<< <i>Something is unclear. Why are you calling the ones with the logo inside the the holder 2.1, if they came out first?? Shouldn't you call that 2.0, and the ones with the logo on the outside 2.1? >>
this also applies to vams and other die marriage numbering systems. probably a few other things numismatically related i'm not thinking of just now. .
<< <i>So the NGC 2.1 is tougher than the PGCS Doily?
What about world coins in the NGC 2.1? >>
pretty sure that is a solid yes. there are a few threads from the past 12-18 months where numerous people, including myself, rank the various holders by apparent scarcity. just in case you wanted to read more about it. .
Seems like not many additions to the Census. It validates the NGC apochrypha that the 2.1 was just a week or so in production (with a slow slabbing rate -- that actually MATTERS) ,and the 2.0 not much longer.
I love those Doilies, but there is no doubt to those of us who are aggressive into the Doilies ---- the NGC 2.1 / 2.0s kill them in rarity.
if I'm reading the OP correctly it seems that the numbers are backwards on this, the slab which is designated 2.1 was made first and the slab designated 2.0 was made next.
if I'm reading the OP correctly it seems that the numbers are backwards on this, the slab which is designated 2.1 was made first and the slab designated 2.0 was made next.
yes.
iirc, it had to do with the order in which they were found.
Really putting myself out there . . . . subject to the keyboard kings who may lurch to the attack, but here goes . .
It has been well accepted (not documented, verified, or recorded at the Smithsonian AFAIK), that the earlier NGC slabs (white -- post-NGC 1.0 black -- 2.1 and 2.0) were, and still are, quite rare. I am not privy to Conder101's motivations, timeframes, or research, but his earlier work on doing slab generations was quite in-depth for its time. He did the best he could and I think we stunningly ignore the actual reason for the 2.1 / 2.0 'mislabeling' problem now.
Here it is.
Conder looked at the available slabs from a variety of sources. Many were easy. NGC Black . . . . Rattler 'White' and Rattler 'Green'. Doilies. PCGS 2.5 / 3.5. All have been well ensconced in slab lore. The problem with the NGC 'All-Whites' ??? As Conder presented his first work on slabs, it all seemed to fit. The NGC 2.0 (hotstamp OUTSIDE the slab) was the perfect 2.0 followup to the NGC Black. That slab held it's place in ascension for a period of time until (hey, here I digress from knowledge to apocrypha) one of our previous Board members found a slab in his collection that had the hotstamp on the INSIDE of the shell.
OK . . . . . wow . . . .what is going on?
Conversations with Rick Montgomery (NOT by me) led to the revelation that the NGC hotstamp on the inside of the slab shell was causing production problems. I have heard much more than I will type here, but will not discuss the legends. Just the facts. The hotstamp on the INSIDE of the shell was smearing, indistinct, and many slabs were being returned to production as imperfect. This led to an immediate (READ--HOURS or DAYS) redesign of the logo to the outside.
The incredibly short length of time of production (couple of days? -- LESS???) of the NGC 2.1 (hotstamp on the INSIDE) led to so few slabs surviving that Conder DID NOT KNOW (caps intended) of their existence, until after his "2.0" designation of the NGC 'White'. There are actually SO FEW of them around that they simply were not known. Hence . . . the NGC 'fix' of the hotstamp to the outside, which continued for the 2.0. BUT . . . . the predominance of the 2.0 (hotstamp on the outside) and the incredible rarity of the 2.1 (hotstamp on the inside) led to their discovery FIRST, despite the reverse in production timeline.
ANY NGC white is a desirable (ha, I didn't say RARE--keyboard jockeys!!!), and worth a premium. The 2.0 was produced last (a few weeks), and due to its production longevity, has more survivors, and was consequently known to Conder. The NGC 2.1 was designated AFTER the 2.0., but was produced for a stunningly short time PRIOR TO THE 2.0 (caps intended). Hence, few survivors, and Conder did not know of them until after he started his numbering.
Slab rarity is determined by two things -- 'slabbing rate' (determined by a huge number of factors, including technology at the time, demand, and production factors) . . . . . . .and 'slabbing longevity' (how long did this iteration last?) . In the case of the 2.1, both of these factors were at their absolute minimum . . . . . . there were so many rejected slabs in the 2.1 (production errors in the hotstamp), and there were so few hours of production, the slab will forever be a fun Type for slab collectors.
Just my 2c.
OK . . . have fun with this. I stay on the sidelines with a bit of the postings on slabs . . . but am glad to help when it goes quiet . . .
Thanks for posting your thoughts, Drunner! I do still pay attention to this thread and update the spreadsheet accordingly. As of the last update we're at 123 slabs listed.
No, I was watching it and my snipe of $160.00 was nuked by a 100 megaton H-Bomb. This thing sat at $61.00 until just a couple of minutes left and at $81.00 until 10 seconds left. It was insane.
I just looked up the auction . . . $242 selling price. All things considered, that was a reasonable sale. I have been paying just a slight amount under that for Morgans in 63/64 in 2.1s for years. Pretty much have what I desire in that holder, but the prices have been solidified now for several years, even with me somewhat out of the 'market' and not driving the price up. So . . . . . . I think the NGC 2.1 / 2.0 market is fairly entrenched. If you can get one for $200 or less, you dun gud!
@DRUNNER said:
I just looked up the auction . . . $242 selling price. All things considered, that was a reasonable sale. I have been paying just a slight amount under that for Morgans in 63/64 in 2.1s for years. Pretty much have what I desire in that holder, but the prices have been solidified now for several years, even with me somewhat out of the 'market' and not driving the price up. So . . . . . . I think the NGC 2.1 / 2.0 market is fairly entrenched. If you can get one for $200 or less, you dun gud!
Drunner
I thought that was a fair price myself! completely missed that auction somehow.
They way it sat there at 61.00 for so long, I thought I was gonna get it on the cheap. Ended up my nuke bid of 239 only made me the underbidder. Makes me wonder what the other guy bid.
Comments
<< <i>Something is unclear. Why are you calling the ones with the logo inside the the holder 2.1, if they came out first?? Shouldn't you call that 2.0, and the ones with the logo on the outside 2.1? >>
this also applies to vams and other die marriage numbering systems. probably a few other things numismatically related i'm not thinking of just now.
.
What about world coins in the NGC 2.1?
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>So the NGC 2.1 is tougher than the PGCS Doily?
What about world coins in the NGC 2.1? >>
pretty sure that is a solid yes. there are a few threads from the past 12-18 months where numerous people, including myself, rank the various holders by apparent scarcity. just in case you wanted to read more about it.
.
BHNC #203
THanks
The court jester does not play, but gently pulls the strings…
Almost as much as the PCGS Doily even though they are 5 to 10 times rarer.
1944-D Walker (50c.)
121930-010
MS64 (toned)
Drunner
I love those Doilies, but there is no doubt to those of us who are aggressive into the Doilies ---- the NGC 2.1 / 2.0s kill them in rarity.
Drunner
{Not My Coin}
eBay LINK
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
if I'm reading the OP correctly it seems that the numbers are backwards on this, the slab which is designated 2.1 was made first and the slab designated 2.0 was made next.
yes.
iirc, it had to do with the order in which they were found.
been a while, so not positive.
.
that may be the case and certainly whoever is in charge of the census(coinkid855) can choose the order, but it is illogical.
It has been well accepted (not documented, verified, or recorded at the Smithsonian AFAIK), that the earlier NGC slabs (white -- post-NGC 1.0 black -- 2.1 and 2.0) were, and still are, quite rare. I am not privy to Conder101's motivations, timeframes, or research, but his earlier work on doing slab generations was quite in-depth for its time. He did the best he could and I think we stunningly ignore the actual reason for the 2.1 / 2.0 'mislabeling' problem now.
Here it is.
Conder looked at the available slabs from a variety of sources. Many were easy. NGC Black . . . . Rattler 'White' and Rattler 'Green'. Doilies. PCGS 2.5 / 3.5. All have been well ensconced in slab lore. The problem with the NGC 'All-Whites' ??? As Conder presented his first work on slabs, it all seemed to fit. The NGC 2.0 (hotstamp OUTSIDE the slab) was the perfect 2.0 followup to the NGC Black. That slab held it's place in ascension for a period of time until (hey, here I digress from knowledge to apocrypha) one of our previous Board members found a slab in his collection that had the hotstamp on the INSIDE of the shell.
OK . . . . . wow . . . .what is going on?
Conversations with Rick Montgomery (NOT by me) led to the revelation that the NGC hotstamp on the inside of the slab shell was causing production problems. I have heard much more than I will type here, but will not discuss the legends. Just the facts. The hotstamp on the INSIDE of the shell was smearing, indistinct, and many slabs were being returned to production as imperfect. This led to an immediate (READ--HOURS or DAYS) redesign of the logo to the outside.
The incredibly short length of time of production (couple of days? -- LESS???) of the NGC 2.1 (hotstamp on the INSIDE) led to so few slabs surviving that Conder DID NOT KNOW (caps intended) of their existence, until after his "2.0" designation of the NGC 'White'. There are actually SO FEW of them around that they simply were not known. Hence . . . the NGC 'fix' of the hotstamp to the outside, which continued for the 2.0. BUT . . . . the predominance of the 2.0 (hotstamp on the outside) and the incredible rarity of the 2.1 (hotstamp on the inside) led to their discovery FIRST, despite the reverse in production timeline.
ANY NGC white is a desirable (ha, I didn't say RARE--keyboard jockeys!!!), and worth a premium. The 2.0 was produced last (a few weeks), and due to its production longevity, has more survivors, and was consequently known to Conder. The NGC 2.1 was designated AFTER the 2.0., but was produced for a stunningly short time PRIOR TO THE 2.0 (caps intended). Hence, few survivors, and Conder did not know of them until after he started his numbering.
Slab rarity is determined by two things -- 'slabbing rate' (determined by a huge number of factors, including technology at the time, demand, and production factors) . . . . . . .and 'slabbing longevity' (how long did this iteration last?) . In the case of the 2.1, both of these factors were at their absolute minimum . . . . . . there were so many rejected slabs in the 2.1 (production errors in the hotstamp), and there were so few hours of production, the slab will forever be a fun Type for slab collectors.
Just my 2c.
OK . . . have fun with this. I stay on the sidelines with a bit of the postings on slabs . . . but am glad to help when it goes quiet . . .
Drunner
This way, in 25 years when we are all gone there will be a note about these 'strange' items.
BHNC #203
-Paul
Great thread, current history should be recorded.
This way, in 25 years when we are all gone there will be a note about these 'strange' items.
The aliens will appreciate our thorough notes.
$1 1882-S MS64 124203-024.
It follows in sequence with the submission including the top coin in this thread . . .
Picked up in Florence, OR at the Florence Coin Show, 8/20/16.
Drunner
Here is a new one if you folks are still logging these!
-
I've had some, but crack crack.......they are now in PCGS slabs.
Updated, thanks!
You had some But Crack?
Here are a bunch of the holders to compare against the population.
https://coins.www.collectors-society.com/wcm/CoinCustomSetView.aspx?s=11715
Wow! Loved reading this thread! So much information!
Looks like there are a handful of peace dollars in this document. If any of you know of any for sale, please let me know!
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/977546/my-favorite-purchase-from-ana-orlando-show-is-this-an-ngc-2-1#latest
Just sold on ebay.
Anybody on here win?
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, Rob41281, clarkbar04, cactusjack55, Collectorcoins, sniocsu, coin finder
No, I was watching it and my snipe of $160.00 was nuked by a 100 megaton H-Bomb. This thing sat at $61.00 until just a couple of minutes left and at $81.00 until 10 seconds left. It was insane.
I just looked up the auction . . . $242 selling price. All things considered, that was a reasonable sale. I have been paying just a slight amount under that for Morgans in 63/64 in 2.1s for years. Pretty much have what I desire in that holder, but the prices have been solidified now for several years, even with me somewhat out of the 'market' and not driving the price up. So . . . . . . I think the NGC 2.1 / 2.0 market is fairly entrenched. If you can get one for $200 or less, you dun gud!
Drunner
I thought that was a fair price myself! completely missed that auction somehow.
I tossed $200 at it. That was too much for that coin in a 63. I still kick myself for missing the MS-65 a few month ago. It looked like a 67.
I wanted that 63, but no way was I going towards $250.00 for an MS-63. The hunt continues.
They way it sat there at 61.00 for so long, I thought I was gonna get it on the cheap. Ended up my nuke bid of 239 only made me the underbidder. Makes me wonder what the other guy bid.
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, Rob41281, clarkbar04, cactusjack55, Collectorcoins, sniocsu, coin finder
Looking at the bidding history, my bid did not even get recorded. LOL
There is one currently on Great Collections, http://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/474412/1888-Morgan-Silver-Dollar-NGC-MS-63-OH
Successful transactions with: Outhaul, Saen78, Pocketpiececommems, mapleman, CelinaCoin, tommyrusty7, braddick, greencopper, CommemDude
My nuclear bid on that 63 was blown out of the water.
Does Ngc like PCGS show the history or generations of their slabs is gen 1 the green back?
Nice one!! I have a Washington Carver commem in one of these 2.1 slabs
Looks like a dang nice 63. Love the old white holders.
Updated, thanks!
I see there are three on ebay now that don't appear on the census:
1880-S $1 Morgan - MS 64 & CAC - 124991-005
1881-S $1 Morgan - MS 65 & Gold CAC - 121348-006
1883-O $1 Morgan - MS 63 & CAC - 121310-001
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1880-S-1-Morgan-NGC-2-1-MS64-CAC-FRESH-2-1-Not-Yet-In-Census-Super-PQ-/222588381009?epid=170433109&hash=item33d34d2751:g:5r8AAOSwgDRZcVgk
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1881-S-1-Morgan-Silver-Dollar-NGC-MS65-Gold-CAC-Rare-All-White-NGC-2-1-Holder-/282426489017?epid=170417719&hash=item41c1ee38b9:g:etIAAOSw~CFY6W4P
http://www.ebay.com/itm/112502774177?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649
Link #1 from above
Link #2 from above
124991-005 is mine...add it in the census and now I'll go and change the listing info to reflect that
Just acquired a 2.0 slab. The number is 127203-009. 1897 $10 in MS60.
And another that does not appear to be in the census:
1885 $1 Morgan - MS 63 & CAC - 121489-001
http://www.ebay.com/itm/122728331080