Should PCGS make a smaller version of it's slab? Old ANACS (ANA) size for safety deposit boxes?

fivecents

I know if they did I would certify many, many more coins.

tmcsr69

I agree that my safe deposit boxes fill up quickly but feel that the size is right for handling and viewing. I do wish NGC coins would fit in PCGS boxes.

MisterBungle

No, I like them just as they are.

~

fivecents

<< <i>No, I like them just as they are. >>

MisterBungle...The smaller slabs would only be an option. PCGS would keep on making the regular slabs also. These smaller slabs would be for those coins that spend most of their time in the tight confines of the bank safety deposit boxes. Did I metion that the rental space in the bank safety deposit boxes are VERY expensive?

keoj

I've often wished that PCGS would do a smaller slab as well. The ANACS size is good but I was thinking of a slab the size a Kointain, sealed with micro printing and security features along the edge.

1) Wouldn't be great to be able to put them in an album like holder?
2) Wouldn't be great to see the coin for it' own merits and apperance without the first thing being evaluated is it's grade?

Just a thought.

keoj

MisterBungle

I understand your reasoning, it's just that we already
have two sizes of PCGS holders to deal with now, and it
requires two different size boxes, one of which is
almost impossible to find.

Whether you give an option for the size slab, or
just go with a new, smaller size, you will have
thousands of the old style, and however many of
the new, smaller style, which you couldn't keep
together in one box.

I just think it would create more problems than
it would solve.

Just my humble opinion.

~

Mercury10c

I agree with misterbungle. I like the consistency with the PCGS slabs. With the exception of the few
rattlers that I have, they all fit in the same box. I have lots of ANACS coin, and they keep changing
their slabs. They've had 3 sizes in the last 2 1/2 years, and none of them fit in the same box. It's
annoying and it's more of an inconvenience than the large size of the PCGS holder.

copperflopper

It would have seemed obvious years ago to make a 2x2 very similar to an Intercept shield style that could be kept in an album and standard boxes.

ColonialCoinUnion

No interest in seeing a new, smaller size.

BAJJERFAN

<< <i>I know if they did I would certify many, many more coins. >>



Would you be willing to have them reholdered at YOUR expense if a potential buyer wanted them in a larger slab?

MrEureka

I was thinking of a slab the size a Kointain, sealed with micro printing and security features along the edge.

1) Wouldn't it be great to be able to put them in an album like holder?
2) Wouldn't it be great to see the coin for it' own merits and apperance without the first thing being evaluated is it's grade?

I agree. However, I would think this is not viable unless a resealable slab is developed that can both house the capsule, and read and display the information encoded on the edge of the capsule. (Naturally, the albums would work the same way.) I'm reasonably sure the technology exists. The only question is if it's economically viable yet.

BAJJERFAN

They could do a double slab as in a small anacs sized slab within a larger slab and if you want to save space [such as for an SDB] just crack it out of the big slab and VOILA......

OKbustchaser

I don't think that at this late a date they should go to the smaller holder. WAY too much headache. I do, however, wish that they had continued with a slab no larger--and actually would have prefered even smaller--than the deminsions of the original rattler. I just think that the coin looks better in the smaller slab.

messydesk

For better or for worse, the PCGS slab size has become the de facto standard. It would be nice if they did have a smaller holder and used the reduced label real estate efficiently, but if it were the "old ANACS" size, then they'd lose all the Pan-Pac $50 submissions. I think it would also be difficult to holder a bust dollar with a gasket that would allow edge viewing.

To make them "box compatible" with the larger slabs, they could sell a snap-on adapter in their supplies department (similar to what the 2nd generation holders had) at a 10% discount to collectors club members.

I fully expect PCGS to come up with a significant slab redesign within a couple years. The new $10 reholder fee is the first step. They'll let people start accepting that before releasing a new one, and they'll offer a nominal discount for bulk reholderings to make it seem like a good deal when a new holder comes out.

Barry

Forgetting the size issue, PCGS should redesign their slab to combat the counterfeiters - the same way our currency keeps changing.

19Lyds

When my box gets to crowded, I'll remove them from the blue boxes and simply stack them together as they stack great! Finding "the" coin then becomes a PITA but at least they are at the bank.

I'm not a biggie on change and with the700+ slabbed coins I have, the cost of getting them reholdered could be better spent on more or better coins.


Request denied!

Bochiman

The cost of a SDB, for a year, is not a big expense FOR THIS TYPE OF HOBBY.
If one were just storing documents, yes, I would say it is expensive. However, when slabbing can cost $18-$30 each, the cost for a large box is less than that of 5-8 slabbing fees.

If that is too much for someone, they should either not pay to slab (since you are saying you would pay to slab many many) or should adjust the hobby.
The security and ease of mind I get from putting my "non-pocket change" coins in the SDB is well worth the fee.

As for the size change? No. I didn't, and still don't, like that size for graded coins. Old rattlers, yes.

Rarity

I prefer a sealed 2x2 plastic insert with PCGS certificate.

NHSBaseball

I like the current slab- and they do stack easily enough. Wish I had enough coins to warrant a storage problem.