Proof Sets and Your Point of View

[jgrinz]

As I continue my Proof Set task I came across the 65-66-67 sets. Would you consider these as PART of a complete proof set OR would you just OMIT those years as there were no PROOFs Produced only these Mint Sets produced in thier stead.

Opinions ...

[hoard]

I have those in with my mint sets. I would leave them out.

[jgrinz]

I am probably thinking of doing that BUT I believe the Quarter in the

66 set will be a PL ... what a looker I will take a picture shortly

Looks like they have never issue one .. just a 64 and 68's ...

m

 

[Weidel Legacy Collection]

It depends upon how you view your collection. I collect Cam/Dcam strikes from '50 to '67 so I consider them inclusive if the designation merits it for the SMS years. However, if I was just collecting them in the mint packaging without concern for the frosting/strike I'd probably associated them with my mint sets.

[LuvToCollect]

As long as your not getting hosed on price, get em all. I thought it was a rule of coin collecting that you never have too many.

[James_OldeTowne]

As some of you know, I have for some time been working on one complete run of proof sets from 1936 - today, and another from 1950 - today. I made the decision to include SMS coins in both sets. I have no clever or insightful reasons as to why, just that I didn't want that three year gap in my sets.

[jgrinz]

James .. it is getting to be my reasoning too after seeing the coins out of the Mint set and had behooved me to ask the question posted .. I am sure that the question sounded mundain to some ( As they are NOT proof coins ) BUT as I have had them as stated from '52 on ( 1st or second position ) .. as ORIGINAL mint/proof sets ... and have decided to MULIT COIN them - it was quandry which I had or was motivated to ask the opinion of the board and appriciate your input ..

In my quest to do this I am motivated to 'create' unquestionably NICE sets for some years but others ...as in the 65 66 67 I was curious as to the concesus of the board as to my undertaking ...

 

ty for your input all

 

"The '57 just came in today and pics will be posted this evening on the thread"

 

1957 PF69 50c ( should have been Star )

 

One side cameo the other

[MikeInFL]

I think the SMS coins should be viewed as part of the proof series (because they were the coins intended for collectors that year instead of proofs), and I collect them as such, but in the end it is what YOU think that matters...Mike

 

p.s. Just because no thread should be without a picture ( ) ...

 

[jgrinz]

Nice photo shop work

 

Here is the 1957 bProof 69 Bennie

 

and the 1966 Kennie

 

Enjoy

 

 

[hoard]

I do not agree. In my opinion, these SMSets were not cast from the same polished/prepared dies or double struck to the best of my knowledge. I guess it is possible that you may find some proof-like coins but these were supposed to mint set quality not proof coins. I leave the gap in my proof collection and have the SMSets in my Mint collection.

[MunkyMan95]

As far as I'm aware, the SMS coins were struck with polished dies, but mint state planchets.

 

I do not believe however that they belong with the proof coins.

[hoard]

I did not think that they polished the dies the same way. I really thought that these SMSets were generally no better than high end business strikes.

[MikeInFL]

I did not think that they polished the dies the same way. I really thought that these SMSets were generally no better than high end business strikes.

 

It depends on the date. I think you'll find it difficult to find a business strike that looks like this cameo 1967 SMS:

 

 

From the PCGS site:

 

Special Mint Set

A set of special coins-neither business strikes nor Proofs-first struck in limited quantities in 1965 and officially released in 1966-1967- to replace Proof sets, which were discontinued as part of the U.S. Mint’s efforts to stop coin hoarding. The quality of many of the 1965 coins was not much better than that of business strikes-but by 1967, some Special Mint Set (SMS) coins resembled Proofs. In fact, the government admitted as much when it revealed how the 1967 issues were struck. In 1968, Proof coinage resume. There have been similar issues since; the 1994 and 1997 Matte-finish Jefferson nickels, for example, are frosted SMS-type coins. There also are a few known 1964 SMS coins, these likely struck as tests in late 1964 for the new 1965 SMS strikings.

[cladking]

Historically collectors have considered these neither fish nor fowl. No one knew what to expect in 1966 when they were first sold so sales were well under the combined mint and proof set production of previous years. The mint did promise better quality struck from proof dies but they were not very popular and only about 2.3 million were sold. Of course a price increase didn't help. The following year there were numerous changes in the sets. The quality was enhanced and they were placed into hard plastic cases. Still sales fell off from 1965. In '67 there was a dramatic increase in quality and semi-PL examples became far more numerous. Collectors were unimpressed and sales plummeted further.

 

At that time mint set collectors tended to consider them proof sets and proof set collectors considered them mint sets. This meant there were far maro on the market than demand and prices just kept going down. They sold for as little as $2.10 for quite some time. In 1979 and '80 there were a significant number of these sets destroyed for the 40% silver half. It was around this time that collectors began getting interested in cameos and various other later dated coins for the first time. It became common knowledge that some of these were rare in cameo and virtually unknown in DCam.

 

Still they suffered because few cared or collected these coins. Looking for the rarities could be expensive if you had to buy the sets since the market was thin and gems so scarce.

 

I've always considered them proof sets but then I am more a mint set collector . They were struck by proof dies and have far better detail than most business strikes. They were carefully handled. The only thing really keeping them from being proofs is that they were struck only once. (a very few appear to have been struck twice).

 

You can really consider them whatever you want. Some are nearly indistinguishable from business strikes and many of the best DCam's are nearly indistinguishable from proofs.

 

You can assemble superb sets of the '66 and '67 easily enough since the boxes open but curiously enough the '65 sets are virtually impossible to find superb. Most other sets made by the mint are more common with all choice coins than chance would dictate. The opposite appears to be true for the '65 SMS. Part of the problem is the extreme difficulty of finding superb cents in semi-PL but then it seems the nickel or dime will always be a dog when you find them.

[robec1347]

That's a great looking Washington. Easily the best cameo quarter I've seen from a Special Mint Set.

 

Bob

[Coin]

I took the simple approach , so as to not leave a gap....I have the business strikes (ie:graded plain MS) with the mint sets as there is going to be the "P" ,"D" and "S" blanks anyway for those years (they were coined at all three mints, but intentionaly not mint marked) , and put the SMS graded/labeled sets with the Proof sets to avoid gaps in those years. Even though I actually collect the SMS years as a seperate category/grouping .

On the registry , they show up with the proofs as SMS , and as seperate year sets under SMS , while the '94 and '97 SP 5 cents and the '98 SP 50 cent all also show up in the registry grouped with proofs.

Which is not by any means to controll how you prefer to collect , but to show how the registry lists them .