Coin Community Family of Web Sites
Like us on Facebook! Subscribe to our Youtube Channel! Check out our Twitter! Check out our Pinterest!
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?


Welcome Guest! Need help? Got a question? Inherit some coins?
Our coin forum is completely free! Register Now!

Opinions On Whether Old Proof Sets Are Being Falsely Advertised

 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous TopicReplies: 8 / Views: 981Next Topic  
New Member

Canada
44 Posts
 Posted 06/17/2022  02:09 am Show Profile   Bookmark this topic Add recollector to your friends list Get a Link to this Message
Im not a dealer, so I'mspeaking from the customer's perspective here. I came across an offering of a 1954 proof-like set. the photo showed the coins in a white card characteristic of such sets at that time, and covered with celophane. When I aksed to get a closer photo, they just sent me a photo of the 6 coins in their individual PCGS cases. In the description it just says prooflike 1954 coin set in white card.Now, that is accurate. They are all PL graded coins, and they are in a white card. But they could have simply sold the set advertised in their individual cases. Or they could have put the coins in a much nicer case than a plain white one. They wanted to give the impression that this was a proof set just as offered in 1954, and regardless of if you want to take it literally that the dealer offered exactly what was written, it is the expectation through the visual images offered, which I believe are deliberately depicted to elicit a specific response, that is in question here. Many will say that it doesn't matter, that the condition of the coins is the main issue. But the impression for the customer is that this is an unopened proof set, exactly how it was sent from the Mint in 1954 to the customer. Not something that was assembled yesterday and put in a white card and covered in celophane to give the impression that its an original unaltered set. if I buy a vintage starwars toy and later find out that the one I bought was incomplete and that the light saber came from the same toy but a different package, then I would want to know that information. It may or may not affect my buying decision, but I would want to know. This should be included in the description. Many of the later sets have packaging errors, which are also of value. So there is a precedent for not fiddling with the coins in such sets.
Valued Member
United States
468 Posts
 Posted 06/17/2022  07:47 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add fplagge to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
The seller clearly states that the set is proof-like, not proof. The packaging is irrelevant. Buyers can decide for themselves if the coins are of sufficient quality to merit the seller's asking price.
New Member
Canada
44 Posts
 Posted 06/17/2022  10:42 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add recollector to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
If the packaging was irrelevant then the dealer didn't have to put it in a package that specifically looks like the ones used in 1954.
Valued Member
Canada
138 Posts
 Posted 06/17/2022  10:42 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Levaril to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
The seller clearly states that the set is proof-like, not proof.


I feel like this comment must be from an American perspective. PL sets are a thing in Canada and the OP is correct that a lot are mis-represented in auctions to make them appear to be original full sets when they are in fact cobbled together sets a lot of the time. We don't have full proof sets released in Canada until the 60's so other than specimen sets there are no other intact sets to collect from the 50's beyond PL sets.

Frankly I always assume they are NOT original sets. I think it's a given that if someone comes across an actual PL set and it has any high grade examples in it, they will most likely break it up and either keep the high grade examples or send them in for grading. It has to be perishingly rare to get a true set being offered that hasn't been adjusted at least a little. If you're lucky you might find a stockpile of 60's PL sets at your LCS and be able to cherry pick a nice cameo coin or two out of them, but 50's are a lot less likely, particularly before 1959 when the halves changed.

And no offence on the American comment, I just think that American mints released sets in a much different way than the Canadian mint did back then. Much more variety from American mints.
Valued Member
Canada
299 Posts
 Posted 06/18/2022  12:35 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add cdngmt to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Just to further muddy the waters....I purchased a 1957 mint set ...and received coins in cellophane envelope....checked with a dealer and he confirmed that coins/sets were sold by the mint that way.

1954 sets are (to my understanding rare ) and because of the poor packaging some sets have been broken out to slabs.
Also keep in mind early mint sets (again to my understanding were packaged at the mint from circulation strikes and were not necessarily the best high quality strikes.

That said I would think Levaril has stated it better/best
Valued Member
Canada
393 Posts
 Posted 06/18/2022  05:42 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Talonbat to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
So on the American comment there is no such thing as proof Canadian coins from this time period the Proof Like strike is a totally different and separate strike not simply a designation like in US numismatics so consider early Canadian PL sets to early US proof sets. Proof sets in Canada were not until 1981.

If the dealer advertised it as 1954 PL set in white cardboard or original cardboard I don't see the problem. The cellophane was so unbelievable brittle protecting it and often had tape attached to it which would rip I just assume most cello is replaced or just no there. In most cases to sufficiently protect the coins you actually need to remove them from this original packaging(same goes for early US proof sets). I absolutely do not see an issue with all the PL sets from 53-60 being like that. Packaging errors and the what not would be impossible to validate from those time periods and would likely add no value as they are actually valuable sets to begin with.

I've never seen or heard of a Canadian 57 set coming in a cello envelope. I have seen individually "sold" coins in cello pouches for people that requested single coins and the like from different years.

As for the early mint sets being packaged from circ strikes that is only true of the 1953 set. Most original 1953 sets will be just uncirculated sets, some coins may be PL some may be specimen but they could all be business strikes. You should find 54 and beyond all PL's as well as no sets before the 1953 to my knowledge that were not specimens, I only hear of singles before then.
Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
Canada
4464 Posts
 Posted 06/18/2022  06:56 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add okiecoiner to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Here is a lengthy thread from CaC that covers heavily the circulation, proof, proof-like and specimen sets from the RCM. From what is put down in this thread, and what I have read, P-L is a term that was invented by Charlton and then was put into common use. Anyway, an interesting read with the dates and the name/description changes.

http://coinsandcanada.com/forum/vie...?f=12&t=8586
Valued Member
Canada
138 Posts
 Posted 06/18/2022  12:42 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Levaril to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
While PL may not technically be the correct term from a numismatic perspective, how are you going to explain a change nearly 70 years down the road to new collectors? Tens of thousands of TPG coins in PL holders that are all of a sudden equivalent to NBU or something like that? Talk about adding to the confusion. There is no way all those PL holders will be sent back in for a new grade, so just leave it as is and if you really feel the need to, explain how PL here is different than elsewhere. Maybe the purists will still be offended by it but most people just won't or don't care at all. I like my PL collection. :)
Valued Member
Canada
393 Posts
 Posted 06/18/2022  5:24 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Talonbat to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
So in the discussion on coins and Canada I'm seeing quite a bit of misinformation. This is to be expected on a random forum but to say that there is no difference between the finish of say 1954-1967 PL coin vs business strikes is pretty insane and just wrong. Just because the RCM does not call it PL in their advertising doesn't mean it is not distinct from coins meant for circulation and that distinction needed a name. If Charlton was the first to give it that name and it stuck so be it. With the semi mirror surfaces and often frosty devices calling the 1954-1967 sets PL sets just make sense. My main point is the distinction needs to made for all coins that are not treated like business strikes, whether they are struck slower, higher pressure, double struck, polished every time, etc, if the process is different it is not a business strike and was not meant to be so should not be sold as such.

As for poor naming you can actually even say the other side of the border might be just as bad as they could have used CAM and DCAM for all coins instead of just proof coins thus replacing a need for PL and DMPL for business strikes and yes I understand it takes into account mirror like surfaces but the criteria does not have to change for the designation, most people are just looking for that contrast of the frosty devices vs the semi mirror like fields.

Names are names as long as it is clear what they are describing I see no need to change it.
  Previous TopicReplies: 8 / Views: 981Next Topic  
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.





Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2022 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Contact Us  |  Advertise Here  |  Privacy Policy / Terms of Use

Coin Community Forum © 2005 - 2022 Coin Community Forums
It took 0.31 seconds to rattle this change. Powered By: