RWB

False. There are no reliable specifications by any TPG. Dealers and collectors freely invent whatever they suit or feeds their fantasies.

It should be added that in the first millennium BCE north Africa was a vast agricultural area with forests, grain, fruit and other crops cultivated in a moderate climate - not the present desert. This follows the pattern of Agean/Mediterranean islands that were once wooded but decimated by timber cutting and goats. The latter rip out grasses as they feed and the soil is washed away. Minoans were aware of this but did nothing to stop it.

Actually, we "know" neither for 1965. There is no accepted description of either that can be used to separate one from the other.

...and that misrepresents both quality and population.

The US Mint's order acceptance system is too small for high-demand, short-term orders. The money to upgrade has to come from Congress and the dollar value of this type of order is very small and infrequent, so upgrading with capacity that will sit unused is not expedient. It was hoped that combining systems with BEP would help, but BEP rarely has large surges, to the total increased capacity was very modest.

This will take you to a Numismatic News story on the subject Moxie15 mentioned: https://www.numismaticnews.net/archive/drinking-and-coin-cleaning-a-deadly-mix

...or roosters laying eggs.

But - the differences are not definitive for 1965. Therein lies the problem. TPGs really should offer a discounted group rate for all three SMS sets, or at least a sealed grading band like NGC does for GSA dollars. (I happen to have one 1965 set that is clearly superior - but won't break the holder and lose the attribution.)

A belated comment - "AU-50" is an exaggeration of EF. There is not such grade - it is merely another way to pump prices without delivering better quality.

1965 SMS coins are not reliably distinguishable from circulation pieces. Hence, if not in the original packaging, they could not be certified. '66 and '67 and proofs are distinguishable.

This is what I wrote - not "the obverse side."

There appears to be a spot or nick on the lapel; other marks. It might be gradable, assuming the two light spots are on the 2x2, but no TPG could certify it came from a 1965 SMS.

Well, I'd suggest G-4 with damage for 1883 and AG-2.5 or 3 for 1912. Grade depends on the worst side, not the best. Theoe resemble 1950s circulation pulls or "grab bag" material.

5%- that's nothing. Has no effect on collectors' coins, only junk gold.

That's only a $4.50 change or about -16%. One or two speculators taking profits, that's all.

Interesting tokens. What a goofy illustration -- a slave wearing a Centurion's helmet and toga? Absurd.

It's summer. Hot. Extra suntan oil all around. Hence, popped posts.

Yep. A fin is a production defect. Some coins, such as 1907 $10 short run of coins, have a knife rim -- where the field and rim intersect like the edge of a knife---no rim at all.

This was the largest. The Tri-Paritie Commission identified others.

There were no "coin shows." But sales from stores were enough to create a comfortable, if busy, living for a small group of dealers. They also sold stamps, artifacts, stuff taken from Native Americans, etc.

There are affidavits of destruction. I have copies. Coins were not merely wacked off then dumped in bags, as some might to assume. Samples for assay and testing were taken according to specific regulations, and used in specific ways by assayers, the coiner and others. If one knows how the system was supposed to work, and also how it actually worked in 1932 and 1933, one can identify the source of coins by carefully examining the die information imparted to each coin when it is struck. If those who claim to have "examined" the DE in question had actually done so, they would know this - but it seems all they got out of the opportunity was trivial stuff such as "condition."

This little quote from 1868 seems relevant. There will always be “ grumblers” at every Coin Sale; a class who examine, critically, every piece catalogued “very fine,” “proof” or “uncirculated,” in the hope of being able to discover some little blemish or tinge of a blemish on the surface of the coin, and woe betide the unlucky author who perpetrated the written description of the coins. At the Randall Coin Sale it seems there was present some “fault finder” who has expressed dissatisfaction at the terms used in describing coins. The word “gem” seems to have been a bugbear to some dissatisfied attendant at the late sale, and another objects to the word “ uncirculated” in toto —the latter being of those literal translators, who think that the sole act of taking the coins fresh from the dies, and passing it to another, forever settles the question against the use of the term “uncirculated.” Of one thing, we feel assured, the sale was a success, and every collector thus far heard from expresses unqualified satisfaction with the coins purchased at this sale.[1] [1] “The ‘Gem’ Coin Sale,” Mason’s Coin and Stamp Collectors’ Magazine. December 1868. 107.

Few message boards accept such direct posts. A few will permit attachments and links, but for the latter you need an on-line storage place for the originals.

No. That is all superficial stuff. To read some of the boasts made in earlier messages, one would think the posters had actually done more than take a casual look at the 1933s. I refer to important die differences, if any, and how they relate to the production, handling, distribution, storage, and destruction of the coins from 1933 through the 1950s. Surface condition is meaningless if one wants to answer the real questions.

See the article "U.S. Mint & Nazi Gold, Merkers Kaiseroda Salt Mine Treasure, June to August 1945," in Journal of Numismatic Research, Summer 2013, Issue #3.