I know some prefer the old slabs visually to the new ones - for NGC and PCGS - assuming the slab is reasonably well cared for and not beat to hell. Others think grading standards in both companies were stricter back then and try to bump prices based on supposed upgrade potential while not actually incuring the risk / expense of sending it back in... Mailing in for a reholder will probably cost $20+ per coin all in after shipping so there's that.

All I know on it.

I agree with Revenant on his points and I'll add just a little to his excellent response. The old holders are becoming rare in the marketplace. As such they are becoming collectibles apart from the coin itself. For example, the old NGC black holder and the PCGS doily holders command premiums for the holder apart from the coin. I have rarely if ever come across one of these in my search for new coins. Gary

Is there real evidence that old holders command a premium? And is there any real documentation that grading standards were stricter? Also, what id a "doily" holder? Thanks.

I've seen people talk up the fact that it's in an old holder while asking a higher price but I don't know that I've ever explicitly seen someone pay more for this reason outside of the people that openly collect holders/slab styles because they enjoy that.

Most of the old fatty NGC holders I have because the coin was in the price range I was expecting and the seller wasn't asking for grade-up money.

I've also never heard of anyone beibg willing to put enough money down to thoroughly test the hypothesis of the upgrade potential.

24 minutes ago, Sheik Sheck said:

Is there real evidence that old holders command a premium? And is there any real documentation that grading standards were stricter? Also, what id a "doily" holder? Thanks.

https://coinweek.com/education/coin-grading/ngc/why-are-ngc-certified-coins-in-old-holders-in-such-demand/

https://www.pcgs.com/holders/Gen2.0

There is evidence for the NGC black holder given in a 2015 Coinweek article written by Jeff Garrett. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. To best describe it I am also pasting a link to a picture of the doily holder. This link will also show you a picture of every generation PCGS Holder. NGC does likewise on their main website. Personally, I like the PCGS OGH holder the best of the classic holders. I don't much care for rattlers. Gary

Thanks for the information and links. Very informative. 

2 hours ago, Sheik Sheck said:

Is there real evidence that old holders command a premium? And is there any real documentation that grading standards were stricter? Also, what id a "doily" holder? Thanks.

A couple weeks back I flipped an "ugly" MS63 Morgan (common date) for 40% profit in 10 days simply because it was in the gen 3 pcgs holder.  Well, I say simply, but like @gherrmann44 mentioned the holders themselves are almost the rarity.  If there's 50 copies of a common coin available but only 1 or 2 in an out of print holder then those 2 instantly become the exception to the population.

I picked up this rattler in a small show in Pittsburgh this past February, it sold for 135.00 so no premium for the holder as far as I can see.

PS- Those random spots are actually just a design element on the kitchen table that can be seen through the transparent slab.

These are all excellent points. Here is my take on the whole thing. I almost entirely collect copper coins. If a copper coin is in an older holder and has nice eye appeal I might consider paying a premium. It’s not so much the holder that would influence that decision but more so the stability the holder implies. Copper coins can change color over time. If given the choice between two red designated coins that are equal in all other ways I am more likely to select the coin in an old fatty or old green holder for a slight premium than a coin in a modern holder. The reason for this is the older holder suggests that the coin is stable and indicates to me at some level that I should not expect any major changes in color for the foreseeable future.

Just saying, buy the coin and not the holder! Watched a person slap down 5 thousand for a NGC MS 70 1996 Silver Eagle with scuff marks on the sun. Why? Because the label says I am perfect. I went thru a monster box and found 4 pcs out of 500 that I though would grab the 70 number. 3 did not, ONE did get the MS 70. Price paid for coin $2.30 above melt. First grade the coin, then make a decision to purchase based on the price. There are a lot of wonderful coins sitting out there in older holders dating back to the middle of the last decade. 

On 4/14/2019 at 9:06 PM, CRAWTOMATIC said:

A couple weeks back I flipped an "ugly" MS63 Morgan (common date) for 40% profit in 10 days simply because it was in the gen 3 pcgs holder.  Well, I say simply, but like @gherrmann44 mentioned the holders themselves are almost the rarity.  If there's 50 copies of a common coin available but only 1 or 2 in an out of print holder then those 2 instantly become the exception to the population.

It's a different strokes for different folks thing. We're all attracted to different things and the holders and the TPGs are an extra layer of history and story onto the coin and the hobby - similar to my comments / journals at the time I got my 1877 10G, chosing the coin that I did in part because the cert# suggests a shared history with other coins in my set.

OK, to summarize. OGH or rattlers DO NOT increase the value of a coin. It's just a myth. Most folks purchase the coin, not the holder. There is no real evidence that OGH improve the value. Also, that the grading standards were "tougher" back in the 80's and that is the reason values may be greater...that's not a real fact either. It's really just a marketing tactic so on Ebay, for the rookie or untrained eye, if I hear enough times in the title description of a coin, "Awesome Coin in OGH" then i might get a premium if the buyer believes that OGH has some intrinsic value. But those collectors that are slightly more sophisticated are only looking at the coin, not the holder. 

10 hours ago, Sheik Sheck said:

Also, that the grading standards were "tougher" back in the 80's and that is the reason values may be greater...that's not a real fact either. 

This is not scientific evidence, but it is anecdotal: of the limited number of gold CAC stickered coins that I have seen, I do not recall a single one that was not in an early holder. Evidently, JA thought these were deserving of an upgrade by today's standards.