Options
How many pre 1936 proof sets exist that are still intact and original?
SanctionII
Posts: 12,553 ✭✭✭✭✭
Meaning that the coins in the set [could be the minor sets of copper and nickel only; bigger sets of copper, nickel and silver; or gold sets] have been together since the date they were shipped by the mint.
0
Comments
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I maybe mistaken but I believe that to be true..
complete proof set could be ordered but not a must!
<< <i>I believe that one could order from the mint, single Proof coins.
I maybe mistaken but I believe that to be true..
complete proof set could be ordered but not a must! >>
You are correct. It is my understanding you could do this through 1942.
-Paul
<< <i>Surely, you are already aware that there is absolutely on way to know that. And even if you had a count as of a given point in time, you'd have no way of knowing which of those sets had since been broken up. >>
If you had the original packaging, couldn't an original set be created by buying the coins either raw or in slabs and repackaging a set? Not that it would make sense to do this but wouldn't it be hypothetically possible?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I remember the statement that the coins could be ordered separately, but I don't know if that was still the case then or if he was referring to pre-1950 sets. Since the mintage numbers for 1950 and beyond are all the same for each denomination, it's probably the case that after 1950 the proofs could only be ordered in sets.
The thread by Darth50 was one of the most interesting and fabulous threads that I've read since I've been on the forum. I know that his sets were legit, but they weren't pre-1936 sets - they were the 1936 to 1942 vintage.
Edited: I was going to bump Darth's & his cousin's thread for the benefit of the new crowd, but I couldn't find it. Anyone have it saved?
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>
<< <i>Surely, you are already aware that there is absolutely on way to know that. And even if you had a count as of a given point in time, you'd have no way of knowing which of those sets had since been broken up. >>
If you had the original packaging, couldn't an original set be created by buying the coins either raw or in slabs and repackaging a set? Not that it would make sense to do this but wouldn't it be hypothetically possible? >>
I'm not sure what that has to do with the question posed by Sanction ll about pre 1936 sets, for which original packaging is essentially non existent. And even under your scenario, the assembled sets would rarely appear to be original.
<< <i>I believe there are Seven. >>
Six, I just broke mine up for individual slabbing
When the mint was out of certain denominations in proof, they would sometimes substitute business strike coins into the proof sets. Therefore, I wouldn't get too excited about an original set in the first place.
<< <i>Weren't those early PROOF coins sold piece by piece? So there wouldn't really be any complete sets. At some point someone gathered some or all together to make their set, but it's not a govt set. >>
Over the years, I have seen dozens of complete sets, which were ordered as such, and had been kept intact. And that doesn't include a couple of the Pittman Proof cased sets from the 1840's.
<< <i>
<< <i>Weren't those early PROOF coins sold piece by piece? So there wouldn't really be any complete sets. At some point someone gathered some or all together to make their set, but it's not a govt set. >>
Over the years, I have seen dozens of complete sets, which were ordered as such, and had been kept intact. >>
Of those you have seen, what percentage of them did you see before 1986?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Surely, you are already aware that there is absolutely on way to know that. And even if you had a count as of a given point in time, you'd have no way of knowing which of those sets had since been broken up. >>
If you had the original packaging, couldn't an original set be created by buying the coins either raw or in slabs and repackaging a set? Not that it would make sense to do this but wouldn't it be hypothetically possible? >>
I'm not sure what that has to do with the question posed by Sanction ll about pre 1936 sets, for which original packaging is essentially non existent. And even under your scenario, the assembled sets would rarely appear to be original. >>
How do we define an "original set"? Is there any way to verify that an "original set" isn't a "put together set". Didn't they come in small cardboard boxes with a paper tape seal? If the seal isn't broken can it be assumed to be an original set? Couldn't any set outside the original sealed box be a put together set? This is only an academic question since in the real word each coin is evaluated on its own merrits and most collectors don't care if each coin came from a different set or they all came from the same set---not that anyone could tell one way or the other. Maybe I'm overthinking this.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>The thread by Darth50 was one of the most interesting and fabulous threads that I've read since I've been on the forum. I know that his sets were legit, but they weren't pre-1936 sets - they were the 1936 to 1942 vintage.
Edited: I was going to bump Darth's & his cousin's thread for the benefit of the new crowd, but I couldn't find it. Anyone have it saved? >>
It's not a link to the original thread, which had apparently been deleted, but I had bookmarked this follow-up thread when I first started reading the CU board. Even this thread was a very interesting read!
Oops...forgot the Link: Recently Acquired Coin Collection - the Return
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Weren't those early PROOF coins sold piece by piece? So there wouldn't really be any complete sets. At some point someone gathered some or all together to make their set, but it's not a govt set. >>
Over the years, I have seen dozens of complete sets, which were ordered as such, and had been kept intact. >>
Of those you have seen, what percentage of them did you see before 1986? >>
That's a tough question to answer.
I remember an utterly fantastic run of them in a New England Rare Coin Galleries auction (some time in the early 80's). I bought one of my favorites from the group - I think it might have been from 1911 - for about $8000-$9000, planning to keep it. I showed it to John Dannreuther, just for fun, and I ended up selling it to him
I saw a good number of matched original sets, while a grader at NGC between 1991 and 1998. Others have surfaced in various auctions and/or at shows, from time to time. All things considered, I believe that have seen a lot more of them (approximately 80%?) since 1986.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Surely, you are already aware that there is absolutely on way to know that. And even if you had a count as of a given point in time, you'd have no way of knowing which of those sets had since been broken up. >>
If you had the original packaging, couldn't an original set be created by buying the coins either raw or in slabs and repackaging a set? Not that it would make sense to do this but wouldn't it be hypothetically possible? >>
I'm not sure what that has to do with the question posed by Sanction ll about pre 1936 sets, for which original packaging is essentially non existent. And even under your scenario, the assembled sets would rarely appear to be original. >>
How do we define an "original set"? Is there any way to verify that an "original set" isn't a "put together set". Didn't they come in small cardboard boxes with a paper tape seal? If the seal isn't broken can it be assumed to be an original set? Couldn't any set outside the original sealed box be a put together set? This is only an academic question since in the real word each coin is evaluated on its own merrits and most collectors don't care if each coin came from a different set or they all came from the same set---not that anyone could tell one way or the other. Maybe I'm overthinking this. >>
You sound as if you are still speaking of sets produced in 1936 or later, not pre-1936 as asked about by the original poster. I have seen pre-1936 sets, including what I recall as original mailing envelopes (and/or order forms). And in some cases, the coins were in individual envelopes, wrapped in tissue paper.
I suspect that survival is as much chance as intent. Unlike stamps and minerals, coins were instant cash in an emergency. Many a collection likely ended up as rent payments and food on the table during unemployment.
By original and intact, I mean a set of coins [be it copper and nickel only; copper, nickel and silver; or copper, nickel, silver and gold (or any other combination of the various denominations)] which were acquired from the mint (singularly or together) by one purchaser and has been held intact (no switch outs, etc.) through the present (by the original purchaser and his/her heirs and/or any downstream owner/possessor of same).
I remember a previous thread where someone posted pictures of a 1914 proof set (with pictures of each individual coin) and the original packaging that it was in when the mint mailed it to the purchaser, including the exterior envelope with cancelled postage and addresses on it.
My clarified definition will probably rule out most pre 1936 sets, but I suspect that some of these sets are still in existence.
Wish I owned some of them
<< <i>Minor and silver proof coins were the staple of middle class coin collectors. Most were sold as sets, but collectors could also buy individual coins. A glittering, mirror proof set could look very impressive compared to ordinary coins at the local bank. Quite a few collectors were bankers and businessmen. Medals were also very popular – more so than coins.
I suspect that survival is as much chance as intent. Unlike stamps and minerals, coins were instant cash in an emergency. Many a collection likely ended up as rent payments and food on the table during unemployment. >>
Roger - I always respect your answers, knowing the amount of research that you do. But I was always under the impression that certain coins could only be ordered in sets - Minor Proof Sets (non precious metal) and Silver Proof Sets. I believe that individual gold coins were available as well. Are you sure that collectors could buy individual coins - say only a quarter, in the early 20th century? I collect proof coins from 1858-1915 and would be quite interested to gain any insight that you might have on the topic.
merse
One of the interesting things to do is to look at Proof coin mintages in the Red Book. You will note that the Proof mintages for dimes, quarters and half dollars were often the same in a given year. The same holds true for the gold coins. The Proof mintages for 1909 cents and nickels are interesting. The 1909 nickel has the highest Proof mintage of any Liberty nickel. The reason for this was that collectors had to keep ordering minor coin sets to get the three varieties of cents, Indian, Lincoln with the VDB and with the VDB.
Sometimes the mint did sell single coins if they were they popular for some reason. For example gold dollars were popular as jewelry in the 1870s and ‘80s so the mintage for them is higher than it is for other gold pieces.
Original sets of the Proof coins do exist and are noted by the similarity of toning on the silver coins. I once owned a 1909 original Proof set (with only the Indian cent). All of the silver coins had the same toning and look. I sold it as a down payment on my first house. Sometimes the needs of life interfere with our hobbies.
oop's didn't read good ....PRE 1936 ? i have no idea
<< <i>
<< <i>Minor and silver proof coins were the staple of middle class coin collectors. Most were sold as sets, but collectors could also buy individual coins. A glittering, mirror proof set could look very impressive compared to ordinary coins at the local bank. Quite a few collectors were bankers and businessmen. Medals were also very popular – more so than coins.
I suspect that survival is as much chance as intent. Unlike stamps and minerals, coins were instant cash in an emergency. Many a collection likely ended up as rent payments and food on the table during unemployment. >>
Roger - I always respect your answers, knowing the amount of research that you do. But I was always under the impression that certain coins could only be ordered in sets - Minor Proof Sets (non precious metal) and Silver Proof Sets. I believe that individual gold coins were available as well. Are you sure that collectors could buy individual coins - say only a quarter, in the early 20th century? I collect proof coins from 1858-1915 and would be quite interested to gain any insight that you might have on the topic. >>
I have seen two or more Proof coin order forms from the mid to late 1800's. And, while I can't remember for certain, I think there was the option to order individual coins.
The few extant order books for medals and proofs, show that most collectors bought in sets, but there are a few orders for single coins.
The easiest to access examples are 1936-1942 where mintage for each coin is different.
merse
<< <i>My 1892 set is original. It was displayed at the Columbian Expo mint display and then held for 100 years by one family. >>
I want to see......
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
<< <i>I have seen pre-1936 sets, including what I recall as original mailing envelopes (and/or order forms). And in some cases, the coins were in individual envelopes, wrapped in tissue paper. >>
It's good to hear that some still have the original order forms. Forms listing all the coins would go a long way to suggesting the coins were together from the time they were ordered at the Mint.
<< <i>Anything resembling a semi-accurate guess is virtually impossible. Start attending more "secret auctions" (giggle). For the frustrated and in no particular order: The Col. Jenks collection had amazing coins: the sets were virtually all or entirely broken up after slabbing. What happened to many of the 1976 Garrett sale coins and later Garrett properties I don't know. Likewise the run of sets in Auction '79, though some weren't very nice and some were surely put together. Stacks' Carl zelson about 10 years ago had MFG monster quality original sets 1892-1915. Heritage had Queller/Boca I 2010 FUN (Queller AKA Lemus) had a full run of sets from 1856 thru 1936. Some of the coins were gorgeously original. These sets were sold as sets but could not be considered "intact" as they were virtually all put-together. Current (post-1986) common auction practice is to sell sets in date groupings but each coin lotted individually. Check out Stacks next Baltimore sale. Another run from 1856-whenever. A bloodbath is anticipated.
Original intact 1908, 1909, 1914, and 1915 gold proof sets, all from the same estate, were sold as sets at the at the 1985 ANA. >>
Thank you for the memory jolt. It was largely the Jenks' proof sets I was referring to when I wrote that I had seen a good number of original sets while a grader at NGC. They were fantastic!
In regard to the buying individual coins, Bowers' in his Silver Dollar Encyclopedia had the following to say (which is different from what RWB said, i do not doubt him, just want to double check both authors...):
"This was changed in late 1861 by Director James Pollock, who ordered that single Proof coins no longer be sold. The collector had to purchase the entire silver set (which always contained the minor coins; in 1861 this included the Indian cent) or he did not obtain the silver dollar. No doubt in some cases the collector spent some of the pieces he did not want. Beginning with 1862 collectors could no longer obtain single Proof specimens unless a new design or denomination was introduced in mid-year. With some exceptions (such as for certain Proof trade dollars) this policy remained in effect for the silver coinage until 1916, although collectors were again allowed to purchase individual gold coins at the end of the 1870s. "
-----------------------------------------------------
I doubt many pre-1936 sets are in their "intact and orignal" proof sets. For many dates, especially pre 1862, I doubt more than 1-2 complete "intact and original" proof sets exist for each year. Many of the sets which were intact have been broken up recently when they surface from long time collectors.
Something to keep in mind is that proof dollars always outsold other denominations and many times collectors had to buy complete sets just to obtain the dollar. Starting in 1851 (maybe 1852?) the mint started charging $1.08 for the proof dollar and this jumped to about $1.60 in the early 1860s.
In regard to the buying individual coins, Bowers' in his Silver Dollar Encyclopedia had the following to say (which is different from what RWB said, i do not doubt him, just want to double check both authors...):
"This was changed in late 1861 by Director James Pollock, who ordered that single Proof coins no longer be sold. The collector had to purchase the entire silver set (which always contained the minor coins; in 1861 this included the Indian cent) or he did not obtain the silver dollar. No doubt in some cases the collector spent some of the pieces he did not want. Beginning with 1862 collectors could no longer obtain single Proof specimens unless a new design or denomination was introduced in mid-year. With some exceptions (such as for certain Proof trade dollars) this policy remained in effect for the silver coinage until 1916, although collectors were again allowed to purchase individual gold coins at the end of the 1870s. "
The price of $1.08 for the silver dollar dates from 1853 and was the same whether proof or
uncirculated. This price was set by Mint Director James Ross Snowden, who stated that the
silver contained in the dollar was worth $1.08 in terms of the minor silver coinage.
Denga