1967 Tonga proof set types and mintages

Dear Collectors!

It appears that in 1967 Tonga issued at least three proof sets (excluding the coronation one).

Two of them are added to the catalog:

Boxed: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/set.php?id=3223

Queen Salote: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/set.php?id=3294

Salote Memorial: 

(Photos taken from one online store)

Is there an information about how many sets of each type were issued?

SCWC says 5000 either split between the two or one of those two are not official (repackaged by third party).  Either way they can't both be 5000.  A comment should be added to each.

The reason, why I believe those are also official sets, is that the packaging is consistent with other sets by Royal Mint and Pobjoy Mint from that time:

Examples:

• https://en.numista.com/catalogue/set.php?id=3100
• https://www.ebay.com/itm/205757979428

SCWC also doesn't list a 1967 mint set, which exists. This, while not directly supporting my claim that these sets are official, does mean that SCWC is not a reliable source of information in regards of Tongan sets. (And frankly, same is true for majority of countries)

Here is an example of 1967 mint set, which is unlisted in SCWC (2017):

Pictures are not mine.

Sorry, I misread your post. I thought you were asking about the mintages for the two sets in Numista.  If there is a third set than the 5,000 mintage would be split somehow between the three. SCWC does list two Proof sets for 1967, one with the 7 coins shown in your pictures and one with 4 different coins.

Yes, I meant, that 5000 is a likely mintage for 1967 proof coins, but the individual sets will have a smaller mintage, which adds up to 5000. Of course if they are official, which seems likely to me. But of course I can be wrong. Essentially I was asking if there is any documentation about them.

The 4 coin proof set is a completely separate set, which looks like this:

(Pictures are not mine)

This is what I did for two sets that shared mintage that I didn't know how much for each. In the Comments section I put

* Mintage included in the 378,200 mintage of this set: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/set.php?id=2558 and left the mintage blank.

This is what I did for two sets that shared mintage that I didn't know how much for each. In the Comments section I put

 

* Mintage included in the 378,200 mintage of this set: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/set.php?id=2558 and left the mintage blank.

Yes, this would be the best solution if we cannot find any more complete information.

I have been searching for information and this is what I also found:

CGB.fr claim that the red set is proof: (although those in the picture don't look like proofs)

• https://www.cgbfr.com/tonga-serie-de-7-monnaies-en-commemoration-de-la-mort-de-la-reine-salote-tupou-iii-1967-fdc,fwo_670841,a.html

Oceanic mint claim it is an uncirculated set:

• https://shop.oceanicmint.com/tonga-1967-uncirculated-coin-set/

I am inclined to trust Oceanic mint on this one. In those pictures I added in the first post, the business strike coins were probably swapped with proofs. Which is why the holder does not say “Proof” anywhere. (Unlike the one with blue holder)

Galata also claims it is an uncirculated set:

• https://www.galata.co.uk/tonga-first-decimal-coinage-set-1967-7-coins

And I also found the carton boxed versions of this set:

• https://www.ebay.com/itm/236416045223?_skw=tonga+1967+proof&itmmeta=01KCRMSM4Y8A7E165Q7QY0XYXA&hash=item370b7e90a7:g:CM0AAeSwXx9o~jL5&itmprp=enc%3AAQAKAAAA8FkggFvd1GGDu0w3yXCmi1eeAZYAIofqjauHQXDmSQ9tMR4olt2t5Sk9jjWXVXIvLtpq7qdjj0%2BnU%2BWiuP%2BxxKtGegb%2Fkw8ynb%2FCTMWshofzNSOxhrbMaDaU2Zp1j%2BSs%2B%2BqxIqEbw8u2qQJIHJ32iHcRRAPdv1gAe%2F2jR47kn5C1LulFTOYmz%2FFjgf92VnXqKrWNlp8FKZNZbdPCGoqXGClUYXVoCkvkCKGZFyiS9zHbSgCYovSMGAHVPrsa%2B26t7QC%2Bc4hez7zCteOHX5%2BKzsoDRtxdIMLv%2BPBTeDetaLmSP87LuEqI0a%2FaWH6IvNHm%2Fg%3D%3D%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR9LC5pTmZg
• https://www.ebay.com/itm/176558080078 (5 sets in one box, which possibly means that some proof coins were sold without any packaging)

What do you think, should the carton boxed version be added to sets? (analogously to the US boxed sets)

My opinion for sets is that if the same coins are packaged differently then they should be different sets. I know some disagree and think the differences should be discussed in the comments.  I guess the Guidelines will eventually answer this question.

rsirian1

My opinion for sets is that if the same coins are packaged differently then they should be different sets. I know some disagree and think the differences should be discussed in the comments.  I guess the Guidelines will eventually answer this question.

Can you even have a “set” without the packaging? So, if the packaging is different, it's a different set.

There has been talk about having lines similar to year lines for coins where each line could be for different packaging.

rsirian1

My opinion for sets is that if the same coins are packaged differently then they should be different sets. I know some disagree and think the differences should be discussed in the comments.  I guess the Guidelines will eventually answer this question.

1000% agree, I don't see why any officially different made sets should be listed together, unless they are some minor differences

@Ma9nWaRr10 , nice set!

rsirian1

My opinion for sets is that if the same coins are packaged differently then they should be different sets. I know some disagree and think the differences should be discussed in the comments.  I guess the Guidelines will eventually answer this question.

I agree with that. To a large extent at least. In some other forum threads I talked about this.

My question was rather that if a set (coins were initially sold together) was issued without any packaging, is it even a set?

KennyG

@Ma9nWaRr10 , nice set!

Unfortunately, it is not mine (yet). There are three available, (blue, red and cased versions, you can see all three in my first post) and I am considering buying one of them. Just wanted to do a research first

Ma9nWaRr10

 

My question was rather that if a set (coins were initially sold together) was issued without any packaging, is it even a set?

The “official” definition of a set is, 

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.

So, PACKAGING + COINS = SET

So, PACKAGING + COINS = SET

*From the mint