I would like to hear some opinions when putting together a set whether proofs are included in your sets, to call it complete. Or do you just call your set complete less proofs, also what about silver proofs are they part of the set. I guess a poll could be started on this topic but not to answer my own question but I guess it is up to the one collecting.
I don't consider proofs to be part of a set. I'm probably in the minority, but I don't have a great interest in proofs of any type.
I have also pondered on this question. I would think that each coins mintage year would be included in sets. Then there are the proofs, one could assume this is a set on its own. This is a good question.
I think most collectors don't consider the proofs part of the set but they are of a different mint mark and in some cases a different metallic composition so more collectors than ever do include them. More collectors than ever are probably including the major varieties as well. These make the sets more challenging and some can realistically be found in circulation. There are also several varieties available in the mint sets which are crucial to completing some of the denominational sets anyway.
I think business strike coins made for circulation make up a set, and proof coins are a set on there own. There are albums that come with and without proofs it your collection build it your way.
