II believe what you describe is valid.  A baptism is valid without the entire ceremony.  Communion may be administered outside of Holy Mass.  A person may receive Extreme Unction while dying on the battlefield.  Naturally, it is better to have the full ceremony, but circuмstances sometimes prevent that from happening.  
It would be unusual for a bishop to ordain a priest in the manner you describe, but it might be done in the case of a conditional ordination, or if it must be done quickly, as under persecution.  One wouldn’t risk a full ordination ceremony if Catholics were in danger of being immediately hauled off to prison or martyrdom.

You say "sacraments" without "solemn ceremonies".  Isn't there a degree of uncertainty whether a priest, simply reciting "This is My Body" and "This is the Chalice of My Blood", outside of Mass, is valid?  If I recall correctly, +Williamson expressed some doubt.  Would it be any more probably valid, if a priest were only to say the part of the canon that incorporates these prayers, and nothing else?

I know the 1983 CIC refers to this scenario as "nefas est", the 1917 Code forbids it (per Woywod/Smith) but the commentary does not use those words.

I think of it as kind of like going in and tinkering with computer source code --- you have no idea what else it is going to affect.  Back in the old DOS days, I would amuse myself sometimes by opening GIF and JPG code, going in and jacking it up at random, and seeing what it made the image look like.  "Chewed out little pieces" is about the best way to describe the result.

You say "sacraments" without "solemn ceremonies".  Isn't there a degree of uncertainty whether a priest, simply reciting "This is My Body" and "This is the Chalice of My Blood", outside of Mass, is valid?  If I recall correctly, +Williamson expressed some doubt.  Would it be any more probably valid, if a priest were only to say the part of the canon that incorporates these prayers, and nothing else?

I know the 1983 CIC refers to this scenario as "nefas est", the 1917 Code forbids it (per Woywod/Smith) but the commentary does not use those words.

I think of it as kind of like going in and tinkering with computer source code --- you have no idea what else it is going to affect.  Back in the old DOS days, I would amuse myself sometimes by opening GIF and JPG code, going in and jacking it up at random, and seeing what it made the image look like.  "Chewed out little pieces" is about the best way to describe the result.

I was always taught that it is, indeed, valid. For instance, a satanic (catholic) priest who consecrates in a satanic black mass: it is a valid consecrated Host.

Obviously, a Satanic mass, although valid if performed by a real priest, gives no graces at all, rather, brings down God’s cursing upon the participants.  
So, yes, I think more graces are available from a complete ceremony. Whether they are received or not is up to the souls of the participants.  This is a somewhat sticky area.  We must be careful not to make rash judgments based upon what happened outwardly.  A Holy Communion received under conditions of great risk, ie. in a POW camp, may confer more graces than that received in an ornate cathedral in context of a reverent Mass.  Remember the widow’s mite worth more than the Pharisee’s gold, or the prayer of the tax collector who went to his home justified while the Pharisee had his reward in the admiration of vain men.

Nice answer. 

Two kinds of grace: actual grace and sanctifying grace.  Read your catechism.
.
Grace from baptism places an indelible mark on the soul.  You can't get more or less indelible.

I know that sacrament of Baptism gives the First santifyng grace and an indelible spiritual mark, but I am not talking about the sacrament itself, but the cerimonies that surrounds it, witch I belive they confer the Second sanctifyng grace or actual graces.