Sealed mint sets - deserve a premium price?

Three questions:

1) Should a mint-sealed proof or mint set carry a premium price over one where the seal is broken and the contents may be viewed?

2) Would you pro's be willing to pay the premium, gambling that the contents deserve the higher price.

3) And finally, if you purchased...a sealed 1951 proof set for example, how many of you would honestly be content to leave the un-broken seal intact?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Doug you may actually know this

Did the mint actually seal the envelopes or No?

 

Here is an eBay example I was looking at - sealed boxes and envelope

 

That actually seems like a good deal. However, I wouldnt do it. Not my style of collecting. If you were to buy all of those separetly I'm almost positive you'd be paying a lot more.

That's just what I saw by googling those proof set years

 

Absurd .

 

I've got a couple of unopened mint sets from the late fifties and early sixties. I know that they are unopened because I haven't opened them since I got them off ebay a few years ago Ok, they may have been opened once but I haven't really seen good evidence that they were or weren't once opened. I paid a couple of extra dollars for them and it seemed like it was worth the risk. Heck, I've lost more bluffing with J high.

 

1.) No If you have a sealed set you have three possibilities it could be premium, it could be average, or it could be a problem set. Since average by definition would be most of the sets. Then you add in the problem sets and you now have 90% or more of all the possible sets that could be in that envelope are worth average money OR LESS! So why would you pay a premium for it?

2.) No, I've just shown that the odds are seriously stacked against you. If I'm going to gamble I either want better odds or a better payout.

3.) Yes I could leave it sealed because I don't really care about it (I have other sealed boxes I bought from the mint years ago.) besides I know my best chance of making a profit is to leave it sealed until I sell it to the next greater fool. The odds are better at making money that way than from finding something good in the box.

 

This is the lottery effect........There are always fools willing to take a change. Some get lucky most do not.

 

I paid a premium for two sealed sets and you could see the marks on one of them were it was re-sealed with an iron. Shame on me! Both sets turned out to be of poor quality. If I see the terms "unsearched" or "unopened" I move on to another auction.

 

Slight disagreement since I personally know of a gentleman that purchased an original mint sealed shipping container of 50 1962 Proof sets. The envelopes were sealed on all these sets.

Whether or not the sealing was the result of the US Mint or moisture encountered during storage is unknown to me.

As for your single coin in a sealed envelop question, thats really reaching and comparing apples to oranges. Proof Sets and Mint Sets are not single coin products but Mint sealed cello "multi-coin" products within an envelope.

On a side note, here's something to ponder: Mint set envelopes since 1972 and later years are completely devoid of sealing glue. Why do you suppose that the proof set and mint set envelopes from the 50's and 60's are not? They do have glue and IMO were intended to be sealed. Perhaps the sealing was for "single set shipments"? Certainly possible but then, maybe not.

To add to the confusion, I have personally opened 5 package original shipping envelopes of 1970 mint sets and original shipping boxes of 1965 SMS Sets which were sealed. I've also opened some which were not sealed.

The safest bet, IMHO, is to only pay premiums for sealed shipping containers (with postmarks) which contain multiple sets. This insures that the coins within, have not been viewed before and increases the chances of "discoveries". NEVER pay a premium for a single sealed Proof Set unless you are willing to accept the fact that you may be paying for a set that has been recently sealed or "re-sealed".

Now, as a collector, I am fully aware of the possibilities BUT I always search my coins for WHAT I AM LOOKING FOR which may or may not match what somebody else was looking for. A set, sealed or unsealed, may not have DCAM coins within it but I have gone through "opened" sets which had some nice doubled dies or other varieties within them.

As with anything, collectors should arm themselves with knowledge "before" paying premiums for anything. Otherwise, you could get yourself into trouble.

 

IMHO there should be no added " premium " added to any MINT Set purchase simply because it's in the original packaging. . That is exactly as it should be sold . If anything, any set sold that does not include the original packaging , automatically reduces the over-value and should be sold at a reasonable discount .

 

I don't believe they were ever sealed at the mint, or by the mint. After a period of time, depending on how they were stored , probably was the reason some became moist and basically sealed themselves. Sound kinda hard to digest , but that's what happened.

 

Doug,

I would have to think long and hard about ripping open a sealed early mint set. Say 56 and earlier. That's the only thing I could think of that being sealed might be a advantage as far as price is concerned.

 

Simple. If you can't see them, then nobody else could either. The fellow that bought the 50 sets scored quite a few nice Cameo Franklins:






"why would anybody buy coins they cannot see"

Every coin I buy brom the US Mint..............I cannot see........until I open the package.

 

That's the reason. If you bought a single set they would seal it, put an address and stamp on it an mail it to you. I have seen sets that were mailed like that.

 

Stupid and Gambling are equal partners.