Personally, I find Secure holders to be the MOST desirable

renomedphys

Avoiding a "chicken or the egg" analogy, it is starting to seem to me that for the majority of cases, only very nice coins end up in these holders. If you add that to the security of the fingerprint, inclusion in the database, and the ability to rely on PCGS' grading guarantee even after you crack it out... well it's no surprise that I'll be moving all my long-term keepers into these holders whenever possible.

That said, I do have some important copper in OGHs, and for these, my feelings are mixed, but biased toward keeping them right where they are. I would always buy OGH copper that measures up. It's getting pretty hard to find, though.

barrytrot

<< <i>and the ability to rely on PCGS' grading guarantee even after you crack it out... well it's no surprise that I'll be moving all my long-term keepers into these holders whenever possible. >>



Wait a sec: Are you saying that PCGS will honor their guarantee on a coin that's been cracked out? That sounds nutso. Can you please clarify?

illini420

<< <i>

<< <i>and the ability to rely on PCGS' grading guarantee even after you crack it out... well it's no surprise that I'll be moving all my long-term keepers into these holders whenever possible. >>



Wait a sec: Are you saying that PCGS will honor their guarantee on a coin that's been cracked out? That sounds nutso. Can you please clarify? >>



I remember seeing a thread about them doing just that for Stewart Blay... but most of us aren't Stewart Blay. I can't imagine PCGS honoring the guarantee on a cracked out Secure Plus coin for too many others.

Leonidas

<< <i>

<< <i>and the ability to rely on PCGS' grading guarantee even after you crack it out... well it's no surprise that I'll be moving all my long-term keepers into these holders whenever possible. >>



Wait a sec: Are you saying that PCGS will honor their guarantee on a coin that's been cracked out? That sounds nutso. Can you please clarify? >>



I don't think he said that.

Juan

i have he same question, how are they going to guarantee a raw coin? Unless one sends the remains of the plastic and label? Even then, there's room for fraud.

MsMorrisine

<< <i>and the ability to rely on PCGS' grading guarantee even after you crack it out... >>




there is no such guarantee.

MsMorrisine

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>and the ability to rely on PCGS' grading guarantee even after you crack it out... well it's no surprise that I'll be moving all my long-term keepers into these holders whenever possible. >>



Wait a sec: Are you saying that PCGS will honor their guarantee on a coin that's been cracked out? That sounds nutso. Can you please clarify? >>



I remember seeing a thread about them doing just that for Stewart Blay... but most of us aren't Stewart Blay. I can't imagine PCGS honoring the guarantee on a cracked out Secure Plus coin for too many others. >>




No. Stewart Blay was just under the same misconception.

Frankcoins

<< <i> the ability to rely on PCGS' grading guarantee even after you crack it out... >>



There is no such guarantee. PCGS can identify it as the same COIN when digitally fingerprinted, so that they can identify doctoring attempts to
upgrade a coin. But once a coin is cracked out, it can be mishandled or tarnish and may no longer be the same grade.

Elcontador

Disagree with the premise of the OP. The few coins I've view in Secure holders were average for the grade. The one plus I've seen was nice. I see a concept very similar to the sticker and the plus, except that the secure / secure plus coins are digitally catalogued.

I don't care whether the coin is in a secure holder, a secure plus holder, has a sticker, star, etc. If I like the coin and I think the price is reasonable, I buy it. If you really know how to grade what you are buying, this stuff should not matter.

KeyLargoRareCoins

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>and the ability to rely on PCGS' grading guarantee even after you crack it out... well it's no surprise that I'll be moving all my long-term keepers into these holders whenever possible. >>



Wait a sec: Are you saying that PCGS will honor their guarantee on a coin that's been cracked out? That sounds nutso. Can you please clarify? >>



I remember seeing a thread about them doing just that for Stewart Blay... but most of us aren't Stewart Blay. I can't imagine PCGS honoring the guarantee on a cracked out Secure Plus coin for too many others. >>



Illini,

I did not read stewarts post the same way you did. Stuart sent the coin in under secure plus the first time, he cracked the coin and sent it in regular submission( coins do not get scanned under regular submissions so the coin was not matched to anything) The coin was graded as a genuine( IMO a grader flubbed this one up) From my understanding the coin was sent back in yet again but this time under the secure submission( this time because it was a secure submission the coin was matched to the previous scan) The coin graded the same as the first time. There was no gaurentee that took place here they simply were able to match the coin to the scan from the first time around and determined nothing had changed.

illini420

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>and the ability to rely on PCGS' grading guarantee even after you crack it out... well it's no surprise that I'll be moving all my long-term keepers into these holders whenever possible. >>



Wait a sec: Are you saying that PCGS will honor their guarantee on a coin that's been cracked out? That sounds nutso. Can you please clarify? >>



I remember seeing a thread about them doing just that for Stewart Blay... but most of us aren't Stewart Blay. I can't imagine PCGS honoring the guarantee on a cracked out Secure Plus coin for too many others. >>



Illini,

I did not read stewarts post the same way you did. Stuart sent the coin in under secure plus the first time, he cracked the coin and sent it in regular submission( coins do not get scanned under regular submissions so the coin was not matched to anything) The coin was graded as a genuine( IMO a grader flubbed this one up) From my understanding the coin was sent back in yet again but this time under the secure submission( this time because it was a secure submission the coin was matched to the previous scan) The coin graded the same as the first time. There was no gaurentee that took place here they simply were able to match the coin to the scan from the first time around and determined nothing had changed. >>



I understand that, but the way I remember reading that thread is that Stewart was making a big deal about how if a tooled coin made it through Secure Plus then that doesn't say much for the value of Secure Plus. It seemed that those from PCGS responding to the thread didn't like those comments and defended the technology. Then Stewart later posted that the coin came back to him back in a holder with the original grade and w/o explanation. You could argue that the 2nd grader under the regular submission flubbed up, but you could just as easily argue the first grader under Secure Plus flubbed up. The point you're not addressing is that if Secure Plus matches the coin on that third submission, it shouldn't just get regraded the same (unless like you say they can tell for sure nothing has changed and that they didn't make a mistake in the first grading). Of course, it's possible that someone messed with the coin after the crackout??? I know Stewart said nothing was done, but I would hope PCGS doesn't get into the habit of taking the submitter's word for it in these cases. Maybe I'm also reading between the lines a bit, maybe not...

KeyLargoRareCoins

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>and the ability to rely on PCGS' grading guarantee even after you crack it out... well it's no surprise that I'll be moving all my long-term keepers into these holders whenever possible. >>



Wait a sec: Are you saying that PCGS will honor their guarantee on a coin that's been cracked out? That sounds nutso. Can you please clarify? >>



I remember seeing a thread about them doing just that for Stewart Blay... but most of us aren't Stewart Blay. I can't imagine PCGS honoring the guarantee on a cracked out Secure Plus coin for too many others. >>



Illini,

I did not read stewarts post the same way you did. Stuart sent the coin in under secure plus the first time, he cracked the coin and sent it in regular submission( coins do not get scanned under regular submissions so the coin was not matched to anything) The coin was graded as a genuine( IMO a grader flubbed this one up) From my understanding the coin was sent back in yet again but this time under the secure submission( this time because it was a secure submission the coin was matched to the previous scan) The coin graded the same as the first time. There was no gaurentee that took place here they simply were able to match the coin to the scan from the first time around and determined nothing had changed. >>



I understand that, but the way I remember reading that thread is that Stewart was making a big deal about how if a tooled coin made it through Secure Plus then that doesn't say much for the value of Secure Plus. It seemed that those from PCGS responding to the thread didn't like those comments and defended the technology. Then Stewart later posted that the coin came back to him back in a holder with the original grade and w/o explanation. You could argue that the 2nd grader under the regular submission flubbed up, but you could just as easily argue the first grader under Secure Plus flubbed up. The point you're not addressing is that if Secure Plus matches the coin on that third submission, it shouldn't just get regraded the same (unless like you say they can tell for sure nothing has changed and that they didn't make a mistake in the first grading). Of course, it's possible that someone messed with the coin after the crackout??? I know Stewart said nothing was done, but I would hope PCGS doesn't get into the habit of taking the submitter's word for it in these cases. Maybe I'm also reading between the lines a bit, maybe not... >>



Ahh,

I see what you were saying, all very valid points. That thread was a tough read and I am pretty sure it gave me a headache.