We retired at 60 and also claimed our SS at 62. Our reasons were different than yours, but we are happy with the results and have never looked back. If we had waited until our FRA we would have missed many great hiking trips which we couldn't have taken because of either my teaching calendar or health reasons. My wife began having trouble catching her breath over 10K ft. around that time. Maximizing our SS was never a goal. Maximizing our enjoyment our geezerhood has been.

I have to reiterate something that appears to be a grave misunderstanding among so many folks. The "argument" (discussion?) about whether to take Social Security at age 62 or at age 70 only applies to people who don't need the money between age 62 and age 70. It doesn't apply to people who need that money in order to properly enjoy their life/retirement between age 62 and 70. You clearly made the correct choice for you!

But for people who have adequate, and usually more than adequate, funds saved for retirement. More money than they would spend between age 62 and 70, then delaying social security benefits from age 62 to age 70 is like buying a very well paying annuity, and very well secured annuity, that ensures lifetime income from age 70 through death. It is financially a good choice for this type of person.

There is, of course, a group of people who are just in the middle, balanced between having just enough to spend between ages 62 and 70, but if they had a little more, they might choose to go on one or two cruises a year (or other enjoyable activity for them like hiking, skiing, touring, etc). For those people, sometimes it is worth having one spouse begin social security earlier (sometimes this is worth doing for everyone), and that extra $1000 or $1200 a month pays for 2 nice cruises, or whichever added activity you enjoy, each year.