Moxie15

There are some things that set me wondering about this coin. I am not proficient enough to say  this is not righteous, but I have my doubts. Where did you get this? 

thought so.

On 3/14/2022 at 7:19 PM, VKurtB said:

Do NOT beat yourself up. Remember my 1937 Crown bought raw in England as an XF? It’s in an NGC MS65 holder. 

this is almost expected with British coins they are very tough and often a weak strike will knock a coin out of Unc to a Good Extra Fine

this shows why I will never be a grader, I said AU55 and thought I was just a bit generous

does it look right to everyone?

you can tell that space was set up by someone who never had to do that job. No wonder they were having troubles with hardening the dies. The guy doing the job was blamed for the poor performance when the paper pushers would not provide what he needed, a little more space and a little peace, and the proper lighting.

Do you have a question about this coin?

on this computer the pictures look...well, over produced. kind of glamour shots.

Has this coin been professionally graded and attributed?

The doubling looks very much like strike doubling from here, so am just wondering if a third party has called a doubled die. 

Question: Why do the marks not cross the threshold of the wing?

I am not sure, the color is odd but could be the pictures

I am not sure it is a good idea to store proof coins in wooden cigar boxes

edited for typo

At this point I am not convinced it is a mint error.  We need to get more knowledgeable opinions, but it just does not look right for a double struck coin to me. 

Sir

What you are seeing is called strike doubling. It is akin to what a machinist calls 'chatter'. Something was loose and the die bounced or moved slightly during striking. Unfortunately it  holds no premium or collector interest.

Suir

You do take good pictures

If..., if you are serious, you must remember that the mint is a machine shop at its core. The die is a tool,a tool wears with use no matter f it is stamp, a punch, a knife, whatever. At the magnification you are using every coin will have minor differences. To my eye your pictures show no evidence of a doubled die. 

I have a book on French coins for much of French history written circa 1870 that goes into this discussion quite deeply as the majority of the coins covered do not have a date. I find it interesting that a century and half later we still have the discussion, along with the 'condition vs value' question that the author spends some time considering. Makes one realize that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

bump

interested to know what it is. I would not be surprised if it is a fantasy piece. Or something sold to a tourist 

....

On 9/27/2021 at 10:08 AM, Quintus Arrius said:

I don't know from smoo, and neither does Google.  Now schmoe, I know which I do not find objectionable in the least. It is always a pleasure to hear from you as you rarely speak up.  🐓 

I used smoo because there is no meaning. The last thing I wanted was to defend myself from some self appointed language cop screaming how I offended them. 

I have been collecting for 50 years and have yet to understand the concept or practice of competitive collecting. If you are a smoo with one coin you are a smoo with another., no mater what name or number is on the holder. If you have the money and where-with-all to obtain them, and it gives you pleasure than I hope you get them. I retain the right to think you are a smoo, (or not) with or without them.

1. They  can do whatever they want. 

On 9/21/2021 at 2:49 PM, MarkFeld said:

There are many unusual and/or special coins for which there is no official documentation, among them, 1804 dollars, 1913 nickels, some Proof (classic) commemoratives and a number of patterns. 

I don't recall our conversation, but if my answer was along the lines of what you posted, I apologize for not providing a much better one. I could and would have described the differences in detail, were we siting face to face with some of those coins in hand. In lieu of that, my best option would have been to refer you to some of what has been written in auction lot descriptions of the coins and/or that provided by grading companies. However, if like RWB, you don't believe in the coins unless there's official documentation, there's no point in reading. 

The 'conversation was in a thread like this and not overly memorable. 

As to 

"However, if like RWB, you don't believe in the coins unless there's official documentation, there's no point in reading."

If you would have said this to my face you would have not finished the sentence. I BELIEVE IN  nothing. If you have to BELIEVE IN it for it to be real then It ain't real.

MY big issue is not if the coins exist it is what they are being named. They are not Special Mint Set.

The mint is a machine shop with a lot of employees doing a lot of things. I have worked in a machine shop and have first hand seen that not all things happening are documented or official.  You mention the 1913 nickels, These are obvious 'government work' as is the 1804 dollar 're-strikes'. Many popular varieties can be most reasonable explained as 'sabotage' or tinkering, ie misplaced numerals, extra leaves, and so forth, Branch mint 'proofs' are likely the work of a 'manager' who took the best die available, the nicest planchets, and some well placed and timed orders and instructions and voila! undocumented 'branch mint proofs' which he buys through the normal process and no one is the wiser. I again think they should be called proof-like, not proofs.

I think that the 1964 coins were made in such a way. They need to be called specimen or presentation of first strike but not SMS. 

I am nobody. I am not a great numismatist, grader, dealer, or authenticater. Therefor what I say may be ignored by everyone. So be it. I have collected for my enjoyment for 50 years and have no iron in any fire. I collect for my enjoyment and only my enjoyment. 

I do have some serious issues with the whole 1964 SMS discussion...

FACT:

1. The mint did not make Special Mint Sets dated 1964 

2. The mint did not market sell or provide to the public anything called a 1964 special mint set

3. No one purchased a special mint set  

Therefore calling any coin dated 1964 a Special Mint Set coin is a purposeful untruth. By definition a LIE.

I once asked @MarkFeld to describe what proved to him a coin was a 1964 SMS coin. His answer was (I paraphrase) when you have seen thousands of 1964 coins you can see the difference. For me this answer is akin to 'God works in mysterious ways', 'I am the mommy, that's why.', and the one the town clerk gave me a couple months ago, 'Because I say so'. They all get filed in the same pile I put what my bull leaves on the barn floor.

@RWB is probably seen more mint records and archives than the rest of us combined and has found no record or document mentioning the manufacture of special mint coins dated 1964. He like any trained historian, scientist ,or scholar thinks that if there is no evidence to support a conclusion than the conclusion must be considered wrong.

Several have mentioned the argument of 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'.  I have seen the argument used for the miracles of Jesus, the existence of ghosts, and alien abductions. I do not think that this argument could be used in a court of law, a scientific laboratory, or a hall of academia. It is a foolish argument. For those who think otherwise try this

     In 1615 the Flying Spaghetti Monster instructed the King of Dragons to poop out special planchets  Then in 1702 He had the Queen of Unicorns  use the Magical Press of the Elf Prince to mint the 1964 SMS coins Then had the stork deliver them to the Philadelphia Mint in 1964 where the Troll King presented them to Director of the Mint.

And that is where 1964 SMS coins come from.

What? There is no evidence? Does not mean it did not happen.

I would call it a family heirloom and not sell it until I had no other way to buy food.

Sorry. all I can see is a hog-tied rhino falling 1000 feet

do not think it would take off  so to speak

That was a lot of money to lose in 1796. Not sure what the French copper exchange rate was, but in 1790 the average American yearly wage was right around $65 or $1.25 per week.