"Unopened" proof and mint sets. Lessons learned, with photos! (Images fixed!)

DCAM

I have just received 4 coin sets from EBay. 3 of the sets had "unopened" in the title. The other set said nice envelopes, not nice coins.

The '63 and '64 mint and proof sets were sealed with 3/4 of the flap glued down.

The '64 mint set had coin marks on both sides of one of the cardboard dividers proving that this set had indeed been opened before. The coins are average.

The '64 proof set had "envelope crease fades" on both sides of one cardboard divider and had been opened before and Kennedy has a milkspot on his head.

The '68 mint set has a milky half and quarter.

The '63 proof set has envelope crease fades on both cardboard dividers and guess what??? A big ol milk spot. Looks like Ben has been smoking.

I'm batting 0 for 4 sets. Can't necessarily blame the sellers, they may have bought them already "sealed."

1963 half





1968 Mint set hazy half


1964 proof set half milkspot


BTW my ebay ID is jddeloney

cladking

'68 mint sets were not sealed at the mint. A few are sealed because of storage in
high humidity enviroments or exposure to such enviroments. There is no discernable
difference in the sealed and unsealed '68 sets I've seen except that there is a little
higher chance that the coins will be tarnished which is likely due to exposure to hum-
idity. There is a difference between sealed and unsealed '65 SMS's, and '70 mint sets.
Sealed sets are typically low quality while unsealed sets are sometimes original.

None of the post 1964 sets were sealed at the mint intentionally though it's possible
some got wet. '65, '68-'71, and some '86 sets have glued flaps. To be sure of getting
original sets of these look for the sealed mailing packages. These are virtually tamper
proof.

Taiyo

Yah.. mean E.PLURIBUS.......... RECTUM!?

Myqqy

All I'm getting are red x's where your pictures are supposed to be- and I find it better to stay away from "unopened" sets, and look for sets that have ( or might have) nice coins that the sellers haven't done anything with.....

Sequitur

Hey DCAM, post some pics we can see. Red X's thus far.

JrGMan2004

Another victim of hosting images from a free web hosting service...

19Lyds

For the collectors out there that have purchased proof sets from the mint before 64 did the pre-65 proof sets come with any type COA's? I don't really know since I didn't start buying them until 1975.

kieferscoins

Thats one way to learn about "unopened sets" - the hard way.

Cameron Kiefer

WANNABEDEALER

Not true, I bought a sealed box of 10 1965 SMS sets and they were sealed inside the box. Also have picked up sealed mint envelopes of 5 1964 mint sets that were sealed inside, along with 1959 sets and have seen every set from 1958 back to 1947 sealed.

Coinhusker1

3 out of 4 sets are junk. Ouch! There's a good chance the seller screwed you, given your comments that the sets appeared to be tampered with. I'd describe the tampering to the seller, and see if he will take them back and refund your money. You are probably SOL, but its worth a shot.

1956Quarter

Been there myself with other iems I collect. Deceptive photos make the item look really good, then when they arrive they are this side of junk. UGH!

DCAM

Coinhusker,
I purchased 4 sets from 3 individuals. 3 were "sealed". I cut the end off of the envelopes of the sealed ones to remove the sets so I guess I can't return them. The 68 mint set was not sealed and had photos.
'68 set

I can't blame the sellers for the condition of the coins. That's the glory of selling sealed sets. You can always say that you bought them sealed and for all I know these buyers bought them sealed. I did not spend alot and there are lurkers who are allways wondering about those too good to be true "sealed" sets.

I'm gonna keep the sets just for the silver coins, will try to "conserve" the ones with milk spots although I know I can't 'cause russ said so (and he's tried everything in the book to remove milkspots without damaging coins)



'64 sets

'63 set

Coinhusker1

<< <i>Coinhusker,
I purchased 4 sets from 3 individuals. 3 were "sealed". I cut the end off of the envelopes of the sealed ones to remove the sets so I guess I can't return them. The 68 mint set was not sealed and had photos.
'68 set

I can't blame the sellers for the condition of the coins. That's the glory of selling sealed sets. You can always say that you bought them sealed and for all I know these buyers bought them sealed. I did not spend alot and there are lurkers who are allways wondering about those too good to be true "sealed" sets.

I'm gonna keep the sets just for the silver coins, will try to "conserve" the ones with milk spots although I know I can't 'cause russ said so (and he's tried everything in the book to remove milkspots without damaging coins)



'64 sets



'63 set >>




Oh, I thought (erroneously) they were from the same seller. Just bad luck 3 out of 4 were bad then.

Russ

<< <i>'68 mint sets were not sealed at the mint. >>



Cladking is, as usual, correct. From 1968 forward, mint sets were not sealed at the mint. For the year 1965, the SMS sets were sometimes sealed and sometimes not. For 1964 and earlier, proof sets were sealed as a matter of practice, (but some slipped out unsealed).

Russ, NCNE

Conder101

The mint did not start using COA's until 1986 with the SOL sets.

relayer

I like the pre-COA inserts in proof sets.

They basically say these are the coins you get and don't bother us for a refund.