Interesting 1969 Proof Set
cmerlo1
Posts: 7,923 ✭✭✭✭✭
McBride's, one of the B&M's here in Austin recently acquired several US Mint bulk proof set boxes of different dates (1969, 1970, and 1971). Being that these are happy hunting grounds for varieties, I examined each set. I didn't find any varieties, but I did find this set, in which the cent was toned purple with pink polka-dots. I've seen and owned several 1970-S sets where the cent has awesome target toning because of a sealing issue with the plastic holder, but this doesn't seem the case with this one. I noticed:
- The coin is purple with pink spots. This, to me, indicates some kind of chemical exposure.
- There are hairlines on the obverse of the coin, the most obvious of which is a patch above 'LIBERTY'.
- The reverse looks completely normal.
- Aside from some light fogging on the half, which is common for sets in these holders, I see no other sign of a sealing error.
- The set is fresh from a bulk box from the US mint, and this was the only set that looked like this.
Any ideas how this happened? After discussing with some friends who were in the shop when I found it, we wondered if maybe the coin was found in the bottom of one of the packaging machines after having been there for a while, wiped, then packaged...
Comments
I suppose everyone has their own tastes, but as a Proof set collector, this would not make me happy.
The planchets were washed in a solution before they were struck. Sometimes the mint didn't rinse them properly and the coins toned.
Alternatively, there have been some years where the insert in the mint holder is not inert. That has often toned the cents which are the most vulnerable to chemical reactions. I have not made a study of which years are prone to this, but some dealers have seen enough of them to note it.
Proof Ike Dollars from 1971 to '74 often become cloudy in the mint holder.
Definitely a strange cent.
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW
These sets are so common that if I happened upon the OPs set I'd purchase it as it does stand out from the crowd.
Although the cent is not worthy grading it is a neat coin and presents itself well (along with the CAM nickel and half).
peacockcoins
interesting..
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Obverse fields do indeed looked wiped.
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
The wipe is stranger to me than the toning (which I do like the look of). Your theory is as good as any I can come up with of how this happened.
I assumed that was scratches on the plastic casing?
peacockcoins
From the original post:
"There are hairlines on the obverse of the coin, the most obvious of which is a patch above 'LIBERTY'."
...and it certainly looks like it from the photo.
They are on the coin. That's what's so strange about it. It is NOT die polish. This had to have been done prior to the coin being sealed in the holder.
I got the set for $7. That's exactly how I felt- it's interesting and cheap enough to be worth it.
I have a 69 Proof Lincoln that has a reverse that looks a lot like the obverse of the OPs coin without the spots. I kinda like the color that is on mine. The OPs coin would make a nice end piece for mine. What does the reverse of the Jefferson look like?
well... icky but... they were hand packaged. Somebody sneezed and wiped the evidence off the coin...
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
I like the set. I too would have bought that set
Martin
Proof sets from 1968 well into the 1970s occasionally show one side of a copper-nickel coin toned a bright yellow. I have long had a theory that new Proof dies were given a light coating of some sort of oil, presumably to prevent rusting. If the die was not de-greased prior to use, it would leave a coating on at least the first coin struck. That coating could tone just that side of the coin. Perhaps the hypothetical oil tones copper purple.
Re: Purple spotted coin
1. Coming from a proof set ? Would this classify as natural toning ? me- .....sure
2. I'm not sure of this statement so I'll ask in the form of a question.
Could the toning go from ugly to gem state ?
( storage not in play )
Hard to imagine that they've fallen so much in value, just on inflation alone.
That is a set I would not buy if perusing mint sets. No guarantee it will not degenerate further. Although, at $7, not a great loss. Cheers, RickO
Unfortunately, no cameo contrast whatsoever...
That would certainly explain why only one side is toned.
I suggested this theory to Dr. Goldman at the Mint Lab while I was still working for Coin World (I left in late 1978) and he replied that it was not possible because if it was true it would mean that some mint employee had made a mistake of some kind, and mint employees "never made mistakes."
!
FWIW, the one-sided gold toned coins seemed to stop showing up around the time that the mint got my letter, but that was probably just a coincidence.
TD
I would have purchased that 1969 proof set just for the toned cent. Very unusual and eye appealing (if you like toned copper). The 1968-1970 proof sets have long been viewed as widgets, but every once in a while these sets contain extremely high quality DCAM coins (mostly the half, nickel and cent; and very rarely the clad dime and quarter).
I recently found and bought four 1968 proof sets (for about $8.00 each) that contain a "run" of DCAM cents that look like this:
Widgets, but very nice widgets.