Unopened Proof Sets
au58
Posts: 1,288 ✭✭✭
There have been a number of threads on this board regarding “unopened” proof sets. Here’s my two cents.
About 30 years ago, I was helping a landlord upgrade a strip mall rental property. One of the units was formerly a coin shop. In a storage closet, I found a box with about 300 or 400 new, unused, manila proof set envelopes. Most of the dates were 1957, 1958, and 1959. Some were later (1960 – 1964). I was a friend of the sons of the guy who used to run the coin shop. While at their house, I asked their dad about the envelopes. He said he got them from his supplier, the same one who provided 2x2s, coin folders, etc. He thought the supplier got them through mint distribution channels (i.e., they were mint products) but that he wasn’t sure. (He could not recall if the supplier told him this or if he just assumed this to be the case.). He went on to say that he bought many proof sets without envelopes and, since it was easier to sell proof sets with an envelope than without, he would just pull out an envelope and slap in the set. Some he sealed and some he didn’t.
I didn’t think anything of this until some years later when I went to sell some 1964 proof sets. I knew they were never opened and real because I ordered them from the mint myself. The guy that I offered them to said he could not buy them without opening them up because he couldn’t be sure they were proof coins or that they weren’t all dogs. He said that he had opened sets before and not only found proof sets of different dates (from the date on the envelope) but that some of the coins were mint sets or otherwise not even proofs!! He also said that he knew that there were aftermarket envelopes being manufactured and that he did not think that the printing or the feel of the envelopes that I was offering him was quite right. Since there was no premium for unopened sets then, I opened them up. Of course they were all 1964 proof coins so he bought them. I was not surprised when he then told me that if a buyer should complain about a torn or opened envelope, he had plenty of new, unused envelopes.
All of this is before the days of DCAM, AH, etc., etc. I say this because there has been lots of discussion about steaming envelopes open, cherry picking sets, and resealing envelopes. My guess is that, on a percentage basis, this does not happen a lot. Most unopened sets have probably been repackaged. A very small percentage have probably really never been opened.
One other note: My dad also received five 1964 proof sets directly from the mint. The envelopes in the package he received were not sealed. He sealed them himself to keep the flatpacks from falling out.
About 30 years ago, I was helping a landlord upgrade a strip mall rental property. One of the units was formerly a coin shop. In a storage closet, I found a box with about 300 or 400 new, unused, manila proof set envelopes. Most of the dates were 1957, 1958, and 1959. Some were later (1960 – 1964). I was a friend of the sons of the guy who used to run the coin shop. While at their house, I asked their dad about the envelopes. He said he got them from his supplier, the same one who provided 2x2s, coin folders, etc. He thought the supplier got them through mint distribution channels (i.e., they were mint products) but that he wasn’t sure. (He could not recall if the supplier told him this or if he just assumed this to be the case.). He went on to say that he bought many proof sets without envelopes and, since it was easier to sell proof sets with an envelope than without, he would just pull out an envelope and slap in the set. Some he sealed and some he didn’t.
I didn’t think anything of this until some years later when I went to sell some 1964 proof sets. I knew they were never opened and real because I ordered them from the mint myself. The guy that I offered them to said he could not buy them without opening them up because he couldn’t be sure they were proof coins or that they weren’t all dogs. He said that he had opened sets before and not only found proof sets of different dates (from the date on the envelope) but that some of the coins were mint sets or otherwise not even proofs!! He also said that he knew that there were aftermarket envelopes being manufactured and that he did not think that the printing or the feel of the envelopes that I was offering him was quite right. Since there was no premium for unopened sets then, I opened them up. Of course they were all 1964 proof coins so he bought them. I was not surprised when he then told me that if a buyer should complain about a torn or opened envelope, he had plenty of new, unused envelopes.
All of this is before the days of DCAM, AH, etc., etc. I say this because there has been lots of discussion about steaming envelopes open, cherry picking sets, and resealing envelopes. My guess is that, on a percentage basis, this does not happen a lot. Most unopened sets have probably been repackaged. A very small percentage have probably really never been opened.
One other note: My dad also received five 1964 proof sets directly from the mint. The envelopes in the package he received were not sealed. He sealed them himself to keep the flatpacks from falling out.
0
Comments
<< <i>He also said that he knew that there were aftermarket envelopes being manufactured >>
There sure are. Sometimes you can even buy them on eBay. Isn't life convenient for scammers?
Russ, NCNE
I, too, have not only heard about these aftermarket envelopes, I've seen them in bulk quantities. I've seen them in posession of collectors and dealers alike. So much for the code of ethics the ANA holds in such high regard. Not saying that all ANA members are unethical, but a good number of them certainly are. This so-called "Code of Ethics" is exactly the reason that I don't belong to the ANA. Not that I'd violate it, more that I see far too many members who do. And I'm not saying the ANA is a farce, just their lame code of ethics. I know that I'll probably get flamed for this, but it's just my humble opinion.
Cheers,
Bob
Unopened Proof Sets just mean they haven't been opened TODAY
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
Proof coins have knife edges on them that can cut through the mint flat packs. If the coins had something heavy resting on them, the seals could be broken and once more you could end up with ugly coins.
The main up side is that some two sided cameos could be waiting for your discovery. If they do, lucky you, but just remember that those two sided cameos are scarce for those years, the chances of finding many or ANY are not great.
I've been led to believe that unless a 64 proof set was sent to a customer as a single (which would have the person's name and address on it), the envelopes were never glued shut by the mint. Is there anyone who knows otherwise?
<< <i>unless a 64 proof set was sent to a customer as a single (which would have the person's name and address on it), the envelopes were never glued shut by the mint. Is there anyone who knows otherwise? >>
They were also sometimes sealed in multiples. I've purchased sealed packs of multiples with the orginal undisturbed mint tape on the outside and the individuals inside were sealed. I've also purchased ones where they weren't sealed. So, it probably just depended on whether or not the packer at the mint had any extra saliva that day.
Russ, NCNE
Thanks Russ (but not for the image in my head).