Modern proof sets

[Peckris 579]

I once made the effort to get all proof sets up to about 1993 or so. Then I looked at them all, sitting in their white packets and wondered "Why?"

So I made this little list of sets I think are possibly worth collecting - whether you agree or not will depend on whether you believe that EVERY representative date and type needs a proof. So, for what it's worth :

1970 : common as muck but still a nice set, and the only proofs for that Mary Gillick obverse type (i.e. post-1953)

1971 : ditto, but hey, the first decimals!

1972 : worth it just for owning coins dated 1972

1973 : maybe yes, maybe no - debatable. But if you find an untoned set, they're RARE, buy it.

1977 : only if you think it's worth having the crown, but there is an inexpensive silver proof of that, so maybe not

1980 : only for introducing that frosted look, gorgeous

1983 : only for being the first set in the landscape mode green display packs

Apart from that, from 1982 onwards the BU sets (much cheaper!) give the chance to acquire coins not issued for currency. It might perhaps be worth getting the 1985 and 1998 sets with the portrait changes, but as I say, it would be much cheaper to get the BU set instead. In fact, apart from Royal Mint profits, I'm having a hard time understanding why we even need proof sets these days.

[1949threepence 3,367]

I tend to agree with your points, Peck, but the only one of that motley collection which I have, is the 1970. Modern collector issues from the Royal Mint, are way too contrived for my liking.

[Peckris 579]

I tend to agree with your points, Peck, but the only one of that motley collection which I have, is the 1970. Modern collector issues from the Royal Mint, are way too contrived for my liking.

If you were to get any decimal proof set, then I suppose the 1971 was intended to be the official issue and there weren't any immediate plans to add to that, well not for about 3 or 4 years anyway! (but I still think the 1972 has a certain je ne sais quoi about it...). And I do believe that the 1971 sets predate (not literally ) the 1970 sets?

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

the only one of that motley collection which I have, is the 1970. Modern collector issues from the Royal Mint, are way too contrived for my liking.

Ditto here. The 'coppers' are toned quite badly now though. Did I read somewhere that there was an issue with the glue used in the 1970 set ?

Of all of the mints proof offerings, I think the only one worth trying to get hold of is the one ounce silver proof britannia. Quite rare birds those and they tend to appreciate in value in my experience too.

The rest of it ?

Bah.

[1949threepence 3,367]

the only one of that motley collection which I have, is the 1970. Modern collector issues from the Royal Mint, are way too contrived for my liking.

If you were to get any decimal proof set, then I suppose the 1971 was intended to be the official issue and there weren't any immediate plans to add to that, well not for about 3 or 4 years anyway! (but I still think the 1972 has a certain je ne sais quoi about it...). And I do believe that the 1971 sets predate (not literally ) the 1970 sets?

I might get a 1972, Peck. They are after all the only examples for that year.

ditto here. The 'coppers' are toned quite badly now though. Did I read somewhere that there was an issue with the glue used in the 1970 set ?

Of all of the mints proof offerings, I think the only one worth trying to get hold of is the one ounce silver proof britannia. Quite rare birds those and they tend to appreciate in value in my experience too.

The rest of it ?

Bah.

My sentiments exactly, and most of the pre 1984 sets seem to have tarnished quite badly, espcially the 1973 with that dark red surround.

[Peckris 579]

My sentiments exactly, and most of the pre 1984 sets seem to have tarnished quite badly, espcially the 1973 with that dark red surround.

Yes I notice that Michael Gouby has a perfect 1973 set for well over £20. They really are rare.