Composition of US Proof cent & dollar

Are the Cent and Dollar coins in US proof sets the same (clad)
composition as circulating coins? Are they the same in the
"standard" and silver proof sets?
(I'm assuming the non-clad, non-silver five-cent coins are the
same composition as circulating coins in both types of proof sets.)

Yes, the cent & dollar coins in both the regular proof sets & the
silver sets are of the same composition as their circulating
counterparts.

For a while, though, it might have been a bit different with regards to
the Sacagawea dollar. In 1999-2000, when the Mint was preparing to
make this coin, they found that the Congressional act that authorized
the silver proof sets was worded in such a way that it would've
required any Sac $s included to be made in 90% silver. They managed to
get a measure passed through Congress to avoid this embarassment; had
they failed, we would've been treated to the spectacle of a dollar coin
with less silver than a half dollar.

In article , Merlin Dorfman
wrote:

Are the Cent and Dollar coins in US proof sets the same (clad)
composition as circulating coins? Are they the same in the
"standard" and silver proof sets?
(I'm assuming the non-clad, non-silver five-cent coins are the
same composition as circulating coins in both types of proof sets.)

Slime Lowlife wrote:
Yes, the cent & dollar coins in both the regular proof sets & the
silver sets are of the same composition as their circulating
counterparts.

For a while, though, it might have been a bit different with regards to
the Sacagawea dollar. In 1999-2000, when the Mint was preparing to
make this coin, they found that the Congressional act that authorized
the silver proof sets was worded in such a way that it would've
required any Sac $s included to be made in 90% silver. They managed to
get a measure passed through Congress to avoid this embarassment; had
they failed, we would've been treated to the spectacle of a dollar coin
with less silver than a half dollar.

In article , Merlin Dorfman
wrote:

Are the Cent and Dollar coins in US proof sets the same (clad)
composition as circulating coins? Are they the same in the
"standard" and silver proof sets?
(I'm assuming the non-clad, non-silver five-cent coins are the
same composition as circulating coins in both types of proof sets.)

This brings up a question I've pondered for a while. Proof sets and
silver proof sets were struck in 1999. Suzies were also struck in
1999. Ergo, why weren't there any silver Suzies struck in 1999? Why
why weren't ANY Suzies included in any of the 1999 sets?

I haven't done much research on this, but the only conclusion I could
come up with was that the proof sets run was completed before the need
for 1999 Suzies. Proof 1999-S Suzies were struck almost as an after
thought.

Jerry

On 14 May 2006 19:15:08 -0700, "Jerry Dennis"
wrote:


Slime Lowlife wrote:
Yes, the cent & dollar coins in both the regular proof sets & the
silver sets are of the same composition as their circulating
counterparts.

For a while, though, it might have been a bit different with regards to
the Sacagawea dollar. In 1999-2000, when the Mint was preparing to
make this coin, they found that the Congressional act that authorized
the silver proof sets was worded in such a way that it would've
required any Sac $s included to be made in 90% silver. They managed to
get a measure passed through Congress to avoid this embarassment; had
they failed, we would've been treated to the spectacle of a dollar coin
with less silver than a half dollar.

In article , Merlin Dorfman
wrote:

Are the Cent and Dollar coins in US proof sets the same (clad)
composition as circulating coins? Are they the same in the
"standard" and silver proof sets?
(I'm assuming the non-clad, non-silver five-cent coins are the
same composition as circulating coins in both types of proof sets.)

This brings up a question I've pondered for a while. Proof sets and
silver proof sets were struck in 1999. Suzies were also struck in
1999. Ergo, why weren't there any silver Suzies struck in 1999?

I think the logic was a) there was never a silver SBA in
circulation, and b) since they came too late to be included in the
sets for that year, that would have meant two separate "special" proof
issues, instead of one.

Why
why weren't ANY Suzies included in any of the 1999 sets?

I haven't done much research on this, but the only conclusion I could
come up with was that the proof sets run was completed before the need
for 1999 Suzies. Proof 1999-S Suzies were struck almost as an after
thought.

That's my understanding

take care,
Scott

Jerry Dennis wrote:

This brings up a question I've pondered for a while. Proof sets and
silver proof sets were struck in 1999. Suzies were also struck in
1999. Ergo, why weren't there any silver Suzies struck in 1999? Why
why weren't ANY Suzies included in any of the 1999 sets?

I haven't done much research on this, but the only conclusion I could
come up with was that the proof sets run was completed before the need
for 1999 Suzies. Proof 1999-S Suzies were struck almost as an after
thought.

That was it. The Mint thought at the start of the year that they could
make it through without having to strike SBAs, so no provision was made
for them in the sets. However, the Fed ordered more of them than the
Mint had stockpiled and so there was a short production run in the
second half of the year. (And if I remember correctly, the proofs were
P-mints, for reasons never explained.)

wrote:
Jerry Dennis wrote:

This brings up a question I've pondered for a while. Proof sets and
silver proof sets were struck in 1999. Suzies were also struck in
1999. Ergo, why weren't there any silver Suzies struck in 1999? Why
why weren't ANY Suzies included in any of the 1999 sets?

I haven't done much research on this, but the only conclusion I could
come up with was that the proof sets run was completed before the need
for 1999 Suzies. Proof 1999-S Suzies were struck almost as an after
thought.

That was it. The Mint thought at the start of the year that they could
make it through without having to strike SBAs, so no provision was made
for them in the sets. However, the Fed ordered more of them than the
Mint had stockpiled and so there was a short production run in the
second half of the year. (And if I remember correctly, the proofs were
P-mints, for reasons never explained.)

I had to double check, and you're right. The 1999 proof Suzies were
Philadelphia strikes.

Jerry

wrote:

Jerry Dennis wrote:

This brings up a question I've pondered for a while. Proof sets and
silver proof sets were struck in 1999. Suzies were also struck in
1999. Ergo, why weren't there any silver Suzies struck in 1999? Why
why weren't ANY Suzies included in any of the 1999 sets?

I haven't done much research on this, but the only conclusion I could
come up with was that the proof sets run was completed before the need
for 1999 Suzies. Proof 1999-S Suzies were struck almost as an after
thought.

That was it. The Mint thought at the start of the year that they could
make it through without having to strike SBAs, so no provision was made
for them in the sets. However, the Fed ordered more of them than the
Mint had stockpiled and so there was a short production run in the
second half of the year. (And if I remember correctly, the proofs were
P-mints, for reasons never explained.)

Another wrinkle, IIRC, is that special legislation was required
to permit a non-silver dollar in the proof set, though I don't recall
whether it was just the silver set or also the clad set that required
the legislation.