Plastic Mold Defects - 2017 Commemorative 1967 Centennial Coins Proof Set

ummm...is the "coin"ok?
I know the mint has QC but can they really be responsible for 3rd party packaging ?
The product they made is perfect right?
If you made a product at your factory and used some other company to make the bags or boxes for your product....and the melted seams on the bag were totally fine but not perfectly straight.. you would still use them to package your product right...because you paid for them and you made an agreement with the manufacturer...

you want the mint to bear the cost of all the returns for imperfect packaging but the coin is fine....thanks for raising the price of future coins......Its not like the packaging is terrible...come on is the coin hobby about perfect boxes and bags now too?...Discuss

Gord - I think you are mistaken. In this case the packaging is part of the product. If the outer cardboard shipping box was damaged no one would care.

If I had a third party manufacture some part of my product that did not meet my tolerances, I would reject it until they got it right. I would have agreed to them providing me a product without defects.

@ CC-Ottawa




100% disagree - mine are noticeable and much ado about a lot. They are clearly NOT meant to be there since 1) other collectors have the same concerns 2) my rep also acknowledged the issue and 3) a couple of slots don't have any of those defects.

If they were designed as such (anti-rotation or anti-pop out feature) they would be regularly shaped. In all my years of collecting proof sets I've never had a case of an "unsecured" coin, ever.

Yours are barely noticeable... then good for you I suppose. Thanks for your inputs.

I returned my set as well. Same issue with the black plastic things. Also noticeable scratches on the 50 cents and 10 cents.

Will go the Ottawa boutique today and look at a few sets. Will report later.

Back from the Ottawa boutique. Looked at about 12-15 sets before I found one that had no defect (scratches of all sizes on the coins,finger grease, etc). Other customers were looking at me asking me what I was looking for. The Mint employee didn't seem to care that this made them look pretty bad.

About the black hooks: after looking at all these sets, I can confirm that they are hooks and not plastic defects, based on the consistency of where they are placed, even though some hooks seem to be missing or well hidden.

I bought the last set that I looked at. It brings back the memories of the period when I started collecting coins as a teenager. The 1967 coins were probably my first purchase (no gold though).

Maybe the hooks are a normal thing but not supposed to be visable and that's why my rep said it was a flaw ?

I received two sets from the RCM and they both have those little plastic tabs. At first I thought they were coin defects. I await another from CC&C and will compare.

I received my set just the other day and won't be returning it. The reverse designs are perfect and only minimal flashes on the obverses.

Even so I question why they need to be there in the first place and if they will have any long term effects on the coins themselves being directly in contact with the surface.

If the mint can design specimen and proof sets with perfectly cut holes(even an 11 sided one for the loonie) for all the previous years, why not this one? Can the flashes be removed without damaging the insert. Seems like a quick fix for those wanting to go through the trouble.

My guess is the packaging was rushed through and this smll detail was missed. Fortunately those not happy and looking to buy the coins individually and create their own custom holder will be happy to know the combined prices at CAC have dropped $31 since the beginning of August to just over $15 above issue price.

Remember the 1911-2011 SE Proof set? I think had the Centennial set been issued in a similar wooden box and plastic holder it would have generated a lot more excitement and sales in my opinion.