Possible amazing find

[les.p...@gmail.com]

I purchased a 1971 uncirculated mint set off of eBay, and when it
arrived, I noticed that the Lincoln cent in the plastic pack from the
Denver mint was missing its mint mark! The other 4 coins had theirs,
so I started scouring the 'net for any references to this happening
before, and I couldn't find any; plenty of 'no-S' proof cents, but no
'no-D' mint cents.

I am thinking of taking it to a local coin dealer who can submit it to
PCGS for grading and authentication... what do you think?

Les
http://life-of-coins.blogspot.com/

[Mr. Jaggers]

They will deem it a packaging problem, whereby a Philadelphia coin somehow
got into a Denver holder. Such errors, if they are indeed errors, have
little value beyond conversational. It is unlikely that the mint would do
this, but it could happen. More likely is that someone switched the coins
and resealed the package.

James

[RWF]

"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:gnme2...@enews2.newsguy.com...

> They will deem it a packaging problem, whereby a Philadelphia coin
> somehow got into a Denver holder. Such errors, if they are indeed
> errors, have little value beyond conversational. It is unlikely that
> the mint would do this, but it could happen. More likely is that
> someone switched the coins and resealed the package.

Resealed the package? Puh-lease!

[les.p...@gmail.com]

To that point, the package shows zero evidence of tampering. The only
way such a switch would have occurred would have to have been at the
Denver
mint, where a Philadelphia uncirculated cent made its way into the
automated
system and into the set.

There is no clear evidence of a grease-filled die (I have been looking
at my
Morgans of late, and doing some reading therein); it is as if they
either used
a Philadelphia die in Denver or forgot to punch the "D" into it.

I am asking anyone with a 1971 mint set to check it and see if they
see anything
similar.

Thanks,
Les
http://life-of-coins.blogspot.com/

[Jon Purkey]

Packaging errors do happen. I have a 1999 mint set with two Denver NJ
quarters, but no PA. Similar sets sell on eBay frequently, usually
with little premium.

Question is, how and where were mint sets packaged in 1971? I doubt
that each mint packaged their own coins. More likely, bags of coins
from Denver, Philadelphia and/or San Francisco were sent to a single
location/mint that did all the packaging. And if so, it would probably
be very easy for a leftover P coin to get packaged in a D set.

If the mint's quality control was better in 1971 than it is today,
resulting in fewer errors, then your set may carry more of a premium.
But if not, it is still an nice item to have in your collection.

[les.p...@gmail.com]

On Feb 20, 12:15 pm, Jon Purkey <room321_em...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:19:26 -0800 (PST), "les.peters+c...@gmail.com"

The envelope reads as follows:

TREASURY DEPARTMENT
United States Assay Office
50 Fell Street
San Francisco, Calif, 94102
----
Official Business

So, it seems that Jon has provided the simplest
answer: a Philly cent was put in the place of the Denver cent
when the coins were put into the packaging... oh well.

Thanks for the input.

Les
http://life-of-coins.blogspot.com/

[mazorj]

"les.pet...@gmail.com" <les.p...@gmail.com> wrote in
message
news:b5f1d113-2fb2-4b33...@17g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

Thanks,
Les
http://life-of-coins.blogspot.com/

Even if the error occurred at the Mint packaging stage, at
most you have a packaging error. It's not like they stuck a
previously undiscovered major error coin in there. Most
numismatists would regard it as a curiosity, not a
collectible.

I have a packaged set from the Royal Mint of type coins from
the late 1940s. It was supposed to contain two varieties of
one coin, a 3-pence IIRC. Instead, it had two of one of the
varieties. I sent a note to the Royal Mint and got back a
nicely printed letter of apology admitting that an
unspecified number of sets had been sent that way and
offering to replace it with a proper set. I am keeping this
set simply because to me, the curiosity value of the error
plus the "letter of authenticity" from the Mint is more
appealing to me than the market value of a proper,
"undamaged" set. However, I expect that if I ever wanted to
sell it, most buyers would reject it as a
"damaged/incomplete" set. The curiosity value would
translate into a price premium only if I happened to find a
buyer who had an interest in odd packaging errors.