Always wanted an NGC 2.0 BUT....

Walkerfan

This one sold for more than I was prepared to pay. I could've easily bought it but just not worth the plastic premium to me. Sold for $408 w/juice.

Was still FUN to watch.

Did anyone else see it tonight on HA??

abcde12345

I think the hot stamp on the back (vs on the inside of the plastic) is rarer? The coin isn't that special so I can understand your reservations.

Walkerfan

@abcde12345 said:
I think the hot stamp on the back (vs on the inside of the plastic) is rarer? The coin isn't that special so I can understand your reservations.

I always get confused about that. I thought the 2.1 was rarer....With foil on inside of shell.

jtlee321

The 2.1 is the rarer version. It's the one with the foil embossed on the insert as opposed to the outside of the plastic.

jtlee321

I have a feeling at least two bidders thought it was a 2.1 vs. the 2.0

Walkerfan

@jtlee321 said:
I have a feeling at least two bidders thought it was a 2.1 vs. the 2.0

Good theory. I don't doubt it. You certainly can't see a shadow, in that image, which a 2.0 should have.

Peace_dollar88

That is a 2.1 for sure. Would have loved to bid on that one. I was lucky to snag mine for a great price.

ricko

Reading the thread is confusing... Is the external stamp the 2.1? And the internal the 2.0? Looks as if there is some confusion there... and for sure on my part.... Cheers, RickO

DelawareDoons

That was cheap, should have bought it. If the winner is on here I will give them a profit right now.

HA does a terrible job of showcasing rarer holders.

jesbroken

@Peace_dollar88 That's a nice MS64. Is that a die crack on the reverse or a shadow or what exactly? Like the coin and don't collect the holder, but glad you got the holder you wanted with a nice coin.
Jim

Walkerfan

@ricko said:
Reading the thread is confusing... Is the external stamp the 2.1? And the internal the 2.0? Looks as if there is some confusion there... and for sure on my part.... Cheers, RickO

The 2.1 is internal.

ricko

@Walkerfan.... Thank you... was getting confused reading the posts. Cheers, RickO

WAYNEAS

@Walkerfan said:

The 2.1 is internal.

Thanks for the clarification as I too was confused

jmski52

So, people actually do buy the plastic?

coinbuf

@Walkerfan said:
This one sold for more than I was prepared to pay. I could've easily bought it but just not worth the plastic premium to me. Sold for $408 w/juice.

I think the Heritage one is a 2.1, but there is a nice 2.0 Merc dime on the bay.

SeattleSlammer

So what’s the ‘standard’ premium for one of these now?

Walkerfan

@SeattleSlammer said:
So what’s the ‘standard’ premium for one of these now?

Based on the selling price and the actual value I’d say about a 300% markup.

AuldFartte

@jmski52 said:
So, people actually do buy the plastic?

Apparently. I'm not one of them. I collect coins.

Hydrant

Walkerfan, why punish yourself after the fact? You wanted it. You had the money. BUY IT! You only go around once. Be nice to yourself. You deserve it.

Walkerfan

@Hydrant said:
Walkerfan, why punish yourself after the fact? You wanted it. You had the money. BUY IT! You only go around once. Be nice to yourself. You deserve it.

Thanks, but I really didn’t want it that badly, Otherwise; I certainly would’ve picked it up. I agree with @AuldFartte I’d rather spend it on coins instead of plastic.

smallchange

Just like the pcgs doily or even the gold cac that people pay way over the coins value. I would like to have a pcgs coin in a doily holder and willing to pay slightly over the coins value but I do mean slightly
Jim

DelawareDoons

@SeattleSlammer said:
So what’s the ‘standard’ premium for one of these now?

For the white 2.0's? $200-$300 depending on type at this point from what I have seen.

2.1s are rarer thus I'd expect a good bit more of a premium. If I had seen this particular one I probably would have lobbed at least 450 at it.

jtlee321

That is a for sure 2.1 that sold on HA. The dead giveaway that I should have noticed is the scuffed up plastic over the R of CORPORATION. That proves the logo is under the plastic and not on top of it.

oldabeintx

I don't find any holder THAT interesting. I do pay a bit more for an older holder as it adds interest and variety to my collection, but I do mean a bit. I started to bid on a doily in a recent HA auction until I noticed it was a doily - knew I would be out of the running.

abcde12345

Threads like this always capture the naysayers who somehow gotta add how ridiculous it is to collect these. . . how they would never collect something so silly or pay such a premium. Yet, people: coins, in general- such as collecting VAMS or Full Steps or Full Heads or whatever minutia within the hobby attracts you, are thought the same way with the general public, so please, relax. It is a somewhat silly hobby no matter what part of it is interesting or not interesting to you.

smallchange

I think some of it has to do with my OCD, as I would like to have every generation of the pcgs slabs but you have to set your limitations and I usually get outbid on the ones that interest me.
Jim

Walkerfan

I can appreciate them and I sort of want one. If this was five years ago; I may have bought it. Just not buying as aggressively, these days. I will certainly NOT begrudge anyone who enjoys owning them. They are COOL!!

DRUNNER

Allow me to help if I may . . . .

Buried this far down the thread, I doubt if anyone will see or care, but still, when the original Slab Generations work was being done,. the enumerators of the different types of slabs started (for NGC) with the 1.0 (Black), and proceeded up the numerical scale until they got to wherever the slabs were that were current.

The reason the 2.0 (hotstamp on the OUTSIDE) was listed as the original 'White' slab is NOT because it was the first of the 2.0 Generation. It was simply the only type KNOWN!!!!! The 2.1 was unknown at the time the original numerations were put together . . . and showed up later. So . . . . .

The 2.0 is numerically the precedent . . . but is actually BEHIND the 2.1, despite the 2.1 seeming to be a later Generation. This attests to their overall rarity, and why so many here are searching for the "shadow". But each is a special rarity . . . it is just that the 2.1 has a slight (perhaps 30%) lesser count in the Census reports. I am a bit out of touch with those reports . . . at last view (it has been several years) . . .there were about 35 2.1s, and 50 2.0s. I am sure the counts have risen.

Oh . . . the reason for the 2.1 / 2.0 conversion??? The hotstamp smeared on the white insert on the 2.1. At times, it took 3-4 tries to get a decent looking hotstamp. Putting it on the outside solved the problem.

My data comes anecdotally . . . from NGC primaries and older collectors present at the time. I obviously welcome any adjustments or corrections.

Drunner

jughead1893

are all ngc holders with white labels like the op holder 2.0 or 2.1 ?

Walkerfan

@jughead1893 said:
are all ngc holders with white labels 2.0 or 2.1 ?

Yes, the solid white labeled ones with white inserts are.

The NGC Black 1.0 also has a solid white label but black insert.

thefinn

@smallchange said:
Just like the pcgs doily or even the gold cac that people pay way over the coins value. I would like to have a pcgs coin in a doily holder and willing to pay slightly over the coins value but I do mean slightly
Jim

Seek, and ye shall find. That's how I got most of mine.

davewesen

Here is a link to the generations

https://ngccoin.com/boards/topic/117773-ngc-slab-varieties/

Meltdown

Here's my one and only NGC White- I bought it from Russ a long time ago on ebay.

astrorat

Here is a comparison of the three "hot stamps" for the early NGC slabs:

NGC 1
Note: The "hot stamp" was considered the display side of the slab since it carried the NGC logo. This was changed with all subsequent slabs.

NGC 2.0

NGC 2.1


Notes:
-- On NGC 1, the "hot stamp" is internal. This side was considered the display side of the slab since it carried the NGC logo. This was changed with all subsequent slabs.
-- An easy way to tell the difference between NGC 2.0 and NGC 2.1 is to look for the shadow cast on the slab insert from the external "hot stamp" on the NGC 2.0.
-- Another difference between NGC 2.0 and NGC 2.1 is the size of the "hot stamp." The NGC 2.0 stamp is wider. The NGC 2.1 stamp is the same size as the NGC 1.
-- The NGC 2.1 was likely made before the NGC 2.0 since the "hot stamps" for NGC 1 and NGC 2.1 are the same size and both internal.

BGERRISH

Buy the plastic not the coin