Are the coins that come in mint sets higher grade then the ones that come out of a roll that came straight from the mint (and have therefore never been circulated or handled)? I assume the mint sets are better, but is this difference usually pretty large or very minor? I'm trying to decide if I want to collect the Prez dollars from uncirculated bank rolls or mint sets.
The mint sets are struck on different presses under greater forces and receive special handling (according to the mint) which can result in a sharper strikes and less bag/handling damage.. Have read that these coins can be on an average up to 2 grade points higher. This years mint set will also have the satin finish, which I believe were introduced in 2005 , so you are looking at a different finish than the regular circulating coins. Is it worth it? A matter of opinion. If you are interested in COLLECTING the presidential coins then I would say it is a no brainer when one considers the price of the set which is scheduled to be released on the 9th of this month.
Mint set coins of the clad era always average better struck and from much newer dies than roll coins. They usually average a little better for having fewer marks but there are numerous exceptions to this. Usually the quality of circulation issues and mint set coins parallel one another very closely as they rise and fall but they are independent and there are a few dates where roll coins are as good or better than mint sets. Keep in mind though that even the dogs from mint sets will be well struck from new dies and these can be rare in circulation. Since 2005 the mint set dies have been plated and this imparts what they call a satin finish. These coins are different than the circulation issues the last few years.
And is the extra satin finish looked upon as a good thing, or a bad thing since normal circulating coins don't have that?
It's both to me. It's good because it means there are a lot more high quality coins. They not only plated the dies but are taking more steps to ensure quality and the plating itself makes the dies wear more slowly so strikes are even better. It's good in other ways as well such as in allowing most collectors to see what really high quality coins look like. It may lead some to try to get all their coins in nice condition and this would be good for me from a financial perspective. It's good because when people in the future look back at these they'll be reminded of the good things about our era. Others will see an age where we could at least make nice coinage. It's bad inasmuch as now there is more effort required to keep up with your collections if you want the business strike as well. These are often horribly made so collectors will have to do lots more work or spend more money to locate the coins. It's very bad in that it removes the best source for circulation issues of the past two generations. It was always so easy to just look through a few mint sets to find a nice gem. Overall it's good for me as a promoter and investor but bad for me as a collector. If it were my decision I don't think it would have happened because the long term consequences will outweigh the short term gains. I do think the jury is still out though and this thing could be good for the hobby. Some collectors will simply not differentiate between the two versions and will probably end up with mostly satin finish coins. There will be a higher attrition on these sets so intact sets could gain a premium quite rapidly. We'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.
Do we know what the grade difference shows to be between uncirculated coins from rolls versus coins with satin finish from mint sets? I know the mint set rolls can be hit and miss, but assuming you get oneof the better ones.
mint unc or satin finish i think uncirculated coins mostly graded from ms63 to ms65. while satin finish graded from ms67 to ms 70.
it almost seems like the mint has taken mint sets a step toward proofs sets, and since they are now made differently then every-day coins I feel like they don't qualify as perfect examples of coins made for circulation (which is what I think many people target in their collections. thoughts on this?
I rarely do this but I just wrote this post for a very similar thread on another site so will reproduce it here without change; The mint has used virtually the exact same process to make mint set coins since 1965. Until they started plating the dies in 2005 there was no way to to positively differentiate mint set coins from any other in all cases. Even PL coins appear in circulation and on rare occassion circulation issues exceed not only the average mint set quality but the finest mint set quality. I would maintain that the SF coins are not wholly distinct from circulation quality and both should be required for registry sets. Most collectors will probably collect both so why shouldn't the registry require them?
Your statement isn't too far off the mark but collectors should realize that there is huge variability in average grade for mint set coins as well as circulation issues over the years. There is a tendency for changes to parallel one another but they don't always. The range of quality is nearly identical most years in all probability but circulation issues at the high end of the range were exceedingly scarce and were not saved usually. Often this range would be very attenuated by various production problems. 1969 quarters were weakly struck on poor planchets by bad dies and then banged up before leaving the mint. Finding these in unc today is very problematical because few people wanted to save such ugly coins. It's entirely possible that the mint didn't make any gems for circulation of the '69-P quarter. In this case the mint set coins aren't a great deal better but there are some at the high end. By contrast mint set '72-D quarters are often gem and even superb coins aren't especially scarce. The SF coins thjat I've seen are often merely MS-65 and MS-63 and 64 aren't scarce. There are a lot of very high grade coins in these sets though.
