According to the Mint site the coins in the Uncirculated Mint Sets are struck on special presses different than the circulating coins. Has this always been the case or did they used to just take Mint Set coins off the same presses? If I want a set of uncirculated Presidential dollars would it be better to break open the uncirculated mint set rather than pull them out of rolls meant for circulation?
I think this is the third year for the mint sets to have satin finish coins. Before that they were the same as the coins made for circulation.
(The simplest way I can put this) Presidential dollars out of mint sets are burnished coins, so they are different from the uncirculated roll coins. Plus, they are of a higher quality. You need both if you want a complete set.
If memory serves me correctly, the satin-finish or burnished uncirculated coins in US Mint Sets became standard after the issuance of the Wisconsin state quarter dollar. There are some exceptions, the earliest of which are the 1993 Jefferson Nickel issued in a special set with the Jefferson dual-date commemorative dollar and the 1998 Kennedy Half Dollar issued in a special set with the Robert F. Kennedy Dollar of the same year. Therefore, we now have proof coins (clad and silver), burnished uncirculated coins from mint sets struck on special presses and dies and regular old-fashioned uncirculated coins that are struck as normal business strikes, but get "rescued" wrapped and rolled before they actually enter circulation! It's a long, long way from when I started collecting nearly 40 years ago when all we had was a five-coin proof set and a hodgepodge of uncirculated coins and not every coin was was minted at every Mint! Mark Coral Springs, FL
Noooooooo! Not both.:smile My Lord...the list of coins I "need" just keeps getting bigger and bigger.
I think it started in the '70s, but can't swear to it, perhaps Conder or cladking can confirm that date, but Mint sets are struck on different presses than regular circulation coins and at slightly higher pressures. The coins for the Mint sets are also more carefully handled than circulation issues. So yes, they are different - regardless of the satin finish.
I'm not sure what they did before 1965 as I don't have a lot of experience with these. They tend to be better coins than what's seen in circulation but they average about the same as the better coins made for circulation. After 1964 they improved quality of these dramatically. They are nearly all up to the SMS standards except they are made with normal dies rather than dies which have gone through the steps to be proofs as were the SMS dies. It's not primarily the higher pressure and lower striking speeds that mean these are very high quality; it's primarily the fact that dies are swapped out after the first sign of wear. Circulation issues can be extremely hard to find in very early die state but many mint set coins are, and the rest are early die state. A great deal changes from year to year and over time with the details of mint set production and distribution. For example in 1986 they began using a lot of burnished and partially burnished planchets which give the coins a more PL appearance. It was in 2005 that they started chrome plating the dies which give the coins a "satin finish" appearance. There were no other major changes that year except, perhaps, they were able to erradicate some more of the marking that most of these coins display. Quailty still tends to vary a lot for these coins from one year to another and from mint to mint. There is less variation among the denominations in most years. But every coin in every mint set is unique and will lay out in a very wide range and most examples will usually be clustered somewhere along that range.
clad - correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they have been using chrome plated dies since long before 2005. The chrome plating was first utilized to prolong die life. And from what I have read, the satin finish is not the result of the chrome plating. It is just the finish that is applied to the dies because they chose to apply that finish. Now as to the date of the difference between Mint set coins and circulation coins, you may well be right about the change taking place in the 60's. The date I am not sure of at all. But whenever the date was, prior to that Mint set coins were taken from the hoppers of coins struck for circulation. And afterwards they were not.
Basically pre 2005 unc sets were pretty much the same as buisness strike coins, 2005 and post 2005 unc set coins are significnatly different than buisness strike.
Would you all stop saying that! :smile Just kidding. At this very early point in my collecting career I am all over the place as to what I want to collect. However, one thing remains constant. I have always focused on dollars. Okay, ASE's aren't dollars, but they are dollar denomination bullion. So, my plans as of today--which are sure to change 17 times by tomorrow--are to collect dollar coins--silver, gold, clad, dollar denomination bullion & commemoratives. Hence the reason I'm looking at Sac's and Presidential dollars. They don't exactly excite me, but they've only been around a short time so I figure I may as well catch up with them so that I can buy sets from the mint annually and stay up to date. It's not turning out to be easy, though. Who would have thought a nine year-old and one year-old series would have so many things to collect?
I believe you're right about dies being chrome plated. They have said proof dies are chrome plated to make the cameo effect last longer. It's likely they've done some other sort of die prep to make the satin finish. I've started looking at these coins only recently and they are not so dramatically different from some older mint set coins. And some appear to be nearly identical to the older mint set coins which really means they are identical to the best made of the circulation issues as well. Perhaps there will be more information forthcoming but to my knowledge this is all they have said to date. I've long suspected the earlier mint set coins (pre-65) were pulled out of circulation runs. The same applies to the '71 to '98 souvenir set coins. It appears they just went out on the floor and selected nice examples. In 1965 the mint and government were trying to punish collectors because they were percieved as responsible for the coin shortage. Initially there were to be no mint or proof sets offered after '64. San Francisco was pressed into service to help alleviate the coin shortage and the numismatic equipment was shipped there. When the SMS's were finally put into production it was apparently done with the old proof set equipment and it appears they continued with many of these changes even after the true mint set was resumed in 1968. In any case when mint set production resumed in 1968 the coins had much more in common with the SMS coins than they did with the pre-'65 mint sets. The dies didn't recieve the proof treatment like the SMS's but they were otherwise the same. There are some very PL examples of most dates in these sets after '64. Indeed, some of the post-'86 coins look very much like branch mint proofs. There are '91-D quarters which are fully struck, virtually flawless, extremely lustrous, and having fully square rims. '88-D cents are nearly common like this (~.5%). Some of the Philly's from the late '70's are also highly PL.
