The 2024 U.S. Proof Set 1 1

[Henri Charriere]

The Mint just announced the sale, effective today, of the latest proof set. The ransom demanded is $34.

My feeling is no coin should be offered in Proof, or Uncirculated Mint Sets unless it has first been released as a circulation strike. What's yours?

[VKurtB]

On 3/14/2024 at 9:19 AM, Henri Charriere said:

The Mint just announced the sale, effective today, of the latest proof set. The ransom demanded is $34.

My feeling is no coin should be offered in Proof, or Uncirculated Mint Sets unless it has first been released as a circulation strike. What's yours?

Yikes! Do you realize how many coins in U.S. history have been issued ONLY AS PROOFS or set coins? It is a significant number. 

Edited March 14 by VKurtB

[Henri Charriere]

On 3/14/2024 at 11:25 AM, VKurtB said:

Yikes! Do you realize how many coins in U.S. history have been issued ONLY AS PROOFS or set coins? It is a significant number. 

Yes.  But since the day I was born -- and I am talking staples only: cent, nickel, dime, quarter and half (the dollar was in and out) -- those coins were used in commerce.  I don't know when things diverged and JFK halves, one of the nicest coins out there, are now being held hostage, but it is wrong. And, No, I am not going to purchase the new proof set.  And, I know this will offend some, but I feel any proof clad coin is an abomination. So that rules out the entire set.

[BillJones]

I have a Proof set run that goes back to 1936. So I keep the date run going. I don't buy the clad sets anymore, however. I buy only the silver sets. 

So far as the "Should be in circulation thing" is concerned, I buy whatever is in the set. Even in the 19th century, there were "Proof only issues." The main thing that bores me are the women's quarters, which really aren't necessary, but they are there for political reasons. 

[cobymordet]

On 3/14/2024 at 10:19 AM, Henri Charriere said:

My feeling is no coin should be offered in Proof, or Uncirculated Mint Sets unless it has first been released as a circulation strike. What's yours?

So, when does the Mint disperse current year coinage to the masses?

[Henri Charriere]

 

On 3/14/2024 at 4:08 PM, BillJones said:

I have a Proof set run that goes back to 1936. So I keep the date run going. I don't buy the clad sets anymore, however. I buy only the the silver sets.

Whatever the composition of sets for each of the respective denominations to 1964 is what I propose. Why would that be preposterous, as some likely think, when that's the way it was always done?  If you are charging collectors an arm and a leg, why not give them what they want?  I don't have any objection to the silver sets.  I imagine they would cost more, but why bother minting proof coins that aren't "real" to begin with?

[Henri Charriere]

On 3/14/2024 at 4:23 PM, cobymordet said:

So, when does the Mint disperse current year coinage to the masses?

Those more erudite than me are well-versed in such matters.

[olympicsos]

On 3/14/2024 at 6:33 PM, Henri Charriere said:

 

Whatever the composition of sets for each of the respective denominations to 1964 is what I propose. Why would that be preposterous, as some likely think, when that's the way it was always done?  If you are charging collectors an arm and a leg, why not give them what they want?  I don't have any objection to the silver sets.  I imagine they would cost more, but why bother minting proof coins that aren't "real" to begin with?

We had 90% silver but the mint preferred .999 silver because of quality and cost efficiency reasons. To be honest if we are going to deviate from the historical circulating composition and decide to basically do bullion rounds with an uneven amount of silver, might as well discontinue the silver proof set. My suggestion would be to make the Morgan and Peace Dollars 1 ounce silver coins, any silver half 1/2 ounce, any silver quarter 1/4 ounce and so on so forth. No need for a 1 oz silver eagle + .858 oz silver dollar that's .999 fine. Make them all even ounces. 

[Henri Charriere]

With the addition of a one- line item buried in the text: a 90% copper and nickel with pre-'64 composition. At least this way, collectors will get something special that they'll be proud to own. 

[VKurtB]

On 3/15/2024 at 7:30 PM, Henri Charriere said:

With the addition of a one- line item buried in the text: a 90% copper and nickel with pre-'64 composition. At least this way, collectors will get something special that they'll be proud to own. 

Except for the ‘42-‘45 war nickels, ALL nickels, from the beginning to this very day, are identical in alloy. For the U.S, that is. Canada has been all over the place. It was at the urging of Joseph Wharton, of Penn Wharton School game, that the 75/25 Cu/Ni alloy was used. Up until then, nickel was used almost entirely for coating purposes. 

Edited March 18 by VKurtB

[Henri Charriere]

For the prices the Mint demands, regardless of reason, the cents minted for Proof sets ought to be pure copper.  That's right. They are not minted for circulation so durability should be of no concern.  If I were to shell out the filthy lucre, give me something for my ducats, not painted metal.         

[VKurtB]

On 3/18/2024 at 11:27 AM, Henri Charriere said:

For the prices the Mint demands, regardless of reason, the cents minted for Proof sets ought to be pure copper.  That's right. They are not minted for circulation so durability should be of no concern.  If I were to shell out the filthy lucre, give me something for my ducats, not painted metal.         

Well, they did what you desire in 2009. And all plated proof cents now have twice the thickness of the circulating variety.