Anyone own a 1964 Mint Set?? Did the Mint really mean "no exchanges or adjustments?" What'
Goldbully
Posts: 17,939 ✭✭✭✭✭
Not sure what made me dig up my 1964 Mint set, but I'm glad I did.
I was amazed at the Mint's audacity in telling their customers they have no say in deciding the 'quality' of their purchase.
Anyone else know about this archaic Mint ruling back in the day??
Imagine one of the forum members getting that statement in their 4 pc. 2008-W Plat set.
I know times were different back then....ergo packaging and outdated proof manufacturing, but....this is crazy!!!
What am I missing???
I was amazed at the Mint's audacity in telling their customers they have no say in deciding the 'quality' of their purchase.
Anyone else know about this archaic Mint ruling back in the day??
Imagine one of the forum members getting that statement in their 4 pc. 2008-W Plat set.
I know times were different back then....ergo packaging and outdated proof manufacturing, but....this is crazy!!!
What am I missing???
0
Comments
<< <i>Mint set? Do you mean proof set? >>
Mint sets had the same card.
<< <i>
<< <i>Mint set? Do you mean proof set? >>
Mint sets had the same card. >>
True. But the OP's set appears to be a proof set?
<< <i>I was amazed at the Mint's audacity in telling their customers they have no say in deciding the 'quality' of their purchase. >>
Imagine the nerve- selling proof sets with a face value of 91 cents (85 of that in silver) for $2.10, and not accepting returns.
edited to add.. nobody expected to get 70s in every set back then- they didn't even fuss about having to wait months for their coins to come in the mail. People complain a lot more (about a lot less) these days.
a repairman to come and fix it (maybe under a warranty). If you bought cigs you had no
warning label and had nobody to sue if you started hacking up your lungs. We were not
a perfect society then and didn't expect perfection in anything. Period.
bob
Thanks for posting the card
<< <i>I know times were different back then....ergo packaging and outdated proof manufacturing, but....this is crazy!!! >>
Why do you think that those 1964 proofs were made with outdated manufacturing technology?
<< <i>
<< <i>I know times were different back then....ergo packaging and outdated proof manufacturing, but....this is crazy!!! >>
Why do you think that those 1964 proofs were made with outdated manufacturing technology?
I guess I should have said, "older proof manufacturing technology."
Those proofs in my 1964 Proof set look like today's Unc. sets!!!!
Yeah, I did notice the "wink" after the statement, but some of these old proof coins look WAY nicer when removed from the plastic....
Sounds like an entirely reasonable and sound business-like practice – and certainly not “audacious.”
Maybe the mint should start sending that little card with the bullion and other items that speculators so commonly return, somehow thinking they are entitled to be protected from loss by the mint.
<< <i>Not sure what made me dig up my 1964 Mint set, but I'm glad I did.
I was amazed at the Mint's audacity in telling their customers they have no say in deciding the 'quality' of their purchase.
Anyone else know about this archaic Mint ruling back in the day??
Imagine one of the forum members getting that statement in their 4 pc. 2008-W Plat set.
I know times were different back then....ergo packaging and outdated proof manufacturing, but....this is crazy!!!
What am I missing???
Their screening process for coins must have been much better than because they sure couldn't get away with a statement like that now
I guess they went down hill starting in 68 that's when they let the no S sets slip through their careful screening
Chris
(i.e. "Please do not ask us to make exchanges or adjustments.")
(i.e. "If there should appear - which may seem to you - a defect or scratch on a coin....")
Remember that up until 1955, proof coins were individually packaged and I'm sure that folks would return a single coin for whatever reason and request a replacement although this is just a guess.
The same standard holds true today in that you must return the entire set )i.e. product) for a replacement set and cannot simply return a single coin out of the set for replacement.
The name is LEE!
The wording of the policy is priceless. "If you think there's a defect, you're a moron, it's no doubt a crease in the packaging you fool!"
OK, so I paraphrased.
commoncents123, JrGMan2004, Coll3ctor (2), Dabigkahuna, BAJJERFAN, Boom, GRANDAM, newsman, cohodk, kklambo, seateddime, ajia, mirabela, Weather11am, keepdachange, gsa1fan, cone10
-------------------------
OK, so I paraphrased.
Although the quote is likely in jest, a read through some of the pre1968-S correspondence received by the mint regarding proof sets and other things might change your mind. The degree of confusion, ignorance and stupidity expressed in many of the letters suggest that quite a few of the writers were, truly, from the very shallow end of the homo sapiens (or possibly Australopithecus) gene pool. People wrote to complain that the proof set was upside down in the envelope, or confused a proof and mint set and were worried about the mint marks on their proofs (pre 1968). Some insisted that they receive coins of different design than those in circulation and others asked what metal the plastic token was made from. Creases in packaging or scuffs on the inside of the packaging (from the coins sliding around) were presented as if the world had conspired against the writer.
I tinkered with the idea of an article on these letters to the mint, but the stuff becomes so depressingly stupid, so quickly that I dumped the idea in favor of a root canal.
if you order Proof sets, and get proof sets, it should be enough
as long as they are all there, and are proof sets.
If you want PR70s, then the mint is not the place to order them.
In the 1960s I don't remember that a perfect coin was the
expectation when ordering coins from anywhere.
OK, I am ready.
In the 1960s I don't remember that a perfect coin was the expectation when ordering coins from anywhere.
Good point, and also, there was no modern crap back in the 60's.
expectation when ordering coins from anywhere.
OK, I am ready.
If somebody will check out some of their old "Red Books" I think I remember 65 being considered about the top of the heap back them.
Was just a kid with a little interest in coins back then. More worried about the draft though.
<< <i>In the 1960s I don't remember that a perfect coin was the expectation when ordering coins from anywhere.
Good point, and also, there was no modern crap back in the 60's.
Clad coinage back then was about as modern crap as possible.
<< <i>If somebody will check out some of their old "Red Books" I think I remember 65 being considered about the top of the heap back them. >>
I don't know the exact year they started with MS grades (my 1970 redbook doesn't use MS grades- just "Unc."- and my 1981 redbook does), but it was definitely not as early as 1964.
Was just a kid with a little interest in coins back then. More worried about the draft though.
They started using the Sheldon scale on unc coins around 1968, and you are right - at first the term MS-70 was merely hypothetical and the top grade in the real world was MS-65. A nice grade that was perfectly acceptable, was MS-63.
At first, the new "quantitative grading" was mainly Morgan Dollars.
A few years later, or maybe just a year later - amazingly enough, someone came up with an MS-66. It was downhill after that.
I knew it would happen.