Early Modern SMS Coinage Versus Business Strike

[coinman_23885]

This thread is obviously inspired by another thread, but rather than hijacking that one, I decided to start a new one. It is my understanding that the quality of the SMS coinage in 1965 was much poorer than in subsequent years. As such, exactly how does one distinguish between a business strike and SMS when a coin is borderline? How would you decipher this from a true PL business strike?

[AHFreak]

Well in my opinion, just from my own experience basedon looking at alot of them, there isn't any question at all as to whether it's a circ. Strike, a PL circ strike, or a SMS... (except on this one coin, and only when the haze was on it). they all have very different looks, a very different color entirely. It is a good question and I'm curious to see if anyone has a way to really tell that can be explained verbally. .. cause I can't explain it. It's just the look. Just like if u r looking at a 64 proof and a 64 circ strike Kennedy. .. two different coins. ..

[BROADSTRUCK]

Sorry can't help as I'm still trying to digest both "Early" & "Modern" in this thread title

[coinman_23885]

Sorry can't help as I'm still trying to digest both "Early" & "Modern" in this thread title

 

 

My understanding is that the issue is less clear for the 1965 issues than for 1966 or 1967. That's what I meant - it was early in that time frame. It also distinguishes it from the newer satin finish coins that are often given the same SP designation and to avoid confusion there.

[cpm9ball]

Sorry can't help as I'm still trying to digest both "Early" & "Modern" in this thread title

 

If it's '65, it's Early. If it's '67, it's Modern.

 

If it's '66, it's Stanton!

 

[physics-fan3.14]

I am very curious about this myself. I have little to no experience with the SMS coins. I am guessing that if you had a PL coin of these dates, it would probably be called SMS (even if it were a genuine currency strike).

[cpm9ball]

I am very curious about this myself. I have little to no experience with the SMS coins. I am guessing that if you had a PL coin of these dates, it would probably be called SMS (even if it were a genuine currency strike).

 

Jason, it's my understanding that the SMS coins were struck with a higher tonnage, but I've never compared the strikes of these coins to that of the circulating coins. Also, the SMS coins did not bear a mintmark.

 

Chris

[wdrob]

Also, the SMS coins did not bear a mintmark.

 

Chris

 

Neither did the circulation strikes 65-67. Not till 68 from what I can tell.

 

 

 

 

[coinman_23885]

I am very curious about this myself. I have little to no experience with the SMS coins. I am guessing that if you had a PL coin of these dates, it would probably be called SMS (even if it were a genuine currency strike).

 

I just made an inquiry to NGC through its "Ask NGC" forum. It will be interesting to see what they say...

[cpm9ball]

Also, the SMS coins did not bear a mintmark.

 

Chris

 

Neither did the circulation strikes 65-67. Not till 68 from what I can tell.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for correcting me.

 

Chris

[coinman_23885]

So here is what NGC had to say:

 

Thanks for your question. I consulted with David Lange, NGC Research Director on this one. He tells me the 1965 SMS coins ranged from semi PL to fully PL and can be a little deceptive, especially when toned. The safest distinction point is the smoothness of the fields from deliberate polishing of the dies. MS dies that were polished in the conventional manner just to remove flaws and signs of erosion typically will show irregular polishing lines not seen on SMS coins.

[RWB]

How do they compare to the Smithsonian coins, mentioned earlier? If the surfaces are the same then the origin in likely the same.

[coinman_23885]

How do they compare to the Smithsonian coins, mentioned earlier? If the surfaces are the same then the origin in likely the same.

 

Just to make sure I am on the same page, what "Smithsonian" coins? Are you referring to the 1964 SMS/Specimen thread that was created a few weeks ago?

[RWB]

Yep

[coinman_23885]

How do they compare to the Smithsonian coins, mentioned earlier? If the surfaces are the same then the origin in likely the same.

 

I PMed David Lange with a link to this thread. If he has time (I know he is very busy), it will be interesting to hear his perspective on it.

 

[AHFreak]

If by Smithsonian coins, you are referring to the 1964 SMS coins, I can personally say (after getting lucky enough to see a couple at the Portland money show), that the 1965-1967 SMS coins, LOOK ALMOST NOTHING LIKE THE 1964 SMS COINS... I don't think SMS is the correct term for those 1964 coins....

[RWB]

No....the comment was made that the SI was sent coins in the 60s that were taken from new dies, and that they looked different than ordinary pieces.

 

If that is correct, then any "1964 SMS" should be compared with the SI pieces, and not evaluated in isolation.

[Conder101]

Most of us don't have the opportunity to see and make comparisons with the SI pieces

[coinman_23885]

If by Smithsonian coins, you are referring to the 1964 SMS coins, I can personally say (after getting lucky enough to see a couple at the Portland money show), that the 1965-1967 SMS coins, LOOK ALMOST NOTHING LIKE THE 1964 SMS COINS... I don't think SMS is the correct term for those 1964 coins....

 

I just used PCGS's terminology (i.e. SMS), but based on the images in the Coin Facts database, I agree with you. I prefer NGC's "specimen" descriptor that it uses.

[RWB]

The bottom line is this:

 

If reference items exist, they should be reviewed before some sort of authentication statement is made - by anybody. I'm not jumping on NGC, PCGS or anyone except the one who gave these coins a name that they might not deserve.

 

Assuming the SI 1960s coins are correctly described as being the first coins off new dies, then it is imperative that no assumptions be made about so-called "1964 SMS coins" until the SI pieces have been examined. If the SI coins are selected specimens from normal dies and production, then they might reasonably be called "specimen" but that does not earn them a title of "Special Mint Set." [Think of the double mint sets -- they might also be called "SMS." The coins were specially selected from bags that came from the mints and were assembled into sets.]

 

OK -- I've said the same thing 12-1/2 times -- soon it will be a VAM....

[WoodenJefferson]

These 'concession sets' as I call them were assembled to appease the collector market and did not require any real special handing as evident in the sets that have been picked over for years and years. I figured by now, 50 years later, the majority of the sets would have been broken up, spent or lost...but the darn things still persist!

 

The quarters were the worst of the SMS sets, followed by the dime, nickel, cent with the best examples from the relatively new dies for the Kennedy half dollar.

 

(note: the half dollar was still 40% silver clad and struck up better than copper-nickel composition)

 

If I were to take some nicely struck business coins for circulation purposes and told you they were SMS coins from 1965 you'd probably agree. In turn, some SMS coins look like ordinary business strikes.

 

When discussing these coins, the 1965 and 1967 sets are like night and day with the 67 sets far superior to the 65's.

[RWB]

My comments were directed toward the "1964 SMS" coins.

[DWLange]

The 1964 SP coins NGC certified are similar in appearance to the coins forwarded to the National Numismatic Collection for a number years by the Philadelphia Mint. They have full strikes and flat luster that is not at all prooflike, and they do not look like the SMS coins sold to collectors.

 

I haven't seen the NNC coins myself, but they've been examined by Jeff Garrett and David Camire, who confirmed their character. Jeff's observations were published in Coin World a couple of years ago, and subscribers can pull up this article from the online archive. There is no reason to believe that the 1964 SP coins were prototypes for the SMS sets; rather, they were from the same series presented to the NNC for years, and they simply got into the marketplace. Anecdotal evidence suggests that they were part of the estate of Mint Director Eva Adams, though I don't know whether this has ever been proved.