Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;cladking, post: 1261592, member: 68&quot;]A lot of the rolls are damaged.&nbsp; Every single coin in a large percentage of rolls is simply destroyed by improper storage.&nbsp; Most of these rolls were pretty poor to start with so are no great loss.&nbsp; The zinc dates tend to be worse even though they&#039;re much newer so if you project this forward a little it leaves pretty few nice coins.&nbsp; The &#039;84-D is going to be a bear in nice condition as even nice attractive coins will be quite unusual and in just a few years there won&#039;t be any nice examples left in circulation of this date.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>The &#039;90-D and &#039;91-D I don&#039;t find especially tough in the mint set.&nbsp; They aren&#039;t common like the late &#039;80&#039;s and the superb gems aren&#039;t quite as nice but these really aren&#039;t that tough in the mint set.&nbsp; I know you have exceedingly high standards for strike but the mint set coins are extremely well struck.&nbsp; Denver quality in the &#039;90&#039;s mint sets is spotty but generally fairly good.&nbsp; The cents from the late &#039;80&#039;s are so well made that many of them look like branch mint proofs.&nbsp; Many of the &#039;89-D&#039;s are so &quot;hammered&quot; that the copper is stripped right off the sides of the letters on the reverse.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Mint set quality tends to mirror roll quality but some dates diverge to a very large extent. I don&#039;t pay nearly enough attention to the roll coins but, like you, it&#039;s because I tend to need strike quality first.&nbsp; Finding good quality strikes in mint sets is very very easy for all dates and denominations since the coins are struck under higher pressure at lower speeds and with new dies.[/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