1964 SP/SMS coins 1 1

[Conder101]

Looks like a proof set to me as well.

[RWB]

Greenwood's photos are of common proof coins.

The so-called "SMS" coins are simply early strikes off new dies. The designation was evidently applied out of ignorance - or more likely greed.

[GREENWOOD210]

Maybe it's not coming out in the pics how it looks on person but these are clearly different from proof coins. There is no mirrored finish and the details are remarkable. Also the does have been prepared. Ignorance and greed your funny! God bless!

[l.cutler]

They appear to be normal proof coins.  They can lose a little of their "mirror" finish with a little toning over the years.

[Moxie15]

I think that calling these coins 1964 Special Mint Set coins is a serious misnomer and a disservice to the hobby. This 'name' is causing the belief among inexperienced collectors that they can find examples of them out in the world.

1964 Special Mint Sets do not exist and never existed. The coins, at the very best. are Specimen strikes, but no one has been able to say exactly what was done differently to the dies or the planchets. The best I have been able to get out of anyone is a Justice Potter Stewart imitation of "I know it when I see it!"

It could be they were test strikes for the SMS to come in 1965, BUT THERE IS ZERO DOCUMENTATION OF THIS, it is just an idea of mine that would make sense.

I think they are most likely first or early strikes on new dies, that MAY or MAY NOT have been struck with different pressure, that were kept by Ms. Adams in here personal collections. I would presume she would have paid face value for them to keep things legal. 

One of the things that people willingly forget is that claims need to be backed up. Claims with no proof are prevalent in numismatics. This causes much confusion and unnecessary frustration and sometimes takes generations to straighten out. In every other professional historical research all claims need to be verified. Just as an example my wife has. through a popular .com has traced her ancestry back to 1608 and found in 1640 something her 6th or 7th great grandfather married an original Fille du Roi.  She can join a group similar to Daughters of the Revolution when she proves her lineage by accepted research, they do not accept the popular internet company as they are not known to be, shall we say, accurate in their conclusions. The blind following of numismatists who are accepted as experts has caused enough problems that we should know better.

[DWLange]

This is a fairly concise description of the so-called SMS coins:

https://www.ngccoin.com/coin-explorer/kennedy-half-dollars-1964-date-pscid-44/1964-50c-pf-coinid-76045

[scopru]

Interesting info on that link.  thanks for the share.

[VKurtB]

Just one more example of illegal transference from a public asset by an official to her private estate.

[MarkFeld]

28 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

Just one more example of illegal transference from a public asset by an official to her private estate.

How do you know it was illegal?

[VKurtB]

39 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

How do you know it was illegal?

It's always illegal.

 

Theft of government property is a federal offense under 18 U.S.C. section 641. According to this law, it is a crime to embezzle, steal, or knowingly convert with intent for your own personal gain the property of someone else, or without authority to sell, convey or dispose of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value issued by a department of the United States government.

Theft of government property is a federal offense.

It is also a crime to receive, conceal or retain anything of value if you know it has been embezzled, stolen or converted.

“Value” means face or market value, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.

Conversion includes intangible personal property or “commercial paper”, such as checks, promissory notes, bonds, or stocks; and written documents, such as deeds or contract.

If the amount involved does not exceed $1,000, you face a misdemeanor charge, punishable by up to one year in prison, a fine of up to $100,000, or both. Stolen or converted government property amounting to more than $1,000 can be prosecuted as a felony and upon conviction is subject to up to 10 years in prison, a maximum $250,000 fine, or both.

Additionally, a conviction under Section 641 of the United States Code can cause you to be held civilly liable for restitution. Which means, not only could you face a substantial fine and imprisonment, you could be ordered to pay back all of the money you stole, with interest.

Edited November 9, 2020 by VKurtB

[VKurtB]

What is larceny of government property?

Larceny or the theft of government property is a federal offense. In order to prove the crime; the prosecution must prove the following: A wrongful taking or carrying away of property. The property belonged to the United States. The defendant took the property without the consent of the United States.

[MarkFeld]

1 hour ago, VKurtB said:

What is larceny of government property?

Larceny or the theft of government property is a federal offense. In order to prove the crime; the prosecution must prove the following: A wrongful taking or carrying away of property. The property belonged to the United States. The defendant took the property without the consent of the United States.

Where's the proof that such occurred? It sounds as if you're taking it as a given that it did, merely because the items were part of the estate. Couldn't they have been obtained legally? 

[VKurtB]

6 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

Where's the proof that such occurred? It sounds as if you're taking it as a given that it did, merely because the items were part of the estate. Couldn't they have been obtained legally? 

That depends on what exactly it would take in 1964 to have the "consent of the United States". Given the context, I'd say a document to that effect signed by the Secretary of The Treasury or President Johnson would have been the minimum standard. Absent such a document, I'd say a crime occurred. 

You know, I hope, that not even Presidents can "convert" gifts given by foreign heads of state. They are all public assets. The standards are tight, tight, tight.

Edited November 9, 2020 by VKurtB

[MarkFeld]

57 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

That depends on what exactly it would take in 1964 to have the "consent of the United States". Given the context, I'd say a document to that effect signed by the Secretary of The Treasury or President Johnson would have been the minimum standard. Absent such a document, I'd say a crime occurred. 

You know, I hope, that not even Presidents can "convert" gifts given by foreign heads of state. They are all public assets. The standards are tight, tight, tight.

At least now, it sounds as if you’re acknowledging that you don’t know a theft or “illegal transference”  occurred. That’s better.

[Just Bob]

I always just assumed that she reimbursed the mint at face value.

[Henri Charriere]

4 hours ago, VKurtB said:

Just one more example of illegal transference from a public asset by an official to her private estate.

I don't know about illegal, but membership has its privileges and this seems more like a perk or professional courtesy.

[Henri Charriere]

3 hours ago, VKurtB said:

What is larceny of government property?

One day a pile of 1933 $20 DE's, is there; the next day, it's gone.  Theft, investigation, location, confiscation. Asset forfeiture.  Justice triumphs again.  Everybody is happy.

[VKurtB]

1 hour ago, Quintus Arrius said:

I don't know about illegal, but membership has its privileges and this seems more like a perk or professional courtesy.

This was once the way government business was done, but not for a VERY long time now. Perks have become crimes.

Edited November 9, 2020 by VKurtB

[VKurtB]

1 hour ago, MarkFeld said:

At least now, it sounds as if you’re acknowledging that you don’t know a theft or “illegal transference”  occurred. That’s better.

There is ZERO evidence that the "consent of the United States" was ever given. The standard of legal review is now set. It's a civil matter, not criminal, hence only preponderance is required, not "beyond a reasonable doubt". The venue is the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the Langbord case is directly on-point precedential. I'd never want to have what is "more likely than not" (the legal standard for such cases now) purloined U.S. government property. Better for the owners of 1964 SP coins that Roger is correct, and they never really existed. Also, the 1974-D aluminum cent case further buttresses the precedent. The facts are the same. Former Mint official, coin shows up in estate. Hmmm. Oddly similar. The 1974-D aluminum cent had to be surrendered.

Edited November 9, 2020 by VKurtB

[MarkFeld]

32 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

There is ZERO evidence that the "consent of the United States" was ever given. The standard of legal review is now set. It's a civil matter, not criminal, hence only preponderance is required, not "beyond a reasonable doubt". The venue is the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the Langbord case is directly on-point precedential. I'd never want to have what is "more likely than not" (the legal standard for such cases now) purloined U.S. government property. Better for the owners of 1964 SP coins that Roger is correct, and they never really existed. Also, the 1974-D aluminum cent case further buttresses the precedent. The facts are the same. Former Mint official, coin shows up in estate. Hmmm. Oddly similar. The 1974-D aluminum cent had to be surrendered.

The Langbord case is likely not on point and neither is the 1974-D aluminum cent. In each of those situations, there was a recall of one type or another, whereas there was nothing of the sort with the 1964 coins. Your so-called precedent doesn’t even reach the bar of “apples to oranges”.

[VKurtB]

2 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

The Langbord case is likely not on point and neither is the 1974-D aluminum cent. In each of those situations, there was a recall of one type or another, whereas there was nothing of the sort with the 1964 coins. Your so-called precedent doesn’t even reach the bar of “apples to oranges”.

You can’t recall what you didn’t know existed. Now we know, or alternatively, they aren’t real at all. 

[zadok]

...kurts just rambling on, hes still overly tired after having to vote 40,000 times last Tuesday....

[VKurtB]

OTOH, I have TWO 2019 U.K. “Snowman” 50p coins that were struck FOUR times, and carefully extracted from the press. What would you call those?

[VKurtB]

2 minutes ago, zadok said:

...kurts just rambling on, hes still overly tired after having to vote 40,000 times last Tuesday....

I was in ‘Bama on that Tuesday. Not a swing state, even a tiny bit. My PA ballot was a “true” absentee one, not this new snazzy garbage mail in stuff. 

[VKurtB]

2 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

The Langbord case is likely not on point and neither is the 1974-D aluminum cent. In each of those situations, there was a recall of one type or another, whereas there was nothing of the sort with the 1964 coins. Your so-called precedent doesn’t even reach the bar of “apples to oranges”.

The 1974-D is DIRECTLY on point, Mark. Gov’t employee. Surreptitious striking of an unauthorized type. Kept in private hands. Only comes to light from heirs. What doesn’t match?

[MarkFeld]

17 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

You can’t recall what you didn’t know existed. Now we know, or alternatively, they aren’t real at all. 

Please cite the precedent for that and how it relates to the 1933 Saints and 1974-D aluminum cents. And what about all of the known experimental pieces and patterns (a number of which have traded publicly) that haven't been treated as “larceny” ?

[MarkFeld]

2 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

The 1974-D is DIRECTLY on point, Mark. Gov’t employee. Surreptitious striking of an unauthorized type. Kept in private hands. Only comes to light from heirs. What doesn’t match?

There’s no evidence that the 1964 coins were ”surreptitious striking of an unauthorized type”. And that’s regardless of whether they were specially prepared or merely early strikes.

[VKurtB]

11 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

Please cite the precedent for that and how it relates to the 1933 Saints and 1974-D aluminum cents. And what about all of the known experimental pieces and patterns (a number of which have traded publicly) that haven't been treated as “larceny” ?

Boy oh boy, you people who make your livings in this field surely are ready to excuse nearly every kind of misdeeds, aren’t you? Yes, I realize my view endangers collecting of MANY ultra-rarities. And patterns. That’s the point. Guess what. The State Department of this coming administration will be crippling ancient coin collecting with “cultural appropriation” MOU’s too. The universe of unregulated collecting is about to do a shrinking maneuver. You read it here first. 
 

The incoming admin will be looking to “break the back” of the “toys of the ultra-rich” industries. It’s just who they are, at their core. It’s going to be class warfare, all the time, for the next four years. 

Edited November 10, 2020 by VKurtB

[MarkFeld]

26 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

Boy oh boy, you people who make your livings in this field surely are ready to excuse nearly every kind of misdeeds, aren’t you? Yes, I realize my view endangers collecting of MANY ultra-rarities. And patterns. That’s the point. Guess what. The State Department of this coming administration will be crippling ancient coin collecting with “cultural appropriation” MOU’s too. The universe of unregulated collecting is about to do a shrinking maneuver. You read it here first. 
 

The incoming admin will be looking to “break the back” of the “toys of the ultra-rich” industries. It’s just who they are, at their core. 

I don't excuse misdeeds. At the same time, I try to avoid doing what you did here - stating (opinion/speculation) as fact, that a misdeed was committed, when that might not have been the case.

Edited November 10, 2020 by MarkFeld

[VKurtB]

6 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

I don't excuse misdeeds. At the same time, I try to avoid doing what you did here - stating (opinion/speculation) as fact, that a misdeed was committed, when that might not have been the case.

The question is whether you are satisfied with “might not have been the case”. Clearly, I am not impressed with that standard. I see it as more likely than not that misdeeds occurred.