RWB

In that period proof coins were struck once on a medal press at exaggerated pressure and from polished dies. There was no multi-strike equipment at the Philadelphia Mint. All visible characteristics of 1965 SMS coins can be easily produced with the techniques I mentioned. For 1966 and 1967 there were multiple changes at the beginning of each year and during the years. A few 1967 coins are almost proof quality for that period.

Here's a link to the West Point time capsule opening and content. Several interesting coins included. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/west-point-time-capsule-that-appeared-to-contain-nothing-more-than-silt-yields-centuries-old-coins/ar-AA1g0Bvk

Buy A.Coin --- Please read this comment, above. It is correct. Next time you think you've found an "error" ask the board members about it before you waste $50+ on a coin worth no more than 10-cents (including damage).

I'm not sure this is a verifiable statement. I've not specifically searched the NARA files for SMS info, but what has been stated in mint public documents is that the dies were simply new pairs, and coins were stuck at a slower rate with less handling than for circulation coins. Further, the 1965 SMS sets were not made until the date change -- a full year and a half after 1964 production began. It is very unlikely that there was any planning that far in advance. After all, the 1965 SMS pieces were made to allow former proof coins production employees to be diverted to circulation coinage.

90% silver blanks were not cut from coils. 40% and clad were. Mint experimented with ways to have 40% present completely silver edge all the time, but gave up due to cost of retooling, etc.

No TPG has ever published their research to confirm/refute the designations they use on these coins. Yet, they declare them "special" in some way and people pay high prices based entirely on that paper label declaration. Like all the other such label, they MUST be backed by objective research and facts!

I think FlyingAl is on the right flight vector!

This was based on treating a coin or other numismatic object as a miniature portrait, and then using color balanced lighting to mimic human portraiture rather than simply aiming a couple of flood lights at it. I did illustrations for Kam Ahwash's books, and combined "portrait" lighting with accurate color, wide tonal range, and repeatable processes. I also used specific magnification and encouraged the use of enlarged photos rather than actual-size images in print. I wrote a detailed book on coin photography long ago before slabs and digital cameras. It's mostly obsolete, and portrait lighting only works with un-slabbed items. I also did some consulting back then at the Philadelphia Mint to help the engravers get more consistent results from in-progress sculpting. I don't know who at ANA discovered these tidbits....I'd mostly forgotten about it. Kind of like when I cam across a big binder of code and realized that it was SW I'd written for a database application long ago....Just another "hat."

More are being added for 1898....Philadelphia, Miscellaneous, others to follow.

Hence my uncertainty about authenticity. The S-B coin was in a PCGS holder.

Just have one made for you....

Same date sold 2018 for $226 Stacks-Bowers. Not fully convinced it's authentic.

No. That was the 3-cent silver. 3-cent CuNi were added to get more small change into circulation (and also increase Mint profits).

No. The reason is that it is dishonest and not truthful. The TPGs claims of accuracy are patently false if they cannot, and do not, specify how they reached a decision on these unusual pieces. This is not secret information -- unless it is invented Breen-style. The "value" is relevant only when an unsubstantiated "declaration" is presented as supported fact and people make assumptions.

Dies for your coin were produced in the standard manner for the 1940s, so skip the single-squeeze and fresh-squeezed stuff. First, get the coin into a holder that agrees with your assumptions, then talk about price. It will cost you at least $50 for an NGC or PCGS slab, then there's the coffee you'll drink anxiously awaiting its return.....

It relates to the arbitrary and fact-free attribution by TPGs of such things as the 3-cent proofs you mentioned as well as other things. TPGs must put the facts and their hard research on the line when they make a discrimination between proof and circulation strikes on some denominations and years.

The upper and lower dies fit into die chucks with set screws -- a little like on a power drill. The upper die was subject to greater vibration and the lower, so probably more likely to rotate. The press operator was supposed to check coins frequently, but that was not always done. There were also supposed to be alignment flanges - tongue and groove - to prevent die rotation and use of the wrong dies in a chuck. We don't really have enough details to understand if this was done consistently in the old days. Modern dies have alignment pins. I have not looked at the modern presses in any detail. Any speculation about How and Why would be just guesses on my part.

This type of error is not unique. A rotated die might strike 1 to 10,000 pieces before it is discovered or removed from service. The same is true for doubled die coins, and all others involving the dies. Individually unique pieces are ones involving the striking process (not the dies) such as off-center, cracked coins, double/triple strikes, etc. Errors caused by equipment wear, such as mechanical doubling, are not unique, either. Although 180-degree rotation is rare, they do not bring high prices except for gold and large silver coins. There are simply more of these available than people who collect them.

The dimes were struck in June. When dies for the following year were received, the boxes were opened by the Coiner with a Superintendent's representative, counted, checked for date and mintmark, then resealed. They were not opened again until the start of the new year and after all old dies had been collected, counted and boxed.

Take this reply to a letter in 1900...... The original inquiry has not been located.

This is not referring to routine matters, but to their "Specimen" and related items such as mentioned for 3-cent CuNi proofs.

The original is not marked Confidential or Private as was customary with anything including instructions as in the last paragraph.

August 10, 1893 Hernan D. Money, Esq. Mint of the United States New Orleans, La. Sir: Having been appointed an Assistant to represent this Bureau in the storage of silver purchased for delivery at the New Orleans Mint, I have to state that your first duties will be to witness the weighing of the bars upon their receipt, and enter the same in a book for that purpose. The entries should show the gross weight of the bar, then fineness as reported by the Assayer, and the net weight, each bar being numbered. The Superintendent will also have a representative, to act in conjunction with you. Outside of this, you will be subject to the orders of the Superintendent, and will perform any clerical duties that may be required of you. When your time in not fully occupied at the Mint, it is my desire that you shall, in a quiet and unobtrusive manner, endeavor to obtain evidence of the speculation in cotton, etc., by the late Cashier, J. M. Dowling. Of course you will have to be very careful in this matter. Respectfully yours, R. E. Preston, Acting Director of the Mint

I agree with you....although possibly for different reasons. I feel that whenever a TPG makes a "Grand Proclamation" that a coin is somehow special or a "specimen," of declares certain ambiguous coins such as 3-cent CuNi proof vs circulation strikes, the TPG should publish clear and specific research, measurements and analysis to justify their conclusion. So far, I have never seen this from any TPG for any coin. (The cute promotional article don't count - they are just fluff and filler.) Simply put, TPG should tell collectors how and why a decision was made.

.