Are most of the coins in the old one year run of ANA slabs undergraded? I have an 1881-S Morgan in MS64 that looks 65+. Are those slabs usually undergraded?
Occasionally but the old "hotel soap" slabs are usually dead nuts to today's standards and collectible in their own right today
Those are NGC not ANA "anacs" slabs. Those are actually called "soap bar" no-line fatties. I started calling the tiny ANA anacs slabs "hotel soap" slabs after them and it caught on. Those do have a chance at being undergraded by today's standards but most have been picked over for the undergraded ones that would be worth a crackout or bean. Notice that one already has a GOLD bean! Again though, Those have a following as well
Here is one of my gold coins in an ana holder.... https://www.cointalk.com/threads/ju...e-holder-guess-the-grade.269351/#post-2252997
There have been numerous slab types from ANACS, NGC & PCGS that were thought to have been graded by tougher standards, and many of those coins have long since been re-submitted for the higher grades. Yes, you might find an under-graded specimen from time to time, but it's like CRH-ing for 90% silver these days. It gets harder and harder to find them. Chris
The ANACS/ANA slabs (gold hologram on the reverse, XXnnnn format s/n) are the oldest. These were graded strictly to ANA standards which have, for many coins, loosened over the years. The ANACS/Amos slabs (Black hologram with Red or Gold A and numeric s/n) are the next oldest. Under Amos' ownership, the slide to 'market grading' began and some think they went too far. So it's a race to the bottom between how loose the standards that were applied then vs. how loose the standards are today. So: There are SOME ANACS small white holder (SWH) slabs that are undergraded, but many that are not - it largely depends on whether they are fresh to the market or they've been picked over many, many times by dealers and owners in the interval looking to upgrade them. So there is no blanket answer, it depends on the coin not the slab.
Although the grading standards may have been higher during that period in the ANA grading history, I think that the market would have corrected itself by now, through crackouts, so the number of undergraded coins lines up on par with the number of undergraded coins in later version slabs. I hope that made sense, as I don't want to write a longer response.
The probability of any coin in any slab being undergraded (or, in more general terms, underpriced) decreases every time someone with "can I buy this and get an upgrade (or make easy money)" on their mind looks at it. It doesn't matter how old the slab is. If you have a coin in a beat-up rattler or fat NGC holder that you just bought at a show, most likely it's either not undergraded or not worth trying to upgrade.
It's been sitting in my collection for 30+ years. I was asking the question as to whether I should crack out and resubmit or sell as is.
Yours, then, is one of those heretofore-unseen examples which Burton alluded to, but consider NorthKorea's (true, INO) statement that overall grading has sort of reverted to that higher standard of previous generations. All said and done, I'd keep it just as it is. 1881-S won't buy you enough profit between 64 and 65 to justify the investment; in fact, the older slab will probably offer a greater return.
Pictures would help you get more solid advice, but if it looks like a high-end 65, I'd first try to sell it as is for 65 money minus grading expenses. That may save you some time and hassle.
Actually, those ANACS holders are accurately graded. They are just 'mis-labeled/mis-graded/undergraded' according to today's looser standards.