You can purchase the 2010 Denver or Philadelphia folders individually from a coin shop or other 3rd party source. But that's not how they were originally sold and packaged from the U.S. Mint.
Anyway, those 2 folders are physically independent whereas the coins they contain are bound together. Thus, it would make sense to make 2 sets.
I have purchased from US Mint online store the 2013 version and indeed I also have 2 independent folders but I don't remember if I purchased them in one click or in two clicks.
That's my set. They came direct from the mint together for the price shown is one box. They were not available at the time to purchase separately as TonyCoins already stated. They absolutely should remain as a single set. Here's the box they came in:
Do you think every US Mint set (currently 32) should be split into two or just this one.
This does raise an interesting question. If you bought post mint just one of the set how can you enter the set or should every year be split into three?
Well, since I have the 2 (or 1, depending on the point of view 😀) UNC set(s) from 2013, I have taken pictures of them and filled 2 set creation requests.
Because, nothing prevents me (or another collector) to sell only one set, I think it would be a real mess to have 3 objects:
One Denver + Philadelphia set
One Denver set
And one Philadelphia set
Thus, the more reasonable thing would be (IMHO) to have 2 sets.
But, we can ask our admins what they think about this interesting question.
Actually some of the earlier sets have coins from P, D and S so 4 sets in those years.
I thought about this a little since my post and I believe the issue has already been resolved. As per Xavier, Only official sets are in scope: "We define sets as official packaging from the mint containing one or several numismatic items. It contains only new items (not repackaging of older coins). Sets include proof sets, mint sets, coincards, rolls, etc."
Bold emphasis is his, not mine.
You selling part of a set would hardly count as “official packing from the mint.”
Actually some of the earlier sets have coins from P, D and S so 4 sets in those years.
I thought about this a little since my post and I believe the issue has already been resolved. As per Xavier, Only official sets are in scope: "We define sets as official packaging from the mint containing one or several numismatic items. It contains only new items (not repackaging of older coins). Sets include proof sets, mint sets, coincards, rolls, etc."
Bold emphasis is his, not mine.
You selling part of a set would hardly count as “official packing from the mint.”
I love that answer because it draws an important distinction between (1) how one sells a set (piecemeal) and (2) how the set is actually described, packaged, marketed, and sold directly from the official government body that actually issued it. Otherwise, one can redefine anything they want as a “set” and it becomes a little unwieldy at that point.
Actually some of the earlier sets have coins from P, D and S so 4 sets in those years.
I thought about this a little since my post and I believe the issue has already been resolved. As per Xavier, Only official sets are in scope: "We define sets as official packaging from the mint containing one or several numismatic items. It contains only new items (not repackaging of older coins). Sets include proof sets, mint sets, coincards, rolls, etc."
Bold emphasis is his, not mine.
You selling part of a set would hardly count as “official packing from the mint.”
I love that answer because it draws an important distinction between (1) how one sells a set (piecemeal) and (2) how the set is actually described, packaged, marketed, and sold directly from the official government body that actually issued it. Otherwise, one can redefine anything they want as a “set” and it becomes a little unwieldly at that point.
Agree. And when you look up values of mint sets from the usual references they are for the set as packaged from the mint:
Actually some of the earlier sets have coins from P, D and S so 4 sets in those years.
I thought about this a little since my post and I believe the issue has already been resolved. As per Xavier, Only official sets are in scope: "We define sets as official packaging from the mint containing one or several numismatic items. It contains only new items (not repackaging of older coins). Sets include proof sets, mint sets, coincards, rolls, etc."
Bold emphasis is his, not mine.
You selling part of a set would hardly count as “official packing from the mint.”
I love that answer because it draws an important distinction between (1) how one sells a set (piecemeal) and (2) how the set is actually described, packaged, marketed, and sold directly from the official government body that actually issued it. Otherwise, one can redefine anything they want as a “set” and it becomes a little unwieldly at that point.
Agree. And when you look up values of mint sets from the usual references they are for the set as packaged from the mint:
Redbook:
PCGS:
USACoinBook:
And, of course, the SCWC:
Sorry to have arrived late to this discussion but my opinion was also that it should be listed as 1 set as intended by the mint…so i think we have arrived there.
