1982 Uncirculated set 1 1

[Halbrook Family]

This set isn't from the mint correct? I would not think they would have something with the different date size . 

[RWB]

Privately produced "sucker" item.

(PS: the top row cents are not "copper." They were 95% copper and 5% zinc, which is also called "brass." The row below are zinc, plated with pure copper.

[powermad5000]

The Mint would never involve staples with coins. That is a privately produced item. Typically, these kinds of things were made by companies as a marketing tool to get you to look at and hopefully buy some of their more expensive coins.

[Sandon]

   The U.S. mint did not issue official uncirculated coin sets, usually called "mint sets", for sale to collectors in 1982 or 1983. A number of dealers assembled and sold unofficial sets like these, many of which contained the various cent varieties. As I recall, Congress then enacted a law requiring the mint to offer both proof and uncirculated coin sets each year beginning in 1984.

   Visitors to U.S. mint and related facilities, including the Philadelphia and Denver mints and, I think, the Treasury Building in Washington, D.C. could purchase "souvenir sets" for each mint in those years that were packaged similarly to uncirculated coin sets and which contained one coin of each denomination plus a bronze medal commemorating the mint whose coins were in the set. I obtained the 1983 P and D souvenir sets during a visit to the Philadelphia mint that year. I seem to recall that the 1982 souvenir sets didn't contain half dollars because none had yet been coined when the sets were assembled. 

   

[VKurtB]

On 9/9/2023 at 2:31 PM, powermad5000 said:

The Mint would never involve staples with coins. That is a privately produced item. Typically, these kinds of things were made by companies as a marketing tool to get you to look at and hopefully buy some of their more expensive coins.

Umm, see proof sets of the first half of 1955 and backward to 1950. Voila! Staples.

[J P M]

On 9/10/2023 at 12:56 PM, VKurtB said:

Umm, see proof sets of the first half of 1955 and backward to 1950. Voila! Staples.

Absolutely,,, and many rusty ones at that. 

[powermad5000]

On 9/10/2023 at 11:56 AM, VKurtB said:

Umm, see proof sets of the first half of 1955 and backward to 1950. Voila! Staples.

 

On 9/10/2023 at 12:51 PM, J P M said:

Absolutely,,, and many rusty ones at that.

UGH! I have never seen any of those, so I did not know that. That brings me to a question. Are the rusting staples in any way putting the coin(s) condition(s) at risk? I know that older sets seem to only get premiums with the original packaging.

[J P M]

On 9/11/2023 at 2:17 PM, powermad5000 said:

 

UGH! I have never seen any of those, so I did not know that. That brings me to a question. Are the rusting staples in any way putting the coin(s) condition(s) at risk? I know that older sets seem to only get premiums with the original packaging.

Sometimes you get very nice toned coins from the packaging. Sometimes not so nice. So I would say yes the coins are at risk

[VKurtB]

On 9/11/2023 at 1:17 PM, powermad5000 said:

 

UGH! I have never seen any of those, so I did not know that. That brings me to a question. Are the rusting staples in any way putting the coin(s) condition(s) at risk? I know that older sets seem to only get premiums with the original packaging.

From 1950 to 1955, ALL proof sets have massive premiums. The 1951 in particular has recently exploded upward. 

[VKurtB]

On 9/11/2023 at 1:17 PM, powermad5000 said:

 

UGH! I have never seen any of those, so I did not know that. That brings me to a question. Are the rusting staples in any way putting the coin(s) condition(s) at risk? I know that older sets seem to only get premiums with the original packaging.

The staples likely contribute to some funky toning.