Interesting 1957 Proof Set Message from the Mint

[JIM F.]

Going through a hoard of 1957 Proof sets, and found this in one of them.

 

 

and this one too.

 

 

 

 

[JStull]

I have the orange one in all of my 58-64 proof sets.

[bsshog40]

Isn't this considered CYA there Jim?

[messydesk]

And back then, nobody was culling their large orders for 70s and returning the rest.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I like the change in wording from coated cellophane to coated mylar, and that there is NO DOUBT that a defect or scratch is a crease in either material.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

[WoodenJefferson]

So...let's stick another sulfur dioxided sheet of paper in there then.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

So...let's stick another sulfur dioxided sheet of paper in there then.

 

Lets not be to harsh-after all, the 1961 orange card does state that they can't be responsible for oxidation (tarnish and discoloration).

 

However, it may mean that if the coins came with the blue/green card, then they could possibly be responsible, unless the oxidation is caused by a crease.

We have to think like the Government in evaluating the terminology.

Lets hold off on the sulfur paper until we get a clarification from the Superintendent.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

[BillJones]

I had never noted very much about the inserts in these Proof sets before. My 1955, '56 and '57 sets do not have inserts. My 1958, '59 and '60 sets (large and small date cent) have green inserts and the 1961 to 1964 sets have orange inserts.

 

So far as the comment about no "defects or scratch" is concerned, I've found that to be generally accurate. So far as physical damage is concerned, these sets very rarely had scratches from what I could see. The problem was sets from this era were not as well made as they are today. There was no special effort to make the coins as cameo Proofs, and sometimes the dies did not provide all of the detail that we associate with modern Proofs.

 

Usually the coins toned on got bad spots because of holes in the Mylar. Another problem was with the way collectors stored the coins. If you put them in your damp cellar or your hot attic, you were asking for trouble.

 

My view is the mint did a better job of handling the finished coins during this period although the coins themselves were not as well made.

 

Edited to say - None of my sets are toned and the inserts have been stored in them for as long as I've owned them (more than 30 years).

[BillJones]

I just had another thought about this.

 

Perhaps 1957 was the first year that the mint began putting the inserts in Proof set envelopes. That year the mintage exceeded 1 million for the first time, in large part because a number speculators bought sets. Prior to 1957 everyone who bought Proof sets had an excellent chance to make some money. Noting this others jumped into the fray. According to Walter Breen in his Proof coin book, the Prudential Insurance company dumped over 100,000 sets on the market, which helped to lower the market price to $1.80 a set from the $2.10 issue price. Given this I could see where some buyers tried to return their purchases for refunds using the claim that the sets were damaged.

[mkman123]

Ive seen the first paper but not the second

[JStull]

And back then, nobody was culling their large orders for 70s and returning the rest.

 

That's because back then, there were no TPGs trying to affect that market.

[newprepper]

So...let's stick another sulfur dioxided sheet of paper in there then.

 

Lets not be to harsh-after all, the 1961 orange card does state that they can't be responsible for oxidation (tarnish and discoloration).

 

However, it may mean that if the coins came with the blue/green card, then they could possibly be responsible, unless the oxidation is caused by a crease.

We have to think like the Government in evaluating the terminology.

Lets hold off on the sulfur paper until we get a clarification from the Superintendent.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

Asking for clarification would probably be considered unnecessary correspondence

[BillJones]

So...let's stick another sulfur dioxided sheet of paper in there then.

 

Lets not be to harsh-after all, the 1961 orange card does state that they can't be responsible for oxidation (tarnish and discoloration).

 

However, it may mean that if the coins came with the blue/green card, then they could possibly be responsible, unless the oxidation is caused by a crease.

We have to think like the Government in evaluating the terminology.

Lets hold off on the sulfur paper until we get a clarification from the Superintendent.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

Asking for clarification would probably be considered unnecessary correspondence

 

Given the amount of paper involved I would say that the cardboard and the mint envelope might impart more toning on the coins that the insert. At any rate, given proper storage, I have not seen that tarnish has been a big problem with mint sealed coins from this era. Once collectors cut them out of the mint holders, however, all bets were off. I think that cardboard albums with slides, cleaning and handling have ruined far more Proof coins that the mint holders have done.

[JIM F.]

None of the sets I have examined show any tarnish at all. They are all in the original flat-pack holders. Some of the Lincolns and Nickels are showing some attractive "mellowing".