'79 SBA San Francisco

Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by bruthajoe, Nov 18, 2021.

  1. bruthajoe

    bruthajoe Still Recovering

    Figured I'd start a thread on this post from a Susan B Anthony Thread...

    Member:
    "Wholesale on these just went up to $2.25 in chBU.
    The '80 mint set has been in high demand for a year now but I can't imagine why. It was a very high mintage though a lot have been cut up and spent.
    The real winner in the set is the D half dollar if you can find one without shallow scrapes.
    Watch for the '79-S in Gem. It is very very underrated. This one is choice but not Gem."

    Members/bruthajoe.108656:
    "Figures. Seems to be the one that I'm missing. SBA San Francisco's were included these sets of Denver's, and why???
    My missing set would be 79 Denver? There not very minty looking sets.:yack:".
    [​IMG] [​IMG]So I went and looked on Ebay and found a 79S mint set to make myself feel better. I think I feel better. I would have paid more because I was annoyed that grandpa didn't get the S set!!
    Screenshot_20211118-161614.jpg
     
    john65999 and Inspector43 like this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Conder101

    Conder101 Numismatist

    Did the 79 set include the 79 S Sac dollar? I seem to recall that it didn't. Checked I was right it didn't.
     
    bruthajoe and Inspector43 like this.
  4. bruthajoe

    bruthajoe Still Recovering

    You mean the Filled S? I just want to know why were San Francisco SBA's put in the Denver sets.
     
  5. Inspector43

    Inspector43 Celebrating 75 Years Active Collecting Supporter

    Thanks for bring this up @bruthajoe, it gave me a reason to go back into my stash. I like the SBA. Very nice looking coin and
    closer to representing a US Dollar than those gold colored things. My wife brought them home from her beauty shop almost everyday. I saved a bunch. Here is one that she brought home.

    1979 D SBA.jpg
     
  6. bruthajoe

    bruthajoe Still Recovering

    They were always exciting to find as a kid. They have a warm place for me.
     
    Inspector43 likes this.
  7. Conder101

    Conder101 Numismatist

    No I meant were the 79 S SBA;s put in the 1979 mint sets, they weren't.

    They were in the Denver sleeve of the 1980 set because there wasn't a S sleeve. So they had to be in either the P sleeve or the D sleeve. Similar to what they did with the S mint cent from 1968 to 1974 and 5 cent pieces from 1968 to 70. The "filled S' was in the proof set with the clear S coming in the later 79 proof sets. (Although the circulation strikes were filled S as well.
     
  8. bruthajoe

    bruthajoe Still Recovering

    Ohhh. So the SF mint sets were simply not available? Well this quickly got interesting. Didn't they start P MM in 79?
    I'm going to have to find a roster for these sleeve sets. I'd like to complete it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2021
  9. bruthajoe

    bruthajoe Still Recovering

    What confused me more was the 79 P set. I did not know the SBA was the only Philly that was mint marked as the rest in the set are not.
    Also in 1979 they did not included the SF SBA. Jeez I'm gonna need a spreadsheet to complete these.
     
    UncleScroge likes this.
  10. cladking

    cladking Coin Collector

    There's no premium yet for the '79-S SBA.

    The '81 SBA's all used to have a large premium but while still higher than the other dates it is no longer much higher.

    The two toughest coins in my experience are the '81-S and the '79-S. The former is quite difficult in Gem and the latter is tough in nice attractive MS-64 or higher. Of course the near date is tough above chBU.

    None of the other coins are common in Gem but they shouldn't require a lot of searching. I have very limited experience with the '99 issues. '79 SBA's in the mint sets are often tarnished and the '80 isn't far behind. The '81 sets are usually OK still. Mint set packaging is no good for long term storage.
     
    bruthajoe likes this.
  11. Pickin and Grinin

    Pickin and Grinin Well-Known Member

    Yeah I believe those were the UC sets. Except those earlier sets had an S mint Lincoln.
     
  12. bruthajoe

    bruthajoe Still Recovering

    The toning seems to be worse on the 78-79 sets but compare the SBA's in the the 80 sleeve... IMG_20211119_095629.jpg IMG_20211119_095622.jpg
    The SF is much brighter than the Denver... I attributed this to poor rinsing as opposed to packaging contamination being that they are contained within the same sleeve.
    Also the 81 sets are all very bright with the 81 Philly's being the brightest... IMG_20211119_100829.jpg IMG_20211119_100807.jpg
     
  13. cladking

    cladking Coin Collector

    '79 sets that have been stored poorly are a mess but improvements were made each year in '79, '80, '81, '84 and '85. Indeed, most of the '85 sets are OK and will probably be OK for at least another 10 years.

    The oddest thing is that in the middle of the carnage the '72 set is pretty good and the '73 almost as good.

    The real problem is with the old sets. The '69 went first but they're all following.

    All the coins in your pictured sets are easily saved but, of course, you can't get the carbon spots off the cents and that '80-S dollar will probably never be a pretty coin.

    Anyone who wants to save these coins needs to act now. Even dates that seem unaffected like the '65 SMS are typically damaged and the damage affects every single coin. The nickels are a little better. I've had to cut up dozens of nice Gem sets and wish I had done it years ago.
     
  14. bruthajoe

    bruthajoe Still Recovering

    It seems against the coin karma to break up mint sets but I'm getting the impression that it does not matter from some of you guys.
     
  15. cladking

    cladking Coin Collector

    The bottom line is we have the choice between nice coins or badly tarnished and irreversibly damaged sets. I cherry picked lots of very high grade mint sets over the years. Some of them were simply incredible and must have been assembled at the minty through intention. The coins were just so nice they wouldn't exist through mere chance alone. It broke my heart to cut them up.

    I still have some of the later dates in more stable packaging but most of the best ones were early dates from before the days the sets were assembled mechanically.
    But ultimately I'm a coin collector and not a set collector. The sets are worth more apart than together anyway since for many years the coins are worth more in aggregate than as a set. The same applies to Gem sets; you can't sell the sets intact for much of a premium but high grades bring a lot of money slabbed. Believe me Gem sets that have tarnished won't even bring wholesale prices. You can catch these coins before the damage is irreversible and I believe we have an obligation to future generations to do so.

    I don't know about karma but I do know it is wrong to have allowed these coins to be worn away in circulation without setting any aside and then allowing the surviving mint sets to ruin the coins in them.
     
    UncleScroge and bruthajoe like this.
  16. bruthajoe

    bruthajoe Still Recovering

    I'm not into sets either. It's just that all the mint sets were handed down to me and they are incomplete (It just bothered me with no rational reason). If it is better to save them from further damage then I guess it is justifiably. Thanks.
     
  17. Conder101

    Conder101 Numismatist

    Yes all of the 68 to 74 S cents and 68 to 70 S five cents were in the mint sets. The S mint cents were in the Philadelphia sleeve as the sixth coin, and the S mint nickels were also in the Philadelphia sleeve in the place where the Philadelphia five cent would have normally been (Philadelphia didn't make five cent pieces from 68 to 70.)
     
    Pickin and Grinin likes this.
  18. bruthajoe

    bruthajoe Still Recovering

    So as for trying to save the mint sets, I got a badly toned set off eBay for 10 bucks... IMG_20211123_140422.jpg ...to see how successfully I could halt further damage. The first thing I noticed in the set was a terribly tarnished Kennedy. It looks like a water stain. I had a feeling this coin was permanently damaged and I was correct. I was mostly successful at removing the contamination but damage is damage. Now what I would like to know is... is it better off now, before I go and do my personal mint sets? ... IMG_20211123_140602.jpg IMG_20211123_140959.jpg IMG_20211123_140727.jpg IMG_20211123_141240.jpg
     
  19. bruthajoe

    bruthajoe Still Recovering

    I was thinking...
    How would you ever know if the coins were from broken mint sets? I'm starting to think they should just stay in the original packages.
    Maybe not every coin should be attractive. Maybe these sets are just meant to be an example of the time in which they were created.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2021
  20. Pickin and Grinin

    Pickin and Grinin Well-Known Member

    I doubt that a dip would hurt any of these coins, except the copper.
    I just don't see them worth the effort. If they looked Gem I might feel different.
     
    bruthajoe likes this.
  21. bruthajoe

    bruthajoe Still Recovering

    I knew that particular Kennedy had no hope. I chose it as the trial coin. My Grandfathers sets are much nicer, hence why I do not really want to mess with them.
     
    Pickin and Grinin likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page