New PCGS holders....thoughts?

MilkmanDan

So I've noticed a few members mention new "pronged" holders housing their new submissions, upon return. Did I miss an announcement, or is this a silent roll-in? Seems like the kind of thing that would be broadcast in a big announcement.

What do you all think of these new holders? I think they are really great from just about every angle (pun intended) except for photographing the coins, which will give similar results as the certain white prongs that show up in many photographs of other TPG holder photos. It will be interesting to see how the clear prongs show in photos, or if they do at all. May depend on lighting.

Overall, great idea, I've never seen the edges of many of my favorite coins and I've always been curious of the shape they are in.

golfer72

Its about time.

ambro51

SHOULD be an option

1tommy

<< <i>SHOULD be an option >>

THIS IS like going to a store for a gallon of d milk but having to buy 2 percent. I really don't understand why there not giving a choice. I have a few more coins to send in and all my holders will match. I DO NOT want those holders on my quarters. if a customer likes them they should be able to get them, but if a customer hates them it should not be that big of a deal to make the CUSTOMER HAPPY. With all the different labels they put out for the 25th anniversary set I would think letting the customer decide would be a better avenue to walk down. And where is the BIG Announcement? Or is this another cost cutting messure that we have no say in? Bums me out and I guess if there willing to reholder all my other coins into the prongs for free than I am in....................Enjoy tom

ambro51

Since PCGS has made every effort to conceal the date of encapsulation it seems very much against this plan by establishing a clear transition date between holder styles. Unless of course that IS the plan. OBH?

JJM

should be optional,..........do not like

georgiacop50

<< <i>

<< <i>SHOULD be an option >>

THIS IS like going to a store for a gallon of d milk but having to buy 2 percent. >>



More like going for a regular 10W-40 oil change but getting Full Synthetic at no extra charge, IMHO.

Moldnut

From the few that I have seen, the prongs are even larger than NGCs prongs. Ever though they are clear, it would be nice if they were half as large.

bosco5041

I agree that you should have a choice but I do like the prongs. I bought a coin a few years ago that had a edge bump and could barely see it in the old holder, the new pronged type would have been easy.

Tonedlover

<< <i>should be optional,..........do not like >>

BillJones

The only prong PCGS holder I have houses a 1794 large cent from the Dan Holmes collection. The prongs are great because it allows me to see the edge lettering. If the new PCGS holders are like the one I have with clear prongs, it's better than then white prongs NGC uses.

MilkmanDan

So far it seems like reaction is mixed. I can see the argument that one would want their collection to match, so with no choice it makes that difficult. On the other hand, the submission form is already complex enough, adding one more option doesn't help that, and would possibly slow down turn around time, so from a business standpoint I can see why the choice of holder wouldn't be offered.

RYK

I generally like the new PCGS prong holders, but I do not have a strong feeling about it.

DrPete

So far I really like the edge holders of PCGS. They allow you to see most of the edge of a coin, they allow more light to flow through the holder, and the coins seem to "float" in the holder rather than the older style where the coin is embraced by a ring and looks embedded into the ring.

TheBigB

Next, some of you will want prongs on some coins in your submission, but not others. Why add more complications?

Remember, resistance is futile.

lkeigwin

In the last several days I received half a dozen coins from PCGS. The CBH's and MPL had new prong holders. The IHC's and Peace dollars did not. I guessed that PCGS was using the prong holders for coins with edge-significance. Maybe not. Perhaps they're trying to mix them in so the date of slabbing is still uncertain.
Lance.

ambro51

Show us a 45 degree macro view of the MPL rims in that holder

mingot

Strongly dislike the prongs.

They make pictures of coins ugly.

I like to talk pictures of coins.

BaseballAbs

<< <i>

<< <i>should be optional,..........do not like >>

>>

NotSure

<< <i>

<< <i>SHOULD be an option >>

THIS IS like going to a store for a gallon of d milk but having to buy 2 percent. I really don't understand why there not giving a choice. I have a few more coins to send in and all my holders will match. I DO NOT want those holders on my quarters. if a customer likes them they should be able to get them, but if a customer hates them it should not be that big of a deal to make the CUSTOMER HAPPY. With all the different labels they put out for the 25th anniversary set I would think letting the customer decide would be a better avenue to walk down. And where is the BIG Announcement? Or is this another cost cutting messure that we have no say in? Bums me out and I guess if there willing to reholder all my other coins into the prongs for free than I am in....................Enjoy tom >>



Absolutely, 100% agree with Tom on this, especially with the Washies.




<< <i>The only prong PCGS holder I have houses a 1794 large cent from the Dan Holmes collection. The prongs are great because it allows me to see the edge lettering. If the new PCGS holders are like the one I have with clear prongs, it's better than then white prongs NGC uses. >>



Yes, it's great IF you have edged lettering you want/need/desire to 'view'. On a Washie, which my latest submission came back in, totally unexpected, they look awful. The prongs are not 'evenly' covering the coin, and as wassaid, they ARE bigger than those ATS. It may be an issue of them being clear, I don't know. But, now, do I have my entire set put in prong holders? I believe, placed side to side with a NON-pronged holder, the prong holders look lousy. I didn't like them when they came out ATS, like them even less in our hosts plastic.

Again, I don't mind them for/on, and would prefer them for/on, coins WITH edge lettering, but for coins without, it looks lousy. For those that have imaging talent, you will notice the unevenness of the prong as the coin is seated in it, not to mention, longer than those of ATS.

I agree with ambro and Tom...it SHOULD be an option..an option you should have to request. All coins should be graded without the pronged holder....if you want it, they ought to make up new forms, and put a 'check here if you want pronged holder', just like they do for varieties, . The Washies I received last week, quite honestly, looked lousy. Quite beneficial for edge lettered coins, I'll admit (and the ONLY coins that should be placed in them). What percentage of coins that were produced at the Mint, had edge lettering? Our hosts, and ATS, they should have a small % on hand for such coins, as most coins do NOT have edge lettering.

Not a fan...not by a long shot., and when they receive my re-holder for my Type B's sent in, an immediate call to CS will be made to see if I can get them into 'normal' ringed slabs...the same kind they've used for 25 years, with no complaints (you don't fix someething that isn't broken). My issue is, they never mentioned it, never took a 'poll', never got opinions. If they had, I'm sure the majority would have given edge lettered coins the thumbs-up for them, as it IS smat, in that you can see all 3 'sides' of the coin.... but non-edge lettered coins, nope. JMO.

messydesk

They should be optional, especially on smaller coinage. Useful on edge-lettered coinage and striking errors. They're going to complicate lighting coins for photography, as the gaskets are shiny and flexible, and may introduce unwelcome reflections in some cases when trying to light the coin correctly, depending on how the fangs have flexed.

REALGATOR

Here's the main point as I see it:

If PCGS failed to communicate this change in advance then that is a glaring oversight. Of course this is going to matter greatly to passionate collectors (the activity of the host's
message boards prove that). What choices if any we have is important. However, sudden or unannounced changes can really upset clients.

I do like the pronged holders but not so much on a trime or gold dollar.

relicsncoins

It's very expensive in any manufacturing to maintain two different tools sets. Usually with any change to a product, the company will use the existing stock until it is gone and then move to the newer product. In other words, it's not cost effective to manufacture two different holders.

IrishMikey

I thought this was a reaction to the split coins being sold in fake holders. If you can see the edge of a
purported 1896-O $ in a holder, you can avoid the fakes. I also assumed that the new gaskets were
being rolled out as old stock was used up, but I could be wrong on that.

Bochiman

I think you should let Dimeman know about this....I have heard he LOVES the new holders
btw...I sent in a 1795 LE 1/2 cent about 2 months ago or so. Came back in the "old" holder style...not pronged

WingedLiberty1957

I HATE the new pronged holders. I totally agree with the earlier poster that it should be an option at minimum.

Ever notice how UGLY NGC pronged coins are in photographs? Now PCGS is following suit. A very sad day indeed.

What PCGS should have done is rather than mimicing NGC's really bad pronged holder design ... they should have mimic'd the state of the art design used by the USMint in their silver proof sets.

If you study a 2010 Silver Proof set, they use an ingenious system where the coins are pushed forward (upward) in the holder and held solidly against the plastic which reveals the ENTIRE RIM!!!! Without any PRONGS obstructing any portion of the coin or rim.

Take a look at these shots below (sorry they are blurry, I shot them with my iPHONE). The cool thing about this design (a design that PCGS SHOULD HAVE USED in a redesign of their slabs) the ENTIRE RIM is revealed even when looking straight down at the coin. (Check out those beautiful full wide rims on the dollar coin with a straight on view ... you dont get that with either a gasket system or a prong system).

Even the back view reveals the ENTIRE COIN and RIM (from a straight on view). (With a prong or gasket system, used by PCGS and NGC, some of the rim and coin are ALWAYS obscurred)

And from the side you can see the ENTIRE RIM in its full glory, with no obstruction what so ever. (With a prong system , there is still about 20% of the rim which is STILL OBSTRUCTED from a side view).

This is what PCGS SHOULD HAVE DONE!

Imagine seeing a Matte Proof Lincoln in a PCGS slab where you can see those extra wide razor sharp rims in their full glory!! Or be able to read ALL THE LETTERING on a Capped Bust Half (instead of just a few letters).

NotSure

We can thank the Pres dollars for this. There were coins that SHOULD have been placed in a holder, such as this, for a loooong time, yet nothing was done (from what we collectors heard of). Didn't seem to bother any of the TPG's to not show that third 'side' on some of these coins, worth 4 or 5 or 6 numbers.

OOOHHHH, then the Pres MEL's come out. There are probably more GW MEL's graded than all the classic coins, which are worth MANY multiples of these GW's, where the edge lettering SHOULD be shown, combined (JUST the GW MEL....10's of thousands...., this is NOT including the MANY other different 'types' of Pres $$ errors, such as overlaping, doubled, etc, let's not forget about the NA dollars, MEL's and the other 'types' of striking errors on THOSE). Why would the TPG's worry about an ultra modern's edge being able to be seen (an MS65 GW MEL is worth, what now, under $100??), when there are a number of MUCH more important, WAAAAY more important/valuable coins, where the edge SHOULD be seen...where they should have ALWAYS been seen, and these are housed in solid rings. Why was there no action taken until these shiny, new discs (which noone likes anyway) came along?

Having seen them 'up close and personal', I do not like my Washington's in them at all. Think about it......why does a 2011 Roosie need to be in a pronged ring holder? So you can see the rim??? With an '11 Roosie, all you are caring about are the bands....whether thery are there or not.. Same for Jeffs and the steps. Coins with reeded edges (modern or not) just don't need to be, nor should they be, put in these pronged ring holders. I really have to say, I did NOT llike my Washies in them one bit....not one bit.

I agree with Tom..if they are willing to reholder for free, I'd do it just to keep the coins uniform. Those of you that can image coins quite professionally, I believe you will have a bigger problem with these. As an example why I say this....on all 3 of the Washies I got back, under a 5X loupe, noticed at least 2 of the prongs were 'uneven'. One end of the prong barely covered the rim, where the other end was so much longer, it was actually covering a part of the field.

Freom a manffacturing standpoint, we knoow they have the equipment to make these rings for any coin...why not jusr keep the solid rings, and once more of the pronged rings need ordering, they can be ordered??? I foresee this becoming a much more discussed topic, once these pronged rings are the ONLY type of rings hitting all the auction outlets, making their way to dealers inventories, etc. Again, as I said, I did not like the way my Washies looked in them one bit. Once my latest submission is logged in, I'll be calling CS to see if I can get them put into the original rings. My opinion is that those that collect moderns, or coins with reeded edges, coins that DON'T need these, are really not going to like these..while those that own coins that DO need//require these, are going to love them...but it needs to be an option, without a doubt.

JM2CW..... having had them in hand, under a 5X loupe ...well, I really think they make the coins not as attractive, or appealing, as the non-pronged rings. But, the general consensus was to get something for the MEL's.....works for those coins that warrant/need them, but for those that don't, there should be an option....JMO

GRANDAM

LanceNewmanOCC

<< <i>So I've noticed a few members mention new "pronged" holders housing their new submissions, upon return. Did I miss an announcement, or is this a silent roll-in? Seems like the kind of thing that would be broadcast in a big announcement.

What do you all think of these new holders? I think they are really great from just about every angle (pun intended) except for photographing the coins, which will give similar results as the certain white prongs that show up in many photographs of other TPG holder photos. It will be interesting to see how the clear prongs show in photos, or if they do at all. May depend on lighting.

Overall, great idea, I've never seen the edges of many of my favorite coins and I've always been curious of the shape they are in. >>



Here is one I just got back. I did quick images so they are only 7 out of 10.

I am only one of their customers, but I really really like them. From my understanding these are going to be status quo for all pcgs holders soon or maybe already.

NotSure

Well, just spoke with CS, as my Type B attributions were received, and put in the system, today. EVERY coin, U.S. OR World coin, will come back in the 'tri-prong' gasket. For those of us that want everything to look uniform, we'll have to reholder every coin we have, at our cost, only to get them re-holdered in the tri-prong holder. It was explained that 'most' dealers/collectors preferred these holders. I'd start a poll, but don't know how. I'd love to see the consensus from us members, here, as I just can't see 'most' preferring these for EVERY coin submitted.

The days of the non-pronged holder are over, fini, done. Get used to it folks....they are here to stay, forever.

Shamika

Since I collect minor coinage (Buffalo Nickels), the prongs yield no advantages. As a result, I prefer that PCGS not use them or at least give allow for a choice.

NotSure

<< <i>Since I collect minor coinage (Buffalo Nickels), the prongs yield no advantages. As a result, I prefer that PCGS not use them or at least give allow for a choice. >>



Shamika, that is one hope/request that will never be granted. No option. Get used to your Buff's in the 'tri-prong' holders.

MilkmanDan

Move over doilies, the old "non-pronged holders" just became an overnight classic and will be hard sought after by collectors in a few years!

NotSure

The 'Slab Generation' thread will need to be updated....

blu62vette

I love the threads like this telling PCGS what they should do. These holders have been in Paris and there was a thread on these a while back when they started to come out in the US.

dragon

I see no point at all in using a prong type holder for coins that do not have edge lettering or similar where being able to view the edge may be useful or desirable. Does anyone have any desire to be able to view a typical plain or reeded edge coin? I sure don't.


I also wonder if using a prong type core would either increase or decrease the likelihood of a coin being accidentally fingerprinted or otherwise mishandled during the encapsulation process as opposed to the soft ring type core?

GeorgeKellogg

Here's my two cents: I would have preferred that the prong-style gasket be optional. Given the fact that our host has gone with all prong-style, I hope that it is improved over time, much as the "other" grading service has done. As a side note, I think that the current PCGS prongs are too wide.

Regarding photography (which is of prime importance to Forum members), it seems to me that the gasket can be cropped out, losing very little of the coin image (much as is currently done when shooting the coins in their holder). Or, one can use the TrueView option, as I have often done, when getting a coin graded at PCGS.

By the way, I do not plan to get my older PCGS coins re-holdered with the new prong-style gaskets.

golfer72

people will get used to them and most will end up liking them. When NGC came out witht he prong holders eevryone was crying but now you barely hear a peep. I actually prefer them now. Oh and the reason PCGS did not make a big deal about announcing this is because NGC was there way before them so a big announcement would seem foolish.

1tommy

Thats sad to me, and I guess I am just getting old and set in my ways, most companies would have made an announcement to let there customers know of the upcoming change, That would HAVE allowed some of us to finish our sets the way we wanted them. Instead once again its our playground and your ball I get it.

PinkFloyd

I agree, Tommy. I like the new holders but there has been VERY little communication with customers....a few hints but no real big announcement. You're not just old and set in your ways

LanLord

I like the prongs, I have one coin in a pronged holder and like it, but I agree with those that want an option.

MikeInFL

<< <i>I see no point at all in using a prong type holder for coins that do not have edge lettering or similar where being able to view the edge may be useful or desirable. Does anyone have any desire to be able to view a typical plain or reeded edge coin? I sure don't. >>



I do. I prefer to be able to evaluate (at least part of) the third side of a coin rather than it be hidden by a gasket.

lkeigwin

<< <i>Show us a 45 degree macro view of the MPL rims in that holder >>

coinnut

Add me to the list of those that HATE the prong holders. We should be given the option of prongs or no prongs. How difficult can that be?

fcloud

I don't care one way or the other, but I sent my dime set in for pedigree and asked that they leave the current gaskets on the coins, so they remain consistant with the rest of my pedigreed coins. Time will only tell which is liked better. I think it is a great idea for coins with lettered edges, but readed, or plain in the regards to cents an nickels there simply isn't a need.

MidLifeCrisis

<< <i>I generally like the new PCGS prong holders, but I do not have a strong feeling about it. >>

telephoto1

Just another revenue stream imo. Your coins aren't cool now unless they're in the new improved holders.
Oh well. It will give the plastic collectors another addition to their slab type set.

PS...Having looked at the MPLL closeups... am I the only one who noticed all that extra plastic flash on the edges of the prongs? They might want to talk to quality control... that stuff could cause scratches.

RYK

Just another revenue stream imo. Your coins aren't cool now unless they're in the new improved holders.

I completely disagree with this. There has been no such marketing, and I have not heard anyone, even among the PCGS diehards, who is considering having coins regraded or reholdered for the prong holders. To suggest that this is a "revenue stream" is cynical and unfair, IMO.

If anything, it may be a response to the NGC prong holders, but I do not see great enthusiasm for those, either. In NGC's case, the thick plastic buried smaller coins, and they probably realized that something had to be done.

I think that for most of us, this represents a modest enhancement of the current design and not something to go crazy over (in either direction).

coinkat

I like them for the most part- I only have World coins in them at the moment and the largest being a 1930 5 Centavos from Mexico

LanceNewmanOCC

<< <i>

<< <i>Show us a 45 degree macro view of the MPL rims in that holder >>




>>



that lincoln 3 prong gasket is bad a$$

i had some 1960 d/d lg/sm dt but they didn't have the lincoln cent size at that time when i submitted and requested 3 prong, ugh so jealous

now i gotta find some lincolns to submit!
.

comma

Love the prong holders on NGC...would be even better on pcgs