Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;cladking, post: 237031, member: 68&quot;]It&#039;s been years since I&#039;ve seen a 1968-P cent in a mint set that doesn&#039;t have carbon spots.</p><p>Even in 1985 the vast majority were affected.&nbsp; I&#039;ve sampled many hundreds of sets in the</p><p>last few years and about 98% have spots on both sides.&nbsp; You might think this would leave </p><p>a few unaffected but it apparently doesn&#039;t work that way because all of them are damaged.</p><p>There are several other coins and dates that are close on its heels.&nbsp; The &#039;68-S cent is getting</p><p>up to around 95% damaged though not as many are ugly.&nbsp; Even the &#039;84-D is getting close to</p><p>60%.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Every once in a long while you&#039;ll get a set that&#039;s been exposed to water or moisture and has </p><p>delaminated.&nbsp; It&#039;s most common on the &#039;75 but I&#039;ve seen others as well.&nbsp; The interior layers</p><p>are extremely thin and pliable and would appear to contain PVC.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>People figuring there will always be a good supply of gems in the mint sets are in error for </p><p>four reasons. First, these sets are disappearing and won&#039;t always be available. Secondly</p><p>some gems don&#039;t exist or are rare in mint sets.&nbsp; Thirdly, the coins in the mint sets are disin-</p><p>tegrating, and finally, many moderns (including most varieties) were never placed into mint</p><p>sets.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Generally damage to coins in the sets is not of critical importance to date, but if you&#039;ve ever</p><p>tried to find a nice 1968 cent without carbon spots then you&#039;ll be much more concerned with</p><p>the condition and availability of the sets.[/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