1936 Proof Set

Copperindian · October 10, 2026 8:10AM

I just saw this in a dealer’s daily email blast. The coins appear to be from the same original set. Coincidentally, or otherwise, they are not only PCGS graded, but have consecutive cert #’s. As an added bonus, all are CAC approved. The pics are posted below:

I’m curious what our members might think about the set. My knowledge of these is minimal, but can acknowledge PR hairlines are sometimes obscured in pics. Finally, I don’t think I should cite the dealer here or the asking price.

BillJones · October 10, 2026 8:21AM

It's a wonderful set. The only question is, how big is the premium?

Here's mine which is on a lower level. I added the Satin Finish cent and nickel. I prefer the satin nickel to the brilliant one.

MFeld · October 10, 2026 8:27AM

What a nice, highly original looking set that is!

cptbilly · October 10, 2026 8:29AM

I wanted to add a 1954 Proof Set to my collection. After looking at sets (and pricing) of examples in OGP and Capital Plastics holders, I opted for a PCGS graded set [ 64, 66, 66, 66, 65 Red ]. It features consecutive SN's also. If I was looking to add any older sets that sell for five figures, I would certainly consider buying a graded set a priority.

That's a beautiful example of the first USM Proof set, Copperindian. It's on ebay too. . .for what the seller is asking, one would think they could do better than free USPS ground advantage. . .

SanctionII · October 10, 2026 8:59AM

Nice set.

it would be interesting to see the coins in hand; and to learn the back story of the ownership history of the set and of the events leading up to the grading of the set.

cptbilly · October 10, 2026 9:07AM

It's a wonderful set. The only question is, how big is the premium?

``

Seller is asking $15,500. . .

P0CKETCHANGE · October 10, 2026 9:55AM

Beautiful, original set. I consider @FlyingAl our resident expert on these.

As far as the hairlines you mentioned, note that the satin proofs have distinct die polish lines (which can be used for attribution). The obverse of the cent appears to show scratched up fields; that is mint-made, not PMD.

The main diagnostic for the 1936 satin proof buffalo is a die polish line to the left of "E PLURIBUS UNUM". I could only see it when I downloaded a high-res TV, but it's there. All of the satin buffalos have it.

The half has split production in 36; the Mint did not polish the planchets on the initial batch (they had forgotten the nuances of brilliant proof production after a two-decade hiatus), so the mirrors are muted. They started polishing the planchets in the middle of the year and this batch has deeper mirrors. If this set was truly original back to the purchase in 1936, I'd expect the half to be of the initial batch because that's also when the satin 1c and 5c were produced.

Burdette's book on 1936-42 proofs is very educational.

Copperindian · October 10, 2026 10:24AM

@POCKETCHANGE: good info Eric! Much appreciated
Ken

WiscKau · October 10, 2026 10:33AM

Superb!

BillJones · October 10, 2026 10:41AM

@cptbilly said:

It's a wonderful set. The only question is, how big is the premium?

``

Seller is asking $15,500. . .

I have a bit less than in the 7 piece set I posted. One of the cents is a PR-64. I try to avoid spending big bucks for Proof cents. They can be like snow balls in July. The rest of the set is made of 65s and 66s with one 67, the brilliant nickel.

cameonut2011 · October 10, 2026 10:56AM

It’s beautiful. I appreciate attractive looking original sets.

Harlequin · October 10, 2026 11:12AM

@cameonut2011 said:
It’s beautiful. I appreciate attractive looking original sets.

Agreed, this is a very nice original set, love it 😎

FlyingAl · October 10, 2026 3:14PM

Excellent set! My hunch is that it is a set that was removed from cello early on and toned in some kind of post market storage. The "original set" thing doesn't really matter unless you are able to show the coins in the cello since those sets are coveted for the research value in them. Those true original sets also can be/tend to be higher grade.

The coins are nice for '36s, and as @P0CKETCHANGE noted the set appears to be from that timeframe where the Mint didn't polish the planchets. Some have argued such silver coins should be considered Satin Proofs too but that hasn't taken hold and likely won't. Essentially what happens when the planchets aren't polished is that the dies quickly conform to the average surface of the planchets (think how Cameo dies lose their frost). Thus the dies dulled quickly and the Proofs looked rather matte in appearance.

Pros for this - it means that the dies are not the ones that were polished to death to bring out the mirrors. This seemed to happen later on in the year. I personally prefer that.

Cons for this - the Proofs won't have the deep mirrors and slight frost some 1936 coins have.

See how this earlier Proof has more detail but much less contrast than the below later Proof.

Brilliant Proofs (for the minor coinage) tend to be preferred by collectors of the series since they match the rest of the years better, but a good Satin Proof will generally have more detail and possibly more color than their counterparts. It's a trade off you'll have to be comfortable with.

I'd be rather happy with that set if I wanted to buy a complete one and never think about it again. I'm also very particular though, and tend to like building my own sets.

Complete side note - was looking for images of 1936 Proof halves on CoinFacts and the more images link is now gone. Is this just a me thing or are other people having the same issue?

Copperindian · October 10, 2026 3:18PM

@FlyingAl: really good info; thanks for posting!

cameonut2011 · October 10, 2026 3:43PM

@FlyingAl said:
Excellent set! My hunch is that it is a set that was removed from cello early on and toned in some kind of post market storage. The "original set" thing doesn't really matter unless you are able to show the coins in the cello since those sets are coveted for the research value in them. Those true original sets also can be/tend to be higher grade.

The coins are nice for '36s, and as @P0CKETCHANGE noted the set appears to be from that timeframe where the Mint didn't polish the planchets. Some have argued such silver coins should be considered Satin Proofs too but that hasn't taken hold and likely won't. Essentially what happens when the planchets aren't polished is that the dies quickly conform to the average surface of the planchets (think how Cameo dies lose their frost). Thus the dies dulled quickly and the Proofs looked rather matte in appearance.

Pros for this - it means that the dies are not the ones that were polished to death to bring out the mirrors. This seemed to happen later on in the year. I personally prefer that.

Cons for this - the Proofs won't have the deep mirrors and slight frost some 1936 coins have.

See how this earlier Proof has more detail but much less contrast than the below later Proof.

Brilliant Proofs (for the minor coinage) tend to be preferred by collectors of the series since they match the rest of the years better, but a good Satin Proof will generally have more detail and possibly more color than their counterparts. It's a trade off you'll have to be comfortable with.

Or you could collect both.

SanctionII · October 10, 2026 7:33PM

The two 1936 proof halves posted by FlyingAl (both of which are gorgeous) in his reply remind me that the same thing happened in 1950.

In that year halves first produced did not have mirrored fields. Some of those halves look like extremely nice circulation strike coins. Satin or Matte in appearance. The mint later began producing halves with mirrored fields.

I have seen early 50's proof halves with heavily frosted devices and with fields that are not mirrored at all (Satin or Matte). Those coins can be very attractive.

In fact the same appearances you can see on 1936 halves and early 50's halves can also be seen on 1965 SMS halves.

EastonCollection · October 11, 2026 2:47AM

@FlyingAl & @SanctionII - I was always wondering how many different dies were used by the mint to strike 1936 proof halves?

WiscKau · October 11, 2026 8:23AM

Price scares me but I'm a lowly collector.

MFeld · October 11, 2026 8:34AM

@WiscKau said:
Price scares me but I'm a lowly collector.

No matter what one’s budget, there’s no reason to fear a price. If it seems too high, you can always counter or pass. In cases where the price seems way too high, I don’t bother to counter. My reasoning is that 1) I might end up insulting the seller; 2) chances of a transaction are extremely slim; and 3) if a seller has something priced so much higher than what he’s willing to accept, I don’t want to give him the business, anyway.

WiscKau · October 11, 2026 12:35PM

@MFeld said:

@WiscKau said:
Price scares me but I'm a lowly collector.

No matter what one’s budget, there’s no reason to fear a price. If it seems too high, you can always counter or pass. In cases where the price seems way too high, I don’t bother to counter. My reasoning is that 1) I might end up insulting the seller; 2) chances of a transaction are extremely slim; and 3) if a seller has something priced so much higher than what he’s willing to accept, I don’t want to give him the business, anyway.

Thanks and I understand your points.

Copperindian · October 11, 2026 1:29PM

“High” price is relative. In this case, priced individually (PCGS pg), the total is $14050. CAC’s a bit higher @ $15050.
We all can acknowledge the pg isn’t perfect, but in this case, the seller seems to be right in the ballpark. Especially so given the quality of the coins.

cameonut2011 · October 11, 2026 2:04PM

It’s definitely on the higher end of retail but not in moon money/crazy territory. Being an original matched set is worth something too.

Walkerlover · October 11, 2026 2:10PM

@cameonut2011 said:

@FlyingAl said:
Excellent set! My hunch is that it is a set that was removed from cello early on and toned in some kind of post market storage. The "original set" thing doesn't really matter unless you are able to show the coins in the cello since those sets are coveted for the research value in them. Those true original sets also can be/tend to be higher grade.

The coins are nice for '36s, and as @P0CKETCHANGE noted the set appears to be from that timeframe where the Mint didn't polish the planchets. Some have argued such silver coins should be considered Satin Proofs too but that hasn't taken hold and likely won't. Essentially what happens when the planchets aren't polished is that the dies quickly conform to the average surface of the planchets (think how Cameo dies lose their frost). Thus the dies dulled quickly and the Proofs looked rather matte in appearance.

Pros for this - it means that the dies are not the ones that were polished to death to bring out the mirrors. This seemed to happen later on in the year. I personally prefer that.

Cons for this - the Proofs won't have the deep mirrors and slight frost some 1936 coins have.

See how this earlier Proof has more detail but much less contrast than the below later Proof.

Brilliant Proofs (for the minor coinage) tend to be preferred by collectors of the series since they match the rest of the years better, but a good Satin Proof will generally have more detail and possibly more color than their counterparts. It's a trade off you'll have to be comfortable with.

Or you could collect both.

.

Walkerlover · October 11, 2026 2:12PM

@FlyingAl said:
Excellent set! My hunch is that it is a set that was removed from cello early on and toned in some kind of post market storage. The "original set" thing doesn't really matter unless you are able to show the coins in the cello since those sets are coveted for the research value in them. Those true original sets also can be/tend to be higher grade.

The coins are nice for '36s, and as @P0CKETCHANGE noted the set appears to be from that timeframe where the Mint didn't polish the planchets. Some have argued such silver coins should be considered Satin Proofs too but that hasn't taken hold and likely won't. Essentially what happens when the planchets aren't polished is that the dies quickly conform to the average surface of the planchets (think how Cameo dies lose their frost). Thus the dies dulled quickly and the Proofs looked rather matte in appearance.

Pros for this - it means that the dies are not the ones that were polished to death to bring out the mirrors. This seemed to happen later on in the year. I personally prefer that.

Cons for this - the Proofs won't have the deep mirrors and slight frost some 1936 coins have.

See how this earlier Proof has more detail but much less contrast than the below later Proof.

Brilliant Proofs (for the minor coinage) tend to be preferred by collectors of the series since they match the rest of the years better, but a good Satin Proof will generally have more detail and possibly more color than their counterparts. It's a trade off you'll have to be comfortable with.

I'd be rather happy with that set if I wanted to buy a complete one and never think about it again. I'm also very particular though, and tend to like building my own sets.

Complete side note - was looking for images of 1936 Proof halves on CoinFacts and the more images link is now gone. Is this just a me thing or are other people having the same issue?

My opinion is the brilliant proof is more detailed. Look at the eagles breast feathers on reverse

IkesT · October 11, 2026 2:28PM

@FlyingAl said:
Complete side note - was looking for images of 1936 Proof halves on CoinFacts and the more images link is now gone. Is this just a me thing or are other people having the same issue?

It still shows for me, but I have noticed that the "more images" link has been haphazardly disappearing from many of the CoinFacts pages I've been browsing. To get around that, you can simply modify the address by typing "images/" before the PCGS number to get to more images.

So, for example, the 1936 50c Proof CoinFacts page has the address:

https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1936-50c/6636

Type in "images/" before the PCGS number (6636) to make the address https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1936-50c/images/6636 and there you are.

FlyingAl · October 11, 2026 3:26PM

@Walkerlover said:

@FlyingAl said:
Excellent set! My hunch is that it is a set that was removed from cello early on and toned in some kind of post market storage. The "original set" thing doesn't really matter unless you are able to show the coins in the cello since those sets are coveted for the research value in them. Those true original sets also can be/tend to be higher grade.

The coins are nice for '36s, and as @P0CKETCHANGE noted the set appears to be from that timeframe where the Mint didn't polish the planchets. Some have argued such silver coins should be considered Satin Proofs too but that hasn't taken hold and likely won't. Essentially what happens when the planchets aren't polished is that the dies quickly conform to the average surface of the planchets (think how Cameo dies lose their frost). Thus the dies dulled quickly and the Proofs looked rather matte in appearance.

Pros for this - it means that the dies are not the ones that were polished to death to bring out the mirrors. This seemed to happen later on in the year. I personally prefer that.

Cons for this - the Proofs won't have the deep mirrors and slight frost some 1936 coins have.

See how this earlier Proof has more detail but much less contrast than the below later Proof.

Brilliant Proofs (for the minor coinage) tend to be preferred by collectors of the series since they match the rest of the years better, but a good Satin Proof will generally have more detail and possibly more color than their counterparts. It's a trade off you'll have to be comfortable with.

I'd be rather happy with that set if I wanted to buy a complete one and never think about it again. I'm also very particular though, and tend to like building my own sets.

Complete side note - was looking for images of 1936 Proof halves on CoinFacts and the more images link is now gone. Is this just a me thing or are other people having the same issue?

My opinion is the brilliant proof is more detailed. Look at the eagles breast feathers on reverse

We’re talking about die detail, not slight strike issues. The highest points of the dies will remain the same and usually unaffected by overpolish.

Look at the designers initials (coincidentally missing from the second coin), the sun rays, and the feathers under the eagle.

winesteven · October 11, 2026 10:48PM

Here’s mine (no toning allowed, lol):

Satin PR65+RD w/CAC:

Brilliant PR66RD w/CAC:

PR66 w/CAC:

PR67 w/CAC:

Steve

1936 Proof Set

Comments

Leave a Comment