Double Mint Sets, 1942-1946

[cpm9ball]

I found the link to this article posted on another site. Does anyone know any more about them?

 

http://www.coinweek.com/featured-news/coinweek-article-leads-discovery-previously-unknown-1942-1946-double-mint-sets/

 

Chris

[DWLange]

I'm not convinced that these were true, packaged sets. The Treasury's policy before 1948 (when the 1947 packaged sets were offered) was to sell up to two of each coin to collectors at face value plus the cost of postage. For many years collectors had to send separate payments to the individual mints for their own productions. Beginning in the late 1920s collectors could send a single payment to the Treasury in DC, where a supply of all available coins was kept on hand for that purpose. These coins did not come in any kind of holder, but were placed in individual tissues that were simply folded over.

 

The possibility of 1942-46 packaged sets is appealing, but I don't believe that there ever were such things, as issued. Had their been, this information would surely be found in contemporary publications such the Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine. I've read every issue cover to cover and have found no such references.

[yonico]

Article by Charles MORGAN and Hubert WALKER for COINWEEK

[RWB]

Re: Semantic "mint sets." They were coins purchased from the Treasurer, just as had been available for decades, as David W. Lange stated. A clerk in the Treasurer's office assembled the coins ordered by individuals and shipped them. Packaging was whatever-was-handy -- that is, these were not organized sets of coins defined by a standard packaging or content. The presence of a boilerplate cover letter, merely confirms the contents of the order.

 

(BTW, the claim that because the letter accompanying one envelope has "nickel" crossed out and "five-cents" written indicates nothing except use of the correct, official name of the denomination. This is a common correction found in correspondence soon after the CuNi coin was introduced.)

 

As far as the claim of "educating collectors," education implies factual information, which the article seems to have in short supply. This is just another instance of commercial entities jumping to potentially profitable conclusions, and ignoring reality.

[cpm9ball]

Thanks David & Roger.

 

Chris

[Raisethis2]

I saw these sets today at the ANA. They were all displayed together with a sign indicating they were for display purposes only. The story posted by cpm9ball is compelling but I agree with the consensus that these weren't assembled by the Mint as "official" mint sets but rather, just filling an order that happened to have the correct components. Still neat as hell that they exist.

 

Any publicity is good publicity.