The Three Varieties of PCGS Gen 2.1 Holders

bammbamm · February 1, 2026 5:24PM

As I recently mentioned in a reply in the Doily census, there are three different versions of the Gen 2.1's. One with a fine perforated label without PCGS printed on the label, one with a wide (rough) perforated label without PCGS printed on the label, and one with a wide perforated label with PCGS printed at the top of the label. I am posting examples of each, plus a Gen 2.2 for comparison, on this post.

It is a fun collecting goal to find an example of each.

MsMorrisine · February 1, 2026 5:32PM

you can also put this in the slab generations thread. i'm not that into generations collecting so i don't know the link

P0CKETCHANGE · February 1, 2026 5:38PM

Informative post. Any indications of the relative rarity of each type?

pcgscacgold · February 1, 2026 5:45PM

Interesting. The slab generations site only lists two Gen 2.1's. They have a 2.1A without PCGS and a 2.1B with. Then the 2.2.

I have been told a lot of the Gen 2 holders were used to fix Doily slabs. The outer rings can be removed from the 2.1/2.2 holder and used to fix a broken Doily. I bet that is why there are so few Gen 2.1/2.2 holders out there.

pcgscacgold · February 1, 2026 5:46PM

@P0CKETCHANGE said:
Informative post. Any indications of the relative rarity of each type?

the 2.2 is considered scarce.

P0CKETCHANGE · February 1, 2026 5:49PM

@pcgscacgold yes, the last one in OP’s post looks like a 2.2

bammbamm · February 1, 2026 6:03PM

@P0CKETCHANGE said:
@pcgscacgold yes, the last one in OP’s post looks like a 2.2

Yes, correct, the four pictures are in this order, top to bottom:
-- Gen 2.1 with fine perforation label
-- Gen 2.1 with wide perforation label
-- Gen 2.1 with wide perforation label and PCGS printed on the label
-- Gen 2.2

Walkerfan · February 1, 2026 6:05PM

I like the first two without the PCGS logo on the label.

bammbamm · February 1, 2026 6:07PM

@P0CKETCHANGE said:
Informative post. Any indications of the relative rarity of each type?

From what I know, the Gen 2.2's are about as scarce as Gen 2.0 Doily holders. The Gen 2.1's are uncommon, but the most common of the three Gen 2's. The Gen 2.1's with the fine perforation label is the most common, and the Gen 2.1's with the wide perforation label and PCGS printed on the label is the scarcest of the three Gen 2.1's.

pcgscacgold · February 1, 2026 6:09PM

Always be careful with them. If you drop one on a hard surface the outer ring will crack.

jerseyben · February 2, 2026 12:21PM

This thread has left me even more confused. I thought the most scarce (non-doily) 2-piece holder was the 2.1b (with PCGS and perforated label). I have personally seen these the fewest in the wild. Are you saying that the 2.2 is actually the most scarce between 2.1 and 2.2?

oih82w8 · February 2, 2026 12:33PM

Confused is right. I thought that Gen 2 holders had the wrap band, which easily breaks, with PCGS on the lower right corner and PCGS was NOT on the label insert.

pcgscacgold · February 2, 2026 12:39PM

@oih82w8 said:
Confused is right. I thought that Gen 2 holders had the wrap band, which easily breaks, with PCGS on the lower right corner and PCGS was NOT on the label insert.

PCGS is on the wrap band for Gen 2 but they played with PCGS printed on the top of label and not. Many seem to like it plain.

pcgscacgold · February 2, 2026 12:40PM

@jerseyben said:
This thread has left me even more confused. I thought the most scarce (non-doily) 2-piece holder was the 2.1b (with PCGS and perforated label). I have personally seen these the fewest in the wild. Are you saying that the 2.2 is actually the most scarce between 2.1 and 2.2?

The PCGS Generation website lists Doily and 2.2 as scarce and 2.1A and 2.1B as uncommon.

coastaljerseyguy · February 2, 2026 1:04PM

So this would be a Gen 2.2? Grading seems very conservative. Some of the light scratches on slab.

bammbamm · February 2, 2026 4:30PM

@jerseyben said:
This thread has left me even more confused. I thought the most scarce (non-doily) 2-piece holder was the 2.1b (with PCGS and perforated label). I have personally seen these the fewest in the wild. Are you saying that the 2.2 is actually the most scarce between 2.1 and 2.2?

Gen 2.0 Doily holders were produced September and October 1989. Gen 2.1 holders were produced from October 1989 to December 1989. Gen 2.2 collar holders were produced December 1989 into January 1990. Gen 2.0's and 2.2's were produced for about the same short period of time -- a month to a month and a half at the most. Gen 2.1's were produced for two to almost three months. So, yes, Gen 2.0 (Doily) holders and Gen 2.2 holders are overall scarcer than Gen 2.1's.

However, Gen 2.1 holders with the wide perforated labels, and with the wide perforated labels and PCGS printed on top seem to be much scarcer than the Gen 2.1's with the fine perforated label (none of which seem to have PCGS printed on them).

I like them all. And as I've said, it's a fun collector goal to acquire one of each.

bammbamm · February 2, 2026 6:23PM

@coastaljerseyguy said:
So this would be a Gen 2.2? Grading seems very conservative. Some of the light scratches on slab.

Yes, this holder is a Gen 2.2. And, yes, it seems like a conservative grade to me, but I'm not good at grading Peace Dollars. Nice holder and coin nonetheless.

jfriedm56 · February 3, 2026 4:39AM

@bammbamm, just for my own reference, would you consider this a Gen 2.1 wide perforated label without PCGS, similar to your second example of the 4 you posted?

jerseyben · February 3, 2026 6:22AM

Am I to understand that the key difference between the 2.1 and 2.2 holders is the rounded vs square labels? Otherwise 2.1b and 2.2 look very very similar.

pcgscacgold · February 3, 2026 6:25AM

@jfriedm56
The sides of your label do not appear to have wide perforation's. They appear narrow in photo.

bammbamm · February 3, 2026 6:36AM

@jfriedm56 said:
@bammbamm, just for my own reference, would you consider this a Gen 2.1 wide perforated label without PCGS, similar to your second example of the 4 you posted?

This holder of yours has the fine perforated label. It is the same as the Morgan dollar in my OP. Note the perforation along the left and right edges. The paper stock used for labels probably was the standard 8.5 x 11 size, which fed through the computer printer easily. The paper was ordered and supplied with the backs already printed and the paper perforated. The perforations allowed the individual labels to be torn from the sheet.

bammbamm · February 3, 2026 6:39AM

@jerseyben said:
Am I to understand that the key difference between the 2.1 and 2.2 holders is the rounded vs square labels? Otherwise 2.1b and 2.2 look very very similar.

Yes, and the paper stocks are different. The 2.0's and 2.1's were a uncoated paper, the 2.2's were a smooth, coated paper. The 2.2 labels are the same as were then used for the next generation 3.0's.

jfriedm56 · February 3, 2026 7:39AM

@bammbamm said:

@jfriedm56 said:
@bammbamm, just for my own reference, would you consider this a Gen 2.1 wide perforated label without PCGS, similar to your second example of the 4 you posted?

This holder of yours has the fine perforated label. It is the same as the Morgan dollar in my OP. Note the perforation along the left and right edges. The paper stock used for labels probably was the standard 8.5 x 11 size, which fed through the computer printer easily. The paper was ordered and supplied with the backs already printed and the paper perforated. The perforations allowed the individual labels to be torn from the sheet.

Great. Ok, I thought you were referencing top and bottom. So a rather common label.

LukeMarshall · February 3, 2026 7:50AM

I thought that since the first two pictured slabs have no PCGS printed they were 2.1

And the last 2 having PCGS printed on the front of the label they are both 2.2

Is that not the deciding factor?

pcgscacgold · February 3, 2026 8:36AM

@jfriedm56 said:

@bammbamm said:

@jfriedm56 said:
@bammbamm, just for my own reference, would you consider this a Gen 2.1 wide perforated label without PCGS, similar to your second example of the 4 you posted?

This holder of yours has the fine perforated label. It is the same as the Morgan dollar in my OP. Note the perforation along the left and right edges. The paper stock used for labels probably was the standard 8.5 x 11 size, which fed through the computer printer easily. The paper was ordered and supplied with the backs already printed and the paper perforated. The perforations allowed the individual labels to be torn from the sheet.

Great. Ok, I thought you were referencing top and bottom. So a rather common label.

So it’s clear to people here, none of these would be common. All are considered uncommon to scarce. Fun to find and collect.

SimonW · February 3, 2026 10:14AM

Things were easier when we followed Conder101’s numbering system…

chattermonkey · February 3, 2026 11:10AM

Not to add more confusion but the author of oldslabholders recently posted a lesson on the three different varieties of 2.1 holders (2.1B, 2.1A Type 1, and 2.1A Type 2), and shares his anecdotal observations regarding population, which I found interesting

bammbamm · February 3, 2026 12:37PM

@LukeMarshall said:
I thought that since the first two pictured slabs have no PCGS printed they were 2.1

And the last 2 having PCGS printed on the front of the label they are both 2.2

Is that not the deciding factor?

It is not. It is now believed, from our research, that the wide perforated label Gen 2.1's -- with or without PCGS printed at the top -- were used before the Gen 2.1's with the fine perforated labels. If you compare Gen 2.0 Doily labels, they also have wide perforated labels, and while most have PCGS printed at the top, some do not.

bammbamm · February 3, 2026 12:43PM

@pcgscacgold said:

@jfriedm56 said:

@bammbamm said:

@jfriedm56 said:
@bammbamm, just for my own reference, would you consider this a Gen 2.1 wide perforated label without PCGS, similar to your second example of the 4 you posted?

This holder of yours has the fine perforated label. It is the same as the Morgan dollar in my OP. Note the perforation along the left and right edges. The paper stock used for labels probably was the standard 8.5 x 11 size, which fed through the computer printer easily. The paper was ordered and supplied with the backs already printed and the paper perforated. The perforations allowed the individual labels to be torn from the sheet.

Great. Ok, I thought you were referencing top and bottom. So a rather common label.

So it’s clear to people here, none of these would be common. All are considered uncommon to scarce. Fun to find and collect.

Agree. All variations of Gen 2's are uncommon to scarce. And, yes, it is fun to collect an example of each. All the Gen 2's were produced from only September 1989 to January 1990 -- a very short time period.

pcgscacgold · February 3, 2026 12:55PM

I agree @bammbamm I am trying to do a Mercury, Walker, Morgan and Commem CAC set of the holders as I buy things. A big challenge for sure.

56morgan · February 3, 2026 1:10PM

Here is my set of WLH with Conder 101 labels in agreement with SimonW.

The 2.5's are the most difficult for me to find.

pcgscacgold · February 3, 2026 1:15PM

Very nice @56morgan

I have no idea what a Conder is. Interesting that the numbers are out of order in that the Doily came right after the Rattler but in this Conder system it is a higher number.

coastaljerseyguy · February 3, 2026 1:19PM

@56morgan
So is the difference between the PCGS 2.5 & 3.5 the label font being darker in the 3.5. Also looks like the 3.5 had the #'s skewed to the left of the bar code

Any reverse photos of above?

bammbamm · February 3, 2026 1:23PM

@pcgscacgold said:
I agree @bammbamm I am trying to do a Mercury, Walker, Morgan and Commem CAC set of the holders as I buy things. A big challenge for sure.

Just this past weekend, I just picked up a 1942-D Walker MS65 in a Gen 2.1 with fine perforated label at the monthly regional coin show that I usually attend. And I got it for a really good price.

bammbamm · February 3, 2026 1:30PM

@pcgscacgold said:
Very nice @56morgan

I have no idea what a Conder is. Interesting that the numbers are out of order in that the Doily came right after the Rattler but in this Conder system it is a higher number.

Yeah, interesting that the Condor numbered order is different. And it doesn't give a number, or show examples, for the varieties of Gen 2.1 with the wide perforated labels and Gen 2.0 (Doily) labels without PCGS printed at the top. But both do exist.

SimonW · February 3, 2026 1:38PM

@pcgscacgold said:
Very nice @56morgan

I have no idea what a Conder is. Interesting that the numbers are out of order in that the Doily came right after the Rattler but in this Conder system it is a higher number.

Conder101 was a gentleman here on the boards way back, he was one of the first to research the generations of NGC and PCGS holders and quantify them. Much of what PCGS lists in their “generations” came about through his efforts, either directly or through increased interest in holder collecting.

56morgan · February 3, 2026 1:52PM

2.5 has coarse perforations and square label corners. 3.5 has a straight cut with a
rounded corner label. Both have fragile collars. Conder 101 described different labels on PCSG slabs before the PCSG slab museum was activated.

TomB · February 4, 2026 11:22PM

@pcgscacgold said:
Very nice @56morgan

I have no idea what a Conder is. Interesting that the numbers are out of order in that the Doily came right after the Rattler but in this Conder system it is a higher number.

Conder101 is likely the leading pioneer in slab generation research. He posted here for many years and was active here around the time I joined the PCGS boards, so over a quarter-century ago. Yikes!

Conder101 did much of his initial research into slab generations without the proactive help of the TPGs, if I recall correctly, and I always assumed it was because the TPGs did not want people to have easy access as to when a coin was graded because they might be able to infer trends in grading over time. Ultimately, Conder101 published a thick reference book on the history of TPG slabs and, if I recall correctly, a DVD (or CD) of the book as well. The book and CD were published in 2003 and they were an immense help to the study of the field. I still have my copy and reference it fairly often. Conder101 listed a fair number of PCGS board members in the book, including me, for helping him narrow down the dates of usage, establish the order of usage and provide the images in his book.

Much of his research was openly available here on the PCGS boards and he had dedicated threads to the history of both NGC and PCGS. Below is his thread for PCGS history that he started in 2006-

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/222533/as-promised-the-pcgs-generations-with-pictures-very-long-updated-10-27-06/p1

During one of the periodic PCGS purges of membership I believe Conder101 had a disagreement or falling out with the moderation team or management at PCGS and they banned his account, but I think he was the single greatest factor in getting these generations listed in a proper order and to have people pay attention to the case around a coin.

pcgscacgold · February 5, 2026 4:09AM

Thanks for the link @TomB Too bad the photos have all become inaccessible. Would be neat to see what was available 20 years ago. So much has been destroyed in the years since.

oih82w8 · February 5, 2026 1:02PM

I kept these from another coin forum, and not sure if they align with Condor's or not.

TomB · February 5, 2026 1:42PM

I don't think the sample slab numbering system was ever merged with the regular issue slabs, so they were always different if I recall correctly.

oih82w8 · February 5, 2026 2:50PM

Good point @TomB

P0CKETCHANGE · February 21, 2026 2:42PM

Wide and fine perforation, no PCGS, examples of 2.1 OGH:

johnt · February 21, 2026 3:30PM

Which would this be? 2.2? The more I read, the more confused I become.

TomB · February 21, 2026 6:40PM

There is inconsistent nomenclature in this niche because over time different folks have labeled slabs with slightly different numbering systems. Regardless, the 1958 MS64 Franklin just posted is not an example of a PCGS 2.1 or a PCGS 2.2 holder as both of those generations have an outer collar or ring that runs around the perimeter of the entire slab. This slab does not have it and is a PCGS 3.0 generation holder.

A good reference to use is the official PCGS Museum of Coin Holders page-

https://www.pcgs.com/holdermuseum

bammbamm · February 21, 2026 7:05PM

@johnt said:
Which would this be? 2.2? The more I read, the more confused I become.

.
Your holder is a Gen 3.0. Gen 2.2 has the same die-cut label as the Gen 3.0, but the Gen 2.2 has a two-piece holder with an outside collar, where the Gen 3.0 is a one-piece, solid holder.

bammbamm · February 21, 2026 7:06PM

@P0CKETCHANGE said:
Wide and fine perforation, no PCGS, examples of 2.1 OGH:

Yes, and very nice coins.

johnt · February 22, 2026 6:40AM

Thanks for the responses.

The Three Varieties of PCGS Gen 2.1 Holders

Comments

Leave a Comment