1965 to 1967 SMS sets are essentially S-minted coins?

[Leothelion]

Here's the article I read! This is probably widely known so why get excited about it! Philadelphia is well known for minting coins without placing it's P-mint mark on coins and according to the article, all the SMS sets were minted in San Francisco and those coins do not bear the S-mint mark. Another part of the story is when San Francisco started producing the proof sets in 1968 and Philadelphia ceased making them in 1964. Is it a big deal? Should coin folders, albums, all numismatic books and grading services recognize and state all 1965 to 1967 coins as a 1965-S SMS Lincoln cent and as a 1967-S SMS Kennedy half dollar

though the S-mint mark has been omited from all these SMS coins?

 

Leo

[cladking]

It's likely that most of the reason this information is usually omitted is that not only was the mint mark not used on these coins but it wasn't used on any of the coins struck at that facility. Indeed mintmarks weren't used on any of the Denver (or Philly) coins of the era.

[Leothelion]

It's likely that most of the reason this information is usually omitted is that not only was the mint mark not used on these coins but it wasn't used on any of the coins struck at that facility. Indeed mintmarks weren't used on any of the Denver (or Philly) coins of the era.

 

Hi cladking

Here is what I read in the article;

"With the combined production capability of the three facilities at Philadelphia, Denver, and San Francisco, and a distinct improvement in the availability of coin in circulation, it eventually became possible to consider producing the special numismatic coins referred to. This service had been discontinued in 1964, so that the required space, equipment, and personnel could be utilized in the production of coins for regular circulation. The San Francisco facility was selected to manufacture the new type of coin set, designated 'Special Mint Sets' - so-called in order to distinguish them from sets of proof coins and uncirculated coins formerly made. …

 

Did they mint SMS sets at the facilities in Denver and Philadelphia? From the article, I can't find where it's mentioned that they did or are you refering to the circulated coins of the 1965 to 1967 era?

 

Leo

[cladking]

I was referring to the regular production issues. These were made at all three mints in those years though. There were also regular production issue quarters made in West Point in later years without a "w" mint mark.

[DonHeath]

Leo,

 

The SMS coins are indeed from San Fransisco, and I have always understood the 67 circ half is from Denver only. It doesn't have a MM either.

[Leothelion]

Leo,

 

The SMS coins are indeed from San Fransisco, and I have always understood the 67 circ half is from Denver only. It doesn't have a MM either.

 

Hi Don

Then why isn't it recognized as the 1967-D Kennedy half dollar?

 

Leo

[DonHeath]

Leo, it's an interesting question, but I think the community simply decided the absence of MM meant there was no reason to differentiate. The P mint halves didn't reappear until 71. Sometimes it is difficult to identify SMS vs circ strike for the late die state coins too, especially in anything less than mint state (unless it's a known variety).

[Leothelion]

Thanks Don and Cladking

It's just that, before I read that article, it was the first information that I came across giving some reference to where the SMS and circulated strikes for that short era were minted. Then it's likely the used SF dies were sent to the other facilities to mint the circulated coins because I alway thought the used SMS dies were used to make the business strikes. Where I heard that, I can't remember. It may be possible SF didn't help make the business strikes.

 

 

Leo

[cladking]

Unfortunately my memory is hazy on this and reference materials are not at hand. Cents and quarters were struck in San Francisco at least some of the time between Aug, '65 and the end of 1967. I believe all three dates of both coins were struck. There is little doubt that retired SMS quarter dies were used to strike quarters for circulation. There were significant numbers of coins in circulation in those days that had the SMS look. There were far too many for them to have all come from broken up SMS's. There were also a few nickels and halfs with the look but if memory serves none of these were officially stuck in San Francisco so presumably the dies would have been shipped to Denver. I believe the West Point mint struck quarters every year from 1977 to 1980. These were struck without a mint mark except for a "P" on the '80 issue. While there is no known way to distinguish these coins this is the era when the type "c" and type "d" reverses for both in use. The West Point mintages were all quite nominal.

 

It's probably just convention which causes the origination of the SMS's to be overlooked and this because mint marks were not in use at all during this period.

[TomB]

Similarly, the 1925 Fort Vancouver commemorative half was minted in SF yet does not bear the S mintmark. If you look in coin reference materials such as the Red Book or the Greysheet you will see it listed as a 1925 coin, not a 1925-S.

[Leothelion]

Is there really any significance to these omitted MM's? Virginia went up in arms to their congressmen about the possible removal of the Monticello building from the reverse side of the Jefferson nickel! Why wouldn't a US Mint facility get a little bent over about not being recognized for minting a coin? There has to be more to this, the legislation regarding these issues, as they were addressed way back then.

What has the US Mint have to say about this or possibly the ANA?

 

Leo

 

An article from the US Mint.

[cladking]

It should be remembered that in the spring of 1965 there was still great uncertainty about the best way to alleviate the coin shortage. At that time coinage was far more important than it is now days since many products and services cost less than $1. The coin shortage could have great impact on the overall economy. The mint was still experimenting with replacement metals and awaiting authorization from Congress to do anything at all. Senator Bible (D-Utah?) was trying to push a bill which would effectively make coin collecting illegal. The coin market was in the middle of a crash brought on by speculation in common coins which were recent at that time. There were ads all over the numismatic press offerring recent and current rolls and bags for sale. Coin collectors were taking the blame for the coin shortage.

 

The coinage act of 1965 not only eliminated mint marks but also eliminated dating from coinage. All coinage was to continue the date 1965 so long as there was a shortage. In light of the elimination of mint and proof sets (SMS's were not even on the drawing board) and the other injury to collectors, the insult of the loss of mint marks seemed nearly inconsequential. The '65 date was used well into 1966 and at one point there was a lot of speculation that the mint might not ever change it since it simplified their job a lot and reduced the possibility of varieties and errors. Many collectors were relieved to see the '66 coinage and elated to see the return of mint marks in '68.

[DonHeath]

The great irony as far as I'm concerned is that Congress inadvertently created one of the most interesting and diverse batch of coins in recent history. The variety of looks and finishes expressed in SMS coinage is unique in modern coinage. Ucams on single struck normal planchets dumped into hoppers like circ coins, cam, brilliant, satin, well struck, weakly struck, off metal, experimental pieces, etc, all in a few short years.