Great Collections?

[Afterword]

Does anyone know if the double mint set below showed signs of being tampered with - coins being removed and replaced or possibly switched - whether Great Collections would make potential buyers aware of this?

 

http://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/309784/1958-US-Mint-Double-Mint-Set-Uncertified-in-Original-Packaging-1-Set-20-Coins

[physics-fan3.14]

There is absolutely no way to tell if the coins have been swapped. Coins come out of these holders incredibly easily, and there is no way to know.

 

All I can say is that all of the coins appear to show classic '58 mint set toning, all appear UNC, and they appear attractive.

[Afterword]

"Coins come out of these holders incredibly easily..."

 

 

 

 

That has not been my experience. In fact I have found them to be quite difficult to remove from their slots. Perhaps if they have been removed and replaced several times they might fit loosely enough to be removed easily.

 

If you examine the images of the mint sets presently up for auction at Great Collections, you will find several coins wedged awkwardly in their slots, with one edge of the coin higher than the other, suggesting a tight fit.

 

Regardless of whether they can be removed easily or not, the act of removing them could cause damage to the edge of the slots and the paper beneath sufficient enough to indicate their likely removal, and possibly the frequency of their removal. If this were the case, would Great Collections indicate such in the coin's description?

[Raisethis2]

There's evidence that some have been removed. When these were assembled there was no effort to ensure that coins were upright. They were just assembly line pushed into the right sized holes.

 

Beyond that, since 99.5% of these have been disassembled and the coins at least inspected, it stands to reason that nobody should pay top dollar for any set unless it's major coins (halves and quarters) are MS 66 with spectacular color.

 

This set is attractive but the colors are nothing special. There's nothing I see to justify the bid to price.

 

 

[Afterword]

I am not interested in the set. It is simply the one I chose has a visual example. What I am interested in, is whether or not Great Collections would make potential buyers aware of problems that might not be apparent from the image but obvious to them.

 

For example, there is no image of the reverse for these panels. If the paper were missing from the reverse, would Great Collections indicate such in the description?

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

I am not interested in the set. It is simply the one I chose has a visual example. What I am interested in, is whether or not Great Collections would make potential buyers aware of problems that might not be apparent from the image but obvious to them.

 

For example, there is no image of the reverse for these panels. If the paper were missing from the reverse, would Great Collections indicate such in the description?

 

 

I would think they would be beholden to. They would have to either show pictures, or describe the condition of the set.

 

As for if the coins had been replaced - if they seriously thought there was some hanky-panky, they would have to (or refuse to sell it). What you are describing is basically an item that is not genuine.

[coinman1794]

Does anyone know if the double mint set below showed signs of being tampered with - coins being removed and replaced or possibly switched - whether Great Collections would make potential buyers aware of this?

 

http://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/309784/1958-US-Mint-Double-Mint-Set-Uncertified-in-Original-Packaging-1-Set-20-Coins

 

Double mint sets are not sealed in any way. There is no way to know how many times a coin has been popped out and examine, or swapped out for another coin, over the past 57 years. Unless the envelope is sealed, there is no guarantee that the coins you are buying are the original coins issued in the set.

[Afterword]

I am not interested in the set. It is simply the one I chose has a visual example. What I am interested in, is whether or not Great Collections would make potential buyers aware of problems that might not be apparent from the image but obvious to them.

 

For example, there is no image of the reverse for these panels. If the paper were missing from the reverse, would Great Collections indicate such in the description?

 

 

I would think they would be beholden to. They would have to either show pictures, or describe the condition of the set.

 

As for if the coins had been replaced - if they seriously thought there was some hanky-panky, they would have to (or refuse to sell it). What you are describing is basically an item that is not genuine.

 

 

 

 

Thank you, for addressing my question. I certainly think they would, as well.

[wheat'swheats]

I am not interested in the set. It is simply the one I chose has a visual example. What I am interested in, is whether or not Great Collections would make potential buyers aware of problems that might not be apparent from the image but obvious to them.

 

For example, there is no image of the reverse for these panels. If the paper were missing from the reverse, would Great Collections indicate such in the description?

 

I cannot see where Great Collections (Ian) could make that statement whether or not they had been removed and replaced, removed and swapped , or this is just the way they were received from the mint with any type of authority. I do think if Ian knew the answer for sure he would let it be known

[wheat'swheats]

I am not interested in the set. It is simply the one I chose has a visual example. What I am interested in, is whether or not Great Collections would make potential buyers aware of problems that might not be apparent from the image but obvious to them.

 

For example, there is no image of the reverse for these panels. If the paper were missing from the reverse, would Great Collections indicate such in the description?

 

double post oops

[Afterword]

I have purchased two three panel mint sets in the last two years. Removing the coins from their slots in all six panels was not an easy thing to do. They had to be pushed from the underside with considerable force to extract them, denting the paper on the reverse of the panels and pushing up the edges of the slots on the obverse side.

 

I had no desire to replace the coins back in their slots, but I would imagine doing so would have pushed the edges of the slots pretty much back into place. If this was done repeatedly, however, damage to the edges would surely become evident and suggest a frequency of extractions. The indentation left in the paper on the reverse of the panel would likewise become more distended or possibly even torn.

 

The panels housing these coins are not created equal, of course, so some sets would undoubtedly require less force to remove the coins from their slots. As suggested by someone in a previous thread regarding this subject, it could very well be possible that the coins in some sets might fall out of their slots by the simple act of turning the panel over to expose the reverse side.

 

I am certain the new owner of such a set would be both surprised and dismayed to discover this flaw upon first examination of a panel's reverse side. I am equally certain the mint would not deliberately design the panels to do so. They would want the coins to fit snugly in their slots to prevent just such a mishap and to assure coins would not work themselves free from their slots in transit to their new owners.