Do doily holders without outer frame lose much premium ?

coindeuce

Asking for a friend.

oreville

About 25% per my buying price.

thefinn

They can be fixed.

coinbuf

Yes

PerryHall

@thefinn said:
They can be fixed.

How? I guess if you still had the original outer frame you could glue it back at the break but most that I've seen no longer have the outer frame.

MWallace

For those of us that don't know, could we see a picture of what we're talking about please.

Lazybones

@MWallace said:
For those of us that don't know, could we see a picture of what we're talking about please.

You'll see there is an outer frame around what is essentially a rattler with a gasket instead of prongs. If this breaks off (intentionally or not) you would have to try and glue it back together. Personally, I would pay around 50% under the premium if the outer frame is missing or broken.

JimTyler

All premium to me. PCGS is on the frame

MWallace

@Lazybones

Thank you. I only have one Doily. I'll have to check it.

NumisOxide

Are these holders worth a premium without the doily insert. I have an 1842 seated dollar in one but it's a green insert.

JimTyler

@coinJP said:
Are these holders worth a premium without the doily insert. I have an 1842 seated dollar in one but it's a green insert.

Gen. 2 a little.

PerryHall

It's a damaged slab and I wouldn't pay any extra for it.

coindeuce

@JimTyler said:
All premium to me. PCGS is on the frame

There are no markings on the outer frame. It is a plain, two piece molded plastic frame that covers the seam on the primary slab body.

ms71

@coinJP said:
Are these holders worth a premium without the doily insert. I have an 1842 seated dollar in one but it's a green insert.

That's a Gen 2.1, used in Oct-Dec 1989. The only difference between it and a doily was the pale green label replacing the doily label. Scarce, but not nearly so sought after as the doily holder. See the "PCGS Museum of Coin Holders":

https://pcgs.com/holders/Gen2.1

habaraca

lets see a good one and a bad one please

NumisOxide

@ms71 said:

@coinJP said:
Are these holders worth a premium without the doily insert. I have an 1842 seated dollar in one but it's a green insert.

That's a Gen 2.1, used in Oct-Dec 1989. The only difference between it and a doily was the pale green label replacing the doily label. Scarce, but not nearly so sought after as the doily holder. See the "PCGS Museum of Coin Holders":

https://pcgs.com/holders/Gen2.1

Good to know! I was thinking it was from the early to mid 90s.

pointfivezero

@habaraca said:
lets see a good one and a bad one please

Personally, I don't think there is a "bad" doily but I just picked up the one on the right without the collar. I'm hoping to find someone on the forum that can refurbish it at a reasonable price:

PerryHall

It's easy to spot the wrap around collar or frame since there is a raised PCGS on the collar/frame on the lower edge on the right side that's easily visible.

coindeuce

@PerryHall said:
It's easy to spot the wrap around collar or frame since there is a raised PCGS on the collar/frame on the lower edge on the right side that's easily visible.

Thanks PerryHall. I stand corrected. I never noticed that before. And I've owned multiple Morgan's in Doily holders.

habaraca

@pointfivezero said:

@habaraca said:
lets see a good one and a bad one please

Personally, I don't think there is a "bad" doily but I just picked up the one on the right without the collar. I'm hoping to find someone on the forum that can refurbish it at a reasonable price:

Thanks well pictured..................

coindeuce

@pointfivezero said:

@habaraca said:
lets see a good one and a bad one please

Personally, I don't think there is a "bad" doily but I just picked up the one on the right without the collar. I'm hoping to find someone on the forum that can refurbish it at a reasonable price:

I'm thinking that someone with the right knowledge of operating a 3D printer could recreate the frame pieces.

pointfivezero

@coindeuce said:

@pointfivezero said:

@habaraca said:
lets see a good one and a bad one please

Personally, I don't think there is a "bad" doily but I just picked up the one on the right without the collar. I'm hoping to find someone on the forum that can refurbish it at a reasonable price:

I'm thinking that someone with the right knowledge of operating a 3D printer could recreate the frame pieces.

Thanks @coindeuce. Much appreciated! I've also read the collar/frame can be removed from a 2.1 or 2.2 holder and retrofitted to a "naked" doily. I can easily find a lower end coin in one of those holders if someone can fit it to my doily.

Tim

thefinn

@PerryHall said:

@thefinn said:
They can be fixed.

How? I guess if you still had the original outer frame you could glue it back at the break but most that I've seen no longer have the outer frame.

2.0s aren’t the only type with rings.

BAJJERFAN

@coindeuce said:

@JimTyler said:
All premium to me. PCGS is on the frame

There are no markings on the outer frame. It is a plain, two piece molded plastic frame that covers the seam on the primary slab body.

The letters PCGS are on the bottom right of the frame and usually on the obverse. I have never seen a double slab holder reverse up. See above pic.

BAJJERFAN

@pointfivezero said:

@coindeuce said:

@pointfivezero said:

@habaraca said:
lets see a good one and a bad one please

Personally, I don't think there is a "bad" doily but I just picked up the one on the right without the collar. I'm hoping to find someone on the forum that can refurbish it at a reasonable price:

I'm thinking that someone with the right knowledge of operating a 3D printer could recreate the frame pieces.

Thanks @coindeuce. Much appreciated! I've also read the collar/frame can be removed from a 2.1 or 2.2 holder and retrofitted to a "naked" doily. I can easily find a lower end coin in one of those holders if someone can fit it to my doily.

Tim

Some have been known to buy low cost coins in double holders for the express purpose of getting the outer ring. Dealers used to crack off the outer ring because the slabs wouldn't fit in the rattler boxes. Sometimes they would come off undamaged and at least one member here was astute enough to rescue them from the trash. Removing them now is like what some say about self fellatio; there's a trick to it. Someone once told me how it is done, but I never had any luck getting it to work. I don't know if the holders were sonically sealed back then, but if not then it may be that just the corners were glued. GOOD LUCK.

BAJJERFAN

@thefinn said:

@PerryHall said:

@thefinn said:
They can be fixed.

How? I guess if you still had the original outer frame you could glue it back at the break but most that I've seen no longer have the outer frame.

2.0s aren’t the only type with rings.

2.0

3.0

3.5

I was trying to get a Wisconsin [I wonder why] in each of the 4 double holders, but gave it up when the search for a 2.5 became an effort in futility.

pointfivezero

@BAJJERFAN said:

@pointfivezero said:

@coindeuce said:

@pointfivezero said:

@habaraca said:
lets see a good one and a bad one please

Personally, I don't think there is a "bad" doily but I just picked up the one on the right without the collar. I'm hoping to find someone on the forum that can refurbish it at a reasonable price:

I'm thinking that someone with the right knowledge of operating a 3D printer could recreate the frame pieces.

Thanks @coindeuce. Much appreciated! I've also read the collar/frame can be removed from a 2.1 or 2.2 holder and retrofitted to a "naked" doily. I can easily find a lower end coin in one of those holders if someone can fit it to my doily.

Tim

Some have been known to buy low cost coins in double holders for the express purpose of getting the outer ring. Dealers used to crack off the outer ring because the slabs wouldn't fit in the rattler boxes. Sometimes they would come off undamaged and at least one member here was astute enough to rescue them from the trash. Removing them now is like what some say about self fellatio; there's a trick to it. Someone once told me how it is done, but I never had any luck getting it to work. I don't know if the holders were sonically sealed back then, but if not then it may be that just the corners were glued. GOOD LUCK.

Thanks @BAJJERFAN. Sounds like a quest worth embarking on to me. Appreciate the note.

Tim

Downtown1974

I have a doily with the collar. Those collars will throw you off a bit if you’ve never held one. The edges are a bit sharper and they feel a little chunkier IMO.
To answer the question though….I would not pay a premium for a doily without the ring. I may even pass on it.

pcgscacgold

Thanks to everyone for bringing clarity to this topic. The photos helped a lot. When people called the missing part a ring I instantly looked at the inside the holder where the coin is. I mistakenly pictured a ring as circular. I wondered how people were fixing that. Now I see it is the rectangular frame wrapped around the outside of the slab.

asheland

This is like the Doily but without the “doily” ticket:

DRUNNER

OK . . . . .enough of you have beaten around the bush long enough that it might be time for me to set the record 'straight'. Yup . . . Drunner here. I made the mistake of "making the market" for the Doilies a few years ago. Bought every one available and had at one time 135 of the 188 known in the Census. I realized then what you see now . . . . too many of them would be discovered in Grandad's safety deposit box and enough of my 'friends' here realized I would pay a good premium and 'helped' me along in the quest. About $25k later . . . . I handed off the project to the current players . . . . . .

Yup . . . I bought a few without the outer ring. After I tried to corner the market (hahahaha) I switched to just "Type", when it was obvious I just didn't need another 1884-O in 64 to add to the 11 I already had. Then . . . I started to explore . . . .

I found that MANY of the 2.1s were a bit loosely sealed, and I could find them on a bourse floor (Mercs and Frankies) that would make good "ring fodder" if I found the correctly (loosely) sealed 2.1. Sure enough . . . .I started to do a little cottage business taking the rings off 2.1s and slipping them on my Doilies that were sans ring. Since you are all alluding to this procedure . . . here it is.

1. Locate a 2.1 that creaks quite a bit when you twist it. I have noticed only about 1 in 5 are so secure it would be a -itch to try to get it off. Most are easy. This is a common holder (albeit 2-piece!!!) and you won't destroy any premium.
2. The only real tool you need is a decent X-Acto. I have a -hitty dull one and it works fine. Find the crease in the outer ring where it is 'sonically' sealed (along one longer side or the other---you will find a gap and be able to slip the X-Acto in. Carefully work it around the easy longer side, and make the turn on the short sides about 2/3 of the way down.
3. LEAVE the OTHER long side alone !!!!!!! We are performing a "clamshell" process . . . . NOT tearing off the entire ring !!!!!!
4. At this point, the outer ring on your sacrificial 2.1 will open up slightly in a "clamshell" appearance. The original 2.1 cheapy coin will drop out, looking like a Rattler . . . but it isn't.
5. Take your "Doily-sans-Ring" and carefully slip it inside the slightly open clamshell.
6. Take a small drop of Super Glue and seal your clamshell edge.
7. Congratulate yourself on 'rescuing' your Doily. It is completely original now and undetectable.
8. Send me a PM just effusing about how brilliant I am and how I have saved the numismatic world from a horrible fate.

Sell your $14 MS64 Merc without the ring as a special 'one-off' Rattler prototype for $300 . . . and enjoy your Doily.

There will be a quiz . . . I hope you studied.

Drunner
(Ex-Doily Guru and current Benevolent and Rarely Posting Member) -- yup . . he said 'member'

pointfivezero

Great post. Thanks @Drunner from all of us taking up the doily crusade.

Tim

thefinn

@Downtown1974 said:
I have a doily with the collar. Those collars will throw you off a bit if you’ve never held one. The edges are a bit sharper and they feel a little chunkier IMO.
To answer the question though….I would not pay a premium for a doily without the ring. I may even pass on it.

Send them my way. I'll pay you a premium for them.

thefinn

@BAJJERFAN said:

@thefinn said:

@PerryHall said:

@thefinn said:
They can be fixed.

How? I guess if you still had the original outer frame you could glue it back at the break but most that I've seen no longer have the outer frame.

2.0s aren’t the only type with rings.

2.0

3.0

3.5

I was trying to get a Wisconsin [I wonder why] in each of the 4 double holders, but gave it up when the search for a 2.5 became an effort in futility.

The PCGS Museum of Holders shows the Doily as a 2.0. So, either you are wrong or PCGS is wrong.

pointfivezero

Agreed - doily is a 2.0, perforated label is a 2.1 and the smooth label is a 2.2:

BAJJERFAN

@thefinn said:

@BAJJERFAN said:

@thefinn said:

@PerryHall said:

@thefinn said:
They can be fixed.

How? I guess if you still had the original outer frame you could glue it back at the break but most that I've seen no longer have the outer frame.

2.0s aren’t the only type with rings.

2.0

3.0

3.5

I was trying to get a Wisconsin [I wonder why] in each of the 4 double holders, but gave it up when the search for a 2.5 became an effort in futility.

The PCGS Museum of Holders shows the Doily as a 2.0. So, either you are wrong or PCGS is wrong.

I am using the designation that a former banned member Conder101 used. Does PCGS even recognize 4 different double holder varieties?

DRUNNER

As was I. I actually went to the PCGS Holder link and looked. I did not see the edition I use (no PCGS at the top) . . . so I just called it a 2.1 as an expedient, not wanting to cause another OT branch of the topic . . . .

Drunner

BAJJERFAN

@pointfivezero said:
Agreed - doily is a 2.0, perforated label is a 2.1 and the smooth label is a 2.2:

You're using different criteria than some here use. Your second pic is of the Conder 2.5 designation. It's his 2.0 with the letters PCGS on top. Your 3rd pic is the Conder 3.5 where the cert number line is left of the bar code line. That makes the doily a 3.0.

oreville

Many of the old PCGS outer-shells can be split up to make them resealable around the doily slab even without the use of glue. It does take a bit of effort but can be done.

pointfivezero

@BAJJERFAN said:

@pointfivezero said:
Agreed - doily is a 2.0, perforated label is a 2.1 and the smooth label is a 2.2:

You're using different criteria than some here use. Your second pic is of the Conder 2.5 designation. It's his 2.0 with the letters PCGS on top. Your 3rd pic is the Conder 3.5 where the cert number line is left of the bar code line. That makes the doily a 3.0.

Understood. But these are not my criteria, this is a Snag from the PCGS Museum of Holders website. I'm just the messenger.....

thefinn

What’s the word… Concensus.

I guess the new norm is to change the definition of a word to fit YOUR truth, rather than THE truth.

BAJJERFAN

Search this forum for slab history. I don't think that PCGS was even in the slab history game back then. But it's what some of us use.

That being said there ARE at least 4 distinct inserts used in the double holders.

WinLoseWin

@thefinn said:

The PCGS Museum of Holders shows the Doily as a 2.0. So, either you are wrong or PCGS is wrong.

Niether is wrong. They are just two different numbering systems. The one was around for many years before PCGS did theirs, so some people still are using that. Probably useful to clarify which system is being referred to if aware that there are two different numbering systems.

Here is a link to the original 2003 thread though the photos are long gone. I am guessing Conder101 had this system also in his reference book on slabs written years ago.

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/222533/as-promised-the-pcgs-generations-with-pictures-very-long-updated-10-27-06/p1

.
.

@BAJJERFAN said:
I am using the designation that a former banned member Conder101 used. Does PCGS even recognize 4 different double holder varieties?

They technically mention 5 varieties but only number 3 of them. In the details about both their Doily, called Generation 2.0, and their Generation 2.1 there is a note stating "PCGS sometimes appears on the top of the label". They just don't give those with and without PCGS their own separate number.

https://pcgs.com/holders

thefinn

Maybe we need either a 2.0.1 or 2.0a.

coindeuce

Drunner, you just made my day. I now have a salvage project in the pipeline for a Doily holder without frame. I've repaired a cracked frame before, but never tried to replace an entire frame.

coindeuce

@pointfivezero said:

@coindeuce said:

@pointfivezero said:

@habaraca said:
lets see a good one and a bad one please

Personally, I don't think there is a "bad" doily but I just picked up the one on the right without the collar. I'm hoping to find someone on the forum that can refurbish it at a reasonable price:

I'm thinking that someone with the right knowledge of operating a 3D printer could recreate the frame pieces.

Thanks @coindeuce. Much appreciated! I've also read the collar/frame can be removed from a 2.1 or 2.2 holder and retrofitted to a "naked" doily. I can easily find a lower end coin in one of those holders if someone can fit it to my doily.

Tim

I probably wouldn't put an effort in to restoring a Doily sample Roosevelt dime, but that's just me. My project will be a switcheroo with a pair of Peace Dollars.

coindeuce

@thefinn said:

@PerryHall said:

@thefinn said:
They can be fixed.

How? I guess if you still had the original outer frame you could glue it back at the break but most that I've seen no longer have the outer frame.

2.0s aren’t the only type with rings.

I refer to it as a frame, as it resembles a picture frame in the context.

pointfivezero

@coindeuce said:

@pointfivezero said:

@coindeuce said:

@pointfivezero said:

@habaraca said:
lets see a good one and a bad one please

Personally, I don't think there is a "bad" doily but I just picked up the one on the right without the collar. I'm hoping to find someone on the forum that can refurbish it at a reasonable price:

I'm thinking that someone with the right knowledge of operating a 3D printer could recreate the frame pieces.

Thanks @coindeuce. Much appreciated! I've also read the collar/frame can be removed from a 2.1 or 2.2 holder and retrofitted to a "naked" doily. I can easily find a lower end coin in one of those holders if someone can fit it to my doily.

Tim

I probably wouldn't put an effort in to restoring a Doily sample Roosevelt dime, but that's just me. My project will be a switcheroo with a pair of Peace Dollars.

I've already found six low end 2.1 and 2.2 slabs with the correct outer ring. A very nice forum member is going to help me out with the transplant. I got the doily sample for a very good price so this surgery should be well worth the effort. Will post the completed holder when we remove the surgical gauze.

Tim

Lakesammman

To me it depends on the coin - if a rare type, I'll buy it. If another MS62 Morgan, I'll typically pass.

Drunner - thanks for the explanation on replacing the outer rim!