1950/1953 Proof or Unc?

[Mightyzob 0]

Hi, I have a boxed set of 1950 coins - farthing to half-crown, red cardboard type with gold coat of arms on top - the coins are embedded in like a stiff black felt base and there is a little ribbon in each depression for lifting the coins, the lid has no padding but a thicker piece of card in it - I just wondered if these are a proof set or an uncirculated set (assuming the coins are the original ones from the box)?

My 1953 box is red also but has 1953 Coronation on the top (no coat of arms) and is "snap hinged" like a glasses case the coins are embedded in black felt but with no ribbons and the lid has a silky padded finish (no coat of arms) - same question, are these likely to be Proofs or Uncirculated or something else?

All the coins look look as if they've never been touched.

Thanks for any tips.

[Chris Perkins 228]

Assuming the coins are the original ones in the boxes, you have described (very well) the 1950 and 1953 proof sets.

There wasn't a 1950 UNC set and the 1953 UNC set came in a plactic transparent wallet without the crown.

[Peter 615]

and its a strange blip in the market that the currency 1950 1d is worth more than the proof.

[Guest Gary D_I'm_a_Guest]

You also often see the 1953 specimen sets in a red case passed off as proof sets.

[Guest Guest]

Thanks very much for the replies. I had thought that the 1953 set might not be proof because it didn't have a coat of arms anywhere.

How is it that the circulation penny is worth more than the proof - I know it's rare but surely the proof is rarer? (ie. fewer minted) Is it just because there will be fewer circulation coins in uncirculated condition?

Thanks again.

PS. Are these sets worth anything or is it better to hang on to them and maybe let the kids get their grubby hands on them when I'm gone?

)