Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
US Coins Forum
>
Mint set coins from normal strikes.
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="cladking, post: 835350, member: 68"]Thanks for the link. I'll read it later. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>They have been struck with new dies at loweer speed and higher pressure since 1965. There were no significabnt changes in '86 except that some planchets were burnished or partially so. But the mint used polished planchets even before this for some mint set coins; most notably during the SMS years. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>It's the mint who seems to contradict themselves. Actually I believe their words were literally true in terms of their own definitions but they were very misleading to collectors. All you have to do is look at these earlier coins to see they are different than regular production runs. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Since 1965. They moved the proof bset presses to San Francisco and despite all the changes since the mint set coins essentially remained SMS coins but with less attention to finish. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I'm sure the mint never said it didn't apply to older coins; this nis just when terminology changed. If I'm mistaken here I'd be interested in knowing and would be willing to argue the point with the mint. 1985 mint sets can speak for themselves though. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I'm dubious but will keep an open mind. I'm even more dubious about the '59 to '64 sets. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I'm confident this is untrue. The mint never claimed they were just pulled from regular production runs between '65 and '86 so far as I know and I paid a lot of attention to such things. Their words were to the effect that these are just ordinary BU coins. People jumped to conclusions. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Special handling of planchets and/ or dies is not universal for any date at all though it comes very close on the '67 mint set. Almost all these dies were basined and polished in '67. In most years only a few planchets get polished and these are not uniformly polished like proof set coins. Some are good and some are barely polished at all. For some dates they are very very scarce. Perhaps these are rejects from proof set manufacture. It's the same with the dies except in most years there's less variability between dies. For a few years there is almost no variability. These dies are actually basined in some cases but usually the "extra" is something else like sand blasting or polishing. </p><p><br /></p><p> </p><p><br /></p><p>Yes. It depends on the denomination but there's nothing preventing the finest coins from any given year from having been made for circulation. Primarily this seems to affect Ikes and cents but, remember, the greatest strenght of mint set coins is strike and die quality. If you prefer well made coins then most moderns come nicest in sets. If you prefer clean surfaces then some come nicest in rolls abnd this especially applioes to cents and Ikes. Of course the issue is acedemic for dimes and quarters since there weren't any rolls of these saved to compare. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Oh sure. They tweeked production quite often and changed designs every few years. Sometimes they made little changes right in the middle of the year but these tend to be very minor like packaging changes. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I don't feel competent to comment on the pre-'65 mint sets. I've simply never been satisfied with the idea they were plucked from production runs but they don't appear to be specially made eiither. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I'm quite confident you're wrong. The switch to the satin finish in 2005 was actually one of their more minor changes. It merely involved chromium plating the finished dies. The appearance changed a lot but the cause was minor. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>It varied so much year to year that most statements can be largely true. Regular planchets are roughed up to better be handled by the automated equipment but mint set planchets often escaped this treatment. Dies were almost always changed before 30,000 strikes except on 1968 coins but the real newness of a die is usually worn off in only a dozen strikes. Imagine trying to find this coin among those made for circulation. It's one in 75,000 rather than one in 2,800. If you can find an old clad quarter roll (not bicentennial since these can be nice) just compare it to some fresh mint sets of the same date. I used to look through tens of thousands of BU coins each year and couldn't even find a single coin as nice as the average mint set coin most of the time. It was really cheap to set aside nice quarters if you could find them but only some years were available nice. Every year mint set coin comes nice at least 15% of the time. That's a huge difference; .0001% or less and at least 15%. These could not have been made the same way. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>What's truly ironic here is that it's right at 1986 (maybe '88) that really top end coins start getting exceedingly tough. Look at the pops if you don't believe it. Some of these are so frustrating since they look like branch mint proofs they are so pretty but they'll usually have gouges and a scratch right acroos them. No, the only big deal in '86 was that they started making the coins shinier and they processed the dies more. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>As I said before I can separate these even after they wear a little in circulation with good accuracy. As far as doing consistently or knowing all the ways I do it, I don't know. I also can't state categorically that someone couldn't do it better than I and use a teachable method.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="cladking, post: 835350, member: 68"]Thanks for the link. I'll read it later. They have been struck with new dies at loweer speed and higher pressure since 1965. There were no significabnt changes in '86 except that some planchets were burnished or partially so. But the mint used polished planchets even before this for some mint set coins; most notably during the SMS years. It's the mint who seems to contradict themselves. Actually I believe their words were literally true in terms of their own definitions but they were very misleading to collectors. All you have to do is look at these earlier coins to see they are different than regular production runs. Since 1965. They moved the proof bset presses to San Francisco and despite all the changes since the mint set coins essentially remained SMS coins but with less attention to finish. I'm sure the mint never said it didn't apply to older coins; this nis just when terminology changed. If I'm mistaken here I'd be interested in knowing and would be willing to argue the point with the mint. 1985 mint sets can speak for themselves though. I'm dubious but will keep an open mind. I'm even more dubious about the '59 to '64 sets. I'm confident this is untrue. The mint never claimed they were just pulled from regular production runs between '65 and '86 so far as I know and I paid a lot of attention to such things. Their words were to the effect that these are just ordinary BU coins. People jumped to conclusions. Special handling of planchets and/ or dies is not universal for any date at all though it comes very close on the '67 mint set. Almost all these dies were basined and polished in '67. In most years only a few planchets get polished and these are not uniformly polished like proof set coins. Some are good and some are barely polished at all. For some dates they are very very scarce. Perhaps these are rejects from proof set manufacture. It's the same with the dies except in most years there's less variability between dies. For a few years there is almost no variability. These dies are actually basined in some cases but usually the "extra" is something else like sand blasting or polishing. Yes. It depends on the denomination but there's nothing preventing the finest coins from any given year from having been made for circulation. Primarily this seems to affect Ikes and cents but, remember, the greatest strenght of mint set coins is strike and die quality. If you prefer well made coins then most moderns come nicest in sets. If you prefer clean surfaces then some come nicest in rolls abnd this especially applioes to cents and Ikes. Of course the issue is acedemic for dimes and quarters since there weren't any rolls of these saved to compare. Oh sure. They tweeked production quite often and changed designs every few years. Sometimes they made little changes right in the middle of the year but these tend to be very minor like packaging changes. I don't feel competent to comment on the pre-'65 mint sets. I've simply never been satisfied with the idea they were plucked from production runs but they don't appear to be specially made eiither. I'm quite confident you're wrong. The switch to the satin finish in 2005 was actually one of their more minor changes. It merely involved chromium plating the finished dies. The appearance changed a lot but the cause was minor. It varied so much year to year that most statements can be largely true. Regular planchets are roughed up to better be handled by the automated equipment but mint set planchets often escaped this treatment. Dies were almost always changed before 30,000 strikes except on 1968 coins but the real newness of a die is usually worn off in only a dozen strikes. Imagine trying to find this coin among those made for circulation. It's one in 75,000 rather than one in 2,800. If you can find an old clad quarter roll (not bicentennial since these can be nice) just compare it to some fresh mint sets of the same date. I used to look through tens of thousands of BU coins each year and couldn't even find a single coin as nice as the average mint set coin most of the time. It was really cheap to set aside nice quarters if you could find them but only some years were available nice. Every year mint set coin comes nice at least 15% of the time. That's a huge difference; .0001% or less and at least 15%. These could not have been made the same way. What's truly ironic here is that it's right at 1986 (maybe '88) that really top end coins start getting exceedingly tough. Look at the pops if you don't believe it. Some of these are so frustrating since they look like branch mint proofs they are so pretty but they'll usually have gouges and a scratch right acroos them. No, the only big deal in '86 was that they started making the coins shinier and they processed the dies more. As I said before I can separate these even after they wear a little in circulation with good accuracy. As far as doing consistently or knowing all the ways I do it, I don't know. I also can't state categorically that someone couldn't do it better than I and use a teachable method.[/QUOTE]
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
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
US Coins Forum
>
Mint set coins from normal strikes.
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...