RWB

Heck...I'll bid full melt, even though it's worn to a nubbin !

...or a "Variety Act" or maybe "Vaudeville" ?

How about using "Repunched Grades" ?

Just have the TPGs use a hot branding iron to punch in the decimal grade, then add a sticker certifying the new grade number. Maybe a second sticker could certify that the first sticker was valid, and so forth....

Could this be a new type of "over-graded" coin?

"Am I a coin collector or a grade number collector?"

Why the answer is clear: Grade number ¢olle¢tor$....?

Rare coins are not anonymous commodities. That prevents uniform pricing based on some set of "standards." (The commodity approach was tried in the late 1980s and failed.)

Put another way, collector coins are priced as individual items as agreed by seller and buyer. This emphasizes the futility of thinking that MS65 is "worth" such-and-such amount of money.

A 100-point scale is not "metric" - it is just 100 divisions...that is, it is "decimal." The metric system is built on base-10 multiplication and division of defined units. Individual conceptualization is arbitrary.

A "metric" coin grading system would require a single, absolute 'unit of wear' accepted by all and objectively defined. Grades would then fall into powers of 10....all of which would be very unfriendly to collectors.

A decimal system is only useful if there are meaningfully-defined waypoints, and they have a logical relationship to one another.

RE: " the same goes with changing the current system; if it's not broken don't fix it."

Or -- to adapt that a little: "If the fix is broken, it won't fix it."

Sheldon really based it on the lumps on his head -- the ones he got from hiding ANS' Clapp coins under his hat.

Are you using good technique in taking measurements? Things like putting a paper pad on the scale, zeroing the weight before each measurement, and averaging ten measurements of the same item can help.

0.1 gram is not especially accurate. Repeatability is of equal importance.

While there will be a lot of variation of clad and minor coins, finding something significantly "off" is unusual. I presume the mint uses mass weighing with occasional piece checks. (That was the old procedure, but I don't know about post 1970.)

There is a mint publication called (I think) "Foreign Coins Manufactured at United States Mints." This will tell you when various foreign coins were being made and their alloy and physical characteristics.

"Will eventually go in for slabbing."

That's the same thing they do with shad -- or is that "planking"

Heck, I founded 2 1919 proofs of this DDO! Yep - got 'em from that feller what has them 1917 proofs and an 1946/1929 dime overdate. (His also got a 1917 $20 but him's not talkin' much abo't that 'un.)

There are also many excellent fakes - especially the "Omega" brand.

Try Wizard Coin Supply for ones that Amazon can't supply.

For Morgan and Peace dollar varieties, try the VAMworld.com site first. Some of the VAMpires there are willing to help new collectors, but try to keep it simple and stay focused. (The VAMpires are now working on 4th-level identifiers: 1922 VAM 2BZ2, and similar stuff.)

"The Secret History of the First U.S. Mint" by Augsberger and Orosz is packed with solid information about the first Philadelphia Mint.

Be careful of the VAM books....there is good info and there is a lot of obsolete info, also. The background information is old and has not been corrected/updated.

Much of Taxay's book is obsolete or has been superseded by better research. Rely on David W. Lange's book not Taxay.

Clarity is a difficult thing to achieve.

Very nice, indeed! It's the scale that makes these interesting.

Good for them!

...not from me.....had a few 1919 dimes in a circ roll, but no winners...(just the 3-cent piece).

Assuming a show promoter has any interest in improving the knowledge of collectors, what things could be done that would develop more interest among collectors and dealers attending a show.

After attending several ANA and other large shows, one thought is that the information presentations should be much closer to the bourse floor. Another is that they should contain information of immediate used to collectors. A third is that dealer-collector interaction in the programs might produce better customers....

"It does not matter though since the coins question have easily recognizable characteristics."

It absolutely matters.

The quote from V. Clain-Stefanelli establishes a category of pieces made from normal dies. The "1964 SMS" coins might, or might not, fit within that category. If documents were destroyed relating to the subject, it makes getting to the truth much more difficult. Of course, we don't know what was destroyed and what survived...and I presume nobody looked in NARA in Philadelphia or College Park.....

(I doubt the authentication companies invested the time and money for direct research before printing out little labels with a declaration of faith on them....OK...that's cynical -- but too much of the business and lore of numismatics is built on guesses and "well, that looks different" statements, when original sources might exist.)

If the Clain-Stefanelli quote is accurate, any such coins must be compared to others in SI. As noted before, first strike coins will not look like normal circulation pieces.

The "specimen" designation is probably reasonable, since they were clearly selected in some special way. My question is were the dies intentionally prepared to be different? If yes, then why; and where is the documentation to backup the multitude of claims about the "1964 SMS" pieces?

A coin made from a new die will not look like ordinary circulation strike coins. The metal flow of the die steel has not developed so what is visible is an image of the new die surface before it is deformed by use.

There are coins in the Mitchelson collection that are "different" from usual circulation strikes, and several letters to/from George Goddard indicate these are coins taken from fresh dies. To be more specific, there are several 1917 Ty-1 quarters that from their appearance one would conclude they are specially made pieces. Yet, the documents state they are nothing but the best first strike coins mint curator Comparette could obtain. There are several 1921-P Morgans with similar documentation. Also, in the 1916 pattern series, there is a quarter (J1989/P2050) which has been repeatedly "authenticated" as a "proof" with satin-like surfaces, yet letters between the mint director and superintendent clearly state the coin was made on a production press - plus describing the mint director's actions in scraping off part of the olive leaves on this specific coin. Also, refer to 1921 Peace dollars. Early strikes from new dies have a satin-like surface and virtually no luster. Again, this is the image of a new die before the surface has deformed. (1921s are easier to find than 1922s because many dies were used to make only 1 million+ coins.)

I suggest that if "1964 SMS" coins are of a similar fabric to others of different dates, known to be first strike coins, then they are probably also first strike pieces...."Specimen pieces" - Yes! "Special Mint Set pieces" with all sorts of cute stories attached - No!

One additional factor to consider. If the dies were prepared with a special surface, then we would expect to see a sharp cut-off between special surface coins and normal coins. Experiments are usually brief, intense examinations, with a clear end....one would not expect experimental pieces to drag out and merge with production pieces. It is my recollection that the authentication companies have had considerable internal discussions in trying to separate "1964 SMS" coins from other 1964 coins with similar characteristics.

I leave it to others to perform the physical examination of SI coins as they relate to the so-called "1964 SMS" pieces.

PS: The illustrated coin, and similar ones, might reasonably be called "specimens" since they were deliberately pulled from the beginning production from a new die. If the fields and details are consistent with the NNC first strike pieces, then they are all of the same nature regardless of date. Thus the 1964 "SMS" coins are no more or less special than ones of any other date from 1962 forward. That means, of course, that all the stories built around the 1964 coins are just inventions to separate the rube from his gold.

Thanks! Good information.

When these coins "speak" are they saying the surfaces were an intentional product, or are they saying they are simply very early strikes from new dies?

"First strikes" are not specially prepared coins - they are just the first ones off a new die, pulled from production as being the best and most detailed of production coins. The earliest strikes from a new die will always look different from the majority because the metal flow we associate with coinage occurs during production and is NNOT present on a new die.

The comment from Dr. Clain-Stefanelli is clear and says nothing about any special surfaces.

One possible solution is that the so-called "SMS" coins are really first strikes. At some later date, these were incorrectly interpreted as being made with a "special" surface. The balance all seems to be guesses that have morphed into "facts." See the phony "Zerbe proofs" and similar exaggerations. The Hernandez quote seems to support the first strike approach.