What's the Better Book on US Proof Sets

[gmarguli]

A Guide Book of Modern United States Proof Coin Sets: A Complete History and Price Guide (Official Red Book) by David Lange, David Bowers, and Lawrence Stack.

 

Blurb: A definative history of the U.S. Mint's Proof sets from 1936 to date. Illustrated with full color photographs. Paperback 200 pages.

 

or

 

United States Proof Sets and Mint Sets 1936-2002 by Ron Guth and Bill Gale.

 

Blurb: In depth analysis of proof and mint sets, how they're made, how they're packaged, original issue prices, which coins were issued in the sets, how they were packaged and much more. Hard Cover

 

 

When answering, please ignore the fact that you'll be banned either here (David Lange) or on the PCGS forums (Ron Guth) for selecting one over the other.

[DC Dawg]

I believe the first book by Lange, Bowers, and Stack is more up to date. Whitman has also said that they will continually update the Red Book series.

 

As for banishment... well... the fact that I am here and not ATS is my testimony as to how I feel about the forums offered by these TPGs.

 

Scott

[jesbroken]

I cannot speak for Ron Guth/Bill Gale's book, but I have David Lange's Red Book and it is great-full of information regarding most every aspect of the mint's operation and manufacture of the coin sets and does include handy info such as, original price, packaging, contents, mintage plus much info on each issue not readily known. As most Red Book offerings, it is a well thought out and informative reference book.

[James_OldeTowne]

I really like Lange over Guth in general, but both are good authors. I guess on a sight-unseen basis, I'd go for Lange.

[astrostu]

I have two of the Red Book series on sets (US Type and Flying Eagle / Indian Head Cents) and really like them. They're easy to read, the information you need is right there, and they have a lot of history in them.

 

I don't have the Proof Sets one mainly because (a) I just accumulate them as they come out, and (b) because as soon as the book is printed, it's out of date. Like they have one on Washington and State Quarters, which I may consider getting after a 2010 update, but I won't buy now.

 

If you get conflicting advice on this thread, I would suggest going to a bookstore and flipping through them and see which better fits your own particular style. Unless it comes down to a money issue, in which case I'm guessing the Red Book - paperback - will be cheaper.

[bsshog40]

I also have D.Lange's US proof book. It is very good with some great information on each set also.

[mark]

Greg:

 

I have the Guth book. It is useless. Here is what I said in 2003 on the forum that shall not be named:

 

 

I just purchased the book United States Proof Sets and Mint Sets by Ron guth and BILL GALE (I copied the capitalization of the names from the book cover) and I thought it might be useful to some if I wrote a report on it. First the book cost me $35.80, tax and shipping included. Do I feel I got my money's worth? Probably not. The book contains some interesting snippets of information but on the whole it was rather pedestrian and mechanical.

 

The book reviews proof sets since 1936 and mint sets since 1947. However the book explicitly excludes discussion of Prestige proof sets and silver proof sets. I am not sure why this decision was made but it is typical of the book—it’s simply not as thorough as it could be.

 

For proof sets, for each year the book has a small black and white illustration of the coins in the proof set, the mintage, the original issue price, a brief discussion of the set, and a description of the original packing material. There also is a page of full color pictures of proof set packaging. For mint sets the presentation is similar: a black and white picture of a mint set (which shows the original holder), the mintage, the original issue price, and brief discussion of the set, and a description of the original packing material. There also are two pages of full color pictures of mint set packaging. There also are four full color pages of desirable and attractively toned coins.

 

The discussion of the original packing material is probably the most interesting because I don’t know where else that information is readily obtained. There also are some very general comments about varieties in any year--for example, the book says "Some Proof 1964 Half Dollars are found with what is known as 'Accented Hair' where the hair on Kennedy's head is more heavily defined. The "Accented Hair" variety appears to be thirty times as rare as the normal hair proofs." But there is no illustration of an AH Kennedy nor is there any sort of docummentation about the asserted relative rarity. Regardless, I think that beyond the packaging information, most of the additional information in the book is already available in the Red Book.

 

The writing style in U.S. Proof Sets and U.S. Mint Sets is straightforward but suffers seriously from a case of too much block copying. For instance, the description of the packaging of mint sets for each of the years from 1947 to 1958 is identical; in the discussion of proof sets for each of the years from 1937 to 1942 a warning about fake frosting on proof coins is identical; and so forth. (In 1988, the book notes that the envelopes the proof sets came in were labeled “United States Mint Proof Set” and the book amusingly says “the new collector might ask ‘Is this a Mint Set of a Proof Set?’”. But the amusement had worn off when this exact same comment was made for every set up through 1999!) I understand that for many years the comments will be similar, but there is no need for them to be identical.

 

My bottom line about the book is that I have read it and will place it on my book shelf. But it is unlikely I will be removing it from my book shelf with any great frequency. Of course, I hasten to add that others might find the book highly useful and highly entertaining.

 

 

 

For what it's worth, my prediction was accurate insofar as I have not taken the book down from my shelf since 2003.

 

Mark

 

[GDJMSP]

Both books have their advantages. Lange's book is better in that it provides a more detailed description of the original packaging as well as aditional information about some of the individual coins and pop reprts. But Lange's book only covers Proof sets.

 

The advanatge of the the Guth/Gale book is that it also covers the annual Mint sets as well as the Proofs.

[cladking]

I'm not very impressed by these books.

 

There should be a more comprehensive work available in the future.

 

 

[astrostu]

In 1988, the book notes that the envelopes the proof sets came in were labeled “United States Mint Proof Set” and the book amusingly says “the new collector might ask ‘Is this a Mint Set of a Proof Set?’”. But the amusement had worn off when this exact same comment was made for every set up through 1999!

 

That would be incredibly annoying.

 

 

There should be a more comprehensive work available in the future.

 

No offense to the original poster, but I don't understand the purpose of a book on proof set except for info on the early decades. I also don't understand what a "more comprehensive" work would be. I mean, they're just proof sets.

[cladking]

 

No offense to the original poster, but I don't understand the purpose of a book on proof set except for info on the early decades. I also don't understand what a "more comprehensive" work would be. I mean, they're just proof sets.

 

 

There are lots of variations in mint and proof sets and their packaging. There are also the more unusual sets from recent years like souvenir sets and those made for specific coin shows. There is some information out there on mintages of these oddballs.

 

There are differing survival rates for the various years. For instance some of the very low mintage mint sets like the 1995 have extremely high survival rates while some high mintage years have very poor survival rates. It would be interesting to see some discussion of the causes of these differences. There are hundreds of more subtle things that might be written about; why are '80-D half dollars scratched up, why two different '68 proof set boxes, why four different 1969 mint set envelopes.

 

Then there are the important things that were left out. Where can you find gems and how nice are they for the date? What about the varieties, where did they go? Are the best coins for the date in the mint set? Are cameos tough?

 

While I wouldn't expect an answer it would be great to see some discussion about the existence of gem mint sets before 1980. These appear to exist in greater numbers than chance would dictate.

 

One could write an entire book on the souvenir sets alone if there was any information available. There are a few guys who have some of it. There are also the private mint sets from '82- '86. These are fascinating and are the sole source of some very rare varieties as well as some gems!!! There was an excellent thread on these ('82/ '83) some months back.

 

These sets are the backbone of modern coin collecting. Most of the coins in most of the sets from beginner to advanced originated in these sets. Collectors seeking coins should have some familiarity with them to really understand the markets and the varying nature of the coinage from year to year.

 

I wouldn't say these books are poorly done since they are the first efforts but it seems pretty likely there will be better and far more comprehensive work coming.

[physics-fan3.14]

I have not read these books. But I will say, generally, I would take a book by Lange and Bowers over Guth any day.

[DC Dawg]

One could write an entire book on the souvenir sets alone if there was any information available. There are a few guys who have some of it. There are also the private mint sets from '82- '86. These are fascinating and are the sole source of some very rare varieties as well as some gems!!! There was an excellent thread on these ('82/ '83) some months back.

I think you've made the argument for us. You are asking the people who are writing about mint and proof sets to provide information about a different kind of collectible: souvenir sets. They are not Mint sets or Proof sets but contain coins that would be included in either set. When the books are updated for 2007, I do not expect to see information about the multitude of Presidential Dollar souvenir sets. But I do expect to see information about the three different versions of Proof sets (Quarters-only, Presidential Dollars-only, and entire set) and the two "folder" Mint set.

 

When looking at the Whitman Red Book series, it appears that Whitman is trying to have one book reflect one topic or a topic where combined information makes sense. Such a book could be written to provide more information than a general book on coinage. The reader can purchase the book of interest to learn more about that topic. Mint and Proof sets is a natural topic. By extending it to souvenir sets, you extend the topic beyond the single scope that allows Whitman to publish a "reasonable" sized book. So I agree with the fact that souvenir sets are not included in this book.

 

But that does not mean that there should not be a book on souvenir sets. While I may not be interested, you've proven that there is an interest for such a book. You said it yourself that "[o]ne could write an entire book on the souvenir sets alone if there was any information available." Well... there may be an opportunity here. Propose the project to Whitman and see if you can work with them on putting such a book together. Give it a shot. What do you have to lose?

 

I wouldn't say these books are poorly done since they are the first efforts but it seems pretty likely there will be better and far more comprehensive work coming.

I would say that most of the Red Book series is very well written. I have found some good information in those books. I like the style and the concentration on one topic that allows for a comprehensive look at the series. I would rather see a separate book for souvenir sets than add bulk to the Mint and Proof sets books.

 

Scott

[cladking]

The Redbook series is mostly deficient in covering moderns.

 

Of course, it's rather remarkable that they are covered at all since most writers have simply ignored the post-64 coinage. This isn't as possible with a book about mint and proof sets since most of the sets are after 1964.

 

The proof set book by Lange isn't bad and really is a good first effort. Most of the material in it will already be known by specialists however. It's a great primer or beginners and is a handy resource for much of this material.

 

I do believe that souvenir sets are a very legitimate part of the mint set hobby but obviously this is a matter of opinion rather than fact.

 

 

[MikeInFL]

Clad, You should write a book. I am quite serious. Have you given it any thought?...Mike

 

p.s. as to Greg's original question (and sorry for the tangent), I haven't read the Guth book, but I did enjoy Lange's. Like others, I would have appreciated additional information (the philosopher in me questions: can a book on any topic ever be considered complete?), but it was an excellent introduction to the subject.

[Conder101]

The proof set book by Lange isn't bad and really is a good first effort. Most of the material in it will already be known by specialists however. It's a great primer or beginners and is a handy resource for much of this material.

Well that is kind of by definition what these redbooks, and THE redbook are, great primers for beginners and handy reference resources, but not specialist information sources. I still have a redbook, and I still use it. But I know most of what is in it and I just use it for checking a fact here, getting a mintage figure there etc. There is still some detailed information that I would like o know about the proof and mint sets, more than is in the current redbook, so I could see myself getting this book. Even though what I would really want is something more like the comprehensive book that Cladking described.

[cladking]

Clad, You should write a book. I am quite serious. Have you given it any thought?...Mike

 

 

Thank you.

 

I've been intending to for years. I've been working on a little writing project recently and am making a little more headway than anticipated. Maybe if I start a book today it'll be out in twenty years.

[DC Dawg]

Clad, You should write a book. I am quite serious. Have you given it any thought?...Mike

 

 

Thank you.

 

I've been intending to for years. I've been working on a little writing project recently and am making a little more headway than anticipated. Maybe if I start a book today it'll be out in twenty years.

I made the suggestion, first!!

[MikeInFL]

What? Who? Beaten by a Dawg, NEVER!!!!!!!! THWG!

 

p.s. nice win the other night, BTW.

[mark]

Clad:

 

I am VERY pleased to think that you might be writing a book! Indeed, in a pm to me, cladking even corrected some errors made in the Guth book I reviewed.

 

And, for all of those claiming credit for the suggestion, I suggested this to clad back in 2005 in a pm on another board that shall not be mentioned. But in all seriousness, the book that cladking could write on so-called moderns would be an exceptional piece of work. I'd really look forward to it.