If you could only collect one or the other, would you prefer to have proof sets or uncirculated mint sets?
Here here for proofs...the beauty, the frost, the deep cameo, the low mintage, the stigma that you are looking at a "perfect" coin weighs hard over mint sets. Proof Eagles (Gold and Silver) are just knock down beautiful and command a premium for the time and extra care these coins go through while produced. Look at an MS69 Silver Eagle next to a PR69DCAM Silver Eagle for the same year and ask anybody (expert to my 9 year old son) which they would rather have for their collection? and I sure proofs would win out (if mintage numbers were the same.)
Not that I don't like proof sets myself, but just to play devil's advocate - I have read in a few places that some collectors stay away from proof sets altogether. They feel that since they were produced in a different way than Uncirc. sets they aren't "real" coins. They prefer to collect the best possible examples of coins that you'd find in circulation. Thoughts?
ok...maybe they ARE different, but that difference enhances the details of those particular coins. a frosted proof is too beautiful to not have, even if you have only 1 coin like that. i look at my 2003 sae (got 1 just to have it because i love the walking liberty design) and she takes my breath away. even an agony dollar looks good as a frosted proof so i go for the proof sets
Being arguementative, I prefer collecting the mint sets. There are so many more coins to be had through the uncirculated sets (that are still produced in plio-film) that the minute differences from P&D mints can be detected (in some cases). Not being arguementative, I would have to say that I collect both for different reasons. One move I have yet to make is the back-dating of mint sets from 1998 back. That will have to wait a bit, unfortunately.
my vote goes to proofs. they appeal to my eye. when i look at a proof set or individual proofs and look at circulated coins or mint sets i will go with proofs every time. well almost.
I always had an easy way of solving this dilemma - I collected both The two different types of coins appeal to different collectors for different reasons. This is how it should be as not everybody likes the same thing. Think of coins like ice cream - how boring would it be if there were only one flavor That's why they make chocolate and vanilla. And forty eleven other flavors too
My first post !! I too collect both, proofs for their luster and low mintage and mints for the best of the circ's.
I would go with mint sets. I like finding the old U.S double mint sets. Some of the coins are incredibly toned.
There's no right or wrong answer to the question and I do like both, but for the recent date sets, I'd take the mint sets. I guess it's the very wide range in quality in the circulation issues which makes the search for gems so rewarding. The proofs are fun to find in high grade, too, but there is relatively little range in quality. The mint sets are also complimented by the coins issued for circulation. There is no way to tell these apart but those issued in bags are actually superior on rare occasion which makes completing sets much more of a challenge. Also the circulation strikes will contain far more varieties than the mint set coins. To my mind it's more comparing proof coins to all the coins issued for circulation and the proof coins just can't match it despite their high quality and numerous varieties.
Proof's hands down. For me there is nothing like looking at a nice frosty one. A nice frosty SAE with jet black mirror finish, now that's for me!!
