MarkFeld

That sounds like a perfectly reasonable approach.

Thank you, Roger, and you get no argument from me - I’m not an experienced researcher, while you’re an extraordinary one.

Sorry, I do not.

It's been quite a while since I've examined any of the 1964 coins. However, my recollection is that they looked noticeably different from typical 1964 business strike or Proof examples, as well as from 1965-1967 SMS coins.

The opinions of those who have actually examined the coins in-hand don't matter. Since there's no documentary evidence to support the notion that the coins were specially made, it's impossible that they were. Likewise, any early Proof coin that speaks for itself, can't really be a Proof, unless there's documentary evidence of its manufacture, as such. RWB says so. Got it?

My guess is that if you were to see the coins in hand and compare them to examples not attributed as SMS, you’d feel differently. But I certainly might be mistaken.

If you believe something, it’s the “truth”. If someone else believes otherwise, it’s “nonsense”. I understand.

Think as you wish. Many who have viewed the coins in hand believe that they were specially made. And they came from a source which leads credence to that possibility (though granted, not known fact).

No, the Mint did not. See near the bottom of this linked page for some information, opinion and speculation: https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1964-1c-sms-rd/3284

RWB says no. NGC, PCGS and a number of numismatists say yes.

Some of the “finds” you listed aren’t from the last few years. The 1794 dollar has been known as a special example for many years. Only the “Specimen” designation (and increased speculation about it being the first struck) are relatively recent. The 1964 SMS coins became known more than twenty years ago. I saw a fair number of them prior to 1998, while still a grader at NGC.

I think he’s correct in a lot of cases and incorrect in many others. Regardless, that tells me very little about how consistent your grading is, with respect to the objective, large sampling that I thought RWB desires.

Without seeing the coins and your grading opinions, I have no way of knowing. Even then, it would be my subjective opinion.

Coming from someone who preaches objectivity and accurately measurable results over time, that comment surprises me. Perhaps he’s not consistent between coins of similar size. Perhaps no one is. But even if he is, how do you know he’s not also “too tough”?

Please don’t encourage someone to continue to go back on their word.

You have a copy.

Deleted.

Congratulations, Roger.

I'm sure a great many people have never seen circulated proof coins or if they did, they weren't aware of it.

If it straight graded, my guess would be MS61 and I hope it didn't grade higher than that.

Even if (as you say from your perch), I see only what's there for me to see, it's enough to see that you made an untrue assertion. Using the term "semi-prooflike" isn't necessarily about asking or charging extra money for a coin. I know, because I sometimes use that term in write-ups of coins we offer for sale. And in each and every case, the asking price has already been determined, before I write a single word. Also, as I mentioned previously, some coins - such as rare business strikes that can be very difficult to distinguish from more common Proofs - are worth less (not more) if they exhibit semi-prooflike or proof-like surfaces.

So there's no confusion on the part of anyone else reading this, I have not called you any names. And no matter how expertly it may have been presented, please tell me what difference the reply from Wondercoin will make to the OP? Again, I don't think anything will sway him from his dreams. Please let me know if or when you learn otherwise. I don't recall anyone saying Stack's and Bowers wouldn't merge and I know of no reason why PCGS and NGC would want or need to, even in times like these. Additionally, PCGS is publicly owned, while NGC isn't. This will be my last post to this or any other thread in which I see mention made of that dime.

None of that tells me he was being other than honest. Did you trust him when you asked for his opinion? And would you trust him if the coin had graded 64 or better, but think he was lying, just because it didn't grade that high?

Based on that limited information, no, it does not. I give him the benefit of the doubt that he was providing an honest assessment.

That which you foresee, will never happen. And “never” is a word I use extremely sparingly.