Proof Like Sets Vs MS Coins

Don't get sucked down the RCM rabbit hole of giftware posing as coins with tangible value.

Yes, this process happens with the low grade silver that is just too common to have additional monetary value. And of course the RCM's ARP (Alloy Recovery Program) is the leader in this although they primarily focus on copper and nickel coins. Most people just sell/trade them for 'melt' value though as it's too expensive to actually have them melted down unless you have enough volume.

Thank you very much JIMMYD for that information. It seems to me that with respect to any novice or future collector of Canadian coin, the hobby has become utterly confusing in terms of conflicting labelling!

TheForce, you're absolutely correct......for some unknown reason it's very common to notice PL sets or individual coin being listed on ebay well beyond 1968 mintage.

It sort of reminds me of a local small town thing, very common where I live and elsewhere ....Stranger in town asks for directions to somewhere. Local replies "Sure, just drive down the street and take a left at Shorties, it's a couple blocks to your right!" But "Shorties" Grocery closed down 20 years ago and it's now Rita's Hair Salon. However everyone still calls the location "Shorties". lol!

Libertad, yes I certainly agree that part of the joy of collecting is finding a unique or high grade coin. My personal collection is almost as complete as I'd like it to be at this point in time so I'm not participating in the discussion out of self-interest......I'm thinking about others who might be choosing to become a collector or folks thinking of expanding their existing collection. However I do consider myself amongst the average person who has no reason to send anything other than very select coins to be formally graded and therefore I wouldn't necessarily recognize a MS-65 even if I found one - especially newer mintages.

But considering coins are issued only once each year, it's reasonable to expect at some point other people might want to extend their collection backward into past years. They have two alternatives in acquiring the entire 55 years back to 1960, if they so desire - more expensive MS coins or relatively cheap MS-65 NC sets (of course, aside from certain varieties found only in circulated coin).

It would seem to me a secondary buyer of a past year's coin derives absolutely no pleasure from "the original find". It merely becomes a financial transaction not much different than buying a set in a nice little package. That's the reason I think that, going forward, low priced past years Uncirculated Sets have greater future potential than high priced MS coin.

I hear what you're saying about frequent changes Quatchi. I still have some early Prestige sets that according to 2002 Charlton Standard, up to 1981 and immediately prior to the introduction of Proof Sets, Prestige Sets were labelled PL. Updating my inventory list and now in 2015 (Vol 2) they've become Specimen - Brilliant Relief on brilliant background.

Okay, then call me even more confused. (Is that possible? Probably not!)

I'm looking at page 111 of a 2002 Charlton Catalogue. Up to and including 1980 it lists PL-65 values in addition to MS. Then:

Quote:
"Note: Beginning in 1981 the Royal Canadian Mint ceased production of proof-like coins. They are replaced in the listings by proof coins from the prestige set."

What other type of Proof-Like production ended in 1981 other that is when the Prestige Set transitioned into becoming Proof sets? It's somewhat difficult to accept that improper editing remained uncorrected for 21 volumes/years or more after the fact.

Since I've the page handy, it's interesting to observe that the values of a 1987 25c coin in year 2002 are listed as follows:
MS-60 .75c
MS-63 $1.50
MS-65 $2.00
PR-65 $3.00

There is a certain amount of debate, politics, uncertain record keeping and so on involved. Personal opinion, Charlton tends to go with the best information available at the time, sometimes makes mistakes, and updates accordingly when the consensus moves. As you say, it can be confusing as you tend to assume these things were all fixed in advance whereas in fact they, and our understanding of them, have evolved and continue to evolve over time. Minting wasn't always the modern, 4 decimal points defined, computer controlled environment that it is today and collectors didn't have access to information the way they do today. The mint was in the business of producing circulation coins and collector coins was just a recently developed minor side line in the 50s, 60s & 70s; not the big business it is today. So in 2002 the tendency was to call the change from PL to BU/NBU/MS NC as of 1980/1. Today it's called as of 1967/8. Maybe new evidence will come to light from old RCM paper records or whatever and the nomenclature and/or date range will get changed again.

Thank you everyone for the great responses. I am trying to get coins of each finish for each year, so I am going to have to be careful when looking for the MS circulated coins that someone is not selling a PL coin for a high end circulated price. The specimen and proof are easy to identify.

@ kuh_85 I saw that with the older PL sets

This was exactly what I was looking for, so thank you everyone