I just received my silver proof set, and was struck by the beauty of the silver coins vs the "different" look of the clad coins in the regular set. It still seems an example of poor financial planning when you consider the coins are struck in San Francisco, but mailed to the consumer from Memphis. It seems to me that it would be easier and cheaper for the coins to be processed from an office in 'Frisco That not withstanding, there is such an obvious difference in the way the cupro-nickel and the silver responds to the striking of the dies and nubs. The detail seems similar, but, even in the case of the Dime, the coin just looks better to my eyes. The National Park quarters, with the wealth of detail in such a limited space, also appears much better looking to my eyes. Anybody else comparing these two issues notice what I'm seeing?? Harry
I've seen this as well. I've always chalked it up to two factors: a) the higher inherent brightness of silver compared with 75/25 cupronickel, and b) the fact that .900 silver is softer than 75/25 cupronickel and hence more easily flows into the die's deepest recesses.
Plus the longer term value of the silver set seems to always be higher because it at least has a little intrinsic value. I view the non-silver sets as fun collectibles only and a way to build interest in youngsters. Although not a direct comparison, the extreme case might be the Presidential gold colored dollars versus the First Spouse gold coins. A perfect set of one is probably worth several hundred dollars while the counterpart is worth $100k.
