Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;cladking, post: 25901, member: 68&quot;]There were probably several reasons the mint didn&#039;t put Ikes in the mint sets the first couple of years.&nbsp; To a small extent it may have been inertia and the fact that the packaging for the set was already ordered when the Ike was &quot;rushed&quot; into production.&nbsp; If memory serves it also would have required some retrofitting of the mint set filling system which was already partially automated.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Perhaps more importantly is that the clad coinage had proven pretty unpopular with collectors and it was believed that a substantial increase in mint set price would severely curtail sales.&nbsp; This was proven at least in part when the &#039;73 set had about a 40% drop in sales with the addition of the Ike despite it being a mint set only coin.&nbsp; There were very few people setting aside any coins for the future in those days.&nbsp; While the Ike was relatively heavily saved it was because very few people were setting aside very substantial quantities.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Also remember the mint was bringing back the 40% silver composition which had been discontinued with the &#039;70 half dollar.&nbsp; These special San Francisco coins in unc and proof would have had lower mintages if they had to compete with the mint set issues.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>The mint did make a couple of comments about the subject at the time but they escape my memory.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

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