I have always thought that the most foolish thing to do with the 1950-1955 Box Sets is to keep them intact and "original" because that ensures that they'll degrade over time. I keep the boxes and the pouches after I remove the coins for storage in something better.
<< <i>all the talk of cutting the Mint Sets up is a little over the top since even at 20-25% back of bid they are still past face value. that leaves either one of two scenarios --- many are buying them way, way back and should incur the wrath of members for being scum -or- many are willing to "leave money on the table" while sounding heroic and spending them for some reason. a third alternative is present: although the market is small it is still there and the sets will be held much like money in the bank till something develops to move prices forward. >>
There is demand from collectors who want choice examples of each of the moderns. It's finally becoming common knowledge that the bulk of the best coins went into mint sets and these are a handy source so collectors are turning here first. Of course this is still a small part of the demand. Another source of demand is collectors trying to have collections of each mint set. Again this is not a large source of demand. The biggest source of demand is still wholesalers who destroy these sets to make rolls but while they stillget the lion's share of sets, it's no longer nearly 90% and is closer to 75%.
There is a new source of demand. I hesitate to call it "investment" demand because most of the individuals doing it are more interested just because they see something grossly under- valued and they don't want all these coins to be destroyed. They are picking up sets and sav- ing the choice coins while spending the junk. Of course this is essentially what the collectors are doing as well but collectors do it on a smaller scale.
The only thing that can stop the current situation is higher prices caused by too low supply. With wholesalers starting to bid up roll prices it seems unlikely this situation can persist much longer. Once the mint set prices go up there will have to be actual competition for the survi- vors rather than the current situation where even the greatly dimished supply still dwarfs the actual demand. Somehow I just expect that a great many of the collectors who have been very lackadaisical about upgrading will jump into the market as soon as prices start higher. Only then will they discover they all need the same dates.
It's very cheap to bust up these sets but you're certainly right that it's hard to do for free. There is a premium on most of these sets and if you have to spend the bigger coin then the little coins you save have to absorb the entire premium. There's an awful lot of "excess" getting burned off right now. One has to wonder if the wholesale market will be squashed by higher prices. If the big guys have to pay $50 for a clad quarter roll (from mint sets) will they even be able to sell pro- duct at a profit. How much will John Q Public be willing to pay for a set of clads? Are all of these wholesale coins being retailed or are some being set aside for "investment". There are some sub- stantial hoardes of clads out there but they are far smaller than people imagine and they are usu- ally typical or only slightly better quality. Most of the coins from dismantled sets are worn out in circulation and most of the rest are owned by the public and casual collectors.
It will all become far clearer if and when prices go higher. Right now everything is mostly guess- work based on extensive anecdotal evidence. With higher prices how these coins have become dis- tributed will be much clearer. With higher prices more demand for the proof sets should manifest as well. With higher prices we'll see the manufacturers finally making albums just for the clads and other moderns.
I have always thought that the most foolish thing to do with the 1950-1955 Box Sets is to keep them intact and "original" because that ensures that they'll degrade over time. I keep the boxes and the pouches after I remove the coins for storage in something better. >>
Poor storage has ruined a great number of coins.
Probably all pre-1985 mint sets should be dismantled and it's already too late for a lot of pre-1971 sets.
Thoughtful and knowledgeable information, opinions and insight are provided.
I do not know when, or if, post 1964 circulation strike US coinage will ever become "en vogue" with collectors. However, if it does and if collectors seriously desire to acquire truly "Gem" examples of these coins running from 1965 to date, they will find it to be a very frustrating task.
For those who are able to locate and acquire Gem examples of these coins, they are fortunate. Not only will they have coins that others will want, desire and pay up for, they will also have some very attractive, eye appealing coins.
It would be nice to have Wondercoin post photos of all of his best clad quarters, just to give us forum denizens a peek at what type of modern set is possible.
I like looking at pre 1973 poof sets and do so to hunt for keepers. I have also devoted some time to looking at mint sets and SMS sets from 1959-1989. It is surprising to see the number of ugly coins (ugly from the day it was made, or ugly due to deterioration after sitting in mint cello for decades) in these sets. It is also surprising to find, on occasion, individual coins which are Gem and stunning in appearance.
I still wait for the day when Cladking announces that he will write a book on moderns (I also wait for the day when he posts some photos of his best moderns).
It's finally becoming common knowledge that the bulk of the best coins went into mint sets
I have already responded to this assertion but will do so again --- I don't know where this thinking comes from for Mint Sets prior to the early 2000's when the Satin finish coins became the norm, from all I have read the Mint Set coins were never struck specially for the sets but were in fact taken from normally struck coinage(if I am wrong on this, please point me to a reference where it can be verified). I have looked at enough sets to see some horrendous coins with poor strike quality. Using a date/mm such as a 1984-D Jefferson Nickel, I believe if you took an original roll of 40 coins and a random group of 40 Mint Sets that you probably wouldn't find much difference in quality between the two groups of coins.
the fly in the ointment is simply that the Mint Sets are more accessible: you could probably find a 1984 Mint Set at most shops but not likely an intact original roll of 1984-D Jefferson nickels, but that doesn't reflect the quality of what went into either. your perspective is probably skewed by the fact that Mint Sets are the easiest source for coins.
I do not know when, or if, post 1964 circulation strike US coinage will ever become "en vogue" with collectors. However, if it does and if collectors seriously desire to acquire truly "Gem" examples of these coins running from 1965 to date, they will find it to be a very frustrating task. >>
There are enough nice coins out there surviving or stashed away that tens of thousands of collectors could assemble mostly chBU and Gem sets though, of course, there are some dates where even BU will be tough. Varieties are mostly all tough even in low grades but they will available if people start collecting them.
There are a lot of stoppers in most series to a solid Gem set. Perhaps dimes will be the most popular to attempt in all Gem. There are a few tough cents but these are doable as well. The other coins just aren't out there or anywhere else in meaningful quantities be- cause we allowed them to get into circulation.
<< <i>For those who are able to locate and acquire Gem examples of these coins, they are fortunate. Not only will they have coins that others will want, desire and pay up for, they will also have some very attractive, eye appealing coins.
It would be nice to have Wondercoin post photos of all of his best clad quarters, just to give us forum denizens a peek at what type of modern set is possible. >>
There can be a lot of pride of ownership in some of these coins. Even if no one else appre- ciated the coins it takes work, time, and effort to locate them. It takes courage to go against the grain even if all you're doing is buying Gems at face value or letting the grading services identify them for you. Wondercoin certainly has some spectacular coins and if I had it to do over I just might have saved my money and purchased the spectacular Gems. It might even be cheaper.
I will always cut the pre-1985 sets out. The packaging is terrible and I've seen countless coins from the late 60s & 70s completely trashed. >>
This is going tobe a big problem since it just gets worse year in and year out.
Coins that haven't been cut out and stabilized or that have poor storage are prone to damage. Already virtually 100% of '68-P cents are damaged. 95% are just junk and the other 5% have small carbon spots that are likely to grow.
I used to like collecting these but the quality got so variable I stopped. Still buy proof cents off eBay and collect the uncirculated sets direct from the Mint.
Whatever you are, be a good one. ---- Abraham Lincoln
<< <i>(if I am wrong on this, please point me to a reference where it can be verified). >>
The mint has confused this issue a great deal. They always tend to emphasize that mint set coins are just like regular production even though this is true in the numismatic sense of the words. From the mint's perspective it is true. They very rarely have discussed the issue at all and Tom Delorey (Captain Henway) even consulted for an article written back in the '90's (The Mint's Secret Coins). For most practical purposes mint set coins have been secret and the processes to make them have been secret. But there have been numerous clues inadvertantly or intentionally released by the mint over the years.
The most dramatic way to see the difference is to buy a 1976 40% BU set and this same set that was sold in later years that was run off on high speed presses. These are like night and day. You'll see this same difference in all the mint set coins but it's usually far less dramatic.
Mint sets are not the be all end all of modern circulation collecting for numerous reasons. Some Ikes must be found in rolls because they are so scarce in the sets. Many of the coins are highly elusive in the sets or simply weren't included in the sets like '79-S dollars or '83 dimes. Most varieties don't exist at all in the sets. But, as the mint has said in the past; 'mint sets constitute the backbone of the finest modern coin collections.".
This is probably least true for nickels and especially FS nickels. It is less true for Ikes. Other- wise you'll find most of the best made Gems in mint sets or they have been removed from mint sets.
<< <i> Using a date/mm such as a 1984-D Jefferson Nickel, I believe if you took an original roll of 40 coins and a random group of 40 Mint Sets that you probably wouldn't find much difference in quality between the two groups of coins. >>
I would spot the difference pretty quickly. It's a great example though because these come gemmy but banged up in the set and they come nice and only sometimes banged up in the wild. There is a very high correlation between average mint set quality and average roll quality. It's just the sets come with better struck coins from newer dies.
<< <i>I used to like collecting these but the quality got so variable I stopped. Still buy proof cents off eBay and collect the uncirculated sets direct from the Mint. >>
I think the satin finish turned a lot of people off too. A lot of the sets from the '90's had beautiful highly PL Gems but then they'd all be scratched. Just getting a matching set from '65 to date is a bit of a chore. Try finding a nice '93-D quarter that isn't PL. Try finding a 1974-P quarter that is PL.
Interesting thread, but I have to agree with Al about the source for coins that were used in mint sets until 2004. I went back and re-read "United States Proof Sets and Mint Sets" (1936-2002) by Ron Guth and Bill Gale. Evidently the authors did not read the article about The Mint's Secret Coins, because for every year from 1958 through 1989 (as far as I decided to check), they state that "The coins in the (insert date) PDS Mint sets were Uncirculated pieces pulled from regular production runs, thus the quality of the individual coins varies widely from set to set and even within a set." When I was putting together a registry set of statehood quarters, my 'go-to' source for gem quality coins was always bank rolls - except for very few exceptions that were cut from mint sets. I have plenty of mint sets with coins in them that would not even grade MS60 if submitted, they are so poorly struck & handled....scratches, gouges, fingerprints, spotting - you name it!
Don't you know that it's worth every treasure on Earth to be young at heart? And as rich as you are, it's much better by far, to be young at heart!
<< <i>Interesting thread, but I have to agree with Al about the source for coins that were used in mint sets until 2004. I went back and re-read "United States Proof Sets and Mint Sets" (1936-2002) by Ron Guth and Bill Gale. >>
A few things here. I've been studying and searching mint sets for 40 years now. I knew a lot more about mint sets than what appeared in Kari Stone's excellent article on the "secret" coins than what appears in the article. Indeed there are even minor errors in the article. The article (COINage magazine October, 2000 Pg 18) is superbly done and she makes an excellent stab at comprehensiveness as well as accuracy. There's no reason to believe Gale or Guth have any special knowledge about moderns.
The mint kindda spilled their guts on mint sets back around 2005 releasing some details like the fact that they use more tonnage on mint set coins than on proof set coins. Both are significantly higher than regular production strikes. Mint set coins are certainly not FDC or proofs but they are designed to strike up as much detail as possible from the master dies. They succeed reasonably well in most instances.
It is strange that this situation exists but it was caused largely by the mint that always maintained these coins were in no way special. Perhaps the largest contributer to the confusion is that people just don't collect moderns or this would be generally known. Once the status quo becomes estab- lished it nearly takes an act of Congress to change perceptions. I believe among modern collectors this is generally known. It is true that if you can find BU rolls you can get lucky and find superb spe- cimens. While most of these specimens will have strike issues some will also be well struck by good dies. It's not my contention that mint sets are everything merely that the lion's share of the best made coins each year went into mint sets. Of these very well made coins many escaped from the mint without being damaged. Most did not. If you want well made coins mint sets are where to find them.
<< <i>There's no reason to believe Gale or Guth have any special knowledge about moderns. >>
I'm more familiar with Gale than Guth.
After a quick google it appears Ron Guth probably does know something about moderns. But it's still not true that mint set coins are "The coins in the (insert date) PDS Mint sets were Un- circulated pieces pulled from regular production runs...". It's a misstatement probably origin- ating in confusing mint literature.
CK - When I visit the forums, I consistently pay attention to your posts, because I tend to agree with most of the premises that you put forth. I also have been collecting and studying 'modern' (50 years old now - catching up to me - wish I was called modern! ) coins for more than 3 decades. I hope that I live long enough to see some of your predictions of market movement come to fruition.
However, when a person's resume includes past president of PCGS, current president of Coinfacts, numerous numismatic literary awards, as well as 'Numismatist of The Year', and took the time & effort to write a guidebook to proof & mint sets from 1936-2002 - that person deserves some of my attention as well. Now, since his book was published in 2002, and the Secret Coins were made somewhat public in the 2004-2005 years, I have to add some weight to your argument.
I have owned, looked at, bought & sold probably close to 1,000 mint sets - and many had coins that looked like they were pulled not from a regular mint production, but from circulation. Maybe they were struck during the last days of a die's life and mishandled as the mint does so well, so the Secret Coins of the Mint may indeed exist. Since I am considered a skeptic, (although I have my doubts about that ) I would need some sort of documented proof that such a process actually has been minting coins before I am convinced. Why in the world would the mint feel obligated to keep it a secret? It seems as though it would be a good way to sell more sets.
And don't even get me started on Canadian issues
Chuck
Don't you know that it's worth every treasure on Earth to be young at heart? And as rich as you are, it's much better by far, to be young at heart!
<< <i>CK - When I visit the forums, I consistently pay attention to your posts, because I tend to agree with most of the premises that you put forth. I also have been collecting and studying 'modern' (50 years old now - catching up to me - wish I was called modern! ) coins for more than 3 decades. I hope that I live long enough to see some of your predictions of market movement come to fruition.
However, when a person's resume includes past president of PCGS, current president of Coinfacts, numerous numismatic literary awards, as well as 'Numismatist of The Year', and took the time & effort to write a guidebook to proof & mint sets from 1936-2002 - that person deserves some of my attention as well. Now, since his book was published in 2002, and the Secret Coins were made somewhat public in the 2004-2005 years, I have to add some weight to your argument.
I have owned, looked at, bought & sold probably close to 1,000 mint sets - and many had coins that looked like they were pulled not from a regular mint production, but from circulation. Maybe they were struck during the last days of a die's life and mishandled as the mint does so well, so the Secret Coins of the Mint may indeed exist. Since I am considered a skeptic, (although I have my doubts about that ) I would need some sort of documented proof that such a process actually has been minting coins before I am convinced. Why in the world would the mint feel obligated to keep it a secret? It seems as though it would be a good way to sell more sets.
And don't even get me started on Canadian issues
>>
I just reread the article and it's really not good support for my argument and even goes so far as to imply I'm wrong.
Mostly my knowledge of mint sets is based on observation and experience. The mint simply didn't ever say much at all about mint sets and on the rare occasion they did it was always to say that these were regular production coins. But this simply isn't true.
I have what might be the finest '82-P quarter but it is markedly less well made than any of the mint set dates around it. This is what I always found in those days; the best made coins were almost invariably in the mint set. This didn't always apply to the finest preser- ved coins because some coins made it out of the mint quite clean and some mint set coins didn't.
Back in the day I watched the new coins very closely for varieties and anytime I spotted a Gem I'd try to track it down to its source. This was actually an effective way to find nice coins made for circulation. But it didn't always work because some years you'd never even see a single nicely made coin to track and tracking didn't always work.
But finding Gems in mint sets is shooting fish in a barrel. Usually about 2% of mint set coins are well struck Gems. You can look at literally thousands and thousands of some dates made for circulation without finding one even well struck by good dies. Decent strikes with decent dies that are clean were out there but I was looking for crisp strikes and very new dies. Also brand new die strikes are easily found in mint sets (~one set in 300) whereas I've never seen a brand new die strike on a circulation issue. These facts imply lower speed and fast swap out of dies. Full strikes suggest higher pressure. There is even some extra die preparation visible since PL's are far more common in mint sets. Most circulation PL's are one side only and pro- bably retired mint set dies.
I've had a lot of experience, looked at a lot of sets, and sifted through countless rolls. I confess I haven't put the effort into seeking rolls that I have in searching mint sets but this is only be- cause most of the rewards are in the sets and because finding quarter rolls is very difficult af- ter the year of issue.
There are a lot of clues to the reality and this is how I understand these clues. It simply appears the mint has been putting most of the Gems in the sets all along though many get marked up before they get out of the mint.
Of course if you grade primarily on marks your experience might differ from mine. But if you grade largely on strike then you probably share my views.
The early clads were just horribly made so my primary concern was strike quality. Over the years strike quality improved but my concern for strike was little changed. Now the shallow relief is much easier for the dies to impart in the moment they have to strike but I still like fully struck coins made by good dies. These still aren't common even though they don't stand head and shoulders over the lesser made coins like they used to.
This post rambles a lot but it does show the "evidence" for these "secret coins" extending allthe way to the very beginning of the modern era half a century ago.
Another fact that refutes the mint's claim that mint set coins were simply pulled from regular production lines is the distribution of varieties. Something like the '70-S small date cent is extremely common in mint sets and accounts for something on the order of 10% of production but the coin is quite scarce in circulation. This can be explained by all or most of the dies used to strike the coin were mint set dies and the production from the retired mint set dies got "lost" in circulation before they could be found. Not all mint set dies are reused but the majority appear to be.
Even more telling is the distribution of the type "d' reverses of the 1977 to 1984 quarters. These exist from each mint except for the 1982-P which doesn't exist. Some of these are exceedingly common (the '84-D for instance) but none exist in mint sets. The '80 P & D are also quite common (3% and 4% of mintage) and neither of these exist in sets. In- deed none at all appear in mint sets except the '81-P where it accounts for about .6% of mintage. These facts and numerous others suggest a different universe of dies for circulation issues and mint set issues which precludes the possibility that the coins are the same.
This can be explained by all or most of the dies used to strike the coin were mint set dies and the production from the retired mint set dies got "lost" in circulation before they could be found.
<< <i>This can be explained by all or most of the dies used to strike the coin were mint set dies and the production from the retired mint set dies got "lost" in circulation before they could be found.
here's what I would believe --- the coins struck just happened to end up in in a hopper that held coins which were used for Mint Sets, nothing sinister. I suppose this topic could be debated ad nauseum, but absent anything from the Mint stating a special process I'm left with the "anecdotal" evidence which tends to show that Mint Set coin may/may not have characteristics different from non-Mint Set coins. from this evidence, some members seem to say they have found coins in Mint Sets which are superior, others have said they have found Gem's in rolls and others have said that they don't see anything special from either, nice coins and junk from both. I tend to think that the reasoning for thinking Mint Sets render better coins is due to the fact that they are more often seen by average collectors instead of original date/mm rolls.
<< <i>here's what I would believe --- the coins struck just happened to end up in in a hopper that held coins which were used for Mint Sets, nothing sinister. I suppose this topic could be debated ad nauseum, but absent anything from the Mint stating a special process I'm left with the "anecdotal" evidence which tends to show that Mint Set coin may/may not have characteristics different from non-Mint Set coins. from this evidence, some members seem to say they have found coins in Mint Sets which are superior, others have said they have found Gem's in rolls and others have said that they don't see anything special from either, nice coins and junk from both. I tend to think that the reasoning for thinking Mint Sets render better coins is due to the fact that they are more often seen by average collectors instead of original date/mm rolls.
I defer to Occam's Razor. >>
OK, here's another little fact that supports the point; there is a very high correlation between mint set quality and the pops at the high end of the curve. Granted, this is hardly proof since there is also a correlation between mint set quality and roll quality for most dates.
Here's a fact that pretty much proves the point though. I can usually tell when a high end coin is from a mint set or not. It's probably a 90% accuracy rate.
Ever have one of those threads that nothing seems to go right? I couldda sat this one out.
Comments
I have always thought that the most foolish thing to do with the 1950-1955 Box Sets is to keep them intact and "original" because that ensures that they'll degrade over time. I keep the boxes and the pouches after I remove the coins for storage in something better.
<< <i>all the talk of cutting the Mint Sets up is a little over the top since even at 20-25% back of bid they are still past face value. that leaves either one of two scenarios --- many are buying them way, way back and should incur the wrath of members for being scum -or- many are willing to "leave money on the table" while sounding heroic and spending them for some reason. a third alternative is present: although the market is small it is still there and the sets will be held much like money in the bank till something develops to move prices forward. >>
There is demand from collectors who want choice examples of each of the moderns. It's
finally becoming common knowledge that the bulk of the best coins went into mint sets and
these are a handy source so collectors are turning here first. Of course this is still a small
part of the demand. Another source of demand is collectors trying to have collections of
each mint set. Again this is not a large source of demand. The biggest source of demand
is still wholesalers who destroy these sets to make rolls but while they stillget the lion's share
of sets, it's no longer nearly 90% and is closer to 75%.
There is a new source of demand. I hesitate to call it "investment" demand because most
of the individuals doing it are more interested just because they see something grossly under-
valued and they don't want all these coins to be destroyed. They are picking up sets and sav-
ing the choice coins while spending the junk. Of course this is essentially what the collectors
are doing as well but collectors do it on a smaller scale.
The only thing that can stop the current situation is higher prices caused by too low supply.
With wholesalers starting to bid up roll prices it seems unlikely this situation can persist much
longer. Once the mint set prices go up there will have to be actual competition for the survi-
vors rather than the current situation where even the greatly dimished supply still dwarfs the
actual demand. Somehow I just expect that a great many of the collectors who have been very
lackadaisical about upgrading will jump into the market as soon as prices start higher. Only then
will they discover they all need the same dates.
It's very cheap to bust up these sets but you're certainly right that it's hard to do for free. There
is a premium on most of these sets and if you have to spend the bigger coin then the little coins
you save have to absorb the entire premium. There's an awful lot of "excess" getting burned off
right now. One has to wonder if the wholesale market will be squashed by higher prices. If the
big guys have to pay $50 for a clad quarter roll (from mint sets) will they even be able to sell pro-
duct at a profit. How much will John Q Public be willing to pay for a set of clads? Are all of these
wholesale coins being retailed or are some being set aside for "investment". There are some sub-
stantial hoardes of clads out there but they are far smaller than people imagine and they are usu-
ally typical or only slightly better quality. Most of the coins from dismantled sets are worn out in
circulation and most of the rest are owned by the public and casual collectors.
It will all become far clearer if and when prices go higher. Right now everything is mostly guess-
work based on extensive anecdotal evidence. With higher prices how these coins have become dis-
tributed will be much clearer. With higher prices more demand for the proof sets should manifest
as well. With higher prices we'll see the manufacturers finally making albums just for the clads and
other moderns.
<< <i>ke-rect.
I have always thought that the most foolish thing to do with the 1950-1955 Box Sets is to keep them intact and "original" because that ensures that they'll degrade over time. I keep the boxes and the pouches after I remove the coins for storage in something better. >>
Poor storage has ruined a great number of coins.
Probably all pre-1985 mint sets should be dismantled and it's already too late
for a lot of pre-1971 sets.
Thoughtful and knowledgeable information, opinions and insight are provided.
I do not know when, or if, post 1964 circulation strike US coinage will ever become "en vogue" with collectors. However, if it does and if collectors seriously desire to acquire truly "Gem" examples of these coins running from 1965 to date, they will find it to be a very frustrating task.
For those who are able to locate and acquire Gem examples of these coins, they are fortunate. Not only will they have coins that others will want, desire and pay up for, they will also have some very attractive, eye appealing coins.
It would be nice to have Wondercoin post photos of all of his best clad quarters, just to give us forum denizens a peek at what type of modern set is possible.
I like looking at pre 1973 poof sets and do so to hunt for keepers. I have also devoted some time to looking at mint sets and SMS sets from 1959-1989. It is surprising to see the number of ugly coins (ugly from the day it was made, or ugly due to deterioration after sitting in mint cello for decades) in these sets. It is also surprising to find, on occasion, individual coins which are Gem and stunning in appearance.
I still wait for the day when Cladking announces that he will write a book on moderns (I also wait for the day when he posts some photos of his best moderns).
<< <i>
<< <i>ke-rect.
Poor storage has ruined a great number of coins.
Probably all pre-1985 mint sets should be dismantled and it's already too late
for a lot of pre-1971 sets. >>
>>
I will always cut the pre-1985 sets out. The packaging is terrible and I've seen countless coins from the late 60s & 70s completely trashed.
My Jefferson Registry:
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/alltimeset/191115
I have already responded to this assertion but will do so again --- I don't know where this thinking comes from for Mint Sets prior to the early 2000's when the Satin finish coins became the norm, from all I have read the Mint Set coins were never struck specially for the sets but were in fact taken from normally struck coinage(if I am wrong on this, please point me to a reference where it can be verified). I have looked at enough sets to see some horrendous coins with poor strike quality. Using a date/mm such as a 1984-D Jefferson Nickel, I believe if you took an original roll of 40 coins and a random group of 40 Mint Sets that you probably wouldn't find much difference in quality between the two groups of coins.
the fly in the ointment is simply that the Mint Sets are more accessible: you could probably find a 1984 Mint Set at most shops but not likely an intact original roll of 1984-D Jefferson nickels, but that doesn't reflect the quality of what went into either. your perspective is probably skewed by the fact that Mint Sets are the easiest source for coins.
<< <i>
I do not know when, or if, post 1964 circulation strike US coinage will ever become "en vogue" with collectors. However, if it does and if collectors seriously desire to acquire truly "Gem" examples of these coins running from 1965 to date, they will find it to be a very frustrating task. >>
There are enough nice coins out there surviving or stashed away that tens of thousands
of collectors could assemble mostly chBU and Gem sets though, of course, there are some
dates where even BU will be tough. Varieties are mostly all tough even in low grades but
they will available if people start collecting them.
There are a lot of stoppers in most series to a solid Gem set. Perhaps dimes will be the
most popular to attempt in all Gem. There are a few tough cents but these are doable as
well. The other coins just aren't out there or anywhere else in meaningful quantities be-
cause we allowed them to get into circulation.
<< <i>For those who are able to locate and acquire Gem examples of these coins, they are fortunate. Not only will they have coins that others will want, desire and pay up for, they will also have some very attractive, eye appealing coins.
It would be nice to have Wondercoin post photos of all of his best clad quarters, just to give us forum denizens a peek at what type of modern set is possible. >>
There can be a lot of pride of ownership in some of these coins. Even if no one else appre-
ciated the coins it takes work, time, and effort to locate them. It takes courage to go against
the grain even if all you're doing is buying Gems at face value or letting the grading services
identify them for you. Wondercoin certainly has some spectacular coins and if I had it to do
over I just might have saved my money and purchased the spectacular Gems. It might even
be cheaper.
<< <i>
I will always cut the pre-1985 sets out. The packaging is terrible and I've seen countless coins from the late 60s & 70s completely trashed. >>
This is going tobe a big problem since it just gets worse year in and year out.
Coins that haven't been cut out and stabilized or that have poor storage are prone
to damage. Already virtually 100% of '68-P cents are damaged. 95% are just junk
and the other 5% have small carbon spots that are likely to grow.
Whatever you are, be a good one. ---- Abraham Lincoln
<< <i>I've never been a fan of collecting things that were made to be collected. >>
Me, too.
I love the mint sets though because even though they were designed to be collected, almost no one actually did.
It's almost the best of both worlds.
<< <i>(if I am wrong on this, please point me to a reference where it can be verified). >>
The mint has confused this issue a great deal. They always tend to emphasize that
mint set coins are just like regular production even though this is true in the numismatic
sense of the words. From the mint's perspective it is true. They very rarely have discussed
the issue at all and Tom Delorey (Captain Henway) even consulted for an article written back
in the '90's (The Mint's Secret Coins). For most practical purposes mint set coins have been
secret and the processes to make them have been secret. But there have been numerous
clues inadvertantly or intentionally released by the mint over the years.
The most dramatic way to see the difference is to buy a 1976 40% BU set and this same set
that was sold in later years that was run off on high speed presses. These are like night and
day. You'll see this same difference in all the mint set coins but it's usually far less dramatic.
Mint sets are not the be all end all of modern circulation collecting for numerous reasons. Some
Ikes must be found in rolls because they are so scarce in the sets. Many of the coins are highly
elusive in the sets or simply weren't included in the sets like '79-S dollars or '83 dimes. Most
varieties don't exist at all in the sets. But, as the mint has said in the past; 'mint sets constitute
the backbone of the finest modern coin collections.".
This is probably least true for nickels and especially FS nickels. It is less true for Ikes. Other-
wise you'll find most of the best made Gems in mint sets or they have been removed from mint
sets.
<< <i> Using a date/mm such as a 1984-D Jefferson Nickel, I believe if you took an original roll of 40 coins and a random group of 40 Mint Sets that you probably wouldn't find much difference in quality between the two groups of coins. >>
I would spot the difference pretty quickly. It's a great example though because these come gemmy
but banged up in the set and they come nice and only sometimes banged up in the wild. There is
a very high correlation between average mint set quality and average roll quality. It's just the sets
come with better struck coins from newer dies.
<< <i>I used to like collecting these but the quality got so variable I stopped. Still buy proof cents off eBay and collect the uncirculated sets direct from the Mint. >>
I think the satin finish turned a lot of people off too. A lot of the sets from the '90's
had beautiful highly PL Gems but then they'd all be scratched. Just getting a matching
set from '65 to date is a bit of a chore. Try finding a nice '93-D quarter that isn't PL.
Try finding a 1974-P quarter that is PL.
When I was putting together a registry set of statehood quarters, my 'go-to' source for gem quality coins was always bank rolls - except for very few exceptions that were cut from mint sets. I have plenty of mint sets with coins in them that would not even grade MS60 if submitted, they are so poorly struck & handled....scratches, gouges, fingerprints, spotting - you name it!
every treasure on Earth
to be young at heart?
And as rich as you are,
it's much better by far,
to be young at heart!
<< <i>So I am packing Proof Sets for wholesale and the thought came to me, why did everyone buy these since no one appears to want them??
Because they are soooo shiney.
<< <i>Interesting thread, but I have to agree with Al about the source for coins that were used in mint sets until 2004. I went back and re-read "United States Proof Sets and Mint Sets" (1936-2002) by Ron Guth and Bill Gale. >>
A few things here. I've been studying and searching mint sets for 40 years now. I knew
a lot more about mint sets than what appeared in Kari Stone's excellent article on the "secret"
coins than what appears in the article. Indeed there are even minor errors in the article. The
article (COINage magazine October, 2000 Pg 18) is superbly done and she makes an excellent
stab at comprehensiveness as well as accuracy. There's no reason to believe Gale or Guth have
any special knowledge about moderns.
The mint kindda spilled their guts on mint sets back around 2005 releasing some details like the
fact that they use more tonnage on mint set coins than on proof set coins. Both are significantly
higher than regular production strikes. Mint set coins are certainly not FDC or proofs but they are
designed to strike up as much detail as possible from the master dies. They succeed reasonably
well in most instances.
It is strange that this situation exists but it was caused largely by the mint that always maintained
these coins were in no way special. Perhaps the largest contributer to the confusion is that people
just don't collect moderns or this would be generally known. Once the status quo becomes estab-
lished it nearly takes an act of Congress to change perceptions. I believe among modern collectors
this is generally known. It is true that if you can find BU rolls you can get lucky and find superb spe-
cimens. While most of these specimens will have strike issues some will also be well struck by good
dies. It's not my contention that mint sets are everything merely that the lion's share of the best
made coins each year went into mint sets. Of these very well made coins many escaped from the
mint without being damaged. Most did not. If you want well made coins mint sets are where to find
them.
<< <i>There's no reason to believe Gale or Guth have any special knowledge about moderns. >>
I'm more familiar with Gale than Guth.
After a quick google it appears Ron Guth probably does know something about moderns. But
it's still not true that mint set coins are "The coins in the (insert date) PDS Mint sets were Un-
circulated pieces pulled from regular production runs...". It's a misstatement probably origin-
ating in confusing mint literature.
edited to add I should check and see if he's numismatist of the year before I make a comment.
However, when a person's resume includes past president of PCGS, current president of Coinfacts, numerous numismatic literary awards, as well as 'Numismatist of The Year', and took the time & effort to write a guidebook to proof & mint sets from 1936-2002 - that person deserves some of my attention as well. Now, since his book was published in 2002, and the Secret Coins were made somewhat public in the 2004-2005 years, I have to add some weight to your argument.
I have owned, looked at, bought & sold probably close to 1,000 mint sets - and many had coins that looked like they were pulled not from a regular mint production, but from circulation. Maybe they were struck during the last days of a die's life and mishandled as the mint does so well, so the Secret Coins of the Mint may indeed exist. Since I am considered a skeptic, (although I have my doubts about that
And don't even get me started on Canadian issues
Chuck
every treasure on Earth
to be young at heart?
And as rich as you are,
it's much better by far,
to be young at heart!
<< <i>CK - When I visit the forums, I consistently pay attention to your posts, because I tend to agree with most of the premises that you put forth. I also have been collecting and studying 'modern' (50 years old now - catching up to me - wish I was called modern!
However, when a person's resume includes past president of PCGS, current president of Coinfacts, numerous numismatic literary awards, as well as 'Numismatist of The Year', and took the time & effort to write a guidebook to proof & mint sets from 1936-2002 - that person deserves some of my attention as well. Now, since his book was published in 2002, and the Secret Coins were made somewhat public in the 2004-2005 years, I have to add some weight to your argument.
I have owned, looked at, bought & sold probably close to 1,000 mint sets - and many had coins that looked like they were pulled not from a regular mint production, but from circulation. Maybe they were struck during the last days of a die's life and mishandled as the mint does so well, so the Secret Coins of the Mint may indeed exist. Since I am considered a skeptic, (although I have my doubts about that
And don't even get me started on Canadian issues
>>
I just reread the article and it's really not good support for my argument and even
goes so far as to imply I'm wrong.
Mostly my knowledge of mint sets is based on observation and experience. The mint
simply didn't ever say much at all about mint sets and on the rare occasion they did it
was always to say that these were regular production coins. But this simply isn't true.
I have what might be the finest '82-P quarter but it is markedly less well made than any
of the mint set dates around it. This is what I always found in those days; the best made
coins were almost invariably in the mint set. This didn't always apply to the finest preser-
ved coins because some coins made it out of the mint quite clean and some mint set coins
didn't.
Back in the day I watched the new coins very closely for varieties and anytime I spotted
a Gem I'd try to track it down to its source. This was actually an effective way to find nice
coins made for circulation. But it didn't always work because some years you'd never even
see a single nicely made coin to track and tracking didn't always work.
But finding Gems in mint sets is shooting fish in a barrel. Usually about 2% of mint set coins
are well struck Gems. You can look at literally thousands and thousands of some dates made
for circulation without finding one even well struck by good dies. Decent strikes with decent
dies that are clean were out there but I was looking for crisp strikes and very new dies. Also
brand new die strikes are easily found in mint sets (~one set in 300) whereas I've never seen
a brand new die strike on a circulation issue. These facts imply lower speed and fast swap out
of dies. Full strikes suggest higher pressure. There is even some extra die preparation visible
since PL's are far more common in mint sets. Most circulation PL's are one side only and pro-
bably retired mint set dies.
I've had a lot of experience, looked at a lot of sets, and sifted through countless rolls. I confess
I haven't put the effort into seeking rolls that I have in searching mint sets but this is only be-
cause most of the rewards are in the sets and because finding quarter rolls is very difficult af-
ter the year of issue.
There are a lot of clues to the reality and this is how I understand these clues. It simply appears
the mint has been putting most of the Gems in the sets all along though many get marked up
before they get out of the mint.
Of course if you grade primarily on marks your experience might differ from mine. But if you grade
largely on strike then you probably share my views.
The early clads were just horribly made so my primary concern was strike quality. Over the years
strike quality improved but my concern for strike was little changed. Now the shallow relief is much
easier for the dies to impart in the moment they have to strike but I still like fully struck coins made
by good dies. These still aren't common even though they don't stand head and shoulders over the
lesser made coins like they used to.
This post rambles a lot but it does show the "evidence" for these "secret coins" extending allthe way
to the very beginning of the modern era half a century ago.
regular production lines is the distribution of varieties. Something like the '70-S small
date cent is extremely common in mint sets and accounts for something on the order
of 10% of production but the coin is quite scarce in circulation. This can be explained
by all or most of the dies used to strike the coin were mint set dies and the production
from the retired mint set dies got "lost" in circulation before they could be found. Not
all mint set dies are reused but the majority appear to be.
Even more telling is the distribution of the type "d' reverses of the 1977 to 1984 quarters.
These exist from each mint except for the 1982-P which doesn't exist. Some of these are
exceedingly common (the '84-D for instance) but none exist in mint sets. The '80 P & D
are also quite common (3% and 4% of mintage) and neither of these exist in sets. In-
deed none at all appear in mint sets except the '81-P where it accounts for about .6%
of mintage. These facts and numerous others suggest a different universe of dies for
circulation issues and mint set issues which precludes the possibility that the coins are
the same.
oh brother.
<< <i>This can be explained by all or most of the dies used to strike the coin were mint set dies and the production from the retired mint set dies got "lost" in circulation before they could be found.
oh brother. >>
Would you believe one die?
I defer to Occam's Razor.
<< <i>here's what I would believe --- the coins struck just happened to end up in in a hopper that held coins which were used for Mint Sets, nothing sinister. I suppose this topic could be debated ad nauseum, but absent anything from the Mint stating a special process I'm left with the "anecdotal" evidence which tends to show that Mint Set coin may/may not have characteristics different from non-Mint Set coins. from this evidence, some members seem to say they have found coins in Mint Sets which are superior, others have said they have found Gem's in rolls and others have said that they don't see anything special from either, nice coins and junk from both. I tend to think that the reasoning for thinking Mint Sets render better coins is due to the fact that they are more often seen by average collectors instead of original date/mm rolls.
I defer to Occam's Razor. >>
OK, here's another little fact that supports the point; there is a very high correlation between
mint set quality and the pops at the high end of the curve. Granted, this is hardly proof since
there is also a correlation between mint set quality and roll quality for most dates.
Here's a fact that pretty much proves the point though. I can usually tell when a high end coin
is from a mint set or not. It's probably a 90% accuracy rate.
Ever have one of those threads that nothing seems to go right? I couldda sat this one out.