1969 coinage is notorious for poor quality which led to an incredibly low savings rate since
no one saw any point is saving clad junk and poorly made clad junk was even worse.  There
are several varieties which are almost impossible to find due to these forces.  Gem coinage
of many of these nine coins were quite unusual even back in 1969.  Generally mint sets are
the sole source for most gem quality modern coinage but in the case of the 1969 there is a
complicating factor; mint set quality is generally poor. 

But now there's an even more disasterous factor.  The mint set coins are being eaten alive
by PVC.  These sets are four layers of plastic with the coins in the center.  The inner two lay-
ers are very soft and full of plasticizer.  The sets seemed to do well for decades and have sud-
denly begun showing problems.  It's too early toestimate percentages affected but it appears
it's going to be very high and will eventually affect all '69 mint sets.  There were nearly two mil-
lion of these made but some 75% have already been destroyed for one reason or another and
now the few left are mostly damaged by the plasticizer. 

I'm experimenting now with recovering these but it looks like large percentages will be perma-
nently damaged.  To date the best bet appears to be an acetone wash followed by an isopro-
pyl and denatured alcohol soak.  It takes a couple days for about half of them to come clean. 
Pull them all out of the soak (ventilate) and rinse under cold water then lay on an absorbant
towel and pat gently with anopther.  Turn them over onto a dry spot and pat again. 

The ones that are still bad go back to soak and this time with a little acetone in the mix.  This will
eventually recover about 90% of them but the rest will need more.  Ity looks as though mineral
oil and then a detergent and acetone rinse will do the trick for most but results aren't in yet for
this. 

Future collectors will be very disappointed with what we pass down to them from this era.  It
won't be much and much will be damaged. 

Great write up cladking, but to me it raises many questions


With an approximate 25% survival it seams quite dismal for the 1969 coins, are they commanding large premiums?
Is two million a particularly high mintage or low?
What was the reason this year was made so poorly?
If collectors noticed back then that the 1969 mint set were so poorly struck why wasn't
the best searched for then and saved? Surely there were modern collectors back in 69

Hey Sam
How are you?
I think the future collectors will be more taken aback by the horrible quality and craftsmanship shown by the mint itself during this time period. While the Lincoln for example was reworked drastically in 69, instead of a new beginning the quality of the coins in the 70's continued on the downhill spiral. The zincoln disaster followed by plating issues, striking issues due to horrible production expectations from the dies themselves having a poor design only to increase the production numbers higher led to the situation in that time frame where the coinage was not being looked at as it had in the past. The modern collectors at the time, speaking in the first person here, were put off by the quality of the coinage. Add to this the problems you are describing here further illustrates the disaster coming out of the mint.
That will be what future collectors will be saying in my opinion.
I have hundreds and hundreds of rolls of coins from that 70's and 80's that I have a hard time looking at.
Things began to improve in the 90's. but the 70's and 80's are a dark spot in US coinage.

With an approximate 25% survival it seams quite dismal for the 1969 coins, are they commanding large premiums?

No.  I think part of the reason they don't get big premiums is that the quality is so poor.  There
are very few  modern collectors and supplies are simply ample for such low numbers of col-
lectors at the current time.  The Philly quarters are horrendous even when they are pristine and
now they're mottled and corroded. 

Is two million a particularly high mintage or low?

The mintage is slightly low compared to others of this era. 

What was the reason this year was made so poorly?

Primarily it was because the mint just didn't care about quality.  They were still recovering from
the coin shortage and still learning how to strike cu/ ni clad.  They made large improvements in
1970. 

If collectors noticed back then that the 1969 mint set were so poorly struck why wasn't
the best searched for then and saved? Surely there were modern collectors back in 69

There were virtually no modern collectors at all.  I always jokingly refer to myself as the 4th mod-
ern collectyor after RS Yeoman, John J Pittman, and Herb Hicks and I didn't start until 1972 be-
cause in those days the mint didn't rotate their coin stocks and old uncirculated coins kept get-
ting released.  This changed in 1972.  There just was no interest in collecting and there probably
weren't even a dozen people in the country setting aside rolls other than an occassional one here
and there.  People didn't notice all '69 quarters were poor because people didn't care.  One has
to wonder why they even bought mint sets. 

Hey Sam
How are you?
I think the future collectors will be more taken aback by the horrible quality and craftsmanship shown by the mint itself during this time period. While the Lincoln for example was reworked drastically in 69, instead of a new beginning the quality of the coins in the 70's continued on the downhill spiral. The zincoln disaster followed by plating issues, striking issues due to horrible production expectations from the dies themselves having a poor design only to increase the production numbers higher led to the situation in that time frame where the coinage was not being looked at as it had in the past. The modern collectors at the time, speaking in the first person here, were put off by the quality of the coinage. Add to this the problems you are describing here further illustrates the disaster coming out of the mint.
That will be what future collectors will be saying in my opinion.
I have hundreds and hundreds of rolls of coins from that 70's and 80's that I have a hard time looking at.
Things began to improve in the 90's. but the 70's and 80's are a dark spot in US coinage.

It's ironic though that if you just want a nice gem the older coins tend to be easier.  Nearly 8%
of the '72-D mint  set quarters  for example are nice gems.  But finding gems of the later dates
like the mid-'90's can be quite tough.  The '92 quarters come to mind.  These can be found
highly  Proof Like but they are always scratched up.

But, Yes, the average quality did make some improvements and nice choice coins get easier. 

Not saving moderns has been a world wide phenomenon.  Moderns have a tendency to either
be remarkably common or scarce.  Some of the zincolns are going to be in the latter category. 

Thanks for the reply Sam.
I agree that there will be a shortage of nice coins from this era.
Let me also say for anyone that does not know my feelings, cladking is an absolute well of information when discussing modern coinage. He has forgotten more about the subject than most of us will ever know. I do hope that he takes some time and writes a book on the subject as it would be THE REFERENCE for us and the next generation of coin collectors.
I always listen when he talks moderns and look forward to his posts.

Now if I could only get him to like bust coinage......
 

Now if I could only get him to like bust coinage......
 

I love bust coinage and the bust half dollars might be my favorite coin of all.  If I
can ever afford them I'll start a set of nice VF to AU.  Of course there are some
moderns that I like nearly as much and cost less but this wouldn't stop me from
starting a bust half set.