Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Spark1951, post: 26447884, member: 90692&quot;]Definitely looks like a proof, get it protected into a capsule or at least a 2x2 flip.</p><p><br /></p><p>Also, try not to use the term “no mint mark” incorrectly.&nbsp; Your proof nickel was minted in Philadelphia and was never intended to have a mint mark, so you would say “1964 Philadelphia Proof” (not “no mint mark”).</p><p><br /></p><p>By contrast, some 1982 proof sets were discovered to have Roosevelt dimes that did not have a “P” mint mark like they were supposed to have.&nbsp; So, in this case you would say “1982 No Mint Mark Roosevelt Dime”.&nbsp; This dime is very valuable and in great demand.&nbsp; It’s important to use the proper terminology.</p><p><br /></p><p>For clarity:&nbsp; Proof Sets <b>were</b> produced by the Mint in 1982, but Mint Sets <b>were not</b>, and because they did not make Mint Sets for 1982 (and 1983, too) coin dealers and LCS shops were forced to cobble together their own mint sets from coins supplied by bank rolls and Mint bags intended for business.</p><p><br /></p><p>edited:&nbsp; my post was being created and I posted a little later than </p><p>[USER=59677]@Burton Strauss III[/USER]&nbsp; who provided succinct info.&nbsp; My post morphed into a diatribe and took a little longer to post.&nbsp; The point is:&nbsp; both posts have accurate info…Spark[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in