'68-D half dollar "experiment".
cladking
Posts: 28,701 ✭✭✭✭✭
I put "162" really nice '68-D half dollars in a safety deposit box in a humidity controlled bank in the late-'70s. Unfortunately I left them in the mint set plastic. I don't recall all the sources but most of these were cherry picked from a dealer who was cutting up a large quantity of sets and had more of the '68's than he needed.
Out of "162" coins only "4" didn't require a soak in alcohol. "111" of the coins were chBU or better after cleaning and "51" were ruined by spotting. There were "9" Gems and "2" PL's.
Usually only about 45% of '68 mint set halfs on the market clean up OK but this drops every year.
"Retail friendly" sets are getting very difficult to find since every set has at least a little discoloration on almost all coins. I'm seeing some really large premiums to market for retail sets. The '69 is toughest followed closely by the '70, and then the '68.
In the past most '68 mint sets accumulated by wholesalers ended up in sets. For many years most dealers just cut them up for the cash register. Now it appears that most accumulations are being cut up for singles to supply this burgeoning market. "Retail friendly" '68 singles sell for $7.50 for the half, $2.50 for the quarters, $1.50 for the dimes, and $1 each for the rest.
Of course as the number of sets decreases and the percentage that can be cleaned plummets it's just a matter of time before demand overtakes the supply. A lot of the few still acceptable sets will tarnish if those paying retail prices allow it.
These are interesting times for moderns. Perhaps not as exciting as a year ago but all the trends in place then are continuing. I suppose the acceleration in demand might have eased a little from an extremely high level.
Comments
that is interesting and unfortunate to read.
this does make me feel better about emphasizing that people check on their collections, no matter what or where, raw or certified, at least a few times a year. the risk of not doing so is overshadowed by the possibility of huge losses or even just damage to prized possessions (sentimental or otherwise). rarely have i seen/read where someone just had one or two/few out of a huge quantity have problems. usually whatever affects the few, affects the whole. that aside.
i've always enjoyed your thorough and knowledgeable analysis regarding post '64 coinage.
Indeed.
I find it highly unfortunate that most of the supply of moderns are still in mint set plastic and owners don't even realize these coins are slowly being destroyed. In some cases it's not a simple matter of merely cutting the coins out and soaking them in acetone or alcohol because so many are beyond redemption. The two with the highest frequency of being ruined are in the '68 set as well. The Philly dime, which doesn't come nice very often anyway, can be saved only about 30% of the time and the Philly cent is less than 5%.
I should have learned my lesson years ago. Through a long and complex series of trades I ended up with a virtually flawless 1907 cent. It had little value in those days but I treasured it because it was the finest indian cent I had ever seen. After a few years in a safety deposit box I discovered it had a huge carbon spot on the obverse. I knew 20 years ago that poorly stored mint sets were starting to have trouble but was too slow to react. Even cu/ ni clad BU rolls will go bad sometimes.
When I saw "safety deposit box" in the first sentence, I knew it was going downhill from there. Sorry to hear about the outcome. 😫 ☹️
Disclaimer: I'm not a dealer, trader, grader, investor or professional numismatist. I'm just a hobbyist. (To protect me but mostly you! 🤣 )
Pictures or it didn't happen.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
i appreciate the emphasis that mint sets (proof sets too i presume) are destined to die a spotty death. i must not have paid enough attention and/or had enough to encounter this, else i would have said it is raining meatballs LONG ago.
Well that information has motivated me to check my mint sets packed away. Not today, heading to work shortly. But soon. Cheers, RickO
Proof sets are affected and in some ways are even worse. It's often hard to tell the coins are even hazed through the plastic and because they haze very evenly rather than being splotchy like mint set tarnish. While most dates aren't affected or only a few are bad the dates that are problematical there can be large percentages that are hazy. But the real issue here is that most proofs can't be cleaned, at least not by any method I've tried.
Proof set mintages are so high that this might not be a problem for some years yet. However, demand for proof sets tends to to be high as well. The '68-S half had a mintage of three million but the attrition is nearly as high as with mint sets and bad coins are less likely to be salvaged. Bear in mind I don't foresee any near term shortage but who knows about longer term. I have seen some temporary sky high wholesale prices on several modern proofs and believe it's because It's getting difficult to fill orders for promotions due to the tarnish. All these sets used to exist in enormous quantities on the wholesale market but laying your hands on such quantities isn't as easy as it once was. The sets have been demolished to make proof rolls and they don't come in in the quantities they once did. They don't accumulate in dealer inventories and their inventories now are used to satisfy an anemic retail demand.
There might not be even 1/2 million mint sets left but there are likely still 1 1/2 million proof sets.
In 1980 it was pretty easy to find a Gem '68-D half. Now you'll have to look at four times as many sets that are far more difficult to find and some can't be cleaned. PR69 '68-S halfs are still not terribly difficult but sets are noticeably harder to find. Proofs are beautiful coins and there will always be demand.
I'll be happy if even a few coins are saved.
Thank you, but it turned out a little better than my expectations. They looked better before and after the soak than most batches of '68-D halfs in cello. Even the rejects that have to be sold at melt are a nice looking batch of rejects.
why are you calling it mint set plastic for your 68-D's?
The mint made sets of "all" coins produced "each year" from '65 to date. Most of these sets are packaged in the center of four layers of plastic with two stiffer outside layers and two very thin and soft inner layers. There were usually two of these sets packed in an envelope with a Philly and a Denver packet for each date.
Apparently the thin inner layers react with the coins in some ways with copper and 80% silver (cladding) being the most adversely affected. Many people over the years, many following Alan Herbert's advice, cut the individual windows out of the packets as an inexpensive means of long term storage but in this case you don't even get what you pay for since the plastic is not stable or possibly, the coins aren't stable when in this plastic. The plastic does undergo some physical, chemical changes, over the years since it yellows and softens. I suspect there's a lot of off gassing and it could be this causing the trouble. But most coins still inside this mint plastic, also called "cello" are usually ruined for many dates with '68 being one of the worst. While only 2 1/2 percent of '68-D half stored under ideal conditions were unaffected nearly 40% were ruined by unremovable tarnish (Mostly small white splotches after soaking in acetone). Usually a significantly higher percentage are ruined by the plastic but these were stored under good conditions for many years.
I just didn't want to spend two or three cents per coin to store them so I carefully cut them out of the mint set leaving the seal around them intact. It really doesn't matter if the seal is broken or not because it's the plastic causing the problem. Fortunately I did remove some coins and clean them in alcohol and put them in holders but most are in the mint set plastic.
The populations of some of these coins has been decimated by this practice. '68 cents and dimes are among the worst. Nice chBU BU dimes that are well made by serviceable dies and pristine are one of the most elusive clads. MS-60's are tough enough but MS-63 and 64's are disappearing at a breakneck pace and collectors don't even notice. Fewer than 40% of the '68 dimes looked good in 1968 and now the few left are tarnished and only 30% clean up OK.
These coins should have been removed from the plastic the mint shipped them in in 1968.
After reading this, I’ll be removing a number of sets for an acetone bath and a new home.
I suspect many, like me, were assuming they were more collectible still in the original packaging.
Just to be sure it should be mentioned that a set premium might develop for pristine sets. I personally am cutting them all to protect the coins and there are few pristine sets anyway. I believe in the long run every set will be worth the sum of the coins in it. Badly tarnished coins are the least likely to clean up and every year the coins get worse.
If there are any pristine '68 sets out there they might have a significant premium in a few years. I'm seeing problems with every set, often they are minor but typically they are significant.
Good luck.
I'm probably understating the complexity of what's going on here because the later sets ('84+) are a more stable plastic and a few of these coins go bad as well. They have a lower probability of being saved but only a few tarnish. The problem might have as much to do with something left on the coin at the mint or moisture after being sealed as it does with the unstable plastic. BU roll coins often have a very similar appearance and they seldom come clean.