RWB

Actually, they don't. As KB noted, many of the "set" coins were much worse than coins from bags. You probably have not had the opportunity to open a fresh, old bag from 1960 or 1964.

Yes, they can even in the hands of a coin dealer. But you can do that by looking or weighing.

Mark speakith truly, even with his mucose covered tongue firmly pressed against his zygomaticus major !

Coins were likely run over and ground into parking lot pavement.

Dealers and TPOGs should stop promoting BS, and save their pronouncements for fully researched and understood items. A few people of getting rich while the ordinary schmo is trying to find something that is just another Cheshire Cat of coinage. I had a guest editorial on this kind of naming falsehood in Coin World a couple of months ago, but not one seemed to care. I care about truth and accuracy. Might be the last Indian standing at Wounded Knee.... ;(

They were not specifically produced for the SI collection or anyone else. They are normal very early strikes from new dies that were pulled from standard toggle presses at the beginning of a new die run. They are not "specimens" of anything ("specimen" is undefined bologna, except at your Dr.'s office). The identical situation occurs with EVERY change of obv/rev die pair, only the coins are not saved. Realistically, there are thousands of these for every production year and every US Mint. (An analogous situation occurred with 1936-42 proof coins where the only fully frosted coins came from new die pairs.)

Possibly. Post on the VAMworld.com site and see what members say.

Observationally, most dealer-owned and jeweler-owned XRF units are not reliable. The devices require regular maintenance and calibration, plus validation testing. They also have to be used by someone knowledgeable in correct technique and in the limitations of the equipment.

A 1927 nickel struck from chromium plated dies has a shiny, satin-like surface on both sides. If examined under 20+x magnification the surface has numerous fine cracks in the plating. This was the mint's first experiment and was made using second hand equipment from BEP. In the 1930s foreign coinage dies were routinely chromium plated to improve surface hardness and give longer die life. Some of the US proof coin dies were also plated. In 1943 many cent dies were chrome plated because they were less likely to clog from compacted zinc dust. All of the dies that were used in foreign or domestic coinage were plated by the "Bureau of Standards" in Washington D.C. until the 1950s. Today elemental sputter deposition is used to produce a much thinner but stronger die coating.

Another fake. Also, your understanding of metal "flow lines" is incorrect.

An obvious counterfeit. Let law enforcement know who is trying to sell this junk.

No such thing. There were and are no 1964 "Special Mint Set" coins.

A quick look at ebay offerings shows they cluster around $700. Melt is about $400.

Mr. Lange is referring to Wally Breen's little half-sister, Jelly Been who soon thereafter gave up numismatics to run the only turtle ranch in Montana.

The book "United States Proof Coins 1936 – 1942" has answers to all your questions. It includes a searchable PDF version on CD-ROM. (PS: I researched and wrote the book.)

Al;though the photos are of marginal quality, there are many visible scratches and bumps,...far too many to exclude all of these coins from MS68 or 69 conditions. Coins of lesser grades than these are simply too numerous to be worth more than bullion, which is well below the cost of sticking them into slabs.

Kennedy halves were not wrapped by the Mints or FRBs. They were shipped only in $1,000 bags

I prefer truth to sticking one's head in the sand.

90% They are worth melt value. These were saved by the pallet load bu hoarders and the general public. (In the late 1960s a new 1964 Kennedy half would get you the best service in the finest restaurants in Moscow, along with other things.)

This is what the TPGs were supposed to do. Leave opinion factors to the free market which is also where values are determined. Mixing the two corrupts.

RE: "First, grading comes down to valuing a coin. It is valuation in the simplest sense." This is a totally false viewpoint, and I've very disappointed to see it embraced by someone with so much potential. The only valuation determination of a coin is between buyer and seller, and that is widely variable. This is easily confirmed by looking at coins of identical "grade" in auction results. Second, the moment someone adds subjective criteria to the "grade" of a coin, the grade begins to float and is no longer a reliable indicator of the state of preservation of a coin. TPG and other "grading" schemes are unreliable if opinion and potentially objective measurements are mixed. Third, the entire base of TPG authentication and grading is independence from the money-forces of numismatics. If a TPG ever becomes a "valuator" of coins rather then an objective "evaluator," the whole pile of assumptions and grades falls apart. Coin collecting becomes just a self-serving pile of needy, greedy people conniving to rip the entrails from collector's wallets.

Nope. 1) A "star" "asterisk" "flumbot" or other character is not a grade --- just a decoration. 2) "Frost" "fog" "snow" "ice" are not part of a grade - they express nothing about the state of preservation of a coin or medal. A meaningful grade is a written and numerical description of the deterioration of a coin or medal from the moment it leaves the dies to the present time; nothing else. Other factors of collector interest are all subjective and thus infinitely variable among individuals. "Grade" must be stable over time, while other factors may go in and out of favor with collectors and thus modify the fair market value.

The Eisenhower "prototype" stuff comes from one isolated comment in a mint document. The balance of documents have not, to my knowledge, been examined, and no complete and careful analysis has been published by anyone. Thus, the special name presently has no real meaning or firm connection to fact.

Let’s be objective here. Mr. Kurt Bell has, with the exception of learning to judge :”educational” exhibits at ANA shows, contributed only a weak-shelled goose egg to American numismatics. He has published – Nothing. He has researched – Nothing. He has contributed – Nothing. He has discovered – Nothing. He has solved – Nothing. He has discovered new insights – Nothing. He has innovated – Nothing. He has mentored -- No one. He has guided -- No one. He has Contributed to major hobby publications -- Nothing. He claims to be an attorney – but what attorney would ever represent a client without first researching the law, prior cases, relevant Court decisions, and anything that might benefit a client? Yet – that is exactly the ignorance he proposes for American numismatics and then has the added audacity to denigrate those who have done all of the above items and much more. Of course, Mr. Bell is in a “good place” where enslaved ignorance is blissful –– until the bill comes due.

Thanks!