Options
Would it make sense to rename the NGC 2.1 slab as a NGC 2.00 slab?
oreville
Posts: 12,433 ✭✭✭✭✭
Would it make sense to rename the NGC 2.1 slab as a NGC 2.00 slab?
Reason is using the NGC 2,1 nomenclature is confusing to many collectors.
A Collectors Universe poster since 1997!
0
Comments
Yes, it would since it was actually the first of that type and in my opinion that is the way it should be.
I agree it is confusing. I think it would confuse people more with a name change though.
Too many collectors including so-called experts think the NGC 2,1 is the newer and more common NGC slab than the NGC 2.0 so no harm no foul to make a change at this point?
Show us which is which so we know what you're proposing.
The NGC 2.0 is the all white label with the gold laminated logo lettering on the reverse side of the slab.
Years ago, it was realized that there was an earlier version of the NGC 2.0 slab in which the gold laminated logo/lettering was only on the INNER white core and NOT on the outside clear shell.
Knowlegeable bidders on online auctions can tell that the lot offered is the newer NGC slab (NGC 2.0) wiich has the gold laminated logo/lettering iocated on the outside of the slab by seeing a shadow cast on the reverse white core of the slab.
The older NGC slab known as NGC 2.1 is slightly more common than the older PCGS 1.0 white label slab whereas the original and newer NGC 2.0 slab is slightly more common than the PCGS 1.1 white label slab.
Coin on left 2.0 and coin on right 2.1 (proposed 2.00)
@Lakesammman
maybe we can also switch the NGC2.0 vs 2.1 but that would really cause mass confusion!
I say we should retain the weirdness.
The one on the left is a 2.0, the other a 2.1.
Or is it the other way? This keeps it fun.
That would only make is more confusing.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/