That might be the original envelope, but that holder isn't original. Just like in later years, the mint packaged each coin in it's own little celo. The outer packaging varied, though, and wasn't standardized until 1950 when they started using the little boxes.
The packaging is very cool. Can't be many left like that!
That reminded me of how many times I see pre-1936 sets advertised as "original sets" (and a corresponding premium being asked) but all the coins are slabbed. How in the world can anyone know if the sets are put together?
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
Hi, this looks like every other early 1950's mint set I've seen as far as the holder. What am I missing - looks original to me, with the little flap of paper covering the front. I know early Proof sets did some in the ealy stapled cello packaging and mint tissue, but I have seen several Mint sets from the 50's like this. Why is it not original? (speaking about the coins..)
darktone I believe it is the original Proof set and packaging. With a 7 day no questions asked return policy,you can't go wrong.If I had the money I'd bid.
<< <i>this looks like every other early 1950's mint set I've seen as far as the holder. What am I missing - looks original to me >>
The seller is claiming it's a proof set, not a mint set. Also, there were no mint sets issued in 1940. Mint set production didn't begin until 1947.
Russ, NCNE >>
Hi Russ, yes - not until 1947. I used to have a single well-toned 47-P set. These are 1954 and '58 or whatever, so the year didn't concern me. The auction stated "Mint Set" when I viewed it, so I guess it was ammended?
<< <i>I believe it is the original Proof set and packaging. >>
Don,
If the holder is original, then all the published material about the era would have to be wrong. Everything I've read says that these were packaged in the little celos. They actually weren't technically sold as "sets", but rather as individual coins.
<< <i>The auction stated "Mint Set" when I viewed it, so I guess it was ammended? >>
Hi Russ, well then I am lost. Who started calling it a Proof set? Auction for '54 states "Mint Set" right now in title and text..what did I miss? Best, Billy
You may have been looking at darktone's ebay link. >>
Dear ldhair, THANKS Thought I was losing it. That is exactly what I was doing! Wrong link! That "1940 Proof Set" is as bogus as Russ says. They were, as he says, available individually, in I believe both celo and/or mint tissue.
Some interesting comments. I have seen a few of these sets in these holders with there original envelopes I just assumed this packaging was from the mint. Can anyone say for sure how they were packaged in 1940? We all know about the double mint sets from 1947-1958 and the mint packaging from 1950-to present is pretty well documented but I would love to get a little info on the 30's and 40's. mike
negative, for a few orders of all coins, or multiple orders, etc., they did in fact have a few private 5 coin holders made just exactly like the one i'm seeing here and shipped them to those who ordered in this fashion. i have seen 39,40,1 & 2 in these holders with that red trim and the orignal mint invoice,envelope and all just is as presented in that auction with that kind of shipping envelope sized for that 5 coin holder. i have a fat snipe ready for that one. it's a definite putback keeper i'm gonna lay a good customer in if i hammer it.....that is unless it's been whor*d around and slits cut on the slide sides and coins have been intruded upon by the slides. then we could have a general 15 back pr64 or so quality proof set...not sure about the seller or credence of factuality...
This thread reminds me of the time, at an auction company, we got a consignment of original proof sets from the 1890s that were still in the original mailing envelopes. A couple had never been opened!
I opened the 1892 and found a magnificent group of choicely toned gems, matched and lovely. They went right onto a submission form, in order, for the precious consecutive number sequence.
I wonder how many people are going to click on the link to the auction.... I did.... Then I realized it was 4 years ago....
I used to be somebody, now I'm just a coin collector. Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
As a collector of proof sets in their original packaging, I can assume then that I will be unsuccessful in my search for the pre-1950 sets. I guess I'll have to stick with Capital Plastics holders for those.
<< <i>This thread reminds me of the time, at an auction company, we got a consignment of original proof sets from the 1890s that were still in the original mailing envelopes. A couple had never been opened!
I opened the 1892 and found a magnificent group of choicely toned gems, matched and lovely. They went right onto a submission form, in order, for the precious consecutive number sequence.
Two of them came back as artificial color.
So it goes. >>
That's so funny I think I just soiled myself...
Lane
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>I wonder how many people are going to click on the link to the auction.... I did.... Then I realized it was 4 years ago.... >>
>>
That explains why it wouldn't come up!
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
Comments
Rus, NCNE
That reminded me of how many times I see pre-1936 sets advertised as "original sets" (and a corresponding premium being asked) but all the coins are slabbed. How in the world can anyone know if the sets are put together?
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
this looks like every other early 1950's mint set I've seen as far as the holder. What am I missing - looks original to me, with the little flap of paper covering the front. I know early Proof sets did some in the ealy stapled cello packaging and mint tissue, but I have seen several Mint sets from the 50's like this. Why is it not original? (speaking about the coins..)
Best,
Billy
year, if it is original, who cares?
Collecting Morgans in Any Grade
I have to wonder why more of the coins don't show toning after all these years.
<< <i>this looks like every other early 1950's mint set I've seen as far as the holder. What am I missing - looks original to me >>
The seller is claiming it's a proof set, not a mint set. Also, there were no mint sets issued in 1940. Mint set production didn't begin until 1947.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>
<< <i>this looks like every other early 1950's mint set I've seen as far as the holder. What am I missing - looks original to me >>
The seller is claiming it's a proof set, not a mint set.
Russ, NCNE >>
Hi Russ,
I misunderstood. Yes, Proof sets certainly did not come like this
Best,
Billy
I believe it is the original Proof set and packaging. With a 7 day no questions asked return policy,you can't go wrong.If I had the money I'd bid.
Registry 1909-1958 Proof Lincolns
<< <i>
<< <i>this looks like every other early 1950's mint set I've seen as far as the holder. What am I missing - looks original to me >>
The seller is claiming it's a proof set, not a mint set. Also, there were no mint sets issued in 1940. Mint set production didn't begin until 1947.
Russ, NCNE >>
Hi Russ,
yes - not until 1947. I used to have a single well-toned 47-P set. These are 1954 and '58 or whatever, so the year didn't concern me. The auction stated "Mint Set" when I viewed it, so I guess it was ammended?
Best,
Billy
<< <i>I believe it is the original Proof set and packaging. >>
Don,
If the holder is original, then all the published material about the era would have to be wrong. Everything I've read says that these were packaged in the little celos. They actually weren't technically sold as "sets", but rather as individual coins.
<< <i>The auction stated "Mint Set" when I viewed it, so I guess it was ammended? >>
Nope, nothing was changed.
Russ, NCNE
well then I am lost. Who started calling it a Proof set? Auction for '54 states "Mint Set" right now in title and text..what did I miss?
Best,
Billy
You may have been looking at darktone's ebay link.
<< <i>magikbilly
You may have been looking at darktone's ebay link.
Dear ldhair,
THANKS
Thanks,
Billy
holders made just exactly like the one i'm seeing here and shipped them to those who ordered in this fashion. i have seen 39,40,1 & 2 in these holders with that red trim and the orignal mint invoice,envelope and all just is as presented in that auction with that kind of shipping envelope sized for that 5 coin holder. i have a fat snipe ready for that one. it's a definite putback keeper i'm gonna lay a good customer in if i hammer it.....that is unless it's been whor*d around and slits cut on the slide sides and coins have been intruded upon by the slides. then we could have a general 15 back pr64 or so quality proof set...not sure about the seller or credence of factuality...
I opened the 1892 and found a magnificent group of choicely toned gems, matched and lovely. They went right onto a submission form, in order, for the precious consecutive number sequence.
Two of them came back as artificial color.
So it goes.
Betts medals, colonial coins, US Mint medals, foreign coins found in early America, and other numismatic Americana
I did....
Then I realized it was 4 years ago....
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
<< <i>I wonder how many people are going to click on the link to the auction....
I did....
Then I realized it was 4 years ago.... >>
I almost clicked on the link but happened to notice the original date of the post.
I'm usually not that observant of such things.
Mike
Sounds like something that would happen to one of my submissions! Too bad you couldn't submit them in the original mint packaging.
<< <i>I wonder how many people are going to click on the link to the auction....
I did....
Then I realized it was 4 years ago.... >>
I did.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/liberty-head-2-1-gold-major-sets/liberty-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1840-1907-cac/alltimeset/268163
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/liberty-head-2-1-gold-major-sets/liberty-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1840-1907-cac/alltimeset/268163
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/liberty-head-2-1-gold-major-sets/liberty-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1840-1907-cac/alltimeset/268163
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/liberty-head-2-1-gold-major-sets/liberty-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1840-1907-cac/alltimeset/268163
<< <i>This thread reminds me of the time, at an auction company, we got a consignment of original proof sets from the 1890s that were still in the original mailing envelopes. A couple had never been opened!
I opened the 1892 and found a magnificent group of choicely toned gems, matched and lovely. They went right onto a submission form, in order, for the precious consecutive number sequence.
Two of them came back as artificial color.
So it goes. >>
That's so funny I think I just soiled myself...
Lane
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>I wonder how many people are going to click on the link to the auction....
I did....
Then I realized it was 4 years ago.... >>
<< <i>I wonder how many people are going to click on the link to the auction....
I did....
Then I realized it was 4 years ago.... >>
<< <i>
<< <i>I wonder how many people are going to click on the link to the auction....
I did....
Then I realized it was 4 years ago.... >>
That explains why it wouldn't come up!