Swiss "Fleur de Coin" or "Stempelglanz" set... ?
lordmarcovan
Posts: 43,558 ✭✭✭✭✭
Potentially dumb question:
OK, is this a Mint set or a Proof set?
I've always sort of equated the "Fleur de Coin" thing with Proof coinage, whether that's technically correct or not. These coins certainly look like proofs- they've got frosty cameo devices. But the English label on the set says "Uncirculated". I guess I've let myself become a tad confused.
OK, is this a Mint set or a Proof set?
I've always sort of equated the "Fleur de Coin" thing with Proof coinage, whether that's technically correct or not. These coins certainly look like proofs- they've got frosty cameo devices. But the English label on the set says "Uncirculated". I guess I've let myself become a tad confused.
0
Comments
FOR SALE Items
The images do in fact show an official Swiss Mint gem uncirculated year set. (1992); mintage: 20,300.
The differences between the 'stempelglanz' mint set and the proof sets are mostly in the fields. Think of the unc. set as having PL mirrors, and the proof set as have DMPL mirrors. The proof devices are a tad more frosted as well, IIRC.
The bottom line is that you would have to see the two finishes side-by-side to discern between them.
Anyway, compared to the U.S. Mints loathsome quality mint sets, these are a refreshing bit of 'darkness', eh?
<< <i> Think of the unc. set as having PL mirrors, and the proof set as have DMPL mirrors. The proof devices are a tad more frosted as well >>
Thanks for clearing up the mystery. Wow, if these are UNC, as you say, the true proofs must really be something to behold.
So despite the gorgeous prooflike attributes of the coins, I take it I should price this around what Krause calls a Mint set (KM# MS25) versus what they call a Proof set (KM# PS19). Yep. I see it, now. Mintage 20,300, making it one of the more "common" sets. Thanks again.