2 Cent Question.

Thanks Brett, Yes that's interesting but gee over 4 million more. ?

Hi Mr Cruise my name is Cruse to no I though my pleasure to meet you.

Yes I read the website info Brett posted, It also said due to no mint sets and that the paper was changed that the mint rolls were rolled in were acidic and damaged a large portion of the coins.

Now these claims may seem fair enough to most but to me there quite flurfy. Don't get me wrong it may very well be the case but shouldn't we consider these points first.

Now CLAIM 1 no mint sets in 68, That's a fine excuse but guess what and you should know this, All the early mint sets were all in PVC wallets which also damaged them.

Claim 2 , the paper the rolls were in damaged a lot of the coins. Well how would they no that in just 1 year seeing it takes several to have an effect so surely the following years also had the same paper.

I just find these claims a little hard to swallow they really defy common sense. 4 million more than the very next run who's mint sets were set in PVC and surely the paper was not known in less than a 12mth period.

OH and also I use to wonder why those early mint sets had such discoloured coins , the coppers always brown of and the silver always goes dull. Use to think it was the age time but PVC ?.

I recently picked up 2x69 2 cent coins graded ms64rd and ms65rd both pcgs for under $100 delivered.
imho that is cheap for such a low mintage easy toning coin and I consider them sleepers in high grade
here is one for sale from a reputable dealer
http://www.sterlingcurrency.com.au/...-pcgs-ms64rd

I actually agree with your comments - there is no valid reasoning why 1968 coins should be worth more than 1969

But I have found over the years that it is demand that drives the worth of a coin and in today's market, coin collectors have in their heads that 1968 2c coin is more valuable than 1969

Things have settled down a little in the last 2 years when it comes to decimal coins rarities anyways (except for choice grades)

Have noticed prices paid for 1968 2c + 1972 5c + 1966 20c wavy + 50c fed issues have come down on ebay (generally) - only the mule seems to have kept its value

Could even be a cyclic trend where collectors jump on a particular group of coins - then they are replaced by another group less interested so their values drops - only to see such coins increase in value again when a new group comes on the scene

Ultimately, only time will tell

I disagree
The lack of a 1968 mint set is a BIG reason why the 1968 2c is worth more than the 1969 2c.

There are 30,000 1969 mint sets. Thats 30,000 people who don't need to get a 1969 2c from general circulation or mint rolls. Sure, some of the mint sets will have PVC damage but coins from mint rolls are often "baggy" as well.

That's fair enough MOR but from what I have read all early mint sets were set in PVC and all will suffer some damage if left in them longer than a few years which most would not have even been sold buy then not to mention most still being sold on ebay in there original wallets, I don't to many would have escaped un harmed.

That does not mean the 68 is not rare it obviously is that is why I asked the question. But I fail to see how 30,000 measly sets which must have been damaged buy there pvc retainers can out way 4.000,000 extra coins. There has to be a more valid reason and I think MrCruise is on the money.

If you think of the 1972 5 cent coin they were rare but of late there has been a lot of mint rolls appearing on ebay being broken up.

But I still like your opinion its nice to hear what others think may be the reasons. And you may very well be right.

Hi again thought I would post these pics of a 1969 and 1971 mint set to show what the PVC does , As you can see there discoloured and lost there original lustre completely. I don't think there would be to many that would have survived.

I took these from current listings on Fee bay and every early set I looked at was spoilt.

So I really don't get how the mint sets carry any weight what so ever I have circulated coins that look better.

Just my opinion of course. But really 30,000 measly contaminated mint sets vs more than 4,020,000 more minted in 1968 and it hold the prize , Hmm I think MRCRUISE has it spot on , buyers perception is what it is.

But MOR , you may still be right who knows really I actually don't that's why I'm asking it just to me don't add up.