US Mint "circulating coin set"?

First, I'm new here and need to make the usual apology: I'm sorry if this has been asked before! I did try to search the forum. And my question almost feels silly...

I was looking at the annual quarter sets at the US Mint website. Besides the proof and uncirculated, which I do understand, I see something called a "circulating coin set." I'm trying to figure how this would be different from the uncirculated set. Does the mint send it out to WalMart to knock around in a cash register for a few weeks before packaging it? Or what?

Scott

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

No, they're actually uncirculated, regular business strikes. The same coins that you could get in a roll from a bank for face value.
The uncirculated sets are specially minted with a higher pressure and are handled differently. The uncirculated sets are the same coins that you would get in the 28 coin uncirculated sets.

 

Thanks!

 

Now that I've figured out the right terms to search for, I think I'm almost up to speed on this topic. (I'm coming back to collecting after an absence of about 20 years, and to say the landscape has changed is an understatement.)

One thing I'm still not sure I understand. Apparently the satin finish uncirculated sets of 2005-2010 were conspicuously different from business strikes, so people collect the two separately. My question is about what happened next. I've read posts from 2011 in which there seemed to be some doubt about whether the "brilliant" finish resumed in that year for uncirculated sets would actually be distinguishable from new ordinary coins. Even the language at usmint.gov is ambiguous on this point, stating in one place that the uncirculated sets are still struck with specially high force, but implying elsewhere that this is a reversion to historic practice (which I never heard of in the 70s or 80s). My question then is: from 2011, do people still collect "uncirculated" and "circulating" as two separate classes? Or do the satin finish coins from 2005-2010 go down as a temporary abberation?

Obviously I just need to see these coins for myself. But it can be nice to know what others are thinking before you start buying stuff. Thanks for the help.

 

I think the "Silver" sets will retain the most value in the future



Unless you just want to collect one of each coin made.

 

Made me laugh out loud!

 

The mint has been much less than forthcoming about mint sets since 1965. Indeed, one could say they have been quite secretive about their processes and the evolution of these processes over the decades. Here's what I believe I know based on observation and trying to reconcile as much of what they say and the facts that leak out as possible.

I believe they started striking mint set coins on numismatic presses under higher pressure and at lower speeds in 1965 when the proof presses were shipped to San Francisco for production of the SMS's. There were numerous processes involved with these and their delineation is far beyond the scope of this post. Suffice to say they used numerous processes throughout the entire production and there are numerous varieties created though they are difficult to differentiate in most cases.

In 1968 these SMS's were for most practical purposes continued except that dies did not recieve as much care and they were rarely basined as were most of the SMS dies. '68 mint sets are generally good quality but press tonnage was lower than in later years (and SMS years). Dies appear to have been swapped out after around 40,000 strikes but a few were overlooked longer. As the years went by there were minor changes but in general changes were not begun until the beginning of the year so there are few varieties in packaging or processes used to make the coins each year. Mint set quality though does vary considerably over the years and between denominations. Generally speaking the finest made specimens every year went into the mint sets. However, these superb specimens can be very few and far between and large percentages of them can be chewed up in the handling processes. Most mint set coins have been washed and dried and the driers are like cement mixers with ground corn cobs so many coins will get banged up pretty badly. Packaging of pre-1985 mint sets contain thin films of PVC plastic and will damage the coins in the long term. 1968-P pennnies are already all corroded or spotted. The '84-D is approaching 60% damaged already. '69 quarters are getting bad.

They used polished or burnished planchets over the years but usually these are quite scarce. In 1985 many more burnished planchets began appearing and their incidence soared in 1986. Dies were rarely polished but basining is a little more common. Mint set coins can be highly PL with many like some SMS's and '88-D cents being essentially indistinguishable from proofs. Some SMS are probably true proofs but these are not cameo. All the cameo SMS I've seen are highly PL from basined and polished dies.

In the early '90's burnished planchets became the norm and many of the coins are very PL from polished dies. Most of these though will have ubiquitous marking on them. In '05 they began chrome plating the dies to give mint set coins a distinctive finish and extend die life. It appears they are doing this with the regular coinage now and especially the parks quarters and territories issues.

The mint descriptions of the minting processes involved in mint sets has been extremely misleading since they named the SMS. These coins were much more like low quality proofs than mint set coins. Essentially they were proofs struck only one time (at least most of them). They never one time admitted there was any special process to mint these in any advertising or press releases printed in the hobby press until 1997. It was this year that they took out a full page ad to offer '97 mint sets (in Coin World) with a partial description of the special processes.

Very few people even today realize these coins are actually different. No they can't bbe positively differentiated from circulation issues and even regular issues are sometimes PL but on average they are far better made from far newer dies than anything you can find anywhere else. Most dies will make at least 15 coins for each one made by the mint set presses. The mint set dies are even reused to make regular issues after they are too worn for mint sets. For some coins you're actually better off looking for Gems in rolls because mint set coins can be atrotious with scratches and surface problems. But for most moderns there is simply no choice but a mint set coin because they simply weren't saved. When you see something like a 1971 quarter you can be sure that it originated in a mint set. If it is well made this really constitutes virtual proof since circulation issues were rarely well struck. Try finding something like a BU roll of dimes or quarters from before 1996. Even cents and nickels can be elusive for some dates.

These considerations don't apply to the souvenir mint set coins. They are just a nice press run from newer dies but are not mint set quality.

You can't positively identify any modern as having come from a mint set but wiuth practice you can generally tell them apart with uncanny accuracy. There are some varieties that don't appear in mint sets so they are positively not from mint sets. And, of course, there are several dates and issues that weren't included in mint sets.

 

Do you recommend breaking these sets out of their packaging? If you leave them in the packaging, would you store these dates separate from the rest of your collection to prevent PVC contamination?

 

No. I've never analyzed it beyond the flame test. But this interior layer sometimes delaminates and it is extremely this and very soft. I believe the only reason the coins don't show even more damage than they already do is that this layer is so extremely thin that it contains little PVC.

I don't know.

I suspect the soft interior layer was partly to keep the coins from moving around but primarily they were needed to bond the pliofilm but, I just don't know. Try finding a '68-P cent without spotting. If they weren't removed and stabilized within the first thirty years they no longer exist.

The evidence for this is scant. I long suspected that something like this was going on based on the damage and type of damage to the coins. A disproportionate number of the scratches appear to be about the same energy (depth). This suggests they were falling from the same height but there's no easy explanation for why mint set coins would be subjected to such damage. But the answer seems to appear in the Oct, 2000 Coinage Magazine in the article "The Mint's Secret Coins" by Kari Stone who quotes a "mint official" that "All uncirculated coins are dipped in an lightly alkaline cleaning solution, then rinsed in water and corn cob dried. This confirms Tom DeLorey's observations of bags of corn cobs and a cement mixer like contraption. Tom DeLorey may be the only person who's been given a tour of the some of the mint set equipment. As is the theme of the article, the mint has never been forthcoming or entirely accurate in describing mint set production. Whether this is entirely intentional or not the fact is few people are aware that these are specially made an indistinguishable from regular issues. In virtually every single instance since 1965 the finest coins made have mostly gone into mint sets. These coins have been treated horribly by the hobby and countless millions of them have been cut out of the plastic and spent. Almost no one collects coins dated after 1964 so almost no one has even looked at the coins and the coins in circulation. Of course mint set coins can be pretty bad but finding a Gem in a BU roll can be almost impossible but it's like shooting fish in a barrel in mint sets. You'll never have to look at over 400 original mint sets for even the toughest gem and some are so common eight sets is sufficient. In general about two mint sets in three will contain at least one gemmy coin.

It probably doesn't matter much how a planchet gets polished but this new process seems to impart a deep dark luster. It uses little steel ball bearings to roll over the planchets until they are smooth. There may be other factors at work as well, of course. I'm not aware of any struck coins being "burnished" other than those you mention. The mint does some strange things officially and unofficially. There are coins out there that simply don't fit the norms. Some of these are nearly "common".

 

Good question. I never even thought of it. I doubt PVC can become air-borne in sufficient quantity to affect other coins normally because they are embedded inside the pliofilm. Perhaps if they split open it could affect other unprotected coins.

I tend to wait to dismantle them until they start going bad. All my '69-D gem sets were lost several years ago and I was heart sick since there was no way to restore the coins. Fortunately they were caught soon enough that baths in acetone, isopropyl and denatured alcohol were able to save most of the coins. My finest '69-D PL 25c was worse for wear and many great coins were lost.

As a rule keep foam rubber far away. Empty sets in soft plastic and stabilize the coins. Watch all your coins carefully because they can turn surprisingly fast.

 

cladking, Do you have any photos of clad coins that have turned? I have seen some sets that appear to have strange blotchy greenish "toning" that almost looks splashed on.

 

This thread is fascinating. I retract my apology for starting it

 

That sounds like it except there's usually a lot of brown in it. It's almost attractive at first but it soon obscures the coin and becomes quite ugly.

 

I'm in general agreement.

I'm not so much accusing the mint of lying but the best you can say is the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing and they seem to be intentionally suppressing information on mint sets. Perhaps the only people who know about mint sets at the mint never get a voice though.

I'm not certain it's important whether it's actually PVC or not inside the mint sets since whatever it is seems to be having a deliterious effect on the coins. For some reason the coins inside the pre-'85 mint sets are tarnishing and removoing them from the packaging and stabilizing them seems to help (at least in the shorter term). The proof sets aren't always pristine and they certainly aren't exposed to PVC or the edges would be a fright.

The mint hasn't done an especially good job of communicating with collectors since 1965 though they have been improving for well over a decade.