Sandon

The pictures are too blurry to tell for sure, but it appears just to be a damaged mintmark. Please transmit images directly from your computer instead of camera shots of the images on the screen. Additionally, please post cropped images of each full side of the coin.

None of us is claiming to have a 1964 mint set containing so-called "SMS" coins. You are. Based on your photos, your sets do not appear to show either the "smooth satin like appearance with the rims being very square and sharp" nor the "die polishing lines throughout the coins' surfaces" that are per PCGS the defining characteristics of these pieces, along with special handling that the known examples received. Your coins show only scattered die polish marks, as frequently seen on fairly new dies. The photos posted on this topic of authenticated examples show an appearance quite different from that of your coins. Here are full photos of the Philadelphia half dollar in my 1964 mint set, which I was able to illuminate more fully than yours: If your coins have this same type of bright luster, they just can't be considered for consideration as so-called SMS pieces. I also took a closeup of the area of rays 11 to 13 where they meet the stars. NGC refers to the reverse with breaks in the rays as a "Type 1 reverse" but does not indicate that this reverse is unique to the so-called "SMS" pieces. My coin appears to have this same reverse: My coin also shows at least a trace of the "small raised defect that appears to hang from the crosslet of the 4" that Ron Guth stated on the PCGS Coinfacts page is a diagnostic for the so-called "SMS" pieces: If your sets contain so-called "SMS" pieces, perhaps my set does too. It seems that there a lot of them, though.

That 1864 Seated dime is a sought-after low mintage date with a mintage of 11,000 circulation strikes. Here is another scarce date, an 1867 graded PR 62 by PCGS, but of the F-102 (Greer 103) die variety that both Fortin and Greer claim only to exist as a circulation strike (mintage 6,000 and harder to find than a proof).

I assume that what you have are 1964 uncirculated coin sets, a.k.a. "mint sets", of which the mint reportedly sold 1,008,108 sets. (Does the plastic sheet also contain the cent through quarter dollar and a white plastic token printed with "Uncirculated Coins of Philadelphia Mint, Distributed by U.S. Mint", and is there a similar plastic sheet containing the Denver coins and token?) These sets contain regular 1964 production coins with the usual frosty finish. The coins were not specially handled before packaging and have abrasions from coin-to-coin contact and spotting, as I can see on yours. The coins in these sets are not so-called "SMS" strikes. This month's Coin World lists these sets as selling for $36-$40 each.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Assuming that your scale is accurate, the coin's being slightly below the 3.11 grams plus or minus 0.13 gram tolerance does not give it any collector value. The planchet stock on which the coin was struck may have been slightly thin, which may also account for the weakness in strike at the center of the reverse. This would be considered a quality control issue, not a mint error. Cents of this vintage currently only have collector value in uncirculated condition, with full original "red" mint color and only significant value in the highest uncirculated grades. This coin is lightly circulated and currently only worth saving for its copper content.

Anyone who clicks a filled slot (coin date and mint or other description) in the "Slot Description" column of a public registry set can read the owner's comments, as well as seeing enlargements of any photos of the coin. One cannot leave comments on someone else's sets.

1867 two cent piece, PCGS graded PR 64 RD:

I've never heard of a so-called 1964 "SMS" half dollar being found in pocket change, and it does not appear that NGC or PCGS has assigned any a circulated grade. Has it been authenticated, by whom, and what grade did it receive? From what source did you receive your information about this? Of what did they make almost four million? PCGS is apparently referring to the 3,950,762 mirror surface proofs placed in 1964 proof sets and mistakenly included this figure in the Coinfacts page regarding the so-called "SMS" pieces, of which very few exist. (Check your "Redbook"; this same figure is given for the mintage of each denomination of 1964 proof coin and of 1964 proof sets.) If they had made nearly four million 1964 Kennedy half dollars with the satin finish only found on the so-called "SMS" coins, they wouldn't be rare or valuable anyway. They also couldn't have been struck by a single die pair and wouldn't all have the same "die markers" anyway. When did Congress tell the mint to melt "them" down? What is your source for that information? First of all, you have only shown close-up photos of some portions of your coin and haven't shown how each die polish mark or other feature of your coin that you claim to be a "die marker" matches exactly each such feature on an authenticated so-called "SMS" piece. Moreover, the same dies have been used to strike both proof and circulation strike issues, as happened with some frequency in the nineteenth century or more recently, as in 1956-64, when quarter dies that had been used to strike proofs were then used to strike circulation issues, identified by the "Type B" Washington quarter reverse used for proofs from 1937-64. It is the distinctive, satiny appearance and apparent special handling of the few authenticated so-called "SMS" coins that has been viewed by some as making them valuable, not random die polish marks, the so-called defect in the bottom of the "4", or other "die markers." The NGC Coin Explorer indicates that the "SMS" reference for these pieces as a misnomer and describes them as simply first strikes from new but ordinary dies that were produced for presentation to the Smithsonian, with an unknown level of outside distribution. 1964 50C SP | Coin Explorer | NGC (ngccoin.com), "Description & Analysis" section. The paper that @FlyingAl is preparing will hopefully shed light on the truth regarding these pieces.

Were the dies then used to strike coins for circulation, which could result in hundreds of thousands of regular pieces having the same die markers?

As it so happens, I had just posted a response to a member who purported to have a so-called 1964 "SMS" half dollar based on "die markers". See https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/432733-1964-sms-kennedy-half-dollar. We have to deal with such claims with some frequency. I hope that your research will resolve once and for all where these coins came from so that we can definitively answer the question whether it is possible that more of them may be found "in the wild". A definitive description of their characteristics would also be helpful.

Please review the following recent thread regarding purported 1964 "SMS" half dollars (and other denominations): I will repeat the PCGS statement that the so-called "SMS" or "special strike" coins "contain a smooth satin like appearance with the rims being very square and sharp. There are die polishing lines throughout the coins' surfaces. These coins also tend to lack contact marks unlike business strike coins, indicating that they were struck and handled under extreme care." https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1964-50c-sms/6844 (Emphasis added.) Although you have not posted photos of either entire side of your coin, as we request and which might help, the close-ups indicate a normal bright luster that is not at all satiny and numerous surface abrasions. The grading services will apparently not authenticate purported 1964 "SMS" coins through die polish marks or other "die markers" alone, and it appears that the only pieces likely to pass muster would have to be provenanced to the 1993 Stacks auction where they were first offered. Although the coins' origin is mysterious, with some researchers now believing that they are simply early strikes from new dies and nothing special, they all appear to have come from a specific source and are not found among regular 1964 dated coins. Where did yours come from?

This 1909 Lincoln cent appears to have suffered environmental damage (corrosion), followed by someone's "cleaning" it in a misguided attempt to improve its appearance. The corrosion could have occurred from the coin being buried, being kept in a damp environment, or various other causes. The coin's bronze (95% copper, 5% zinc and tin) composition is highly susceptible to corrosion, which cannot be reversed.

1865 copper nickel three cent piece, PCGS graded MS 64:

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Even with the photos provided, it is obvious that these are crude counterfeits, probably cast and composed of base metal. See 1794 BB-1,B-1 $1 MS | Coin Explorer | NGC (ngccoin.com) for photos and specifications of a genuine example. All genuine 1794 Flowing Hair dollars (fewer than 200 known) were struck from a single pair of dies, so the style and positioning of each number, star, letter and device of genuine pieces would match exactly, which those you show clearly do not. Genuine pieces of this issue are worth at least tens of thousands of dollars each. How much did the dealer who said they were "most likely real" offer you for them?

I finally saw a single coin in an NGCX holder at a local coin show last Sunday. It was a common date Morgan dollar (1887, I think) graded "9.3", which corresponds to MS 63, on the table of a young dealer with a limited inventory. What is the point of this?

The MS 63-64 range I gave is simply the range of numerical grades I think the coin would most likely receive if submitted to a grading service, corresponding to "Choice Brilliant Uncirculated". If it were up to me, coins would be adjectivally graded, with no more than five such grades for mint state or unworn proof coins. The "+" grade makes matters even more subjective. I suspect that it occurs when the graders are a grade apart, and the finalizer decides to split the difference. Let's try something other than Morgan dollars. Here is an 1885 copper-nickel three cent piece, PCGS graded PR 64: Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. The "Coin Marketplace" forum is for solicitations to buy or sell coins and not for questions about coins. Your inquiry should receive more attention from forum members who may be able to identify your item if posted as a topic on the "U.S., World and Ancient Coins" forum. Although I am no expert in this area, it appears to me that your item is a medallion with a Buddhist theme rather than a legal tender coin.

Neither a "small date over a large date", which is classified as a die variety rather than a mint error, nor something "similar" would occur on a modern coin. Before around 1908 the mint punched dates into each coinage die with punches bearing one or more numerals, making repunched dates or dates entered from two different punches possible. Since 1908 dates are included in the master dies and "hubs" from which the coinage dies are made, so nothing of this sort should happen. Since the early 1990s mintmarks have also been included in the master dies and "hubs", making repunched mintmarks, over-mintmarks and mintmarks differing in location a thing of the past as well. These are classified as die varieties because every coin struck from the affected die should show the pertinent characteristic. The depression in the "R" to the facing left of the raised metal on your 2023-D dime indicates that this is just a scrape, with the raised lump resulting from the displaced metal. Even if it were a die chip or small piece of scrap struck into the coin, it would be a minor anomaly that would attract little interest from knowledgeable collectors. If you want to search for mint errors or die varieties, you should learn how they occur and what they look like. A mint error of any significance should be readily visible to the unaided eye. A die variety should be visible at 5x to 7x magnification according to most experts, and certainly no greater than 10x. See What is a Variety? | NGC (ngccoin.com) and Variety vs. Mint Error | NGC (ngccoin.com).

I respectfully disagree. Whether or not the coin has been "dipped" (excessively), the photos where the coins are slanted in the light show an unnatural sheen that is indicative of a vigorous abrasive cleaning and possibly the coin having been "whizzed". This sheen results from numerous fine scratches having been created by the brush or other abrasive surface with which the coin was scrubbed or "whizzed". You can also see the sheen being less or absent in the protected areas such as around the eagle's neck and head and around the date, where the abrasive surface was less likely to penetrate. Although there are always limitations to what we can see in photos, I expect that an in-hand examination of this coin would confirm the conclusion reached by the other members who have replied to this topic.

I'm pretty sure that it isn't. This is a good example of shallow, shelf-like strike doubling, a.k.a. machine or mechanical doubling, which is very common and has no collector value. See Double Dies vs. Machine Doubling | NGC (ngccoin.com) and Wexler's Coins and Die Varieties (doubleddie.com). A coin struck from a doubled die has crisp, clear doubling, with both images usually at about the same level and with "notching" between the images. This "Redbook" variety 1972 doubled die obverse cent should give you an idea of what a doubled die coin actually looks like: As for the shape of the "G" in "God", it is normal for a "Mercury" dime, especially one as worn and flattened as this one. (Perhaps the coin was intended for use by a nation of fishermen!)

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Please post cropped photos of each full side of a coin about which you have questions, as well as any pertinent closeup. Based on what I can see from the single photo, the first "9" in the date of what I assume is a 1939 Lincoln cent has simply been deformed by a scrape and is not indicative of a mint error.

1884-CC Morgan dollar in GSA holder, uncertified. My grade Choice BU (MS-63-64): Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

This type of coin is referred to as a "Liberty Seated" or "Seated Liberty" (not "sitting") quarter. The 1857-O in your photos has About Uncirculated or so details but, unfortunately, it has been harshly "cleaned"--or possibly "whizzed" with a rotating wire brush--leaving it with an unnatural brightness and shine. The coin is substantially impaired. An unimpaired 1857-O quarter has retail list values in the NGC Price Guide of $575 in AU 50 and $825 in AU 55 (Coin World has lower prices), but one this severely "cleaned" might be difficult to sell to a knowledgeable collector for any price. It can be difficult to value a coin like this, but if I were a "budget" collector who wanted to obtain an example of this type or date with this much detail at an affordable price, I might be willing to pay $150 to $200. Otherwise, I'd look for an unimpaired one.

Welcome to the NGC chat board. Once a coin has become corroded like this, there is no way to restore it to its original state and generally no way acceptable in the modern numismatic marketplace to improve it. The corrosion product, in the case of a 1943 zinc coated steel cent rust (iron oxide), includes part of the original coin metal, and its removal would leave pits in the coin's surface. As a dark gray lightly circulated example of this common issue may be obtained for less than a dollar and an average uncirculated example for a few dollars, you shouldn't waste your time with this corroded piece. (Watch out for unnaturally shiny pieces with shiny edges that have been plated to appear uncirculated, as many have.) Strike the words "unless you have to." You don't have to! It is acceptable to remove surface dirt or other foreign substances (including glue) that have not chemically bonded with the coin's surface by soaking the coin in acetone (a neutral solvent). (See other forum topics regarding the safe use of this flammable substance.) A coin can also be rinsed in clean (some recommend distilled) water and patted (not rubbed) dry. Such practices are not regarded as "cleaning". Any process that abrasively or chemically changes the coin's surface is regarded as "cleaning" and will almost certainly reduce the coin's desirability and value. When submitted to grading services, such coins are "details" graded as "cleaned", are regarded as impaired, and sell at a discount. This is a complex topic. Grading services will sometimes numerically grade silver coins that have been carefully "dipped" in an anti-tarnish solution, but they likely receive lower grades than they would have had their luster not been impaired by the dipping. Coins have also been professionally "conserved" by companies such as NCS that use proprietary processes that are supposed to remove contaminants and residue from a coin's surface but cannot undo existing corrosion, the results of prior "cleaning" or other damage. See Coin Conservation | NCS | Numismatic Conservation Services | NGC (ngccoin.com).

The absence of the photos is presumably a clerical error. I've heard of this happening before.