Ultimately if you are not buying the coin, I believe you are unnecessarily cutting yourself off from high quality coins, so the holder only has limited interest to me.
But I will say, my interest is slightly more piqued when I see a coin in an older PCGS, NGC, ANACS holder. It means someone 25+ years ago saw something exceptional in the coin that demanded it be placed in a plastic tomb when that practice was not as commonplace as it is today.
I don’t care when the coin’s been graded just as long as it has original surfaces, sharp strike and good luster. If I can find one like that in an old holder, it’s just a bonus, because I know there’s people out there, who really go for older slabs and they are highly collectible and garner a premium. Same goes with beans.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
I liked getting my coins slabbed by PCGS in 1986 ( white label rattler) and NGC back in 1987 (black NGC 1.0) and paying an average of $20 each back then.These were inexpensive coins that I have been able to sell for an average of $7500 to $14,000 each.
I did not even realize my early PCGS rattlers were white labels until I rechecked several years ago.
Stability was the original reason I kept them so long. Liking Vintage slabs later on became paramount.
It doesn't matter to me when a coin was graded I still will look at the coin itself and buy it based on that. What I don't like is the premiums they go for and also I love having a true view - so that combination has led to me buying like maybe 2-3 OGHs ever. I just got blasted out of the water on an OGH last night and wondered if it was in a newer holder if that would be the case or not.
Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t . An OGH Eliasberg CAC should probably remain in that holder. And some holders are legitimately rare all by themselves. Regardless, I’ll take the coin and not the holder every time, and rarely will I offer up any substantial holder premium.
I’ve answered this in the past but for me it comes down to surface preservation and the theory that it is less likely to be a modern counterfeit. Although given how easy it is to counterfeit older holders it isn’t as true anymore. I fear that counterfeits will eventually poison the hobby.
Marketability from the dealer's perspective is kept in mind with most all their purchases. And collectors don't want to be stuck with a coin they paid too much for. I'd be nervous on copper coins in early holders and a little neurotic about the surfaces, wanting to know that there is no environmental damage or spotting, also keep in mind that the guarantees on these at all the services expired on them long ago. Many of the old holder coins are not cac worthy or problem free; the cream of the crop have been upgraded long ago.
@logger7 said:
Marketability from the dealer's perspective is kept in mind with most all their purchases. And collectors don't want to be stuck with a coin they paid too much for. I'd be nervous on copper coins in early holders and a little neurotic about the surfaces, wanting to know that there is no environmental damage or spotting, also keep in mind that the guarantees on these at all the services expired on them long ago. Many of the old holder coins are not cac worthy or problem free; the cream of the crop have been upgraded long ago.
I’d be considerably less nervous about copper coins in early holders than those in newer ones.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@oreville said:
These were inexpensive coins that I have been able to sell for an average of $7500 to $14,000 each.
I think not everyone around here shares your definition of "inexpensive." I certainly don't.
The inexpensive coins I refer to are 1938- D bufalo nickels in MS-65 1881-S Morgan silver dollars graded in MS-63 to MS-65 These coins used to cost less than $40 each. I stand by my definition of “inexpensive.”
In fact, the more generic and less expensive the coin is the better valuation the vintage slab has vis a vis the coin valuation. The inexpensive 1938-D buffalo nickel and 1881-S silver dollar are favorites of mine as they are awesome looking.
@oreville said:
These were inexpensive coins that I have been able to sell for an average of $7500 to $14,000 each.
I think not everyone around here shares your definition of "inexpensive." I certainly don't.
The inexpensive coins I refer to are 1938- D bufalo nickels in MS-65 1881-S Morgan silver dollars graded in MS-63 to MS-65 These coins used to cost less than $40 each. I stand by my definition of “inexpensive.”
In fact, the more generic the coin is the better valuation the vintage slab has vis a vis the coin valuation.
You weren’t at all clear about your definition of “inexpensive” in your previous post. In it, you wrote “These were inexpensive coins that I have been able to sell for an average of $7500 to $14,000 each.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
True, but he did say he only paid $20 for them in 1986.
That was an edit, after I made my comment (obviously in reaction to my comment, but without noting that it was a later edit). At the time I commented, he did not mention a price he paid, other than "inexpensive."
Regardless, the PCGS price guide on the 1938-D buffalo nickel in MS65 is $80; The PCGS price guide for 1881-S Morgan dollar in MS63 is $90, while the price guide for MS65 is $250. If he can get $10,000 (more or less) for these coins, more power to him. But I remain skeptical that there is any regular issue, non-variety, US coin that routinely went for less than $40 in 1986 that now fetches $7500 - $14,000; that would be some magic sauce in those old holders!
True, but he did say he only paid $20 for them in 1986.
That was an edit, after I made my comment (obviously in reaction to my comment, but without noting that it was a later edit). At the time I commented, he did not mention a price he paid, other than "inexpensive."
Regardless, the PCGS price guide on the 1938-D buffalo nickel in MS65 is $80; The PCGS price guide for 1881-S Morgan dollar in MS63 is $90, while the price guide for MS65 is $250. If he can get $10,000 (more or less) for these coins, more power to him. But I remain skeptical that there is any regular issue, non-variety, US coin that routinely went for less than $40 in 1986 that now fetches $7500 - $14,000; that would be some magic sauce in those old holders!
I agree - the post was very confusing to me.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@oreville said:
I liked getting my coins slabbed by PCGS in 1986 ( white label rattler) and NGC back in 1987 (black NGC 1.0) and paying an average of $20 each back then.These were inexpensive coins that I have been able to sell for an average of $7500 to $14,000 each.
I did not even realize my early PCGS rattlers were white labels until I rechecked several years ago.
Stability was the original reason I kept them so long. Liking Vintage slabs later on became paramount.
I’m intrigued as to what motivated you to submit common low value coins for original grading in 1986? Did the dealers you submitted through try to stop you? Clearly this was an incredibly smart move, but it seems like submitting the best of your collection for preservation/grading versus widgets would’ve been my first instinct. Paying $20 to grade a $20 coin has to involve some version of pain.
When a coin was graded and encapsulated might matter to the numismatic researcher who is trying to track loosening or strictening of grading standards at a given TPG.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
@oreville said:
These were inexpensive coins that I have been able to sell for an average of $7500 to $14,000 each.
I think not everyone around here shares your definition of "inexpensive." I certainly don't.
The inexpensive coins I refer to are 1938- D bufalo nickels in MS-65 1881-S Morgan silver dollars graded in MS-63 to MS-65 These coins used to cost less than $40 each. I stand by my definition of “inexpensive.”
In fact, the more generic the coin is the better valuation the vintage slab has vis a vis the coin valuation.
You weren’t at all clear about your definition of “inexpensive” in your previous post. In it, you wrote “These were inexpensive coins that I have been able to sell for an average of $7500 to $14,000 each.”
@oreville said:
These were inexpensive coins that I have been able to sell for an average of $7500 to $14,000 each.
I think not everyone around here shares your definition of "inexpensive." I certainly don't.
The inexpensive coins I refer to are 1938- D bufalo nickels in MS-65 1881-S Morgan silver dollars graded in MS-63 to MS-65 These coins used to cost less than $40 each. I stand by my definition of “inexpensive.”
In fact, the more generic the coin is the better valuation the vintage slab has vis a vis the coin valuation.
You weren’t at all clear about your definition of “inexpensive” in your previous post. In it, you wrote “These were inexpensive coins that I have been able to sell for an average of $7500 to $14,000 each.”
@oreville said:
These were inexpensive coins that I have been able to sell for an average of $7500 to $14,000 each.
I think not everyone around here shares your definition of "inexpensive." I certainly don't.
The inexpensive coins I refer to are 1938- D bufalo nickels in MS-65 1881-S Morgan silver dollars graded in MS-63 to MS-65 These coins used to cost less than $40 each. I stand by my definition of “inexpensive.”
In fact, the more generic the coin is the better valuation the vintage slab has vis a vis the coin valuation.
You weren’t at all clear about your definition of “inexpensive” in your previous post. In it, you wrote “These were inexpensive coins that I have been able to sell for an average of $7500 to $14,000 each.”
Actually the $20 was the actual grading fee paid to PCGS and NGC (that I recall) of coins I bought raw years earlier handpicked from an uncirculated dealer roll for way less than $20 each.
Agreed my original post was not as clear as it should be. I was only trying to explain that it was all about the rarity of the holder not the rarity of the coin to respond to Mark Feld OP. LOL.
To a degree... yes, it matters when a coin was encapsulated to me. I've been more into copper in recent years and the OGHs seem to be more consistent in grading and surfaces. If it hasn't shown corrosion by now, chances are it probably won't in the future provided it's stored properly. But that's about the extent of my concern. If I was given the option of a coin in a newer generation of holders, I'd still be evaluating the coin. If it happened to reside in an OGH, great... if not, I'd still buy it.
That said, there are a few companies that I'm a bit more skeptical of depending upon when they were slabbed and the "generation" of holders. ANACS went through a period where quality control and consistency seemed to be spotty... but, the older white "soapbox" holders seemed to be fine. So as a result, I'm a bit less inclined to bid on ANACS blue holders... my skepticism creeps in (ie... am I missing something) even if the images of said coin appear to be ok...
Collecting: Dansco 7070; Middle Date Large Cents (VF-AU); Box of 20;
Comments
To me it’s all about market perception and pricing. Perception is reality in this game. Stability of the coin’s surface is a secondary consideration.
Ultimately if you are not buying the coin, I believe you are unnecessarily cutting yourself off from high quality coins, so the holder only has limited interest to me.
But I will say, my interest is slightly more piqued when I see a coin in an older PCGS, NGC, ANACS holder. It means someone 25+ years ago saw something exceptional in the coin that demanded it be placed in a plastic tomb when that practice was not as commonplace as it is today.
I don’t care when the coin’s been graded just as long as it has original surfaces, sharp strike and good luster. If I can find one like that in an old holder, it’s just a bonus, because I know there’s people out there, who really go for older slabs and they are highly collectible and garner a premium. Same goes with beans.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
I liked getting my coins slabbed by PCGS in 1986 ( white label rattler) and NGC back in 1987 (black NGC 1.0) and paying an average of $20 each back then.These were inexpensive coins that I have been able to sell for an average of $7500 to $14,000 each.
I did not even realize my early PCGS rattlers were white labels until I rechecked several years ago.
Stability was the original reason I kept them so long. Liking Vintage slabs later on became paramount.
Attractive coins in vintage holders are just cooler.
It doesn't matter to me when a coin was graded I still will look at the coin itself and buy it based on that. What I don't like is the premiums they go for and also I love having a true view - so that combination has led to me buying like maybe 2-3 OGHs ever. I just got blasted out of the water on an OGH last night and wondered if it was in a newer holder if that would be the case or not.
Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t . An OGH Eliasberg CAC should probably remain in that holder. And some holders are legitimately rare all by themselves. Regardless, I’ll take the coin and not the holder every time, and rarely will I offer up any substantial holder premium.
Empty Nest Collection
Matt’s Mattes
I’ve answered this in the past but for me it comes down to surface preservation and the theory that it is less likely to be a modern counterfeit. Although given how easy it is to counterfeit older holders it isn’t as true anymore. I fear that counterfeits will eventually poison the hobby.
TurtleCat Gold Dollars
I think not everyone around here shares your definition of "inexpensive." I certainly don't.
Marketability from the dealer's perspective is kept in mind with most all their purchases. And collectors don't want to be stuck with a coin they paid too much for. I'd be nervous on copper coins in early holders and a little neurotic about the surfaces, wanting to know that there is no environmental damage or spotting, also keep in mind that the guarantees on these at all the services expired on them long ago. Many of the old holder coins are not cac worthy or problem free; the cream of the crop have been upgraded long ago.
I’d be considerably less nervous about copper coins in early holders than those in newer ones.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The inexpensive coins I refer to are 1938- D bufalo nickels in MS-65 1881-S Morgan silver dollars graded in MS-63 to MS-65 These coins used to cost less than $40 each. I stand by my definition of “inexpensive.”
In fact, the more generic and less expensive the coin is the better valuation the vintage slab has vis a vis the coin valuation. The inexpensive 1938-D buffalo nickel and 1881-S silver dollar are favorites of mine as they are awesome looking.
True, but he did say he only paid $20 for them in 1986.> @oreville said:
You weren’t at all clear about your definition of “inexpensive” in your previous post. In it, you wrote “These were inexpensive coins that I have been able to sell for an average of $7500 to $14,000 each.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
That was an edit, after I made my comment (obviously in reaction to my comment, but without noting that it was a later edit). At the time I commented, he did not mention a price he paid, other than "inexpensive."
Regardless, the PCGS price guide on the 1938-D buffalo nickel in MS65 is $80; The PCGS price guide for 1881-S Morgan dollar in MS63 is $90, while the price guide for MS65 is $250. If he can get $10,000 (more or less) for these coins, more power to him. But I remain skeptical that there is any regular issue, non-variety, US coin that routinely went for less than $40 in 1986 that now fetches $7500 - $14,000; that would be some magic sauce in those old holders!
I agree - the post was very confusing to me.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I’m intrigued as to what motivated you to submit common low value coins for original grading in 1986? Did the dealers you submitted through try to stop you? Clearly this was an incredibly smart move, but it seems like submitting the best of your collection for preservation/grading versus widgets would’ve been my first instinct. Paying $20 to grade a $20 coin has to involve some version of pain.
When a coin was graded and encapsulated might matter to the numismatic researcher who is trying to track loosening or strictening of grading standards at a given TPG.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Any idiot can walk into a coin show with enough money and build a fantastic type set.
But doing it in old holders...
All about difficulty level. Also, queue up Marge Simpson gifs, I just think they're neat!
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
Actually the $20 was the actual grading fee paid to PCGS and NGC (that I recall) of coins I bought raw years earlier handpicked from an uncirculated dealer roll for way less than $20 each.
Agreed my original post was not as clear as it should be. I was only trying to explain that it was all about the rarity of the holder not the rarity of the coin to respond to Mark Feld OP. LOL.
To a degree... yes, it matters when a coin was encapsulated to me. I've been more into copper in recent years and the OGHs seem to be more consistent in grading and surfaces. If it hasn't shown corrosion by now, chances are it probably won't in the future provided it's stored properly. But that's about the extent of my concern. If I was given the option of a coin in a newer generation of holders, I'd still be evaluating the coin. If it happened to reside in an OGH, great... if not, I'd still buy it.
That said, there are a few companies that I'm a bit more skeptical of depending upon when they were slabbed and the "generation" of holders. ANACS went through a period where quality control and consistency seemed to be spotty... but, the older white "soapbox" holders seemed to be fine. So as a result, I'm a bit less inclined to bid on ANACS blue holders... my skepticism creeps in (ie... am I missing something) even if the images of said coin appear to be ok...
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.