end.....and that NGC upgrade premium went "poof." Game Over. Saved the remaining old holders.
You would think that when PCGS first started that a lot of people submitted their best stuff and kept it. How many coins were submitted by dealers back in 1989 vs individuals? Then again there are still a lot of low grade widgets like ms63 Morgans in rattlers.
When the profit arbitrage deteriorates, the behavior will change
Latin American Collection
The point of grading arbitrage is superb. It is quite literally how crackout dealers make their money. In an indirect way it is also, along with aesthetic arbitrage, how "boutique" dealers can get by, as well, but without having to crack coins from the holder.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I did not see the issue of pre 1815 copper, or Large and Half Cents in general, raised in this thread. When TPGs began, if a coin had 5% or more original RD, it was put into a RB holder. A coin had to have 95% plus RD to be in a RD holder.
I noticed a change in the late 1990s, when I picked up a nice Matron Head Randall Hoard Large Cent in a 5 BN holder which had 15-20% RD. It was not in an OGH, Fattie, or Rattler, so I assume someone cracked it out and had it regraded at some point. It had RD around the stars, devices, etc. You can find these coins if you look for them.
I asked a copper expert about this, because there's a nice price bump between BN and RD at that grade in that series. He told me that this is how these coins were being graded now, and not to bother trying to get it in a RB holder. It has been that way in the 20+ years since. A number of OGH RB coppers with 5-10% RD are still out there.
Re the RD old copper, I'll just tell you to have a look at these coins and come to your own conclusions.
Re pre 1815 copper, copper is a very unstable metal, and the planchets used often weren't of the best quality. We used to import them from England, and this stopped during the War of 1812. I had a pre 1815 old Unc. copper start to develop PVC in holder 8 years after I bought it.
An OGH (am not sure about a Rattler) guarantees you that the pre 1815 copper is stable. If you're putting four or five figures into a coin, this is an insurance policy that I would not ignore.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Most of those submissions were done via dealers. I don't think there was even an option for a collector to submit. And if you as a collector considered selling your coins any time in that 1986-1998 ogh era, or even up to 2008, you realized you would net 50-100% more for the coins if they were upgraded. I submitted all my collector coins for the first time in late 1987....all to NGC. They were closer. And I knew a New Jersey PNG dealer nearby to NGC's first offices. I submitted nearly entirely to NGC all my life. Any coins I first submitted that came back harshly graded, I resubmitted right away. That was about 25% of the coins. And in most cases I got the upgrade on the 2nd time. I recall a wonderful gem proof 1904 Barber half that came back NGC PF65. I was shocked. I had paid $5K for that monster toner coin in 1984 as one of the finest known - and a raw grade of PF67. The coin came back PF66 the next time. And getting a PF67 grade back then was very difficult. In 1989/90 it was starting to get a bit easier. And that Barber half today is in either a 67 or 68 holder...can't recall which.
Even for the 2 years I was a full time dealer I submitted all my coins through other NGC/PCGS dealers. I also figured out that those dealers had more "oomph" in the grading rooms than I did. Recall one time that one of our favored old time dealers here (you all know him...great guy too) bought my "gem" ex-Halsell 1850-0 half out of a 1988 Stacks auction I had consigned it raw too. I had tried twice on that and only got around $5500 for it...both times a 64 grade. I figured twice grade....same grade....that's all it can be. WRONG. I had paid $4500 in 1983 for it at auction. Our favorite dealer got the same MS64 grade that I did. And I told him he would. But, I didn't know you could go to the TPG and "petition" for a higher grade. At the FUN show a short time later I see the coin in Marty Haber's case (NIOF) as MS65 and priced at $12,500. I nearly gagged. Sure enough, my dealer friend got the TPG to give him the 65 grade. He flipped it to Marty. He more than doubled up on the coin in a few months. I made about 10% over 5 years....lol. The solution? I started having him submit some coins for me. And at times we'd team up on some liner coins I was able to spot on the bourse floor. Don't fight the system....work with it.
The next obvious shift in grading came at Eliasberg in 1996/97. So I brought out a number of old rattlers or gold stencil old fatties and resubmitted. I had to keep up with the Joneses. A number of upgrades occurred...mostly at NGC. Not a single NGC coin when cracked out would upgrade at PCGS though. And years later I learned the whys and hows of that almost never happening in gem 19th century type coins. No one else in my family could rely on anything but a holdered grade to value a coin. So it was a level of "insurance" to keep the grade current with "market accepted" standards as they "readjusted." And the last time to do this was in 2004-2008 as the market really started to pick up heat.
That Pine Tree is a beauty...thanks for posting...
K
I don’t think this will win too many beauty contests:
Thank you. Funny thing is that I know there are many other Pine Tree shillings out there with technical grades that run rings around mine. But there is something about this piece that I love. It's centered so well but not so well that it's got that fake look to it. It's got just a bit of "circ-cam". Certainly it's got a look of originality to it that not many do--at least not those below AU condition. And I've seen so many with cuts or clips or cracks.
Maybe all of the pieces just add up with the green slab and CAC to a coin that has a Gestalt essence much better than its technical VF30 grade. Plus I got it from John Agre at CRO and I've always liked his eye.
--Severian the Lame
But "technically" it's a dog so you should send it to me.
I'll pay whatever you got in it.
Has anyone sent in an OGH for TrueView only? I know it can be done and there is a procedure for doing it (noting @TomB above), but I’d like to hear from someone who’s had experience. (Same for someone who has sent in a coin for TV with a sticker.) Would like to have TV photos for insurance, security, liquidity, etc, but want to retain my holders.
I love this part of coinkat's post, it's accurate and well written. Unfortunately, it applies to circulated LSD's as well. These coins circulated and if unmolested acquired natural toning over a long period of time. Very few were stored in ways that prevented or significantly slowed the toning process. The one significant exception for LSD's were the bags of 1859-0 and 1860-O that were found stored in a bank vault and released in the early 1960's.
"TPG was more of a market tool than a numismatic measure to capture and measure what truly matters. Dirty gold is dirty for a practical reason which seems to be lost in what is appropriate to determine the most accurate grade given the historical context for gold coinage in general. Somehow, lost in all of this is simply that original surfaces often mute reflectivity which is a common measurement of luster. And muted luster is seen as a negative. Instead, the focal point of grading gold should consider the surfaces and the remaining die flow lines present. This failure created and reinforced a fallacy in grading that! in my view, is responsible for instigating the slaughtering of coins in anticipation of obtaining a higher grade at the expense of what is truly important... Looking at coins for the intended purpose."
CAC and TPG is not going to stop the behavior unless and until the mentality changes. There is simply minimal interest, if any, in terms of tackling the root of the problem. Unfortunately, I have zero hope of that happening anytime soon.
In addition, I too have learned to heed roadrunners words of wisdom. "Don't fight the system....work with it."
Another reason you still see some nice coins in the OGH/Fatty holders is there was not/is not enough of a price bump on a one point upgrade to be worth the cost of submitting many of the low and mid grade unc coins. I have a Morgan in an OGH graded as MS61, on a whim I sent it to CAC (earlier when the costs were lower) and it received a gold bean. Even with the low cost of getting the gold bean I doubt I could sell it and recoup my purchase and CAC costs and it certainly would never be worth the cot to grade again.
There are so many great photographers available outside of PCGS, Mark Goodman, Airplainenut, and others that I've never even considered having PCGS do an in holder TV.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Shish...
I look for Seated Liberty Dollars too. Finding nice originals in the 45-58 range is very challenging. I have no illusions that a set minus the set breakers will be in the cards.... Mainly because the ones that have the look are rarely offered. I have purchased all but one raw... I found an 1844 graded 45 by NGC about 20 years ago. While that one is tied for the lowest grade, it is probably my favorite. I am lucky to add one about every 4-5 years. Satisfied with the grades for those that were submitted. None have gone to CAC.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Cool, PM sent.
Holy smokes!
A Barber Quartet is made up of Nickels, Dimes, Quarters, and Halves.
Here is a nice classic large cent I have had for a good while in OGH
Just bought one with a "crack-me-out" sticker today.
CAC is like a lightening rod for upgrades & most of the stuff lying around with a bean for any length of time is B or C grade.
You figure JA has dibs when he looks at it & then dealers/auction companies get a look-see when it comes in.
Average collectors are basically bottom feeders.
My crack-O-matic hammer is waiting when it comes.
Most saint registry folks don't care about stickers.
JA has said that gem saints are the poster-child for over grading so he has essentially made himself irrelevant by being so stingy with stickers.
My Saint Set
siliconvalleycoins.com
@coinlieutenant , great coin. Please feel free to post it in the main OGH thread as well.
I try pick them off / upgrade but slim pickings nowadays. Your have been influenced probably by some collectors coins he had owned for decades. There are ones on eBay have seen but low value stuff wb too much cost try send in for upgrade.