Proof and Mint Sets Not sealed by the Mint

I just listed a proof set for sale and to get the word out about so-called mint sealed proof and uncirculated sets. Please read and comment.

Thanks, Richard

The United States Mint only sealed envelopes when they only shipped one proof set. That envelope would have an address label produced by the mint on the front of the package. Other than the one proof set shipments the mint NEVER SEALED ENVELOPES!
All the proof and mint sets that are offered as mint sealed have been sealed outside the mint. Many of the sealed envelopes were sealed from flood waters, water damage from fires, or sellers that have bad looking sets. I remember in the seventies seeing tables, at the Long Beach, CA. show, full these distressed sets being sold way below market price at that time. I started buying proof sets from the U S Mint in 1960 for $2.10 each. All sets were always over-packed and none of the sets were ever sealed. In my 50+ years of collecting coins and buying from the mint I never received a "Sealed" envelope.
Ask any old-timer and they will verify what I have written hear.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

.

 

And the point is?


Bottom line, they didn't seal 'em unless they sent you one in the mail and placed a stamp on the envelope.......

 

I have opened "sealed" US Mint shipping boxes that had "Sealed" Special Mint Sets within them.

 

.

 

And rickmp is correct they can also become self sealed if they are stored in an overly humid environment.

 

It seems that the myth is still bringing slightly higher prices on the bay.

 

And in a related example, I recently purchased a series of US Mint-manufactured and envelope-packaged Panamanian proof sets from 1966-1972 and not one was sealed in its original envelope.

 

Non the less, they were sealed and to state that there are no "sealed" sets is simply not true.

Folks are entitled to believe what ever they want to believe based up on their observations (limited or not) but the fact remains that literally millions were produced and millions remain to be "unseen".

Unless folks actually worked at the packaging facility, they simply have no basis for global comments other than "Every one that I have seen has not been sealed".

 

.

 

None of the proof sets I bought directly from the mint from 1960-1964 were sealed in the envelopes.

 

I could live with that but then it's still speculation unless you actually worked at the packaging facility.

We do know that mint sets, from at least 1964 had sealing gum on the envelopes.
We also know that proof set envelopes has sealing gum on the envelopes.
1968 Proof Sets came in sealed plastic lens while mint sets continued to come in envelopes that had sealing gum.
In 1973, the mint sets came in envelopes which had no sealing gum.

Was the sealing gum there just because nobody had ever considered making an envelope without it? Or was it there for the purpose of sealing the envelope?

Was it dropped in 1973 since "We never seal the envelopes anyway?"

Were most sealed and some simply not sealed? Was this a mechanical operation where the envelopes were stuffed by machine? Or were all 3.9 million stuffed by hand?

Lots and lots of variables where not all are products of greed or deception since nice coins have come from both sealed and unsealed.

 

.

 

I never pay more money for sealed sets. It's not worth the premium.

 

Go put tape over your mouth and stand in the corner.........

 

You know you won't! LOL!

 

"And couple what I have seen myself with thousands of other reports"

Thousands?

As for your point(s)? I prefer to "understand" the possibilities since in my years of looking at (specifically) the 1956 - 1964 Proof Sets, I rarely encountered one that had not been "torn" open. And this was way before eBay and the paranoia which surrounds sellers on that venue or the availability of reproduction envelopes.

Have I seen "unsealed" sets? Yes
Have I seen "sealed" sets? Yes
Have I seen evidence of "sealed" sets where the envelope was "torn open"? Yes

I am not questioning your "belief" in probabilities Doug. I am simply adding another level of understanding in the possibilities based upon my own personal observation.