Openness and candor haven't always been hallmarks of the U.S. Mint Director's Office. Thus, it has been refreshing to hear the current director, Philip N. Diehl, speak publicly and frankly regarding some of the problems that collectors find disconcerting about current U.S. coinage programs.

Diehl has spoken strongly, for example, about the need to reduce both the number of new commemorative coins and the mintage levels of those coins. Most collectors endorse these goals wholeheartedly, judging from letters to hobby periodicals and growing resistance to purchase of new "commems." Ultimately, reform rests with Congress on these particular matters, but the Mint director's support is surely a major plus for those of us seeking such change. Indeed, we already are seeing a measure of restraint in authorization of new coinage programs.

Diehl also has addressed another matter that bothers many hobbyists: the issue prices of numismatic products offered for sale by his agency. "Price is one area we can do better in," he acknowledged in an interview with Coin World.

Like many hobby observers, I consider current U.S. commemorative coins to be overpriced, and I'd welcome anything Diehl and his staff can do to reduce the issue prices of these coins. But commemoratives are not the only components of the Mint's product lineup that could use a healthy price cut.

To my way of thinking, proof sets have been overpriced since 1968 -- yet during that period, the issue price of these sets has gone nowhere but up. In fact, it has been raised six different times. And that doesn't even count the hidden price increase in 1982, when the Mint kept the price the same despite the removal of the Susan B. Anthony dollar (whose production had just been discontinued).

At present, the Mint charges $12.50 apiece for its regular annual proof set. That's almost six times the issue price it charged in 1964. And the current set contains not a bit of precious metal; by contrast, its counterpart in 1964 included three coins -- the half dollar, quarter and dime -- with a silver content of 90 percent. The Mint does offer a special proof set now with silver examples of those three coins, but its issue price for that is $21 -- exactly 10 times the price that it charged, and presumably made a profit on, 34 years ago.

Aside from the price and metallic composition, there's one other obvious difference between today's proof set and the model from the early 1960s: The current version comes in elaborate packaging. And this, I believe, is an area where the Mint could -- and should -- trim the overhead costs mentioned by Director Diehl with an eye to passing some savings along to collectors.

From 1955 to 1964, the Mint housed its proof sets in simple Pliofilm "flat packs." These fit neatly in regular mailing envelopes -- and also in collectors' safe-deposit boxes -- and yet provided adequate protection for the coins. They were not only inexpensive, but also extremely convenient. Collectors who preferred a more distinctive setting to enhance their sets' appearance in displays or as gifts could, and did, remove the coins from the Pliofilm packs and place them in fancier plastic holders.

All this changed in 1968, when the Mint resumed production of annual proof sets after a three-year lapse. The Pliofilm flat pack was gone; in its place was a hard plastic holder, which added significantly to the cost not only of production and postage but also of storage: The packaging was considerably thicker, forcing collectors to use -- and pay for -- substantially more safe-deposit space for the same number of sets.

Since then, the packaging has been modified several times, but always with a view to making it even fancier. Faced with competition from foreign government mints and private mints here at home, the Mint has moved consistently to give its holders snazzy new features -- and even to create entire new products incorporating coins from the regular proof set. The most obvious example of this was the so- called "Prestige" proof set, first offered in 1983, which combined the regular proof set with a proof example of a current-year commemorative coin. The Prestige set, discontinued at the end of production last year, was housed in an even more elaborate case and sold for an even more elaborate issue price, ranging as high as $60.

As Director Diehl seems to have sensed, the Mint has gone too far in the direction of both "prestige" and price, and now needs to trim its sails in these two areas -- lest collectors trim its SALES even more. Largely unnoticed amid all the complaints about commemorative coins, orders for proof sets also have been sagging in recent years -- and this is potentially worrisome not only for the Mint but also for the hobby as a whole, since proof set sales tend to be a barometer of the coin market's overall health. In dropping the Prestige set, the Mint was responding to declining sales of that item over time. And sales of the regular proof set in 1997 were the lowest in years.

I have a suggestion that may represent a practical compromise all around. Rather than reverting entirely to bone-simple packaging and cutting proof sets' issue price correspondingly, perhaps the Mint could offer future sets in two varieties: one with simpler packaging and a lower issue price, and one with the same elaborate holder currently being used -- but also with the same higher price tag.

Many collectors would jump at the chance to acquire the more "generic" proof set -- not only to save money but also to simplify storage. Conversely, many others on the Mint's mailing list might well prefer the fancier version, being more accustomed to that and deeming it more appropriate for coins of such high quality.

There would, of course, be logistical problems in setting up such a system, but surely these would not be insurmountable. The Mint deals with options routinely in other coinage programs, such as its American Eagle bullion coin proofs.

The potential rewards more than outweigh any perceived risks or difficulties. I'm convinced that the introduction of two-tier packaging -- and the accompanying price reduction -- would stimulate great new interest not only in current- year proof sets, but also in other sets from the recent past.

Seeing how cheap many of those sets have become in the resale market, the flood of new buyers -- lured to current proof sets by the lower issue price -- would start buying up previous sets as well, exerting welcome demand on the now inactive supply. That, in turn, would push prices higher in the secondary market. And bringing things full circle, all of this would help promote sales of future proof sets by Uncle Sam.

Mint Director Diehl seems receptive to new ideas. I hope he'll view this one with a similarly open mind.