Question regarding strike quality of so-called "mint set" coins of the 1940s

[James_OldeTowne]

Some coins of the late 1940s and early 1950s are known for weaker-than-average strikes. However, in your experience, do true "mint set" coins exhibit better strikes than average? In other words, did the mint make any effort to place only better struck coins in such sets?

 

Thanks in advance.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Some coins of the late 1940s and early 1950s are known for weaker-than-average strikes. However, in your experience, do true "mint set" coins exhibit better strikes than average? In other words, did the mint make any effort to place only better struck coins in such sets?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Not in my experience for the time frame.

[physics-fan3.14]

Yes, certain of the mint sets are known for much better strikes than average. For example, all known FBL examples of the 1953S Franklin came from mint sets.

[RWB]

The only mention in mint documents is that regular production coins were used - there was no special run made for mint sets. That does not preclude some sets having nicer coins since the mint set piece likely had less handling than normal bags. It is also possible that many better struck coins ended up in sets.

 

In the mint’s view, proofs were special and mint sets were a convenience for coin collectors. (Until we became evil and caused a coin shortage…)

 

[FishyOne]

Some coins of the late 1940s and early 1950s are known for weaker-than-average strikes. However, in your experience, do true "mint set" coins exhibit better strikes than average? In other words, did the mint make any effort to place only better struck coins in such sets?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

These dates have never had much appeal to me. They are often weakly struck and lacking detail as you noted. Then again Franks and Washies have been known for this across the board.

 

I can't answer the question because I don't have adequate knowledge.

[BillJones]

My experience with mint sets from the era is limited, but from what I've seen, the answer would be "No." I remember a 1954 mint set that had two nickels in it that were absolutely horrible strikes. The steps on Monticello were like sliding board, and the rest of the detail was not much better. Clearly the coins were struck with badly worn dies, and the mint had made no effort to put superior coins into the set. The nickels were toned like the rest of the set, and there was no reason to believe that they were replacements.

 

My view is that probably depends upon when the mint set coins were struck. Perhaps when the San Francisco mint set aside the half dollars for the mint sets in 1953 they happened to grab some of the first coins that were struck with a new die pair. At other times mints most often just grabbed up whatever they had just made to go into the mint sets.

 

[Raisethis2]

 

I was recently at an auction where early mint sets from 1948, 1949, 1952 and 1953 were offered. I looked each one over carefully and came away rather disappointed. The strikes seemed better than average (regarding luster) but I was not left with the impression that the strikes were better than anything else I've ever seen.

 

The color was nothing to behold either.

 

 

[cladking]

I have very little experience with these early mint sets and not very much more with any of the pre-'65 mint sets. I do have the impression though that they used about the same standards and practices that were were used right up until 1965 and with the souvenir mint sets of '72- '98. This appeared to be something along the line of "get the nicest coins you can find without making a big production out of it.". There's a distinct impression that they simply sent someone out and told him to fill up a cart with nicer coins. There would be instances where there mighjt be no nice nickels being made in the entire mint in the early '50's at any given time. Other times it would be like hitting the mother lode.

 

After '64 they used special presses and special processes for regular mint sets even though they never said so until 1997. The souvenir sets did not reflect any such special processes and coins often came from middle die state and more often were poorly struck. This never occurs with mint set coins.

 

Most of the premiums for the early mint sets has always been due to their scarcity as sets and to a lesser extent for their toning rather than their general quality. Superb specimens and less marked specimens will be more common in the sets but Gems won't necessarily be easier than from other sources, I believe.

[DWLange]

Bear in mind that the 1947-58 mint sets were not assembled by the Treasury for sale until the year following the date they carried, so there was little likelihood of any of the coins being early strikes. This delay was due to the sets' prices being determined by the number of coins included for that date, and there were years in which some denominations were not coined at each mint. Until the calendar year was over the Mint did not know the number of coins and, thus, the price of the set.

 

The end of coining at SF caused the Treasury to rethink this policy. Starting in 1959 the two remaining mints made a point of striking each denomination whether or not any immediate demand existed, and this permitted the Treasury to sell sets within that same calendar year at predetermined prices. It also prompted replacement of the cardboard holders with the same pliofilm packs used for proof sets since mid-1955.

[Conder101]

In the mint’s view, proofs were special and mint sets were a convenience for coin collectors.

Who in general were considered to be a nuisance. (Until they figured out that they would buy anything and give them lots of lovely money.)

 

[RWB]

Coin collectors were prized by the mint until the 20s when commemorative coin complaints and gripes about lack of proof sets became common. There are many letters in the archives describing how mint officials did extra things for collectors or relied on large specialty collectors for information. Until his death in 1922 the curator, T. Louis Comparette, had a mailing list of museums and large collections to which he supplied coins from the Philadelphia Mint presses and the Annual Assay Commission pyx.

 

The situation improved a little with proof sets being reintroduced in 1936 at the request of Louis Howe, but deteriorated with excessive commemoratives and post-WW-II bickering about what to do with profits from coin and medal sales. The decline in medal sales also meant less revenue from collectors and thus less influence for the medal dept. The growth of error collecting and of the hobby in general in the 1950s, along with collector irritation about gold coin restrictions, simply made things worse. The real break came with the coin shortage and the Treasury/Mint blaming it on coin collectors habits of saving rolls and bags of coins. I don’t think that breech has ever fully healed and the Mint remains large closed to honest exchange with collectors.