What would the retail market value be for the following:
SanctionII
Posts: 12,938 ✭✭✭✭✭
OGP yellow flat pack proof sets for 1956, 1958, 1963 and 1964 that each contain five coins whick all have two sided frosted devices and mirrored fields (a Cameo appearance); with the 1964 half being the Accented Hair variety?
I have these four OGP sets, having picked up the 1958 set yesterday. The sets stand out under good lighting.
I call these sets Unicorns. With the fives coins contained in the OGP these sets can be viewed as historical artifacts. If the coins were removed from the OGP and placed into flips or a capital holder the uniqueness of the OGP would be lost and the value of the five coins out of the OGP would be less.
Your thoughts as to the retail value of these four proof sets.!
0
Comments
With millions of these set produced by the U.S. Mint and with many surviving coupled with the collector base that strives to locate and maintain these original packaged sets as being minimal, I don't see the added value. It is a bit difficult too to view the beauty of these proof early coins in the original cellophane.
It really is all about the coins, such as you have with the CAMEOS and the AH Kennedy.
The coins matter, not the packaging.
Hard to place a value on a description. Clear, focused photos would certainly help….
The money is in slabbed cameos and it costs a lot to slab the raw coins. I think it would be very difficult to get much more than normal price for the raw sets.
You might explore consigning them to an auction house and see what happens. Under this scenario, retail would be a moving target and difficult to pinpoint as you have asked.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Nice retail friendly sets are wholesaling at a premium to Greysheet bid. I'm sure extremely nice sets will trade at a substantial premium to that. Of course these as you describe them are worth multiples of bid rather than a large premium. There are a surprising number of buyers for Gem mint and proof sets from before 1980 but the sets are so elusive there is no market per se.
The attrition on these old sets is simply staggering and as sky high as it is the attrition on Gem sets is even higher.
Some day there will be a premium on intact sets but I'm not so sure there will be any sort of standardized premium for Gem sets. Ultimately each coin has to stand on its own two feet so how will the market rate such sets?
My choices were made fore me. I had to dismantle my Gem mint sets because the packaging was causing them to tarnish. Most of my Gem proof sets were dismantled at the same time.
Next to impossible to render an objective opinion with no pictures. My years of searching has proven that what seems to be frost through the cello is actually hazed brilliant surfaces. As a prolific searcher of these you have proven you have a good eye, but as a prolific submitter you have proven that PCGS rarely assigns Cam/Deep Cameo to any coins you submit.
My hunch is that you have a group of nice sets which contain mostly choice coins but perhaps only a couple that would grade Cameo.
Keep them.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
Maywood.
I will take cell phone pictures of the four OGP proof sets and post them to this thread. I expect that the photos will not show the coins as they look in hand under good lighting (through the cello). You are correct that sometimes what appears as frost when looking through the cello is hazed brilliant surfaces. Some of the coins in the four proof sets may fall into that category, but then again they may not.
As for my submissions you say that our host has rarely assigned a Cam or DCAM designation to the coins I submit. That is an interesting point and my initial reaction to your statement is that you are incorrect.
Thinking about it, I realize that when I post submission results those threads show coins that, while frosted, mostly did not receive a Cameo designation. I usually do not post threads which show the coins I submitted that did receive a Cameo or DCAM designation.
That is strange, as most people prefer to talk about their successes and not about their failures (i.e. Lottery winners shout about winning $25,000.00 on a scratcher, but do not tell anyone how much money they have spent buying scratchers that end up winning them nothing).
For me I think my fixation on there being no quantifiable bright line demarcation between Brilliant and Cameo; and between Cameo and DCAM/UCAM has caused me to post threads showing coins I submitted that did not receive a designation.
Your statement has got me curious and I will look at my past orders to figure out how many frosted proofs I submitted received a Cameo or DCAM designation and how many did not.
Maywood.
I check my orders (I started submitting in early 2021) and determined that my success rate in receiving a Cameo or DCAM designation on 1950-1970 proof and SMS coinage is 34%. If I removed the 1965-1967 SMS coinage I submitted and limited same to proof coins from that era my success rate would be 38%.
Very interesting numbers; and it shows that I have much room for improvement in assessing raw proof and SMS coinage.
I know a local dealer who has a bunch of these and is looking for retail. I prefer them in Capitol holders where you can actually ascertain what you're dealing with. As soon as you remove the staples that are originally sealing the cellophane they are not original, so it's a "Catch 22" of trying to accuratealy assess them in the original packaging. Either way more trouble than they're worth unless the price is right.
"Retail" is crazy now days.
I've seen sets offered at prices that make me weak in the knees.
Even 40 or 50% over bid is pretty high considering melt value.
I agree that the "right" customer with a lot of cash that is burning a hole in his pocket can shell out big money for stuff he likes, which in many cases makes no rational sense. Another example, local shop had a lot of material, 78-s Morgans one he called "prooflike" that had good contrast with problems, with a lot of other raw, previously certified coins out in display. He said a couple guys came in and cleaned him out. I'd looked through this stuff and was willing to pay very reasonably for them, but he was waiting for the right customer to come in. He's had 1953 and other similar proof or mint sets out in the mint boxes for a while now with no takers.
I'd say the only really interesting sets are the 1958 and the 1964 with the accented hair half.
1956 and '63 seem pretty easy to find with contrast, so only a small premium there I think.
If I was confident enough in the coins I would probably be willing to pay $100-125 each for the 58 and 64 sets, more if they were really knockout coins. I'm also not a dealer and would be buying for the improvement of my collection.
Collector, occasional seller
Who cares about "offered" these days. Actual sales prices are what is wanted.
I tried to take cell phone photos of the four OGP sets that were good enough to show the contrasted appearance of the coins. I was not able to do so.
At this point in time I am just going to hold these sets, simply because of the novelty of them.
Well, that depends. Do you have similar coins for sale or are they coins you've been calling "underpriced and underappreciated" for a long time? In those cases, you might care.
Indeed.
Any time some "commodity" is running low or experiencing swings in supply (or demand) there is a tendency for discordant transactions. ie- prices that are too low or too high for any fungible good. I think this is what we're seeing with mint and proof sets. Supply of many of them has dropped to the point that they don't keep up with ongoing demand. This even happens with necessary commodities rather than only giffen goods or collectibles.
A bit of correction is needed. The OP stated "yellow flat pack proof sets for 1956, 1958, 1963 and 1964" which don't contain any staples or brittle cello, the cut-off for that was 1954-55. Past that I'm in agreement with you. Leaving the early sets in the brittle, stapled together cello pouches wrapped in tissue and a box may seem appealing to fanatics who demand OGP but it risks damage to the coins. The brittle cello pouches crack and flake, the staples rust and the overall packaging causes the coins to move whenever the box is disturbed.
The end result is the multitude of scratches/hairlines as seen on coins from the early dates.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin