Why are old US mint sets worth more than face? It's seems the cardboard is the only thing of value.

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

There is a company known as Original Set Verification (OSV) that verifies whether a mint set is original or whether coins have been removed and replaced. Paul Frese is the verifier for OSV. Once a set is verified original, it is sent to ANACS for grading. You may visit their website to see what they do at http://www.osv.expert/about.aspx

Paul Frese has, apparently, collected samples of original mint sets and he can tell by toning and the look of the coins whether they are original to the set; the paper and envelopes are also evaluated because he apparently knows what it should look like. If the paper is wrong, then not original, etc. I saw Rick Tomaska interview Paul Frese and I was impressed with OSV and found Paul Frese persuasive. I have not used OSV so I cannot say from personal experience whether it is worth it to have a set verified.

So why the above quote? The best moment in the show was when Rick Tomaska said he did not like the toning on early mint sets and Paul Frese retorted, there are a lot of people who disagree with you. Whether someone likes mint state set toning or not is a personal taste. I like them but if you do not, you are probably not going to pay the premium for a set that a seller is asking for.

 

News to me, too. From the OSV FAQ (emphasis mine):

What is OSV?
OSV is Original Set Verification LLP a Colorado Corporation. We were formed to help preserve an area of the numismatic market that has been slowly disappearing for decades. I developed the idea in the Spring of 2014 and spent a little over 2 years getting the entire process implemented.

 

I see LakeEffect answered your question. The most interesting part of the Paul Frese interview that I watched (about a year and a half ago) is the detail Paul Frese went into to describe the evaluation process he goes through to verify a set. He described the different papers used and the toning the specific paper causes. If a set toned differently, then he does not verify it. I've thought about submitting a set to see what I get back.

It does not appear that OSV has caught on in the past two or so years it has been out there. By example, a search of eBay shows three, current OSV listings. I could find no sold OSV items. Still, an interesting idea by Paul Frese.

 

I made a serious mistake. It was Leo Frese who appeared on Rick Tomaska's show, not Paul Frese. So everything I said about Paul Frese above I meant for Leo Frese. I saw Leo Frese on the show about a year and a half ago so I hope everyone here forgives me for my memory lapse.

 

Recession was in 2012. Mint didn't make as many. Most people wanted to save their house then coins. Not sure of my dates. Thats my answer IMO

 

What you say is very very true but it's also very very misleading.

The reason these sets drop to nothing is that they are produced in enormous quantities that swamp all potential demand. Your statements are misleading simply because it's this swamping of demand that eventually causes the decrease in price and the decrease in price causes massive destruction and attrition.

We live in a world where most of the nickels made after 1964 are scarcer in Unc than the '50-D 5c but the '50 sells for $10 and the later coins for 10c.

People perceive the later coins as being exceedingly common so they don't collect them and there are fewer every day. The reality is that the later coins are very poorly made and only a small percentage of the few left look good.

Yes, the sets are cheap. But it's because there is no demand not because they are common. A lot of people are in the market for recent dates so their prices stay up until this demand is swamped and then the prices crash. This is the way it's always happens and will continue until the music stops and swarms seek chairs that no longer exist. And then some of the recent high prices will go even higher and stay there.

Who wants to catch the falling knife?

 

Op's question is really just "What is numismatic value?"

 

Just to make sure I understand what you are saying, could you repeat your comment once more for us?

 

Do i have to click on like to all of those posts??

 

Yeah, I know I've said it a thousand times before but the fact is most of the coins made after 1964 are much scarcer than the older coins and they are inexpensive only because there is so little demand.

Mint sets are the source of most moderns but they are priced based on face value even though they are worth far more out of the set.

Proof sets are the source of most proof moderns and while they are still numerous and quality is a given for every date, they are no longer as numerous as the perception.

75% of the mint sets are gone entirely now and many of those left have tarnished coins. Half of the proof sets are gone though many of the coins from them are still around. Of those removed from the sets many are degraded. I'd figure the total population of BU clad from the early years is ~30% of mint set production and total population of proofs that are still nice is about 60% of proof set production.

Penny and nickel availability is all over the map with some being common and others tougher than the '50-D nickel.

 

Oh.

Thanks.

I didn't go back to look at the earlier page.

With the declining production of most sets I always wonder if they'll follow the same path down that the early ones did. It's hard to know what the potential long term demand for modern circulation and proof coins might be.

 

I couldn't help having fun with you on the dozen reposts of your original message but I also want to thank you for the substance of your comments. I thought you made some good observations about the possible scarcity trend for post-1964 mint sets, and I am looking closer at them.