My first NGC "new holder"

[Barndog]

I just got my first coin that is in a new NGC holder...the one with the prongs. After seeing images of the holders and images of coins in the holders, I was not a fan. Having the coin in hand, I'm kind of pleased with the new holder. My biggest gripe about the old holders was the lack of light transmission to the tiny coins I collect (capped bust half dimes) making it very difficult, if not impossible, to get a good look at "all of the coin" with one viewing. Plenty of light transmission, ease of viewing the edge, all in all not too bad. The prongs do prevent my viewing of some of the coin, but I think I am going to learn to live with that. I like these holders much more than the older NGC holders. Good job, NGC.

[Schatzy]

[Barndog]

 

 

one day, this coin will be imaged by Mark Goodman:

 

 

[Coindude]

Sweet die clash on that one!

[physics-fan3.14]

I wonder what the rest of the coin looks like?

[texasrichard]

To a "by die marriage" collector that is some kind of special coin. Congrats again.

[Schatzy]

Very Cool Barndog!!

[toyonakataro]

I'm glad to know that you liked new NGC holder because I also collect half dimes and I had been concerned about their new holder.

[James_OldeTowne]

I just got my first coin that is in a new NGC holder...the one with the prongs. After seeing images of the holders and images of coins in the holders, I was not a fan. Having the coin in hand, I'm kind of pleased with the new holder. My biggest gripe about the old holders was the lack of light transmission to the tiny coins I collect (capped bust half dimes) making it very difficult, if not impossible, to get a good look at "all of the coin" with one viewing. Plenty of light transmission, ease of viewing the edge, all in all not too bad. The prongs do prevent my viewing of some of the coin, but I think I am going to learn to live with that. I like these holders much more than the older NGC holders. Good job, NGC.

I agree entirely. Many folks who have passed (negative) judgment have done so based only on unflattering images of the new holders. I have seen quite a few in hand now, and am utterly convinced they are an improvement over the previous generation holders. They are not perfect - but no slab can be.

[dean1345]

I have to agree with James.

[farthing]

I also agree with James and Barndog, coins are easier to view and enjoy in the new holders and this does not always come thru from some of the pictures used to slam the new holders.

[coinman1794]

I also agree with James and Barndog, coins are easier to view and enjoy in the new holders and this does not always come thru from some of the pictures used to slam the new holders.

 

Nor does this easy viewing and enjoyment come through when looking at the coins in some of those "pictures used to slam the new holders," in person

 

The new holder is inconsistent from one coin type to the next.

[RareSov]

Yes once you get past the prongs sometimes covering a bit rim, they are nice holders

 

The rim is generally going to be the same all the way around too, so no big loss

[coinman1794]

Yes once you get past the prongs sometimes covering a bit rim, they are nice holders

 

The rim is generally going to be the same all the way around too, so no big loss

 

Thats not the only problem. They dont make custom inserts for all coin types, and some coins simply do not fit in the holders. There can be a large gap inside the prongs, especially on thinner coins, and if the coin is placed toward in the bottom of that area, or if the coin's diameter is larger than what the particular insert being used was designed for, you can barely see the edge at all, and the coin is burried in plastic.

[Coin]

I wonder what the rest of the coin looks like?

 

trouble maker

[physics-fan3.14]

I wonder what the rest of the coin looks like?

 

trouble maker

 

Ah, not at all, not at all. Its a valid question, given that about a quarter of the face of the coin is covered up. I genuinely wonder what the rest of the coin looks like. I have made my position on the new holders quite clear, and yes I have seen enough of them in hand of several different sizes to have an informed opinion. I even have a bustie in one, which I bought to give them a legitimate chance as so many recommended. I hate them.

[pendragon1998]

The new NGC holders are horrible. I don't care if they show 95% of the coin perfectly, there's still the 5% that is being covered up - and I'm not talking about the rim, I'm talking about the surfaces. Certainly the old holder had problems, but so do the new holders - they've only swapped one problem for another. I don't understand why so many people are fawning over a holder that covers up part of (at least some) coins' surfaces. Perhaps they're people who don't photograph their coins. If there is submitting to be done, for me, the only choice is now PCGS. And that's a sad thing, because before, I'd have probably sent my stuff to NGC.

[Coin]

Jason , Michael (Pendragon) ,

 

Come on guys , do you really really think NGC would intentionally try to hid a bit of rim damage behind one of the little stalks/prongs?

 

Do you feel that they would now no longer grade the areas on any coin that might be in the correct spots to be covered up in the prong holders?

 

I agree with both of you guys that it would be much better if NGC or the other TPGs would find some way to 'suspend' a coin within a holder ....whereas you could see the entire rim and sides and also be able to photograph the coin better without a worry about the coin slipping or tilting in the holder .

 

I wonder if it would be possible on the NEXT NGC revision of the holder , if they are going to stick with this version or keep it as an option , if it would be possible to make the prongs a bit smaller and less intrusive ? Might be hard to find a chemically inert formula to make these that has enough strength to hold up , but I do not think it would be impossible .

 

I was just poking at ya Jason. Guys from Charleston need poking every now an then to keep them from taking over large parts of the country

 

Michael , sorry you do not like it so much you are changing companies , not based upon grading , but their plastic ...but since PCGS and NGC are both decent TPGs , in their own rights , it doesn't hurt that bad. At least you haven't lowered your standards . BTW great job on the #1 Britannia set . 95% there to see without that '07 ....like there is a prong in the way or something ..... I'm kidding ! AH!! Put down the shotgun ! IT IS a great set and you built it up and spearheaded the charge to get it recognized .....guys from Irmo need poking too....especially if they now reside in that former penal colony state , I mean Peach state .

 

(Machuga's not here that much these days...someone's gotta keep you guys on yer toes)

[Coin]

poke poke ?

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

 

I was just poking at ya Jason. Guys from Charleston need poking every now an then to keep them from taking over large parts of the country

 

Come on now, that's not fair. We haven't tried to do that in a hundred and fifty years! Of course, I'm pretty sure that given the chance they would try again......

 

 

Seriously though, I don't think that NGC's grading has changed or that they are willfully trying to hide problems under the holders. Not at all. The point is, they might have seen the whole coin and used it to grade, but I can't see the whole coin. Isn't one of the overarching themes here that you are suppposed to buy the coin and not the holder? That you aren't supposed to just rely on the holder and buy blindly? That you are supposed to grade and evaluate the coin for yourself? Now how am I supposed to do that if I can't see a good portion of the coin, especially on the smaller ones like that gorgeous half dime posted earlier? The prongs overlap the rims and hang out a significant portion into the fields.

 

Of course, I realize the inherent problem in my argument, which is that any coin in a holder is going to have some part of it obscured. True. But, I would argue that the edge is less important than the faces and thus the old style NGC holders are preferable to these new ones. If there is a rim bump, nick, or bruise, you can clearly see it in the old holders, and often that is all you are concerned with the edge. However, there is a non-negligible chance that there could be a nick or bruise hiding under on of these new prongs, sufficient that it would prevent me from buying the coin. NGC didn't do it intentionally, and the coin might be perfectly acceptable to the graders - but its not acceptable to me! The old ones did not obscure any of the face, but they obscured the entire edge. To me, the tradeoff is not equal.

 

Besides all that is the issue of aesthetics. True, more light might be able to get to parts of the coin. But is that a sufficient tradeoff for not being able to see other parts of the coin? True, it might make parts of the coin easier to photograph. But does that balance out the very obvious, distracting, and off putting white prongs that overlap into the fields of the coins? With the old holders, there were some shadow issues, and issues with the coins being tilted in the holders, but those could usually be overcome with proper lighting and skill. But no amount of Mark Goodman or Bob Campbell magic is ever going to see through those prongs!

 

Finally, and quite alarmingly, is the issue of toning, turning, or other negative factors associated with the prongs touching the fields. This is more speculative than the other issues I have, but it does not seem farfetched to me to believe that this plastic being placed on the surface of the coin is potentially hazardous. We all know that coins continue to tone in the holders, sometimes due to air leaks, and sometimes, as in the case of numerous different early generations, due to the holders themselves. I am sure that this plastic has been tested in a lab, and specially designed to be safe for coins, but these measures can never replace long term real world situations. These prongs have the potential to significantly and negatively impact the surfaces of coins. Of course, the old style holders did also, but they were held uniformly at the edge, never directly on the face of the coin. This uniformity is the key when talking about holder induced toning, I believe. With the prongs, it is likely that you will have "prong toning," analogous to the "tab toning" on classic commemoratives. While tab toning is sometimes attractive and due to the original packaging, "prong toning" opens up a whole new field of questions.

 

Because of these prongs, I am seriously and negatively influenced against NGC's current product. I still believe they are the superior company, and appreciate and love them for their hosting these discussion boards in an open and tolerant manner. And while I think it is somewhat rude to infer or declare that I will exclusively use their competition's product, I do not think there is any problem with me making an impassioned plea for NGC to change their current market strategy. I do not think it is wrong to let them know that there is significant discontentment among their customers. And I do not think it wrong to ask them to either change their holders or make them optional.

 

Wow, I'm starting to feel like Al But, I think it important that I clearly put forth why I don't like these holders, rather than just ranting and "making trouble." Hopefully we can rally enough support to make NGC change their mind!

[Coin]

And while I think it is somewhat rude to infer or declare that I ....reread...I was poking Michael with that jib will exclusively use their competition's product, I do not think there is any problem with me making an impassioned plea for NGC to change their current market strategy. I do not think it is wrong to let them know that there is significant discontentment among their customers. And I do not think it wrong to ask them to either change their holders or make them optional.

And I most wholeheartedly agree with , and said before in other posts , that WE should have a choice between holders , as the customer regardless of whether it be or not be a 'hassle' for NGC to hire someone with enough brains to read an invoice and see how we the paying customer want our items slabbed

 

Wow, I'm starting to feel like Al But, I think it important that I clearly put forth why I don't like these holders, rather than just ranting and "making trouble." Hopefully we can rally enough support to make NGC change their mind!

 

...trouble maker it was a poke , not attack ...I did use the smiley-con ...and you should know by now how I feel about the holder ....I think it should purely be optional and wish someone from NGC would drop into one of the board discussions more often and explain why it Can not be so . Would be nice .

 

PPS , always glad to provide the opportunity to completely air out what's really on our minds about something ..... ...... you see, I agree to agree

[pendragon1998]

Jason , Michael (Pendragon) ,

 

Come on guys , do you really really think NGC would intentionally try to hid a bit of rim damage behind one of the little stalks/prongs?

 

Do you feel that they would now no longer grade the areas on any coin that might be in the correct spots to be covered up in the prong holders?

 

 

Michael , sorry you do not like it so much you are changing companies , not based upon grading , but their plastic ...but since PCGS and NGC are both decent TPGs , in their own rights , it doesn't hurt that bad. At least you haven't lowered your standards . BTW great job on the #1 Britannia set . 95% there to see without that '07 ....like there is a prong in the way or something ..... I'm kidding ! AH!! Put down the shotgun ! IT IS a great set and you built it up and spearheaded the charge to get it recognized .....guys from Irmo need poking too....especially if they now reside in that former penal colony state , I mean Peach state .

 

 

I don't foster any really suspicion that there would be some damaged area covered up. Rather, my beef with the new holder is that it ruins the complete picture of the coin's faces. I can deal with being unable to see the rim, but not the faces. Photography is a major way that I enjoy my coins. I'll still buy old NGC coins, but not the new ones if I can help it.

 

I think the grading is roughly similar between NGC and PCGS, but that's another topic. It's not like I said I hate the new holder, I'm taking my business to SEGS or ANACS. The plastic does matter to me, though, because of the photography issue.

 

 

Thanks for the kind words about the britannia set. I'm still searching near and far for the 2007, but I'm happy to say I located a 2009 PCGS MS69 the other day which should be on its way to me soon. I can't wait!

[pendragon1998]

 

I was just poking at ya Jason. Guys from Charleston need poking every now an then to keep them from taking over large parts of the country

 

Come on now, that's not fair. We haven't tried to do that in a hundred and fifty years! Of course, I'm pretty sure that given the chance they would try again......

 

 

Seriously though, I don't think that NGC's grading has changed or that they are willfully trying to hide problems under the holders. Not at all. The point is, they might have seen the whole coin and used it to grade, but I can't see the whole coin. Isn't one of the overarching themes here that you are suppposed to buy the coin and not the holder? That you aren't supposed to just rely on the holder and buy blindly? That you are supposed to grade and evaluate the coin for yourself? Now how am I supposed to do that if I can't see a good portion of the coin, especially on the smaller ones like that gorgeous half dime posted earlier? The prongs overlap the rims and hang out a significant portion into the fields.

 

Of course, I realize the inherent problem in my argument, which is that any coin in a holder is going to have some part of it obscured. True. But, I would argue that the edge is less important than the faces and thus the old style NGC holders are preferable to these new ones. If there is a rim bump, nick, or bruise, you can clearly see it in the old holders, and often that is all you are concerned with the edge. However, there is a non-negligible chance that there could be a nick or bruise hiding under on of these new prongs, sufficient that it would prevent me from buying the coin. NGC didn't do it intentionally, and the coin might be perfectly acceptable to the graders - but its not acceptable to me! The old ones did not obscure any of the face, but they obscured the entire edge. To me, the tradeoff is not equal.

 

Besides all that is the issue of aesthetics. True, more light might be able to get to parts of the coin. But is that a sufficient tradeoff for not being able to see other parts of the coin? True, it might make parts of the coin easier to photograph. But does that balance out the very obvious, distracting, and off putting white prongs that overlap into the fields of the coins? With the old holders, there were some shadow issues, and issues with the coins being tilted in the holders, but those could usually be overcome with proper lighting and skill. But no amount of Mark Goodman or Bob Campbell magic is ever going to see through those prongs!

 

Finally, and quite alarmingly, is the issue of toning, turning, or other negative factors associated with the prongs touching the fields. This is more speculative than the other issues I have, but it does not seem farfetched to me to believe that this plastic being placed on the surface of the coin is potentially hazardous. We all know that coins continue to tone in the holders, sometimes due to air leaks, and sometimes, as in the case of numerous different early generations, due to the holders themselves. I am sure that this plastic has been tested in a lab, and specially designed to be safe for coins, but these measures can never replace long term real world situations. These prongs have the potential to significantly and negatively impact the surfaces of coins. Of course, the old style holders did also, but they were held uniformly at the edge, never directly on the face of the coin. This uniformity is the key when talking about holder induced toning, I believe. With the prongs, it is likely that you will have "prong toning," analogous to the "tab toning" on classic commemoratives. While tab toning is sometimes attractive and due to the original packaging, "prong toning" opens up a whole new field of questions.

 

Because of these prongs, I am seriously and negatively influenced against NGC's current product. I still believe they are the superior company, and appreciate and love them for their hosting these discussion boards in an open and tolerant manner. And while I think it is somewhat rude to infer or declare that I will exclusively use their competition's product, I do not think there is any problem with me making an impassioned plea for NGC to change their current market strategy. I do not think it is wrong to let them know that there is significant discontentment among their customers. And I do not think it wrong to ask them to either change their holders or make them optional.

 

Wow, I'm starting to feel like Al But, I think it important that I clearly put forth why I don't like these holders, rather than just ranting and "making trouble." Hopefully we can rally enough support to make NGC change their mind!

 

Well thought out - I agree completely.

[Coin]

I'm not even gonna ask how you found a 2009 , slabbed, already on its way ....better let Dena or Joiseygirl know she's gonna need to open a slot for it on the reg ! (thumbs u

 

Back to the post topic ....rather than prongs , do you think using the NCS gasket would be another option to make photographing easier ? I already know that NGC states that the white insert is their trademark / brand , but wonder if they couldn't make the prong style optional , the white style optional and maybe a white style with the NCS semi-clear insert another option?

[coinman1794]

 

Finally, and quite alarmingly, is the issue of toning, turning, or other negative factors associated with the prongs touching the fields. This is more speculative than the other issues I have, but it does not seem farfetched to me to believe that this plastic being placed on the surface of the coin is potentially hazardous. We all know that coins continue to tone in the holders, sometimes due to air leaks, and sometimes, as in the case of numerous different early generations, due to the holders themselves. I am sure that this plastic has been tested in a lab, and specially designed to be safe for coins, but these measures can never replace long term real world situations. These prongs have the potential to significantly and negatively impact the surfaces of coins. Of course, the old style holders did also, but they were held uniformly at the edge, never directly on the face of the coin. This uniformity is the key when talking about holder induced toning, I believe. With the prongs, it is likely that you will have "prong toning," analogous to the "tab toning" on classic commemoratives. While tab toning is sometimes attractive and due to the original packaging, "prong toning" opens up a whole new field of questions.

 

I see potential for prong toning as well. But, I will note in fairness to NGC, that for coins properly placed into edgeview inserts that actually fit the coin properly (granted, that only happens on some coins), the prongs DO OVERLAP the face of the coin, but they DO NOT TOUCH THE SURFACES. Still they are close enough to theoretically affect the surfaces, chemically, over a long period of time.

[DC Dawg]

I wish NGC would give us a choice between the pronged insert and the non-pronged insert. If I get a coin slabbed that does not have anything spectacular about the rim, I would opt for the non-pronged insert.

 

Scott