I remember a thread posted years ago by Darth5oh that was very popular. (It is titled "Recently Acquired Collection" and it was followed up with a second thread titled "Recently Acquired Collection - The Sequel").
The thread told the story of he and his siblings inheriting a coin collection assembled by his grandparents. The collection included multiple Classic Commemoratives; and multiple proof sets from 1936 forward all in original government packaging that his grandparents purchased from the mint in the year of issue.
The proof sets from 1936-1942 in the collection were still in the OGP cellophane sleeves.
I have not looked at that thread in a long time. It sure was a fun one to read as it included many photographs of the coins in the collection.
I've seen a small number of 1936-1942 Proof sets in cellophane, inside small square boxes, as packaged and shipped by the Mint. There are images of original proof sets in their boxes from the mint in cellophane.
From 1936-1942?? I'd be interested in seeing images and more interested in seeing some sort of documentation. There are archived threads discussing this topic and I don't believe anyone, even Roger or PhillyJoe, has been able to provided any documentation of standardized packaging prior to 1950.
@Maywood said: I've seen a small number of 1936-1942 Proof sets in cellophane, inside small square boxes, as packaged and shipped by the Mint. There are images of original proof sets in their boxes from the mint in cellophane.
From 1936-1942?? I'd be interested in seeing images and more interested in seeing some sort of documentation. There are archived threads discussing this topic and I don't believe anyone, even Roger or PhillyJoe, has been able to provided any documentation of standardized packaging prior to 1950.
Here's an image:
Roger's book also states cello envelopes were used, and if I'm not mistaken there was a thread here stating that the 1936-42 boxes were slightly smaller. I'll have to look. @CaptHenway once purchased a set of 1942-P nickels in cello envelopes as they were shipped from the mint.
@FlyingAl said: Here's an image:
** if I'm not mistaken there was a thread here stating that the 1936-42 boxes were slightly smaller**.
Please understand I'm not trying be difficult or argumentative, but your post seems to contradict itself and lend additional credence to my contention that these early Proof Sets, when sold with "original" packaging, are simply re-packaged using the post-1950 materials. Perhaps that is done without the prior knowledge of the sellers or "heirs" who end up with them, but it tends to be what I see.
In the case of your image and subsequent comment, the box shown is larger than a typical box and not smaller, and the coins are clearly in 1954-55 style PolyBags and not cello pouches. Without something concrete, an archive record or something, I will continue to believe that these 1936-1942 individual coins as they were shipped and complete set of coins came as others have said, in whatever the Mint had to ship them in. That may have been an occasional larger box such as what's pictured or a simple envelope. I would like to be proven wrong but in all my years as a collector that hasn't happened.
@Maywood Those look like cello to me... the polybags don't have the seam up the middle on the back do they? Those also look to have the "crinkly" appearance of cello that the poly bags don't have. @FlyingAl who's set is that? Maybe we can get them to chime in.
That reminds me, I was at a show last year and a dealer had an in-box 1937 proof set. He was very busy so I did not get a chance to look at it. As I recall he wanted $3k for it.
Those cello pouches don't age well, they yellow and crack while the polybags, thanks to probably glycerine in the formulation, remain stable and supple. They also tend to heat sealed at the bottom.
Very nice acquisition! Amazing it’s not all hair-lined or rubbed from years in the packaging. Quite obvious it just sat somewhere, almost like it was in a time capsule. I think it could have squeaked by for a 66. Thanks for showing it and most definitely save the packaging.
@Maywood said: @FlyingAl said: Here's an image:
** if I'm not mistaken there was a thread here stating that the 1936-42 boxes were slightly smaller**.
Please understand I'm not trying be difficult or argumentative, but your post seems to contradict itself and lend additional credence to my contention that these early Proof Sets, when sold with "original" packaging, are simply re-packaged using the post-1950 materials. Perhaps that is done without the prior knowledge of the sellers or "heirs" who end up with them, but it tends to be what I see.
In the case of your image and subsequent comment, the box shown is larger than a typical box and not smaller, and the coins are clearly in 1954-55 style PolyBags and not cello pouches. Without something concrete, an archive record or something, I will continue to believe that these 1936-1942 individual coins as they were shipped and complete set of coins came as others have said, in whatever the Mint had to ship them in. That may have been an occasional larger box such as what's pictured or a simple envelope. I would like to be proven wrong but in all my years as a collector that hasn't happened.
Believe whatever you wish. I and many others have seen (in-hand) 1936-1942 Proof coins in cellophane, with original boxes, shipped from the Mint. To be clear, that means they weren't repackaged.
Edited to add:
I didn't see the sets linked below, but our cataloguers did. Too bad that only the boxes are imaged.
Those are indeed a different style box, too bad they didn't image the contents. I wonder why Heritage listed them like that?? My larger point is still that sellers repackage the coins so it's a mistake to assume just because a 1940 Proof coin is in a cellophane pouch that it's original packaging. I think a lot of people have been duped into paying extra money in that fashion.
I agree that there is never a way to know for sure if packaging is truly original, unless you are the original buyer.
Another reason to not really put any stock into the packaging.
Those are indeed a different style box, too bad they didn't image the contents. I wonder why Heritage listed them like that?? My larger point is still that sellers repackage the coins so it's a mistake to assume just because a 1940 Proof coin is in a cellophane pouch that it's original packaging. I think a lot of people have been duped into paying extra money in that fashion.
Thanks for the links.
Agreed that there are a lot of repackaged sets, but my guess is that many sellers don’t even know they’re offering repackaged ones. If you saw the email inquiries I receive, you might be shocked at what some people think constitutes “original” holders and packaging.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Maywood said: @FlyingAl said: Here's an image:
** if I'm not mistaken there was a thread here stating that the 1936-42 boxes were slightly smaller**.
Please understand I'm not trying be difficult or argumentative, but your post seems to contradict itself and lend additional credence to my contention that these early Proof Sets, when sold with "original" packaging, are simply re-packaged using the post-1950 materials. Perhaps that is done without the prior knowledge of the sellers or "heirs" who end up with them, but it tends to be what I see.
In the case of your image and subsequent comment, the box shown is larger than a typical box and not smaller, and the coins are clearly in 1954-55 style PolyBags and not cello pouches. Without something concrete, an archive record or something, I will continue to believe that these 1936-1942 individual coins as they were shipped and complete set of coins came as others have said, in whatever the Mint had to ship them in. That may have been an occasional larger box such as what's pictured or a simple envelope. I would like to be proven wrong but in all my years as a collector that hasn't happened.
Ok, Maywood is more right than I think we are, and I wasn't quite clear in my post but he said what I should have said.
Here's where he's more right than my post, I should have elaborated more. The mint did package the coins in cellophane or similar sleeves, and then packed them in whatever they had on hand. Usually, if an entire set or more than 5 coins were ordered, then a box of a smaller size than the 1950-55 sets was used (a quarter of an inch or so smaller). Some coins were sent in felt lined envelopes, these were used generally when the buyer ordered two or three individual proofs. The envelopes I don't think survived and they were discarded upon receipt.
As to the set imaged, I have no idea whose it is or if it is truly original. Based on Maywood's points, it's probably not but it was the only possible image I could come up with. I think Mark posted some sets that I need to look at, but those could be original. Roger's book also has an image of an original set from a mint buyer's estate, and those were in cello sleeves.
What I read was that early proofs were sold individually, and not always as a 'set', although many purchased all denominations. The packaging depended on size of order. This also explains different mintage of the proof coins in the individual year.
Search for and pull up the thread titled "Recently Acquired Collection - The Sequel" and read it (the prior thread titled "Recently Acquired Collection" apparently cannot be retrieved).
That thread has photographs of 5 coin prof sets from the 1936-1942 era in the OGP cello sleeves (they appear to be stapled together; and the photos do not show the packaging that the cello sleeves and coins were mailed in).
@Maywood said: I've seen a small number of 1936-1942 Proof sets in cellophane, inside small square boxes, as packaged and shipped by the Mint. There are images of original proof sets in their boxes from the mint in cellophane.
From 1936-1942?? I'd be interested in seeing images and more interested in seeing some sort of documentation. There are archived threads discussing this topic and I don't believe anyone, even Roger or PhillyJoe, has been able to provided any documentation of standardized packaging prior to 1950.
Here's an image:
Roger's book also states cello envelopes were used, and if I'm not mistaken there was a thread here stating that the 1936-42 boxes were slightly smaller. I'll have to look. @CaptHenway once purchased a set of 1942-P nickels in cello envelopes as they were shipped from the mint.
To clarify, we once bought in 10 1942 Proof cents in individual cellophane sleeves stapled together across the folded open ends and contained in one cardboard box, and 10 1942-P Proof warnix packaged the same way in a separate cardboard box.
These were not recycled 1950-1955 boxes. They were original.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@SilverEagle1974 said:
That's the nicest PR65 I've ever seen.
I'd buy it, for sure.
Chris
With no disrespect whatsoever, to the coin, you haven’t “seen” it.
No disrespect intended here either, but I do think that a lot of us would classify that coin as a very nice PR65. Very few come with that kind of "look" from this era.
@SilverEagle1974 said:
That's the nicest PR65 I've ever seen.
I'd buy it, for sure.
Chris
With no disrespect whatsoever, to the coin, you haven’t “seen” it.
No disrespect intended here either, but I do think that a lot of us would classify that coin as a very nice PR65. Very few come with that kind of "look" from this era.
I agree that the coin looks like a very nice PR65 and if I'd guessed the grade, I probably would have gone with PR66.
But I wouldn't declare a coin of any grade to be the nicest I'd seen without viewing it in hand. That was my only point.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@SilverEagle1974 said:
That's the nicest PR65 I've ever seen.
I'd buy it, for sure.
Chris
With no disrespect whatsoever, to the coin, you haven’t “seen” it.
No disrespect intended here either, but I do think that a lot of us would classify that coin as a very nice PR65. Very few come with that kind of "look" from this era.
I agree that the coin looks like a very nice PR65 and if I'd guessed the grade, I probably would have gone with PR66.
But I wouldn't declare a coin of any grade to be the nicest I'd seen without viewing it in hand. That was my only point.
Here is as bad as I could make it look. If you open images in a new tab or window they are large, you'll see the high point "stuff" going on. That really doesn't stand out in hand unless looked at a certain way under light. Overall it's a very nice PR65.
@ChrisH821 said:
Here is as bad as I could make it look. If you open images in a new tab or window they are large, you'll see the high point "stuff" going on. That really doesn't stand out in hand unless looked at a certain way under light. Overall it's a very nice PR65.
Do those look like contact marks on the buffalo’s shoulder? That may be it.
Do those look like contact marks on the buffalo’s shoulder? That may be it.
Also, any hairlines on it that you can see?
No hairlines at all, no contact marks either. Just dull spots I assume from sliding around in cellophane, or maybe it had some moisture in its packaging at some point, not sure. Oh, and whatever that spot is in front of the buffalo.
Whatever the case, I like it and am not upset at the 65 grade.
Do those look like contact marks on the buffalo’s shoulder? That may be it.
Also, any hairlines on it that you can see?
No hairlines at all, no contact marks either. Just dull spots I assume from sliding around in cellophane, or maybe it had some moisture in its packaging at some point, not sure. Oh, and whatever that spot is in front of the buffalo.
Whatever the case, I like it and am not upset at the 65 grade.
This is very interesting to me. If there aren't any hairlines or contact marks, I can't see why they gave it a 65. I've seen proofs with more haze than is present on your coin in 67 and 68 holders. I think many others here would concur.
Looking at coin facts, the two proofs at the 65 level present major spotting. Your coin clearly doesn't have this, so based on your statement I think we are either missing something or the grade is just off. Whatever it is this coin just doesn't have the 65 "look" to it, and it just seems much higher. One last question - does the coin appear very closely to the OP pictures in hand?
@FlyingAl somewhere between the sets of images. It really depends on the light and how you hold it.
I think what concerns me most now that I see it is the specks of -something- on the obverse. I don't know what it is or where it came from.
I'm still not seeing anything then that would make sense for the grade. The 65s on CoinFacts had black spots all over the place (I'd say 20 visible obvious ones on the coin). I see no obvious spots on your coin.
Comments
I remember a thread posted years ago by Darth5oh that was very popular. (It is titled "Recently Acquired Collection" and it was followed up with a second thread titled "Recently Acquired Collection - The Sequel").
The thread told the story of he and his siblings inheriting a coin collection assembled by his grandparents. The collection included multiple Classic Commemoratives; and multiple proof sets from 1936 forward all in original government packaging that his grandparents purchased from the mint in the year of issue.
The proof sets from 1936-1942 in the collection were still in the OGP cellophane sleeves.
I have not looked at that thread in a long time. It sure was a fun one to read as it included many photographs of the coins in the collection.
I've seen a small number of 1936-1942 Proof sets in cellophane, inside small square boxes, as packaged and shipped by the Mint.
There are images of original proof sets in their boxes from the mint in cellophane.
From 1936-1942?? I'd be interested in seeing images and more interested in seeing some sort of documentation. There are archived threads discussing this topic and I don't believe anyone, even Roger or PhillyJoe, has been able to provided any documentation of standardized packaging prior to 1950.
Here's an image:
Roger's book also states cello envelopes were used, and if I'm not mistaken there was a thread here stating that the 1936-42 boxes were slightly smaller. I'll have to look. @CaptHenway once purchased a set of 1942-P nickels in cello envelopes as they were shipped from the mint.
Coin Photographer.
John Albanese would rather have 1936 silver proofs toned original. I suspect he would say the same of the nickels.
very nice nickel and from the type of eBay seller I like .... solid eBay seller, good pictures, not much coin experience
@FlyingAl said: Here's an image:
** if I'm not mistaken there was a thread here stating that the 1936-42 boxes were slightly smaller**.
Please understand I'm not trying be difficult or argumentative, but your post seems to contradict itself and lend additional credence to my contention that these early Proof Sets, when sold with "original" packaging, are simply re-packaged using the post-1950 materials. Perhaps that is done without the prior knowledge of the sellers or "heirs" who end up with them, but it tends to be what I see.
In the case of your image and subsequent comment, the box shown is larger than a typical box and not smaller, and the coins are clearly in 1954-55 style PolyBags and not cello pouches. Without something concrete, an archive record or something, I will continue to believe that these 1936-1942 individual coins as they were shipped and complete set of coins came as others have said, in whatever the Mint had to ship them in. That may have been an occasional larger box such as what's pictured or a simple envelope. I would like to be proven wrong but in all my years as a collector that hasn't happened.
@Maywood Those look like cello to me... the polybags don't have the seam up the middle on the back do they? Those also look to have the "crinkly" appearance of cello that the poly bags don't have.
@FlyingAl who's set is that? Maybe we can get them to chime in.
Collector, occasional seller
That reminds me, I was at a show last year and a dealer had an in-box 1937 proof set. He was very busy so I did not get a chance to look at it. As I recall he wanted $3k for it.
Collector, occasional seller
Interesting conversation. They look like cello to me also, at least from 30,000 ft.
Tom
Those cello pouches don't age well, they yellow and crack while the polybags, thanks to probably glycerine in the formulation, remain stable and supple. They also tend to heat sealed at the bottom.
Very nice acquisition! Amazing it’s not all hair-lined or rubbed from years in the packaging. Quite obvious it just sat somewhere, almost like it was in a time capsule. I think it could have squeaked by for a 66. Thanks for showing it and most definitely save the packaging.
Believe whatever you wish. I and many others have seen (in-hand) 1936-1942 Proof coins in cellophane, with original boxes, shipped from the Mint. To be clear, that means they weren't repackaged.
Edited to add:
I didn't see the sets linked below, but our cataloguers did. Too bad that only the boxes are imaged.
https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-sets/1937-five-piece-proof-set-uncertified-housed-in-original-mint-packaging-with-cellophane-envelopes-tissue-paper-and-squar/a/132218-22118.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-sets/1938-five-piece-proof-set-uncertified-housed-in-original-mint-packaging-with-cellophane-envelopes-tissue-paper-and-squar/a/132218-22119.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-sets/1939-five-piece-proof-set-uncertified-housed-in-original-mint-packaging-with-cellophane-envelopes-tissue-paper-and-squar/a/132218-22120.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-sets/1940-five-piece-proof-set-uncertified-housed-in-original-mint-packaging-with-cellophane-envelopes-tissue-paper-and-squar/a/132218-22121.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-sets/1941-five-piece-proof-set-uncertified-housed-in-original-mint-packaging-with-cellophane-envelopes-tissue-paper-and-squar/a/132218-22123.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-sets/1942-five-piece-proof-set-uncertified-housed-in-original-mint-packaging-with-cellophane-envelopes-tissue-paper-and-squar/a/132218-22124.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Those are indeed a different style box, too bad they didn't image the contents. I wonder why Heritage listed them like that?? My larger point is still that sellers repackage the coins so it's a mistake to assume just because a 1940 Proof coin is in a cellophane pouch that it's original packaging. I think a lot of people have been duped into paying extra money in that fashion.
Thanks for the links.
I agree that there is never a way to know for sure if packaging is truly original, unless you are the original buyer.
Another reason to not really put any stock into the packaging.
Collector, occasional seller
15> @Maywood said:
Agreed that there are a lot of repackaged sets, but my guess is that many sellers don’t even know they’re offering repackaged ones. If you saw the email inquiries I receive, you might be shocked at what some people think constitutes “original” holders and packaging.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Ok, Maywood is more right than I think we are, and I wasn't quite clear in my post but he said what I should have said.
Here's where he's more right than my post, I should have elaborated more. The mint did package the coins in cellophane or similar sleeves, and then packed them in whatever they had on hand. Usually, if an entire set or more than 5 coins were ordered, then a box of a smaller size than the 1950-55 sets was used (a quarter of an inch or so smaller). Some coins were sent in felt lined envelopes, these were used generally when the buyer ordered two or three individual proofs. The envelopes I don't think survived and they were discarded upon receipt.
As to the set imaged, I have no idea whose it is or if it is truly original. Based on Maywood's points, it's probably not but it was the only possible image I could come up with. I think Mark posted some sets that I need to look at, but those could be original. Roger's book also has an image of an original set from a mint buyer's estate, and those were in cello sleeves.
Coin Photographer.
What I read was that early proofs were sold individually, and not always as a 'set', although many purchased all denominations. The packaging depended on size of order. This also explains different mintage of the proof coins in the individual year.
Search for and pull up the thread titled "Recently Acquired Collection - The Sequel" and read it (the prior thread titled "Recently Acquired Collection" apparently cannot be retrieved).
That thread has photographs of 5 coin prof sets from the 1936-1942 era in the OGP cello sleeves (they appear to be stapled together; and the photos do not show the packaging that the cello sleeves and coins were mailed in).
Absolutely beautiful coin.
I'm just catching up with this thread and wanted say congrats on the PR Buff.
Also enjoying the packaging discussion.
Love this era of proof coinage.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
That's the nicest PR65 I've ever seen.
I'd buy it, for sure.
Chris
With no disrespect whatsoever, to the coin, you haven’t “seen” it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
To clarify, we once bought in 10 1942 Proof cents in individual cellophane sleeves stapled together across the folded open ends and contained in one cardboard box, and 10 1942-P Proof warnix packaged the same way in a separate cardboard box.
These were not recycled 1950-1955 boxes. They were original.
TD
True, I'll take a "bad" picture of it when I get it back.
Collector, occasional seller
No disrespect intended here either, but I do think that a lot of us would classify that coin as a very nice PR65. Very few come with that kind of "look" from this era.
Coin Photographer.
I agree that the coin looks like a very nice PR65 and if I'd guessed the grade, I probably would have gone with PR66.
But I wouldn't declare a coin of any grade to be the nicest I'd seen without viewing it in hand. That was my only point.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Ok, my misunderstanding. Thanks!
Coin Photographer.
Here is as bad as I could make it look. If you open images in a new tab or window they are large, you'll see the high point "stuff" going on. That really doesn't stand out in hand unless looked at a certain way under light. Overall it's a very nice PR65.
Collector, occasional seller
Do those look like contact marks on the buffalo’s shoulder? That may be it.
Also, any hairlines on it that you can see?
Coin Photographer.
No hairlines at all, no contact marks either. Just dull spots I assume from sliding around in cellophane, or maybe it had some moisture in its packaging at some point, not sure. Oh, and whatever that spot is in front of the buffalo.
Whatever the case, I like it and am not upset at the 65 grade.
Collector, occasional seller
This is very interesting to me. If there aren't any hairlines or contact marks, I can't see why they gave it a 65. I've seen proofs with more haze than is present on your coin in 67 and 68 holders. I think many others here would concur.
Looking at coin facts, the two proofs at the 65 level present major spotting. Your coin clearly doesn't have this, so based on your statement I think we are either missing something or the grade is just off. Whatever it is this coin just doesn't have the 65 "look" to it, and it just seems much higher. One last question - does the coin appear very closely to the OP pictures in hand?
Coin Photographer.
@FlyingAl somewhere between the sets of images. It really depends on the light and how you hold it.
I think what concerns me most now that I see it is the specks of -something- on the obverse. I don't know what it is or where it came from.
Collector, occasional seller
I'm still not seeing anything then that would make sense for the grade. The 65s on CoinFacts had black spots all over the place (I'd say 20 visible obvious ones on the coin). I see no obvious spots on your coin.
Coin Photographer.