Might the PCGS Doily (2.0 Holder) Have Been Issued Alongside the 2.1 and 2.2 Holders?
TomB
Posts: 22,886 ✭✭✭✭✭
Perhaps this isn’t a really fascinating topic for most coin collectors, but the precise dating to the sequence of holders from PCGS and NGC is sometimes a bit murky. Even the actual sequence of which holder came before another sometimes gets modified as more information is uncovered. However, while doing research on another topic, I came across two independent pieces of information that make me believe we might have to rethink the timing of these 2.x holders.
Current thinking states that PCGS introduced the Doily (2.0) holder in September, 1989 and used it only into October, 1989 at which point it was replaced by the 2.1 holder that was used from some point in October, 1989 into December, 1989. Finally, the 2.1 holder is said to have been replaced by the 2.2 holder in December, 1989 and this was used into January, 1990. None of these three holders is exceptionally common with PCGS calling the Doily “Very Scarce” and both the 2.1 and 2.2 holders “Scarce”. A link to the PCGS Museum of Coin Holders is below-
https://www.pcgs.com/holdermuseum
Recently, I was looking at video from the 1989 ANA Convention in Pittsburgh, PA and there was an interview with Patti Manassian, then-Director of Marketing at PCGS. Manassian described how PCGS was getting ready to introduce a new holder and that it would have a hologram, printed safety paper and an outer collar. This new holder was being introduced at the ANA convention and there were images of the new holder. I’ve included screen grabs of both Patti Manassian during her interview as well as an aisle from the convention.
The new holder was rotated in-hand by someone off-screen and it was indeed the now famous Doily. Relevant screen grabs of this are also below. The reporter was David Lisot, who did many newscasts regarding coins over the span of decades, and this report was aired on the Financial News Network. Lisot reported that the new holders would hit the market within two weeks from the date of the broadcast and that old holders could be sent to PCGS to be replaced with new holders at the cost of $2 plus handling with a turnaround time of one to four weeks. The holder was called the NumisCap. The ANA was held from August 9-13 and the archived broadcast is dated August 26, 1989, but contains multiple segments apparently recorded on different days. This means the Doily holder would have been rolled out fully by the last few days of August through the second week of September, 1989. This matches the PCGS Museum dates.
Things get a little bit less clear with the November, 1989 issue of COINage magazine. For those unaware, COINage magazine is still around, but was a major player in numismatic publications and news in the pre-internet days. It was a full-sized, glossy format magazine with the first third of an issue in heavyweight paper with full color images. The cover of the issue shows a PCGS certified Saint Gaudens double eagle alongside an NGC certified Wisconsin commem. Both coins are shot from the reverse. An image of the cover appears below.
These images accompany the Scott Travers article about his book “The Investor’s Guide To Coin Trading” and there on page 33, in full color, is a full-page image of the two coins that appear on the cover. Only this time the image is the obverse of the slabs and the PCGS certified coin is in a 2.2 holder. This double eagle in the PCGS holder was a regular issue slab and not a sample holder. The coins were shot at the Continental Coin Corporation dealership. Image below.
The newsstand date for this issue of COINage magazine was November, 1989, but that meant the issue was produced, finalized and distributed no later than approximately the last week of September, 1989 to give the issue at least a five week lead time before the date printed on the cover. This was common practice for all newsstand magazines, but we can also determine this from another COINage magazine edition, from July, 1990. In the July, 1990 edition there is an article about the Superior Boys’ Town Sale that occurred on May 27-29, 1990. In that sale was the complete King of Siam proof set and the set sold for $3.19 million, but even though there was a full page image of the PCGS PR65 1804 dollar paired with a PCGS MS65 1795 dollar, and the sale was discussed, there were no prices mentioned. Later in the article there is a comment that whatever price the PCGS MS65 1795 dollar sold for would be an important price for the series, but the price is not mentioned and that is of course because the article and magazine went to print prior to the sale. Therefore, we can say with pretty good certainty that the images, articles and information in these magazines was at least five weeks older than the newsstand date on the cover.
Given the above evidence of an at least five week window for publication deadline prior to newsstand date, the November, 1989 COINage magazine photos of the PCGS 2.2 holder in a dealer’s inventory could not have been taken later than the last week of September, 1989. The contemporary evidence summarized here shows pretty clearly that the PCGS Doily was introduced to market anywhere from very late August through early September, 1989 and this fits the PCGS narrative, but that the 2.2 holder was already in the hands of at least some dealers outside of PCGS no later than the end of September, 1989. So, were the PCGS Doily and 2.1 and 2.2 holders produced concurrently at PCGS during this late 1989 through early 1990 window or is there some other explanation for this evidence?
Comments
Bad eyes here but that DE appears to be in a doily holder to me
It might be reflection from the shot I took of the glossy magazine page, but the original published image is not a Doily.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
The sample slab from the ANA video is absolutely a Doily, but the double eagle is not.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I think it is and the image just doesn’t show it well. I see the same ghostly PCGS in both images spaced the same
Which is more likely- using two different labels concurrently or a misleading photograph? I’d say the latter.
I get it, but the PCGS Doily in production had perforated edges throughout and the perforations were pretty easily seen. It also had a fairly easily seen solid white bottom that went all along the obverse and covered the barcode. Like the below-
This slab has neither of those features. It does not appear to have a solid white band on the bottom and it does not have rough perforations around the edges. In fact, the edges are smooth and rounded and this is exactly a feature of the 2.2 holder, image below.
You can see the smooth rounded edges of this insert clearly in the cover photography-
I believe what you are noticing in the slab insert is the pixelation of the image on the magazine paper in combination with my iPhone image. In hand I do not see what you are seeing by looking at the page.
So, do I think PCGS was using old stock while introducing new stock? Absolutely! I mean in a business setting who wouldn't do that? You wouldn't throw away already printed and paid for labels and paper because you went to a newer version of your product, would you? Of course not, and they never thought we would be debating the sequence of their slabs decades later, either.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Although I must admit that if I stare at it long enough I can see what you see to a certain extent.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Check out the rounded corners on the label. Interesting. Matches the sample slab but not these other labels
And, note that the sample slab doesn’t have the white band at the bottom of the label. So my best guess is that you are correct about Pcgs using old label stock - but this situation is them using up the same doily stock as the sample slab and the magazine picture just doesn’t show it well
Yes, the sample is the sample, it's not a regular production slab. I don't know if other sample slabs had rounded edges without a white border. I am not well versed in sample slabs so someone else might be able to fill us in on that.
The image you shared of the plain green insert is not a 2.2 insert. It is a 2.1 insert that has a PCGS issue date of October, 1989 into December, 1989. It shared the squared corners and perforated edges of the Doily. This all gets a bit confusing with these short-lived and very similar holder certs. The 2.1 sometimes has PCGS written on the top of the holder and sometimes does not. The 2.1 holder is shown below-
Like I wrote in the beginning, this is a pretty weird topic and is one with lots of odd things.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I think I've stared at this image long enough to see what you are seeing. An image that looks like it has Doily characteristics, but with rounded edges and no perforations. Sort of a true hybrid. What is really strange is that looking at the image from the magazine in-hand I would not have seen what you pointed out. It wasn't until you pointed it out that I took out a loop and looked at the magazine paper and through the pixelation I think I can see it, but I doubt I would ever have noticed it without you seeing it online first.
So, this leaves us with the question of do all Doily holders have a white lower border, straight cut edges and perforations? Or is there another version of the Doily. Ugh.
Thank you!
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Edited just to show the sample slab
In your above post the two Doily Morgans are the PCGS retro Doily holders, I believe. They have eight digit cert numbers and the original Doily holders had seven digit cert numbers, so those holders are from the 2015 or so. The middle slab is another sample and appears to match the sample in the video.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
IMO, the double eagle has sample slab doily stock (rounded corners, less vibrant doily design & no white band at the bottom of the label
That is a good summation, I think, but then that opens up another can of worms.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Yah, that means there’s a rare 2.0 variety out there. 2.01 & 2.02?
In case it isn't clear, thank you for pointing out what you noticed in that online image. I couldn't see it from the original glossy paper. Weird, right?
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
A search of past doily sales might show another example with these attributes?
So looking at around 100 images so far, NONE of them are of this type except the sample slab pieces. Yet the magazine image proves that at least one was used for regular grading. Cool
I've started following these holders a little more lately. Considering the rarity of them, when does anyone believe the prices will get in line with the doilies?
What causes you to assume that prices aren’t already “in line”?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Maybe they are and i haven't paid enough attention. Are you saying the prices for the 2.1 and 2.2 are same as the 2.0 ? Seems to me these don't get the same recognition as the doilys
I wasn’t/am not commenting on the values of the various holders. But I don’t take it as a given that the market hasn’t already taken scarcity into consideration - at least in most cases.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
here's a rounded corner doily slab on ebay #365515548150 $$$$$$
Considerable differences in these doily designs
Just a thought... Rattlers don't have pcgs on the label but doilys do. So why would pcgs remove it for some of the 2.1 just to re add it for other 2.1 and 2.2?
I also thought the magazine image might be a doily after first pointed out. Not as certain now. It might just be parei'DOILY'a.
Checked the verify cert number and some around it within 5 to 10 numbers each way to see if any had an auction or set appearances that might show a better photo. None did.
The cert shows as valid with others hit and miss near it. But none showed any auction or set appearance.
A few others nearby were also 1925 $20's in 64 or 65. The first different above was 2243189 which is an 1841 British India Mohur gold. The first different lower was 2243174, a 1916-S $20 in 65.
There are no 1925 $20's currently listed in the March 2026 Doily census.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/14073655/#Comment_14073655
So, overall I have nothing useful to add.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
Great info, thanks for sharing.
Successful BST:here and ATS, bumanchu, wdrob, hashtag, KeeNoooo, mikej61, Yonico, Meltdown, BAJJERFAN, Excaliber, lordmarcovan, cucamongacoin, robkool, bradyc, tonedcointrader, mumu, Windycity, astrotrain, tizofthe, overdate, rwyarmch, mkman123, Timbuk3,GBurger717, airplanenut, coinkid855 ,illini420, michaeldixon, Weiss, Morpheus, Deepcoin, Collectorcoins, AUandAG, D.Schwager, blu62vette,
This is a good question that only someone who worked at PCGS back at that time can answer.
It seems like the progression of PCGS labels is Gen 1.2 Rattlers; then Gen 2.0 Doilys, most with PCGS printed at the top, but not all; then Gen 2.1 labels with the wide perforations, both with PCGS printed on top and blank; then Gen 2.1 labels with the fine perforation, all without PCGS printed at the top; and then Gen 2.2 labels, all with PCGS printed at the top.
I've always assumed that the Doily was in production concurrently with the other holders. See explanation below.
The confusion is partly because PCGS recognizes the holders in its "Museum of Holders" but not the various labels.
I first ran into this issue putting together a PCGS sample display for the ANA with BJ Searles. I had several boxes of samples sent to her categorized by Condor's generations, which recognizes the labels, but she was confused because it didn't jive with PCGS's "generations of holders".
If you look at 3 different Condor generations, one has no PCGS at the top of the label, 2 have PCGS top center but differ in the alignment of the coin number with the barcode. These 3 variations also occur with the Doily, suggesting they were all being produced at the same time.
That Double Eagle picture is fascinating! It sure looks like the hand cut Doily seen only, to date, with Samples!
According to the production dates on the museum page, the 2.2 holder seems to be just as scarce as the coveted Doily. Also, the 2.1 holder with PCGS on the label is even more scarce than the Doily or the 2.2 holder. Just an observation.
Craig....
Good observation. There are actually three versions of the Gen 2.1.
Here is a post I started a little while back:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1120568/the-three-varieties-of-pcgs-gen-2-1-holders#latest
You might find it interesting.
Also, this website is a fantastic source: https://oldslabholders.com
And, by the way, your collection of Gen 2.0 Doilies that you posted on the Doily thread is very impressive.