Were the old, small ANACS holders the nicest ever?
lkeigwin
Posts: 16,892 ✭✭✭✭✭
I always liked them.
Why did they fail? Did ANACS feel pressure to conform? Or was there something fundamentally wrong with the old holders?
I guess there's no going back.
If you have good photos of a special coin in an old ANACS holder, with the holder, please share it.
Lance.
Why did they fail? Did ANACS feel pressure to conform? Or was there something fundamentally wrong with the old holders?
I guess there's no going back.
If you have good photos of a special coin in an old ANACS holder, with the holder, please share it.
Lance.
Coin Photography Services / Everyman Registry set / BHNC #213
0
Comments
Yes.
As you are aware, I am sort of a 'holder guy' . .
Yes, those old alphanumeric holders were just superb. I have loved them ever since, and search them out.
Many advantages. I don't think their failure had anything to do with the mechanics of the holder . . they just got overrun by a business model that was superior . . . . .or better funded.
Great times . .
Drunner
(Doily Slut -- and ex- CBX rider (original 1979 model with sport kit!!! 103 HP and 551# dry weight)
I have crossed many coins from the small holders to problem free PCGS slabs in the same grade. That being said, there are still a good number of dogs left in those holders.
Here is an example I made a mistake of buying a few years ago, and was VERY fortunate to sell it for a profit.
And on the flip side, here is a gorgeous example I bought from Sheridan Downey. I have no doubt it will cross at PCGS.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
In my opinion, all of the newer ANACS holders are junk. Some of the newer holder styles are fragile, and they all look bad to me. Wouldn't it be nice if ANACS went back to the old small holders? I might even then send some coins in for reholder.
<< <i>Were the old, small ANACS holders the nicest ever? >>
Not as far as I'm concerned.
I didn't hate 'em- they were fine- but not my favorite by a longshot.
Grading aside, from strictly the plastic point of view, I liked the SEGS holders the best.
http://www.shieldnickels.net
<< <i>In my opinion, all of the newer ANACS holders are junk. Some of the newer holder styles are fragile, and they all look bad to me. >>
Another case of "why fix it if it works!"
The newer ones break too easily.
Also they changed it too often and even changed the shape so boxes were different.
At least PCGS seems to keep the size the same.
I hope they don't decide to change it.
I submitted this SLQ to them myself, several years ago and I think it would/should be a 65 in any holder (and probably a Full Head). My photography doesn't do it justice.
- Jim
Dolan
<< <i>The nicest? No. I think the ANA holders were better- they looked a lot like the ANACS ones, and if I'm not mistaken, they might have actually been the original ANACS ones to begin with. Anyway, they have "ANA" written in blue instead of "ANACS" in green. Those were something else. I've only seen a handful of them so far. >>
I've only had one of those. It had a VG or Fine 1805 dime in it. Was slightly overgraded, actually- I think it was graded F12 but the coin was more like VG10, and I only got VG10-ish money from it. It was a nice coin, though, and a neat old holder.
But again I can't comment on them too much beside the fact that I really like them. I really haven't seen many of them.
Dolan
<< <i>"Were the old, small ANACS holders the nicest ever?"
Yes. >>
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>I recall an article about a test being done on slabs during that era to see their ability to be penetrated by gasses. PCGS and NGC did okay, but ANACS white slabs fell flat on their face. I can't seem to find it, however
The tests were performed by Coin World. I remember that it was the first generation PCGS rattler slabs were the ones that didn't do well in the tests.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
The older slab should be revisited as the new ones feel cheap, jmo.
anacs holder toning
The biggest downside to the old ANACS holders was how easily they would break. I saw quite a few dropped at shows over the years. If it's a concrete floor(which many shows are) you were lucky if it only cracked. Many a times I have seen an old ANACS holder dropped and see the coin flying out of the broken holder. They are by far the easiest slab to break. Usually just a light tap on the edge of the holder and it will separate cleanly in 1/2.
Joseph J. Singleton - First Superintendent of the U.S. Branch Mint in Dahlonega Georgia
Findley Ridge Collection
About Findley Ridge
in an old anacs holder
And I distinctly remember the majority of folks here (at the time) poopooing ANACS for offering the details grade holders.
I would never crack an old little white slab, never.
Many members on this forum that now it cannot fit in my signature. Please ask for entire list.
Edited to add: I forgot that I do have this one group shot, I have afew more that this but here it is.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
<< <i>For me it is all about the size. The smaller the holder the better in my opinion. I would like to see all TPGs reduce their holder size substantially. >>
At that time PCGS was still using high profile "guest" dealers to supplement the process. There was no way ANACS could compete.
The early 1990 gold foil hologram reverse holders with no bar codes are typically the most conservative grading you will ever see in an ANACS holder. These coins are typically on
par with PCGS and NGC of that same era. I don't ever recall running into a dog in one of these holders in the past 10-12 years. The coins holdered without the gold foil hologram just
aren't of the same quality imo. The holders were too small and hard to stack. But the coins are great. I find more potential upgrades in these holders today than I do rattlers.
<< <i>i believe your toning pattern could be called
anacs holder toning >>
I agree. Very consistent toning patterns and often quite attractive.
too much attention to itself. The only time I think it wins is with wildly toned Morgans.
INYNWHWeTrust-TexasNationals,ajaan,blu62vette
coinJP, Outhaul ,illini420,MICHAELDIXON, Fade to Black,epcjimi1,19Lyds,SNMAN,JerseyJoe, bigjpst, DMWJR , lordmarcovan, Weiss,Mfriday4962,UtahCoin,Downtown1974,pitboss,RichieURich,Bullsitter,JDsCoins,toyz4geo,jshaulis, mustanggt, SNMAN, MWallace, ms71
I have to agree 100% on that note!! Here's my 26-D MS-64 a very attractive piece in an old anacs little white holder. Not sure why they failed, I always like them and there was a time when I would seek them out. I have a few......CHD
- Jim
Photo's courtesy of Todd -
Click on this link to see my ebay listings.
The first small white ANACS holder appeared in 1989. The gold foil hologram was only used for a few years.
A chemical used in tiny amounts during manufacturing to allow the inserts to release more easily from the
molding apparatus is apparently what caused the rim toning that made these holders "famous."
After Amos Press purchased ANACS and moved it to Dublin, Ohio the label and the hologram were both
"tweaked" a bit, but the holder stayed the same. A few years later the size of the outer shells was made
a bit bigger for a better seal, but the white insert did not change.
After ANACS was sold to Anderson Press in 2005, the new owners began work on changing the holder so
it more closely resembled other services' holders. Their first attempt, after they moved the company to
Austin, Texas, did not seal very well, and popped apart fairly easily. Subsequent versions sealed better,
but still had problems.
The most recent version entered the market after the sale of ANACS in late 2007. While many members of
this board do not like them, they appear to be the most stable, best sealed, and most conservatively graded
ANACS holders in years, IMHO.
by four numbers (i.e. XA 3827). I think the ID numbers changed to all digits in the early 1990's.
<< <i>The most recent version entered the market after the sale of ANACS in late 2007. While many members of
this board do not like them, they appear to be the most stable, best sealed, and most conservatively graded
ANACS holders in years, IMHO. >>
Too bad none of this has helped as thay are still considered at the bottom of the pool.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
<< <i>Some quick history:
The first small white ANACS holder appeared in 1989. The gold foil hologram was only used for a few years.
A chemical used in tiny amounts during manufacturing to allow the inserts to release more easily from the
molding apparatus is apparently what caused the rim toning that made these holders "famous."
After Amos Press purchased ANACS and moved it to Dublin, Ohio the label and the hologram were both
"tweaked" a bit, but the holder stayed the same. A few years later the size of the outer shells was made
a bit bigger for a better seal, but the white insert did not change.
After ANACS was sold to Anderson Press in 2005, the new owners began work on changing the holder so
it more closely resembled other services' holders. Their first attempt, after they moved the company to
Austin, Texas, did not seal very well, and popped apart fairly easily. Subsequent versions sealed better,
but still had problems.
The most recent version entered the market after the sale of ANACS in late 2007. While many members of
this board do not like them, they appear to be the most stable, best sealed, and most conservatively graded
ANACS holders in years, IMHO. >>
This is some great info, thanks for sharing and I actually copied and saved this for reference.