So, what was it about the 1968 coins?

Bochiman

I don't see much on them in the registry.
The proof sets seem pretty durn cheap.
(haven't found any mint sets in person at the small shows around here yet and don't trust ebay for that right now)....they seem cheap though.

The coins all seem hard to find in higher levels too.....

Was the mint really sucky that year?
Not many collectors born that year for a birth year set? (seems like a lot of them in the '67 and '69 years).....

So, what's up with it?

Coppernicus

At least as far as the cents go, 1968 was the last year the mint used the 1916 obverse hub. The strongest '68 strike is mushy and I believe this accounts in part, for the low pops in high-end MS. I'm not sure about the proofs.

Mike

techeff

I was born in 1968.

toyonakataro

<< <i>I was born in 1968. >>



me too

keets

the period from 1964-1975 was a very troubling time at the Mint, disorganized and paranoid being my word choices. there didn't seem to be good management or decision making in place. the years of 1968-69 don't offer much in the series i focus on, nickels. finding crisply struck coins is a challenge, full steppers an almost impossibility with less than three steps the norm. finding coins with nice luster is a challenge, cartwheelers an almost impossibility, most have that wierd halo look to them. from looking at sets, half dollars don't seem difficult through MS66 and the quarters are nice through MS65 with weaker strikes the norm. cents and dimes aren't coins i search for.

al h.

FC57Coins

I recently got a box of 20 unopened 1968 mint sets thinking there might be some nice cents and nickels in it - well - I've never been so dissapointed in my life. Not only were the strikes horrible, most of the coins had oxydation on them already and had lost all mint brilliance - pretty pathetic!