Home› U.S. Coin Forum
Options

My final purchase...ever

Billet7Billet7 Posts: 4,923 ✭✭✭
in U.S. Coin Forum
...for 2011 that is...how's that for sensationalism! image

In this case, I bought the plastic, not the coin!

image

Comments

  • Options
    derrybderryb Posts: 38,555 ✭✭✭✭✭
    This kinda plastic should be over in the Precious Metals forum. image

    Nice score.

    "A car is a tool that takes you from one place to another. Everything beyond that is a payment for other people's perception of you."

  • Options
    ProofCoinsProofCoins Posts: 42
    plastic with a litte bit of silver
  • Options
    SeattleSlammerSeattleSlammer Posts: 10,121 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Looks better than a 3!
  • Options
    etexmikeetexmike Posts: 6,852 ✭✭✭
    Very nice final (of the year) purchase. image


    Mike
  • Options
    TWQGTWQG Posts: 3,145 ✭✭
    A must have in any plastic collection.
    My eBay store
  • Options
    coinman420coinman420 Posts: 4,666 ✭
    nice. image
    my ebay items BST transactions/swaps/giveaways with: Tiny, raycyca,mrpaseo, Dollar2007,Whatafind, Boom, packers88, DBSTrader2, 19Lyds, Mar327, pontiacinf, ElmerFusterpuck.
  • Options
    NewParadigmNewParadigm Posts: 1,322
    Looks better than a 63 IMHO image
  • Options
    coinkid855coinkid855 Posts: 5,012 ✭✭✭
    Nice NGC 2.0! image



    -Paul
    NGC 2.1 Census! PM me yours!
  • Options
    RYKRYK Posts: 35,800 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>Looks better than a 63 IMHO image >>


    I agree. It's flashy.
    My Box of 20: https://pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/box-20/ryks-gold-box-20/17132
  • Options
    RayboRaybo Posts: 5,352 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Coin deffinetly looks better than a 63, the plastic looks to be 66ish. image
  • Options
    UNLVinoUNLVino Posts: 416 ✭
    That does not suck! Happy New Year! Nice score.
  • Options
    Billet7Billet7 Posts: 4,923 ✭✭✭
    It is actually quite nice, if not for the cheek I think it would be in a very high grade holder. It's probably a 64 pushing 65 by today's standards. I love the look, just dripping with luster. If the cheek were cleaner, I would think 67...honestly.
  • Options
    lordmarcovanlordmarcovan Posts: 45,020 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>I bought the plastic, not the coin! >>

    I like both. The coin is nice and cartwheely, and I like the subtle toning.

    Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.

  • Options
    mkman123mkman123 Posts: 6,849 ✭✭✭✭
    Very cool, I wanna start getting some of those old ngc holders
    Successful Buying and Selling transactions with:

    Many members on this forum that now it cannot fit in my signature. Please ask for entire list.
  • Options
    DorkGirlDorkGirl Posts: 9,994 ✭✭✭
    image
    Becky
  • Options
    Billet7Billet7 Posts: 4,923 ✭✭✭
    Does anyone know which one is more rare, the NGC 2.0 (the holder in the OP) or the 2.5? (the same one, but has the logo embossed on the inside of the plastic) I've always wondered. I don't see either one with any regularity.

  • Options
    DRUNNERDRUNNER Posts: 3,945 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Great score and certainly a nice coin . . . . . both of them (2.0/2.1) could be rarer than the Doily as Orevile has commented in the past.

    The 2.1 is substantially rarer than the 2.0. NGC had problems with the hotstamp on the inside of the slab and it only lasted a few days before they moved the hotstamp to the outside. The 2.0 then continued in production for a while with the white core and insert.

    Were you comparing the NGC 2.0 and the PCGS 2.5? The 'same one' is the NGC 2.1 (with the hotstamp on the inside).

    I just sent 5 2.0/2.1s in to CAC along with 7 Doilies to start the process of finding out how grading was from 1987 to 1989. Results will be posted later . . . after I get all the Doilies fired off and back.

    Drunner
  • Options
    Billet7Billet7 Posts: 4,923 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Great score and certainly a nice coin . . . . . both of them (2.0/2.1) could be rarer than the Doily as Orevile has commented in the past.

    The 2.1 is substantially rarer than the 2.0. NGC had problems with the hotstamp on the inside of the slab and it only lasted a few days before they moved the hotstamp to the outside. The 2.0 then continued in production for a while with the white core and insert.

    Were you comparing the NGC 2.0 and the PCGS 2.5? The 'same one' is the NGC 2.1 (with the hotstamp on the inside).

    I just sent 5 2.0/2.1s in to CAC along with 7 Doilies to start the process of finding out how grading was from 1987 to 1989. Results will be posted later . . . after I get all the Doilies fired off and back.

    Drunner >>



    Sorry, yes I was talking about the 2.1, not the 2.5 (which does not exist.)

  • Options
    Billet7Billet7 Posts: 4,923 ✭✭✭
    I would think that they are both more rare than the doily, but that's just my take on it.

  • Options
    BroadstruckBroadstruck Posts: 30,497 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>I would think that they are both more rare than the doily, but that's just my take on it. >>



    image



    My final purchase...ever Care to explain the "ever" part image
    To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
  • Options
    Billet7Billet7 Posts: 4,923 ✭✭✭


    << <i>

    << <i>I would think that they are both more rare than the doily, but that's just my take on it. >>



    image



    My final purchase...ever Care to explain the "ever" part image >>





    You must have missed the "...of 2011" part. image

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Format
SpoilerCodeQuote
Heading 2Heading 1
Emoji
:):D:(;):/:o:s:p:'(:|B):#:*<3o:)>:)
Url
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Home • U.S. Coin ForumComment As ...