1960's proof sets
AUandAG
Posts: 24,794 ✭✭✭✭✭
Was having a discussion with a fellow numismatist about proof sets in envelopes. He had a bunch of "sealed from the mint" sets, or so he said.
I said the Mint did not seal the sets and they sent them out un-sealed. It was up to the owner or a humid environment to seal the sets, said I.
He disagreed.
I said, then how do you explain all the unsealed sets on ebay with no damage to the flap?
He said they were steamed open.
I said, balderdash.
Discussion ended.
Obviously I don't believe the Mint had the capability to wet and seal the sets. If so, then why weren't all of them sealed?
Discuss, what do you think?
bob 
This is not the person I was having a discussion with....just an ebay listing. I bet I could get DNA off those flaps.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/265846891215?
Comments
I can't say with absolute certainty that no proof envelope was ever sealed at the mint, but I can say that at least many or most were shipped unsealed.
If you bought one set, it came in a sealed envelope. I’ll post photos tomorrow. If you bought multiple sets, I can’t say for sure. In the early ‘60s, you could order up to 200 sets a once. Now, as to when you got them, that was a question. You could always make money when you bought Proof sets from the mint back then. The only major exception was the 1957 set which feel below the issue price, $2.10, for a while.
I will close with this. Anyone who buys “unopened” Proof sets is asking for trouble. You might get an honest unopened set, but more likely, you will get cull sets at best or sheets of zinc at worst. The chances that they will be bargain are remote.
I have never seen the kind of machinery that would be used at the mint to seal envelopes. Certainly someone would have pics or such.
Not disputing your assessment just wondered what they paid for a licker, if they could find one.
bob
My recollection of the sets was the proof sets were almost alway sealed. Mints sets were not. I would say most unsealed sets are in after market envelopes or steamed open. I have many sets bought in the early seventies that are unopened or sliced across the top or side envelope.
Martin
There are videos of 1965 SMS sets being opened on camera from sealed mint boxes - the sets show no indication whatsoever of being sealed. To me, this is proof that the mint never indented to seal the sets.
I see no reason why the mint would seal proof sets but not 1965 SMS sets when they were packaged identically.
Coin Photographer.
We always got 2 sets every year in the 60’s. Still have them in the original unsealed envelopes.
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
I was 12 when I bought my 1st set. Now, 58 years later they still aren't sealed.
USN & USAF retired 1971-1993
Successful Transactions with more than 100 Members
The unsealed sets I have were definitely not steamed. The gum on the flap is undisturbed with no sign of residue on the envelope under the flap.
I imagine this one was probably sealed.
Because Mint sets were not?
Please explain all the 1960s proof sets that are slit open along the top. At least some of the sets were sealed.
Does that really provide any proof? An owner could have examined the set and then licked it shut to preserve it. Anyone could have sealed it after it left the mint.
bob
@jmlanzaf i am a firm believer that mint sets were not generally sealed and the proof sets were. (For the most part). When this subject comes up the consensus of the forum is that neither were sealed (for the most part). I remember at the coin club meeting the old timers, probably younger than I am now. Saying leave them sealed. I bough many as a kid . They were either sealed and still sealed or the envelope slit open with a knife. Side or top. I also purchased a bunch of sets at one time with no coa’s and without envelopes. You could buy after market envelopes on e-bay at one time.
Also as some back up. Russ and mad Marty were alway on the look out for true unopened 60 era proof sets. Russ could spot a after market envelope a mile away. If these were not sealed from the mint. Then why the hunt for them. If they have been resales as some one said to hide the dog sets. Then it would not be worth the effort to find fresh new unopened sets in hopes of a You Suck and or a nice score
Just my thoughts and memories
I also must give full disclosure I have a good case of CRS
Martin
At least some/many "sealed" sets were sealed due to humidity.
It was always a common occurrence with envelopes and stamps in the humid climate that I live in.
I know this is only technically on topic, but I have two sealed boxes of 20 1969 proof sets, straight from the mailing department.
Russ and I hunted for sets from the '60's at coin shows in the PNW. All that I found were not sealed.... and I did find several AH Kennedy halves that way. Cheers, RickO
This is one of the regular topics that comes up and it seems "urban myth" status has been attached to it. As with all things, it's virtually impossible to prove-the-negative so all we have is strong anecdotal evidence. All it takes(or took) during shipment of these sets is a slight amount of moisture from the humidity and pressure to "seal" a set upon arrival to the buyer. The same happens over time when the owner goes to open a set and finds it sealed.
Evidence seems to weigh heavily in favor of unsealed from the Mint and no one has ever provided anything to support their claim that the Mint sealed the sets. I think the
@daltex said: I know this is only technically on topic, but I have two sealed boxes of 20 1969 proof sets, straight from the mailing department.
Those sets are in black boxes and not manila envelopes.
I am sure this one was sealed.
Cool thread
Interesting.
What amazes me most is the coins never seem to be damaged inside those cellophane tombs?
Same material as the PVC proof holders?
"Jesus died for you and for me, Thank you,Jesus"!!!
--- If it should happen I die and leave this world and you want to remember me. Please only remember my opening Sig Line.Envelopes for 1960s era proof sets were made from stock envelopes and letterpress printed using a commonly available typeface. Exact duplicates of the original envelopes were available in the 1980s so no conclusions can be drawn from the envelopes themselves. A member of my coin club, a printer by trade, made many such envelopes for sale to dealers and collectors who wanted to get rid of the well worn proof set envelopes in their stock.
My sets entered my collection in the early 1970s, and other posters have indicated that they have sets that they themselves purchased new.
In these cases replacement envelopes are not a consideration.
My grandfather purchased them from the mint. The envelopes have his address on them and were sealed. He purchased 2 each year - I have one that was opened and one that is still sealed.
How could they have been mailed out unsealed? Wouldn't the proof set fall out?
@cladking
are these to what you referred to in your recent thread?
"Jesus died for you and for me, Thank you,Jesus"!!!
--- If it should happen I die and leave this world and you want to remember me. Please only remember my opening Sig Line.@psuman08 said: My grandfather purchased them from the mint. The envelopes have his address on them and were sealed. He purchased 2 each year - I have one that was opened and one that is still sealed.
How could they have been mailed out unsealed? Wouldn't the proof set fall out?
They weren't typically mailed in that fashion, the set(s) would be placed in a mailing envelope.
@ricko When you say unsealed I'm taking that to mean the flap was open and was unused? That just bends my mind, I recall the white mint sets to be open and unstuck, But the proof sets I was always pulling them out from the top that had been slit open with either the red or green COA's or the sets were sealed shut. I have a hard time thinking that people would be getting them from the mint and licking them shut, they didn't do that with the early 60's mint sets. I lived in the dry side of Washington so the humidity and moisture in the air I'm sure were not causing them to self stick.
I'm probably wrong about it but that is what is burned into my mind. One day I will need to figure out where the stash of sets is at and go thru them looking for any that are opened and un licked.
Thanks
Martin
@Martin.... Yes, definitely, the flap was open and had clearly never been sealed. No trace of remnant glue on the envelope... Cheers, RickO
The envelopes we received were sent in a small box. The box was sealed, the envelopes weren’t.
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
It seems pretty clear some sets were sealed and some were not.
An awful lot of the coins in the old proof sets have trouble but it's usually hazing. The newer proof sets have coins that haze as well and are less likely to clean up OK.
There is also some tarnish in the modern proof sets but this is usually pretty bad, apparently related to moisture, and looks like oxidation.
Now the tricky part. '65 SMS's tarnish similarly to the later mint sets but the early '64 proof sets rarely do. While the '68 and later mint sets are four layers of plastic and I blame the tarnish on the soft inner layers I don't think the '64 SMS or the earlier proof sets are four layers. I suspect the '65 and earlier sets are chemically similar and the hazing and tarnish are caused by small amounts of moisture but the later sets are a chemical reaction either with the coin, the by-products of the disintegration of plastic, or a reaction with something left on the coins. There is a lot of correlation with the aging of the plastic and the degree of tarnish. It appears that anything that causes the plastic to age results in tarnish. It gets softer and yellows in harsh conditions and even delaminates under very bad conditions. I believe the harshest conditions are when the coin is colder than the dewpoint of the surrounding air.
Some of the pre-'65 mint and proof sets still look pretty good and most clean up readily.
An great number of pre-'85 US coins in various sets are being lost every day. Later dates are less affected... ...so far.
ok. thanks for the confirmation.
just on the off chance some people are keeping really nice ones in the plastic, i am hoping a few TTT essentially will get the word out to make sure and keep an eye out on those coins, especially if they are expecting to resell or heir acquisition won't lose out on value unnecessarily by the coins being somewhat ruined by the time they get them.
Back when I was working for Harlan Berk, our go-to guy to wholesale out surplus flat packs was Val Webb. Sold him hundreds of them over the years if not thousands. So, I asked him.
He said that the 1955-1964 flat packs were run through a mailing machine that was either a Pitney Bowes 5600 or one like it. The machine inserted the flat pack and the cardboard card (if any) and was then supposed to seal the envelope. However, the machine had a water reservoir for the sealer, and the attendant had to refill it as necessary. If he did not, the envelopes either went through unsealed or were so weakly stuck down they were easy to pop open. Fully sealed was normal and most common.
He also said that the 1965 SMS were also supposed to be sealed, but quality control was very lax and maybe about 65% were actually sealed.
TD
I took a look at my sets (10 or 12 of them). Some were still sealed and cut open at the top, some had an open flap but had clearly been sealed at one time and some had an open flap and looked like they had barely been sealed. None looked like they had never been sealed.
@CaptHenway thanks for the information it make me feel a little better about my CSR. I also don’t feel the need to take the time to inspect the sets I’ve acquired over the last several decades. Although that actually might be fun. Looking at the set I picked to buy and see if I can pick out what I liked about them.
Thanks that info is great
Martin