It is actually quite nice, if not for the cheek I think it would be in a very high grade holder. It's probably a 64 pushing 65 by today's standards. I love the look, just dripping with luster. If the cheek were cleaner, I would think 67...honestly.
Does anyone know which one is more rare, the NGC 2.0 (the holder in the OP) or the 2.5? (the same one, but has the logo embossed on the inside of the plastic) I've always wondered. I don't see either one with any regularity.
Great score and certainly a nice coin . . . . . both of them (2.0/2.1) could be rarer than the Doily as Orevile has commented in the past.
The 2.1 is substantially rarer than the 2.0. NGC had problems with the hotstamp on the inside of the slab and it only lasted a few days before they moved the hotstamp to the outside. The 2.0 then continued in production for a while with the white core and insert.
Were you comparing the NGC 2.0 and the PCGS 2.5? The 'same one' is the NGC 2.1 (with the hotstamp on the inside).
I just sent 5 2.0/2.1s in to CAC along with 7 Doilies to start the process of finding out how grading was from 1987 to 1989. Results will be posted later . . . after I get all the Doilies fired off and back.
<< <i>Great score and certainly a nice coin . . . . . both of them (2.0/2.1) could be rarer than the Doily as Orevile has commented in the past.
The 2.1 is substantially rarer than the 2.0. NGC had problems with the hotstamp on the inside of the slab and it only lasted a few days before they moved the hotstamp to the outside. The 2.0 then continued in production for a while with the white core and insert.
Were you comparing the NGC 2.0 and the PCGS 2.5? The 'same one' is the NGC 2.1 (with the hotstamp on the inside).
I just sent 5 2.0/2.1s in to CAC along with 7 Doilies to start the process of finding out how grading was from 1987 to 1989. Results will be posted later . . . after I get all the Doilies fired off and back.
Drunner >>
Sorry, yes I was talking about the 2.1, not the 2.5 (which does not exist.)
Comments
Nice score.
The decline from democracy to tyranny is both a natural and inevitable one.
Mike
-Paul
<< <i>Looks better than a 63 IMHO >>
I agree. It's flashy.
<< <i>I bought the plastic, not the coin! >>
I like both. The coin is nice and cartwheely, and I like the subtle toning.
Many members on this forum that now it cannot fit in my signature. Please ask for entire list.
The 2.1 is substantially rarer than the 2.0. NGC had problems with the hotstamp on the inside of the slab and it only lasted a few days before they moved the hotstamp to the outside. The 2.0 then continued in production for a while with the white core and insert.
Were you comparing the NGC 2.0 and the PCGS 2.5? The 'same one' is the NGC 2.1 (with the hotstamp on the inside).
I just sent 5 2.0/2.1s in to CAC along with 7 Doilies to start the process of finding out how grading was from 1987 to 1989. Results will be posted later . . . after I get all the Doilies fired off and back.
Drunner
<< <i>Great score and certainly a nice coin . . . . . both of them (2.0/2.1) could be rarer than the Doily as Orevile has commented in the past.
The 2.1 is substantially rarer than the 2.0. NGC had problems with the hotstamp on the inside of the slab and it only lasted a few days before they moved the hotstamp to the outside. The 2.0 then continued in production for a while with the white core and insert.
Were you comparing the NGC 2.0 and the PCGS 2.5? The 'same one' is the NGC 2.1 (with the hotstamp on the inside).
I just sent 5 2.0/2.1s in to CAC along with 7 Doilies to start the process of finding out how grading was from 1987 to 1989. Results will be posted later . . . after I get all the Doilies fired off and back.
Drunner >>
Sorry, yes I was talking about the 2.1, not the 2.5 (which does not exist.)
<< <i>I would think that they are both more rare than the doily, but that's just my take on it. >>
My final purchase...ever Care to explain the "ever" part
<< <i>
<< <i>I would think that they are both more rare than the doily, but that's just my take on it. >>
My final purchase...ever Care to explain the "ever" part >>
You must have missed the "...of 2011" part.