I bought my first double mint set (1958). The right nickel on the first photo is loose (i.e it easily falls out). The rest of the coins are stuck to the board. Do this set looks like an original double mint set? Is it normal for a coin to be loose? Also, what type of toning in double mint sets are bad? First board (the right nickel is loose on this board): First board front (the side that flips up): First board back: Second board: Second board front (the side that flips up): Second board back:
Some people take out the original high grade coins from the mint set and put lower grade inside. I'm asking if this likely an original mint set without people swapping out coins.
My gut says this set is intact from the pictures. The toning on all the silver looks right from the packaging used by the Mint. You are correct, many coins are exchanged in these sets.
No doubt looks original. The broken paper behind the dime and cent says that coins have been removed. That doesn't mean that they were exchanged.
Sets I have had have coins that don't fit tightly. I recall once showing a fellow collector who is VERY knowledgeable my 1947 set, and he dropped one of the nickels on the ground.
Sure does to me. Some are, some aren't - so yeah it's normal. That depends on who's answering the question. What I mean is some folks like (as in find attractive) almost any kind of toning and others only like certain kinds of toning. In most cases it's all subjective in other words. The '58 Mint Sets, they're famous for producing some very colorful and often downright beautiful coins, much more so than any of the others. This Frankie was in one of my sets - From an objective point of view if the toning has progressed to the point that it is black - that's often bad, but not always. The paper being torn on the back is kinda common. If the coins fit tight the only way to get them out was to push on the back, and many owners would do that just to see the other side to find out if it had attractive toning or were high grade. But yeah, sometimes they were swapped out and sold, particularly if either of those things were true. But the paper being torn is never definitive, it's always a maybe.
The odd thing is the side with the torn paper is the side he says is the side that flips up, not the side that is actually glued to the cardboard. No reason to have tears on that side. I think the pictures are mislabeled.
The pictures are not mislabeled. The tears are on the side that flips up, not the side that is glued to the cardboard.
That I did not notice Doesn't much change anything though regarding it being original. Given where the tears are then I suspect an owner took the coins out of the holder to inspect them, and then placed them back over the holes, put the paper cover down to avoid fingerprints on the coins, and then pressed the coins back into the holes - tearing the paper in the process.
