Options
OGH Holders: Myth or Mystic?
LeeG
Posts: 12,162 ✭
RYK's thoughts:
<< <i>Tuesday July 26, 2005 10:08 PM, Whenever I see a seller promote a coin with with words "old green holder" in the description (or, heaven forbid, title), I immediately turn on the ryk distrust-o-meter™. The idea that the coin is touted as an upgrade candidate is implicit in these three words. From what I have seen, any experienced seller with a coin in an "old green holder" will upgrade the coin himself/herself if it is a candidate. (The one exception is the 1859 cent that EagleEye sold to Shylock in the older holder, so Shylock could get the upgrade ) What's left in the OGHs are the accurately graded or overgraded coins that deserve no special cachet or additional consideration, other than the possible fact that the coins have been stable (not turned fugly) while residing in the holder.
Exception: Fresh collections that occcasionally come to auction, like the Galveston Collection in the recent ANR sale and the Cincinnati Collection (2005 Heritage FUN). Both of these were gold coin collections that were put together years ago and largely left in the older holders (PCGS green and NGC fatboys) for the sale. As a group, it is easy to get excited about these new-to-market coins. This scenario is played out a couple times each year.
Bottom line: If the coin (OGH or otherwise) is being sold by a knowledgeable seller and is an upgrade candidate, it has already been tried. >>
<< <i>Tuesday August 28, 2007 11:07 AM, The OP was a couple of years ago, and I have softened my position somewhat. I do not mind "OGH" in the title, nor do I care if the seller mentions it in the description. No reason for distrust there--it's full disclosure. It just shouldn't be the best thing about a coin, and I still think that most sellers would take the upgrade themselves, if it were there for the taking. A couple of my favorite dealers choose not to do so, and this seems to work well for them. >>
It seems like RYK is on the "Myth" side of the fence based on his comments I borrowed from his post. I lean more to the "Mystic" side of the fence. For me, the coins look so much better in an OGH holder. I have seen some dog's in OGH holders but there are still some "Gems" to be found also. Based on the prices realized for coins in these holders, I'm not alone in my thoughts on this. I'm a firm beliver in "Buy the coin, not the holder". But, when I see a coin in an OGH holder, I take a little extra time inspecting said coin. I also believe that just because a coin is in an OGH holder that it's not a lock upgrade but very frequently, are premium for the grade. Here is a coin to help support my thoughts:
<< <i>OGH with highly lustrous surfaces that reveal a beautiful blend of mauve, violet, gold, russet, sky-blue, and gold-brown toning, and sharply executed design elements. Some wispy slide marks are noted on the obverse. A sharp, good looking coin for the grade designation. >>
Share your OGH Gems here
<< <i>Tuesday July 26, 2005 10:08 PM, Whenever I see a seller promote a coin with with words "old green holder" in the description (or, heaven forbid, title), I immediately turn on the ryk distrust-o-meter™. The idea that the coin is touted as an upgrade candidate is implicit in these three words. From what I have seen, any experienced seller with a coin in an "old green holder" will upgrade the coin himself/herself if it is a candidate. (The one exception is the 1859 cent that EagleEye sold to Shylock in the older holder, so Shylock could get the upgrade ) What's left in the OGHs are the accurately graded or overgraded coins that deserve no special cachet or additional consideration, other than the possible fact that the coins have been stable (not turned fugly) while residing in the holder.
Exception: Fresh collections that occcasionally come to auction, like the Galveston Collection in the recent ANR sale and the Cincinnati Collection (2005 Heritage FUN). Both of these were gold coin collections that were put together years ago and largely left in the older holders (PCGS green and NGC fatboys) for the sale. As a group, it is easy to get excited about these new-to-market coins. This scenario is played out a couple times each year.
Bottom line: If the coin (OGH or otherwise) is being sold by a knowledgeable seller and is an upgrade candidate, it has already been tried. >>
<< <i>Tuesday August 28, 2007 11:07 AM, The OP was a couple of years ago, and I have softened my position somewhat. I do not mind "OGH" in the title, nor do I care if the seller mentions it in the description. No reason for distrust there--it's full disclosure. It just shouldn't be the best thing about a coin, and I still think that most sellers would take the upgrade themselves, if it were there for the taking. A couple of my favorite dealers choose not to do so, and this seems to work well for them. >>
It seems like RYK is on the "Myth" side of the fence based on his comments I borrowed from his post. I lean more to the "Mystic" side of the fence. For me, the coins look so much better in an OGH holder. I have seen some dog's in OGH holders but there are still some "Gems" to be found also. Based on the prices realized for coins in these holders, I'm not alone in my thoughts on this. I'm a firm beliver in "Buy the coin, not the holder". But, when I see a coin in an OGH holder, I take a little extra time inspecting said coin. I also believe that just because a coin is in an OGH holder that it's not a lock upgrade but very frequently, are premium for the grade. Here is a coin to help support my thoughts:
<< <i>OGH with highly lustrous surfaces that reveal a beautiful blend of mauve, violet, gold, russet, sky-blue, and gold-brown toning, and sharply executed design elements. Some wispy slide marks are noted on the obverse. A sharp, good looking coin for the grade designation. >>
Share your OGH Gems here
0
Comments
For a large selection of U.S. Coins & Currency, visit The Reeded Edge's online webstore at the link below.
The Reeded Edge
I put OGH in the title of my auctions because that accurately describes the auction. Just like flag holder or non-flag holders for state quarters, it's just informative.
I may have even put "under-graded" in the description, but I dont' honestly expect anyone to take my word for it. I do provide huge, clean, clear photos, so the buyer should pay what they feel the coin is worth.
BTW, grades are soooo overrated, IMO.
Other thread
I actually made more money
The buyer actually paid less than if I upgraded it.
Both people are very happy
Big difference between myself and the powerscrewers is, I won't claim upgrade. It's in a 65 holder, thats what I sell it as.
Personally, I stand by my comment posted in the original thread.
Lee, I think that you would find the PQ coin irrespective of whether the holder is young, middle aged or old.
That Maine Centennial rocks!!! I would grade it a 64 with a better than 50/50 shot at 65.
Collector of Early 20th Century U.S. Coinage.
ANA Member R-3147111
Here's 4 I bought as part of a collection; the 1909O upgraded, the 1894 Half is still thusly entombed:
This one is just a gorgeous coin:
Like it or not, OGH and First Gen PCGS holders carry a cachet.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
John
Never view my other linked pages. They aren't coin related.
Old gold looks very nice with the green insert.
<< <i>Gonna be a lot of folks holding the bag. (Is it PC to say bag?
BTW, grades are soooo overrated, IMO. >>
Very true. Sounds like you're also a "Buy the coin and not the holder" kind of person
<< <i>This is in a green tag holder. Notice I don't say "OGH" can't stand that. >>
It seems the gimmick makers have gotten to you
<< <i>Lee, I think that you would find the PQ coin irrespective of whether the holder is young, middle aged or old.
Thanks Pete!
<< <i>I've no OGH but just dropped by to say that is a kicking Photo Lee. >>
Thanks John. I can claim credit for the slab image but not the other two. Michael Printz deserves credit for those
<< <i>Old gold looks very nice with the green insert. >>
Agreed!!
A "premium" for the grade example
None of these have been re-tried at PCGS. When looking for PQ coins (or upgrades, if I was only looking for a monetary gain) I do find more success with the OGH and Rattlers.
My Draped Bust Dollar has the same detail and wear as a current AU-53 coin. (after looking at hundreds on the Heritage archives)
The Classic Gold would look just fine in a 62 holder...The Seated and Barber have stunning color, and sure aren't 64's anymore.
I buy to collect,, not to play the upgrade game. That's why I still have my OGH and Rattlers. [My honest opinion is that our current Coin Grading Market is Broke, and until a real fix comes along,, they're happy in the holders they are in]
reading the thread then and reading it now, this struck me as a gross overstatement based on what i've seen at shows and in the collections of friends/posted here. perhaps it's true that many of the early coins holdered by PCGS and sold on eBay are hyped with the OGH tag, but i've seen far to many just being sold for what they are. the initial post way back in '05 strikes me as being unduly influenced by thinking that what we see here and at online auctions is a realistic cross section of the overall coin market. in reality, it's a very small portion.
It was apparent once I got the coin that it was a lock 66 upgrade.
The first interested Morgan collector that saw it knew it was a lock upgrade as well...still he tried countering for $50 less. I held my ground and asked 10% under MS66 money. And the coin was white and sweet as well. He bought it. Real coins can sell themselves. This better date coin wasn't worth sending back in because of the small spread from 65 to 66. I sold an Isabella in an old NGC 63 holder that looked the same way. Got 50% over MS63 money. Odd considering that many Isabella's don't even sell, they just sit.
I await my next lock upgrade old holder coin......they come to every auction venue where slabs are sold. Check out the Goldberg's sale.
There are some in there as well...gold and silver.
roadrunner
I have a 28 S Stander in FH 5 in a 1st generation holder. Believe it was part of the roll that was sold @ the 1988 ANA. It's a toned coin, and PCGS didn't like the toning when I had an in holder review done six years ago, so it didn't upgrade.
The coin is very clean and attractive for the grade, as well as being original. These coins have gotten price bumps for the old holder. This coin in FH 6 is worth more than double the FH 5 coin, however, I think the original holder splits the difference (re its value).
If someone tried to upgrade the coin, in the worst case scenario, it would come back in a FH 5 holder and would lose the premium for the original holder. Only a gambler or a fool would take this risk.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
I paid 63 money for a 64 OGH 1890 seated quarter and could not wait to recieve it.............after it arrived it took all of two seconds to make my mind up to send it back.
BLAAAH!
Ray
Yes, a few (relatively speaking) remain, but I wouldn't buy an OGH looking to upgrade, instead I would buy it because it has a higher grade than what I currently have (or don't have).
I don't care what holder they're in, they are pretty sweet!
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>I am one of the opinion that the vast majority of the upgrade candidates have been.
>>
I've now read this opinion multiple times - but if they actually had been "tried", through PCGS, then they would no longer be in OGH or 1st Gen holders - they would be cracked out by PCGS and reholdered at the new or same grade
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
Notis the submitter did not crack it out, but rather had a 1 grade min. (up)grade.
In other words, if the OGH coin had a grade of MS64, and the submitter left the coin in the slab and indicated MS65 as the minimum grade & it did not meet the criteria for MS65, then the coin would remain in the OGH.
Also, 'experts' would not send such coins in, knowing that the coin would not upgrade. Hence coins staying in their OGH.
As stateed before, there are probably quite a few upgrade candidates that are out there, but are not worth the $$ to send back in for a 1-pt upgrade.
Same $$ to be had at selling time by stating the coin is in an OGH and very PQ. Nice pictures would also help.
<< <i>I am one of the opinion that the vast majority of the upgrade candidates have been.
Yes, a few (relatively speaking) remain, but I wouldn't buy an OGH looking to upgrade, instead I would buy it because it has a higher grade than what I currently have (or don't have). >>
Might be.
They have all been gone through and now they are pushing the "OGH" story...I still have a few of them along with oldie NGC and ANACS holders.
Good days and bad days I guess.
Ray
<< <i>They have all been gone through and now they are pushing the "OGH" story. >>
NOT TRUE. I have several dozen gold coins that I bought back in the late 80's and early 90's that for the most part are undergraded by current standards. I'm sure there are many other older collections with the older slabs where the owner has no desire to play the crackout game.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>
<< <i>They have all been gone through and now they are pushing the "OGH" story. >>
NOT TRUE. I have several dozen gold coins that I bought back in the late 80's and early 90's that for the most part are undergraded by current standards. I'm sure there are many other older collections with the older slabs where the owner has no desire to play the crackout game. >>
My statement has been taken out of context. It refers to coins found on the bourse, on ebay, Heritage, and in dealer inventories, Obviously, coins that were graded many years ago and have since been impounded in collections for a number of years have a much better chance of being undergraded.
<< <i>Obviously, coins that were graded many years ago and have since been impounded in collections for a number of years have a much better chance of being undergraded. >>
It's semantics, but the way I see it, these coins were correctly graded, and everything in more recent holders is overgraded.
I paid 63 money for a 64 OGH 1890 seated quarter and could not wait to recieve it.............after it arrived it took all of two seconds to make my mind up to send it back.
You should have PM'd me. You could have flipped that for a small profit and saved on return postage. Something tells me that you may have over-estimated a perceived flaw on the coin. Maybe too dark for your tastes? Or too dipped?
I've seen a lot of seated coins over the past 15 years and can NEVER recall an old holder coin being so bad that I wouldn't take it for lower grade money, never mind same grade money. While some ogh type coins have disappointed me as being lower end for the grade (and this is sort of rare too) there have been none that I wouldn't have at least paid bid-less 10%.
The worst one I ever got was from Harbor Coin, an ogh 1867 2c piece in MS63RB with fuzzy enough photos to hide even the luster and depth of red. Harbor had detailed the coin as 95% RED and nearly free of marks. Hey, they had 100% FB at the time too. This was my first time seeing their auctions as well. Knowing that PCGS was brutal on copper in the earlier days this sounded like at least a PQ coin. I paid PQ 63++ money and got a 70% brown coin with some red in it. It had just made the RB standard, forget about RED! The luster was dead as well. It was gonna stay in this 63 holder forever. As much as I hated it, I was able to sell the coin to a very knowledgeable dealer for CDN bid. Harbor offers a return priv on raw coins (thought they sometimes don't follow that!), and they do not accept returns on slabs.
roadrunner
<< <i>Here's another variable to throw into the equation:
I have a 28 S Stander in FH 5 in a 1st generation holder. Believe it was part of the roll that was sold @ the 1988 ANA. It's a toned coin, and PCGS didn't like the toning when I had an in holder review done six years ago, so it didn't upgrade.
The coin is very clean and attractive for the grade, as well as being original. These coins have gotten price bumps for the old holder. This coin in FH 6 is worth more than double the FH 5 coin, however, I think the original holder splits the difference (re its value).
If someone tried to upgrade the coin, in the worst case scenario, it would come back in a FH 5 holder and would lose the premium for the original holder. Only a gambler or a fool would take this risk. >>
This is the main concern when considering the proper thing to do with a Rattler or OGH holdered coin.
U.S. Nickels Complete Set with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes
U.S. Dimes Complete Set with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes
<< <i>OGH has left a bad taste in my mouth.
I paid 63 money for a 64 OGH 1890 seated quarter and could not wait to recieve it.............after it arrived it took all of two seconds to make my mind up to send it back.
You should have PM'd me. You could have flipped that for a small profit and saved on return postage. Something tells me that you may have over-estimated a perceived flaw on the coin. Maybe too dark for your tastes? Or too dipped?
I've seen a lot of seated coins over the past 15 years and can NEVER recall an old holder coin being so bad that I wouldn't take it for lower grade money, never mind same grade money. While some ogh type coins have disappointed me as being lower end for the grade (and this is sort of rare too) there have been none that I wouldn't have at least paid bid-less 10%.
The worst one I ever got was from Harbor Coin, an ogh 1867 2c piece in MS63RB with fuzzy enough photos to hide even the luster and depth of red. Harbor had detailed the coin as 95% RED and nearly free of marks. Hey, they had 100% FB at the time too. This was my first time seeing their auctions as well. Knowing that PCGS was brutal on copper in the earlier days this sounded like at least a PQ coin. I paid PQ 63++ money and got a 70% brown coin with some red in it. It had just made the RB standard, forget about RED! The luster was dead as well. It was gonna stay in this 63 holder forever. As much as I hated it, I was able to sell the coin to a very knowledgeable dealer for CDN bid. Harbor offers a return priv on raw coins (thought they sometimes don't follow that!), and they do not accept returns on slabs.
Obverse had WAY to many marks for a 64 (reverse was very nice), I have an '91 in an NGC 62 holder that blows it away.
It was an Ebay coin and the seller had a good return policy so I took a chance, he gave all my money back including the postage which surprised me.
Ray
roadrunner >>
This is a very nice example that unfortunately had a hole in the holder on the reverse of the coin. An unattractive toning spot has developed. It will make its way back to PCGS one day under the guarantee.