Silver Proof Set Or Limited Silver Proof Set

I ordered 4 of the LE's and returned 4 because every one showed "rub" markings on the inside of the cases that would not buff out.

I got chided severely at another forum for that, with people saying things like "fools who expect perfection".

Given a premium price that is only justified by the holder, why should I expect this:




Given the circular nature, I felt the coins must have moved. I caught grief for that assumption, too :)

So, I'm a fool who expects extra care for extra money, I guess.

The interesting thing about the scuff marks on the 2013 LE Case... you can remove the cover and rotate it, the scuff marks are not visible over the coins. The 2014 LE set isn't offered yet and probably won't be until November/December.

No doubt there is a quality control problem and you shouldn't have to do that to a proof set. On the positive side, there are a lot fewer of these sets issued, because many people sent them back before knowing you could remove/rotate the cover.

They are abrasion marks on the upper lens caused by the coins rubbing against the soft plastic. I assume they were stacked at some point to await packaging and some of the coins that sat higher in the holder rubbed against the soft plastic.

If I didn't read the 2013 LE Silver Proof Set thread on this subject, I would have not known to take the cover off and rotate it. I bought 3 sets and two of them had markings on the lens very similar to the pictures in this thread. Rotating the lens solved the problem completely.

Paying $33 more for inferior packaging AND receiving 7 coins less, well, only a showman like PT Barnum would like this "deal." Granted the '12 LESPS is doing well on the secondary market, but so is the '12 SPS. There's no telling if future sets will perform as well. If you just want the 15 proof coins just get the ASE by itself and the SPS and forgo the fancy packaging. Save your money for a real coin instead of made in China plastic cases and printed paper, that's the only thing that's "limited" about this set type. Have had no regrets passing on both the '12 and the '13 LESPS.

The packaging is beautiful. I personally do not like the regular silver proof set packaging. The color and design does not bring out the brilliance of the coins like the design of the limited packaging. in my humble opinion.

That being said. I will probably just buy the proof ASE. I just finished my UNC ASE date collection, and I am considering going back through the proofs.

That's kind of neat. Looks like a part of the reverse proof die edge fractured off during a strike. I rather like it as the die break is in a prime focal area. Probably doesn't add that much value to your proof ASE, but you never know as die breakage on modern coins is relatively uncommon, and there can't be too many of this break before they replaced the dies, because the die pairs are changed frequently on proof strikes. Good for you.

Edit-if I'm not mistaken the correct term for this error type is "cud."

I was trying to gauge how the community felt about the marketing of these products form the mint. It is an obvious marketing tool to sell additional products, but the packaging is all that creates the limited mintage numbers and not the coinage.

Josh, I agree that if that marking is a result from a die break it s very interesting. I am not as familiar with identifying those specific marks, but I do know that it is not as common on modern coins. Through my browsing, I am not aware of another ASE proof being presented on this site with that error. Note: I'm a newb on CCF and could be very wrong.

Another question: What kind of errors have the CCF found in ASE, unc and proof alike?

I just find water spots here and there, but nothing major like a die break.

If you must buy the W mint UNC ASE, then the $1 set is the way to go.