Options
Mint set survival.
cladking
Posts: 28,723 ✭✭✭✭✭
Date.......Mintage.............................Surviving
1965... 2,360,000..............................450,000
1966 .. 2,261,583..............................600,000
1967 ...1,863,344..............................700,000
1968 ...1,980,000..............................350,000
DDO..........55,000..................................5,000
1969... 1,727,000..............................300,000
D/D...........90,000.................................12,000
1970... 1,838,000...............................500,000
Sm Dt......200,000................................60,000
1971... 2,193,396...............................350,000
1972... 2,750,000...............................500,000
1973,,,,1,767,691...............................400,000
1974....1,935,981...............................550,000
DDO..........40,000....................................8,000
1975....1,921,488................................650,000
1976... 1,892,513................................600,000
1976....4,758,319(3pc-reg).............2,000,000
1976.......150,000(3pc-high speed).....70,000
1977....2,006,869................................ 450,000
1978....2,162,609.................................500,000
1979... 2,526,000..............................1,000,000
1980... 2,815,066..............................1,200,000
1981... 2,893,145.................................900,000
type "d".....16,000......................................5,000
'82-P(souv)10,000....................................3,500
'82-D(souv)20,000....................................8,000
'83-P(souv)15,000....................................3,000
'83-D(souv)20,000..................................10,000
1984... 1,832,857..................................850,000
1985....1,711,000..................................800,000
1986... 1,153,536..................................500,000
1987... 2,890,758...............................1,600,000
1988... 1,646,204..................................900,000
RR 50c.......12,000......................................8,500
1989....1,987,915................................1,000,000
1990... 1,809,184................................1,000,000
1991... 1,352,101...................................700,000
1992....1,500,143................................1,000,000
1993... 1,297,431...................................800,000
1994....1,234,813...................................900,000
1995... 1,038,787...................................750,000
1996... 1,457,949...................................600,000
1997...... 950,473...................................650,000
1998....1,187,325...................................800,000
Surviving numbers are guesses and estimates of variety set mintages should be
close.
Many of these surviving sets are in collections but the bulk are still owned by the
original purchasers or were bought as speculation many years ago or more recently.
The absolute quantities aren't as important as the relative quantities.
Some of the coins from the destroyed sets still exist in collections raw or in slabs, but
large percentages have been put into circulation. These numbers are substantial, but
it should be remembered that large percentages of the coins in these sets are very un-
attractive and will not even be considered BU. Choice and gem coins can be scarce and
in many cases there is virtually no other supply than these sets.
1965... 2,360,000..............................450,000
1966 .. 2,261,583..............................600,000
1967 ...1,863,344..............................700,000
1968 ...1,980,000..............................350,000
DDO..........55,000..................................5,000
1969... 1,727,000..............................300,000
D/D...........90,000.................................12,000
1970... 1,838,000...............................500,000
Sm Dt......200,000................................60,000
1971... 2,193,396...............................350,000
1972... 2,750,000...............................500,000
1973,,,,1,767,691...............................400,000
1974....1,935,981...............................550,000
DDO..........40,000....................................8,000
1975....1,921,488................................650,000
1976... 1,892,513................................600,000
1976....4,758,319(3pc-reg).............2,000,000
1976.......150,000(3pc-high speed).....70,000
1977....2,006,869................................ 450,000
1978....2,162,609.................................500,000
1979... 2,526,000..............................1,000,000
1980... 2,815,066..............................1,200,000
1981... 2,893,145.................................900,000
type "d".....16,000......................................5,000
'82-P(souv)10,000....................................3,500
'82-D(souv)20,000....................................8,000
'83-P(souv)15,000....................................3,000
'83-D(souv)20,000..................................10,000
1984... 1,832,857..................................850,000
1985....1,711,000..................................800,000
1986... 1,153,536..................................500,000
1987... 2,890,758...............................1,600,000
1988... 1,646,204..................................900,000
RR 50c.......12,000......................................8,500
1989....1,987,915................................1,000,000
1990... 1,809,184................................1,000,000
1991... 1,352,101...................................700,000
1992....1,500,143................................1,000,000
1993... 1,297,431...................................800,000
1994....1,234,813...................................900,000
1995... 1,038,787...................................750,000
1996... 1,457,949...................................600,000
1997...... 950,473...................................650,000
1998....1,187,325...................................800,000
Surviving numbers are guesses and estimates of variety set mintages should be
close.
Many of these surviving sets are in collections but the bulk are still owned by the
original purchasers or were bought as speculation many years ago or more recently.
The absolute quantities aren't as important as the relative quantities.
Some of the coins from the destroyed sets still exist in collections raw or in slabs, but
large percentages have been put into circulation. These numbers are substantial, but
it should be remembered that large percentages of the coins in these sets are very un-
attractive and will not even be considered BU. Choice and gem coins can be scarce and
in many cases there is virtually no other supply than these sets.
tempus fugit extra philosophiam.
0
Comments
I would love to hear the answer.
factor is the number of sets available on the wholesale market the first time the combined
value of the coins in the set exceed the value of the intact set. When this occurs very large
numbers of sets will be destroyed. Another major factor especially for the older sets and the
'96 set is the specific demand for one of the coins in the set. For instance there has been a
large and consistent demand for the '73 sets since these are the only source for the Ikes in
them. Indeed, this set might be one of the scarcest if not for the fact that more have been
collected or set aside as speculation. The relative cost of the coins compared to the roll price
is an important factor as is the availability of rolls and singles. Some sets are destroyed simp-
ly because the coin is otherwise unavailable or prohibitively expensive. Many of the post 1990
sets have been destroyed in the year of issue to update Kennedy sets or to supply the market
for this purpose.
Absolute numbers are more difficult to get a feel for but are based largely on observation of
available mint set rolls and price changes as sets are removed from the market. I aimed for
fairly conservative estimates of attrition.
Just as rolls and bags once represented the supply of recently dated mint state coins, these
mint sets now represent the supply for most of the modern dimes and quarters. This would in-
clude some dates of other denominations. These also represent virtually the entire supply of
choice and gem coins for some issues.
I hesitate to guess on the earlier sets but due to their greater age and higher premiums, I'd
expect attrition rates to be similar to the older clad sets. The later silver sets probably have
a little lower attrition due to a percieved greater value relative to cost.
I think that in the future mint sets and proof sets (complete in original packaging) will become scarce.
It seems to me that too many people are busting up sets to get good coins out and get them slabed, or like you said adding them to their albums to complete them.
So a complete set in the future may be hard to come by , and expensive. It may still take awhile for sets to become rare as the mintage numbers are high, but I do belive it will happen.
If you look on e-bay you will find cut up mint sets, (single coins in the mint cello) for sell by the lots, where they have cut out the good coins and are selling the rest.
You will also find Proof coins being sold by the rolls. I tried to find another post that I posted in about this topic and couldn't find it, but I did find this Post From CladKing that others might want to look at again.
And I have a 1957 Mint set where the cello is starting to seperate and look bad, it is still intact, but even I have thought about cutting it out, because the coins are pretty nice in it. But maybe after this post I will think about it some more.
Also CladKing, I would like to know what your opinion on the Proof Sets are.....is the declining destiny there for them also??
Thanks
Edited for bad linkage
What I collect depends on, mood, time of day,
the weather, available funds, what is in front of me,
and other factors which is beyond my scope.
<< <i>
Also CladKing, I would like to know what your opinion on the Proof Sets are.....is the declining destiny there for them also??
>>
Proof sets were made in larger numbers and have always been more valued by collectors than
mint sets. None of these prices ever dropped below about 150% of face value. When proof sets
are taken apart there is a far higher probability that the coins will survive as singles or rolls. The
quality range of proof coins tends to be much narrower than the range for mint state coins.
The higher demand means that sets are destroyed to add coins to collections and there are large
numbers of collectors who feel that the proofs are part of the modern sets. This should be great
for typical quality coins (especially cents, nickels, halfs, and dollars) and it should be good for the
best quality coins because there are so many collectors. In the very long run it should also be good
for intact sets.
The attrition on proof sets should be somewhat lower and the attrition of the coins from destroyed
sets should be far lower. Millions of these coins have appeared in circulation anyway though.
Proof sets do have one great advantage on mint sets; they are promotable. There are enough a-
round to have a major promotion and the quality is excellent so people like them. There also are
more major varieties in the proof sets.
It will take longer for the proof sets to dry up but the premiums are likely to be higher on typical sets.
Thanks CladKing....That makes cents {sic} on the proofs. Thanks for the quick response and the insight
I have been wondering about the destruction of sets do to slab greed and the such. But my vision of destruction may have been a little wide.
I have not been much of a mint set collector ( or a proof set collector ) as of yet, but my thoughts after thinking about this for awhile now may get me into the mint set collection a little more. Or at least looking at it a little more.
Thanks for this enjoyable post
NCLT.....Non Circulating Legal Tender
What I collect depends on, mood, time of day,
the weather, available funds, what is in front of me,
and other factors which is beyond my scope.
I've heard others say it too but, I find comments that large quantities of proof coins have been put into circulation, a bit absurd. I realize that some indeed have, but "large quantities?" Puhleeze. I suppose we need to determine what a large quantity is first.
<< <i>Interesting, and thank you for the input. I like seeing figures like these all in one nice package.
I've heard others say it too but, I find comments that large quantities of proof coins have been put into circulation, a bit absurd. I realize that some indeed have, but "large quantities?" Puhleeze. I suppose we need to determine what a large quantity is first. >>
Good point. It is all perspective though. Certainly there are no dates for which large percentages
of the proof sets have been put into circulation so perhaps it would be better to phrase this differ-
ently. Perhaps the most impacted date would be one of the '68 to '70 sets. These have a wider
range of quality and there are more culls. It is mostly the culls and proof singles which have corroded
that end up in circulation but even these dates we're probably talking under 20%. The 40% sets
('68,'69, '76 3pc) were melted for silver to a limited degree in 1980.
There have been nearly a billion proof coins minted and only around 5% (40,000,000+) have been in
circulation.
First, the sets that are broken apart for individual coins are not utterly destroyed. The original set is just no longer original. I would think the clad set survival rates are significantly higher, but that's only a guess. I suppose a number of the sets were broken up and used as spare change...then that would be considered destroyed.
And, second...If you think those numbers are interesting, take a look at 19th century proof set mintages and their surviving numbers. When you look at how many modern sets survive today and their cost and compare them with the few hundred sets of any given year (that you'd have to put together on your own) from 1860-1889 (my favorite years), you'll see that these earlier sets are downright cheap!
Any way you look at it, the modern mint/proof sets are extremely common and not very difficult to put together and rather inexpensive. Of course, it all depends what grade your after, but most, nice collector mint state grades are quite attainable by the masses.
<< <i>Two thoughts on this topic.
First, the sets that are broken apart for individual coins are not utterly destroyed. The original set is just no longer original. I would think the clad set survival rates are significantly higher, but that's only a guess. I suppose a number of the sets were broken up and used as spare change...then that would be considered destroyed. >>
This is mostly true for the proof sets. But remember that every year significant numbers
of intact and dismantled proof sets are utterly destroyed in fires, floods and through loss.
It is not true for mint sets. Not only do mint sets suffer a little higher attrition through nor-
mal means but these sets are being cut up and put into circulation. Large percentages of
the mint set coins can not even be sold as BU because they are ugly. Collectors generally
will avoid such coins in their collections. Since most of these sets have wholesaled at less
than face value, there is simply no reason to keep the sets at all. The sets are ripped up and
the contents spent. There are some coins which are normally saved like the '73 Ikes, but
even these once got down to $1.50 each and buyers were not easily found. Coins like the
'76 type I Ike are usually very unattractive and about 50% won't wholesale as uncs. There
has simply been no demand for these coins so they mostly haven't been set aside even when
they were originally in a mint set.
<< <i>
And, second...If you think those numbers are interesting, take a look at 19th century proof set mintages and their surviving numbers. When you look at how many modern sets survive today and their cost and compare them with the few hundred sets of any given year (that you'd have to put together on your own) from 1860-1889 (my favorite years), you'll see that these earlier sets are downright cheap! >>
There's no question that 19th century proof mintages were lower and that the coins are de-
sirable. One could easily make a case the the coins are too cheap. However there are many
of the modern proofs which can be bought for about double face value. Whether or not this
is cheap is a matter of opinion but they are certainly less expensive than the older coins on an
absolute scale.
<< <i>
Any way you look at it, the modern mint/proof sets are extremely common and not very difficult to put together and rather inexpensive. Of course, it all depends what grade your after, but most, nice collector mint state grades are quite attainable by the masses. >>
The modern mint sets are common and this is the point of the thread. They are, however, far
less common than most people figure and this is even more to the point. When you factor in
the absence of BU rolls and old collections containing the coins then they look much scarcer.
When you further factor in that there is wide variability in quality of the coins and large numbers
of the mint set coins are simply attrocious then the numbers start looking downright rare.
My question is a bit off topic, but how do you feel about 1970's mint sets in the flimsy cellophane mint packages? I notice that several of my coins from this period have a milky film on the coins that is not exactly attractive. Do you recommend removing ALL coins form these packages and placing them in more secure holders or just leaving them alone?
The more I examine my mint sets and loose clad coins, the more I realize the scarcity of nearly mark-free uncirculated examples. A good number of my clad coins from 1969-1977 are dull, baggy or poorly struck.
Please forgive my formerly dismissive attitude in reference to clad coins and the obvious scarcity of certain issues. I have a lot to learn in this coin collecting area.
<< <i>cladking,
My question is a bit off topic, but how do you feel about 1970's mint sets in the flimsy cellophane mint packages? I notice that several of my coins from this period have a milky film on the coins that is not exactly attractive. Do you recommend removing ALL coins form these packages and placing them in more secure holders or just leaving them alone?
The more I examine my mint sets and loose clad coins, the more I realize the scarcity of nearly mark-free uncirculated examples. A good number of my clad coins from 1969-1977 are dull, baggy or poorly struck.
Please forgive my formerly dismissive attitude in reference to clad coins and the obvious scarcity of certain issues. I have a lot to learn in this coin collecting area.
The attitude is very natural. The coins were made in huge numbers and it never seemed possible
they could get all worn or lost and destroyed. The quality was almost universally poor which didn't
encourage people to look at them very closely. And to top it all off they were debased junk which
non-collectors barely noticed. Initially there was some hording of these but it didn't last long.
There are many many modern rolls and bags set aside but very few are dimes or quarters. Even de-
nominations which were heavily saved weren't saved every year. And there are instances where
a coin exists in pretty large numbers but they are virtually all terrible quality.
I consider the mint 9and proof) sets to be the raw material of modern collecting. Most of the gems
from the last couple generations are found here. They are not the be all, end all though because
there are numerous coins which don't appear at all in mint sets and some gems are not found in the
sets. Most varieties do not appear in sets. Not only are these the raw material but they also can
give you an excellent idea of what's going on and the magnitude of the markets.
Generally it is best to remove the coins and stabilize them in acetone or alcohol but some sets are
very expensive to cut up. Most are worth more disassembled but sets like the '95 and '97 lose most
of their value when cut. One of the factors being overlooked with the old sets is that many of them
are going bad. Large percentages of the '68 quarters turned dark many years ago. The '69-D's have
been getting an unattractive mottled toning in recent years and 100% of 1968-P cents in the sets are
now destroyed by carbon spotting. (all are spotted but only about 95% are ugly). This process is con-
tinuing even as the numbers surviving drops.
It is not necessarily critical that all the coins are removed but storage conditions are critical. Some coins
have been much more resistent to corrosion than others.
Even when you find a nice pristine coin the odds are poor tht it will be a gem unless it's of a date which
is commonly found as gem.
I agree with your assement in the Dec 2 thread about this being a very interesting post. I don't know how I missed it when it was first posted but I'm glad you brought it up again.
Let me ask a question: Of these sets, which do think are the most stable in their original packaging? That is, you say that the 68-P cents are turning ugly, so if I had a 68 set, I should not consider it particularly stable in its original package. So, what sets are safe (or, perhaps better, "safer") to keep in their original packaging?
Thanks in advance.
Mark
<< <i>Cladking:
I agree with your assement in the Dec 2 thread about this being a very interesting post. I don't know how I missed it when it was first posted but I'm glad you brought it up again.
Let me ask a question: Of these sets, which do think are the most stable in their original packaging? That is, you say that the 68-P cents are turning ugly, so if I had a 68 set, I should not consider it particularly stable in its original package. So, what sets are safe (or, perhaps better, "safer") to keep in their original packaging?
Thanks in advance.
Mark >>
'72, '79, and later sets are relatively stable but many can be bad for the one cent coins.
The '84 cents are in terrible shape too. The '84-D especially is usually very tarnished. (~60%)
The '67 SMS is often found in original condition except for a little darkening and the cent.
'70 sets have held up a little better but a 100% original one is none too common.
Silver clad halfs in the '68- '70 sets are typically dark. The big problems with the '68's is
all the cents and the Philly quarter.
<< <i>The later silver sets probably have
a little lower attrition due to a percieved greater value relative to cost >>
They may actually have a HIGHER attrition rate because their numismatic value was low during the 79 - 80 silver boom and probably many of them were scrapped. Te 58 and earlier double sets had a higher numismatic value, but the 1959 - 64 sets have never received a lot of respect.
The last time I bothered with a $500 box of halves, I found 8 or 10 proof Kennedies in it. What else would you do with a spotted proof?
I have also received a proof state quarter from a vending machine.
Never saw a proof nickel in circulation....
<< <i>
<< <i>The later silver sets probably have
a little lower attrition due to a percieved greater value relative to cost >>
They may actually have a HIGHER attrition rate because their numismatic value was low during the 79 - 80 silver boom and probably many of them were scrapped. Te 58 and earlier double sets had a higher numismatic value, but the 1959 - 64 sets have never received a lot of respect. >>
They did have horrible attrition from about November of '79 through mid-1981. Large percentages
of all the sets available on the market were just scrapped out as silver. Dealers would sit down and
cut off the ends with the nickels and cents and just toss the rest in buckets marked for destruction.
I've heard stories of large accumulations being destroyed in this manner. This happened to a much
smaller extent with the '68 and '69 mint sets as well. (and to an even lesser degree, to the SMS's)
The reason I don't think this makes them much scarcer than the later sets is that this was a brief
period in which they were destroyed enmass. Large percentages of these were already gone and
many of the survivors were protected by being in collections or unavailable for other reasons to be
destroyed. Since the early '90's the sets have been much better protected by premiums.
It's entirely possible that I'm underestimating the impact of the destruction during the "great silver
melt" of '79/80. There are a lot of coins which do not exist in the kinds of quantities that most peo-
ple assume. Some were never saved and some were highly saved but have since been destroyed.
Sorry, just couldn't resist.........
The name is LEE!
The only thing I'd take issue with is one respondant saying that only 2% of the sets are destroyed each year.
It should be far higher than this since natural attrition would account for nearly this number. Intentional destruc-
tion can cause large loss when the price of the coins in the set come to exceed the value of the set.
The article is superb and well researched. It's also interesting that one wholesaler uses machinery now to bust
up the sets.
Excellent and informative post worthy of a bump, I got out all my Mint sets 55 thru present the other night, hadn't looked at them in years. One thing I was looking for in particalar were the quarters in the 82 and 83 souviner sets, the 82d and the 83 P will go 66, but I am going to keep the sets intact for now.
Thanks
Allen
Proud member of TCCS!
Date.......Mintage.............................Surviving
1947 IOMP
1949 IOMP
1954 IOMP
1955 IOMP
1956 IOMP
1957 IOMP
1958 IOMP
1959 IOMP
1960 IOMP
1961 IOMP
1962 IOMP
1963 IOMP
1964 IOMP
1965... 2,360,000..............................450,000 IOMP
1966 .. 2,261,583..............................600,000 IOMP
1967 ...1,863,344..............................700,000 IOMP
1968 ...2,008,000..............................350,000 IOMP
DDO..........35,000..................................5,000
1969... 1,727,000..............................300,000 IOMP
D/D...........90,000.................................12,000
1970... 1,838,000...............................500,000 IOMP
Sm Dt......200,000................................60,000 IOMP
1971... 2,193,396...............................350,000 IOMP
1972... 2,750,000...............................500,000 IOMP
1973,,,,1,767,691...............................400,000 IOMP
1974....1,955,981...............................550,000 IOMP
DDO..........20,000....................................4,000
1975....1,921,488................................650,000 IOMP
1976... 1,892,513................................600,000 IOMP
1976....4,758,319(3pc-reg).............2,000,000 IOMP
1976.......150,000(3pc-high speed).....70,000
1977....2,006,869................................ 450,000 IOMP
1978....2,162,609.................................500,000 IOMP
1979... 2,526,000..............................1,000,000 IOMP
1980... 2,815,066..............................1,200,000 IOMP
1981... 2,893,145.................................900,000 IOMP
type "d".....16,000......................................5,000
'82-P(souv)10,000....................................3,500 IOMP
'82-D(souv)20,000....................................8,000 IOMP
'83-P(souv)15,000....................................3,000 IOMP
'83-D(souv)20,000..................................10,000 IOMP
1984... 1,832,857..................................850,000 IOMP
1985....1,711,000..................................800,000 IOMP
1986... 1,153,536..................................500,000 IOMP
1987... 2,890,758...............................1,600,000 IOMP
1988... 1,646,204..................................900,000 IOMP
RR 50c.......12,000......................................8,500
1989....1,987,915................................1,000,000 IOMP
1990... 1,809,184................................1,000,000 IOMP
1991... 1,352,101...................................700,000 IOMP
1992....1,500,143................................1,000,000 IOMP
1993... 1,297,431...................................800,000 IOMP
1994....1,234,813...................................900,000 IOMP
1995... 1,038,787...................................750,000 IOMP
1996... 1,457,949...................................600,000 IOMP
1997...... 950,473...................................650,000 IOMP
1998....1,187,325...................................800,000 IOMP
1999 IOMP
2000 IOMP
2001 IOMP
2002 IOMP
2003 IOMP
2004 IOMP
2005 IOMP
San Diego, CA
I may sound sceptical but actually just like to be able to quote a realiable source when repeating these findings.
<< <i>I find all of these statistics very interesting and as I do with all such interesting posts here, I print it out and add to my ever growing book on coins. However, unless I missed it somewhere, where are all these statistics coming from. Who, what, where are the originators of these statistics. If based on some poles from some organization such as a coin magazine or something, it would be interesting to know where and how this is accumulated.
I may sound sceptical but actually just like to be able to quote a realiable source when repeating these findings. >>
Check the 6th post in this thread.
Essentially these are all numbers I pulled out of a hat based on 34 years of watching
these markets and the markets for the parts of the sets. As stated earlier these numbers
should be fairly conservative and the actual numbers of survivors is quite likely even lower,
but it is the relative availability which is of greater importance anyway.
All of these sets were issued by the mint in original packaging. The varieties are most of
the major varieties which appear as mint sets but do not include minor varieties or those
which I haven't seen enough to make a meaningful estimate of their mintages. For instance,
despite looking at more than 4,000 '65 SMS's, I've never seen a rotated reverse half dollar.
Hence I have no clue to how many were made. I've also never seen the rotated reverse
'76 silver issue.
An '83-P quarter in MS-66 is a major score. These do appear in the souvenir sets so it's
quite believable. The '82-D is very tough in high grade in the souvenir set and MS-66 is
the extreme top end of the range from those I've seen. The '82-P probably does not exist
over MS-65 in these sets and is quite scarce even in choice condition.
<< <i>I feel this thread needs a bump to the top. >>
Well thanks.
I really ought to update this one of these days. ...maybe add the proof sets.
'96 set is the specific demand for one of the coins in the set. For instance there has been a
large and consistent demand for the '73 sets since these are the only source for the Ikes in
them.>>
Well, now I seee the great bulk of this thread dates back to before I even knew there was a forum.
Would the 1970 mint set be one that was cut up for the half dollar since none were made for circulation? I see your table shows the surival in that period to be:
1969 17.4%
1970 27.2%
1971 16.0 %
I was expecting 1970 to show a dip rather than a rise.
<< <i>
Well, now I seee the great bulk of this thread dates back to before I even knew there was a forum.
Would the 1970 mint set be one that was cut up for the half dollar since none were made for circulation? I see your table shows the surival in that period to be:
1969 17.4%
1970 27.2%
1971 16.0 %
I was expecting 1970 to show a dip rather than a rise. >>
Large numbers of the '70 sets have been cut up wholesale. I've seen evidence
of people cutting up thousands of these sets in a single batch. I once saw five
rolls of '70 sm dt cents a deal had just freed from sets. And yes I did ask the ex-
act number so I could adjust my figures.
Probably back in the '70's there were fewer of these than the dates around it
but there is another factor at play here; It has always been expensive and until
the last several years had a set premium. Being expensive many people will take
better care of it such as storage in a safety deposit box and because there was
a premium they were less likely to cut it up. Why pay $25 for a set with a com-
bined value of $23 if you wanted only the $19 half. Or maybe they only wanted
the 10c Philly cent. Dealers might cut up a '71 set for the cash register and at
some times even the '68 and '69 but there wasn't a time when you could cut
these without the profit from the half and small date. Dealers would be more
inclined to let them accumulate in stock.
It's always been pretty common seeing someone who wants a '70 set and these
are good sellers for dealers but when you talk to the purchaser it seems an awful
lot of them either want it intact or just want to set it aside. Most of the rest intend
to cut it for the half. You rarely see the other dates being sold to people like this.
There's never been much demand and if you ask them you'll get responses like
"would you believe I need the damn Denver nickel?". If they're picking through them
they pull out sets with gemmy coins.
My guess is this date is one of the more heavily hit since this thread was posted.
The premium on this set turned into a discount and this tends to cause massive
wholesale cutting. Why keep a $12 set when you can cut it and sell it for $14 more
easily? The cutting of '69 sets should be minimal because they aren't around to
cut and the premium has grown. Many of these are substandard so that reduces
the real value and makes the apparent premium even greater.
A few '68 sets may have been cut up for the silver back at $22 silver last year.
There should be some big changes for some dates like the '70 but even bigger for
some more recent dates.
With '87 sets at $3.50 - $4.00 now, I'm going to buy as many as I can find - save the halves, spend the rest.
Regards,
John
1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S.
Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
CK, always appreciate your input here and on the darkside so keep on plugging. Always appreciate when you give citations/evidence, etc.
Well, just Love coins, period.
You mean the is only 1,600,000 UNC 1987 nickles left. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
P.S. WILL OVER PAY FOR YOUR UNC 1987 COINS. 1xFACE
<< <i>"Choice and gem coins can be scarce and in many cases there is virtually no other supply than these sets."
You mean the is only 1,600,000 UNC 1987 nickles left. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
P.S. WILL OVER PAY FOR YOUR UNC 1987 COINS. 1xFACE >>
This is OT but what the heck.
Consider a coin like the 1931-S Lincoln. This makes a great example since
it's low mintage (886,000) and it's the coin that actually ushered in the era
of BU roll saving (1934- 1965). When a promoter offered to buy the entire
mintage of this coin the mint adopted the policy of no longer making short
mint runs.
The vast majority of this date was saved in BU and most of the rest were
gleaned from circulation before they were more than lightly worn. In those
days the range of quality was not so wide and few collectors concerned
themselves with looking for pristine well made examples since for the most
part they all were. Collectors just wanted a nice attractive coin.
There has been attrition and some degradation of these coins over the years.
There are probably only about 400,000 left with most of these being in unc.
This is a $120 coin. Over the years collectors have grown a taste for gems
and these coins can spot or otherwise degrade so MS-65's are more than $700.
Compare this to the toughest clad quarter; the 1969. This coin was dumped in-
to circulation and it has simply been ground to powder ever since. There were
176,000,000 made but they weren't saved because people didn't like clad coins
and because almost every single one of these coins was extremely poorly made
from worn dies and were then banged up. I'd wager not even 20,000 of these
survive that were made for circulation. Most of these are not attractive coins.
The only other source is the 1,800,000 mint sets of which some 300,000 survive.
This isn't some popular long collected series where you can count on large num-
bers of old collections supplying a steady stream of nice examples coming to mar-
ket for decade after decade. People didn't (and don't) collect these so they don't
come come into coin shops. A few of the coins from destroyed sets will survive
but mostly when these sets get destroyed the unwanted coins go into circulation.
If there's no market for a coin like this then the dealer will just put it in the cash
register.
Even if somebody did want to hoard this coin there's a very basic problem; most
of them look like junk with retained planchet scratching. It comes back to the why
save ugly coins. About 25% of these are attractive enough that most collectors
would be willing to have one in his collection. Gems are scarce and nicer ones
are rare.
Now I know there are more than 75,000 nice '69 quarters out there in unc. This
is merely what survives in mint sets. The next 100,000 below this aren't terrible
but they fall well short of "choice". But all these mint sets aren't available on the
market either. Many are in hoards waiting for higher prices or in collections. Some
are sitting long forgotten in safety deposit boxes or crawl spaces.
So do the math. You can pay $120 for a "common" '31-S cent with hundreds of
thousands surviving and tens of thousands available for sale at any given time.
Or you can pay $2.50 for a nice attractive '69 quarter with tens of thousands
surviving and hundreds available at any given time.
I'm not suggesting you buy the quarter because it's cheap. It would look pretty
silly sitting between a '31-D and '32 in your penny collection. I'm not suggesting
you buy the quarter at all. I'm just trying to say there is room for growth and this
thread is an attempt to show some indication of how much room.
In 1982, I noticed at my bank in St. Louis that they had some of the Zinc D Large Dates, so I bought about 40 or 50 rolls of Lincolns and went through them with white cotton gloves. I found about 13 or 14 rolls of them, and put them into tubes. Now, just a year or two ago, I went through the tubes and culled out about half of them. Many of them were getting worse and worse with the crumby rinse that the Mint did that year. I'm wondering if I should rinse the rest in D.I. water and/or acetone and pat them dry to see if I can remove the contaminants and to preserve the rest of them for posterity.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>In 1987, I bought 50 Mint Sets and proceeded to cut them up and put the coins into tubes. I still have them all. Every time I look at the top few coins, they seem to be nice coins.
In 1982, I noticed at my bank in St. Louis that they had some of the Zinc D Large Dates, so I bought about 40 or 50 rolls of Lincolns and went through them with white cotton gloves. I found about 13 or 14 rolls of them, and put them into tubes. Now, just a year or two ago, I went through the tubes and culled out about half of them. Many of them were getting worse and worse with the crumby rinse that the Mint did that year. I'm wondering if I should rinse the rest in D.I. water and/or acetone and pat them dry to see if I can remove the contaminants and to preserve the rest of them for posterity. >>
The '87 sets are generally pretty nice and they have almost no trouble
with tarnish yet. They had just started burnishing some of the planchets
so there are some really nice PL's among these. The majority of the cop-
per nickel coins are chUnc or better. There is a lot of marking on many of
the coins and it's exasperating to try to find them entirely clean but gems
abound.
The early zincs are really tough and have a remarkable attrition rate. If
there's a tiny break in the plating they aren't going to last.
Most people would be surprised to know how tough some of these are and
that goes double for the ones that don't appear in mint sets.
<< <i>....I meanze; young buyers of say a 48 mint set are probably in their late 70's , when they pass on - the last of the origional sets will come to market via begrieved nieve widows/offspring . In 10-20 years there will be no more of the "origional " sets left .
you can say that again
Cladking probably has the best data but I suspect that each year the surviving intact mint and proof sets are diminishing due to these practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BONGO HURTLES ALONG THE RAIN SODDEN HIGHWAY OF LIFE ON UNDERINFLATED BALD RETREAD TIRES
I was a young buyer of a 1948 mint set. It was the only way to get a new Franklin half. It would be years before one would show up in circulation in Maine and the first circulating date I saw was 1952. The halves were horrible looking with deep reeding cuts on the face. I sold half of the set to my junior high teacher and the rest was spent by the early 50's.
<< <i>
<< <i>"Choice and gem coins can be scarce and in many cases there is virtually no other supply than these sets."
You mean the is only 1,600,000 UNC 1987 nickles left. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
P.S. WILL OVER PAY FOR YOUR UNC 1987 COINS. 1xFACE >>
This is OT but what the heck.
Consider a coin like the 1931-S Lincoln. This makes a great example since
it's low mintage (886,000) and it's the coin that actually ushered in the era
of BU roll saving (1934- 1965). When a promoter offered to buy the entire
mintage of this coin the mint adopted the policy of no longer making short
mint runs.
The vast majority of this date was saved in BU and most of the rest were
gleaned from circulation before they were more than lightly worn. In those
days the range of quality was not so wide and few collectors concerned
themselves with looking for pristine well made examples since for the most
part they all were. Collectors just wanted a nice attractive coin.
There has been attrition and some degradation of these coins over the years.
There are probably only about 400,000 left with most of these being in unc.
This is a $120 coin. Over the years collectors have grown a taste for gems
and these coins can spot or otherwise degrade so MS-65's are more than $700.
Compare this to the toughest clad quarter; the 1969. This coin was dumped in-
to circulation and it has simply been ground to powder ever since. There were
176,000,000 made but they weren't saved because people didn't like clad coins
and because almost every single one of these coins was extremely poorly made
from worn dies and were then banged up. I'd wager not even 20,000 of these
survive that were made for circulation. Most of these are not attractive coins.
The only other source is the 1,800,000 mint sets of which some 300,000 survive.
This isn't some popular long collected series where you can count on large num-
bers of old collections supplying a steady stream of nice examples coming to mar-
ket for decade after decade. People didn't (and don't) collect these so they don't
come come into coin shops. A few of the coins from destroyed sets will survive
but mostly when these sets get destroyed the unwanted coins go into circulation.
If there's no market for a coin like this then the dealer will just put it in the cash
register.
Even if somebody did want to hoard this coin there's a very basic problem; most
of them look like junk with retained planchet scratching. It comes back to the why
save ugly coins. About 25% of these are attractive enough that most collectors
would be willing to have one in his collection. Gems are scarce and nicer ones
are rare.
Now I know there are more than 75,000 nice '69 quarters out there in unc. This
is merely what survives in mint sets. The next 100,000 below this aren't terrible
but they fall well short of "choice". But all these mint sets aren't available on the
market either. Many are in hoards waiting for higher prices or in collections. Some
are sitting long forgotten in safety deposit boxes or crawl spaces.
So do the math. You can pay $120 for a "common" '31-S cent with hundreds of
thousands surviving and tens of thousands available for sale at any given time.
Or you can pay $2.50 for a nice attractive '69 quarter with tens of thousands
surviving and hundreds available at any given time.
I'm not suggesting you buy the quarter because it's cheap. It would look pretty
silly sitting between a '31-D and '32 in your penny collection. I'm not suggesting
you buy the quarter at all. I'm just trying to say there is room for growth and this
thread is an attempt to show some indication of how much room. >>
Iwas just being silly sorry for being a jerk, heck more people collect what you like than what I do(peace vams and trade dollars). I say collect what you like and study it and that is the true way to get the most enjoyment out of our hobby. But there is a decanting valid opinion out there that enjoys the financial appreciation aspect or the exclusivity of rarity. On point one; cost always comes down to supply and demand and one has to think it will be awhile before demand out paces supply of the clad generation of coins with a few stopper varieties and true rarity will be further down the line. There is a contrast in modern times that the least popular coins (sacs, kenn) will most likely to become the scarcest since being exported and made in limited numbers. Whereas back in the day 19th(Cen) it was the most popular coins that got used up and are the rare ones now 25c pennies ect. while you can find 2c and 3c pieces for days. I blame inflation as people just couldn't save mint sets and proofs and if one person could there kid might not while today people don't even think twice to putting boxes of state quarters away.
Barrytrot(2),Stupid,Savoyspecial,docq,ecoinquest, halfhunter,snman,Coll3ctor.
wondercoin. Blue594. internetjunky.
keepdachange. Scrapman1077.Ahrensdad, mrmom, mygrandeoso, blu62vette, Clackamas,giorgio11, adriana, cucamongacoin,
huge hoards of proof/mint sets in the 60's , 70's and 80's :
believed that less then 10% of ALL such sets had not been picked over !
<< <i>...........i read in Tomaska's Cameo book that a couple of very respected collectors/investors who had access to
huge hoards of proof/mint sets in the 60's , 70's and 80's :
believed that less then 10% of ALL such sets had not been picked over ! >>
A great deal depends on your definitions here.
First is "picked over". Obviously almost any proof set that's ever been through a dealer's
shop or a knowledgeable collectors hands is "picked over" for No-S's. By the same token
large percentages of SMS's and older proof sets have been checked for cameos. But there
aren't and haven't been large numbers of people checking mint sets for anything but the
"usual suspects" like small date '70 set or high grade Ikes. Even these are relatively recent
phenomena; fifteen years ago you could still find well over 5% small date cents typically in
1970 sets. Since the original incidence was close to 10% this implies they were not heavily
searched. How many people today will grab one of these sets just because it has a nice PL
Philly dime in it?
Another word that begs definition is "all". There's no way to know about the huge percent-
age of the sets that are in the hands of the original owners or even to see them. All we can
see are those on the market and we can only see "missing" sets if we know what's supposed
to be there. You can't say all the MS-70 Ikes are gone if there were never any MS-70 Ikes!!
A bigger problem with "all" is that almost all of the sets that were on the market no longer
exist especially in the case of mint sets. Proof sets have always enjoyed a more active retail
market but most of the demand for mint set coins is for the individual coins. Since most are
loathe to cut up sets they purchase them individually creating a demand for singles. When
mint sets get together it's usually to be destroyed by wholesalers. It's largely a new universe
of proof sets every several years and there is very little overhang of mint sets.
I'd hazard the guess that the percentage of something like superb gem '88-D cents in the mint
sets on the market is very similar to what it was in 1989. Of course you'll need luck on your
side if you're seeking cameo '56 silver; but then, you always did.
<< <i>....I meanze; young buyers of say a 48 mint set are probably in their late 70's , when they pass on - the last of the origional sets will come to market via begrieved nieve widows/offspring . In 10-20 years there will be no more of the "origional " sets left .
I would love to see this data for the time period of 1947-60 for proofs. 57 and 58 proofs with original cello and envelope are getting to be tough to find as far as decent condition.
Example, besides all the others that were searched, the cello has startied to crack on my 57 and 58 sets. Looks likem its airtite time soon, but I will keep the original packaging. The sets were not made to go over 50 or 60 years easily, IMO
<< <i>Yes, these numbers go along with my intuition and observations but it is quite possible that extremely large holdings in OGP still exist. I think it a bit of mystery as to survival but until demand (if ever) picks up I suppose we will not know actual scarcity.
CK, always appreciate your input here and on the darkside so keep on plugging. Always appreciate when you give citations/evidence, etc. >>
Thanks.
I regret not having kept better records and source material. It was always so
much work chasing down "common" coins I put much of my energy into this in-
stead of good records.
I doubt large quantities of OGP survives. This is based on two things. More im-
portantly the cost of setting aside vast numbers of coins was far far lower with
BU rolls and the fact that these just never turn up should be indicative. Almost
no one was aware that quality was superior in the mint sets since they weren't
looking; why spend lots of money on hard to store sets but nothing on more com-
pact BU rolls?
Proof sets are more likely but these are extremely bulky and would cause even
the most avid bull to tire in short order. Lots of people may have a large number
in aggregate though.
It will require continued increasing demand to see what's out there. There's no
question that some of the moderns will have the lowest survival rates of all time
and be some of the scarcest coins ever but what about the huge mintages and
the proofs?
<< <i>I think CW had an article a couple years ago about the proof sets. I believe they quoted one of the big 2-page-ad buyers in the weekly journal who indicated that they break up thousands of proof sets each month for the purpose of selling "singles updates" to album collectors. I know I buy multiple proof and mint sets each year. One for the mint and proof 'set' collection and another to be disassembled and added to my albums. I also know that my entire Unc. & proof collection of clads since 1965 have come from U.S. Mint and Proof sets that I personally disassembled. I belive I am far from alone here. I also concur that alot of the mint set extracted coins are butt ugly and I've gleaned better specimens from circulation than I've cut out of mint sets.
>>
This article was linkable until early this year I believe.
It's hard to get a feel for the number of mint sets sold to those using them to
update their sets but it was believed by many to be very substantial in the
late-'90's. The practice apparently got a big boost when the Kennedy's weren't
available at banks until late in the year any longer. I think it was CW that esti-
mated close to a 1/4 million sets were destroyed within months of production
because of this since about 1993.
This could affect states quarter collectors as well but I don't even have much
anecdotal evidence for this.