Question about Proof sets 1 1

[Oceanavekid@icloud.com]

I have a question about proof sets. 
 

my step dad gave my son two sandwich bags full of proof sets. Some are newer which probably aren’t worth much but he had a lot of 1964 and older sets. 
 

is it better to keep them together or should I get the older coins graded? Some of the older coins look a little tarnished. 
 

not sure if they’ll be worth more individually graded or kept as sets 

[Oceanavekid@icloud.com]

[Oceanavekid@icloud.com]

[JKK]

The 1964 and earlier sets are in greater demand, and not just due to the silver content. I can't really advise on set breaks except that my normal bias is against it. My birth set is before 1964 and high book is $24 right now. That's more than most of the post-1964 stuff, but not all. Some years have variations and some get premiums just for showing up. I would look them all up, and where varieties exist, see if those varieties could possibly apply.

[Oceanavekid@icloud.com]

1957 are the oldest. Not sure if they’re proof but still a nice set. I have

1 60

1 61

2 62 

1 63 

4 64
 

the rest are 71-92 and two proof tribute sets 

[Oceanavekid@icloud.com]

2 minutes ago, JKK said:

The 1964 and earlier sets are in greater demand, and not just due to the silver content. I can't really advise on set breaks except that my normal bias is against it. My birth set is before 1964 and high book is $24 right now. That's more than most of the post-1964 stuff, but not all. Some years have variations and some get premiums just for showing up. I would look them all up, and where varieties exist, see if those varieties could possibly apply.

Looks like the older sets are all from Philadelphia 

I’ll probably send in the 57 set as it’s not in the original proof packaging(probably not proof) but still in nice shape - the dime which is definitely starting to oxidize. 
 

the insert even says in time they might tarnish 

[JKK]

I'm not sure you necessarily gain anything by sending any of them in for grading. Some degree of toning over time is fairly normal. I do think that any which are in PVC holders should be removed ASAP, but bear in mind that you can buy your own holders for sets if the only desire is to save them from PVC or other impairing materials.

Also do bear in mind that if you're going to handle proof coins, extreme caution is necessary. Some collectors use throwaway linen gloves; others, like myself, use these little miniature balloon things I call leprechaun condoms. They cover your fingertips. You would also want to ensure that the coins never made contact with each other or an impairing surface, which in practical terms means a clean cloth (washcloth normally is fine).

[RonnieR131]

Don't send anything in to be graded yet, and don't break any up yet. There's a lot of knowledgeable people on this forum, and they love to help, especially with this type of question. BUT, you have to have patience, they're not always 'standing by' on the website. During the next few days, you'll get plenty of good opinions, from coin smart people, you just have to wait a little. One of the best has already commented, and there's more to come.   ----- Welcome to the forum, enjoy!

[RonnieR131]

JKK and I submitting at the same time, as usual.  lol

[JKK]

Thanks, Ronnie, for your kind exaggeration of my knowledge levels.

OP: Do understand that the history of proof coins is not unbroken. Our first sets were issued in 1936, with years that contained none. (If anyone ever offers you a 1945 proof set, think in terms of authentication.) Through 1964, proof sets were minted only at the U.S. Mint (Philly). Thereafter, to my knowledge, all have been minted at the San Francisco branch mint. So there are no 1964-D proof sets, for example, nor 1978 (no mm) proof sets, no 1937-S proof sets, etc.

Do also please know that people have assembled proof sets from loose coins bought individually. Those aren't the same as proof sets in mint packaging. I don't know which all years have individual proof coins, nor from which mints. The important thing to know is that you can grab an issue of Coin Values and see a complete listing of proof sets in the back, plus the individual coin values for solo proof coins. For example, there were proof $10 Coronet gold pieces in 1838, 1845, 1859-1865. Those are solos (and if you find one, it's totally worth grading since it will hammer for six figures). You will find solos all over. I own an 1891 proof Liberty nickel and an 1896 proof Barber half. Both had total mintages of less than 2000. They were struck to fill collectors' orders, not as part of sets, at least to my understanding.

[Oceanavekid@icloud.com]

3 minutes ago, JKK said:

Thanks, Ronnie, for your kind exaggeration of my knowledge levels.

OP: Do understand that the history of proof coins is not unbroken. Our first sets were issued in 1936, with years that contained none. (If anyone ever offers you a 1945 proof set, think in terms of authentication.) Through 1964, proof sets were minted only at the U.S. Mint (Philly). Thereafter, to my knowledge, all have been minted at the San Francisco branch mint. So there are no 1964-D proof sets, for example, nor 1978 (no mm) proof sets, no 1937-S proof sets, etc.

Do also please know that people have assembled proof sets from loose coins bought individually. Those aren't the same as proof sets in mint packaging. I don't know which all years have individual proof coins, nor from which mints. The important thing to know is that you can grab an issue of Coin Values and see a complete listing of proof sets in the back, plus the individual coin values for solo proof coins. For example, there were proof $10 Coronet gold pieces in 1838, 1845, 1859-1865. Those are solos (and if you find one, it's totally worth grading since it will hammer for six figures). You will find solos all over. I own an 1891 proof Liberty nickel and an 1896 proof Barber half. Both had total mintages of less than 2000. They were struck to fill collectors' orders, not as part of sets, at least to my understanding.

Besides the 1957 coins which I don’t think are proof just a complete set 

 

The rest are all issues from the mint

[RWB]

None of the sets described are worth having individual coins authenticated and graded - the expense is more than the coins' values. Also, having a grading company remove ugly tarnish will further add to the cost.

 

[Oceanavekid@icloud.com]

8 minutes ago, RWB said:

None of the sets described are worth having individual coins authenticated and graded - the expense is more than the coins' values. Also, having a grading company remove ugly tarnish will further add to the cost.

 

👍 not looking to sell them. I might just buy a holders for the 1957 and get them out of that case. Leave the rest as is 

[RWB]

Nice protective proof set cases (similar to the one in your photos) cost about $1. Wizard Coin Supply, Whitman and other hobby supply sellers have them.

[Oceanavekid@icloud.com]

3 minutes ago, RWB said:

Nice protective proof set cases (similar to the one in your photos) cost about $1. Wizard Coin Supply, Whitman and other hobby supply sellers have them.

Not even sure the 57 set is proof 

might just be a complete set. 
 

got them all for free from my step dad. He always gives my son any coins he knows are worth more than face value 

[Woods020]

In the earlier sets, let’s say pre-1970 just for a starting point, do any of them have coins that have cameo devices? Look for frosting on the raised parts similar to the 1937 tribute sets if you aren’t familiar. Not to say those should be graded either but it’s a positive attribute and something to look for that makes them a little nicer. 

[Just Bob]

Welcome to the forum.

The 1957 set appears to be proof coins which have been removed from their original government packaging, and put into an aftermarket holder. This is the type of holder that RWB was referring to, which can be bought from coin supply houses.

Can you show reverse pictures of the two tribute sets? Are those pieces the same size as normal coins? Do they have "COPY" stamped on the reverse?

 

[Oceanavekid@icloud.com]

15 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

Welcome to the forum.

The 1957 set appears to be proof coins which have been removed from their original government packaging, and put into an aftermarket holder. This is the type of holder that RWB was referring to, which can be bought from coin supply houses.

Can you show reverse pictures of the two tribute sets? Are those pieces the same size as normal coins? Do they have "COPY" stamped on the reverse?

 

Yup they both say copy 

 

Should I switch out the 57 set to individual holders or a different type of holder? The dime definitely has some oxidation but the rest look to be in nice shape. Even if they’re not worth grading to most, getting them for free and most being over ace value 👍

[Oceanavekid@icloud.com]

[Rummy13]

What a great gift to git from someone, you or he can spend a life time adding to it and learning together. I am not one of the pros here, but I have a large collection of proof and mint sets, all of them from 1956 to this year.  I am one who like to leave then in their government packaging.  Most proof set are worth more than face value,  The ones before 1964 have silver in them.  You can get all the proof sets from 1967 to 2008 for under $400. Most of these will sell for $7 to $10 each. the 1976 and 1999 sets seem to sell for more.  the 2012 set sells for a lot more. Just so you know you have some of the best pros in RWB, Just Bob, and JKK answering you, and giving you advice. There are a lot of books out to help you. 90% of what you find on Utube if not good info.

[Coinbuf]

Welcome to the forum, those sets are a very nice gift from your father.  The 1957 is a proof set but none of the coins look to have any cameo which would be needed in order to be worth grading from a pure dollar value perspective.  I would tend to leave them just as you received them but certainly if you want to you could get a more current holder to replace the old one that has quite a few scratches on it which would make the set more visually pleasing.

[J P M]

The 1957 set was made up maybe from a broken proof set but the others I would leave them unbroken . 

[Jason Abshier]

Are thoes real 1936 Proof walking liberty half dollars ? Yeah they are worth grading alone themselves fetch $2,000 or more depending on grade they get ! But I would keep the set intact and not broken up I’ve never seen a proof set like that though not back that far 

[Jason Abshier]

Never mind I been fooled 🤣 saw “copy” written on the coins 

[Oceanavekid@icloud.com]

16 minutes ago, Jason Abshier said:

Never mind I been fooled 🤣 saw “copy” written on the coins 

I wish 

 

they’d definitely be worth getting graded. Alas just a tribute set. 
 

my son has some other coins that aren’t proof that are probably worth more than these coins. Not sure if they’re “worth” grading 

[Just Bob]

49 minutes ago, Jason Abshier said:

Never mind I been fooled 🤣 saw “copy” written on the coins 

Those sets were produced by the National Collectors Mint, a private company that produces limited edition "collectibles" that may or may not appreciate in value. This mintage was limited to 1009 sets, I believe. The "coins" are silver, except for the cent copy, which is copper. Interestingly, the COAs are signed by Barry Goldwater, Jr., former representative from California, and son of former Senator and presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, Sr.

[Oceanavekid@icloud.com]

2 hours ago, Just Bob said:

Those sets were produced by the National Collectors Mint, a private company that produces limited edition "collectibles" that may or may not appreciate in value. This mintage was limited to 1009 sets, I believe. The "coins" are silver, except for the cent copy, which is copper. Interestingly, the COAs are signed by Barry Goldwater, Jr., former representative from California, and son of former Senator and presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, Sr.

Good to know 

 

even if not worth grading. Anything silver is worth keeping 

[VKurtB]

Breaking up a proof set should only be done if there is a compelling reason to do so, which is not obvious here. Like what? Like obscenity, you’ll know it when you see it. 

[Oceanavekid@icloud.com]

2 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

Breaking up a proof set should only be done if there is a compelling reason to do so, which is not obvious here. Like what? Like obscenity, you’ll know it when you see it. 

Good to know 

 

any tips to storing them so they stay in nice shape ?

[James Zyskowski]

Cool dry not in kitchen bathroom or laundry room humidity is very bad