Options
I bought a 1954 US Proof set in a FLAT PACK today?
ModCrewman
Posts: 4,041 ✭✭✭✭✭
Is there any chance this is original? The envelope has another date crossed out. I've never heard of the mint issuing flat packs prior to 1955, could I have a rare collectors item?
0
Comments
is there any us mint stamping on it besides that?
<< <i>I don't think that's original >>
My first instinct is to agree with you, it honestly never even occurred to me that it was something different before I bought it.
Teddy, there isn't actually any serial number it is just waving in the cellophane.
The thing is the cellophane has that "fresh" feel that holds the coins tight, and they look very clean and white as if they have been in there forever. Proof hunters know this feel and look of cellophane well.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
pertaining to the mint developing new packaging for yearly proof sets...a copy of supporting information would add value here
1955 saw flat and boxed sets if i believe right
hopefully it works out this is a discovery example too for ya...
You are correct about 1955 Teddy.
the Mint started issuing Flat Pack Sets at some point during 1954 and continued to issue Box Sets during 1955 until they were all used up. another oddity from this era is the envelope used for the Flat Pack Proof Sets. to my knowledge all 1956 Proof Sets came with an envelope which opened with a flap on the short side(right). almost all 1955 and 1957 Proof Sets came with an envelope which opens on the long side(top) but i have seen Sets from each year with the flap to the right like the 1956 Sets. yet another oddity is the 1968 Proof Set which is the only year i've seen with the outer box opening on the short sides instead of the top, probably a short run at the beginning of the year till they switched to the more convenient top flap style.
I tend doubt that either of these sets is it their original holder because of the issues I raised above, but that is just my opinion.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I don't think it is real, but the mint has done some things without documenting them.
Someone should be able to shed more light on this subject.
I would thing that if original would be missing the seal and have a blank space like the early 55 flat packs...
Since the outer envelope has another date crossed out, I don't think the packaging is original to the set.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
given the veracity of the attacks the Mint receives whenever they make an error nowadays and the way we tend to cherish the errors they've made in the past, i find it surprising that the opinions tend to be unanimous that this Set cannot be genuine. certainly we've all seen/heard about Sets with two examples of one denomination in a Set, missing a coin, etc., so why would it be surprising to find that they forgot to place a tag in this particular one?? as to the packaging, i don't see the issue as being any different than some coins that have been struck late in a calender year's production from dies meant for the next year; small in number but done just the same.
all the same it could be a fake Set but i tend to think it's just normal and not seen very often.
<< <i>I have never seen a 1954 flat pack Proof set, and I've never seen a 1956 set without the Philadelphia mint tag in the sixth slot.
given the veracity of the attacks the Mint receives whenever they make an error nowadays and the way we tend to cherish the errors they've made in the past, i find it surprising that the opinions tend to be unanimous that this Set cannot be genuine. certainly we've all seen/heard about Sets with two examples of one denomination in a Set, missing a coin, etc., so why would it be surprising to find that they forgot to place a tag in this particular one?? as to the packaging, i don't see the issue as being any different than some coins that have been struck late in a calender year's production from dies meant for the next year; small in number but done just the same.
all the same it could be a fake Set but i tend to think it's just normal and not seen very often. >>
Yes, but it is odd for one collector to find two anomalies like this in short period of time. He didn't say so, but I'm guessing that he acquired these two sets from the same source.
<< <i>not sure >>
Someone called?
<< <i>
<< <i>not sure >>
Someone called? >>
lol
<< <i>Is there any chance this is original? The envelope has another date crossed out. I've never heard of the mint issuing flat packs prior to 1955, could I have a rare collectors item?
Coins are proofs, but the cellowrap sleeve they're in, was not used in 54.
This was my grandfathers, which he ordered directly from the Mint.
Someone likely took 1954 proof coins and put them, plus a mint seal from an OGP 55-64 set, into a cello flat pack that they made themselves with their own production equipment. They probably then put the inner two cardboard sheets plus the slip of paper with the mint's information about the set into an OGP envelope to make it look "authentic". The fact that the envelope has the year scratched out is strong evidence that it is not a true 1954 OGP set.
A few years back I was at Santa Clara and stopped by a dealer from So. Cal. that has a huge supply of proof sets. He had some 1950-53 proof set coins that were contained in flat packs. The flat packs were obviously not OGP and instead were poor quality recent reproductions of flat pack packaging.
If you had the real thing, that would be an interesting conversation piece.
I don't think that this is the original packaging for this set.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>BillJones, they were acquired from the same B&M, but were selected from a large batch of sets (>50) in there inventory. The 1956 is in a side opening envelope as Al mentioned. I think its a stretch to assume these were both from the same source long-term beyond their time at the B&M. >>
Go ahead a push your opinion. I don't care. I'm just expressing my opinion about this item.
Here is another thing to consider. I looked at the Proof set inserts for 1955, 1956, 1960 and 1962. Among other things the "D" in "PHILADELPHIA" is narrower on the 1955 and 1956 sets than it is on the 1960 and 1962 sets. The "D" on your 1954 set appears to wide like the one on the 1960 and '62 sets. Here are some photos.
1955
1956
1960
1962
Insert in your 1954 falt pack set appears to be from a later year, but maybe this all crazy. Still I would think that a 1954 insert would look more like a 1955 or '56 insert than one from the '60s.
<< <i>
<< <i>BillJones, they were acquired from the same B&M, but were selected from a large batch of sets (>50) in there inventory. The 1956 is in a side opening envelope as Al mentioned. I think its a stretch to assume these were both from the same source long-term beyond their time at the B&M. >>
Go ahead a push your opinion. I don't care. I'm just expressing my opinion about this item.
Here is another thing to consider. I looked at the Proof set inserts for 1955, 1956, 1960 and 1962. Among other things the "D" in "PHILADELPHIA" is narrower on the 1955 and 1956 sets than it is on the 1960 and 1962 sets. The "D" on your 1954 set appears to wide like the one on the 1960 and '62 sets. Here are some photos.
1955
1956
1960
1962
Insert in your 1954 falt pack set appears to be from a later year, but maybe this all crazy. Still I would think that a 1954 insert would look more like a 1955 or '56 insert than one from the '60s. >>
I never noticed the difference in the early and late seals!
Best wishes,
Eric
<< <i>the set is genuine.
the Mint started issuing Flat Pack Sets at some point during 1954 and continued to issue Box Sets during 1955 until they were all used up. another oddity from this era is the envelope used for the Flat Pack Proof Sets. to my knowledge all 1956 Proof Sets came with an envelope which opened with a flap on the short side(right). almost all 1955 and 1957 Proof Sets came with an envelope which opens on the long side(top) but i have seen Sets from each year with the flap to the right like the 1956 Sets. yet another oddity is the 1968 Proof Set which is the only year i've seen with the outer box opening on the short sides instead of the top, probably a short run at the beginning of the year till they switched to the more convenient top flap style. >>
Here's an example of what Al's referring to:
Early sets
Later Sets
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Here is another thing to consider. I looked at the Proof set inserts for 1955, 1956, 1960 and 1962. Among other things the "D" in "PHILADELPHIA" is narrower on the 1955 and 1956 sets than it is on the 1960 and 1962 sets. The "D" on your 1954 set appears to wide like the one on the 1960 and '62 sets. Here are some photos. >>
I pulled out my proof sets and found that the "D" is the same on the 1955, 56, 57 and 58 sets and changes on the 1959 set. I find it hard to believe the mint would make an emblem for a 1954 set, set it aside for the next 4 years in favor of a different design and then start to use it again.
But that's just me...
I've also looked at the Guidebook to US Proof Sets by David Lange and he makes no reference to anything other than the boxed sets for 1954, mentioning only a change in the materials used for the bags.
As Al said this is pretty much a "Angels dancing on the head of a pin" argument, but such is much of the practice of numismatics. I'm generally rather irreverent to the OGP as I've probably cut up 200 sets over the last year and a half and this set is headed for a similar destiny, as the quarter has a nice cameo on it that may upgrade my current PR66 CAM. Before I cut into it I wanted to make sure it wasn't something extraordinary worth preserving in the OGP.
Thanks all for your input.
PS - I'll keep it in the OGP for another week or so as I'm headed out of town on business tomorrow, so if anyone else has any additional great insight I'll be watching for it this week.
<< <i>
<< <i>the set is genuine.
the Mint started issuing Flat Pack Sets at some point during 1954 and continued to issue Box Sets during 1955 until they were all used up. another oddity from this era is the envelope used for the Flat Pack Proof Sets. to my knowledge all 1956 Proof Sets came with an envelope which opened with a flap on the short side(right). almost all 1955 and 1957 Proof Sets came with an envelope which opens on the long side(top) but i have seen Sets from each year with the flap to the right like the 1956 Sets. yet another oddity is the 1968 Proof Set which is the only year i've seen with the outer box opening on the short sides instead of the top, probably a short run at the beginning of the year till they switched to the more convenient top flap style. >>
Here's an example of what Al's referring to:
Early sets
Later Sets
I believe that there is a third box variety on the 1968 Proof sets. The dark blue one you show copies the dark blue cardboard used on the 1967 Special Mint Sets, as well as the end flap design of the SMS box.
I am 99% sure that I have seen a top flap box made from the dark blue cardboard. Presumably their vendor wanted to use up the stock.
TD
As a collector of cameo proofs and cameo varieties, you can imagine the mountain of cut up proof sets I generated over the years as I clipped out the coins I wanted. I can see that there could be a demand from dealers/collectors to reassemble sets in new cellophane for resale to recoup some of their investment. I wouldn't do this myself, but can see how it would make disposing of the less desirable proofs much easier and much more profitable than trying to peddle a mountain of singles.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
<< <i>so it appears that solid, well reasoned PCGS detective work may have solved another Numismatic mystery and i am apparently wrong yet again. am i the only one who enjoys the irony that everything turned on a "die variety" of the Mint facility insert??!!?? that really cracks me up and helps flavor the foot stuck in my mouth a bit.
I can't say with 100% certainty that a mint issued 1954 flat Proof set does not exist, but pretty sure the one shown here is not it.
Back in the 1960s, I used to watch the clerks at Gimbels department store cut up flat pack Proof sets so they could mount the coins Capital Plastics holdes. They used to save the Philadelphia mint inserts for reasons I didn't understand. I've also seen these pieces in the cello offered in junk boxes. I think that one of them was recycled here for this set.
If this item were a genuine 1954 flat pack, I think that it would be worth a premium and worthy of note. As such I think it's better to really examine it in detail to come up with an answer.
Barrytrot(2),Stupid,Savoyspecial,docq,ecoinquest, halfhunter,snman,Coll3ctor.
wondercoin. Blue594. internetjunky.
keepdachange. Scrapman1077.Ahrensdad, mrmom, mygrandeoso, blu62vette, Clackamas,giorgio11, adriana, cucamongacoin,
BHNC #203