Jefferson Nickel in a Philly Mint Set...

I spent a good portion of my time in Philadelphia searching mint and proof sets (because, frankly, that was one of the few things I could actually buy at a reasonable price) and boy, let me tell you...what you say about quality examples being difficult to find could not be more true. Out of about $15,000 in sets, I saved a pile of "keeper" coins that wouldn't even fill a lunchbox.

I had originally intended to image and re-sell them, but after realizing just how difficult it is to find true gems, I will probably just keep them all for a good long while.

I know many will laugh, but I saw a 1978 Proof Set last week that just made me drool - deep, DEEP frosty cameos, black mirrored fields...no corrosion. I was sad when I wasn't able to buy it that day. (Fingers crossed I get a second chance.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Sorry for the delay. I bought the mint set in an auction and both sets came in a mint envelope dated 1969 P & D and the envelope was sealed...never been opened. So, I was disappointed to see all the coins looked edited!

But, nevertheless, I still like the coins even though they look circulated.

 

Just to clear up what we are all wondering - do the coins look like uncirculated coins with environmental damage, or do they look like they have circulation wear, nicks and dings, etc.?

 

It's funny that people don't collect these because they assume they are too common to bother. Few collectors want anything common so there is no demand and no supply. The '69 quarter for instance appeared as a nice choice coin in only one mint set out of twelve!!! Rather than driving people to look for nice examples they ignored them. Gems are far scarcer with only about one Gem in 125 mint sets. Most of the rest of these look awful and if there were any BU rolls (there aren't) they would be atrocious. I remember looking for nice specimens in 1969 and they were almost all dogs.

Now the '69 mint set are almost all gone (fewer than 35% survive) and almost every coin quarter still in the sets are tarnished with many of them unsalvageable. Every day that goes by the tarnish gets worse and worse until it simply won't come off. 40 years ago I talked to Julian Jarvis who was the biggest supplier of BU rolls to the markets if he could get me rolls BU roll sets and he told me that it was virtually impossible even back then with all his contacts. He had 10 or 12 dates in stock that he was selling cheap but even he had trouble locating the other dates. He bought one or two bags a year to wholesale and often had to return coins to the bank that didn't sell. That's only 4000 coins per bag and he couldn't sell them for 37c and postage.

People imagine vast quantities have been set back but this simply isn't true. Mint sets are disassembled and most of the coins are spent. There is no wholesale market and no one you can call to get even typical examples. the coins are even getting scarce in circulation and half are culls and the other half are badly worn and poorly made specimens. You don't see collections of these and while they are out there most were very very cheap and stuck into cardboard folders. The attrition on these is high as evidenced by the fact that they aren't seen coming into coin shops.

Despite how difficult it is to actually lay hands on a nice chBU '69 quarter they are presumed to be common and most dealers will just put them in the cash register if they are forced to buy any. Because of all of these factors the attrition on all clad coins is staggering. Far more common coins sit insured in safety deposit boxes while every day there are fewer and fewer '69 quarters in every condition except "cull".

Gems were very widely dispersed and very hard to find. You could acquire them for next to nothing if you did the work to find them and a lot of work generated few coins. I looked through a few thousand sets but it was difficult to find the sets to search. Now it is far harder and the sets are tarnished and hard to grade.

I usually figured there was one nice keeper in the average mint set. Every 10th mint set had a nice Gem. Of course some specific Gems were far more highly elusive. The toughest is the '76 type I Philly Ike. The '69 is toughest in quarters.


Things are finally changing because the mint sets are almost gone and the wholesalers can't get in sufficient supplies of the only moderns with deep demand; halfs and dollars. The wholesale on these just goes up and up with most of the Ikes at $4 or more now. The '71 and '76 are breaking away.

What people don't realize is that when the sets are gone there will be no source for things like 1969 quarters! The tiny demand will simply swamp the tinier supply. This will be easier to see after it happens. People simply don't understand the implications of the lack of wholesale markets. There aren't even enough coins to prime the pump!!

 

The paper envelopes had glue on them but none were sealed when they left the mint.

Quality varies widely with the worst sets being awful and a few being all ch and Gem. About 98% are typical but very very few (less than 2%) are really extreme.

 

I kindda agree about preserving ugly coins and most '69 quarters are very ugly in the mint set and were even uglier in BU rolls back in 1969. I personally believe that only attractive specimens from Poor to Unc are worth saving. About 98% of these made for circulation and 60% of them made for mint sets were ugly the day they were issued.

However, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and some collectors can find beauty in clad coins that I do not. That there are so few clads also makes me believe that every one that can be saved should be saved.

It is sometimes almost impossible to grade a clad through layers of tarnish so I clean them all and usually spend the ones that are still ugly even if all the tarnish comes off. The others, the rare survivor, I put in stable individual holders.

 

Concur.

 

Well, I posted a response yesterday, but for some reason. i must not have saved it. First, thank you everyone for responding. I tried to take better pictures, but they didn't turn out better than the first ones.

I bought this set in an auction in which two sets came in a 1969 P & D tan envelope that was sealed at the mint...never been opened.

So I was kind of hoping for something great! But, once I opened the envelope, I saw that the coins were in bad shape.

Both sets look like someone grabbed a bunch of coins and through them in a food saver and heated the plastic. But the envelope was sealed from the mint.

All of the coins are dirty. I did use my microscope to take pictures of the date that dynoking has questions about.

My concern is...do I leave them like they are, or take them out and slab them to protect them from further contamination?

Here are these pics!

 

The 9 that I’ve been commenting about looks normal now. The earlier pictures looked to me like it took a hit leading me to believe that it was repackaged. I’m not sure what can be done with the staining. Of course the coins have to be cut out. I hesitate to comment further without the coins on hand.

 

A days' long soak in acetone will remove most of the tarnish. Some of these coins are probably already ruined and the soak will show it.

 

Interesting thread. Is corrosion a problem with clad coins in general or is it related to the OGP somehow? Or just poor storage and handling? I've always assumed CuNi clads were pretty resistant to environmental problems - probably ignorance and indifference on my part.

Definitely going to start watching for nicer sets from the forgotten late 20th century era, although it sounds like they may be hard to find.

 

That’s why I can’t make a recommendation. There’s not a whole lot that can be done. But not a whole lot to lose either.

 

I will cut them up and place them in individual slabs. Then I will repost the pictures after the slabbing!

 

Image them before slabbing them

 

Will do...thanks!

 

Might want to consider one of these to preserve the pedigree (a little). Or not On second thought, the '69 set is an oddball and won't fit anyway.

 

Unless you mean pre-1981 sets that aren't tarnished forget "nicer sets". You can find untarnished sets but Gem sets were apparently hand selected and are quite scarce. About 1 set in 250 will be Gem. About 1 in a 100 are all ugly coins. The last date for these hand selected sets is 1979. I don't know but I believe they automated making the mint sets in 1980.

Most sets have at least one very chBU or Gem in them. Some dates are tougher and the '69 is the toughest. Most Gems in '69 sets are nickels.

 

Thanks, good info. A quality group of clad mint sets could be a fun and challenging treasure hunt. Without breaking the bank. Something to consider.

 

Do you mean that mint employees hand selected coins from the press for packaging into mint sets? I never gave it any thought, thinking that it was an automated process. Interesting.

 

I believe it was partially automated for many years starting at least as early as the late-'50's. Over the years they would have made improvements until it was fully automated in 1980. This is based almost solely on the existence of odds defying Gem sets. Some of the Gems are so scarce for these years that not even one set in 100,000 should be Gem but instead it's far higher.

I used to read reports in the numismatic press that the new sets were beautiful and in the same paper another writer would say the coins looked like they were swept off the mint floor. I thought some people are harder to please but Now I think both reports were right.

There are processes that cause Gems to bunch up in the successively made or prepared sets but I can imagine no means Gems of various denominations would be packaged together other than through intention.

I had a 1968 mint set where each coin was one in a thousand. Even getting a set where every coin is in the 90th %ile is quite improbable.

After 1979 there aren't any such packaging anomalies that I've ever seen. Some sets are better than others and some coins are far better than others but there are no odds defying sets; they simply show a natural variation.