@Texast said:
Where is this posted at?? It's not one from the museum, the label is right is has the small perforation on the sides, but the number is way off from the 917 series. This one raises more questions about this label.
It is mine in a pcgs generation set I made several years ago.
Your Morgan is a 2.1. It came out right after the Doily. The hologram and the ring around the slab are the same. This generation has pcgs printed at the top of the label and sometimes not. As far as the cert. numbers go, the wide variance of numbers, its really not definitive of anything that I am aware of in making my set.
There is a lot of info on slabs in various threads and on the links posted by others.
Happy collecting, enjoy the hunt!
😎
@Texast said:
Where is this posted at?? It's not one from the museum, the label is right is has the small perforation on the sides, but the number is way off from the 917 series. This one raises more questions about this label.
It is mine in a pcgs generation set I made several years ago.
Your Morgan is a 2.1. It came out right after the Doily. The hologram and the ring around the slab are the same. This generation has pcgs printed at the top of the label and sometimes not. As far as the cert. numbers go, the wide variance of numbers, its really not definitive of anything that I am aware of in making my set.
There is a lot of info on slabs in various threads and on the links posted by others.
Happy collecting, enjoy the hunt!
😎
Thanks for the information, I knew it could not be after 2.2 and you confirmed it. I enjoy the hunt more on the Gen 1, I am trying to put a Morgan set together, it's going to take years as long as they are still around. The temptation to send them in for re-grading is strong, but if Gen 1's give it enough prominence i will leave them alone.
On BS&T Now: Nothing. Fighting the Fight for 11 Years with the big "C" - Never Ever Give Up! Member PCGS Open Forum board 2002 - 2006 (closed end of 2006) Current board since 2006 Successful trades with many members, over the past two decades, never a bad deal.
@86Saab said: @10000lakes That attempt is all wrong, doesn't lineup with the PCGS museum of holders at all.
I agree, the old numbering system had the doily label as number 3.0,
which we have learned thru the museum of holders created by Mike Sherman, was actually before the 2.1 holder.
86Saab - The generations in that thread were proposed by an early poster here who wrote a book on TPG's, Condor101.
I've chosen to keep that thread alive because PCGS looks at the style of holder as a generation instead of looking at each slab AND label as a unique "generation". It makes it easier for me to know if I have or need something (especially samples) if organized by plastic AND label. It also makes it possible to categorize transitional slabs that use parts of different generations and don't fit neatly into the PCGS numbering system.
If you prefer the "Museum of Holders" approach, use it. I prefer the other method that "splits" rather than "lumps". To each his own.......
"My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose.
@86Saab said: @10000lakes That attempt is all wrong, doesn't lineup with the PCGS museum of holders at all.
I agree, the old numbering system had the doily label as number 3.0,
which we have learned thru the museum of holders created by Mike Sherman, was actually before the 2.1 holder.
The old number system may not be correct, but I still think the sequence is that the non PCGS label in the 2 part slab, was the first slab type after the rattler slabs.
"PCGS 2.0 The 1st 2 piece holder, basically a inner rattler with an outer ring added. Bar code added to the front label. Raised PCGS on the outer ring, lower right obverse. No "PCGS" top center. Square hologram on reverse with rounded corners, used on several subsequent generations. Coin number and barcode align on left. Extra designation on years that have overlap coin types, i.e.: Buffalo in 1938, Morgan in 1921, etc. According to Conder101: "This variety was used in Oct and Nov of 1989". Mike Sherman notes a production period of Oct. to Dec. 1989 and lumps these together with the 2.5 and 3.5 into a single generation (based more on the plastic rather than the label) following the 3.0 Doily. These are somewhat scarce as of 2017. "
Here is a coin in a two part non PCGS slab that I owned. Still have the coin but it's in a newer holder ( I kind of regret the change, but I wanted a Trueview)
These seller photos were cropped, but the coin was in a two part holder.
@Lakesammman I've got no problem with another method and since Condor101's book has long been out of print and I've never seen a copy of it all I have to go on is PCGS's list and and what I've seen posted, I know there are other variations of labels and such. What has got me confused is that the Doily is listed later than PCGS has it. Is it like the situation with NGC 2.1 that really should have come before 2.0? When it comes to PCGS I haven't got into the collecting generations outside of the Museum of holders so your list is unfamiliar to me and as such I mistakenly thought it was wrong, my apologies.
The museum of holders is good, although, I have to agree with lakesammman though, it does lump the slab generations together, not giving the label much consideration.
There is a fair number of transitions (slab/label) to be found out there. iirc my generation set has 31 different slabs/labels in it and that is just the standard and gold shield labels, and regency (no special or retro labels).
@86Saab said: @10000lakes That attempt is all wrong, doesn't lineup with the PCGS museum of holders at all.
I agree, the old numbering system had the doily label as number 3.0,
which we have learned thru the museum of holders created by Mike Sherman, was actually before the 2.1 holder.
The old number system may not be correct, but I still think the sequence is that the non PCGS label in the 2 part slab, was the first slab type after the rattler slabs.
"PCGS 2.0 The 1st 2 piece holder, basically a inner rattler with an outer ring added. Bar code added to the front label. Raised PCGS on the outer ring, lower right obverse. No "PCGS" top center. Square hologram on reverse with rounded corners, used on several subsequent generations. Coin number and barcode align on left. Extra designation on years that have overlap coin types, i.e.: Buffalo in 1938, Morgan in 1921, etc. According to Conder101: "This variety was used in Oct and Nov of 1989". Mike Sherman notes a production period of Oct. to Dec. 1989 and lumps these together with the 2.5 and 3.5 into a single generation (based more on the plastic rather than the label) following the 3.0 Doily. These are somewhat scarce as of 2017. "
Here is a coin in a two part non PCGS slab that I owned. Still have the coin but it's in a newer holder ( I kind of regret the change, but I wanted a Trueview)
These seller photos were cropped, but the coin was in a two part holder.
But I did get a nice Trueview.
This is the slab I was asking about because the label did not match with the museum site, it did match with the old thread as a 2.0 slab, yours is the same as I was trying to place. It's clear that the first three numbers in the serial number deal with a type rather than being the continuation of the number of coins encased. You will note that the label in yours has the real fine perforation on the edge.
As far as making a difference in the coin inside is protected I believe there is a chance for a bad storage causing damage that the newer slabs protect against. You may have noticed that if you shake the slab it still rattles but the coin does not shift around like Gen 1 does.
I do love the Morgan though, I'm jealous it's not mine 😁. Did it stay a 66 or change?
On BS&T Now: Nothing. Fighting the Fight for 11 Years with the big "C" - Never Ever Give Up! Member PCGS Open Forum board 2002 - 2006 (closed end of 2006) Current board since 2006 Successful trades with many members, over the past two decades, never a bad deal.
This conversation probably belongs somewhere other than the "White Rattler" thread, but since we are here, I find it fascinating that the Doily "generation" uses the 2.0, 2.5 and 3.5 generation labels! Clearly there must have been overlap of the generations/plastic/labels rather than distinct periods with well defined cutoff dates.
"My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose.
@Texast It stayed the same grade of 66. It's tough to get any Morgan graded 66 DMPL, and there are only 170 Morgans in all dates graded 66+ DMPL or higher out of over 3 million Morgans graded. So I'm not sure how many grading events it would take to get an upgrade. Maybe under today's grading standard, they are less likely to bump it up, because the toning does restrict the reflectivity of the mirrors. Kind of like they are much more strict today giving out a prooflike designation on coins with die polish lines because it breaks up the reflectivity.
I appreciate the discussion on these transition slabs. There is no reason not to include these slabs in the museum. The pictures are here, the research is here so let's get the person who is taking care of the museum site to add these. To not add these as 2.0 transition slabs is to ignore history, these were issued by PCGS and need to be recognized.
This is my opinion, it's not an argument. I do enjoy learning about the entire history of PCGS, maybe get the company a segment on "HOW IT'S MADE". there always looking for something new. How about that , can someone start a thread about getting the company on that show? If someone with better writing skills does it people might pay attention to it. Thanks!
On BS&T Now: Nothing. Fighting the Fight for 11 Years with the big "C" - Never Ever Give Up! Member PCGS Open Forum board 2002 - 2006 (closed end of 2006) Current board since 2006 Successful trades with many members, over the past two decades, never a bad deal.
@Texast said:
Where is this posted at?? It's not one from the museum, the label is right is has the small perforation on the sides, but the number is way off from the 917 series. This one raises more questions about this label.
It is mine in a pcgs generation set I made several years ago.
Your Morgan is a 2.1. It came out right after the Doily. The hologram and the ring around the slab are the same. This generation has pcgs printed at the top of the label and sometimes not. As far as the cert. numbers go, the wide variance of numbers, its really not definitive of anything that I am aware of in making my set.
There is a lot of info on slabs in various threads and on the links posted by others.
Happy collecting, enjoy the hunt!
😎
Thanks for the information, I knew it could not be after 2.2 and you confirmed it. I enjoy the hunt more on the Gen 1, I am trying to put a Morgan set together, it's going to take years as long as they are still around. The temptation to send them in for re-grading is strong, but if Gen 1's give it enough prominence i will leave them alone.
Get a CAC bean. Better than an upgrade - especially for common Morgans.
@Texast said:
Where is this posted at?? It's not one from the museum, the label is right is has the small perforation on the sides, but the number is way off from the 917 series. This one raises more questions about this label.
It is mine in a pcgs generation set I made several years ago.
Your Morgan is a 2.1. It came out right after the Doily. The hologram and the ring around the slab are the same. This generation has pcgs printed at the top of the label and sometimes not. As far as the cert. numbers go, the wide variance of numbers, its really not definitive of anything that I am aware of in making my set.
There is a lot of info on slabs in various threads and on the links posted by others.
Happy collecting, enjoy the hunt!
😎
Thanks for the information, I knew it could not be after 2.2 and you confirmed it. I enjoy the hunt more on the Gen 1, I am trying to put a Morgan set together, it's going to take years as long as they are still around. The temptation to send them in for re-grading is strong, but if Gen 1's give it enough prominence i will leave them alone.
Get a CAC bean. Better than an upgrade - especially for common Morgans.
Thanks for the idea, I also have a Peace Dollar coming in that I believe could be the very first series (First week) after the White Label (Series 108) which is Series 118, Green Ribbed Label. Is there any knowledge if that series is the first to be issued in green?
If so it should be worth a Gold Bean!
On BS&T Now: Nothing. Fighting the Fight for 11 Years with the big "C" - Never Ever Give Up! Member PCGS Open Forum board 2002 - 2006 (closed end of 2006) Current board since 2006 Successful trades with many members, over the past two decades, never a bad deal.
@Texast said:
Where is this posted at?? It's not one from the museum, the label is right is has the small perforation on the sides, but the number is way off from the 917 series. This one raises more questions about this label.
It is mine in a pcgs generation set I made several years ago.
Your Morgan is a 2.1. It came out right after the Doily. The hologram and the ring around the slab are the same. This generation has pcgs printed at the top of the label and sometimes not. As far as the cert. numbers go, the wide variance of numbers, its really not definitive of anything that I am aware of in making my set.
There is a lot of info on slabs in various threads and on the links posted by others.
Happy collecting, enjoy the hunt!
😎
Thanks for the information, I knew it could not be after 2.2 and you confirmed it. I enjoy the hunt more on the Gen 1, I am trying to put a Morgan set together, it's going to take years as long as they are still around. The temptation to send them in for re-grading is strong, but if Gen 1's give it enough prominence i will leave them alone.
Get a CAC bean. Better than an upgrade - especially for common Morgans.
Thanks for the idea, I also have a Peace Dollar coming in that I believe could be the very first series (First week) after the White Label (Series 108) which is Series 118, Green Ribbed Label. Is there any knowledge if that series is the first to be issued in green?
@Texast said:
Where is this posted at?? It's not one from the museum, the label is right is has the small perforation on the sides, but the number is way off from the 917 series. This one raises more questions about this label.
It is mine in a pcgs generation set I made several years ago.
Your Morgan is a 2.1. It came out right after the Doily. The hologram and the ring around the slab are the same. This generation has pcgs printed at the top of the label and sometimes not. As far as the cert. numbers go, the wide variance of numbers, its really not definitive of anything that I am aware of in making my set.
There is a lot of info on slabs in various threads and on the links posted by others.
Happy collecting, enjoy the hunt!
😎
Thanks for the information, I knew it could not be after 2.2 and you confirmed it. I enjoy the hunt more on the Gen 1, I am trying to put a Morgan set together, it's going to take years as long as they are still around. The temptation to send them in for re-grading is strong, but if Gen 1's give it enough prominence i will leave them alone.
Get a CAC bean. Better than an upgrade - especially for common Morgans.
Thanks for the idea, I also have a Peace Dollar coming in that I believe could be the very first series (First week) after the White Label (Series 108) which is Series 118, Green Ribbed Label. Is there any knowledge if that series is the first to be issued in green?
If so it should be worth a Gold Bean!
I have a rattler with a 108 S/N.
:
I can't see the color of the label clearly, is it White, or Green, if green then the 108 series continued on green, interesting, I thought it changed when the label changed, but who knows, I'm likely wrong (to often I'm afraid), if it's white it needs to be on the census.
On BS&T Now: Nothing. Fighting the Fight for 11 Years with the big "C" - Never Ever Give Up! Member PCGS Open Forum board 2002 - 2006 (closed end of 2006) Current board since 2006 Successful trades with many members, over the past two decades, never a bad deal.
@Texast said:
Where is this posted at?? It's not one from the museum, the label is right is has the small perforation on the sides, but the number is way off from the 917 series. This one raises more questions about this label.
It is mine in a pcgs generation set I made several years ago.
Your Morgan is a 2.1. It came out right after the Doily. The hologram and the ring around the slab are the same. This generation has pcgs printed at the top of the label and sometimes not. As far as the cert. numbers go, the wide variance of numbers, its really not definitive of anything that I am aware of in making my set.
There is a lot of info on slabs in various threads and on the links posted by others.
Happy collecting, enjoy the hunt!
😎
Thanks for the information, I knew it could not be after 2.2 and you confirmed it. I enjoy the hunt more on the Gen 1, I am trying to put a Morgan set together, it's going to take years as long as they are still around. The temptation to send them in for re-grading is strong, but if Gen 1's give it enough prominence i will leave them alone.
Get a CAC bean. Better than an upgrade - especially for common Morgans.
Thanks for the idea, I also have a Peace Dollar coming in that I believe could be the very first series (First week) after the White Label (Series 108) which is Series 118, Green Ribbed Label. Is there any knowledge if that series is the first to be issued in green?
If so it should be worth a Gold Bean!
I have a rattler with a 108 S/N.
:
I can't see the color of the label clearly, is it White, or Green, if green then the 108 series continued on green, interesting, I thought it changed when the label changed, but who knows, I'm likely wrong (to often I'm afraid), if it's white it needs to be on the census.
Hey Everyone - a fun heads up - we will have a display of early holders in the upcoming Long Beach Show -
The display will feature 3 - Gen 1.0 White rattlers - with another 2 Gen 1.1's - two of the Gen 1.0's are sequential..
Coming to the show - please introduce yourselves as many of you were instrumental in putting this together!
Long Beach Coin, Currency, Stamp & Sports Collectible Expo – Booth 635 - www.americantreasure.biz- cbtazman@americantreasure.biz - Thank you all
Join The Hunt and Spread the word! Real American Treasure cbtazman@realamericantreasure.com
Interesting - now if we can find the missing Franky there would be 4 in a row!
"My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose.
Sure would like to make LB this year, see the display and meet the folks behind it. Hope it's a success!
"My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose.
@Texast said:
Where is this posted at?? It's not one from the museum, the label is right is has the small perforation on the sides, but the number is way off from the 917 series. This one raises more questions about this label.
It is mine in a pcgs generation set I made several years ago.
Your Morgan is a 2.1. It came out right after the Doily. The hologram and the ring around the slab are the same. This generation has pcgs printed at the top of the label and sometimes not. As far as the cert. numbers go, the wide variance of numbers, its really not definitive of anything that I am aware of in making my set.
There is a lot of info on slabs in various threads and on the links posted by others.
Happy collecting, enjoy the hunt!
😎
Thanks for the information, I knew it could not be after 2.2 and you confirmed it. I enjoy the hunt more on the Gen 1, I am trying to put a Morgan set together, it's going to take years as long as they are still around. The temptation to send them in for re-grading is strong, but if Gen 1's give it enough prominence i will leave them alone.
Get a CAC bean. Better than an upgrade - especially for common Morgans.
Thanks for the idea, I also have a Peace Dollar coming in that I believe could be the very first series (First week) after the White Label (Series 108) which is Series 118, Green Ribbed Label. Is there any knowledge if that series is the first to be issued in green?
If so it should be worth a Gold Bean!
I have a rattler with a 108 S/N.
:
I can't see the color of the label clearly, is it White, or Green, if green then the 108 series continued on green, interesting, I thought it changed when the label changed, but who knows, I'm likely wrong (to often I'm afraid), if it's white it needs to be on the census.
Sounds like a treasure hunt to find the 1080338 Franklin and then arrange to display them all together at a future show - Who's up for the hunt? If this thread of participants could find it, sure would make a great story! @1peter1223@Lakesammman - I can picture the display of 5 White gen 1.0 Franklin's in a cool tribute to Benjamin Franklin case
Join The Hunt and Spread the word! Real American Treasure cbtazman@realamericantreasure.com
@cbtazman said:
Sounds like a treasure hunt to find the 1080338 Franklin and then arrange to display them all together at a future show - Who's up for the hunt? If this thread of participants could find it, sure would make a great story! @1peter1223@Lakesammman - I can picture the display of 5 White gen 1.0 Franklin's in a cool tribute to Benjamin Franklin case
It's not going to be easy, but I will keep an eye on two different auction houses and eBay as best I can. If it comes up someone else can buy it...
On BS&T Now: Nothing. Fighting the Fight for 11 Years with the big "C" - Never Ever Give Up! Member PCGS Open Forum board 2002 - 2006 (closed end of 2006) Current board since 2006 Successful trades with many members, over the past two decades, never a bad deal.
I was perusing some registry sets and noticed cert number 1081614 on a TrueView. Looks like this used to be a Gen 1.1, lost to the ages, but I think this is a case where the old holder probably added no premium.
Now that one might be a white rattler price record!
"My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose.
The earliest copy of the PCGS Population Report that I have handy is the October 1993 issue... that Report does show a single MS69 example of the 1849 Gold Dollar... so it might be possible that one was an MS69 in a White Label Rattler at one point... that would have been nice to see. Of course it could have been cracked and upgraded sometime before 1993. Anyone have earlier pop reports???
@illini420 said:
The earliest copy of the PCGS Population Report that I have handy is the October 1993 issue... that Report does show a single MS69 example of the 1849 Gold Dollar... so it might be possible that one was an MS69 in a White Label Rattler at one point... that would have been nice to see. Of course it could have been cracked and upgraded sometime before 1993. Anyone have earlier pop reports???
The cert number would have changed, so that grade goes with that cert number when the cert was first created.
Hello everyone - I do have a very nice Pop Report of Morgan Dollars dated December 1, 1989 scanned pages and photo's of a September 1, 1989 Morgan Pop reports - which we believe the cut-off for Rattlers fell somewhere in between these two dates - we plan on publishing them in the book - I have asked PCGS if they have a copy of October 1st, or November 1st to help us narrow down our estimated switch over to the gen 2.0 Doily. I will check to see if I can get my hands on the full December 1st, 1989 Pop report for all coins.....
Join The Hunt and Spread the word! Real American Treasure cbtazman@realamericantreasure.com
The rattler WAS counterfeited. One man . . . simple garage-type operation. Yes . . . that was the reason. His name is even known to at least a few posters here. PCGS met to discuss alternatives for security.
The approach was two-fold. First . . . . use an insert that would be more difficult to counterfeit. The inspiration was our paper money . . . they used their version of 1989 'microprinting' and came up with the Doily. It is funny that name stuck . . . it was modeled after currency.
Secondly, they continued with the rattler shell, but added a second 'ring' around it. The 'tell' is the "4-Pin" view around the rattler but inside the outer shell. All the 'two-piece' holders have the "4-Pin" look until you get to the OGH.
Leaving fact for legend and apocrypha . . . the principals at PCGS at the time had bigger fish to fry, trying to deal with competition, a counterfeiter, and long-term plans. The 'look' of the Doily was not much of a concern in the first few days both dot-matrix printers were cranking out inserts . . . . . BUT . . .
Legend has it (OK . . . this is REALLY going to open me up to an onslaught of Forum detritus) that Mr. Hall came to the production floor after several days (4) and remarked the inserts did not meet his approval for a professional presentation and they would immediately be withdrawn. That happened as soon as the ordered inserts were used in both printers. It took something like another business week until the new green inserts were in place.
Interestingly enough . . due to their other more pressing concerns . . .even asking about the transition from the major players at the time (I have), reveal not much remembering. After all . . . it was over 30 years ago, and at the time was not a major concern.
why is nobody jumping on this gen 1.1 ( see post immediately above ) is it a little too pricey ? it's been on the bay for at least three months now ???
Dimebag . . . . . I think you expressed it quite concisely.
I have not been at the forefront of sales recently . . . and have no interest in selling mine, but at last check, this piece was almost $1100 too optimistic compared to recent generic 1.1 sales.
@dimebag I created a spreadsheet (link below) with links where/when available with Gen 1.0 & 1.1 White rattlers if anyone is interested. For the record, 10 Gen 1.1's were sold or listed in 2019 for prices ranging from $1125-$3150 and one seller sold his for an $250 BIN on eBay. I've noticed that 2019 appears to be the high price year for these and NGC white labels as both have come down in price this year on average. @illini420 I have a couple on my list that need to be added to your list.
The premium on that MS63 Morgan is pretty huge... and because it hasn't sold in 3 months or so... it's clear the premium is too high... but how far too high is not clear. White label rattlers have been very strong in the last couple of years and each time I hear of one available and then selling, the price shocks me more and more. You just can't get these anymore for a few hundred dollars (unless the seller doesn't know what they have). That is especially the case for the Gen 1.0 holders. If that Morgan was in the Gen 1.0 holder, it just might have sold at that price already. I get contacted a couple of times a month with people looking for a white label rattler, usually the Gen 1.0. So the demand is there and is growing in my opinion... but the supply really hasn't.
Also, a customer that owns this one (1080145 - 1909 $5 Indian Gold MS63 - cert no. invalid) contacted me not long ago looking to see if I knew anyone interested... let me know if you are seriously interested, but it won't be cheap either. Then again, if you're looking for a gold coin in a Gen 1.0 (and a very early Gen 1.0) your options are seriously limited.
EDITED to add that the 1909 $5 Indian Gold now has a new home and is no longer available.
@86Saab will check out that doc and update things eventually...
more great info, thanks !!! i made an offer of $ 1.200.00 on the gen. 1.1 & it was rejected. something else always pops up on ebay, maybe a 1.0 next time, you never know !!!
@86Saab said: @dimebag I created a spreadsheet (link below) with links where/when available with Gen 1.0 & 1.1 White rattlers if anyone is interested. For the record, 10 Gen 1.1's were sold or listed in 2019 for prices ranging from $1125-$3150 and one unaware seller sold his for an $83 BIN on eBay. I've noticed that 2019 appears to be the high price year for these and NGC white labels as both have come down in price this year on average. @illini420 I have a couple on my list that need to be added to your list.
That's an awesome compilation and I can appreciate how much time and work went into that research! It's bittersweet to go back and see just how many I've owned and sold in the past (not the least of which include the lowest serial # on the 3cs and the Sesqui $2.5). I was one of the earlier white label seekers and also exited the market (for the most part) before the peak.
I only have one white label rattler left to my name, but it's just a proof Franklin that is as boring as white sliced bread and has some sort of bad dip residue. Such is life
@stealer Thanks for the kind words! It was definitely a lot of work but I'm an info junky and enjoyed putting it together. It was much less time consuming that the one I put together of NGC Gens 1, 2.0 & 2.1! While I've never owned a white label rattler I can appreciate the bittersweet feeling you must have. I guess it's as they say, it's better to have owned and sold than never to have owned at all... or something like that!
BTW is the Franklin you own one of those in the photo "album" I have linked at the bottom of my spreadsheet?
@86Saab said: @stealer Thanks for the kind words! It was definitely a lot of work but I'm an info junky and enjoyed putting it together. It was much less time consuming that the one I put together of NGC Gens 1, 2.0 & 2.1! While I've never owned a white label rattler I can appreciate the bittersweet feeling you must have. I guess it's as they say, it's better to have owned and sold than never to have owned at all... or something like that!
BTW is the Franklin you own one of those in the photo "album" I have linked at the bottom of my spreadsheet?
Yep! The 1081686. What a trip down memory lane, I also owned and sold the 1892 $1 in 62, forgot about that. You have my photo of that coin in there as well
Here is one more that I owned and passed on many moons ago, I have no clue who owns it now:
Comments
It is mine in a pcgs generation set I made several years ago.
Your Morgan is a 2.1. It came out right after the Doily. The hologram and the ring around the slab are the same. This generation has pcgs printed at the top of the label and sometimes not. As far as the cert. numbers go, the wide variance of numbers, its really not definitive of anything that I am aware of in making my set.
There is a lot of info on slabs in various threads and on the links posted by others.
Happy collecting, enjoy the hunt!
😎
Bst transactions with: dimeman, oih82w8, mercurydimeguy, dunerlaw, Lakesammman, 2ltdjorn, MattTheRiley, dpvilla, drddm, CommemKing, Relaxn, Yorkshireman, Cucamongacoin, jtlee321, greencopper, coin22lover, coinfolio, lindedad, spummybum, Leeroybrown, flackthat, BryceM, Surfinxhi, VanHalen, astrorat, robkool, Wingsrule, PennyGuy, al410, Ilikecolor, Southcounty, Namvet69, Commemdude, oreville, Leebone
@Texast Cert numbers vary due to what submission form you used. Here's a Franklin in 917
Thanks for the information, I knew it could not be after 2.2 and you confirmed it. I enjoy the hunt more on the Gen 1, I am trying to put a Morgan set together, it's going to take years as long as they are still around. The temptation to send them in for re-grading is strong, but if Gen 1's give it enough prominence i will leave them alone.
Fighting the Fight for 11 Years with the big "C" - Never Ever Give Up!
Member PCGS Open Forum board 2002 - 2006 (closed end of 2006) Current board since 2006 Successful trades with many members, over the past two decades, never a bad deal.
Here is a link that describes the slab generations.
2 part slab with green label and no PCGS is listed as gen 2.0
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/918775/pcgs-generations-an-attempted-update-slowly-being-updated-8-17/p1
@10000lakes That attempt is all wrong, doesn't lineup with the PCGS museum of holders at all.
I agree, the old numbering system had the doily label as number 3.0,
which we have learned thru the museum of holders created by Mike Sherman, was actually before the 2.1 holder.
Bst transactions with: dimeman, oih82w8, mercurydimeguy, dunerlaw, Lakesammman, 2ltdjorn, MattTheRiley, dpvilla, drddm, CommemKing, Relaxn, Yorkshireman, Cucamongacoin, jtlee321, greencopper, coin22lover, coinfolio, lindedad, spummybum, Leeroybrown, flackthat, BryceM, Surfinxhi, VanHalen, astrorat, robkool, Wingsrule, PennyGuy, al410, Ilikecolor, Southcounty, Namvet69, Commemdude, oreville, Leebone
86Saab - The generations in that thread were proposed by an early poster here who wrote a book on TPG's, Condor101.
I've chosen to keep that thread alive because PCGS looks at the style of holder as a generation instead of looking at each slab AND label as a unique "generation". It makes it easier for me to know if I have or need something (especially samples) if organized by plastic AND label. It also makes it possible to categorize transitional slabs that use parts of different generations and don't fit neatly into the PCGS numbering system.
If you prefer the "Museum of Holders" approach, use it. I prefer the other method that "splits" rather than "lumps". To each his own.......
The old number system may not be correct, but I still think the sequence is that the non PCGS label in the 2 part slab, was the first slab type after the rattler slabs.
"PCGS 2.0 The 1st 2 piece holder, basically a inner rattler with an outer ring added. Bar code added to the front label. Raised PCGS on the outer ring, lower right obverse. No "PCGS" top center. Square hologram on reverse with rounded corners, used on several subsequent generations. Coin number and barcode align on left. Extra designation on years that have overlap coin types, i.e.: Buffalo in 1938, Morgan in 1921, etc. According to Conder101: "This variety was used in Oct and Nov of 1989". Mike Sherman notes a production period of Oct. to Dec. 1989 and lumps these together with the 2.5 and 3.5 into a single generation (based more on the plastic rather than the label) following the 3.0 Doily. These are somewhat scarce as of 2017. "
Here is a coin in a two part non PCGS slab that I owned. Still have the coin but it's in a newer holder ( I kind of regret the change, but I wanted a Trueview)
These seller photos were cropped, but the coin was in a two part holder.
But I did get a nice Trueview.
@Lakesammman I've got no problem with another method and since Condor101's book has long been out of print and I've never seen a copy of it all I have to go on is PCGS's list and and what I've seen posted, I know there are other variations of labels and such. What has got me confused is that the Doily is listed later than PCGS has it. Is it like the situation with NGC 2.1 that really should have come before 2.0? When it comes to PCGS I haven't got into the collecting generations outside of the Museum of holders so your list is unfamiliar to me and as such I mistakenly thought it was wrong, my apologies.
The museum of holders is good, although, I have to agree with lakesammman though, it does lump the slab generations together, not giving the label much consideration.
There is a fair number of transitions (slab/label) to be found out there. iirc my generation set has 31 different slabs/labels in it and that is just the standard and gold shield labels, and regency (no special or retro labels).
Bst transactions with: dimeman, oih82w8, mercurydimeguy, dunerlaw, Lakesammman, 2ltdjorn, MattTheRiley, dpvilla, drddm, CommemKing, Relaxn, Yorkshireman, Cucamongacoin, jtlee321, greencopper, coin22lover, coinfolio, lindedad, spummybum, Leeroybrown, flackthat, BryceM, Surfinxhi, VanHalen, astrorat, robkool, Wingsrule, PennyGuy, al410, Ilikecolor, Southcounty, Namvet69, Commemdude, oreville, Leebone
This is the slab I was asking about because the label did not match with the museum site, it did match with the old thread as a 2.0 slab, yours is the same as I was trying to place. It's clear that the first three numbers in the serial number deal with a type rather than being the continuation of the number of coins encased. You will note that the label in yours has the real fine perforation on the edge.
As far as making a difference in the coin inside is protected I believe there is a chance for a bad storage causing damage that the newer slabs protect against. You may have noticed that if you shake the slab it still rattles but the coin does not shift around like Gen 1 does.
I do love the Morgan though, I'm jealous it's not mine 😁. Did it stay a 66 or change?
Fighting the Fight for 11 Years with the big "C" - Never Ever Give Up!
Member PCGS Open Forum board 2002 - 2006 (closed end of 2006) Current board since 2006 Successful trades with many members, over the past two decades, never a bad deal.
This conversation probably belongs somewhere other than the "White Rattler" thread, but since we are here, I find it fascinating that the Doily "generation" uses the 2.0, 2.5 and 3.5 generation labels! Clearly there must have been overlap of the generations/plastic/labels rather than distinct periods with well defined cutoff dates.
@Texast It stayed the same grade of 66. It's tough to get any Morgan graded 66 DMPL, and there are only 170 Morgans in all dates graded 66+ DMPL or higher out of over 3 million Morgans graded. So I'm not sure how many grading events it would take to get an upgrade. Maybe under today's grading standard, they are less likely to bump it up, because the toning does restrict the reflectivity of the mirrors. Kind of like they are much more strict today giving out a prooflike designation on coins with die polish lines because it breaks up the reflectivity.
I appreciate the discussion on these transition slabs. There is no reason not to include these slabs in the museum. The pictures are here, the research is here so let's get the person who is taking care of the museum site to add these. To not add these as 2.0 transition slabs is to ignore history, these were issued by PCGS and need to be recognized.
This is my opinion, it's not an argument. I do enjoy learning about the entire history of PCGS, maybe get the company a segment on "HOW IT'S MADE". there always looking for something new. How about that , can someone start a thread about getting the company on that show? If someone with better writing skills does it people might pay attention to it. Thanks!
Fighting the Fight for 11 Years with the big "C" - Never Ever Give Up!
Member PCGS Open Forum board 2002 - 2006 (closed end of 2006) Current board since 2006 Successful trades with many members, over the past two decades, never a bad deal.
Get a CAC bean. Better than an upgrade - especially for common Morgans.
Thanks for the idea, I also have a Peace Dollar coming in that I believe could be the very first series (First week) after the White Label (Series 108) which is Series 118, Green Ribbed Label. Is there any knowledge if that series is the first to be issued in green?
If so it should be worth a Gold Bean!
Fighting the Fight for 11 Years with the big "C" - Never Ever Give Up!
Member PCGS Open Forum board 2002 - 2006 (closed end of 2006) Current board since 2006 Successful trades with many members, over the past two decades, never a bad deal.
I have a rattler with a 108 S/N.
I can't see the color of the label clearly, is it White, or Green, if green then the 108 series continued on green, interesting, I thought it changed when the label changed, but who knows, I'm likely wrong (to often I'm afraid), if it's white it needs to be on the census.
@Illini420 any opinion or information on this?
Fighting the Fight for 11 Years with the big "C" - Never Ever Give Up!
Member PCGS Open Forum board 2002 - 2006 (closed end of 2006) Current board since 2006 Successful trades with many members, over the past two decades, never a bad deal.
It's the ribbed green. I wish it was a 1.0 or 1.1. There was a lot of carryover from one type to the next with serial numbers.
Hey Everyone - a fun heads up - we will have a display of early holders in the upcoming Long Beach Show -
The display will feature 3 - Gen 1.0 White rattlers - with another 2 Gen 1.1's - two of the Gen 1.0's are sequential..
Coming to the show - please introduce yourselves as many of you were instrumental in putting this together!
Long Beach Coin, Currency, Stamp & Sports Collectible Expo – Booth 635 - www.americantreasure.biz- cbtazman@americantreasure.biz - Thank you all
Real American Treasure
cbtazman@realamericantreasure.com
Interesting - now if we can find the missing Franky there would be 4 in a row!
Sure would like to make LB this year, see the display and meet the folks behind it. Hope it's a success!
This holder is a 1.2 holder, not a 1.0 or 1.1 holder. It has the 108 starting serial number but not all 108's are white labels.
Sounds like a treasure hunt to find the 1080338 Franklin and then arrange to display them all together at a future show - Who's up for the hunt? If this thread of participants could find it, sure would make a great story! @1peter1223 @Lakesammman - I can picture the display of 5 White gen 1.0 Franklin's in a cool tribute to Benjamin Franklin case
Real American Treasure
cbtazman@realamericantreasure.com
It's not going to be easy, but I will keep an eye on two different auction houses and eBay as best I can. If it comes up someone else can buy it...
Fighting the Fight for 11 Years with the big "C" - Never Ever Give Up!
Member PCGS Open Forum board 2002 - 2006 (closed end of 2006) Current board since 2006 Successful trades with many members, over the past two decades, never a bad deal.
My first ever pic !!!!!!!!! Wifey showed me how!
Drunner
I was perusing some registry sets and noticed cert number 1081614 on a TrueView. Looks like this used to be a Gen 1.1, lost to the ages, but I think this is a case where the old holder probably added no premium.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Now that one might be a white rattler price record!
The earliest copy of the PCGS Population Report that I have handy is the October 1993 issue... that Report does show a single MS69 example of the 1849 Gold Dollar... so it might be possible that one was an MS69 in a White Label Rattler at one point... that would have been nice to see. Of course it could have been cracked and upgraded sometime before 1993. Anyone have earlier pop reports???
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
The cert number would have changed, so that grade goes with that cert number when the cert was first created.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Hello everyone - I do have a very nice Pop Report of Morgan Dollars dated December 1, 1989 scanned pages and photo's of a September 1, 1989 Morgan Pop reports - which we believe the cut-off for Rattlers fell somewhere in between these two dates - we plan on publishing them in the book - I have asked PCGS if they have a copy of October 1st, or November 1st to help us narrow down our estimated switch over to the gen 2.0 Doily. I will check to see if I can get my hands on the full December 1st, 1989 Pop report for all coins.....
Real American Treasure
cbtazman@realamericantreasure.com
I've heard Rattlers were heavily counterfeited which was a reason for design change. fwiw
I don't know if either of those are but I've never seen a dup cert but it has have to have happened.
I cannot seem to find the list of all the gen 1.0 and 1.1 holders that are known. Can some please help?
Thank you!
Never did have the white label rattlers, they were already in the green when I started.
Look at the first post of this thread
The rattler WAS counterfeited. One man . . . simple garage-type operation. Yes . . . that was the reason. His name is even known to at least a few posters here. PCGS met to discuss alternatives for security.
The approach was two-fold. First . . . . use an insert that would be more difficult to counterfeit. The inspiration was our paper money . . . they used their version of 1989 'microprinting' and came up with the Doily. It is funny that name stuck . . . it was modeled after currency.
Secondly, they continued with the rattler shell, but added a second 'ring' around it. The 'tell' is the "4-Pin" view around the rattler but inside the outer shell. All the 'two-piece' holders have the "4-Pin" look until you get to the OGH.
Leaving fact for legend and apocrypha . . . the principals at PCGS at the time had bigger fish to fry, trying to deal with competition, a counterfeiter, and long-term plans. The 'look' of the Doily was not much of a concern in the first few days both dot-matrix printers were cranking out inserts . . . . . BUT . . .
Legend has it (OK . . . this is REALLY going to open me up to an onslaught of Forum detritus) that Mr. Hall came to the production floor after several days (4) and remarked the inserts did not meet his approval for a professional presentation and they would immediately be withdrawn. That happened as soon as the ordered inserts were used in both printers. It took something like another business week until the new green inserts were in place.
Interestingly enough . . due to their other more pressing concerns . . .even asking about the transition from the major players at the time (I have), reveal not much remembering. After all . . . it was over 30 years ago, and at the time was not a major concern.
Drunner
That's why! I should have read the first post. 😉
A new one for the census
https://www.ebay.com/itm/184199327985?ul_noapp=true
Sorry I now see it is listed on the census...
why is nobody jumping on this gen 1.1 ( see post immediately above ) is it a little too pricey ? it's been on the bay for at least three months now ???
Dimebag . . . . . I think you expressed it quite concisely.
I have not been at the forefront of sales recently . . . and have no interest in selling mine, but at last check, this piece was almost $1100 too optimistic compared to recent generic 1.1 sales.
Drunner
thanks for saving me some bucks !!!!!!!!!!!!!
@dimebag I created a spreadsheet (link below) with links where/when available with Gen 1.0 & 1.1 White rattlers if anyone is interested. For the record, 10 Gen 1.1's were sold or listed in 2019 for prices ranging from $1125-$3150 and one seller sold his for an $250 BIN on eBay. I've noticed that 2019 appears to be the high price year for these and NGC white labels as both have come down in price this year on average.
@illini420 I have a couple on my list that need to be added to your list.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1g3DEhAtYUVPEHEd8uqGkC09xZNRzW2v5tlqOlWn605o/edit?usp=sharing
WOW !!!!!! thanks for posting. hours of enjoyment for the whole family !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The premium on that MS63 Morgan is pretty huge... and because it hasn't sold in 3 months or so... it's clear the premium is too high... but how far too high is not clear. White label rattlers have been very strong in the last couple of years and each time I hear of one available and then selling, the price shocks me more and more. You just can't get these anymore for a few hundred dollars (unless the seller doesn't know what they have). That is especially the case for the Gen 1.0 holders. If that Morgan was in the Gen 1.0 holder, it just might have sold at that price already. I get contacted a couple of times a month with people looking for a white label rattler, usually the Gen 1.0. So the demand is there and is growing in my opinion... but the supply really hasn't.
Also, a customer that owns this one (1080145 - 1909 $5 Indian Gold MS63 - cert no. invalid) contacted me not long ago looking to see if I knew anyone interested... let me know if you are seriously interested, but it won't be cheap either. Then again, if you're looking for a gold coin in a Gen 1.0 (and a very early Gen 1.0) your options are seriously limited.
EDITED to add that the 1909 $5 Indian Gold now has a new home and is no longer available.
@86Saab will check out that doc and update things eventually...
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
more great info, thanks !!! i made an offer of $ 1.200.00 on the gen. 1.1 & it was rejected. something else always pops up on ebay, maybe a 1.0 next time, you never know !!!
That's an awesome compilation and I can appreciate how much time and work went into that research! It's bittersweet to go back and see just how many I've owned and sold in the past (not the least of which include the lowest serial # on the 3cs and the Sesqui $2.5). I was one of the earlier white label seekers and also exited the market (for the most part) before the peak.
I only have one white label rattler left to my name, but it's just a proof Franklin that is as boring as white sliced bread and has some sort of bad dip residue. Such is life
post some pics. of that franklin !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@stealer Thanks for the kind words! It was definitely a lot of work but I'm an info junky and enjoyed putting it together. It was much less time consuming that the one I put together of NGC Gens 1, 2.0 & 2.1! While I've never owned a white label rattler I can appreciate the bittersweet feeling you must have. I guess it's as they say, it's better to have owned and sold than never to have owned at all... or something like that!
BTW is the Franklin you own one of those in the photo "album" I have linked at the bottom of my spreadsheet?
Yep! The 1081686. What a trip down memory lane, I also owned and sold the 1892 $1 in 62, forgot about that. You have my photo of that coin in there as well
Here is one more that I owned and passed on many moons ago, I have no clue who owns it now: