Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;cladking, post: 258293, member: 68&quot;]GDJMSP nailed the proof sets and current mint sets.</p><p><br /></p><p>The older mint sets have a great deal of diversity from date to date and from coin to coin.&nbsp; Almost all of the finest coins made in the last couple of generations went into the mint sets.&nbsp; Those which didn&#039;t go in the mint sets almost always went into circulation and became lost or worn.&nbsp; In some cases there are virtually no examples of a coin that didn&#039;t come from a mint set.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Perhaps the finest made of the mint set clads would be the 1972-D quarter.&nbsp; This coin would average MS-64 with 25% going MS-65 or better.&nbsp; Even MS-67&#039;s for this date are not rare.&nbsp; The best made of the cents in sets might be the &#039;88-D.&nbsp; This would average MS-66 and very highly PL MS-69&#039;s are rarely available.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>The worst made mint set coin is, hands down, the &#039;76-P type I Ike in the &#039;75 mint set.&nbsp; Fully half of these can&#039;t even be sold as BU since they are so ugly.&nbsp; Just finding a nice attractive MS-63 can be a chore.&nbsp; Gems are rare.&nbsp; Not too far behind it would be a 1969-P quarter.&nbsp; This coin is horrid in the sets and while MS-63&#039;s aren&#039;t too tough gems are highly elusive.&nbsp; When this set was made perhaps 1 coin in 300 would go gem but the years have not been kind to this set.&nbsp; Large percentages of them have tarnished and there are a few people who selectively seek this coin.&nbsp; Of course it&#039;s hard to impact the population of something you can&#039;t find.&nbsp; The problem is exascerbated by the fact that a large percentage of this date has been destroyed over the years because of its limited value and the silver run-up that made it profitable to destroy them for the single 40% silver half in them.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>These are the extremes.&nbsp; In between there is almost everything.&nbsp; As a rule if one coin in a set tends nice then they all do but there are numerous exceptions.&nbsp; There is a lot of variability between the mints too.&nbsp; Denver is usually much nicer but if you look at only the very finest coins than the Phillys tend to be better.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>In 1986 the mint started polishing or burnishing some of the mint set planchets.&nbsp; When these were struck by a new pair of dies some spectacular coins were made but they were usually covered in small scratches that make them quite unsightly.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>A lot of the pennys are just a lost cause now.&nbsp; For instance every single 1968 cent from mint sets has carbon spots now.&nbsp; The vast majority are just ugly because of this spotting.&nbsp; (~95%)&nbsp; God only knows what collectors are going to do for gems of this date.&nbsp; Some roll coins are OK but these are hard to find with good strikes.&nbsp; The &#039;84-D is rapidly going the same way.&nbsp; Most of these were pretty ugly to start with because of bad surfaces resulting from plating problems and striking characteristics so it&#039;s not as big of loss but roll coins of this date are tough and also suffer from the same problems.&nbsp; The late &#039;70&#039;s cents from sets are hard to find without lots of scratches.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>I usually figure that two mint sets out of three will have at least one nice coin and this works well as a rule of thumb.&nbsp; Typically the nice coin will be something that is expected like an MS-64 cent or dime but it could be a choice gem &#039;76 type I dollar.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Before 1980 you can find a surprising number of sets that contain all gem coins.&nbsp; I suspect that this was the year they went to automated equipment for filling these 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