Mohawk

Now that is interesting Roger. I've always wondered about the 1967 SMS production....many of those coins actually do look pretty similar to the proofs from earlier in the 1960s. I've seen some 1967 SMS Kennedy Halves that actually look very similar to the 1964 and 1968-S Proofs. They were definitely made with more care than the previous two SMS issues. The looser quality control would account for the marks you see on the 1967 coins from time to time, but it was also noticeably better than the quality control on the 1966 and especially the 1965 issues. The production of the 1967 SMS coins and what they actually are is pretty interesting. I've seen some 1967 SMS and 1968-S Proof issues of all five denominations that if one were to place them side by side and explain the differences between the two coins, it would be quite difficult to do, honestly. The 1965 issues, the difference is very easy to see and explain. Compared to true proofs, the 1965's are terrible. Not so with the 1967's.

It could be plated, too. It's not as common as it is with cents, but I've come across plated War Nickels before.

Maybe now there will be far fewer blatant gimmicks and low mintage wonders. That'd be a nice change for collectors who are into modern U.S. and for those of us who deal in modern U.S. coins.

Those are all pretty nice looking to me, but you're right about some of the details. Particularly with the nickels....the 1968-S proofs definitely have better step detail most of the time. But in overall appearance, I find the 1967 SMS's nicer. A coin can have better details in one area than another and still lack eye appeal compared to the coin with less detail. A lot of the 1968-S proofs I've seen are actually rather lifeless compared to the 1967 SMS's. But they are full proofs and have a mint mark, so they get more love.

I've read that and as someone who has seen a lot of modern U.S. coins, I can imagine they were greatly disappointed. You compare a 1965 SMS set with a 1964 Proof Set, it's readily apparent to the person who actually ordered it from the U.S. Mint that they paid double the money for a vastly inferior product. 1965 SMS coins are pretty awful. It's funny about the 1967 sets though. I've seen my fair share of 1967 SMS coins that actually look better than the 1968 proofs from the next year. I've found this to be especially true in regard to the nickels, dimes and quarters.

And I think that puts this thread to bed......someone doing something goofy with a coin and a power tool.

Update-the 1967 SMS Kennedy in MS 67 Cameo has sold and I'm out of 1981-S Type 2 Jeffersons.......for the moment. Thanks So Much!!!

All I'm seeing is a regular worn and dinged up Presidential Dollar. Also, you are using the term "double struck" incorrectly. I think you meant "doubled die" here. This is a coin that is double struck.....if you see one, there will be no question of it: http://www.coinnews.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Double-Struck-1972-D-Kennedy-half-dollar.jpg

Hi Mike! I'm with Jonathan on this one. I'm not sure if the discoloration on the cheek is light wear or not from the photos. If it's not wear, then I'd feel comfortable saying MS 62. If the cheek does have wear on it, then it's an AU 58. It can be hard to discern these things from photos. Nice coin either way though ~Tom

I think it's a grease filled die as well. It's an interesting circulation find but it's definitely not worth paying to have it slabbed.

Actually, that's a Type 1. I've been selling 1979 and 1981 Type 2 coins since 2008. The Type 2 is fatter, flatter and has bold, defined serifs. Here's our host's Variety Plus page for the Type 2 Anthony Dollar, but the Type 2 mint mark is the exact same across all the denominations: https://www.ngccoin.com/variety-plus/united-states/dollars/anthony-dollars-1979-1999/67613/ And here's the Type 1 page for comparison: https://www.ngccoin.com/variety-plus/united-states/dollars/anthony-dollars-1979-1999/67612/ The thinness of your mint mark and the lack of defined serifs is a giveaway for it being a Type 1.

I'm so glad he's home!! That's excellent!

Hi Jaynh, Well...sorry to be the bearer of bad news yet again, but I see nothing in the photos which indicates a DDR. It looks like a regular 1983 Lincoln which may have some die deterioration doubling on the E Pluribus Unum...some of the pics of that design element are pretty bad, so I can't say for sure on that part of it, but that's what it looks like to me.

1964 Proof Sets....now they're just fine!! We can all agree about the existence of those Did you check your Kennedy for the Accented Hair variety?

I wish you much luck, Quintus. I hope you can get them!!!

Update-the 1968-S Kennedy Half in PF 68 Cameo has sold and the link has been removed. New items were also added at the top of the page. Thanks So Much!!!

Hello and Welcome Car Care!! Bob's right on....this is one of the more sparsely populated forums. I'd go say hi in one of the forums Bob mentioned.

Regarding coins, there's only two things to do regarding YouTube......STAY OFF OF IT AND IF YOU'RE ALREADY ON IT, DON'T LISTEN TO IT!!!!!! YouTube coin videos are the numismatic equivalent of raw sewage.....they are putrid, disgusting and worthless. They over sensationalize everything and they spout a bunch of lies. YouTube is the worst place to go for coin information. Don't watch anymore coin vids on YouTube. You'll be much better off.

DWLange is right on.....definite strike doubling, which is also called machine doubling. It's a very common occurrence with 1969-S cents.

Nor to me. I think it's damage. Someone did that deliberately after the coin was minted.

I'm with Greenstang.....lots of machine doubling with some die deterioration doubling thrown in.

At least it's not about the present ultimate numismatic cryptid, the "1964 SMS"!! And you're right on....the 1967 sets are going to be the nicest, the 1965's will be the worst, generally speaking and the 1966's are better than the 1965's but not as nice as the 1967's. Some of the 1967 SMS coins are nicer than the 1968-S proofs that came out the next year. If you want nice examples of early clad Roosevelt Dimes and Washington Quarters, the 1967 SMS issues are the best bet, IMHO.

I only use YouTube to listen to music while I'm doing stuff on my computer and to watch nature videos. That's it. And Facebook I use for nothing. I don't even have a Facebook account. You're right again....Facebook is even worse than YouTube for the amount of BS spouted out into the world.

And that is absolutely 100% correct. When I was here last, I went on a rant about YouTube coin people...they're the worst! They're to coin knowledge what Etsy is to coin selling!! I wish there was a way that YouTube could ban the bastards for spreading lies and misinformation, but that's not going to happen......YouTube is its own special brand of pestilence.

That's exactly correct Powermad. I believe that they used an actual 1878 7TF Reverse of 1878 coin to make the new dies and hubs when the Morgan came back form the dead in 1921, if I'm remembering the tale from Dave Bowers' book correctly.