• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Business Strikes = Vs = Special Mint Strikes (SMS)

21 posts in this topic

How can you tell the Difference between a ,,,,,Say' 1965 Business Strike and

a SMS one? When you hold each one in a Grade 67 or Higher?

Besides going just by the Label-Holder on a Certified Coin, can you tell by using a loupe? Is there alot of diff/ on either side of the coin(s) .

 

I'd sure like to get a Jefferson Collector thats really knowledgable in that area, to answer that for me. Jim/jb4gpo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The business struck Jefferson nickels of 1965 have a luster to the fields that is different from the SMS struck coins of that year. The early die states of the SMS are the easiest to identify, they look similar to their counter parts of the early 60's proof coins that did not have any cameo contrast on the devices. The fields are a semi-mirror proof like and the devices are very glossy, a stark contrast from circulated nickels.

 

It only becomes a problem when the dies began to deteriorate and the qualities of the fields and the crispness of the devices began to wane, whichby the way, the Mint allowed with too much frequency. I have seen examples of 1965 SMS Jeffersons still in the original set that I would not even give a 62 to, much less a SMS designation, they were just pitiful.

 

But even so, there was a slight difference in the overall look, you could fool a novice and maybe a savvy collector or two, but I'd be willing to bet you could tell the difference 8 out of 10 times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SMS series should be more fully struck. They were struck on proof presses although they didn't get as move loving care as their close proof cousins.

 

There are a lot of things you can look for, like the polish lines on 65 quarters on the obverse to the right of the bust. This is evident on pretty much any 65 sms quarter I've ever seen especially evident on the cameo versions.

 

If you click on the link in my sig, you'll see a lot of SMS coins, I mainly do cameos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been one of the most educational threads that I have read here in quite some time. Thanks. Are they ever mistaken for proofs by people who don't know that they were only minted those three years (65-67)? What are the differences in that respect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walker, only the very first SMS coins that were struck appear to be proof in nature. In 1965 there were very few, in 66 a bit more, and in 1967 there were some coins that rival the best proof of the day. Deep Cameo coins of this era are extremely tough again with 1967 being the easiest if there is such a term for the SMS series. I wouldn't say that they would be mistaken for proofs per say, as they were packaged different, with the exception of 1965 that could be mistaken due to the same type of packaging as the 1964 except it has a white envelope like the later years mint sets. If you run across any that you would consider proof, cameo that is... I and Schatzy would be interested! In fact I'll be going to a decently large coin show this weekend... and I will have my eyes pealed for SMS cameos. I love the series as I was born smack dab in the middle of that series and when I saw my first SMS cameo I just absolutely fell in love. Most of them, that are considered cameos, have a decent frost on the devices, and softer mirrors that is sometimes mistaken for haze, but it's not. Just recently I let Schatzy steal a 1967 dime from me that was in a 67 cam holder that had beautiful (in my opinion) toning... and I hope he thinks so as well... Oh wait... he gave me a 67 dime in 68 cameo for it! I love that one too, but I wish I had both!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Coindude. That was enlightening. If I see any I will definitely let you know. I have always been intrigued by the SMS, b/c, I too, was born right in the middle of their production run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact I'll be going to a decently large coin show this weekend... and I will have my eyes pealed for SMS cameos.

 

Also look for me!! :grin:

 

 

Just recently I let Schatzy steal a 1967 dime from me that was in a 67 cam holder that had beautiful (in my opinion) toning... and I hope he thinks so as well... Oh wait... he gave me a 67 dime in 68 cameo for it! I love that one too, but I wish I had both!

 

I also think it is beautiful.....you can always have it back!! :gossip:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the "This thread is useless without pictures" file:

 

19661c.jpg

 

196525c.jpg

 

196625c.jpg

 

19675cB.jpg

 

196710c.jpg

 

196725c-1.jpg

 

196750c.jpg

 

Hi, Mod!

 

Thanks for chiming in. Actually, I think the OP was primarily concerned with the different terminologies used to designate the satin finish coins that were produced 2005-2010.

 

However, you're welcome to copy and save this if you'd like.

 

Chris

 

112147.gif.321ea2e8611c41ab05e1b15d96728832.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do have a 1966 SMS Jefferson/MS66-(CAMEO) Full-Step Nickel?

 

Its' even Labeled on this Slab with having 5555 with full steps/ being a SEGS Certified!. In my opinion, you would think these graders would be knowledgeable to know if it carried the FS, or not!

 

I studied/examined it for over 2 hours, an'quite honestly' Its got the 5 Full-Steps there!

 

Now Pcgs and Ngc does not recognize these FS/Are these still considered a Rare Pieces, it bein' a Cameo also in high grade? I also called Ngc about the

possibility of submitting it for a crossover? they quit doing that early this year.

So whats' a person to do ? show me how to put some photos on here, and I

can let you see this? Its' hard to figure out how to post a photo on here!

 

I'd sure appreciate your thoughts on this!

FINALLY! CHECK THE PHOTOS > ( UP ABOVE! )

Respectively' Jim/jb4gpo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe that most of the TPG's recognize FS designation on the 60's SMS nickels. They are a bit rarer, but just not segregated.

 

Upload to Photobucket or similar, copy the IMG location and paste here. That should do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were struck on proof presses ...

 

Curious - what's the source of the above information?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were struck on proof presses ...

 

Curious - what's the source of the above information?

 

I believe it's the 1965 Report of the Director of the Mint which states the proof presses from Philadelphia were shipped to San Francisco to produce "numismatic coinage".

 

The best kept secret in numismatics is that the mint set coins ever since have recieved almost exactly the same treatment as the bulk of the SMS's. The major difference is simply that most of the SMS dies recieved more processing which usually included basining. Now days many mint set blanks are polished and some mint set dies have been basined since 1967 so PL coins can be found in the sets. Most of the best of the modern coins made since 1965 come from mint sets because these coins are specially struck on numismatic presses at lower speeds and higher pressures just like the SMS. The dies are changed frequently so new die strikes are common.

 

You can find nice gems made for circulation but finding them in mint sets is like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

Many of the SMS dies of '65 to '67 were retired for use in striking circulation issues. All five denominations of coins were minted in San Francisco during these years for circulation and for SMS's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger, I believe one of my sources was Tomaska's book. At least that's what I remember, but it looks like CladKings reference is much better, probably where Rick got it from to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I read this some time ago but the SMS strikes were supposedly struck on normal dies only they were polished for the purpose of the SMS coins. Also a different press was used for the striking of these than the presses used to make quantities of the business strikes. These presses also had more pressue which gave the sms coins a better strike and with the polished dies, a prooflike appearance. As you can see from the pics below, there is a difference in details. The SMS coin is an MS67Cam and the Bus Stike is an MS65. Anybody correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a while since I was looking for info on these things.

 

1967JeffersonSMSBUSSTKOBV.jpg

 

1967JeffersonSMSBUSSTKREV.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least in theory you can get as nice of coins in circulation as in the SMS's or regular mint sets but in practice it could be virtually impossible. Some of the dies were used far past their useful life. Perhaps the '66 quarters are the worst of the worst. These dies were set so they'd not hit the planchets too hard to prolong die life and then they'd still be used until they were just worn out. About 99% of this date are either softly struck or struck with worn out dies and most are both. Trying to find nice strikes from new dies was a major project in 1966. In many cases almost no rolls were saved so it can be far more difficult now. 1966 quarter rolls aren't rare but nice ones are fairly scarce.

 

You can't really telly how fast a coin was struck or how much pressure was used. You can only tell if the strike is complete or not and it's far more likely to get a complete strike in a mint set. Even regular issue coins are sometimes struck with new dies and it may seem impossible to get a mark free coin in a roll but it can happen. Having one coin display all these qualities is quite rare except in mint sets. SMS's tended to be excellent quality. A very few are nearly indistinguishable from proofs and many are very highly PL as well as frosted.

 

They experimented quite a bit with the processes to make the SMS coins. There are different surfaces and processes represented among these coins. They've never really gotten the attention they deserve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites