Does Anyone Know About This?

Interesting. I've never seen that before. Could it be an after market mint set? Did it come in an envelope?

Yes, just a private offering.

I have information. I've hidden it somewhere on the internet for you to find.

While I also assume it was aftermarket (non-mint) packaging, could there have been any official distribution similar to a souvenir set since it was the new Kennedy half and if distributed in Washington D.C. may have had a higher demand than usual or for a special location or event?

Are assessments based on the look alone (my reason) or does anyone remember seeing this particular set offered by private sellers at the time? Have seen many types of private 1964 sets but don't recall seeing plastic film packs.

Were there any coin shops in Washington D.C. that may have done them up to meet demand if it was even actually "distributed in Washington D.C." ?

Are the coins banged up in any way? Definitely a second party package. I think they probably came from bags purchased by banks. I'm not so sure the mint was selling bags and rolls back in the day, the way they are these days. Does anyone know? I was just a kid back then and just hoarded the half dollars out of circulation whenever I got one on my paper route.

1964 was the year of the Kennedy Half, so it might have been some clever coin marketer (like Littleton) who was selling them as a way to guarantee a mint-state half dollar. Things like that are happening right now with the 2026 sets. People are putting together sets and selling them on E*Bay for quite a big markup, thanks to the artificial scarcity and other Mint gimmicks.

By the way, I've seen similar type of packaging on mint sets from 1982, which was a year that the US mint only made a "souvenir set" sold exclusively at each of the 2 mints (P and D). The company doing the packaging was somewhere in Michigan.

@jmlanzaf said:

@USSID18 said:
Interesting. I've never seen that before. Could it be an after market mint set? Did it come in an envelope?

Hello, old friend!!!

That's very true, you needs more friends! 😂 🤣

Maybe these were sets sold across the counter at the US Mint headquarters in Washington DC ?

@jmlanzaf said:

@USSID18 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@USSID18 said:
Interesting. I've never seen that before. Could it be an after market mint set? Did it come in an envelope?

Hello, old friend!!!

That's very true, you needs more friends! 😂 🤣

Nah, I've got more than I can handle. Do you mind if I publish your DM's to me? I think it would be interesting for the forum to read.

I look forward to a long, fulfilling relationship with you.

Sure you do!

Please do and I'll post the PM's I get about you from other members, without their user names!

@Catbert said:
Thread title unhelpful.

Sorta like our comments, huh.

@MFeld said:

@TwoSides2aCoin said:

@Catbert said:
Thread title unhelpful.

Sorta like our comments, huh.

Not really. At least most of the comments pertained to a particular topic.

Welcome to the pudding, where one can find proof. The punchbowl is overflowing.

Everybody google the principle of Occam's Razor.

Basically it says that the likely answer, in this case that this is a privately packaged set, is a zillion times more likely to be true than the answer pulled out of, er, a hat, in this case that the government invested in a much cruder packaging system to package a set that nobody else have ever seen in 60+ years.

@USSID18 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@USSID18 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@USSID18 said:
Interesting. I've never seen that before. Could it be an after market mint set? Did it come in an envelope?

Hello, old friend!!!

That's very true, you needs more friends! 😂 🤣

Nah, I've got more than I can handle. Do you mind if I publish your DM's to me? I think it would be interesting for the forum to read.

I look forward to a long, fulfilling relationship with you.

Sure you do!

Please do and I'll post the PM's I get about you from other members, without their user names!

Awwww... someone doesn't like me? I'll wither.

Why would you be getting PM's about me? I suddenly feel more important to all of you than I ever thought possible!!!

Thank you for making my day!!!

@jfriedm56 said:

@jedm said:
And now I'm reliving what it used to feel like while watching a couple teenage girls cat-fighting outside the school dance.

I hear you @jedm. This is the same M/O I just experienced in the last discussion I recently posted after asking a simple question. They’re very rude and condescending and their responses are nothing but self serving. I suppose they feel empowered being on this forum for such a long time. While one would expect constructive arguments from them, their comments are destructive to lesser known, newer members.
Remember this is a Coin Forum, not a room for knocking other good intentioned members, asking legitimate questions.
This was hard for me to bring up as I told myself to just let it go-but I couldn’t!

Self serving: “working or acting for your own advantage”

Zack, attempting to get thread originators to use titles that will let all forum members who might be interested in reading the thread and/or trying to help the OP, know what the thread is about, is nearly the opposite of self serving. And it has nothing to do with feeling empowered.

If you’re still bothered by such requests, you might want to edit or delete this reply of yours to me in a thread a few weeks ago: “ @MFeld, thank you Mark. Always appreciate your responses. Zack.”

@DesertCoin said:

For the information of all those commenting, I actually cognitively considered whether to put more information in the title during the 2 seconds I spent writing.

Do us all a solid and spend five seconds next time.
I think the collective membership here is worth that, don't you?

@DesertCoin said:
I'm actually somewhat amused that the title of my thread caused such a stir simply for what is did not say. For the information of all those commenting, I actually cognitively considered whether to put more information in the title during the 2 seconds I spent writing what has seemingly become a highly controversial, albeit quite short, piece of literature. However I decided against it due to the fact that anything mentioning 1964 would likely be passed over as boring. I wanted a few more opinions, and got precisely that. I would say my rather innocuous title accomplished its purpose splendidly. While it does fall under the technical definition of clickbait, I as of yet have not received any advertising revenue from this thread, so I personally don't feel that there is an issue with my title.

“Question about two 1964 mint sets that are packaged differently”

I seriously doubt that a thread title similar to above (which didn’t take much more than two seconds to write) would have been passed over by members who might have interest in and/or information about 1964 mint set packaging.

It would have accomplished its purpose, as or more splendidly than “Does Anyone Know About This?”
and prevented members who don’t know or care about the previously secret subject from wasting their time.
But you didn’t receive any revenue and got your answer, so tough luck on those who bit at the click bait.

@DesertCoin said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@DesertCoin said:
I'm actually somewhat amused that the title of my thread caused such a stir simply for what is did not say. For the information of all those commenting, I actually cognitively considered whether to put more information in the title during the 2 seconds I spent writing what has seemingly become a highly controversial, albeit quite short, piece of literature. However I decided against it due to the fact that anything mentioning 1964 would likely be passed over as boring. I wanted a few more opinions, and got precisely that. I would say my rather innocuous title accomplished its purpose splendidly. While it does fall under the technical definition of clickbait, I as of yet have not received any advertising revenue from this thread, so I personally don't feel that there is an issue with my title.

At least you (mostly) abmit it was click bait.

For the record, "click bait" is meant to gather clicks. It does NOT require their be remuneration attached.

Well, I had thought previously that my title could have been technically called clickbait accurately, but given this definition it actually technically does not qualify. "Does Anyone Know About This?" does not use any "exaggerated, shocking, or misleading claims to spark curiosity". I stand humbly and solidly corrected.

See, under "Common Elements" the "vague phrasing". You nailed it.!

@dcarr said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@dcarr said:
Maybe these were sets sold across the counter at the US Mint headquarters in Washington DC ?

Why would they have used a different set with different packaging and different tokens?

.

There are many potential reasons.
One is that the Mint may have run out of the normal mint seats and/or these were packaged at the US Mint facility in Washington DC.

.

@CaptHenway said:
Everybody google the principle of Occam's Razor.

Basically it says that the likely answer, in this case that this is a privately packaged set, is a zillion times more likely to be true than the answer pulled out of, er, a hat, in this case that the government invested in a much cruder packaging system to package a set that nobody else have ever seen in 60+ years.

.

I would usually tend to agree ... except that why would a private packager include the text "Distributed in Washington DC" ?
That would seem to limit their distribution range and market.

Unless ... maybe these were coins specifically released at US Mint headquarters AND THEN privately packaged.

It is all speculation at this point, of course, until more information comes to light.

.

Or they just put DC on the token to make it seem more official.

@dcarr said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@Catbert said:
Thread title unhelpful.

More clickbait.

.

The title could have been a little bit more descriptive.
But "clickbait" it is not, in my opinion.

Had the thread content been some sort of spam, then I would agree on the "clickbait" status.
But the thread content is somewhat interesting (other than the "clickbait debate").

.

Now I know you are kidding.
The "Clickbait Debate" was and is the most interesting part of his thread!

@dcarr said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@dcarr said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@dcarr said:
Maybe these were sets sold across the counter at the US Mint headquarters in Washington DC ?

Why would they have used a different set with different packaging and different tokens?

.

There are many potential reasons.
One is that the Mint may have run out of the normal mint seats and/or these were packaged at the US Mint facility in Washington DC.

.

@CaptHenway said:
Everybody google the principle of Occam's Razor.

Basically it says that the likely answer, in this case that this is a privately packaged set, is a zillion times more likely to be true than the answer pulled out of, er, a hat, in this case that the government invested in a much cruder packaging system to package a set that nobody else have ever seen in 60+ years.

.

I would usually tend to agree ... except that why would a private packager include the text "Distributed in Washington DC" ?
That would seem to limit their distribution range and market.

Unless ... maybe these were coins specifically released at US Mint headquarters AND THEN privately packaged.

It is all speculation at this point, of course, until more information comes to light.

.

Or they just put DC on the token to make it seem more official.

.

Which "DC" are you referring to ?

.

Lol.

Capitol Coin company distributed out of DC in the 60s. Paramount might have also