My first eBay purchase

[wireless2u-migration]

I made my first attempt at purchasing on eBay the other day and recieved my proof set today. The photo on the auction was a little blurry but the description sounded nice. I guess I should have asked for a better photo before bidding.

 

*** Begin Description ***

Vintage, Silver, Gems, Deep Mirrored surfaces, Extra fine Detail

 

1952 SILVER PROOF SET

 

DEEP mirrors - Franklin, Washington, Roosevelt, Jefferson, Lincoln

 

Silver GEM,

 

Deep Mirrored surfaces

 

Extra fine detail.

 

encased in protective plastic, 5 coin holder.

 

*** End Description ***

 

 

Do you think this set is as advertised?

 

Not knowing any better, I would not have thought there was discoloration on the penny and other little flaws but mostly the penny bugs me. Also, along the rim of the dime from 12 - 5 and along the franklin front rim and between the word America and the emblem of the bird on the back of the franklin.

 

Am I asking to much from a proof set? I think the price we good for a proof set though maybe not this one at $200?

 

Here is the photo supplied with the auction item.

 

 

Here is what it looks like up close:

 

Six pics of my proof set

[the_Thing ®]

After looking at your close up, I would say that description in no way matches the set. What kind of feedback does the seller have?

[wireless2u-migration]

eBay Feedback on Seller (297 Buyer feedbacks the rest are seller feedbacks)

 

Colums are: One month, six months, one year:

 

positive 57 463 702

 

neutral 0 1 4

 

negative 0 5 13

 

Not perfect but not terrible either and a lot of satisfied customers of late. He does sell a lot more model train items than coins though.

[the_Thing ®]

There are people on the boards with much more experience in U.S. coins/grades than I have. They should be able to answer your question with more certainty then I can. Also, if you are unhappy with it now, you'll might never be happy with it. Does he have a return policy?

[gmarguli]

From the picture it is hard to tell the quality. It is impossible to tell the quality of a proof coin with a picture. From what I can see with the tilted picture, on the half, what appears to be a few hairlines are likely on the plastic holder as the hairlines "repeat" a little lower down indicating they are likely reflections on the coin and not physically on the coin. The toning on the coin is average and common. It makes the coin look original. If you like this, great, if not, it comes off with a couple of quick dips.

 

The quarter appears to have quite a bit of haze which obscures the mirrored fields. There also appears to be a couple of ticks / hits. Overall, not a nice looking coin. A quick dip likely will help the mirrors and the overall appearance of the coin.

 

The dime looks fine. The toning, while original, is rather blah in my opinion. A quick dip would suit this coin well.

 

The nickel looks nice. The obverse appears to have a nice cameo (picture 3). It looks like it could use a quick dip also, but overall a nice coin. I sold one of these in an NGC PF67* slab (cameo obverse) within the last year at about 2X sheet.

 

The cent looks average at best. The haze is quite common. It clearly needs work done on it.

 

Having said the above, the set is clearly an original set and some people value originality.

 

If you know what you are doing, dip the coins. You better REALLY know what you are doing if you intend to work on the copper cent. If not, leave the coins alone.

 

The sellers description, while very generic, is likely correct enough.

 

As for his feedback, 13 negatives and 4 neutrals in 702 feedback is quite high. That's almost to 2.5%. I usually figure that the number of unhappy people is at the very least 2X whatever the negative/neutral feedback percentage is. Many people are afraid to leave bad feedback in fear of a retaliatory negative. That's 5% of unhappy buyers. That means 1 in 20 buyers are unhappy. That's not a person I would do business with.

[TomB]

This is NOT an original proof set!!!

 

As soon as I saw the images I knew that the quarter is a business strike and not a proof! The quarter, in fact, has an S mintmark! Send the coins back!

[gmarguli]

This is NOT an original proof set!!!

 

As soon as I saw the images I knew that the quarter is a business strike and not a proof! The quarter, in fact, has an S mintmark! Send the coins back!

 

While the thought the quarter might be a business strike entered my mind for a second, I assumed it just a really hazy proof. How I missed the mint mark...

[the_Thing ®]

This is NOT an original proof set!!!

 

As soon as I saw the images I knew that the quarter is a business strike and not a proof! The quarter, in fact, has an S mintmark! Send the coins back!

 

While the thought the quarter might be a business strike entered my mind for a second, I assumed it just a really hazy proof. How I missed the mint mark...

 

Yea, I knew all that, I just wanted to see if you guys caught it.

[TJ]

I thought S mintmark meant proof? I guess not back in the fifties?

[gmarguli]

I thought S mintmark meant proof? I guess not back in the fifties?

 

The S mint mark is on proofs starting in 1968. Before that the proofs had no mint marks (with the exception of branch mint proofs in the 19th century and they are ultra-rarities).

[TJ]

I thought S mintmark meant proof? I guess not back in the fifties?

 

The S mint mark is on proofs starting in 1968. Before that the proofs had no mint marks (with the exception of branch mint proofs in the 19th century and they are ultra-rarities).

So (and for the education of the originator of this thread), no mint marks back then meant proof, S mint mark back then meant business strike; and today lack of mint mark means Philadelphia, meaning a P was used for coins of the Philadelphia mint back then, and an S mint mark today means proof. Do I have it in a nutshell, only to be obliterated by weekend Dewar's scotch?

[gmarguli]

So (and for the education of the originator of this thread), no mint marks back then meant proof, S mint mark back then meant business strike; and today lack of mint mark means Philadelphia, meaning a P was used for coins of the Philadelphia mint back then, and an S mint mark today means proof. Do I have it in a nutshell, only to be obliterated by weekend Dewar's scotch?

 

No mint mark back then meant Philadelphia minted. It might be a proof or a business strike. The P mint mark is rather new (1979 off the top of my head).

[TJ]

So (and for the education of the originator of this thread), no mint marks back then meant proof, S mint mark back then meant business strike; and today lack of mint mark means Philadelphia, meaning a P was used for coins of the Philadelphia mint back then, and an S mint mark today means proof. Do I have it in a nutshell, only to be obliterated by weekend Dewar's scotch?

 

No mint mark back then meant Philadelphia minted. It might be a proof or a business strike. The P mint mark is rather new (1979 off the top of my head).

So how does one tell a proof vs a business strike back then if no mint mark can mean both? Anyway, of this we are certain, an S mint mark back then meant non-proof? Please say yes lest I go insane.

[gmarguli]

So how does one tell a proof vs a business strike back then if no mint mark can mean both? Anyway, of this we are certain, an S mint mark back then meant non-proof? Please say yes lest I go insane.

 

By the strike characteristics. Bold detail, squared rims and letters, mirrored surfaces. This can be tricky for some coins, like Seated coins, which can be found with these, but are just super PL examples.

 

It is safe to say that all S mint marked proofs are dated 1968 or later.

[TJ]

So how does one tell a proof vs a business strike back then if no mint mark can mean both? Anyway, of this we are certain, an S mint mark back then meant non-proof? Please say yes lest I go insane.

 

By the strike characteristics. Bold detail, squared rims and letters, mirrored surfaces. This can be tricky for some coins, like Seated coins, which can be found with these, but are just super PL examples.

 

It is safe to say that all S mint marked proofs are dated 1968 or later.

Except I guess for this week's quiz question ("Why did the U.S. Mint have San Francisco coin cents and nickels beginning in 1968 when the other denominations made there were proof-only?")

 

Someone should make a damn chart of the mintmarks and what they mean according to the years, proof vs biz.

[wireless2u-migration]

I want to thank all of you for giving me the information I need to request the seller take the item back. It is not enough that you do not like it, but the 's' mint mark on the quarter certainly does it as far as not being a proof set.

 

Even though he says he has a return policy, I prefer to have a valid reason for returning it though from the start I was not pleased with the eye appeal of the coins.

 

It is a shame to start out with a lemon, but I now have another opportunity to acquire my first proof set all over again. I think, in order to avoid as much as possible the chance of disappointment when purchasing sight unseen, I will at least concentrate on graded coins and sets in the future. Or at least a good photo of the coin(s).

 

Again, thanks for the comments on the coins

[the_Thing ®]

If you see another set on ebay that you want, before the auction is over, post a link here, and the resident experts can give you an opinion before you bid.

[topsman]

A true proff set, still in the mint packing would look like this...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone can go out and buy an empty holder marked "1952 US PROFF SET" and simply go and toss in any 5 coins regardless if they are Proffs or Mint States. Espically on ebay where it is easy to make a flawed set like this look real to an unsuspecting buyer. You have to be very careful with ebay (both items and sellers), there are a lot of dark waters on there that need to be steered clear of. Even a "sure thing" auction can lead an expirenced buyer into trouble now and then. < sometimes that all you can do with ebay....

[melmcbee]

Topsman, am I understanding you that proof sets dont come in the yellow envelope like this picture?

link

 

 

or in the set like this picture

 

2nd link

 

Thanks for your response.

[Bruceswar]

Topsman, am I understanding you that proof sets dont come in the yellow envelope like this picture?

link

 

 

or in the set like this picture

 

2nd link

 

Thanks for your response.

 

In the 50's you could get one of 2 types....

 

The Envelop type such as the one in the link 1... or you could get the box such as the one topsman posted.... In the 60's they changed over to the hard plastic type like the one in link 2..

[TomB]

The US Mint has changed its packaging many times over the years. The two links from Melanie show original packaging for the sets from the years represented. In the early and mid 1950s the Mint sold sets in small cardboard boxes as topsman has posted. Each coin was in an individual cellophane baggy and the baggies were stapled together. The box was then closed with paper tape. Unfortunately, the cellophane hazed over many coins and others were affected by the staples, which often rusted.

[sellinMyYouth]

Im a comic nerd from the lower links...

 

I have a small coin geek in me, developed from the days Grandpa, Dad and I would sit over a couple hundred dollars in coins from the bank. Sorting by date and filling whitman books they would sell at shows.

 

Thanks for the info in this thread, Im learning tons from you folks and had to say thanks... I bid and lost on a early 50's set, Kinda glad I lost, because of some of the issues raised in here. Thanks for sharing what to look for

 

To the poster... Im sorry your first purchase went sour. Glad U caught it early, Don't get discouraged... This is not the norm on ebay.... Keep us posted on your progress, These folks can help you with tons advice so keep us updated... We will help you out.

[Narmuriel]

So how does one tell a proof vs a business strike back then if no mint mark can mean both? Anyway, of this we are certain, an S mint mark back then meant non-proof? Please say yes lest I go insane.

 

By the strike characteristics. Bold detail, squared rims and letters, mirrored surfaces. This can be tricky for some coins, like Seated coins, which can be found with these, but are just super PL examples.

 

It is safe to say that all S mint marked proofs are dated 1968 or later.

 

 

BUT......in 1968-1973 there are business strike lincoln cents with the S mintmark and business strike jefferson nickels with the S mintmark in 1968-1970. This is in addition to the S mintmark proofs. Jeez, talk about confusing! Actually, not too bad once you hear it a few times.

 

Thank you Numisma-Quest! (This weeks question)

[wireless2u-migration]

Just to update everyone on my first ebay coin purchase, which started this thread. After threatening the seller and filing a complaint with ebay, I did get my money back. Thing is, I saw another (the same) proof set being offered the week I sent my back but in another Capital holder. I guess he took out the the business stike quarter and put in something else.Since then, I have purchased some other coins almost all being graded and slabbed. I quess I am now learning about the differences between grading companies. You would think coins could be graded quite standard amongst the three top graders PCGS, NGC, ICG but what the same grade brings from each of these companies is very different. Oh well, live and learn.Turns out the coin I like the best is about the cheapest. Nothing great but the design is pleasing to me.John V

 

[melmcbee]

I am glad everything worked out for you and hope to see you here often.

[James_OldeTowne]

I'll give my opinions before reading other responses so as not to be biased. Here are my grading opinions!

 

Frankie: PR-65 - a couple of hairlines might evident, unless they are on the holder, in which case I'd go PR-66 or so. The toning looks like classic rim tone. I just sold an ANACS Frankie with very similar tone.

 

Quarter: I don't think it's a proof! It looks like an MS-64 coin to me.

 

Dime: Difficult to tell, but I'll go PR-65

 

Nickel: I like this coin. I'll guess PR-67 CAM obverse

 

Cent: This coin looks messed-with to me, so I'll go PR-60.

 

Now, I'll go read the others' expert comments!

 

James

[James_OldeTowne]

OK, looks like I was somewhat in agreement with others! I missed the mintmark on the quarter too (duh), but thankfully, realized it was a business strike just based on how it looked.

 

All in all, not a horrible purchase, but not too thrilling either!

 

James