Mint set coins from normal strikes.

I bought an unopened Mint box of eighty (80) 1962 mint sets a couple of years ago for the very reasons you give...I think that 20 years from now, truely unsearched mint sets from the early '60s will be awfully hard to come by.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I just went through 100 1972 mint sets the other day. The 1972 set has cents from all three mints. I can detect difference between the mints based on strike. I can see coins from a given Mint struck with similar/different dies. Unfortunately, I don't have any Unc rolls of the same dates for comparison, but I can get some.

Can you describe the differences you see between the Mint set coins and the "business" strike coins? In a general sense, is it in the strike of the coin, the color, the luster...is there anything you can point to that gives us an idea of what to look for? Do the differences show up in a photo? If so, do you have any you can post?

EDIT: Never mind...I found the other post and you answered most of the questions there.

It would be interesting if the differences would show up in a photo. I suspect you have to move the coin about in your hand to really see it.

 

Unfortunately I don't have this book to critique but I'd be extremely surprised if there weren't a lot more errors in it as well. The modern guys seem to write pretty accurate books about moderns but the classic guys really make a lot of errors. It's the only only modern book I don't have because I was told it was mostly just a date by date comparison so I had little interest when it was released.

I don't disagree with this statement.

But the fact remains that I can tell one group from another with 100% accuracy and can separate individual coins with a very high degree of accuracy.

These papers did report statements issued by the mint which could be understood to mean exactly that. These statements were worded such as to leave that impression but the literal meaning of the words as the mint defined them did not exclude the truth about these coins. I'm not claiming they were intentionally misleading but they certainly were misleading. They said things to the effect that "these are regular BU coins as we make each year". To them it just meant they weren't proof but collectors jumped to the conclusion that they were exactly the same coins made exactly the same way. They further jumped to the conclusion that the coins were just pulled from production runs. CW or NN might have jumped to the same conclusion at some point but generally they just printed the news and I would have written to them if this error ever appeared in an article.

Now a question - in your previous comments you mentioned basining. Well, basining basically has 2 definitions.

By basining I mean that the finished die is ground down until the fields are flat. Technically they are spherical or eliptical but with a very high radius. Proof dies typically basined and circulation dies rarely are. This leaves a BU coin looking dull and lifeless usually. BU dies are ground but not until they are flat.

Only sometimes and there were different characteristics imparted to them. Some were essentially prepared nearly the same as a proof die but usually not to the same degree. You might be surprised what a PL collection of moderns looks like. Some coins are virtually branch mint proofs.

The mint was really very secretive about everything related to mint sets until the mid-'90's. They had the company line that implied the coins were typical and no information was available except a very very little that leaked out. They didn't have tours nor release any sort of statements. You could find out about anything you wanted about proof sets but there was a black hole for mint sets.

Almost everything I know is based on observation. I had figured out most of the details long before they were released. The only thing that surprised me was that the presses were slowed.

New dies do make coins look pretty but it's harder to fill a new die than an old one. This is another of the problems with circulation issues; when you find a new die strike it probably wont have the highest detail because there wasn't enough time and pressure to fill the die. Getting a full strike from new dies in circulation is very very tough. It's hard enough to get good strikes from worn dies. It's not easy to get good strikes or new dies.

I have found dozens of PL's in circulation over the years but they tend to be worn by the time I get them. They are usually bad strikes. They are always new dies. Mint set PL's are neither bad strikes nor worn dies.

Mint set coins tend to usually have full detail except where the dies are oblique (not square) to one another. One side doesn't strike the planchet as hard. The only other cause of not being full is low striking pressure (ie the dies are setn too far apart). Circulation issues are rarely full strikes unless the dies are approaching mid die state. This means the dies are wearing so the metal doesn't have to bend or move around those near ninety degree corners that are the lettering and design.

I never could find nice coins in circulation most years. When I found them I'd cherry a bag or two and save them but it took mint sets to find the top notch coins. Part of this is probably bad luck and part is that with some denominations I just gave up and quit looking. Most people can't imagine what a typical bag of '66 quarters looked like. Calling them MS-20 is being charitable. A nice one might be described as MS-40. Gems are common in the mint sets though.

I believe the only substantive difference between mint set coins and the SMS is that the SMS dies were polished and often basined.

 

Wow, spirited discussion.....most enjoyable indeed.

 

Please, please keep it going.

But about mint sets.. New collectors need to know that buying a "mint set" does not guarantee a MS-63+ set of coins. In additions, many of them totally s**k.

I APOLOGIZE to Ben - I'm hijacking the thread. I am done now. I apologize, fine sir. There seems to be a linguring question about you being able to distinguish mint set and non-mint set coins!!!!!

I will leave that to you. Thank you for your patience.

 

I spoke with Ken Potter regarding this yesterday.

He said while on a mint tour he learned that mint set coins are struck with some higher pressure limiting the die life to approxamatley 125,000 strikes.
He said he had notes to this effect but could not locate them at that moment. The mint personal further stated that as always the mint tries to balance die pressure (in normal striking) to extend die life and produce the most coins of course. Those dies used to strike the 125,000 mint set coins would then be put back in service to strike normal coins.

The higher pressures would or could account for a difference in how these coins look to me as I have said.

What we still do not know at this time is:

When did they do this, what years, all years, certain years, some years?
Was there any enhancements ever to planchets? Were the dies in anyway polished or treated different?

I still strongly maintain that there is a difference, that the differents can be seen from 1959 to 2004. That I can see this difference and can show this diffence (in most cases) to others.
Also that they never went to a bins full of buisness strike coins and simply pulled coins from there to fill mint sets. From all mint sets I have ever seen and opened, this was never the truth, never!

I refrain from saying the differents is only in strong strike. If that were all it is then early die state coins would be hard to tell from mint set coins.
I will try to explaine it again,

There is a sheen, glitter, glit, shine, brillance, reflection, effect on mint sets coins that is not on buisness strike coins. Once you learn it it is simple to tell them apart.

These higher pressures could indeed account for the appearence of this finish I am discribing.
This would also be within the mints (and others) descriptions of how mint sets are made because in effect nothing they have said is any different than what I have said here.
Mint set coins are struck from normal dies used to strike coins made for commerce, the planchets are the same. They are only leaving out increases in die pressure which they may have, or may have not thought important to disclose.

I will follow up as I get more info. on this and let you know.
I'd like to talk with Margoils, Q.D Bowers, Wexler, Crawford and some others if possible.

 

I know what your talking about...

 

My eyes are red!! With all this information, I think i will go back to bed...LOL

 

I agree with you that in most cases it is impossible to tell if a given coin came from a mint set with 100% accuracy. There are a few coins that can be identified as a mint set coin with effectively 100% accuracy. There are others that can be stated with 99.99999% accuracy.

But the vast majority of mint set coins lose their "mint set status" as soon as they are removed from the mint set.

But a group of coins is different than an individual coin. A sample of a bag or a roll of coins will NEVER look like a sample from mint sets. As I've said you can separate regular issues from mint set coins with as 95% accuracy so when you're talking about a BU roll there is no real chance of being fooled. ...You'd have to be fooled 40 times and the odds of this are one in 20 to the 40th power.

There really is a substantial difference though this difference varies a little between dates and hugely between individual coins.

Look at the trouble the services have in telling the SMS coins from the regular issues. It's the same principle in action. But what needs to be remembered is that these coins that throw them and cause such consternation can literally be one in a million. They can't tell with 100% certainty any more than I can.

 

This is no doubt in reference to cents. Quarter dies are swapped out much faster.

Yes. You can find mint set dies reused to run regular coinage. I believe most of these dies have been reused including the SMS dies. I don't believe these account for the PL's in circulation however because most all PL's are struck from new dies.

It's not higher pressure alone. It might be mostly higher pressure accounting for the close grained surfaces but lower speeds is important to achieving die-fill.

I will limit this responce to post 1964 coins. All regular mint sets have been struck by higher pressures and lower speeds. There are dozens of other little "niceties" which have been used on some or all of a date to improve the appearance of the coins. The 3pc '76 sets packaged in an envelope with a white stripe were struck as mint set coins. That's it. Other coins struck were just pulled off of regular production runs. This means a lot of coins but I'm mostly thinking of the souvenir sets. These are not mint set quality.

 

There's another difference between mint set coins and regular issues that I keep neglecting to mention. Dies are more carefully hubbed. This is not universal. All mint set dies don't have better hubbing than regular issues and some years there may not be much difference. But a date like 1978 you can really see this effect. The detail and design are "crisper" on most mint set coins than on regular issues and this isn't an artefact of striking.

I don't believe they were hubbed more times but rather just more carefully and more precisely. This might be related to the inordinately large number of double dies on mint set issues, especially in the early years.

 

I am really enjoying this spirited debate and am becoming more and more interested in US Mint Sets! TC

 

My statement;

I didn't mean this to be misleading and apologize for any confusion it might have created. It's very difficult to describe in mere words something so complicated as the many different processes used to produce mint set coins and the nearly as great number used to strike regular issues. It's more complicated as these variable processes change over the years. There is nearly 100% overlap in the processes used for striking each type each year though there is far less variability in those used for striking circulation issues. Strike pressure for instance is a function of how far apart the dies are set. If a technician is installing a die on a quad press he might run off a couple examples before realizing the dies are too close. Presto! there are two coins struck under higher pressure. The press isn't always run at exactly the same speed and takes some time to get to full speed. Just about anything that happens to most mint set coins can and does happen to regular issues. But these regular issues will be exceedingly rare Even in the year of issue and only a very tiny percentage were set aside. I probably don't have half a dozen coins that were made for circulation and exhibit some unusual process in striking or die work. How many people besides me saved such coins.

There were remarkably nice coins made for circulation. These tended to be real flukes and very few were saved. These I've got lots of because I expended a lot of effort to seek them out. Some of these coins are almost indistinguishable from mint set coins.

When the vast majority of mint set coins are removed from the set it simply becomes impossible to state with any degree of certainty that the coin isn't a fluke that was made for circulation. But collectors know the difference between a mint set coin and a typical made for circulation coin with near perfect accuracy. For some dates these differences are more subtle and circulation issues come nicer. Other dates the differences are much more apparent. But for all dates these differences can't be proven unless they are a variety or there's some other special way to differentiate them. For instance; all coins with mint set crimping damage are mint set coins.

At the risk of muddying the waters further, I have seen a very very few coins in mint sets that I don't believe were made for mint sets. There's a "lot" of horse play with all the mint operations and it appears that once in a while someone slips in a non-mint set coin into one. I've seen a few mint sets that look like someone sat there for a while saving up all the ugliest coins to put all in a single set. A very large number of sets look like someone saved up really nice coins. By very large I mean something on the order of one set in a thousand. I've got a 1968 Denver set that has all stunning PL's in it. It looks like a branch mint proof set. I put a stunning Philly set with it that pretty spectacular in its own right. But the odds of getting five knock out PL's in a single package is nearly impossible. I have to believe this set had help just like my help in pairing it with a spectacular Philly set.

To prove the point there is in existence a 1968 proof set with a die cap half dollar in it. These are planchets which adhere to the top (obverse) die and continue to strike blank planchets. The pressure forces the metal of the stuck coin to wrap around the die and take on the shape of a bowl. It was removed and hammered into a proof capsule and the capsule forced into a sleeve and mailed to a customer. It's unlikely this was done by someone who didn't know better or wanted to embarrass the mint. It was just a gag. I think it's pretty funny.

A lot of this discussion is really acedemic anyway because there just aren't any circulation issues to worry about. This is a little hyperbole but it's a fact that a lot of the clad rolls are virtually unavailable. The vast majority of all 1969 quarters are from mint sets because people didn't save these coins. Until just a few years ago if a person happened to take his dad's coins into a coin shop to sell the dealer would have told him to just spend a roll of 1969 quarters. So the attrition on the few saved was astronomical.

 

These aren't minor considerations to me. I've made no secret of the fact that I've long believed that collectors are missing the boat on moderns and especially the mint state clad moderns. My early interest was mostly just statistical as I watched the coins enter circulation and become worn but I had no interesty as a collector because I considered them to be ugly debased junk. I had no interest as an investor because the mint kept releasing old coins that had gotten lost in the back of a vault or warehouse. Why bother to invest in coins that were just going to be released in large numbers later on.

By 1972 the quarters were getting so interesting that I was considering setting some aside and collecting them anyway but at that time it was announced that the mint and FED were switching to FIFO accounting which required that they rotate the coins iin storage. Whatever coins were in the back of the vault had tro be released first. This was when I started seeking out nice specimens and setting them aside for the future. At that time my motivation was mostly "investment". (hey, I was young and foolish).

Over the years I discovered mint sets and found a readier source for gems. Depending on the date gems for circulation varied from about .01% to about 2% so could be exceedingly elusive. But the mint set coins were fairly steady at 2% and varied from 1% to about 8%. Finding gems in the mint sets was like shooting fish in a barrel. The only downside is that the mint sets were expensive especially in the old days. This meant a continued reliance on finding gems from rolls especially in years that they were available.

This distinction between mint set coibns and regular issues is of some import to me since I do have something of a stake in the coins. This isn't to say that this stake is coloring my perspective just that it exists. If collectors believed the mint set coins were distinct like the SMS or the satin finish it would decrease the value of most of my coins since even those I got from circulation often have a mint set appearance; Not all, but the fact is really high grade circulation issues much more often look like mint set coins. Really poor mint set coins are much more easily mistaken for circulation issues. A lot of the difference between mint set and regular issue coins really is quality. In practice they are usually distinguishable but this is largely because the quality of roll coins is lower. The strike and die condition is poorer.

I get pretty confident many times in my ability to distinguish a mint set coin from a circulation issue. Even on lightly circulated coins I feel I can spot the difference almost all the time. I recently got my comeuppance. I got two very lightly circulated coins from rolls, a '79-D and an '84-D. Both were "obviously" mint set coins. They both had the booming luster under light wear and they were both very nicely struck. These are very unusual finds now days and I was toying with the idea that some dealer cut a very large number of sets and both these just happened to come my way a few months later. Well long story long, after I look at all the obverses I look at the reverses of the keepers (one per three rolls on average). Both of these coins had the type "d" reverse which doesn't appear in mint sets so neither could have come from a mint set. A lot of people have been dumping coins they've sets aside since 1999 recently and I just lucked into a couple really nice (and non-mint set coins). The '84-D isn't all that great in AU since the mintage was quite high and there are a few uncs around but the mintage of the '79-D was quite low and this coin is scarce above F condition. AU's will be quite scarce.

So bottom line, in my experience, is thatr you can tell them apart but not consistently. No matter how typical a coin is it might not really be what you think it is.